HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-25 Historic Preservation Commission - Canceledlowd City Historic Preservation Commission
Thursday
November
5:30 p.m.
1312025;
n
0 C", c
nrrII � L•
UO
a � �"`1••f ,Ij�
r+•MIN
�.
n1
. s `' .a �✓
C
Emma J. Harvat Hall
r
City Hall
c • Cam..- . C� ��,"�
ppmdm/HPC-StdC—F—d- C r
IOWA CM HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
TltttEnday, November 13, —
C'its H4 410 E. Washi.agton Sweet
Em= J_ Ha=c Hall
5:30 P.m.
Agenda
} -Cantor Order sleeting Canceled due to lack of quorum
B) n Call
Pa - discussion of and -thing nnr on the agenda
D) Cern . s of Appmpriateness
1. HPC2- - -1 v East College Street — College Gceea Historic Distacr fhisrouc ontbnildiag
ae:habi]11:zti iacbniyg roof material repIacemeait aad chimney de.litionl
?. HPC2-;-A4 +b= $Grant Street—Lovgfellavc Historic Distu�t 5reat enclosed pocc}a demolition and
new addition and ant balostxade demolition and front step feloea6i
E) Report on CereScates is ed by Chao and Staff
Certificate of No 11 aierial ect — Chou and Staff RH6ew
i . HPC'2.�-04-U= 152 7 ]duscatiae venue — Deuboan Sweet Consecration Distuct (stamp and window
}hill cep air gad replacement.
2. HPC23 0072: 903 E_ College Sweet — ollege Green Historic District 5sidiag replacement Protect on
accessory building and rcmcret2 step r aul
3. HPU2� W : 314 E_ Darpnpoa Street — side Histo z Dist6cr {repair progeee — rid g: roofwg•
bnch fiaasndariaa)
Minot Review — Staff Review
1. HPC25-0046: 60B Grant Street —Longfellow Histx1n
HPC25-OQ66: ?4? Grant SSueet —Longfellow Histxfrant stoop and step replaoenaeut;
3. HPC2S-W7l: S29 Kirkwood At e — Local Historic ;step and stoop replacement;
.. HPC2 OQ75=C2 Ronalds Street— Goasetoma fHoratye ]faau C anon District is�nthenc siding
temot�l)
5. HPC2_;-W 1050 Woodlawn Are — Woodlaac n Histotcc Distr: * (reply ent of asphalt roofing
shingles)
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review
1. HPC2 OQGB= 702 Grant Steet —Longfellow Hastaric District SAsp}aalr shingles iep cot;
2. HPC2� 00?3_ c130 S_ 5ommit Street — Sn..,,n, t Sweet Histouc Distuct (Repair of parch sl
F) -Consideration of Minutes fag October 9, 2025
G) Commi sion Infomtation
;., fILJKkLw }
Commission Disc srzioii
Pneseiration -Avruds — Sare the Date: Wednesdzy, :larch 25, 2026
2. America '23-0-PIxanine Comma tee
I) Adjournment
If sou wM need disabilay�-Elated accommodations a r m participate m tiais mcLetimzr please canner jessira ELL to ,
Urban PhnvinU at 31D356-5243 ar at jesabn4xiswwl oag. F.arlfi request- im stroogk enmumged to allow•
sufficient time to meet pour access needs-
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, November 13, 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. HPC25-0074: 715 East College Street— College Green Historic District (historic outbuilding
rehabilitation including roof material replacement and chimney demolition)
2. HPC25-0076: 718 Grant Street — Longfellow Historic District (rear enclosed porch demolition and
new addition and front balustrade demolition and front step relocation)
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review
1. HPC25-0070: 1527 Muscatine Avenue —Dearborn Street Conservation District (stucco and window
trim repair and replacement)
2. HPC25-0072: 803 E. College Street — College Green Historic District (siding replacement project on
accessory building and concrete step repair)
3. HPC25-0077: 314 E. Davenport Street— Northside Historic District (repair project— siding, roofing,
brick foundation)
Minor Review — Staff Review
1. HPC25-0046: 608 Grant Street — Longfellow Historic District (deteriorated rear window replacement)
2. HPC25-0066: 747 Grant Street — Longfellow Historic District (front stoop and step replacement)
3. HPC25-0071: 829 Kirkwood Avenue — Local Historic Landmark (step and stoop replacement)
4. HPC25-0075: 402 Ronalds Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (synthetic siding
removal)
5. HPC25-0080: 1050 Woodlawn Ave — Woodlawn Historic District (replacement of asphalt roofing
shingles)
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review
1. HPC25-0068: 702 Grant Street — Longfellow Historic District (Asphalt shingles replacement)
