HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 10 2025 HPC agenda packet
Thursday
July 10, 2025
5:30 p.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, July 10, 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. HPC25-0035: 755 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (chimney demolition and
reconstruction in thin brick)
2. HPC25-0038: 1224 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (window addition to façade,
window replacement, mini split installation
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff review
1. HPC25-0034: 111-115 South Dubuque Street – Local Historic Landmark (repair of roof TPO, stucco
on west and north walls, and wood elements of storefront)
2. HPC25-0039: 528 East College Street – College Green Historic District (chimney repair including
spalled brick replacement, pointing, and capping)
Minor Review – Staff Review
1. HPC25-0040: 718 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (installation of three skylight
windows)
2. HPC25-0041: 815 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (window sash replacement)
A) Consideration of Minutes for June 12, 2025
B) Commission Discussion
Election of Officers: Vice Chair
C) 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 July 10, 2025
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0035: 755 Oakland Avenue
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: Jennifer Teitle
Contact person: Michael Ayers, michaelayers@me.com
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Non-contributing
Project Scope: Demolition of the chimney at the northwest-facing (rear) hip roof
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.2 Chimneys
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Property History:
This house was built in 1910 and is a non-contributing structure to the Longfellow
Historic District. The main house exhibits elements of both Queen Anne and
Foursquare. The main volume of the house is a cube shape with a hip roof and a full
width front porch that has been enclosed. The front facade also has a large projecting
gable roof on the north half. The house has a one-story bay on the north side. A two
story hip-roof projection extends to the west (rear). The roof appears to have a slight
bell cast to the eave. The south side has a first floor entrance with a set of three ganged
windows on the second floor. Otherwise the windows are individual double-hung
windows. The house has aluminum siding and soffits that were installed in 1979. The
date of the front porch enclosure is unknown. The garage was built in 1976. The
application of wide replacement siding and greatly altered front porch make this a non-
contributing property.
Detailed Project Description:
This project involves the removal of a non-significant chimney on the rear (west) side of
the structure and construction of a new thin brick chimney. The chimney is deteriorating
internally, and the applicant was advised by their contractor that the safest path forward
would be to remove the structure and construct a new chimney. The furnace vents
through the chimney location and will be boxed in. The new chimney will use thin brick
veneer.
Guidelines:
Section 4.2 Chimneys recommends:
• Historic chimneys should be preserved.
• Repairing and capping unused chimneys in a manner that prevents vermin from
entering the chimney but allows air circulation.
• Boxing and finishing new chimney pipes that penetrate the roof with thin brick
veneer or stucco.
• It is disallowed to remove prominent chimneys that are important to the historic
architectural character of the building.
Section 7.1 Demolitions recommends:
• It is disallowed to remove any historic architectural feature such as a porch,
chimney, bay window, dormer, brackets, or decorative trim, that is significant to
the architectural character and style of the building.
Analysis:
In Staff’s opinion, the existing chimney is not a prominent architectural feature because
it is only slightly visible from the street and is located on the rear non street side of the
house. The chimney is deteriorating internally and a complete demolition of the chimney
was recommended by the contractor as the safest path forward for the homeowner. The
existing chimney conceals venting from the furnace and must be boxed in per the
guidelines. Finishing for new chimneys must also use thin brick veneer or stucco. The
applicant will construct a new fake chimney to conceal venting and use Bourbon Street
thin brick from Hebron Brick Company. The thin brick used will be the rustic color.
This building is considered non-contributing to the Longfellow Historic District because
of the various alterations to the siding and porch, as well as the enclosure of the front
porch. Because of this classification and the location of the chimney on the back, staff
recommends approval of the demolition if the existing chimney.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 755
Oakland Avenue as presented in the application.
755 Oakland Avenue – East Street Side View
755 Oakland Avenue – Northwest Side/Rear View
755 Oakland Avenue – Internal Chimney Deterioration
755 Oakland Avenue – Internal Chimney Deterioration
755 Oakland Avenue – Internal Chimney Deterioration
Hebron Brick Company – Bourbon Street Thin Brick
Hebron Brick Company – Bourbon Street Thin Brick
Staff Report July 10, 2025
Prepared by: Rachael Schaefer, Associate Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0038: 1224 Sheridan Ave
General Information:
Applicant: Peter Correll, peter@icmartin.com
Owner: Alicia Ambler
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: Window replacement, window addition to façade, skylight addition,
and mini split installation associated with an attic to primary suite
conversion.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
4.13 Windows
10.0 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Property History:
The house at 1224 Sheridan Avenue is a side-gabled Minimal Traditional cottage with a
projecting front gable built in 1947. The house has a concrete block foundation, brick
veneer cladding with synthetic siding in the gables, and an asphalt shingle roof. A brick
chimney extends up the west façade. On the east side, a smaller, side-gabled projection
includes a secondary entrance. The main entrance has a short, bracketed, flat-roof
entry canopy, and the door is surrounded by fluted pilasters. The windows are 6-over-6
double-hung sash with the exception of the second-floor windows in the gable ends,
which are 1-over-1 vinyl replacement windows. The main floor windows have projecting
sills of rowlock coursed brick with no visible lintel. The gable windows have aluminum
coil stock over flat casing. Typical of its architectural style, the house has very little
ornamentation. A garage was built in the rear yard at the alley in 1991, replacing a
smaller garage that had been built in 1961.
