HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-25 Historic Preservation Commission - Revised lowd Preserydtl*on C
Thursday
June 12, 2025
5:30 p.m. -
o
—
'� _
4 I 11uIyI1lIIIIItN et,.• -
V Cf ! I
V I C
Emma J. Harvat Hall
City Hall
"N fit
- .
r' vEd1a11iHFC :o—F—,a, C r.
19821992
®®
fizz
� s
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REVISED* Thursday,June 12, 2025
City Hall,410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
Agenda
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificates of Appropriateness
1. HPC24-0077: 416 Reno Street—Local Historic Landmark (new garage construction)
2. HPC25-0021: 514 Oakland Avenue—Longfellow Historic District (rear window to door alteration)
E) *Section 106 Review—Hwy 6 Bridge at the Iowa River*
F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect—Chair and Staff review
1. HPC25-0026: 604 E. Iowa Avenue—Local Historic Landmark (replacement of rear deck,repair of
deteriorated siding and trim, and repair of deteriorated balcony railings)
2. HPC25-0029: 748 Oakland Avenue—Longfellow Historic District (demolition and replacement of
brick front porch floor)
3. HPC25-0031: 115 South Dubuque Street—Local Historic Landmark(brick repair and replacement)
4. HPC25-0033: 602 Rundell Street—Longfellow Historic District (window repair and replacement)
Minor Review—Staff Review
1. HPC25-0022: 514 Oakland Avenue—Longfellow Historic District (new rear deck, asphalt shingle
replacement on garage)
2. HPC25-0027: 1029 E Court Street—Longfellow Historic District (asphalt shingle replacement)
3. HPC25-0029: 416 Reno Street—Local Historic Landmark (asphalt shingle replacement)
4. HPC25-0032: 119 N Gilbert Street—Jefferson Street Historic District (asphalt shingle replacement)
B) Consideration of Minutes for May 8,2025
C) Comrnission Discussion
Outgoing Commissioners Farewell
D) Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow,
Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Staff Report June 12, 2025
Prepared by: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Historic Review for HPC24-0077: 416 Reno Street
General Information:
Owner/Applicant: Julie Arling
Contact Person: Bob Harty
Classification: Local Historic Landmark
Project Scope: Construction of a new two-car garage
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
4.11 Siding
4.12 Site and Landscaping
4.13 Windows
4.14 Wood
6.0 Guidelines for New Construction
6.2 New Outbuildings
Property History:
This house was built in 1898 as a two-story Queen Anne with Free Classic detailing and
patterned masonry. The house has a main hipped roof with projecting gables to the two
sides, north and south, with a similar gabled wall dormer on the front fagade. The house
is brick with a stone foundation. The top of the wall has a wide wood frieze board and
the gables have cornice returns. There is a central brick chimney with corbelled details.
The full width front porch has slender Classical columns on stone piers. The south-
facing gable has an entry door and a projecting square bay at the first floor. The rear of
the house has a small brick historic bathroom addition with a shed roof. Next to the
addition is an open porch with turned columns and a screened porch above. These are
also believed to be historic.
In 1975 a gabled wall dormer with scalloped shingle siding was added to the rear (east)
fagade. The gable has a three-part window inspired by a Palladian window. At an
unknown date, the kitchen window on the north wall was altered by raising its sill and
filling the wall below with brick. An open gazebo was added to the yard at an unknown
date. Staff approved reconstruction to the front porch and side entry steps in 2024. The
porch skirting still needs to be reinstalled/rebuilt.
Detailed Project Description:
This project is the construction of a new front gabled two-car garage with two single-car
overhead doors, lap siding and shingle siding in the gable, and a passage door to the
south. The siding is a manufactured siding similar to LP Smartside. We believe that the
trim is a similar product. The door is a fiberglass door. The overhead doors are carriage
house doors with composite overlay and a band of windows at the top.
Guidelines:
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• Installing new garage doors that resemble the styles of historic ones, or installing
new garage doors which are simple in design.
• Adding trim to garage door openings that matches that of other doors and
windows in the garage.
• Installing two single-car doors instead of a single door.
• Substituting a material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the
substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors and
screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be
approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Section 4.11 Siding recommends:
• Substituting a material in place of wood siding only if the substitute material
retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material
must be durable, accept paint and be approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission. In many applications, fiber cement board with a smooth finish is an
approved wood substitute.
Section 4.12 Site and Landscaping recommends:
• Providing parking behind the primary structure on a lot where possible. If parking
must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structure, it must be
set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be
screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative
fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
• Providing vehicular access from an alley when available. Driveways leading from
the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one lane in
width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-
stall garages or parking spaces.
Section 4.13 Windows recommends:
• Windows on outbuildings should be relatively small and rectangular or square.
Section 4.14 Wood recommends:
• Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the
appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be
durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
• For many applications, fiber cement board is an approved substitute for wood
provided the fiber cement board is smooth faced with no simulated wood grain
Section 6.2 New Outbuildings recommends:
• Placing new outbuildings, including garages, to the rear of the primary building.
• Constructing garages and other outbuildings that are clearly subordinate in size
and ornamentation to the primary structure.
• Constructing new outbuildings that reflect the style of the primary structure.
• Installing garage doors that are simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type
garage doors may be used. Carriage-style doors in a style appropriate to the
property may also be used.
• Adding trim around the garage door openings that matches the trim of other
doors and windows on the building.
• Installing single-car garage doors. Double-car garage doors are discouraged.
• Incorporating windows into the design that are relatively small and rectangular.
Background:
In August 2023, the applicant applied for a building permit, but not historic review. This
permit was issued prior to historic review approval. Later in 2024 the contact person
stopped in to discuss a different project with staff (both Planning & Building Inspection
Services). During this meeting the garage project came up and staff informed the
contact person that historic review is required. By this point the garage was already
under construction. Currently, the garage is built.
In August 2024, an application was submitted for historic review. Since the application
did not include drawings for the new garage staff reached out to the owner informing
them that the application was incomplete. Additionally, staff provided example drawings
for a garage on Summit Street so they would know what type of information was
required for the application. On September 18, 2024 the drawings for the garage on
Summit Street that were given to the owner as example drawings were submitted as
drawings for this project without any changes beyond the name of the property. Since
the drawings did not accurately depict the garage built at 416 Reno Street, staff emailed
the owner to advise them that the drawings submitted must be accurate for their specific
garage. At this point staff let them know that the garage should have windows in
addition to either a window or vent in the gable since it was clear in photos of the
garage that there were none.
In April 2025, the owner emailed staff and noted that they needed the approval for the
garage. Staff responded with a reminder that the application was still incomplete for lack
of accurate drawings and provided a deadline of April 28 to submit drawings for the May
8, 2025 HPC agenda. It was suggested that if drawings were not possible, photos may
be acceptable. Photos were provided May 7, 2025 and staff responded with comments
on May 13, 2025. The applicant discussed the project with staff in person soon after
where staff reiterated the comments provided on May 13.
Attached to this staff report are photos of the home, drawings submitted by the owner,
photos of the garage provided by the owner, and additional materials and photographs
provided by the owner and contact person.
Analysis:
In Staff's opinion, there are several aspects of this garage that do not comply with the
guidelines:
• Garages should reflect the style of the primary structure. While a gable roof is
acceptable since there are gabled projections on this house, it is, however, a very
low slope that does not reflect the house.
• It appears that there is a shingle siding in the front gable end however, there is
nothing similar on the house and it is not repeated on the back or separated from
the lap siding by a band board as is typical.
• It appears that the siding is a cement board or LP Smartside siding with a fake
woodgrain texture. While wood, LP Smartside and cement board are all
approvable, the siding must be smooth. Historic lap siding never had an
unfinished texture.
• The guidelines require fiberglass or wood passage doors in a traditional style
such as a two-panel door with a half-lite and must be trimmed to match historic
trim. The passage door on the south side has no glazing and the material is
unclear. This door also has a very thin trim as well as brick mold trim. The brick
mold and thin casing should be removed and a wider flat casing installed. That
casing should be 4-6 inches wide.
• The guidelines recommend that new outbuildings have windows that are small
and rectangular. There are no windows on the three sides of the garage.
• The trim, like the siding, has a fake wood grain. Currently there is no replacement
for wood trim generally approved by the Commission. It is noted that the band
board between the two types of siding on the front is missing.
The location of the garage, its general size, and the overhead doors all comply with the
guidelines.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the garage using an exception to the
guidelines. The guidelines include the following regarding exceptions:
During the course of historic review, it may be revealed that elements of the
application warrant special consideration. When this occurs, alternative design
solutions to the Iowa City Guidelines or the Neighborhood District Guidelines may
be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission. The intent in considering
alternative designs is to allow architectural flexibility in exceptional circumstances
such as non-compliant structures, irregular lots, and projects which satisfy the
intent of the guidelines as interpreted by the Commission... Alternatively, the
Commission may advise the applicant regarding appropriate solutions or accept
the applicants' proposal with or without amendments. When approving a project
requiring an exception, the Commission shall identify the guideline(s) for which the
exception is being made, and the rationale for the exception.
If the Commission finds that the garage satisfies the intent of the guidelines, they
may approve the project by exception with or without amendments to the proposal.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 416
Reno Street as presented in the staff report through an exception to the guidelines for a
new garage proposal that meets the intent of the guidelines. Although there are aspects
of the project that do not meet the guidelines, the intent of the guidelines is met. The
garage does not substantially alter or destroy the defining architectural character of the
site or neighborhood because the location of the garage, its general size, and the
overhead doors all comply with the guidelines.
Pall, .. � j f �,, �•••...:. ::,
_ ♦ ___IIf.���iii a r� i��
41
Zoe
LA
++ "4
.
R
rt
y
r
,rs
... r• �• .. k 5.yid ��` ��� .!� �-„�,.
.. ', 1• �S ti ,^'��1!'Sip �i°t,,fir 1'✓ "�.
� 'c 4.F �f,. nay 'a" -� sr w., x���oY 9► �, e. =},t,,;y i
)06
4-10K. «xr
_ • W.
A
r • ` ra P•1�h t
N
Bearboard soffit
and exposed rafter
tails
EDED
ii
—1 T-8-
mid- tow.
point
of slope Creveat lap siding
with
corner
—------- �-�boads,frieze
boards.and fascia
Floating concrete
garage slab over
22'-0" large river rock
West Elevation
416 Reno St. Garage
scale=114'=V-O"
f
t2 `
10; Wogle siding to
match house
Pearboard soffit
Carl
and exposed rafter
_ 4
......................._._._._......, 4'reveal lap siding
- with comer
boards,frieze
boards,and fascia
Floating concrete
{ /garage slab over
22'-0' large river rock
East Elevation
416 Reno St Garage
scale=1/4"=1'-0'
i
F
I
6earboard soffit
F and exposed rafter
tai€s
_... - 4'reveal lap siding
....-- ..--...... ....
__...__. _..,._...___,_,m._.. .-.- ith corner
,, __._ ...
___ _._. W _ _ -• boards,frie&
--- boards,and fascia
_ — _ — — — — — — — — — . - — — — — _ _.._._.-
1 — l ♦ Flaatingconcmte
J garage slab over
0" c mlawted
24'- grantrmll
large river rack
North Elevation 416 Reno 5t Garage
scale=1/4"=V-W
9ed sl sash[exposed
l and er�osed rafter
. i Edils
9.0- j' t
— 4'reveat lap siding
boards•frieze
,��.�.-..T_.......--.., .-....�»..._.µ.. �w..,...,..,.. V _...�..�......»_.... ..�.�. -�.-��...... ..•,..._....a W— � badrfJS,and fd5c[a
Floating CoweL
•�,�� g2tage slab aver
24'-6' grarmtrr'Ali
large aver rock
South Elevation 416 Reno St Garage
scalew 1/4"=1'-0"
t� -
eQ y Spread web
trusses 24'o.c
Sheathing,roofing
felt,asphalt
architectural
shingles
Bearboard soffit
t and exposed rafter
tails
tom. 2A studs 16'o.c.
with sheathing,
housewrap and
lap siding
f'
s `�r Flaa[ing concrete
garage slab over
E�
large river rock
Section Drawing 416 Reno St. Garage
scale=1/4"=I"-Cr
c
fi Tili
Garage #'
al �■ EN
on Noun - - ■■ no ■■ no
- - --- ■■ ■■ BEEN
� I
�416 Reno
Street—new garage-west or front facade—May 6 photo from owner
A Y _
416 Reno Street—new garage- North facade—May 6 photo from owner
1
1
s
416 Reno Street—new garage-south fagade—May 6 photo from owner
416 Reno Street—new garage-west or front fagade—May 6 photo from owner
GARAGE AT 416 RENO STREET
Spoke with Jessica on project:
Position of garage — plot supplied by Jessica (Summit Street + discussed)
Lap Siding (wood — manmade wood) no vinyl no aluminum
Garage Door — 2 types —
Drawings — Summit Street — used — supplied by you
Shingles to match house
Discussed height — Oak tree concerns
APPLIED FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Approved
APPLIED FOR BUILDING PERMIT
Approved
CONSTRUCTION
FOUNDATION — INSPECTED- APPROVED
RETAINING WALL — INSPECTED -APPROVED
CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGE- INSPECTED — APPROVED
ELECTRICAL — INSPECTED APPROVED
FINAL INSPECTION AND APPROVAL
DISCUSSION:
We purchased this property approximately two and half (2 %) years ago,
A) At the time it had been abandon for 2.6 years infested with:
squirrel that destroyed some electrical wiring, ate away at many of
the window sills.
A) Overgrown bushes encapsulating the patio and porches
B) Patio walls falling down from bush-tree roots
C) Side Porch completely rotted away
D) Front Porch and columns base rotted away
E) Front walk way — not visible — and cracked in a 100+ places
IMPROVEMENTS:
A) Bushes removed with permission — weeks of work $1,500.00+
B) Walls of patio, completely restored $3,000.00+
C) Side porch replaced with historical standards by Amish Crew
$3,000.00+
D) Front porch restored with historical standards $4,000.00+
E) Walk ways torn out and replaced (identical to what was there-
$1,500.00
F) Required garage doors - $7,200.00 — more than the cost of the
entire garage. Would have cost about $1,600.00 for regular doors
from Menards
As you can see we have spent in excess of $20,000.00 to restore and
maintain the historical standards of the house, This does not include the
cost of remodeling the kitchen, and hundreds of hours on working on
word work, windows, etc....
Concerns by historical committee - Jessica had mentioned a few open
items:
A) Elevation drawings — scanned in there and should be there
B) No windows on three sides — In my discussions with Jessica, having
windows on all four sides was not discussed, had it been bought to
my attention we would have. We choose not to for security
reasons, not because of cost
C) Garage Doors — We were basically told we could select one of two
designs, which we did to be in compliance. We had no idea they
were going to cost $7,200.00, which is more than the entire garage
cost to build. They have like the one on Summit have a grain wood
(not smooth) finish.
D) Lap Siding — The lap siding is wood (man made) and again I had no
idea it had to be smooth, as the required garage door is not.