2. HPC25-0073: 430 S. Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (Repair of porch columns)
F) Consideration of Minutes for October 9, 2025
G) Commission Information
H) Commission Discussion
1. Historic Preservation Awards — Save the Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026
2. America 250 Planning Committee
I) 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
Prepared by:
Jessica Bristow
Historic Review for HPC25-0074: 715 East College Street
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: Carey Bostian
District: College Green Historic District
November 5, 2025
Classification: Key Contributing
Project Scope: This project rehabilitates a historic cottage on the site. The south
foundation wall will be replaced, the metal roof replaced with
asphalt shingles and the brick chimney removed.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.2 Chimneys
4.5 Foundations
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Property History:
This house is the Musser -Dixon House which is individually eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. It is a 2'/z story High Style Queen Anne with some
Stick Style elements. Mr. Musser owned a large lumber yard so his house was an
example of the many wood products available in his lumber yard. The main roof is a
gable -on -hip roof with gabled projections to the north (front) and west, with a hipped
projection to the east. The main front facing gable has a clipped gable with fishscale
siding. A three-story octagonal tower with a cone -shaped roof and Stick Style details fills
the northeast corner next to the front gable. Three decorative chimneys penetrate the
main roof. The full width front porch wraps around the east side and is screened in this
section. An eyebrow tympanum with a sunburst detail is located over the main north
entry. The porch has slender turned columns with jig saw brackets supporting a
spindled architrave. The low spindled balustrade, divided into two registers with short
bulbous spindles and decorative porch skirting are also historic. The walls are clad in
lap siding with corner boards. Each floor transition is marked by a wide band of shingled
siding that is canted out beyond the floor below. The rear of the house has a two story
gabled projection. The windows are typically on -over -one double hung sash windows
but some have decorative leaded glass. The front double door has a beveled glass
transom.
This property has a large 2-story carriage house, paved brick driveway, and a small
cottage that are all considered contributing resources. The carriage house was
damaged in the 2006 tornado. It had to be stabilized on it foundation. Its metal roof was
replaced with asphalt shingles and its chimney permanently removed.
Detailed Project Description:
This project is the rehabilitation of the historic cottage in the rear yard of the property.
The south foundation wall along the alley will be replaced with concrete block. Brick
facing will be used to replicate the existing locations of the original brick piers which
supported the building. As part of the project, the existing brick chimney, which is
completely unsupported will be demolished. Later, the standing seam metal roof on the
cottage will be removed and replaced with architectural asphalt shingles matching the
other buildings on the property.
Guidelines -
Section 4.2 Chimneys recommends:
• It is disallowed to remove prominent chimneys that are important to the historic
architectural character of the building.
Section 4.5 Foundations recommends:
• Correcting all sources of moisture and other circumstances that may cause
damage to the foundation wall and footings.
• Repairing historic foundations rather than replacing them.
Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends:
• Maintaining metal roofs rather than replacing.
• Using asphalt shingles that resemble the texture and color of weathered wood
shingles for roofs that had wood shingles historically.
• An exception exists: On a case -by -case basis, the Commission may consider
allowing replacement of metal roofs with an approved alternative material if
documentation is provided to establish evidence of need and of efforts to repair
existing damage.