Detailed Project Description:
This project proposes to convert the attic space to a second-floor primary suite. The
existing attic space has two non-historic vinyl double-hung windows on the east and
west elevations and a gable vent on the southern elevation. The existing vinyl window
on the west gable will be replaced with a metal-clad wood double-hung wood window.
The west gable window will be replaced with a casement egress window (as required by
code for the new bedroom) divided by a horizontal muntin bar to appear more similar to
a double-hung window when closed. In addition, these windows will have a 6 over 6 grid
to match the existing windows on the ground floor. On the primary elevation of the home
(southern), it is proposed to replace the gable vent with a fixed sash metal-clad wood
window. This window will have a 4-lite grid to match the existing windows on the ground
floor to allow more light into the proposed living space. In addition to the southern light
source, the project proposes adding three skylights with exterior aluminum cladding to
the northern roof plane at the rear of the home. The project also proposed adding a mini
split air conditioning system above the eastern egress window. The drain line for the
system will be concealed inside the eastern side of the house and then run through the
soffit on the northern (back) side of the house. The new condensing unit and line set will
be next to the existing condensing unit and line set on the northern (back) side of the
house.
Guidelines:
Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends:
• Using metal framed skylights where allowed.
• Not Recommended:
o Mechanical Devices – Installing antennas, vents, solar collectors,
skylights, satellite dishes, or other mechanical devices on prominent street
elevations.
Section 4.13 Windows recommends:
• Locating new attic openings in a manner that is compatible with the historic
window pattern.
• Adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights,
and overall appearance of the historic windows.
• Adding new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of
the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style.
• Using new wood windows to replace deteriorated historic wood windows,
although the use of metal-clad, solid-wood windows is acceptable. All
replacement windows and trim must accept paint. Typically, sashes will be
finished in a dark color, either black or dark green.
• Replacing a bedroom window, if required for egress by the Building Code, with a
new one that matches the size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall
appearance.
• Disallowed:
o Installing metal, vinyl-clad or vinyl windows on primary structures or on
contributing outbuildings when they were not original to the building.
o Using between-the-glass grilles or snap-in grilles to achieve the
appearance of divided lights.
o Introducing new window openings into primary elevations.
The Historic Preservation Guidelines do not include specific recommendations for
mechanical systems because they rarely impact the exterior of a historic building. The
specific guidelines that will be used to review this project are Section 10, the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. (IC HP Handbook, 59):
• 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.
• 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
• 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
• 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken
in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of
the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Radon installation systems have similar considerations as the installation of mini-splits;
both have piping, while the mini-split also has an exterior unit. Radon Installation
systems have been pre-approved for staff review if they meet certain conditions. These
conditions could also be considered a template for reviewing a mini-split project. They
are as follows:
• The radon mitigation system being on a non-street facing elevation and located
on the rear of the property if possible
• The exposed PVC pipe (if any) is painted to match the structure.
Analysis:
This project proposes fully replacing the existing non-historic vinyl windows in the gable
ends with metal-clad wood windows. The new on the west will be a double-hung sash
the same size as the existing windows and will match the sash width, trim, use of
divided-lites, and overall appearance of the historic windows on the ground floor. The
eastern window is required for egress to the new bedroom and will be a casement
window that appears similar to a double-hung window when closed. Drawings and
product information are attached. Note that staff has recommended the thinnest
available muntin bars (5/8”) because of the narrowness of the muntin bars in the historic
windows and the applicant has agreed to this.
In 2020, the Commission approved new window installations as a minor review,
approvable by Staff when the following conditions are met:
• The applicant must demonstrate deterioration of the existing windows
• The new windows being solid wood or metal clad solid wood
• The new windows being of the same type and size as the existing windows and
matching the sash width, trim, use of divided-lites, and overall appearance of the
historic windows. Any divided-lites may be either true divided-lites or created with
muntin bars adhered to both sided of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin bars.
• If egress windows are required, a casement window that retains the appearance
of the original window may be approved by a Minor Review. A change in the
window size will be forwarded to a higher level of review.