E) Height of garage and roof— This was discussed and approved as we
showed on the drawings the height. It was discussed and approved
because we didn't want to compromise the magnificent oak tree
behind it.
F) Metal trim around service door -There is NO metal trim on the
entire garage — all wood
G) Service Door not wood — The service door is a solid wood (fire
rated) door
H) Cedar Shake above garage doors — Claire from the National group
told us we could do same, and they are identical to what Summit
Street has
1) Lattice under front porch — There was rotted lattice there when we
moved in, we removed to do the work on the porches, we feel
lattice has its place in the garden and at mobile home parks, not on
a stately looking home. Claire from the National group is telling us
that the lattice is not original to the home, and should not be on it.
We are currently putting a completely new roof on the home, identical
with what is there, approved by the historical committee at a cost of
nearly $10,000.00.
REQUEST
We have taken an abandon, animal infested 127 year old historical
home and made it into quite a show place.. significantly improving
everything about it.
When Jessica had mention there were some open items, we had no idea
of the extent, as we have heard nothing for 14 months since it was
completed and approved by the city.
We have now sold it, and our moving at a 175 year old home in Mt.
Vernon. We have a close date of June 6th, and Jessica is suggesting what
has been done, (not in compliance) needs to be approved by the
committee on June 12th
We are asking in view of what we have done, and the associated cost
and that NO intent not comply was there, that someone place approve
all outstanding concerns and allows us to close and move forward, as
scheduled.
Kind and best regards — Julie Arling and Bob Harty
I
NN �
I hI���M�P9P�PIPP
p
t: }
Front of house
q *_
iMIM OM
_ •'! _ -.
MIN Al a.
Lyra
Garage
pic
�# sr
�o
Home and garage
Staff Report June 12, 2025
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0021: 514 Oakland Avenue
General Information:
Owners: Noah Johnson
Contact person: Perry Shawver, Quality Home Repair
qualitVhomerepairllc(a).gmail.com
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: The owner is proposing to remove a rear window and replace it with
a door to access a new rear deck.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
4.13 Windows
Property History:
This is Dutch Colonial Revival home was constructed ca. 1914. The form of the house is
a 1 '/2 story gable front and wing with open porches on the front and rear facades along
the wing. The home has a gambrel roof with cornice returns. The double hung sash
windows are paired on the front and rear facades. The upper floor has a shed roof
dormer that is an addition constructed at an unknown date. The open porches have
been enclosed, likely during a 1968 remodel. Aluminum siding was installed in 1980.
Detailed Project Description:
This project includes replacing a rear window with a door to access a new rear deck.
The deck meets the historic preservation guidelines and has already been
administratively approved by Staff. The request before the Commission is the alteration
of the window to a door.
The project will include a new full lite Fiberglass door (see attached). The door will be
trimmed to match the trim of the doors and windows on the home.
Guidelines:
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• Installing wood screen door that accepts sashes with glass or screen.
• Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in
the building.
• Substituting material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the
substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors and
screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be
approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Section 4.13 Windows recommends:
• If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration
pattern.
Analysis.
Staff finds that the proposed alteration to the rear of the home meets the historic
guidelines. The new door will retain the head height of the existing windows and the
overall width of these windows. As a change to the rear of the house, it will have a
minimal impact to the historic character of the property and allow easy access to the
rear yard. Door product information was submitted and meets the historic guidelines. A
new full lite fiberglass door will replace the existing rear window.
The 4.13 Windows section of the guidelines discusses the relocation and closing of
windows openings; however, the guidelines do not discuss the replacement of window
openings with a door. Staff finds that the replacement of the window with a door is an
acceptable alteration. It is an alteration to the rear of the home that is not visible from
the street. Additionally, the alterations will allow access to the deck from the inside of
the home and creates more useable outdoor living space for the homeowners.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 514
Oakland Avenue as presented in the application.
�+�,� f y,
��� 1�r' a�`��Ar h�1`�'' ,5����t�fi�i7 a•� ,'� 1���.,/��r ���i��� � `�'{`�,�
t � n"F � 1.`��� QL1 ►'�r,r r� TA k
V�1 y t '��i i��V" �'
il
�1
vti� .+,4,. �.f,t ��L��''I, �► i' � d j����'.. w.y�'••c5 -
RN .% .`3
�;`2r. •y. Ma "a ty` 0`
y fj!"
t� - K ,4+( +�ae ?+., 4. � . soy '����.1 ►>ti_. _
rOR31, tid Llra� i•
f s_ t W
�c
•• '• • '• • •• • '• '• •' • •••
1W Unit 1 IDELITrz_ 31()X6/8_ RAA-122-CLE LOW-E,
Hinge Side, Z Sill Mill w/Walnut Cap, PREFINI H
DOOR: Exterior Side: Paint#101 White. Interior Side:
Main #721 Amaretto, PREPINISH JAME : Exterior
Side: Do Not Prefinish, Interior Side: Stain#721 —
Amarette, PREFINIH MULLTRIP: Stain#721 -
Amaretto
Unit 2 EXTERIOR SINGLE PREHUN , 31O{I318. S RAA-
122-CLE LOW-E, (LH), Inswing. 4-9 White Clad Patio
Screen Kit, Z Sill Mill w1 Walnut Cap_ Black Z Sill
Acclimated Sweep, 4" Ball Beating Satin Nickel US15
Hinge 5f6" Radius_ Hinge Locations: B13VV, LOCK-ONE
Machining: Cylindrical_ 2-1f8_ Thru Pore, BB1N, 160,
Rad, 2-314 Backset, Shrike: Full Lip. Rad_ 3f32, LOCK-
ONE Location: BBW, LOCK-TWO Machining:
Cylindrical, 2-118, Thru Bore, BBW, 160, Rad, 2-314
Backset, Strike: 9206, Rad, 3132_ Lock Offset: 5-112",
LOCK-TWO Location_ SEW, White Weatherstrip, Install
Reinforcement Security Strike Plate: Lock TwG_
PREFINISH DOOR: Exterior Side: Paint#101 White,
Interior Side: Stain 9721 Amaretto, PREPINISH JAMBS=
Exterior Side: Do Not Prefinish_ interior Side: Stain #721
Amaretto, " NO WAR PAN TY IS OFFERED ON THE
PRE-FINISHING OF EXTERIOR FRAMES
STANDARD SIZING:
I3M: 76 x_ 82 5f16
RO. 75 713 x, 82 114
UD: 74718x_ 81314
INCLUDED ITEM(S):
Pine Interior Mull Strip
3-4 White Screen Door
Iowa City
®® Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall,410 E Washington Street,Iowa City.IA.52240
Memorandum
Date: June 9, 2025
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Section 106 review for replacement of US 6 Bridge (52-05122) over the Iowa River in
Iowa City
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to
consider the effects of projects that they fund or implement on historic properties. As part of the
process the agency determines whether or not the project has an effect on a property, whether
or not the property is considered historic, and whether or not the effect on the property is
adverse. They communicate with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) local
Preservation parties, and local Tribes. Local groups may ask to be included as consulting
parties on a project. More information about the process may be found at the following links:
• https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-01/CitizenGuide.pdf
• https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/historic-preservation/
The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has been in correspondence with staff about
their proposed project at the US 6 Bridge at the Iowa River, since April 2024. The DOT had
previously determined that the bridge was in need of work and was considered eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. Staff responded that the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission would like to be a consulting party on the project. This ensures that
staff and the Commission are included in all official correspondence.
The most recent correspondence from the Iowa DOT is attached. The cover letter notes that the
bridge was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places during a
statewide bridge survey conducted in 2011. Since the bridge has not been significantly altered
in the intervening years, it is still considered eligible. In April 2025, it was determined that the
bridge could not be repaired or remain in place with a new bridge constructed adjacent to it. The
result of this evaluation is that the bridge must be demolished and replaced which is an adverse
effect to the bridge. The next step will be the creation and adoption of a formal Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) on how the DOT will mitigate the loss of the historic bridge to the community
and other interested parties. The SHPO will continue to lead review of the project, and the
Commission will continue as a consulting party and eventually as a signatory on the MOA.
Mitigation can take a few different forms. It can include documentation and public education on
the resource. It can include surveys of other properties. While the Commission will receive
guidance from SHPO, the mitigation will be partially determined by the Commission's goals,
Iowa City
®® Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall,410 E Washington Street.Iowa City.IA.52240
ideally as outlined in the Preservation Plan. Portions of the 2008 Preservation Plan are attached
to facilitate discussion. The full Preservation Plan can be found here: https://www.iowa-
city.orq/weblink/O/doc/l 473791/Electronic.aspx
A W
y € m 3 g
Ix ,'K./ Knkwooa Are
Er➢jh �� ,� �1 • r I ��
I �14„. s •y � a
P f E EI
f _
~r
1
Location of the Hwy 6 Bridge over the Iowa River
I n WA DOT
l04YA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT BUREAU
800 LINCOLNWAY
XIM REYNOLDS, GOVERNOR SCOTT MARLER, IOWA DOT DIRECTOR AMES.IA 50010
ADAM GREGG,LT-GOVERNOR TROY JERMAN, IOWA DOT COO (515) 233-7819
www.iowadot.gov
May 7, 2025 Iowa DOT Project: 8RF-006-7(94)--38-52
Iowa SHPO R&C: 20240452117
Ms.Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Pianner Elpetronic Submittal Only
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
410 E.Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE, Notification of Findings for the Proposed US 6 Bridge(52-05122), FHWA#031570, Rcpla[ement Over the Iowa River in Iowa City,
Johnson County,Iowa; [Section 15, T79N-RO6W],Adverse Effect
Dear Ms- Bristow,
As you recall early consu€tation for this project dates back to April 2024. In the months that have transpired since our initial
consultation we have worked to develop alternatives in an attempt to avoid adverse effects to this historic bridge (FHWA#031570)-
7his letter is to inform your off iCe that the results of our alternatives analysis has led to the selection of a bridge replacement for this
project.
As noted in our earlier consultation FHWA# 031570 was first determined eligible for the NRHP following o4Jr 2011 statewide bridge
Inventory(Baynard et al, 2011). This bridge was found eligible under Criteria A far the establishment of a new highway transportation
corridor which was the dlrect cause of significant development in southern Iowa City. FHWAN 031570 was the result of the US 6
relocation, and from this, the br€dge was the direct cause of significant development in residential,commercla1, and Industrial areas
along the recently relocated highway corridor. The relocation of US 6 with FHWA# 031570 is also the direct cause of commercial
businesses building along this highway, eventually to the Sycamore Mali situated east of the Iowa#curer,as well as causing the growth
of residential developments east of the Iowa River.
Dn April 7, 2025, FHWA agreed for the need to replace FHWA# 031570. It looks as though we will be working through an Adverse
Effect scenario and tfie mitigation process under the NRHP (36 CFR 800.5-6). We are limiting the adverse effects to just the bridge.
Next steps will be to notify stakeholders (including the ACHP), formalize mitigation of the historic bridge and review a draft
memorandum of agreement. We anticipate continued consultation with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission for this
project. Lastly,we would like to invite you to a join#field review for SHPO, FHWA, and Iowa DOT to prepare for the adverse effect to
FHWA#031570. Please let us know what dates work best far you,and we can coordinate this important field effort.
If you have any questions, please contact me at(515� 2 33-78 19 or jeff-bacon+@iowadot,us-
Sincerely,
/f IWOWI
Jeff Bacon, RPA 4798
Cultural Resources Manager/Archaeologist
Cc; Tribes/Nations—Johnson County Interest
Mike LaPietra—Federal Highway Administration
Jim Schnoebelen—District 5 Engineer
Jesse Tibodeau—Assistant Iistrict 6 Engineer
Angie Poole—Location and Environment Bureau Director
DeeAnn Newell—NEPA Team
Brennan Dolan—Cultural Resources Team
Technical Memorandum Jacobs
BRF-0B -7(94) ---38-5 : U S 6 over Iowa River in Johnson County Improvemen
Technical Memorandum
Date. February, 17,2025 525 West Monroe
Project name- IA007BridgeOn-callwO#3;Contract5351C Suite1600
Attention; Gowa Department of Transportatlon Chicago,IL 60661
United States
Prepared by: Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. T+1.312.251.3000
F+1.312251,3015
INTRODUCTION
This technical memo considers the bridge 5tfucture carrying the U5 6 Over the Iowa River in Johnson
County, Iowa.The existing Bridge is a 5-span 320' x 56' Continuous I-Beam Bridge with two 55'-U' exterior
spans and three 70'-0" interior spans. The existing structure is considered historic and eligible foe national
register per structure inventory and apprai5aL This bridge is eligible under Criterion A(Event) and not
Criterion C (Engineering/Architecture). The purpose of this technicaL memo is to evaluate different
alternatives for this bridge without affecting the bridge's historic integrity_
HISTORIC BRIDGE PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT
The Historic Bridge Programmatic Section 4(9 per the Fed era L Highway Administration (FH A)guidelines
require assessing three avoidance options= Do nothing, bypass while preserving the old bridge, and
rehabilitation that preserves the historic integrity of the bridge.The following is a definition of the
alternatives;
a. Do nothing.
b. Build anew structure at a.different location bypassing the existing bridge.
c_ Rehabilitate the structure without affecting the historic integrity of the bridge_
The three alternatives wiLL be evaLuated against the "Feasible and prudent avoidance alternative.' clause as
outlined in 23 CPR 774_17_This alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and checks against other
problems that might outweigh the importance of protecting the property. The criteria 23 CFR 774.17
checks an alternative against are as follows;
1. An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment.
2. An alternative is not prudent if;
a. it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonabie to proceed with the project in
Light of its stated purpose and need-
b. it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems.
c.After reasonable mitigation, it causes severe impacts or disruptions to the established
communities, minority or low-income popuLations, or protected e nvi ronmenta L resources_
d. It results its additionaI construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary
magnitude.
JAC $ 1
Technical Memorandum
e_ It causes other unique problems or unusual factors-
DO NOTHING
The do-nothing alternative doesn't allow any construction on the bridge other than short-term restoration
activities. It doesn't correct the issue that caused the bridge to be considered structurally deficient_The do-
nothing alternative doesn't address the specific issue of the project and will be used as a basis for
comparison with the other alternatives.
This alternative ignores the basic safety and operational needs of US 6 over the Iowa River.This alternative
Is not a feasible option due to the following reasons(according to criteria 2b of 23 CAR 774_1 7,`FeaslbLe
and prudent avoidance alternative Listed above):
a, Maintenance_The bridge condition report doesn't classify the bridge as structurally deficient or
functionaLLy obsoLete_ However, the overlays placed in 1979 and 20 12 have reached the end of
their service life.The deck is thin and has many areas of cracking and spa LHng with exposed steel
and hollows. Minor maintenance as per this alternative will not correct the situation for the deck.
The cover plates on steel girders are deemed the fracture critical elements and the bridge has
been in service for 68 years. Fatigue failure in cover plates will cause failure of girders and the
collapse of the bridge. Scouring around the piers and concrete spalling and exposed bars in piers
and abutments are also a concern_These deficiencies could worsen to further deterioration and
could lead to collapse of the bridge in the future-
b. Safety As stated above,the bridge has areas of spatting concrete, cracking, and exposed
reinforcements.The do-nothing alternative doesn't do anything to make the bridge safer.