Analysis:
The focus of this project is the rehabilitation of the cottage in the southwest corner of the
property. This cottage was constructed before 1920, (the first year this area was
included in the historic Sanborn fire Insurance maps). The owner included a statement
with some of the building's history in the application:
This cabin was originally the residence for the chauffeur. In the late 60's -
early 70's it was extended 6 feet on the east with a block foundation. Due
to water damage in the 70's from a burst pipe, the original Southeast pier
shifted and the building settled in the center. Action was taken to halt the
settling and the south side of the building was repaired (window reset,
siding). In the early 2000's another burst pipe caused further sinking in the
center of the building. Over the years, the chimney which was likely added
when the extension was done, has become unsupported at the bottom
Oust a few feet from the SE pier. Over the last 20 years, it has sunken into
the roof. While not an immediate danger of collapse, it is not safe in the
long term.
Most of the work includes the replacement of the south foundation wall which will be
replaced with concrete block. Brick facing, flush with the block, will be included to match
the existing foundation and continue to show the evolution of this building. The existing
opening in the block portion of the wall will not remain. This part of the project could be
approved by staff. The remainder of the project involves the demolition of the chimney
and the removal and replacement of the metal roof with shingles.
In Staff's opinion, while this cottage is a contributing part of this property and is an
important part of the history of this property, the existing chimney has deteriorated
severely. It is no longer structurally sound because of the lack of support. In addition,
this chimney is not architecturally significant, so staff recommends that its demolition is
approved through an exception to the guidelines.
We can tell from the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps that all of the buildings on this
property had wood shingle roof originally. They were all changed to a standing seam
metal roof between 1926 and 1933. The roof on the main house was changed to an
asphalt shingle in the 1970s. After the 2006 tornado, the carriage house was repaired
and the metal roof and its chimney were removed. Asphalt shingles matching the house
were installed. In Staff's opinion, the roof of the cottage is damaged and replacing it with
asphalt shingles will match the rest of the property and reflect the wood shingle it
originally had. Staff recommends approval through the use of the documented
exception in the guidelines.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 715 E
College Street through an exception in the guidelines as presented in the staff report.
715 East College Street — northeast corner of cottage (note the vertical trim board that
demarcates the addition to the left)
•.p,�, p fib � � `Y� +.,.. _ •.,Y •" "�.s'fju
—=ti0p;-:�'.: idol
715 East College Street - south wall and roof of cottage showing the chimney and
foundation settling pulling the roof downward
715 East College Street — Cottage detail of south foundation wall
Staff Report November 5, 2025
Prepared by: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0076: 718 Grant Street
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: Julie Marston
Contact person: Peter Correll, Martin Construction
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: This project includes the demolition of the existing rear enclosed
porch and the construction of a new addition in its place. The
project also includes the demolition of a portion of the historic
balustrade to relocate the front stair from a side entry to the porch
to a front entry to the porch.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.1 Balustrades and Handrails
4.3 Doors
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
4.10 Porches
4.13 Windows
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Property History:
This 1-story cube cottage is one of the earlier houses in the neighborhood, constructed
ca.1890-1900. It is a vernacular Victorian brick house with segmental arched window
and door openings and projecting brick sills. The roof is a bell -cast hipped roof that was
originally wood shingle, then covered with standing seam terne-coated metal, and
recently replaced with an agricultural metal roof. The eave is a wide, open eave with
exposed rafter tails and beadboard cladding. The full -width front porch is subsumed
under the main roof and has slender brick piers that extend the full height from grade to
roof. The balustrade is solid with lap siding cladding and a side entry stair. The windows
are flat-topped double hung sash with four vertical lites over a single lite.
The house was built with a half -width rear open porch that has been altered and
enclosed. The shed roof dormers are also likely additions constructed prior to 1940.
They are clad in lap siding matching the balustrade. The historic garage was
demolished, and a new one was built in 1997. The brick was painted at an unknown
date. When the roof was replaced, the central chimney was removed without approval.