The proposed windows meet these conditions. The proposed windows also follow the
guidelines listed in Section 4.13. Staff finds that the window replacements on the
eastern and western elevations meet all relevant historic preservation guidelines.
The project proposes installing three skylights with exterior aluminum cladding to the
northern roof plane at the rear of the home. Drawings and product information are
attached. The guidelines recommend using metal framed skylights where allowed. In
2020, the Commission approved skylight installation as a minor review, approvable by
Staff when the following conditions are met:
• Skylights are installed on rear-facing roof slopes or on side elevations that do not
face the street
• Skylights are framed in metal and in a color that blends with the building roof
material
• Skylights are low profile, follow the angle of the roof and do not include fish-eye
lenses or other elements that protrude more than 6 inches above the roof
surface.
• The skylight is sized to fit between roof joists and have a length that is no more
than 3 times the width.
The proposed skylights meet all these conditions.
The location of the exterior units and any exterior piping is subject to review for new
mini-split systems is subject to review. For this type of project, staff recommends that
units be located on the back of primary buildings, or on roofs or other locations not
visible from the street. Any exposed piping is located on the back of the building. Piping
that cannot be in the back can enter the building and be obscured in chases and soffits
constructed for the piping to run horizontally or vertically through the building. In other
approvals, screening has been required for units that would be visible from the street.
This project proposes to conceal the drain line inside the eastern side of the building
and then run it through the soffit on the northern (back) side of the building. The new
condensing unit and line set will be next to the existing condensing unit and line set on
the northern (back) side of the building. Drawings are attached. Staff finds the proposed
location is the most suitable and has minimal negative impact to the historic character of
the property.
A new window is also being proposed on the southern elevation. This is the part of the
project that requires it is reviewed by the Commission instead of staff. The proposed
window will be installed in the opening on the southern gable that currently houses a
vent and will be enlarged for the new window opening. Drawings and product
information are attached. Section 4.13 notes that it is disallowed to introduce new
window openings into primary elevations, so an exception will be required to approve
the new window opening. Section 4.13 recommends that new attic openings be located
in a manner compatible with the historic window pattern. The proposed window will be
in the same place as the existing vent, be relatively small, and match the historic
character of the existing historic ground floor windows. There are several examples in
the Longfellow Historic District of Minimal Traditional homes with windows in the gable
of the primary elevation. Images of two homes, 1231 Sheridan Ave and 747 Oakland
Ave, are attached as examples of similar gable windows on homes near the subject
property. To allow for additional light into the living space, Staff sees the new window as
a change that will have minimal impact on the home's historic character and be an
appropriate proposal to grant an exception for.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the new window on the primary
elevation 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 window, replacing a front gable vent, satisfies the
intent of the guidelines, they may approve the project by exception with or without
amendments to the proposal. Staff finds that an exception to the guidelines for a
project that meets the intention of the guidelines is appropriate with this project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1224
Sheridan Ave as presented in the staff report with an exception to allow for a window in
the gable of the primary façade because the project meets the intent of the guidelines.
The addition of a window in the primary façade will reflect the condition found in similar
houses of the same style found in the neighborhood.
1224 Sheridan Ave – South Elevation
1224 Sheridan Ave – East Elevation
1224 Sheridan Ave – North Elevation
1224 Sheridan Ave – West Elevation
1231 Sheridan Ave –
Example of a Minimal Traditional with Gable Window in the Longfellow Historic District
747 Oakland Ave –
Example of a Minimal Traditional with Gable Window in the Longfellow Historic District
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JUNE 12, 2025 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Ryan Russell, Jordan
Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Christina Welu-Reynolds
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Lewis, Frank Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Arling, Bob Hardy, Miranda Johnson, Noah Johnson
CALL TO ORDER:
Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC24-0077: 416 Reno Street-Local Historic Landmark (new garage construction):
Russett stated this property is a local historic landmark located between Fairchild Street and Davenport
Street. The 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 the similar gambled wall dormer on the front façade. The house is brick with the stone
foundation, and there's a full front porch, which has slender classical columns on stone piers.
The request tonight is for the Commission to approve a new garage at this location. Regarding the
background of this application, in August 2023 the owner did apply for a building permit for the garage,
and the permit was issued prior to the historic review being approved. A year later, in August 2024 an
application was submitted for historic review for the garage but at that time the application was
incomplete because staff did not have drawings for the garage elevations. Therefore, staff notified the
applicant of that. In September the applicant provided drawings, but what was provided did not reflect
what was on the ground and built so staff requested drawings of what was built. Then, in April 2025 the
owner reached out to staff and noted that historic approval for the garage was still needed, and staff
again explained that the application was incomplete so on May 7 of this year the owner did provide that
material and the application was complete and now before the Commission. Russett added one last
detail, the property was sold last week so there is now a new owner.