Due to the concerns mentioned shove, any failure of the bridge or associated elements will bring severe
and unacceptable hazards to the traveling public and will cause intoLerable inconvenience to the users-
BYPASS LTER TIVE
The alternative is to build a new structure at a different location bypassing the existing bridge_Analysis has
been conducted to build a bridge adjacent to the existing bridge on a new alignment. Both the north
bypass and south bypass alignments are evaluated for the feasibility study as shown in Figure 1,
However,for the following reasons this alternative is not feasible;
1. Terrain. Building a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge on a new alignment ALL result in
extraordinary bridge and approach engineering, higher costs,and extraordinary disruption to
established traffic patterns_ The US b bridge over the Iowa River is centrally located within the city
Limits of Iowa City and is a main arteriaL connecting the east and west sides of the city_ Figure 1
shows the existing bridge Location with bypass alternatives to the north and south based on
current design speed criteria. A bridge built directly to the south of the current alignment would
result in an approach roadway that would require the rem ova L of a recreational parking Lot just to
the east of the existing bridge that is used for the bike trail,fishing, and other waterway access.
2. Engineering and Economy. Building a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge on a new
alignment would not be feasible and prudent where cost and engineering difficuLties reach
extraordinary rnagnitude, This includes factors such as significantly increased structure costs and
disruption to adjacent businesses. A bridge built directly to the north of the current alignment
would result in an approach roadway that would directly pass by adjacent businesses in the
northwest quadrant resulting in significant right-of-way casts, In addition, a north bypass
JACOBS 2
Technical Memorandum
alignment would require reconstruction of portions of the Iowa River Corridor Trail,which would
cause inconvenience to the Local biking community,A bridge built directly adjacent to either the
south or the north of the current alignment would result in an approach roadway that would have
to span over Ralson Creek to the east of the existing bridge. Either of these options would require
the extension of the existing twin concrete box cuLvert in addition to significant channel shaping
as shown in Figure 1. A preliminary cost estl mate of a south bypass has be en included and shown
in Table 1 for reference of the significantly increased costs that would be incurred if a bypass were
to be constructed.A cost estimate of a north bypass was not included as it would be difficuLt to
estimate the amount of ROW cost associated with a north bypass alignment The cost of a north
bypass would be even greater than the south bypass alternative because of the additional ROW
Costs_
3- Preservation of Old Bridge, It is not feasible and prudent to preserve the existlrig bridge as a
pedestrian bridge if a new bridge were to be built adjacent to the existing structure. The main
concern is that the maintenance cast is stiLL high adding to the construction cast of the new
bridge.Certain rehabilitation items can be eliminated such as strengthening steel girder cover
pLatesr because the live loads on a pedestrian bridge are much reduced_ However it might still
require significant rehabilitation such as painting structural steel and bearings,concrete patch
repairs and crack seating for the concrete deck and substructure to improve their appearance and
durability, overlay on deck and approach, riprap countermeasure for Piers 2 and 3, and strip seal
expansion joint replacement and cleaning and painting the bridge railing.Table I provides the
casts associated with preservation of the oLd bridge.
iffm
M w
s r+
Figure 1 — North and South Bypass Afternatives
table 1 provides a summary on the cost estimate of bypass alternative including new bridge items (rLdvert
extension considered),,preservation items of existing bridge and roadway items. The total cost of the
project alternative is $14.973,330.
�ACOBS
Technical Memorandum
Table 1. Bypass ALternative:Summary and Cost Estimate
New Bridge Items Cost($)
New PPCB Bride $4,771 710
Complex Bridge $353,460
Removal of Existin g Brid g a $212,790
Cofferdam for Pier Constructlon $150,000
Revetment $270,000
RCB Culvert Extension $628,100
1 Brid g eAesthetic $191,890
Mobilization $ 39 10
Conti nge n cy a nd WsceI[aneous $1,445,520
Sob-Total.Cost $8 673 080
Preservation Items of Existing Bridge Cost($)
Deck Repair, Class A $129 310
Deck Repair,Class B $25,420
Deck Overlay, (Class 0 PCQ $129,520
Concrete Repair $10,030
BLast Cleanin g of Structural Steel $21,280
Painting of StructuraL Steel $361,750
Preformed ELastic Neoprene Joint $28,450
Scour Countermeasure 21 500
Mobilization $92,530
Conti n e n cy and Wisce LLa neo us $203,560
Sub-Total Cost $1,221,350
R dway Items Cost($)
Earthwork $100,000
Bridge Approaches $340,000
Paved Shoulders $210,400
i New Pavement& Median $985,000
Granular Subbase $240,000
Eon itudinaL Grooving in Concrete $23,000
Guardrail Removal $4 500
New Guardrall $22,500
Sidewalk/Curb & Gutter/Concrete Barrier $408,000
Pavement Removal $240,000
Pavement Markings $6,900
Retainin Wall $170000
AdditianaL Roadway/Drainage Items- $690,000
25
Right of Way-2% $69,000
Traffi c Control-5% $180 000
Mobilization- 10% $370,000
Conti n enc - 25% $1,020,000
Sub-TotaL Cost $5,07 8,900
Project Total Cost $14,973,330
JACOBS
Technical Memorandum
REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE
Section 4(f) requires the evaLuation of rehabilitation without affecting the historic integrity of the bridge,
The rehabilitation altemative was initially can side red not feasible and prudent per Section 4(f)due to the
following reasons,
1. The bridge has a Bridge Condition Index ($CI) <50, is in fair condition,is more than 60 years old,
and is on the National Highway System (NHS).
2. The piers are supported on steel H pilling founded on rock,while the abutment piles are made of
wood treated with creosote, as indicated in the original design_According to the existing plans,
pier piles are designed based on a 37-ton point-bearing value, and abutment piles are designed
based on a 20-ton point-beairing value, In contrast to the current nominal structural resistance for
piles,which is about 90 tans(1owa DOT $DM 6,2.6), the substructure has little residual value_
3. An extra 20-30 years of service life is commonly assumed for a significant bridge renovation.
Making the required rehabilitation effort can increase the service life of the bridge by another
2 0-3 0 years and the option seems feasible_ However, the new deck after repLacement would
outlast the existing substructure and superstructure's remaining service Life, thereby making this
an uneconomical attempt at rehabilitating a bridge that is more than 64 years old [According to
criteria 2d of 23 C F R 774A 7, "FeasibLe and prudent avoidance alternative"]
4, The steel girders are fatigue-vulnerabLe due to the cover plates.With 66 years in service, the
remaining fatigue service life of the steel girders is unclear causing safety issues_Otherwise, the
cover plates must be repaired per Iowa 0OT BD 12,1.9.2.3.
5_ It shotEld aLso be noted that exterior beams' cross-sectional sEze is smaller than interior bearns.
AccordingLy, any modification in the width of the replaced deck would have to be checked
carefully against the bearns' available ca pad ty+, Note that the current sidewalks on the south and
north sides are only 3'-10"wide, which does not meet the minirnurn requirement of 5 ft per Iowa
DOT 8DM 1.5.1. Per Urban Expressways design criteria worksheets of Iowa DOT 1C-1 SeLecting
Design Criteria,the roadway width in each direction requires a minimurn of.36 ft (8ft exterior
shoulder, 2-1 2ft lanes, Oft interior shoulder)),which is mucky larger than 26 ft of the existing
bridge_Additionallyr Iowa DOT recornmends providing a 10' sidewaLk on the north end, a 5'
sidewalk on the south end,a 16" separation barrier between the roadway and the sidewaLk, and a
1'fence on either side of the bridge.
AccordingLy,the rehabilitation alternative should meet the current design standards, so all the
additional recommended widening of the bridge mentioned above should be included in the
rehabilitation alternative. The new width of the bridge after accommodating alL the recommended
changes in the bridge width would be 95'-8' (i_e,, 1'fence + 10 ft sidewalk+ 1'-4 separation
barrier+8 ft shoulder+two 12 ft lanes +4 ft interior shoulder+4 ft median + 4 ft interior
shoulder+ two 12 ft lanes + 8 ft shoulder+ 1'-4 separation barrier+5 ft sidewalk +1'fence = 95'-
8")_The existing bridge is only fi7'-4'wide and would require significant widening to
accommodate the new superstructure("er deck widening of 16'-8" on the north side and 1 1'-8"
on the south side). Nate that widening the bridge deck to meet the above requirements warrants
adding additional girder lines,and it seems not feasible because it will affect the historic integrity
of the bridge.
The AASHTO's Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement provide instructions for
evaluating the rehabilitation potential of structures with N8I no Less than 5_The following factors are
JACOB$
Technical Memorandum
considered,including superstructure/substructure condition (Le., N B I ratings), load-carrying capability,
geometry,and Impact on the historic integrity.The US 6 over the Iowa River bridge has an overall NBt
rating of 6 for either superstructure or substructure,The evaluation results For the US 6 over the Iowa River
bridge are shown in Figure 2 be Low_The bridge can meet a lower opacity requirement per load rating
results, If considering widening the bridge deck to meet the minimum requirements of roadway and
sidewalk,the chart below indicates that rehabilitation is possibLer and the bridge may have potential for
rehabilitation.Since the rehabilitation alternative is deemed potentially feasible,the rehabilitation details
of the alternative will be discussed in the subsequent sections.
f 9r�LrT1[lnre lased arrymg t'apaclN �;, 1e RehabdiLuion
Couhlxm A'Ldwud
F1r6*can L\wldrned or
Argin3och fxiencimcm1Kimpromud FtlidgrJIM
wlLbwL desuaying what makes bridge Wiewait
N11PILUZInd
Pridgemhdwapwidthcquolioa ffmoehcs
hp�l'sly'_.1C'ipry hW dnc nd meel deidgm requuelnents u FRr e m
rwqulrrm vnn No side him Pe�LL31
k iIt�a:sa LYL' o�feJlls
c'apv,l3wIIcIKOlrunaLL AeidgchesnoahilkycarcAidcnador
.ir{r(nnhlr Inure rlc'aprl q,Wnndmd gmmrhly wrw hr hrrglnx'nd
raquircmrnrx °f kAxlg�e Is LLw mere%L'o1 cuaeoL use_has Brldgg u
rlLaL$quW1c aftNoacll StoMe1i)'Iuu]LWILVA NALW,&L4'
he irzrpmypd in env cflfcchrc mnancr rw have Poarnhal
f.LTidgp cannot Ire made jrlp"c widwot
desuowu1'W 'a fecal Li
ndgc can he widened or
ApprrgCh def4icllsra on hic impmsed
xnlhnVl dpsu:Iring what mallet hri &e ilridec mur
s=•F:IL —
CJgrrrryy<dcxigrn
pridgc Tnadn�r width tg11a I rn appmWhe5 eve px omoxd
rgIL9RR1Cnl5 dnrc nd anerl drags rcjnirrlrrtnN nr
N131 RaLmgs &a1L MR.Sim Tecirw x .
NAL
i It W 3 . L a Iay.tn cape it 19iulg,e limfivAIlny Lu 6e k'Idemvj w
reyll lr'nD.nl Sofl�lnndr4 gmmoFy 4 nivnw he m4wr i l
i WSRCFfOCI�I'C Rlhn or Dridgc x
Bkadg,-IN LIM M3U F 161 Lwaelft We.hat LU
altali i4wd a aMettth gtaxncle}aild MUM have PODMIW
k impwir,:d in co-q of muyc lnanncl ar
LLTidge ranaw be mode idatmic wlhhrlll
LL&%Lruywg who male%hridge x1 rmficmvl
Brudg!,.Lw bt wbhsLd w
Apprftwh defieiene"can he improved
x Iouwl desonying whal malls Faille
s1 LI)CML
C'xpaeiL}".dtsign BrldgexabwaywidthNuaIdoapprtoachws
rrquiRmcnu huL dnK nd uhW dca gn requiro m a M Brklgc is
ewd ND Side 5 f'w iafery hkm =MILe lit
I'nabde lu Intel Laps Ay BFLdgC has nu AbUILp Lu bt xldeoed eJ have prltmLLal
requlrelo LW ary Lw lard gwmmj tanr k LR.Pr,rwod
A Ln o co- CFfrm a mnwr °�
Bridge asaoraw idge Ix Ina clrseol Iosq has
aoredaquam appruach geumewy and cannot
lc.impwYA us cani cf(e6w monimr it
Bridge ennwnr lie rnodc adoWAw widmtrt
dr uu Ina wIu.nmkcx hnd %L fimM
2a. RchiLNU atop prRentml for structures with N33I Ralinvgs=5.
Figure 2 - AASHTO's Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabi Litation and Replacement
After 68 years in servicer the bridge has already undergone extensive rehabilitation. All overview of the
rehabilitation work completed to date is shown in TabLe.2.
JACOB$ L`
Technical Memorandum
Table 2- Previous Rehabilitation Projects
Previous Pro ect
1956 Original Construction
1978 Bridge Floor Dverlay and Class A Mar Repair
* Approximatel 30%of Deck Ffoor Repair
Bridge Deck Re-Overby
2000 • Construction of New Backwalls at
Abutments
* Class A Floor Repair and Overkay
(Approximately 40%)
• Construction of Retrofit Barrier Falls
• Construction of New Approaches
A d eta!Led rehabilitation analysis of the bridge has been performed and measures to preserve the bridge
for another at least 20 years were determined.Without impacting the historically significant eLements of
the bridge, the rehabilitation items are discu5sed end summarized based on the most recent inspection
images and report-A surnmary of the rehabilitation alternative is shown below. Note that a percentage of
feasible replacement is suggested for each bridge component(checked against criteria 1 and 2 of 23 CFR
774.17),
a. Superstructure-Deck(10 ),Girders/Diaphragms/Bearings(100%)
Per the 2022 inspection BCR report, the deck's overaLL NBI rating is 5 and there are numerous
random longitudinal and transverse hairline cracks and efflorescence in all spans. Nate that
concrete spa Us exist in each of the five spans of the deck. Stalactites were found in Spans 2, 3,
and 4- There are additional rust stains, exposed steel,and scaling on the deck bottom-
Numerous hollows and PC patches, narrow cracks with considerable efflorescence, and Span
5's damp area are all present in the map cracking areas, Examples of concrete cracking and
spatting in the deck are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.The best course of action is to replace the
deck compietely rather than apptying another overlay, patching,or repair,The steel rafting
can be reused after t Lean ing and painting-
In genera[,the interior beams and diaphragms have !math scattered areas of Light rust per the
2022 inspection BCR report- Certain areas have more rust and peeling paint. For instance, the
end diaphragm~over pier 1 is shown in Figure 6 and the interior side of beam 1 at span 3 i5
shown in Figure 7-The paint tends to crack primarily at the bottom of the bottom flanges and
is starting to freckle off at the girder bottom flanges near the abutment.