Detailed Project Description:
This project consists of two parts. The first part is the demolition of a rear porch and
construction of a new addition in its place. The addition will be 8 feet deep and about 13
feet wide. It will be set in from the north corner of the house and will not cover the
existing rear window in the house. The addition will have a shed roof. There will be one
window each on the north and south sides and two windows and a door facing the rear
(east). A stoop and step will lead into the rear yard. The addition will be clad in lap
siding.
The second part of the project is the demolition of the south half of the historic
balustrade, the installation of intermediate support posts and the relocation of the side
stairs to the front of the porch. A new balustrade would be constructed on the south side
of the porch.
The proposal includes using Andersen E-series windows which are a metal -clad wood
window (not wood as mentioned in the application), composite steps, painted wood
railings, wood siding, a wood or metal entrance door and roof material matching the
existing roof.
Guidelines:
Section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends:
• Constructing or replacing missing balustrades by using historic photographs or
by choosing a style that is consistent with the architectural style of the building.
• Historic Balustrades and Handrails: it is disallowed to remove historic balustrades
or railings.
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in
the building.
• 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 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends:
• Preserving the original roof pitches and spans.
• Preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a
historic building.
Section 4.10 Porches recommends:
• Porches are the focus of many historic buildings and help define their overall
character.... Front porches and sun porches should be preserved for both their
architectural character and social value.
• Constructing or replacing missing balustrades and handrails using historic
photographs or in a style that is consistent with both the building and
neighborhood (See section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails for more details).
• Leaving exposed the support piers below the porch columns. Skirting must be
added to fill the space below the porch floor and grade if this space is 18 inches
of greater. The skirt must be located between the porch piers.
Section 4.13 Windows recommends:
• 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.
Section 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint recommends:
• Distinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition. This may be
accomplished easily by offsetting the walls of the addition from the walls of the
original structure or by connecting additions with a breezeway.
• Matching key horizontal "lines" on the existing building, such as water table, eave
height, window head height and band boards, in order to provide continuity
between the addition and the historic structure.
• Using a palette of materials that is similar to that used on the historic structure.
• Placing building additions at the rear of a property, if possible.
• Installing doors in additions that match the material of historic doors, and have a
similar style and appearance as the historic doors in the existing building.
• Following the guidelines for new doors in section 4.3 Doors.
• Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation
in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile.
• Constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the
historic building. This requires that the wall areas and corners, as well as the roof
pitches and spans are all consistent with the existing building and have a
proportion that is similar to that of the existing building.
• Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they
match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building. When the
eaves of an addition intersect the eaves of the existing building, care should be
taken to assure that the two eaves align properly. The trim details of a new eave
should match the eave details of the existing building.
• Exceptions for rear additions in Historic District:
o For additions to foundations, it is acceptable to match the color of the
original foundation by using paint or masonry stain rather than matching
the material and appearance of the original foundation material.
o Additions to masonry structures may be sided with wood. The siding type
must be consistent with the age and architectural style of the historic
building. The trim must be consistent with both the siding type and the
architectural style of the building. Any substitute materials must be
durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structure or Significant Features recommends:
• A Certificate of Appropriateness is also required for the removal of any portion of
a building, such as a porch, porch balustrade, decorative brackets and trim,
dormers, chimney or other architecturally significant components on any
structure within a district, or on any landmark.
• Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly
detract from the building's historic character or that are structurally unsound and
are a safety hazard.
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 rear porch no longer resembles the historic open porch
that was originally constructed in this location. The structure is deteriorating, and the
porch piers no longer exist, having been replaced with stacked concrete block.
Demolishing this structure for a new addition is an acceptable alteration.
The new addition will utilize the documented exception for additions to masonry
structures to allow it to be clad in wood siding. Matching the historic masonry for an
addition is difficult (even more difficult here since the brick is painted) and in this case
would detract from the historic cube structure if the addition was also constructed of
brick. Instead, the siding will match the historic balustrade and the later dormers which
have lap siding and corner boards, common in Victorian houses.