Russett reiterated the project is the construction of a new front gable 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 LP Smart Side, and the door is a fiberglass door. The overhead doors are carriage house doors with
composite overlay and a band of windows at the top. Russett shared a photograph of the northern
facade of the building noting that the trim and the siding has a fake wood grain. She then shared a
photo of the southern facade with the passage door shown.
In terms of the guidelines, there are recommendations related to doors and siding including adding trim
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 2 of 11
to garage door openings, installing two single car doors instead of one single double garage door,
which the new garage does have two single car doors, substituting a material in place of wood siding
only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of wood. In terms of site and
landscaping guidelines, Russett stated the guidelines recommend that the parking be provided behind
the primary structure, which in this case it does however, there's no alley access so the access is from
Reno Street. In terms of windows the guidelines state windows on out buildings should be relatively
small and rectangular or square. The guidelines related to wood note that fiber cement board is an
approvable substitute, but that there should be no simulated wood grain. On new outbuildings the
guidelines recommend placing new outbuildings, including garages, to the rear of the primary building,
which is the case with this garage, and outbuildings should reflect the style of the primary structure. The
guidelines note that carriage style doors are appropriate for some properties and again, installing single
car garage doors and incorporating windows in outbuildings.
Russett stated with this garage there are some things that comply and others that don't comply with the
guidelines. Regarding the items that don't directly align with the guidelines, first, garages should reflect
the style of the primary structure. She noted the gable roof is acceptable here however, the slope
doesn't reflect that of the house, it's much lower and it appears that there is shingle siding in the front
gable end of the garage, but nothing like that exists on the historic portion of the house. The siding is
LP Smart Side siding with a fake wood grain texture and while LP Smart siding is an acceptable
material to use, but it should be smooth because historic lap siding never had an unfinished texture.
Doors should be fiberglass, which it is in this case, and typically they would have a two panel door with
a half-light and be trimmed to match the historic trim. New outbuildings should have windows, and this
garage has no windows, additionally, the trim also has a fake wood grain. Russett did note that the
location of the garage, the size, and the overhead doors all comply with the guidelines.
The Commission does have the ability to approve projects that don't directly align with the guidelines
through an exception if the intent of the guidelines are met and staff is recommending approval of the
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. 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.
Welu-Reynolds asked if this was replacing an old garage that was torn down. Russett replied there
was no garage previously on the site, or at least no evidence that there was ever a garage.
Burford asked if the paint scheme is the same as the house. Russett stated the color looks like it's the
same as the trim.
Brown noted they’re talking about essentially ancient history at this point, but when the application was
submitted for the garage and it got the building permit, was that a mistake on the City's part to issue the
building permit before historic review had been completed. Russett confirmed that was a mistake.
Welu-Reynolds asked if there was any discussion during that permit process about this needing to go
to historic preservation. Russett explained there were conversations prior to this and the fact that it was
a local historic landmark, and historic review would be required for exterior work.
Julie Arling (previous owner 416 Reno Street) stated the garage was their first project and they quickly
learned it's very overwhelming being under both local and national domain, but thought they were doing
what was right. When they first bought the house, they met with Bristow to go over the process and she
was very gracious and spelled things out about it. Arling noted it was just rather confusing at first, but
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 3 of 11
they thought they were doing the right thing and had no ill intent whatsoever. They've done a lot of
wonderful things in the two and a half years that they lived there. The shrubbery was really overgrown,
the patio was caving in, the porches were rotting, they invested a lot of blood, sweat, tears and money
in this and so there was no ill intent at all. Arling wanted to point out there are shingles in the back at
the gable, kind of a scalloped shape, so that was one thing they asked about but to be honest she
doesn’t remember if she asked Claire Jones at the National Trust in Virginia, or Bristow about wanting
to emulate that, but they were told not to try to emulate it too close, but to historically match it. Arling
stated they felt they were dissuaded from using the same shingle scalloping. She also stated the siding
is all wood and the trim is wood, they don't have any metal on it.