The steel girders are fatigue-vulnerable due to the cover plates.Although no fatigue cracks
were detected around the cover plates per the 2 02 2 inspection BCR report,the end of the
cover p Late s is a fatigue-prone zone, cLassifled as category E in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, A fatigue evaluation shall be completed to calculate the remaining
mean fatigue life utilizing Section 7 (Fatigue Evaluation of Steel Bridges)of the AASHT0
Manual for Bridge Evaluation-
The deck and the superstructure shaLL be widened to meet the current roadway design
standards. lcause the cross-sectional size of exterior beams is smaLLer than that of the
interior beards, it is hard to have the existing beams meet the load rating requirements, The
proposed cross-section of the rehabilitation alternative to keep existing interior girders is
shown in Figure S.The deck should be extended 16-8' on the north side and 11'-8" on the
Acoa$
Technical Memorandum
south side.The two existing exterior girders should be replaced,and two new girders should
added at either the north or south side. In other words, Six new girders Should be used for
rehabilitated bridges while keeping the five existing interior girders,
However,it is not recommended to keep the existing interior girders due to the fallowing
reasons,
• For existing interior girders, it is needed to be blasting off painting and re-painting
every 20-25 years. And it should be required to collect all waste over the Iowa River
during sandblasting, The life cycle cost for maintaining steel girders will increase
corn pared to using weather steel,
• Existing interior steel girders wil I continue to deteriorate and eventually need to be
replaced.
• Repairing all the cover plates due to the fatigue-prone zone is expensive.
* The Inventory Rating Factor is 0,66 and the Load rating factor is less than 1.D far
permit trucks 136A, 1368, 1 56 , the SU7 legal truck, and the M emergency vehicle-
There will be a potential increase in legal truck weights (including eleftric vehicles) in
the future. However, new girders can make the Load rating Larger than i.0 for aLl
Loads.
• feathering steel has a different color than painted girders. The historic nature will be
compromised when mixing the painted steel with weathering steeL, It will be also
more expensive to paint new girders and match the color of the existing girders- In
current practicer weathering steeL is preferred for Iowa DOT projects.
Rep[adng the superstructure addresses aLmost all issues with the girdersr diaphragm,cover
plates, and smaller exterior girder sizes. RepLacing the girders also re soLves the existing rust
buildup in the girders, while avoiding re-painting the girder and Life-cycle costs during the
remaining bridge service Life.Consequently,it is recommended to replace all the steel girders-
To keep the piers as the historic elements of the structure, removing the deck, girders, and
diaphragms does not affect the historical integrity of the structure as the historic nature of the
superstructure wiLl be replicated.Since the rehabilitation option retains the original
substructure componentsr additional care must be taken when designing the new
superstructure. PPCB beams cannot be used in the new design as they are heavier,and
additional investigation would be required to check the footings.The bridge was designed in
the 1950s, predominantly using ALlowable Stress Design(ASD)- It is recommended that the
design work in the rehabilitation option follow AM, given the fact that the existing
substructure is proposed to be used.
The bearings are in goad condition and only have Light rust per the 202 inspection report
(Figure 9).As shown in Figure 9, the bearing has been shifted away from the design centerline
of the bearing, Since the beams are proposed to be removed, the pier and abutment bearings
associated with the b earn Iines should be replaced as weLL
b, Piers and Abutments(0%)
The substructures were rated at a " "and are in fair condition per the 2022 Bridge Inspection
BC report- Bath abutments have hairline cracks,efflorescence, and spa Wng.The far
abutment also has ha[Low areas and scaling as shown in Figure 1 B-The far abutment has a
JACOBS S
Technical Memorandum
1/8" crack and a concrete patch on the face and seat at bearing 1 as shown in Figures 10 and
11.The abutment back walls were replaced during the in5tallation of strip seal expansion
joints.The back walls and the wing walls have hairline cracks and areas of light to moderate
leaching or staining-
Per the 2022 Inspection BCR Report,there are hairline cracks on at pier caps,The cap of Pier
1 has two smaLL concrete 5paLL5 with exposed steel and a hollow area as shown in Figure 12-
The cap of Pier 4 has two small concrete spalLs and leaching, There are aLso some small areas
of concrete spa Ili ng with exposed steel and surface steel in certain columns of all piers as
Indicated by both the 202 2 Inspection BCR Report and the 2019 Underwater Bridge
Inspection Report.Additionally, piers 2 and 3 columns exhibit scaling up to 3/16 inches be Law
the waterline.There is also local SCOUT present with footing exposure at both Piers 2 and 3.
Pier 3 has footing exposure with the undermining of the pile-supparted footing as shown in
Figure 11 It should be noted that the piers are deemed in satisfactory condition per the 2019
Underwater Bridge Inspection Report.
AccordingLy, it is recommended to conduct patch repairs for all the concrere spalling areas of
substructures and sea all the cracks. Removing the timber around the ,pier footing and riprap
countermeasure for Piers 2 and 3 is recommended.
The piers and abutments need to be widened to match the updated bridge width and meet
current design standards. For each pier,a new column will be constructed adjacent to the
existing ones on each side,and the pier caps will be extended to connect with the new
columns-Note that the new pier columns on the north side will have a spacing of about 23'-0"
with the adjacent existing columns and the new pier coLurnns on the south Side will have a
spacing of about 17'-3"with the adjacent existing columns-The existing columns of piers
have a constant spacing of 2 1'-'I"-The uneven column spacing will compromise the
appearance and historic integrity of the bridge.
For the abutments, the existing wingwaLLs must be demolished before the extension of the
abutment cap and new wingwalls can be constructed,
c- Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab (100%)& Strip Sea Expansion Joint(100%)
The concrete approach 5Labs instal Led in 2000 have undergone settlement and creed to be
removed and replaced as per the inspection report. The strip sea Ls have light to heavy
accumulation of debris and do not extend through the sidewalks on either the South 0r north
side- it is needed to replace strip seal expansion joints to fix the Issues as mentioned above.
In sum,the summary and cost estimate of the rehabilitation alternative are included 1n Table 3 be Low. For
comparison purposes, the cost estimate of the full replacement alternative is also presented in Table 4, As
shown in Tables 3 and 4,the construction cost of the rehabilitation alternative is just sLightLy Eess than that
of the replacement alternative, indicating less appealing of using the rehabilitation alternative. It is
recommended to fully replace this bridge.
JACOB5
Technical Memorandum
Table 3. Rehabilitation Alternative: Summary and Cost Estimate
Rehabilitation Items Cost($) _
Bridge Widening, including removal and $3,071,860
staging
Removal of Existing Superstructure $150,468
Concrete Superstructure $397,876
tructuraL Steel(IncLuding Bearings) 1�129�f 97
Removal of Pavement $8,571
I Bridge Approach, BR-203 $115,591
I Lon itudinaL Grooving in Bridge Deck $11,394
Reinforcing Steel, Eeoxy Coated $231 420
Preformed Elastic Neoprene Joint $28,440
Concrete Repair $10,030
Revetment,Class A $111,957
Scour Countermeasure $219,500
Cofferdam for Pier Construction $200 000
Bridge Aesthetics $170,604
Mobilization $568, 80
Contingency and M i 5ce LLa neo us $1,285,21 S
Total Cost $7,711,400
Table 4_ Replacement Alternative. Summary and Cost Estimate
Bridge items Cost( )
PPCB Bride $4,771,710
Corn Lex Bride $353 460
Removal of Existing Bridge $21 ,790
Cofferdam for Pier Construction $150,000
Revetment $270,000
Brid g a Aesthetic $172,740
Mobilization $575,800
Conti n e nry and Mis€eLLaneous $1,301,300
Total Cost 7 807 800
JS
Technical Memorandum
06
I �
I
I +
i
II
Figure 3- Example Hollow Areas In the Bottom of Slab,Span#3
1 -F II
I V I
I
III I
I 1'
1 - I
P I I
1 i I I
I
I
I
II
Figure 4-Example Hollow Areas and Exposed Reinforcements in the Sottarn of Slab Span#5
JACOBS I t
Technical Memorandum
Figure 5-Example Concrete SpatUnq at Bottom of Deck
I
i
Figure 6-Rust and Peeling Paint at the Interior Side of Beam 1 Span 3
JAC $
Technical Memorandum
Figure 7— Rust and Peeting Paint at the End Diaphragm over Pier 1
Figure 8 Rehabititation Alternative to steep ExisHnq Intf,.rinr Girders
1AMRS 13
Technical Memorandum
i
Figure 9-Example Movable Bearing (Beating 7 near Abutment)
lr. 0 �.
�- � I r
t�1 a.
!L
Figure 10—Concrete Cracking and Spa LUng in Far Abutment
IACOBS 14
Technical Memorandum
Wit-
O,
.I
r
Figure 11 - ExampLe Loss at Bearing 1 in Far Abutment
JAMBS
Technical Memorandum
a4
¢�� r
x4 ~
7
n
IJ
i
I
f
ti
xt
I ,
Figure 12—Concrete SpaWng 1n Pier 1
ilH6ERk11HF�
FULL H FACE X 1'H X 2�PEN
EN FMCSYL.XYMXV'PEH
u[ahEaMMIwU T T T T
N=ACE 4'L x i F x 3r PLn '?.Cr 17-7 16.2' 1&7
FULLS FAc:L x 1 I x's PL v 0
� I
_F LLM
17.5 a.v
FOUNDAT"PLAN
3
MARS-;NFn PILE
FRGTRUDINM&'ABOVE
CHAHhELEOt70M
Figure 13- Pier 3 Foundation Plan showing Undermining under the column
JACM
Technical Memorandum
REHABILITATION ALTERNATE CHALLENGES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1_ Existing structure load ratings and pre liminary+calculations show concerns for the structural adequacy
of the existing structuraL members for reuse_ Strengthening of the existing structure is anticipated to
be required to provide adequate capacity for current design Loads.
a. Superstructure
As previously discusisedr the Inventory Rating Factor is 0.66,and the load rating factor is less than
1.0 for permit trucks 136A, 136B, 156K,the SU7 SHV,and the EV3 emergency vehicle.White this
allows the bridge to be currentLy unposted,there is aLso Little spare capacity for future increases in
load, or future deterioration that may reduce the capacity of the current superstructure, Notably
the deck thickness is expected to increase from the estimated current thickness of 8.75' (6.75"
original + " overlay) to a maximum of around 10'(8" original+ 7"future overlay}r an increase in
deck dead load weight of nearly 15%.This will cause a direct and immediate decrease in the live
Load capacity of the existing girders.
The bearings are shown to be in good condition during the most recent inspection report.
However,with the addition of a minimum of 6 new girders, it would be suggested that all bearings
be repLaced with modern elastomeric bearings to prevent differential Longitudinal movements in
the bridge due to non-uniform expansion of the girders.Alternatively rocker bearings could be
manufactured to match the existing bearings.
Several strategies.could be investigated to increase the Strength of the existing superstructure,
Additional new girder lines placed between the existing girder lines,or a reduction in the spacing
of the existing girders would increase the superstructure capacity_ However this would require a
substantiaL amount of redesign and reconstruction to the existing Lateral bracing system,
modifications to the existing pier caps to accommodate clanged bearing Seat Locations, and an
overall increase in dead loads to the substructure at a minimal cast savings vs_replacing the
superstructure. AdditionaL any new steel girders wiLE need to be properly sized and analyzed to
assure there are no unexpected differentiaL movements between the existing steel members and
new steel members. An analysis of the substructure and footings to ensure the existing
components have the capacity for the additional dead loads would be required and substructure
strengthening is anticipated.
RepLacing the superstructure addresses aLL issues with the girder capacitor, diaphragm, cover plate
fatigue detaiLs, smaller exterior girder sizes,and differential movement issues. It wilt aLso eliminate
the need for future btasting and repainting of the girders, and reduce the risk of repairs.due to
fatigue and deterioration of the existing girders_
Consecluendy, it is recommended to replace all the existing steel girders,
b, Substructure
No substructure Load eating is on file far the existing bridge structure. However, It is expected that
the additional load from the widened bridge will exceed the capacity of the existing piers. In
particular,the existing exterior columns for each pier are founded on 6—Steel H-Files driven to a
37 ton point bearing capacity at a 1-4 batter. The additional dead load on this footing from the
JACOB$ �7
Technical Memorandum
new concrete pier caps,cross beam, steel girders, deck and traffic barriers are expected to
increase the load on this footing by more than 20%of the overall axial capacity of this pi Le
foundation.This estimate does not include the increased live load from the new decks
arrangement_ It is expected that the existing exterior footings will require substantiaL and costly
reconstruction to provide fuLL capacity for modern vehicle weights. Since the existing H-piles have
such a Low capacity in comparison to current H-pile standards(37 tons vs.9 0 tons)and have
unknown levels of deterioration, there is little value in retaining the existing footings.To continue
to use the substructure in the widened conditionr new H-piles shoutd be driven around the
perimeter of the existing footing, with the existing footing encapsulated in new concrete as shown
in Figure 15,While the greatest concern for strengthening is for the existing exterior footings,the
existing interior footings, founded on 8—$teeL H-PiLes,will aLso require investigate with a
moderate Likelihood of needing additionat strengthening as weLL,
The existing concrete pier caps wiIL need to be anaLyzed and investigated for the expected
changes to the superstructure condition.Any reduction in the spacing of the existing girders,
addition of new girder lines between the existing girders, or other increases in dead or live Loads,
will have the potential to exceed the capacity of the existing pier caps. Any new steel members will
require investigation of material types and arrangement to ensure there are no unexpected
LongitudinaL or transverse differentiaL movements between girders of differing material types.
UttimateLy, there is a high Likelihood far the pier caps to require additional strengthening,There
are several strengthening methods.that will need investigated for the pier caps if strengthening is
required, including traditionaL overbuilding of the existing taps, fiber laminates,and exterior post
tensioning of the existing concrete taps.
Less concern exists for the capacity of the pier columns. However,the columns wiLL stitL need
investigated for capacity and strengthened as necessary. Column strengthening would be
expected to take the farm of fiber wrapping or overbuild in}of the existing columns.
if required, the new substructure could be designed to mimic the Looks of the existing substructure
units. Rehabilitat!ng the existing substructure involves constructing the approximate equivalent of
2 new piers,as well as the reconstruction of 8 if not all 16 existing footings,and potential
strengthening of the existing pier tap and columns. Replacing the substructure addresses all of
the concerns about inadequate capacity with the existing substructure, removes the difficulty of
reconstructing existing footings, and eliminates the difficulty of extending an existing structure_
Consequently, it is recommended to construct new piers instead of rehabilitating the existing
piers_
2. The historical integrity of the structure will be impacted by severaL of the proposed rehabilitation
tasks, As previously discussed, the"Do Nothing° and "Bypass"options are the only options that
maintain the current historical integrity of the bridge with no impacts_ Howeverr neither of these
options adequately address the existing bridge probLems,The effects of rehabilitation on the historical
integrity are discussed be Low.
i�, Superstructure
Much of the superstructure can be reconstructed to mimic the current superstructure appearance.