In the drawings, there are several unknown elements in this addition and staff has
several comments and suggestions for revisions:
• Only flat casing is shown around the windows and door. Staff recommends that
the addition include all of the standard trim, including a watertable at the base of
the wall, a frieze board at the top of the wall, and a vertical trim board where the
addition meets the existing brick, copying the corner boards at the outside
corners which would also employ corner boards at inside corners.
• On the main house, the foundation is brick like the upper wall and a soldier
course of brick demarcates the location of the watertable. In the rendering, the
addition foundation extends up through the area of the watertable, and the wood -
clad structure sits above that. In order to comply with the guidelines and the
matching of horizontal lines, the watertable on the addition should align with the
brick soldier course on the house.
• The proposed foundation material is not included in the application. The
guidelines would recommend that the foundation is a matching brick and since it
is disallowed to paint masonry, it would remain unpainted. For this reason, staff
recommends that the exception for foundations is utilized and recommends that
the addition has a concrete foundation. If constructed of concrete block, staff
recommends a stucco coating.
Originally staff had originally recommended a simple shed roof for this addition,
thinking it may be able to tie in and comply with the guidelines. After a full review
with drawings, staff recommends that a hipped roof would better comply with the
guidelines. This would allow the eave to continue on all sides of the addition,
continuing that horizontal line. It would allow the matching eave condition of the
exposed rafter tails would be on all three sides. It would also comply with the
guidelines that the addition is consistent with the massing and rooflines on the
historic building.
The proposal suggests that the addition will have roof panel material matching
the existing roof, however, the existing roof on the house is an inappropriate
agricultural metal roof. Guidance from the National Park Service led to the
review, beginning in 2015, of roof material changes in historic districts and on
landmarks to avoid the installation of this type of roof material in particular. For
this reason, staff recommends that the addition has a membrane roof if it remains
a shed style, or is clad in architectural asphalt shingles if it is changed to a hip
roof. This will allow the addition to comply with the guidelines. Later, when the
main roof metal needs to be replaced or begins to leak, it can be replaced with
appropriate asphalt shingles (since it will not be able to utilize this particular type
of metal roof again) and the addition will match.
The addition door is proposed to be a wood or metal door. Staff finds that metal
doors are inappropriate because they dent and rust and are more difficult to
maintain than a wood or fiberglass door, regardless of their paintability. Staff
recommends that the door is wood or fiberglass instead.
The second part of the project consists of alterations to the historic front porch. This
porch has a side entrance original to the house. While most porches in town have stair
access in a straight line from the sidewalk to the front door, there are several
architecturally unique properties in town with side entry porches. In most cases, this
access provided a larger usable space and smooth, clean line of the porch at the
faQade. In many cases, such as this one, the side access porch is also subsumed under
the main porch roof. Three examples of the houses in town with side entry porches
include: 430 Brown Street, 707 Rundell and 728 East College Street (all built in different
architectural styles).
At 718 Grant Street, the sidewalk leads straight from the public sidewalk to the stair at
the south side of the porch. Since the balustrade is historic it is disallowed to remove it
according to the guidelines. It is part of the historic architectural character of this
property and as the guidelines state, porches are the focus of many historic buildings
and help define their architectural character. For this reason, staff does not recommend
approval of this demolition and alteration and notes it would need to be approved
through an exception to the guidelines. Since there is no documented exception for
approval of this type of alteration, it would need to be determined that this is an
uncommon situation warranting this demolition and alteration.
If the Commission is inclined to approve the alteration through exception, staff has
further comments on the proposal. The current proposal for the new street -facing stairs
includes two intermediate posts to support small sections of the balustrade and wood
railings and steps with treads made of composite material. These posts do not have
corresponding piers for support under the floor and they do not match the monumental
brick columns on this house which are narrow but span from grade to roof. Staff
recommends that any proposed step spans from one pier and column to the next pier
and column as is typical for historic porches. This would most closely replicate the
simple clean lines of the existing porch by not increasing the complexity of the porch
with additional columns or posts.