Bob Hardy (previous owner 416 Reno Street) added the house had been abandoned for about two and
a half years prior to their buying it and it was infested with squirrels, the two porches were rotted out,
there was no garage, and the back patio was falling in. They had Amish guys come in to replace both
porches exactly to historical standards. Regarding the garage, Bristow had told him 5, 10, 15, 20 times
to apply and they met with Bristow 5-6-7 times, so he thought they were in total compliance. At no point
in time did he have any idea that he really needed to apply for historical review because he had been in
her office multiple times going over all the things that need to be done, lap siding, the type of shingles,
the type of doors. The doors that they bought and installed were $7,200 and have the wood grain finish
on them. Bristow had mentioned they needed lap siding, so he went to Menards and picked out the lap
siding that he thought really matched the grain on the doors. When they talked to Bristow about the
porches she had mentioned there's a couple open items on the garage, but Hardy stated they thought
there was just a couple minor open items on the garage. As Arling mentioned, there was no intent
whatsoever to go around historical standards at all. The shingles on the roof of the garage match the
shingles on the house, the siding is actual engineered wood siding and there's no metal on the
structure at all. The garage is all wood, all the trim is wood, the garage door and the wooden door are
all in compliance. Hardy reiterated they took a home that was falling down, been abandoned for two
and a half years and turned it into a show place and now found this wonderful lady who purchased it.
He stated they were great stewards, took great care of it and it looks enormously better than it did two
and a half years ago. Hardy stated they are hoping the Board will understand there was no intent here,
if they had known it was supposed to be smooth siding they would have put smooth siding on it.
Welu-Reynolds asked for clarification on the siding, is it wood siding. Bristow replied it’s a
manufactured wood siding.
Miranda Johnson (416 Reno Street) and her husband are the new owners of this house and it was just
at the closing on June 6, last Friday, that they heard about this situation for the first time, so they were
not aware of any pending items. Johnson stated they were aware of it being a historical landmark and
that was all explained very well, and they met with the national person, Claire Jones, and she has now
since talked to Russett, who was very helpful and sent over resources. Johnson stated she
understands the process now but is feeling very anxious because she came into this situation blind and
feels a little deceived. She doesn’t know if that was intentional or not, but that is not really the point, the
reality is they’re the new owners and are excited to take care of the home and do things in the right
way. She is just hoping that they don't have to redo work on this garage as the new owners, because
they were not aware of any of the issues. Johnson added when they did get communication on the
garage on June 6, it was through realtors, she has never spoken directly with the previous owners.
Through the realtors what was communicated to them was that worst case scenario was that bushes
would have to be put in to cover something which doesn't sound like a big deal, but then she read
through the agenda for today’s meeting and that's when the anxiety came in because that is not what
was told to them.
Thomann noted when she saw this house for sale was there a component of needing to have public
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 4 of 11
events at this house. Johnson replied yes, they told them that once a year they could do an open
house, or other options, but to make it open to the public for a couple of hours.
Arling stated they didn't find out about all of this until the very end either and was hoping it was going to
be resolved prior to close but when this meeting was a week later that's when they found out that it was
not going to be resolved. In talking to Claire Jones with the National Trust she had suggested mitigating
it with some plantings on the street facing side which is confusing because it's cement. So she thought
since the part that's the siding that is exposed is the north side that is what she had suggested. The
realtor had asked her to write up a note to the new owners that the north side would need plantings and
it would probably equate to approximately four shrubs or some type of plantings, and Arling and Hardy
would assume responsibility for that. Regarding the open house, yes one of the stipulations, and it's
one of the wonderful things being Carl Klaus’ house, at one time the founder of the nonfiction writers
workshop here at the university, it was their intent to have that open house, or to invite writers for a
dinner or something, and then to celebrate and for them to see his office and his workshop up on the
attic level. The house really needed a lot of work so they were not at the point of opening it up to the
public and it wasn't safe for people to come to because they had to block off the stairs at one point
because of the rotting wood.
Russett stated to clarify for the Commission this site is a National Trust site and also a local historic
landmark. So there's the local regulations that the Commission obviously enforces and then the owners
are also working with a woman, Claire Jones, at the National Trust, because they also have to review
these projects, but they're two separate processes.
Arling noted therein lies the challenge and it's a learning curve. The garage was their first project and
the National Trust also normally reviews a new garage build but that didn’t happen. Claire Jones
normally comes out once a year to visit but it didn't happen.
Thomann asked if the new owner liked the garage. Johnson replied she thinks it looks okay. She just
wants to follow the rules, but didn't have a choice in the matter and is hoping that she doesn’t get
penalized.
MOTION: Thomann moves to approve 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
Villanueva seconded the motion.
Burford stated a garage in an 1898 house is kind of an anomaly in the first place, since a car would be
pretty exotic thing at that time, he feels the construction and design of the garage was well intentioned
and in the understood spirit of historic construction, and with the words of Lady Macbeth what's done
cannot be undone. He noted that's not always true but would speak in favor of the exemption.
Sellergren noted there’s a gazebo behind the garage and is curious how old the gazebo is and is it
modern. Russett replied yes, the gazebo is only 30 years old.