However, reusing the existing girders would provide a noticeable difference between the new and
existing girders_ Modern girders are construction from A709 weathering steel and are intended to
be used in an unpainted condition_The existing girders require painting to prevent rapid
JAGS Is
Technical Memorandum
deterioration of the steeL Used as intended,there would be a distinct difference in color between
the new unpainted weathering steel girders, and the existing painted girders.The new girders
could be painted to match the color of the existing girders, However, painting will increase the
girder manufacturing costs and require considerable additional future maintenance costs to
maintain the coating.
b. Substructure
The column spacing will be noticeably uneven, clearly indicating which columns are not Original
(see proposed substructure arrangement in Figure 14), The new concrete will have a noticeably
different coLar and finish when placed next to the existing 68 year old weathered concrete.The
piers could be painted to provide a uniform color,or the existing piers could be skirn coated to
match the color of the new concrete_ However, these finishes are not expected to have Lang term
durability, tome with increased maintenance costs, and may in the future wear unevenLy further
exacerbating the non-uniform look of the piers.
Strengthening of the pier caps, if required, will cause noticeabLe changes to the current Look of the
bridge.All methods of strengthening the tap require the addition of material to the existing pier
cap, either through exterior post-tensioning ducts and anchorages, fiber laminate sheets, or the
addition of new reinforcing and overbuilt concrete. Of these options the fiber Laminate sheets will
have the smallest overaLl impact consisting of thin sheets epoxied flat to the bottom and sides of
the existing concrete members, However,these sheets are generally colored black and will be
readily visible when attached to the existing structure_After instaLLation of fiber Laminate sheets, it
is possibLe to apply a coating to hide the Laminate sheets and mimic the look of the current
concrete pier caps. However, this would require several inches of additional material thickness to
be added to the existing cap_CoIurnn strengthening would be similar to the affects of pier cap
strengthening in both look and practice_The footing strengthening activities are expected to be
both buried and beneath the water level, and will therefore have no effect on the historical
appearance of the structure.
Consequently, due to the invasive and considerable irnpact of the rehabilitation alternative on the
historic nature of the ex!sting structure,it is recommended to fully replace the structure with a
new modem,durable, and largely maintenance free structure_
3. The advanced age of the structure raises concerns about the remaining sei-vice life of the structure. It
is difficult to accurately predict the remaining life span for a structure in it's 6Sth year of service.
Current AASHTO specifications assume a service life of 75 years for hridge components designed
according to modern specifications, The existing structure, was not designed according to current
specifications, but is evaluated by current specification below for comparison to a replacement
structure,
a. Girder Fatigue life
The existing steel girders contain welded Cover plates,a detail that is highly susceptible to fatigue
cracking.AASHTO LRFU 9th Ed. lists the cover plates as a category E'fatigue detail.This is a detail
with an infinite fatigue Life(equating to a service Life of approx. 75 years)and an allowable
maximum tensile stress range of approximately 2.6 ksi, It is highly LikeLy that this stress range is
being exceeded,and that the service life of these cover plates has a[reardy been reached.There is a
high likelihood that fatigue cracking may initiate and require further repairs within the expected
20-30 year Life of major rehabi Litati o n 5.
JACOB$ 19
Technical Memorandum
b, Girder Corrosion Protection
The existing girders are made from steel that is highly susceptible to atmospheric corrosion_ The
corrosion resistance and ultimate service life of these members is highly dependent upon the
application of a coating system (generaLLy in the form of an epoxy based or high zinc paint).These
coating systems are susceptible to wear and need to be reapplied at an estimated 2 5 year interval.
High exposure areas,such as ends of girders beneath expansion joints, are expected to need more
frequent touch ups, as frequent as every 10 years, Failure to maintain these coatings can leave the
existing steel girders susceptible to rapid deterioration_
c. Substructure Service Fife
The AASHTO Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges provides a minimum
required concrete cover necessary to achieve a service Life of 75, 100, or 1 50 years. For
substructures made of Ordinary+Portland Cernent Concrete with uncoated reinforcing bars, 2"of
clear cover is required to achieve an expected 75 year service Life_ Design plans for the existing
structure list a minimum clear cover of 2"to the centerline of the near reinforcing bar in the
columns, slightly below the 2"clear cover required by the Guide Specification.These rvice life
model does not mean that the substructure is expected to become immediately unser iceable
when the service life is reach edrbut is the length of time that the pier is expected to be largely
maintenance free.After this time period,deterioration is expected to acceLerate requiring more
frequent maintenance, repair and even tuaLLy replacement.At 68 years of service,the existing
concrete piers can be expected to have reached or exceeded their expected service life_
A Full bridge replacerent would have an expected service life of 75 years per the current AA5HTO Badge
Design Specifications.
Although the initial cost to rehabilitate the bridge is less than the cast of a full replacement,a full
replacement wiLL prove more effective in the long run for severaL reasons_
1) The remaining service life of the existing bridge is limited even with rehabilitation_While the
existing components are not expected to become immediately unserviceable, increasing amounts
of future maintenance, repairs, and traffic disruptions are expected,
2) A new PPCB concrete bridge wiLL require Less maintenance than the existing 68-year-old steel
bridge.Given the condition of the existing structure,it is expected that the structure wiLL need
additional major repairs or replacement within the next 30 gears.This will ultimateLy detract from
any savings from the rehabilitation efforts_
3) Rehabilitating the existing bridge will place more stress on the existing piers and pi Les due to the
widening of the superstructure_ This additional Load will only serve to exacerbate the Life5pan
concerns presented in the above two items.
Additionally overaLL maintenance for a steeL superstructure is more comprehensive and will require
additionaL cost than the expected maintenance for a pretensioned prestressed concrete beam bridge orf a
new substructure.
Considering the invasive and considerable impact of rehabilitation on the historic mature of the existing
structure, along with the Limited service life extension and potentiaL for increased Long-term maintenance
costs,it is recommended to fully replace the structure with a new, modem,durable, and Largely
maintenance-free structure.Although the initial cost of rehabilitation is Less than that of futL replacement,
a fuLL replacement wiLL be the more cost effective long term solution, as it avoids the inherent issues of the
fACOB5 20
Technical Memorandum
aging bridge superstructure and offers a longer service Life with reduced maintenance demands-
Furthermorer replacing the bridge addresses aLL concerns about inadequate capacity and removes the
complexities of reconstructing existing footings, uLti mate Ly providing the mast sustainable soLution for the
future-
'-0" 211 - 1" 1' - 1" 1' - 1" 1?'- „
Tw! t=- -
Pier
Exlerisiori
I i rr' w, tn
ikeconstructed
—]Footing
Figure 14— Pier Elevation View for Rehabilitation Option
s�
driven
H W
it*
y �#
Rewnstructed
Edge of Foctinj
Figure 15 -- Reconstructed Footing Plan thew for Rehabilitation Option
J.aCoas
Technical Memorandum
CONCLUSION
The do-nothing alternative is not feasible and prudent because it has maintenance and safety concerns
that would bring severe and unacceptable hazards to the traveling public and might cause intolerable
inconvenience to the users, it is not recommended to realign a new structure off the alignment and
preserve the existing bridge in its current Location because of the higher casts, and extraordinary
disruption to estabLished traffic patterns that would bring to the community.
The rehabilitation efforts for the bridge include severaL key actions.The deck and superstructure will be
replaced as weLL as widened to meet Current roadway design standards. For the substructures, patch
repairs will be conducted for all concrete spallin9 areas, and cracks will be sealed. The timber around the
pier footing will be removed, and rlprap countermeasures will be implemented for Piers 2 and 3_ The piers
and abutments wiIL be widened, with new columns constructed adjacent to existing ones,and the pier caps
extended,The concrete appmaCh slabs and strip seaL expansion joints will also be replaced. RobabiLitation
Is not ideal because it only parrially addresses the existing issues and retains the original substructure,
which may not meet current AASTHO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.Note that the historic nature of
the superstructure will be replicated while the uneven pier column spacing wiLL compromise the
appearance and historic integrity of the bridge.The cost of rehabilitation is nearly the same as full
replacement, making it less appealing_ FULL replacement would comprehensively resolve aLL structuraL
pro bLems,avoid future maintenance costs, and ensure a Longer-lasting soLution_Therefore, it is
recommended to fully replace the bridge for a more effective and durable outcome,
JAJC) 5 22
Technical Memorandum
REFERENCES
FHWA, 1983_ Programmatic Section 4(f) EvaLuation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate the
Use of Historic Bridges, https;//www.environment,fhwa.dot.gov/legisLati0n/section4f/4f_bridges.aspx
Iowa DOT, 2022. Bridge Condition Report. Bridge ID. 5252.2S006. US 6 over IOWA RIVER. Inspection Date
August 24, 2022, Office of Bridges and Structures Bridge Maintenance and Inspection Unit,
Iowa DOT, 2019. Underwater Bridge Inspection Report.
Iowa DOT, 2 02 4,JuLy. Iowa DOT Bridge Design Manual_ Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of
Bridges end Structure
Iowa DOT, 2022. FHWA#031570 Bridge Load Rating Calculations_ Iowa Department of Transportation,
Office of Bridges and Structure.
AASHTO, 2020,AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition
AASHTO, 2018_ Manual for Bridge €valuation_
AASHTO, 2020_ Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges
JACOBS 23
f
Johmon
BRF-D06-7(94)-3M2 N 0 160 szo
.Johnson County
Location of FHI A# 031570
1 o aso 980
tt
IOWA CITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN
Prepared for
the City of Iowa City
and
the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
February 2008
City Of Iowa City
City Council
Regenia Bailey,Mayor (District C)
Milne O'Donnell,Mayor Pro Tem (At-Large) Connie Champion, (District B)
Amy Correia, (At-Large) Matt Hayek, (At-Large)
Ross Wilburn, (District A) Milne Wright, (At-Large)
Dale Helhng, Interim City Manager
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
Tim Weitzel, Chairperson
Planning and Community Development
Jeff Davidson, Director
Robert Miklo, senior Planner
Sunil Terdalkar,Associate Planner
Consultants
SVENDSEN TYLER, INC.
Sarona,Wisconsin
Clarion Associates LLC
Denver, Colorado
Preparation of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan was funded
by the City of Iowa City and a Historic Resource Development Program
grant from Iowa's Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP)
Program and administered by the State Historical Society of Iowa.
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................................... 7
I. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 11
II. Overview of Local Historic Preservation Movement............................................................. 15
A. Historic Preservation Movement Prior to 1992........................................................... 15
B. Adoption of Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan in 1992.......................................... 16
C. Progress on 1992 Goals and Objectives........................................................................ 17
D. Summary of Progress.......................................................................................................26
III. Public Opinions and Perceptions of Historic Preservation...................................................27
A. Opinions Sought...............................................................................................................27
B. Summary of Public Input................................................................................................27
IV. Updated Goals and Objectives for the Historic Preservation Plan 2007.............................31
Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City's past...................................31
Goal 2: Continue municipal policy of protection of historic resources and
implement this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory
measures....................................................................................................................34
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildingsand neighborhoods.................................................................................41
Goal 4: Provide the technical assistance necessary to preserve and improve historic
properties...................................................................................................................46
Goal 5: Heighten public awareness of historic preservation in the community and
improve preservation education efforts for various audiences...........................48
Goal 6: Maintain and strengthen preservation partnerships between municipal
government, state government, and federal agencies..........................................52
Goal 7: Establish and implement historic preservation objectives for the University of
Iowa campus and surrounding neighborhoods....................................................53
Goal 8: Establish and support heritage tourism efforts appropriate to Iowa City's
historic resources and community needs..............................................................58
Goal 9: Conduct regular review and evaluation of historic preservation initiatives by
the historic preservation community and integrate preservation objectives in
related planning work undertaken by the City of Iowa City...............................61
V. Neighborhood Strategies...........................................................................................................63
Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development,historical roles and traditions,modern needs,and economic
healthand stability...................................................................................................63
7
DistrictAdoption Steps................................................................................................................63
Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps..........................................................64
Technical Assistance Steps...........................................................................................................65
Home Ownership Incentive Program.........................................................................................65
Iowa City Historic Areas Map Legend.......................................................................................67
DowntownPlanning District..................................................................................................................70
1. Downtown .....................................................................................................................................70
2. Near South Side Neighborhood...................................................................................................73
CentralPlanning District........................................................................................................................73
3. Brown Street Historic District(includes Bella Vista Drive, sections of Ronalds Street, and
othercross streets)...........................................................................................................................73
4. Clark Street Conservation District................................................................................................75
5. College Green Historic District.....................................................................................................76
6. College Hill Conservation District................................................................................................77
7. East College Street Historic District..............................................................................................78
8. Dearborn Street Conservation District........................................................................................79
9. Dubuque Street Corridor................................................................................................................80
10. Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District.............................................................................................81
11. Goosetown........................................................................................................................................83
12. Governor-Lucas Conservation District........................................................................................86
13. Jefferson Street Historic District....................................................................................................87
14. Longfellow Historic District...........................................................................................................88
15. Muscatine Avenue Moffitt Cottage Historic District (now,part of Longfellow Historic
District).............................................................................................................................................90
16. Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue Corridor.......................................................................................91
17. Lucas Farms Neighborhood-Ginter, Friendly, Highland, Pickard, and Yewell Streets...........92
18. Morningside-City High Neighborhood........................................................................................93
19. Rochester Avenue Neighborhood.................................................................................................95
20. Summit Street Historic District.....................................................................................................96
21. Woodlawn Historic District...........................................................................................................97
NorthPlanning District...........................................................................................................................98
22. North Dubuque Street/Montgomery-Butler House...................................................................98
23. Tank Town........................................................................................................................................99
24. Dubuque Road Neighborhood....................................................................................................100
NorthwestPlanning District.................................................................................................................102
25. Manville Heights Neighborhood.................................................................................................102
Southwest Planning District.................................................................................................................104
26. Melrose Historic District..............................................................................................................104
OtherPlanning Districts.......................................................................................................................106
Summary of Common Neighborhood Strategies ..............................................................................108
8
VI. Model for Evaluating Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation ...................................109
A. Rehabilitation ...............................................................................................................110
B. Property Values............................................................................................................112
C. Heritage Tourism.........................................................................................................113
D. Selected City and Community Level Economic Impact Reports..........................114
Appendices
Appendix A: Chronological Overview of the Historic Preservation Movement in Iowa City,
Iowa: 1957-2006
Appendix B: National Register of Historic Places Iowa City Listings
Appendix C: Public Meeting Comment Summaries (North Side/Goosetown, Longfellow,West
Side, and Downtown meetings)
Appendix D: Interview Questions; Summary of Responses; and Individuals Interviewed
Appendix E: Outline for Update of"Iowa City Historic Resources" Multiple Property
Documentation Form, including bibliography
Appendix F: Clarion Associates Recommendation Memorandum
Appendix G: Historic Preservation Commissioners, 1983-2006
Appendix H: Projects Receiving Design Review, 1985-2006
Appendix I: Historic Preservation Award Winners, 1983-2005
Appendix J: Related Historic Preservation Websites
Appendix K: Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings
Appendix L: Maps of Completed and Proposed Historical and Architectural Survey Areas
Appendix M: Map of Iowa City Subdivisions Recorded 1924-1965
Appendix N: FHP History
9
IV. Updated Goals and Objectives for the Historic Preservation
Plan 2007
The review of local historic preservation efforts since 1992 shows major progress in both public
and private activities. Good communication has been at the center of the best cases of progress
while minimal or ineffective communication has characterized preservation missteps or failures.
The common theme incorporated into the recommendations that follow is thoughtful, clear, and
audience-appropriate communication.Whether this takes the form of official reports, shared
strategy sessions,targeted publications,web-based information gathering and dispersal,or direct
communication with historic property owners,good communication will be key to advancing the
comprehensive preservation agenda and strategies recommended below.'
Goal Identify
Objective 1: Continue to research and evaluate historic resources through the systematic
and prioritized completion of neighborhood and thematic-based historical and
architectural surveys.
Following adoption of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan,the HPC assumed
the leadership role for completing comprehensive studies of Iowa City's built
environment by carrying out historical and architectural surveys based on the
National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places survey model.Work
began in 1992 with preparation of a Multiple Property Documentation (MPD)
form titled"Iowa City Historic Resources"to serve as a broad outline for future
survey and nomination work.
Since 1992 the HPC has undertaken an orderly process for completing nearly a
dozen neighborhood-based surveys. That process has included securing Certified
Local Government grants and Historic Resource Development Program grants
through the State Historical Society of Iowa that were matched by City resources
including both cash and in-kind labor. The HPC systematically worked its way
through a prioritized list of neighborhood survey projects established in the
plans work program completing approximately 75 percent of the proposed survey
areas by 2005. In most cases,intensive level surveys were undertaken by historic
preservation professionals with Iowa Site Inventory Forms completed for all
properties within proscribed blocks. An exception was a section of the College
Hill Neighborhood,where work was carried out directly by the HPC under the
direction of a professionally experienced member of the HPC.
4To maintain continuity with the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan,recommendations are presented
according to the original ten goals adopted.Where appropriate,the language of the goals and the accompanying
objectives has been changed or expanded.In several cases emphasis has been shifted to account for completed tasks
and newly identified needs or opportunities.In other cases,entirely new initiatives are incorporated as additional
objectives.A major change is the expansion and refinement of the neighborhoods designated for study and
preservation.Underlining is used to emphasize new or expanded recommendations throughout IV.Updated Goals
and Objectives.
31
The"Iowa City Historic Resources"MPD was approved in 1994 for listing in the
National Register and subsequent amendments to the MPD have been completed
in the years since as a part of the completion of survey work. To continue an
organized approach,it is recommended that the broad outline contained in"Iowa
City Historic Resources"MPD be updated (see Appendix E) through the addition
of historic contexts and an extended time period through ca. 1960. Future
decisions for what districts to study and to regulate as well as special protection
needed for the more recent past flow from this important appendix. The priorities
set for neighborhood survey work are listed in the Neighborhood Strategies
Summary table under Goal 10 below.
Objective 2: Enlist the financial and volunteer support of private sponsors to undertake survey
work.
The ongoing leadership responsibility for this task rests with the HPC but
emphasis should be put on enlisting private sponsors and volunteers to carryout
survey work when neighborhood support is available. Successful examples for such
efforts in the past 15 years include sponsorship and funding of National Register
of Historic Places nominations by Friends for properties such as the African
Methodist Episcopal Church or the Emma Harvat House and the historical and
architectural survey work completed by the Melrose Neighborhood Association
to which Friends also contributed. In the latter project,the use of local volunteers
allowed survey work to proceed at a faster pace when neighborhood residents
handled historical research for 85 properties. Such an effort also provided training
for neighborhood residents, giving them the skills to complete future research
tasks on their own. Private efforts such as those sponsored by Friends and the
Melrose Neighborhood Association demonstrate a growing support for historic
preservation activities in the community.
Objective 3: Set designation priorities for historic districts and landmarks that emphasize the
most important or threatened resources first.
Use of a neighborhood-based historical and architectural survey effort to identify
and prioritize eligible historic districts and landmarks continues to make the
most sense in Iowa City. However, it is recommended that future efforts use both
reconnaissance and intensive level survey formats in order to complete work more
efficiently and with greater speed. Such an effort would mean first completing
a reconnaissance level survey to focus energy and funding on historic districts
and scattered properties that are individually eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. Once National Register eligibility has been established,local
designation efforts should proceed.
32
Objective 4: Extend the period for neighborhoods to study through ca. 1960.
The federally-supported Certified Local Government Program that Iowa City
participates in requires that the historical and architectural survey process
focus evaluation efforts on historic resources and neighborhoods that are at
least 50 years old.When the Historic Preservation Plan was completed in 1992
its recommendations focused on historic resources built between Iowa City's
founding in 1839 through the 1930s. With the passing of time,the 50-year
cut-off period for research efforts has moved forward to include buildings and
neighborhoods built after World War II. It is now recommended that the list of
neighborhoods to study be expanded to include historic resources from the 1930s
through ca. 1960. The progress,priorities, and period of significance of the historic
resources and neighborhoods to survey should be re-assessed after five to seven
years.
A new work plan for survey efforts is incorporated into the Neighborhood
Strategies Summary Table on page 109. It tracks progress on the survey plan laid
out in 1992 through 2005 as well as suggesting a priority for future neighborhood
and thematic-based survey efforts. This new priority for surveys should be used to
guide future grant writing and volunteer recruitment.
Objective 5: Continue to nominate individual properties and historic districts to the National
Register of Historic Places. When appropriate,pursue local designation as
landmarks and historic districts for National Register properties.
The best means for identifying the historical and architectural significance of
properties is to list them on the National Register of Historic Places. The National
Register acknowledges historic resources including buildings, structures, sites,
objects, and districts that are significant in the fields of history,architecture, and
archaeology. Since 1992,Iowa City has had 10 individual resources and eight
historic districts listed on the National Register. Many other resources have been
identified as eligible for listing but the research and documentation has not been
completed.
Listing on the National Register is often the first step in heightening public
awareness about a property or neighborhood. The same criteria are used to
establish the eligibility of a property for local designation and protection. Since
1996, the Iowa City HPC has successfully pursued a strategy of nominating
National Register listed individual properties as local landmarks. Currently,this
strategy has resulted in the designation of 36 National Register listed properties for
local landmark protection. In the case of several properties including the
A.W. Pratt House at 503 Melrose Avenue and the College Block Building at 125
E. College Street,local landmark designation has been key to their long-term
preservation. The strategy of coupling landmark designation to National Register
listing should continue to be encouraged by the HPC.
33
Objective 6: Nominate properties of national
level significance as National
Historic Landmarks.
This new objective focuses
attention on historic resources
with national level significance
and high levels of integrity.
Old Capitol is a well-known -
National Historic Landmark that
demonstrates both national level
significance and a high level of -physical integrity. Other examples I r,
likely include Plum Grove at 1030 - s
Carroll Avenue,the residence of ,
Oakes-Wood House, 1142 E. Court St., residence of Grant
Iowa's first territorial governor; Wood while he resided in Iowa City.
the Iowa Hydraulics Laboratory/
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research on the campus of the University;the Oakes-
Wood House at 1142 E. Court Street,the residence of Grant Wood while he
resided in Iowa City; and a property associated with the life and career of Dr.
James Van Allen, internationally renowned astronomer and physicist.
A strategy for evaluating and promoting NHL designations would be to work
with potential co-sponsors for NHL eligible properties such as the University or
private owners,the State Historical Society of Iowa,and the National Park Service's
Midwest Regional Office, Cultural Resources Division in Omaha.An appreciation
of the presence of national level resources will give Iowa Citians a heightened sense
of the importance of such resources for the entire country.
Goal p.l policy
this policy
Objective 1: Incorporate an updated 2007 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan into the Iowa
City Comprehensive Plan.
As with the 1992 preservation plan, the updated 2007 Historic Preservation Plan
should be incorporated into the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. Those involved
in the updated plan at neighborhood sessions and interviews should be invited to
participate in the adoption process.
Objective 2: Most of the specific recommendations made in 1992 to amend the City's historic
preservation ordinance have been completed. These included successfully
establishing individual landmark designation, conservation district designation,
a certificate of economic hardship provision, and demolition prevention powers
for the HPC. Following discussions with City staff,community interviews,
34
V. Neighborhood Strategies
Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development,historical roles and traditions,modern
health and stability.
In the mid 1990s, the City began a comprehensive planning update process that focused on the
concept of"district planning' Completed in 1996,the process incorporated recommendations
of the Iowa City:Beyond 2000 citizen task force. Ten geographic based planning districts were
established and introductory studies were made for each district that included descriptive
overviews, a summary of unique features, and an explanation of current public infrastructure
elements. In 1997 the City Council adopted the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan,which
incorporated the district planning concept.More detailed plans for several of the districts have
been completed in the decade since then.
Historic preservation played a prominent role in the overall recommendations of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan as well as the district plan strategies. Support of goals and objectives laid out
in the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan was recommended. In areas of the city containing older
neighborhoods-the Downtown, Central,North,Northwest, and Southwest planning districts
-historic character was identified as an attribute to be protected.
As part of the 2007 update of the Plan,neighborhood strategies were expanded from 12 to 26
neighborhoods. In some cases, this reflects a division of earlier neighborhoods into distinct
smaller districts based on completed survey work,the completion of historic and conservation
district designations,and the need to evaluate newer neighborhoods that have reached or will
reach the 50-year threshold in the near future.
Four"packages"of recommendations have been compiled that apply to more than one district
or neighborhood. The first recommendations are grouped as District Adoption Steps and consist
of a series of step-by-step measures to guide the local historic district or conservation district
designation process. This package of measures was developed based on the successful experience
in other neighborhoods and the lessons learned in the unsuccessful experience in others. Input
from interviews was particularly useful in preparing the District Adoption Steps listed below.
District Adoption Steps:
1. Develop a clear understanding for why a historic or conservation district is being proposed;
carefully evaluate the boundaries for the district.
2. Stress education about what historic district or conservation district designation means at
the beginning of the discussion process.
3. Identify major concerns/questions and prepare answers before and during the discussion
process.
4. Stress good case studies of rehabilitation projects in other neighborhoods.
5. Develop more options for design review issues that are problems—windows and siding,
design for construction of new secondary buildings,what may be negotiable, etc.
63
6. Study real estate and economic impact of district designation on market values and tax
assessments in other previously designated districts.
7. Confirm record of design review cases that have been problems versus those that were
approved in other districts—cite specific numbers.
8. Stress good news about post-tornado stories as an example of the best and worst that can
come from a natural disaster pushing a design review process"to-the max";focus discussion
on large issues while also responding to narrower concerns.
Common objectives relating to Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization apply to older
residential neighborhoods throughout the community. They include recommendations for
education programs to increase public awareness of historic resources and encourage resident
involvement with preservation. They also include general neighborhood stabilization efforts
designed to make aging neighborhoods attractive places to live.
Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps:
1. Promote heritage education efforts at local elementary schools (especially those in older
neighborhoods such as Horace Mann, Longfellow,Lincoln, etc.) by supporting establishment
of a local history education program that includes information,tours and events connected
to historic districts.
2. Recruit and train potential district residents to serve on the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission.
3. Participate in an annual or bi-annual"District Forum for historic and conservation district
representatives hosted by the HPC. The District Forum's agenda could vary but would
regularly provide a setting for sharing information about regulatory changes, exchanging
successful ideas among districts,and offering suggestions for solving problems that cross
district boundaries.
4. Parking problems though not specifically a preservation concern, are important for the
overall stabilization of neighborhoods. To address these concerns it is recommended
that neighborhood associations and the City, explore alternative methods of managing
parking. This might include a residential parking permit program in some areas,the use
of angle parking to increase the supply of parking spaces where appropriate, and the use of
"environmentally friendly"paving techniques when parking is added to back yards. When
addressing parking solutions the conflicting issues of increasing supply while minimizing
paving in a residential setting must be considered.
5. The City should remain vigilant in addressing complaints regarding issues such as zoning
violations, removal of snow from sidewalks,weed removal and trash control that affect
neighborhood quality of life. In some locations,targeted code enforcement may be
appropriate to address perceived neighborhood decline.
6. In areas where housing condition surveys show the need for reinvestment,promote
neighborhood stabilization through a Homeownership Incentive Program such as outlined
below.
7. Establish a"user-friendly"technical assistance effort for property owners by implementing
the Technical Assistance Steps also listed below.
8. Develop and fund a program to alleviate lead-based paint for residential landmarks and
buildings in historic and conservation districts that is sensitive to their architectural
character.
64
The increasing importance of establishing technical assistance as a"user-friendly effort"was
identified as an important strategy for many neighborhoods,including those already established
as historic or conservation districts, or in some cases,where designation efforts have not begun.
The Technical Assistance Steps below and referred to by reference for specific neighborhoods and
districts provide a menu of activities for the HPC, Friends, and neighborhood associations to use
over time to help property owners who are planning improvements to their buildings—including
work that is outside the scope of formal design review but important to overall up-keep and
building preservation.
Technical Assistance Steps:
1. Develop a historic preservation technical assistance program as an on-going effort aimed at
developing and maintaining the capacity of historic district property owners to maintain or
restore their historic buildings.
2. Distribute an annual or semi-annual"historic preservation report"to property owners in
districts that includes information regarding design review efforts.
3. Add a"history corner" column in the neighborhood association newsletters received by
district residents with information on relevant subjects ranging from a do-it-yourself guide
for re-glazing windows to where the neighborhood ghosts reside to why moisture trapped
in exterior walls leads to peeling paint and dry rot. These columns could be collected at the
City website, indexed,and/or printed annually for retention at the public library.
4. Develop special topic publications in response to resident suggestions and needs identified
by the design review process.
5. Deliver technical assistance and public awareness information through neighborhood
newsletters and website(s), and direct communications with district residents,including
email.
A neighborhood strategy that crosses district and neighborhood boundaries involves the creation
of a program to encourage owner-occupancy as a stabilizing measure. The need for such a
program was identified in various neighborhood meetings and interviews. In communities
around the country, such programs are usually targeted at populations that are at or below
median income levels. Some of Iowa City's most affordable single-family homes are in northeast
Goosetown and parts of Longfellow. Potential funding sources for such a program might include
Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and major employers. The basic components of a
Home Ownership Incentive Program focusing on neighborhood stabilization are outlined below.
Home Ownership Incentive Program
1. Consider the primary goal for such program as neighborhood stabilization by encouraging
an increase in owner-occupied properties where housing conditions indicate a need for
reinvestment.
2. Establish the program through the cooperation of one or more lenders. Consider CDBG/
HOME and funding from major employers to establish program.
65
3. Target the program to neighborhoods where housing conditions indicate a need for re-
investment,for areas where the percentage of owner-occupied dwellings are less than
50% and for areas that contain small affordable dwellings that are suitable for first time
homebuyers.
4. Incentives could include interest rate reductions,free initial consultations from architects or
engineers skilled in working with historic properties, cost savings at local retailers, etc.
5. This program could complement the University-sponsored program (Goal 7: Objective 8).
6. Support this program through code enforcement and educational programs, designed to
stabilize neighborhoods making them more attractive for residents.