Welu-Reynolds agrees with what Burford said that there were no garages at the time the house was
built so there was nothing there to begin with. It is behind the house and it complies, in spirit.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 5 of 11
Thomann agrees there are good intentions there, the wood grain does bother her but it's so far from the
sidewalk it’s probably not really noticeable, the lack of windows also bothers her because historic
structures usually have quite a few windows, but the reason she was asking about this public aspect of
the house is because there was a mention of maybe wanting to keep some privacy within the garage
and taking those windows out does give more privacy.
Brown feels like in general there's a lot of process frustration with this one in that the City approved
something they should not have approved. Additionally, often part of the conversation here is about
precedent, and what precedent the Commission is setting with exceptions and if they ignore
conversations long enough and just do it and it's going to be okay because it's built is not a precedent
he wants to set.
Sellergren feels there's different degrees of tolerance when it comes to setting and breaking precedent,
and she thinks in the case of an outstanding structure, that doesn't actually change the historic
structure.
Brown wonders then can future applicants come and say the Commission approved this it will be
harder for the Commission to say no to future exceptions.
Beck noted situation mistakes are made in the permitting process, and they have a track record of
continuing to interact with historic preservation the way those former owners have then she supposes
they can ask for an exception on those grounds, but this does seem to be a somewhat unusual case.
Russell noted they were told many, many times to apply and they didn't right. He stated he will vote for
yes for this because it's what the staff wants.
Brown will end up voting in favor of this because it's a complete disaster of a situation and has
sympathy for the new owner who purchased this home without knowing all the details and that's
terrible. It's a frustrating situation and there's culpability for the City for having approved the thing in the
first place.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
HPC25-0021: 514 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (rear window to door alteration):
Russett stated this home is in the Longfellow Historic District and shared a map of the district. The
house is a Dutch Colonial Revival home which was constructed around 1914, it's a one and a half story
home with a gambrel roof, the open porches have been enclosed in the front and aluminum siding was
installed in the 1980s. The owner is requesting to alter a rear window and install doors to access a new
deck. She noted the deck has been approved by staff already.
The guidelines used for this review relate to doors and windows. One is that new door openings are to
be trimmed to match other doors, substituting material in place of wood for doors is allowed if it's
approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Russett explained in this case they are requesting
fiberglass, which the Commission has approved in the past. In terms of windows, if an opening of a
window is to be relocated it should not detract from the overall window pattern. In staff’s review the
proposed alteration to the rear of the home does meet the guidelines. The proposed door is a full light
fiberglass door and it will retain the head height and width of the existing windows. Additionally, the
change to the rear of the house will have minimal impacts on the historic character because it's not
visible from the street and it will allow access to the deck from the inside of the home, creating a more
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 6 of 11
usable outdoor living space for the owners.
Staff does recommend approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 514 Oakland
Avenue, as presented in the application.
Noah Johnson (514 Oakland Avenue) added that currently to reach the backyard, one has to exit out
the side door, go down some steps, and open a gate to get in. The fence does enclose the backyard so
this was also a way to make it so they would have a direct way to let their dog in and out.
MOTION: Brown recommends approval or certificate of appropriateness for the project of 514
Oakland Avenue, as presented in the application. Villanueva seconded the motion.
Burford noted it sounds like a pragmatic, functional use and quite reasonable.
Sellergren added it's the back of the house which looks like it needs a door.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Section 106 Review - Hwy 6 Bridge at the Iowa River:
Bristow explained they are introducing the this Section 106 project to the Commission to let them know
about the process and to also initiate conversation about this particular project. This is regarding the
Hwy 6 bridge over the Iowa River, and as part of a historic bridge study that was done in 2011, it was
determined that this bridge, along with many others in the state, were eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. They do this type of review with all types of structures, it’s not always pretty
buildings. This bridge was built in 1956. Bristow stated what happens with Section 106 is when a
federal agency has a project that will impact a structure, they go through a review process, and the first
part of the process is will this project have an impact on a structure. Then they determine whether or
not that structure is historic, and through the definitions it's either listed in the National Register or
eligible. If it is historic, then they go through a process to determine whether or not the project will have
an adverse effect on that property, basically meaning will it impact the historic integrity of the property.
The DOT website talks about the bridge, the year it was built (1956 or 1958) and they talk about the
type of bridge that it is. As they go through their process, the Federal Highway Administration also has
specific guidelines about how to proceed and evaluate this bridge and project based on those
guidelines.
The first guideline would be to do nothing, which basically means that they would maybe repair the
bridge in a way where they're not permanently changing anything. In this case, doing that kind of work
would not solve the problem and the bridge needs repair so doing nothing is not an option. Some of the
issues in regard to that are the fact that the surface had been replaced in 1979 and 2012 and each of
those has reached the end of their life. The deck itself is thin and cracking, there's spalling the surface
and actually underneath exposing metal that then rusts and deteriorates. There's also concerns about
some girder cover plates, and part of the issue is the fact that since the bridge has been in service for
68 years, some of those elements have also reached the end of their structural life. Where the bridge
meets the water and floating debris, there's been scouring, which basically undercuts some of the piers
and chips away at them.
The next option is build a new structure at a different location, bypassing the existing bridge. That
would then make the bridge into maybe a pedestrian bridge or something like that but they would build
another bridge. However, if they were to do that there are issues with grade changes and with
impacting culverts. There is also a sidewalk that goes under the bridge that would be impacted as well
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 7 of 11
as some of the neighboring properties. Also as part of this option is the economical discussion about
maintaining that pedestrian bridge as well as constructing a new bridge and so it was determined that it
was not feasible to do that either.
The third option is rehabilitation and repair to make sure the bridge will last another 50 years. Bristow
noted part of the issue with a rehab on a bridge is that nothing's going to be grandfathered in. There are
sidewalk width requirements, there are width of approaches to the bridge and things like that which
would all have to be brought up to the new bridge design guidelines if a rehabilitation took place. Also in
the DOT report they talk about the condition index, it's less than 50, which means it's in only fair
condition and because it's part of the national highway system, all of these things are negatives for its
condition. The bearing piles, some of them are creosote coated wood because that's what they used
years ago and they have a 20 ton bearing point value, where 90 ton is the current level. A rehab
typically has a 20 to 30 year service life, and the rehab deck and everything would outlast the structure
underneath, so that wouldn't be logical. Bristow noted in the way that the bridge was built, the interior
beams, under the middle of the span or the middle of the roadway, are bigger than the beams on the
outside, under the sidewalks. That's probably because at the time they just didn't need as much
structure on the outside but now they would need to make a wider road bed with a wider approach, with
wider sidewalks, and those small beams would be considered undersized for the road that would then
go over them, and they would have to put new outer beams that would be as big as the others and that
would impact the historic character of the bridge and that structure would be covered and modified. So
it was the DOT’s opinion that it is not possible to do a rehabilitation and maintain the historic integrity of
the bridge. In the report they also talked about how the width of the channel and how it is also
undermining some of the structure so they would like to actually make the bridge longer, so it spanned
further, so as the channel widened it wouldn't be impacted.
To recap, Bristow stated they have gone through this process and determined that, yes, they're going
to have an impact on a bridge that is historic and listed in the National Register, and because it's now
going to be a demolition it is definitely an adverse effect. Staff concurs with that opinion, but the
Commission needs to be considered a consulting party because Iowa City is the certified local
government in which the bridge exists. The State Historic Preservation Office is the group that takes
charge of this, and they are the ones who actually respond to the DOT, and they also agreed with all of
this process and the eventual determination. What that means is that the DOT must mitigate for the
loss of the historic structure. Bristow explained that one example of this happening once before in the
community was after all of the flooding which resulted in the destruction of the Saban School in the
South District. With that FEMA was involved and it resulted in that building needing to come down and
they mitigated the loss of that building by having that entire neighborhood surveyed so that they could
determine if there were other properties that were eligible for the National Register and did come up
with a small district that they started to try to get listed but then paused on that.
Next steps include that the State Historic Preservation Office, the DOT and anyone else involved in the
project will enter into a memorandum of agreement on how the DOT will mitigate the loss. Iowa City is
considered a consulting party and will be signatories on that memorandum of agreement and what the
mitigation is.
Bristow is not sure how they come up with a scope, there are huge scope projects and small scope
projects based on how the eventual dollar amount is determined. Generally, when a community has
this coming up they look to their preservation plan and what are the goals for the community. Staff will
need someone from this Commission to be involved, likely it will be Lewis as chair, but he is not back
until July, so if anyone else felt like they were interested, to be the alternate person, that would be help.
They will eventually meet with the DOT and State Historic Preservation Office at the site to look at the
bridge and have conversations about it.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 8 of 11
Bristow stated if a historic house had to come down because of some federal project, they would
maybe so some documentation of it and public education but with a bridge, it's pretty well documented
and not spectacular so as far as what they would want for a mitigation for a bridge like this might be a
survey of an adjacent area or related structures, but it's not an historic area of town either. Maybe they
can do a survey of a different area in town.
Sellergren suggested the Kirkwood Avenue area as that is on the work plan. Bristow stated a concern
with the Kirkwood Avenue neighborhood is that they have not even done a reconnaissance survey of
that neighborhood and it's gigantic, but it is one of the things that they will talk to the State about.
Bristow stated all the bridges had been studied in 2011 and there's actually a current study going on
right now for the more modern bridges as well. She thought about the airport as it is nearby had been
studied at one point in time, but it was done so long ago, so maybe a study of the airport because at
one point it was considered National Register eligible and its at least transportation based, even though
it's not related to the DOT.