The update of preservation strategies for specific neighborhoods that follows is organized
alphabetically within larger"Planning Districts" that were adopted by the City in 1997. The
city has been divided into ten such Planning Districts including five containing historic areas
discussed below.Within these Planning Districts, other terms are used to describe various
neighborhood groups. The term"historic district" (HD) refers to a contiguous area that has been
listed on the National Register of Historic Places,designated by local ordinance, and/or both.
Historic districts are significant because of their architecture,historical associations, and other
visual attributes. The term"conservation district" (CD) applies to a local designation for areas that
share a common character,which may include both visual and historical qualities,but because of
physical integrity concerns, does not qualify as a historic district. Both local historic districts and
conservation districts are protected through a design review process administered through the
Historic Preservation Commission.
The term"neighborhood" is used is several manners in the discussion that follows.When
the word is capitalized,it refers to one of the areas of the city organized through the Office of
Neighborhood Services in the Planning and Community Development Department. This City
program supports and encourages neighborhood action and provides ideas and resources that
can help shape the future of a neighborhood.Neighborhoods actively organized in the historic
areas include the Northside, Goosetown, College Green,Longfellow,Melrose Avenue,Manville
Heights, Oak Grove. Morningside/Glendale,and Shimek.
The terms"neighborhood" or"corridor" are used to describe areas that have been formally
surveyed through the Historic Preservation Commission or are recommended for surveying
to determine their eligibility as a local historic district, conservation district, and/or National
Register district. A summary of the status for completed and future neighborhood objectives
appears at the end of this section on page 109.
66
Iowa City Historic Areas and Neighborhoods
Downtown Planning District. Central Planning District(continued):
1. Downtown 16. Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue
2.Near South Side Corridor
17. Lucas Farms-Ginter,Friendly,
Central Planning District. Highland, Pickard, &Yewell Streets
3. Brown Street HD 18. Morningside-City High
4. Clark Street CD 19. Rochester Avenue
5. College Green HD 20. Summit Street HD
6. College Hill CD 21. Woodlawn HD
7. East College Street HD
8. Dearborn Street CD North Planning District.
9. Dubuque Street Corridor 22. North Dubuque Street/
10. Gilbert-Linn Street HD-NR Montgomery-Butler House
11. Goosetown 23. Tank Town
12. Governor-Lucas St. CD 24. Dubuque Road
13. Jefferson Street HD-NR
14. Longfellow HD Northwest Planning District:
15. Muscatine Avenue Moffitt 25. Manville Heights
Cottages HD (Longfellow)
Southwest Planning District:
26. Melrose HD
N RTH O OR
Interstate SO
a
9vv�
NORTH e
OR T
U
z
c
aven o
..y
NORTHWEST -$ N ,
_ C ; Court street
Melrose Avenue A
c
v � m
SOU ST it
g SOUTH SOIL THEAST g
U �r3 CENT
0 5
SOUTH
Iowa city imits
67
Summary of Common Neighborhood Strategies • Completed Objectives HD—Historic District(local)
High to Low Priority: A to D o Future Objectives CD—Conservation District(local)
HD-NR—Historic District(Nat'l Register only)
District Communication& Technical
Adoption Neighborhood Assistance a o
Survey Steps Stabilization Steps Steps >
b o
La U % o ai U O
Neighborhood ° a 0 A y °'u d o qq° o ° 8 ° L 3 0 d d �' 6M
P: x Z P. p7w AGw a U"U W F z x � � �nQ UQn
Downtown Planning District.
1.Downtown • • 0 o B o B o B o B o B 0
2.South Side 0 o A o B o C o
Central Planning District.
3.Brown Street HD • . • • o A o A o A o B o o A o B • o 0
4.Clark Street CD • • • o C o A o A o C . 0 A o B • o
5.College Green HD • . • • o A o A o B o A o B o
6.College Hill CD • . . . o A o A o B o B o A o A 0
7.East College Street HD • • . . o A o A o B .o A o B 0
8.Dearborn Street CD • • . o A o A o C . o A o B . o
9.Dubuque Street Corridor • • o o B o A o C o B o C o C 0 o B
10.Gilbert-Linn Street HD-NR • • • 0 B o A o A o A o B .o A o B . 0 0 C
11.Goosetown • • 0 0 A o A o A o B o B •o A o A • o
12.Governor-Lucas St.CD • • . o A o A o C • o A o A o
13.Jefferson Street HD-NR • • • 0 B o A o A o C o B •o A o C o oA
14.Longfellow HD • • • • o A o A o C o B • o A o B • o
15.Muscatine Avenue Moffitt
Cottages HD(in Longfellow) • • • •
16.Oak Grove-Kirkwood
Avenue Corridor o o B o o C o B o B o C o B o C o
17.Lucas Farms-Ginter,
Friendly,Highland,
Pickard,&Yewell Streets o o B o o C o B o B o C o B o B o B o
18.Morningside-City High o o C o o D o C o B o C o B o C o B 0
19.Rochester Avenue 0 o C o C o B o C o B o C 0 C o
20.Summit Street HD • • • . o A o A o C o B • o A o C 0
21.Woodlawn HD • • • . o A o A o C o B o A o C 0
North Planning District.
22.North Dubuque Street/
Montgomery-Butler House o o A o B
23.Tank Town . 0 D o B o B o B o B o C o B o
24.Dubuque Road • 0 D o C o C o D o B o D o D 0
Northwest Planning District:
25.Manville Heights o o A o o B o B o A o C o B o B o C o o B
Southwest Planning District:
26.Melrose HD-NR • • • o A o A o A o B o B • o A o B • o o A
Other Planning Districts
0 0 I D o C o C o D oD o D
108
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MAY 8, 2025 — 5:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna
Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Frank Wagner,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett, Rachel Schaefer, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Peter Byler
CALL TO ORDER:
Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC25-0002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue - Woodlawn Historic District (rear demolition and new addition)-
deferred from March 13, 2025 meeting:
Bristow stated this property is in the Woodlawn Historic District and this project was deferred from the
March meeting as the Commission requested more accurate drawings of what the proposal was. First
to review some of the details, this is a Victorian house built in 1891 and it has some East Lake detailing,
notably there's fish scales, decorative barge boards, spindle work in some of the gable ends and there's
also a very decorative front porch. The overall form is a hipped roof with projecting gables on all four
sides. Bristow shared a photo of the east side noting the trim detail with the fish scale area between the
floor levels, as well as in the gable. She also noted the east side does tend to be the plainer side as
there's no spindle work in the gable. She also pointed out the small rear open porch. The subject of the
project is partly the demolition of the canning shed that has been there at least 100 years, it's an
unfinished space and in a deteriorated condition. Bristow shared an image of the west side of the house
noting the spindle work in the gable and that the west side has some one story projections, a bay
window and an area that might be the pantry. She stated since that is the only one story area that's not
a porch there's a little bit of change in the detail with the frieze board and the vertical lines in it. She
showed the rear facing gable and again that one doesn't have spindle work like the other two, instead
the crest of the gable is built out and framed out further which is a different kind of detail and a little less
decorative because it's where the wall supports the trim. The entire canning shed is a different roof
style, a different siding style, a different type of window, and at least one step down from the main floor
level. Bristow reiterated it is unfinished and in a deteriorated condition so the proposed project is to
replace it with another addition.
Bristow next reviewed the updated drawings. First showing the south view of the house and noted
because the Commission was open to the fact that while the addition would be set in from the corners
on each side, the roof would project slightly beyond it. It was determined that that might be acceptable
because there are all the other projections between this addition and the front of the house, so that
won't be visible in any way. She pointed out a window in the gable, per the owner's request and the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 2 of 11
detailing of the gables like the fish scale detailing and the vertical frieze board above the window. On
the east side there will be a pair of doors with the same detailing and the west side will have two
individual windows. The proposal would also try to match the foundation with some type of a stone
cladding.
Bristow stated there are several guidelines that staff finds this addition does not meet. She stated there
are things like trimming the door openings to match the other door openings, preserving the original
roof pitches and spans, matching the gable on the new addition, preserving the original walls and
vertical corners by setting it in slightly, and adding windows that match the type and size and sash
width and divided lights. However, they are supposed to match the window patterning and while they do
have individual windows like those seen on the rest of the house, because of the height of the new
addition all of the windows are set lower than the windows on the existing house. Bristow stated there
aren't any issues with the materials, the owner will use materials that are approved by the guidelines.
Another one of the guidelines is matching the key horizontal lines in this addition, they are mimicking
them, but not matching them, because it does not align with them currently. Similarly, that also will
mean that the door is going to be overall shorter than the other two doors seen on the house.
However, they do propose to match the foundation. Finally, part of the guidelines also require the roof
eave conditions, like the overhang, to match and the guidelines state clearly if they're all aligned
horizontally then there is potential for some of them to intersect. Bristow explained on this two story
house they don't have that situation, but would still have them aligning with each other. Overall, there
are just some issues with the height of the addition.
Bristow stated the staff recommendation is to take everything from the windowsill height and move it up
so that the windowsill aligns with the other windowsills, the window head aligns with the other window
heads and then the frieze board will be aligned. She explained the whole gable will pull up a little bit
further, but it won't impact any of the additional trim details. On the east side where there are doors, if
they look at the doors on the house it looks like the door on the east side has a transom above it, and
the front door aligns with the window heads. She noted it's very common in historic houses for either
the door itself or a transom above the door to align with the window heads on the house. Bristow stated
the owner did present several of the neighboring properties that appeared to not follow these guidelines
as well, however except for one, all of those additions were built during a historic time period so
obviously there were no guidelines.
Bristow stated the recommended motion is to approve the project with the conditions that the roof,
eave, frieze board, and other elements are brought up to align with the historic house, the foundation,
window and door product information is submitted for approval and that the new door opening is
revised to match the height of existing doors and if they do have a pair of doors that are salvaged that
they want to use, the recommendation is to put a transom above them like the nearby door.
Lewis noted a lot of what they talked about last time was the elevation, to move it up and align with the
horizontal lines. Also since the addition is to be centered, the roof hangs over the addition which
normally isn't allowed but that seemed amenable. Bristow stated that was most of it, overall the
drawings didn't quite show everything that they wanted to see and there were some suggested
changes at the meeting that needed to be depicted.
Lewis noted the overhanging part was something the Commission was not necessarily opposed to,
they just wanted to see what that looked like. Bristow confirmed the Commission was pretty open to the
overhang because it's blocked from everything with the adjacent porch and first story projections.
Karen Leigh (1025 Woodlawn Avenue) is the owner and stated they would be challenged to find
someone more interested in Iowa City history, or the preservation of it, than her. She is fifth generation
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 3 of 11
Iowa Citian and her great, great grandfather was JJ Fryaul and she found the Fryaul name in almost
every book that she has ever picked regarding Iowa City history. She stated he wasn't Chauncey Swan
or Captain Irish but he was a presence in Iowa City. The picture of his harness shop that he had on
South Dubuque Street is on page 139 of Marybeth Slonneger finials. He and his son Frank built 1025
North Summit and Leigh has always hoped to someday purchase it and bring it back into the family but
the timing was never right. So when the opportunity to purchase 1025 Woodlawn became available
she was absolutely thrilled at the prospect of living on Woodlawn Avenue. Then in February of 2023 it
became apparent to her that 1025 Woodlawn needed her as much as she needed it. After nine years of
dealing with declining health in her parents and their subsequent deaths, 1025 was suffering from years
of deferred maintenance and make do repairs, she replaced the crumbling chimney with historically
appropriate materials and replaced the west wall of the porch, in fact that west wall had been repaired
with the same bricks that were used to build South East Junior High and now it's hardie board, smooth
siding. The house has been rewired, all of the original windows have been completely restored, her
contractor, Mark Ziniel, even reminded her that he had to dismantle one of the old storm windows to get
the boiler glass out of it so that all of the windows would be boiler glass. They have reused all of the
original hardware throughout the house, right down to screws and while the interior has come along
beautifully they are currently working on the exterior repair and repaint. So that brings her to the
canning shed that was added sometime before 1920 at the south end of the house. Everyone has been
familiarized with its many structural and design defects, Mark Ziniel can even attest that Leigh has
spent months figuring and reconfiguring the addition to provide the spaces that she needed for a
downstairs three quarter bath, a laundry area and a mud room. They've designed both the interior and
exterior, where windows will go, how big they are, etc., and part of that was wanting to use as much
salvaged material from the original house as they could. Leigh stated raising the height of the addition
to comply with the horizontal lines on the exterior creates a cascade of changes on the interior that
make it unable for her to reuse those materials, the water table, the drip cap and the horizontal siding
would comply with that horizontal requirement, but the window, door and eave height would not. If an
exception to the guidelines would enable her to preserve the interior and exterior design, which she
finds is respectful of the original architecture, tasteful and complimentary to both the esthetics and the
spirit of Woodlawn, she would implore the Commission to make such an exception.
Burford asked about the ground behind that side of the house, is it level or does it slope down. Leigh
confirmed it slopes away.
Lewis noted one of the reasons for the exception is that to raise it up will not allow her to use certain
salvageable materials and would make her have to change a lot of what's going on inside of it. Leigh
confirmed that was correct.
MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1025
Woodlawn Avenue as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:
• The roof, eave, frieze board, and other elements are brought up to align with the historic
house
• Foundation, window and door product information is submitted for approval.
• The new door opening is revised to match the height of existing doors.
Villanueva seconded the motion.
Welu-Reynolds noted this motion is saying that she would have to bring up the height, but then she is
saying she could not use the salvage exterior materials. Bristow stated if they want to approve leaving
it lower they will need to find an exception to the guidelines and a reason for that.
Welu-Reynolds asked could a reason be to save the salvaged materials. Bristow stated yes an
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 4 of 11
exception can be because they are salvaging exterior materials but they won't be salvaging the exterior
materials, it is interior materials that they'd be salvaging.
Leigh wanted to add that for over 100 years the height of this addition has been the history of 1025
Woodlawn and the guideline is a superimposed requirement over the actual history of this house.
Bristow noted she needs the addition height changed because the current addition is at least a step
down from the main house. The new addition will be at the same floor level as the main house instead.
Lewis stated there's a spirit of wanting to preserve certain things and using materials that are already
there, again, that's in the interior, but it is nice to see people using materials that were salvaged. He
noted regarding the issues they have with the level, there's already bump outs on the entire house and
it can't really be seen anyway.
Thomann asked about the height of the windows. Bristow said the point is to match those lines
because bringing the windowsill up, the window head up and the frieze board up would then be the
same height to match the other first floor parts.
Sellergren asked for more information about why the salvage materials on the interior wouldn't be
possible to use if this design was moved up. Leigh stated they would just be too short and they're
original to the house, not just salvage materials. She eliminated three doors all in one corner and has
that material to work with, but she wouldn't have enough material to do a transom.
Burford reiterated this is on the rear of the house where the land is indeed sloping, so he would be in
favor of an exception.
AMENDED MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the
project at 1025 Woodlawn Avenue as presented in the staff report approved through an
exception to allow the design as drawn which reflects the historic structure and height of the
structure with the following conditions:
• Foundation, window and door product information is submitted for approval.