Bristow also noted the preservation plan and its goals was updated in 2008 so it's time to update it
again so maybe updating the preservation plan is something that this project could help with. Another
goal might be identifying historic resources of the past and there's objectives and neighborhood
strategies. She was at the Preserve Iowa Summit last week and Muscatine has done a really good job
at keeping their preservation plan updated, and have done their plan so that it can help guide them in
things like this, they have come up with a list of what are the important topics or areas of research for
their community, for example one was fruit and vegetable sellers. They listed different specific things
that were part of the history of that city that they knew they wanted to investigate more over time and so
when a project like this comes up, or if an owner suggests something, or the commission suggests
something, they figure out if it will fit within one of their categories and then they start checking off those
things that they want to do. Bristow would also suggest that this Commission start gearing up for trying
to figure out how to get a preservation plan update, especially since the current one is from 2008 and
there are a lot of goals in it that have been accomplished, but also a lot that are not even in the
trajectory anymore.
Beck volunteered to help with this project scope, as a backup for Lewis.
Welu-Reynolds stated relating to transportation there was some talk a couple of years ago about doing
some kind of plaque identifying where the railroad tracks were over in the Jefferson Street area or
something like that. Bristow stated that doesn't seem big enough for this project scope.
Thomann was curious about mitigation, would they ever just give a city a lump sum of money and say
go spend it on something that's historic. Bristow replied, no, because part of it is that the agency gets it
accomplished, if there's a survey it goes to the agency who submits it to the State Historic Preservation
Office, Iowa City would be reading it and reviewing it over time as one of the signatories but it's not like
a grant where they're going to go hire the people and set all of the terms.
Thomann was thinking about projects like the park along the railroad tracks they've talked about, Oak
Grove, and the Hispanic historical significance of that. Also, the house sitting by the waterworks park,
maybe those are options.
Sellergren noted that the Montgomery Butler House is in a good location and could be a little visitor
center.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 9 of 11
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review:
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):
Bristow stated there is a modern garage and a deck at this house and they're replacing the deck, the
railing, there's some deteriorated trim.
HPC25-0029: 748 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (demolition and replacement of brick
front porch floor):
This house is from the 1950s, and it has an original brick porch floor that is sagged and pulling away
from the house. There likely isn’t sufficient structure under this porch floor so it's being replaced.
HPC25-0031: 115 South Dubuque Street - Local Historic Landmark (brick repair and replacement):
115 South Dubuque Street and 111 South Dubuque Street are under single ownership and both local
landmarks. 115 has a storefront painted white now and is the oldest commercial building in town. It's
the 1856 Franklin Printing house, and so it is National Register and local landmark. On both buildings
there's some brick work that needs to be done as the brick is cracked and pushed in and all of that's
going to be taken out and put back. Any new brick used will match.
HPC25-0033: 602 Rundell Street - Longfellow Historic District (window repair and replacement):
This house will have the windows repaired. Most of the deterioration was from trim outside, but there's
also some damage in the jam and where the jam and sill meet.
Minor Review - Staff Review:
HPC25-0022: 514 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (new rear deck, asphalt shingle
replacement on garage):
Bristow stated this is the other half of the project that was approved earlier. There will be a new rear
deck and then they were also putting new shingles on the garage roof.
HPC25-0027: 1029 E Court Street- Longfellow Historic District (asphalt shingle replacement):
This house has changed significantly through probably a 1930s remodel to make it look like a colonial
revival, but it had an interesting wrap around porch. This project is for new shingles.
HPC25-0029: 416 Reno Street - Local Historic Landmark (asphalt shingle replacement):
Bristow stated this is the approval for the shingles for the Reno Street house.
HPC25-0032: 119 N Gilbert Street - Jefferson Street Historic District (asphalt shingle replacement):
This house will also have shingle replacement.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 8, 2025:
MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
May 8, 2025, meeting. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Outgoing Commissioners Farewell: Bristow noted two commissioners are leaving, one of their positions
is filled and one is not and thanked Welu-Reynolds and Sellergren for all their hard work over the years.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2025
Page 10 of 11
ADJOURNMENT:
Welu-Reynolds moved to adjourn the meeting. Burford seconded. The motion carried on a vote
of 8-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
NAME EXP. 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 5/8 6/12
6/30/27 X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X
BROWN, 6/30/26 O/E O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E X
KEVIN 6/30/27 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E
RYAN 6/30/27 O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X
JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X
DEANNA 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
NICOLE 6/30/25 X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X X
FRANK 6/30/26 X X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X O/E
REYNOLDS, 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member