Villanueva seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
HPC25-0009: 203 North Linn Street- Local Historic Landmark (alteration to front facade) - deferred
from April 10, 2025 meeting:
Russett began the staff report noting this item was deferred from the last meeting. The property is a
local historic landmark, it's a three-story mid-19th century Greek Revival building that was built circa
1862 with an addition that more than doubled the size of the building in 1893. The building is also listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposal is to add a secondary entrance to the North
Linn Street facade and at the April 10 meeting the Commission deferred this item and requested that
the entrance look like a storefront, preferably to look like the main entrance on the corner of the
building, and the Commission preferred a step configuration like the corner entrance. The applicant has
updated the plans and they incorporated both the direction from the Commission and some additional
recommendations from staff. The revised plans show that the entrance is in the southern portion of the
north half of the building, and this reflects the rhythm of the opening in the facade. The revised plans
also show the entrance designed to look like a storefront. Some more specific changes that have been
made to match the existing corner of the storefront include that the transom has been removed and at
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 5 of 11
the new open vestibule they match the corner entrance detail such as the trim under the limestone, a
surround with side lights and a three part transom. Lastly, the storefront is sized so that it is framed by
the existing brick opening so it is fully visible when viewed straight on from the street. The applicant
also incorporated the concrete steps that the Commission had requested.
Russett reiterated the guidelines that are used for this review are from the Secretary of Interior
standards for rehabilitation and there were also a couple new guidelines staff looked at as part of this
review. One was doors and the guideline is adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other
doors and windows in the building. Again, in the revised plans it shows that this new door is trimmed to
match the corner entrance door. Also, staff looked at porches and although that guideline is written for
residential buildings it could be considered a basis for reviewing steps at the entrance into any type of
historic building. The guideline is that brick or concrete steps are used for masonry buildings, and this is
a masonry building so concrete steps would be appropriate in this case.
Staff is recommending approval of this project with the revised changes with one clarification regarding
the synthetic trim material that was shown on the plans. If the applicant is considering or proposing
synthetic material, it does need to be reviewed by the Commission.
Peter Byler (203 North Linn Street) stated he even mocked up the stairs out of plywood and had his
wife hold them up and they'll hit just where the other stairs hit the sidewalk, just about nine inches from
the walking space, and the limestone lintel that goes around the whole building will be the top step, so
that will be preserved. He noted interestingly as they've been getting into the building they found out
there used to be a staircase in the exact location that the new staircase will be going upstairs. Byler is
happy to answer any questions regarding the synthetic material stating they wish they could remove
that note. He explained the other door is trimmed with painted tin, so the only material that won't be
wood in this surround is the ceiling, which they could either make out of tin and paint to match the
existing one, but a more practical application would be a cement board or even just an exterior grade
plywood painted. The material is not going to be any kind of weird plastics or anything and the doors
will be wood. The surround will be built out of wood, just like the original one and Byler has a great trim
carpenter ready to tackle this project.
Bristow asked if the tin is patterned or is it just plain. Byler replied it is flat, it's what they would call trim
coil today.
Sellergren is curious if this is a permanent change and there's no going back to the full space on the
first floor. Byler explained if anyone ever went back in the future they would end up with a U shaped
because the staircase needed for egress takes probably 60% or 70% of the depth.
Russell asked how far back the new door sits in comparison to the corner door, or if it was flush with
the front of the building. Byler stated it will sit back the minimum amount needed to swing the door out
and still have to have somewhere to step.
MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed new
storefront entrance as presented in the application subject to clarification of the
proposed synthetic trim material.
Wagner seconded the motion.
Sellergren noted it's a good project and this is what Historic Preservation can do, make spaces more
useful and more accessible to the community.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 6 of 11
Burford appreciates the care that has been taken in designing the new portal to match the symmetry of
the current corner one.
Thomann has reflected on this one so much and looked at the minutes from the last meeting, looked at
this agenda, and is not fully convinced that the changes are agreeing with the Secretary of Interior
standards. She particularly noted the guideline that says exterior alterations will not destroy features
and spatial relationships that characterize the property. In her mind she just keeps thinking about how
this became a landmark because it's "a rare surviving commercial property that was characterized by
size and scale" and this door seems to be breaking things up and she is not seeing that expanse, so
that's a concern. Overall, she really respects and recognizes the applicant's efforts but from a historic
preservation perspective she just doesn't agree with the approach.
Lewis agrees with Sellergren that it will allow for more use of the building, and maybe it doesn't look
super historical that they match what's going on there by taking out a window and putting a door, but it
matches everything else. This is an example of being able to repurpose, but not destroy completely, an
historic building which is appreciated.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-1 (Thomann dissenting).
HPC25-0016: 834 North Johnson Street- Brown Street Historic District (alterations to north facade):
Schaefer noted this property is a key contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District, it is a
Greek Revival house known as Prospect Hill and the Downey- Pickering-Glasgow House. It is depicted
as a lithograph on the 1854 Millar Map but may have been built as early as the 1840s. The house form
is a side gabled single- story house with a 3/4 width front porch. The house has a stone foundation and
wood lap siding and flat casing and some classical details. The applicant is proposing to enclose a rear
covered porch to function as an addition for a bathroom, laundry and mud room. The existing concrete
slab will be removed and the porch area will become an interior space. A new foundation that will not
be visible will be poured, and a new back door and siding will be added. Schaefer stated the trim
around the porch will remain and a new wall will be added that will be flush with the north wall. She
shared the existing floor plan and then what it will look like with the proposed addition. In the proposed
north elevation it shows the new door opening that will be trimmed to match the door to the east with
the trim matching and a new half-lite fiberglass door, in addition to a half-lite wood storm door. Schaefer
stated product Information was submitted and meets historic guidelines. She noted the drawing also
includes a note that the primed wood lap siding will be added and trim board will be painted to match
the existing wood lap siding and trim.
Regarding the door guidelines that are recommended, it is recommended to install wood screen doors
with glass or screen sashes, add new opening trim to match existing doors and windows, substitute
materials only if durable, paintable and HPC approved. In the staff review they found that the proposal
meets all of these recommendations. As far as recommendations and guidelines for additions or
expanding the building footprint, it recommends to design additions to preserve the historic character,
match doors, paint and siding to historic materials and appearance, use materials similar to the historic
trim and details, and to not enclose historic front and side porches or use unapproved synthetic siding.
Again, staff found that the proposal meets all of these recommended guidelines.
Villanueva asked if this project on an addition to this house or is this part of the original house. Bristow
clarified the main side gabled front portion was built very early and the rear addition, which is a rear
facing gable with an open portico on each side, was built before 1933. Then at some point in time, the
east side was enclosed with screens and then in the 1960s the west side was actually was made to
look like a Ranch house. The Commission, in 2006, approved removing all the Ranch details from that
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 7 of 11
west side and part of what they wanted to do is retain the columns that were still there that reflected
that open portico.
Lewis asked what is considered the front of the house. Bristow stated historically the front of the house
was on Brown Street, and there was a stone path and retaining walls that walked all the way down the
hill to Brown Street. However, that has not been the case for more than 100 years, because the other
houses in front of it have existed that long.
MOTION: Welu-Reynolds moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
834 North Johnson Street, as presented in the application.
Villanueva seconded the motion.
Thomann appreciates that they're leaving the trim details so it's very clear. Bristow agreed the goal is
always to try to make it so they could remove what they did and go back to what was there, if at all
possible.
Villanueva likes the symmetry of it and feels like it matches the traditional front of the house.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
HPC25-0019: 1229 Burlington Street - College Hill Conservation District (deck demolition and front
porch addition):
Walsh began the staff report sharing a map of the district and noted this is a contributing property within
the College Hill Conservation District. He showed an image of the front of the house from the north
facade pointing out the existing deck. He stated it is considered a deck because there is no roof over it.
Staff would not support the construction of a new modern deck, however would support the
construction of a porch, and they will have to add a roof that matches the existing hip roof. Walsh
noted due to so many changes occurring over time to this property, such as synthetic siding, the
resizing and replacement of windows, as well as removal of a window in the dormer, leads staff to
recommend a more simplified front porch instead of matching the historic character. He shared an
example of some of the traditional designs with turn spindles, decorative frieze board and then some
column details. Again, staff would recommend a more simplified porch and not matching a one for one
historical accuracy. He shared the proposed drawings noting the piers will be stone and wrapped in
stone to match the existing foundation, they will also be aligned with the porch columns. There will be
white lattice skirting spanning from pier to pier around all three sides, and the new stair construction
and the railings will comply with guidelines. He did note however they are proposing squared spindles
and the traditional approach would be the turn spindle design. Staff is also asking for a standard frieze
board and column design, but they will use cedar wood and wrap the posts to appear as a true six by
six column.
Regarding the guidelines, Walsh reiterated that the balustrades and handrail guidelines are being met.
The guidelines allow the square spindles if they're 1 '/2 inches in diameter or greater which is what they
have here, they just won't be the exact turned historical character style. Walsh stated all the rest of the
guidelines are met. They are constructing an additional foundation that appears similar to the historic
foundation in color, texture, unit size and joint profile. All the frieze board will match the existing
foundation. Again, he stated a roof does need to be added to be considered a porch and aligned more
historically with a front porch in this housing style, it will be a hipped roof that aligns with the existing
roof. The guidelines recommend constructing new porches that are consistent with the historic building
and are similar to porches of the same architectural style but staff is asking for an exception for a more
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 8 of 11
simplified porch approach instead of meeting that exact style. The guidelines also recommend
constructing new porches that are more than 18 inches above grade using traditional porch
construction with wood joists and wood flooring, adding skirting to fill the space between the porch floor
and grade if the space is more than 18 inches, using vertical grained fir porch flooring for resistance to
weathering, leaving exposed the support piers below the porch columns, skirting must be added to fill
the space below the porch floor and grade if the space is more than 18 inches, and constructing porch
skirting using 3 by 6 inch wood frame with slats. Walsh reiterated again all of these guidelines have
been met with the exception of that architectural style and what would be disallowed is using unpainted
treated wood for elements that would have been painted in the historic applications, and they are
proposing to paint the wood elements white to blend with the existing house. Guidelines section 5.1
expansion of building footprint recommends the following guidelines for new balustrades and handrails,
and those will be met, matching key horizontal lines in the existing buildings, such as water table, eave
height, window height, and band boards in order to provide continuity between the addition and the
historic structure, preserving a significant historic materials and features of the original structure, such
as decorative windows, brackets, porches and trim, and designing an addition so that it does not
diminish the character of the historic structure. Walsh stated this is deck and is not a historic structure
that has been with the house and they're actually proposing to be more in line with what would
historically be there as a porch. Again, staff is asking for that exception since there's been so many
alterations regarding the windows, the brackets and the trim. Regarding demolition of a whole structure
or significant features he noted there are no historically significant features here as this is a deck that
would not be approved today the applicants are proposing to become more in line with what would
historically be there.
Staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1229 East Burlington
Street through an exception to the guidelines to allow more simplified porch design because the
existing modifications to the property.
Thomann asked what year this house was built. Bristow stated between 1895 and 1905 and it's a
Victorian Cube Cottage which they don't have a lot of in town.
Sellergren asked what that bump out on the front dormer is. Bristow is uncertain, maybe it's for some
mechanical thing, there would have been a window there as all historic dormers have a window but
they removed the window and built that little bump. Sellergren asked if the dormer is covered with
synthetic siding. Bristow replied the whole house is and also the windows aren't the same proportion
that they would have been, so overall the house has been heavily modified.
MOTION: Burford moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1229 East
Burlington Street through an exception to the guidelines to allow more simplified porch design
because of the existing modifications to the property.
Thomann seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect-Chair and Staff review:
HPC25-0010: 717 East Davenport Street- G oosetown/H o race Mann Conservation District (siding trim
and soffit repair):
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 9 of 11
Bristow noted this is Commissioner Lewis's house and has many holes so they needed to replace the
siding and trim and do soffit repair in a few areas.
HPC25-0025: 630 Fairchild Street- Local Historic Landmark (deteriorated front porch reconstruction):
Bristow stated staff has been working with this applicant for a few years, the internal gutters have failed,
the roof has failed and the porch was pulling away from the house because there's no footing under the
columns. A contractor who gives incredibly thorough proposals has proposed and detailed out exactly
what he's going to do, step by step, and so it is approved, the spindle architrave and the columns will
be retained and reused. The roof construction will be mostly rebuilt, and all the floor construction will be
rebuilt. He has proposed to use a treated tongue and groove floor that he's going to encapsulate in
primer and paint on all six sides, instead of Douglas Fir, because of the proximity to grade, and they
have approved that condition
Minor Review—Staff Review:
HPC25-0015: 707 Rundell Street- Longfellow Historic District (handrail construction at rear deck):
This is a handrail that will be added to the rear steps behind the house at this little bungalow in the
Longfellow Historic District.
HPC25-0018: 502 Grant Street- Longfellow Historic District (garage roof replacement):
This is for a new roof on the garage.
HPC25-0023: 610 N. Lucas Street- Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (rear deck
replacement):
This non-historic house in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District has a rear deck and it is
going to be replaced. It is not historic, and because of the way the construction works out normally they
would like decks to be at the level of the threshold on the door but this one will be a step down. The
front door is also a step down or up from its landing. It's a modern thing that they don't see in historic
houses, but it actually fits here.
Intermediate Review—Chair and Staff Review:
HPC25-0020: 803 E. Market Street- Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (commercial
monument sign):
This dental office has sold, and there will be a new sign. It'll be an aluminum sign on wood posts and it
sits nestled in a shrub.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 10, 2025:
MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
April 10, 2025, meeting. Wagner seconded the motion.The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Contractor Lists: Bristow pointed out that Friends of Historic Preservation issued five grants that they
have used to send local contractors to Bob Yapp's Window Rehab classes in Hannibal, Missouri. Two
contractors have completed that so far and have come back so they are added to the window rehab list.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2025
Page 10 of 11
Also, interestingly, it just came up within the last few days as they were working on a project with a
house that had a repairable metal roof and the contractor who used to repair and paint them no longer
does but staff ended up finding three new contractors who can repair metal roofs and recoat them, and
have added them to the list.
Lewis asked about the lists and if they are published. Bristow stated she maintains the lists but doesn't
publish them because they don't want to inundate contractors. The list is shared willingly with anyone
who asks for it so if anyone ever needs a contractor, let staff know.
Bristow noted Welu-Reynolds with the Brown Street District and Sellergren, an at-large member, will no
longer be with the Commission after the June meeting, their terms will be up, and neither of them are
going to reapply so they need to find a couple new commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT:
Villanueva moved to adjourn the meeting. Thomann seconded. The motion carried on a vote of
8-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
TERM 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 5/8
NAME EXP.
BECK, 6/30/27 X X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E
MARGARET
BROWN, 6/30/26 X O/E O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E
CARL
BURFORD, 6/30/27 --- X X X X X X X O/E X X X
KEVIN
LEWIS, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
ANDREW
RUSSELL, 6/30/27 --- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X
RYAN
SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X
JORDAN
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
THOMANN, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X
DEANNA
VILLANUEVA, 6/30/25 X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X
NICOLE
WAGNER, 6/30/26 X X X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X
FRANK
WELU- 6/30/25 O/E X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member