In response to this suggestion, the applicant provided examples of historic porches in
the neighborhood where the steps span from a column (or a sidewall of the house in the
case of a half -width porch) to a shorter column or pier instead of spanning from one
column to another column. In this neighborhood and community there are numerous
Foursquares and Craftsman bungalows, like these examples, that utilize a half column
as the end point for the balustrade at the stair. These examples are not from the same
era and are not built in the same style as 718 Grant Street. Also, in the examples
provided by the applicant, the short column matches the other columns, and it rests on
a historic pier that matches the other porch pier (or the pier, matching the others, rises
to the level of the balustrade). In most historic properties in town, the porch steps span
from one porch pier to another, which means they span from one column (or half
column) to another. It should be noted that 617 Grant Street is an alteration, not the
historic configuration.
In order to comply with the guidelines, a new intermediate post would both match the
existing columns and be supported by a matching pier. In this case, it would be a pier
matching the existing brick columns, and it would be capped just above the balustrade
heigh, likely with limestone. Staff finds that this alteration will impact the historic
character of the property by demolishing part of the historic balustrade and creating a
false historic character. Adding in two short posts to support the balustrade also
increases the complexity of this porch balustrade, especially since the stair handrail
must be taller than the existing balustrade, further impacting the historic character of the
property. For this reason, if the Commission is inclined to approve the relocation of the
stairs, staff recommends that they span from one existing column to another and utilize
a metal handrail similar to the existing one or other houses with tall masonry piers or
columns.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition project at
718 Grant Street, through the use of an exception to the guidelines for foundation
material, and as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:
■ The addition includes all of the standard trim as described in the staff report with
a watertable aligned with the solider brick course on the house
■ The roof is revised to a hip roof with asphalt shingles and exposed rafter tails
■ The passage door is wood or fiberglass
■ The porch alteration is not approved
If the Commission determines that they will approve the porch alteration, staff
recommends replacing the last condition with the following:
■ The porch alteration is approved through an exception to the guidelines with the
condition that the new porch steps span from one porch column to another
without intermediate posts and the steps utilize a metal handrail attached to the
brick columns and reviewed by staff.
M-
d
i
er em
OLN .
Y
Rpm
R
Wm 4
, 4
'OVA
Vic
, NI
i
■
vr
... .[ ;�� r• is k �� •i:: � �
�:T � :. ter_ .. ..-� � ,�• .-�,i��1r.'�
r
707 Rundell Street- a historic side entry porch
728 East College Street — A historic side -entry porch
Additional images submitted with the application
L
North side of existing rear enclosed porch
Additional images submitted with the application
Back of house and rear existing porch
Additional images submitted with the application
Front porch at stair
Additional images submitted with the application
Balustrade opposite stair
I Ai
���\��/�\\\\�/��
��� ���� � �� � � /.\
)W8 City, Iowa + r {� # r �'
wgle strut View •r"; w'
it 2024 See more dates . + ' �` • = ,.�. , �' 'i
NL
rid
+ IS
�F
Ar
rti ;
%
56
16 b
A
I
f
r-
r�
Google Daps
r�
.ir•
t
R 1� do 9 low
'91L IL
do r
■
,t. ,
tIWO
y 1 ti w. Lo
' t1'• •
Iowa City, Iowa . a, ++ * w.. ` .*
G0ogleStreet View ;�, 17� .� -' - t r "' -t 4 •#� • r, *, , T
d A*
Jut 2024 See more slates T,� � � �•-��}, � '�� ,�.� �;� a +., ,'
* °'
pp
Y�� r*. �r�*;r �.� xr 'i .�.� [[•� .• yam+ �~ yR' All + i F, ferry �T•
if LA " _ 4 's1l�i: 4_ * i . ti � • r' ' v • + ,AL# .� yL rfi ' `. r - OL
All -
TO 41 41p,
01
li
IL
• 4 • r # $ we-orer� - ?� r'•. . - yam, - - ` r -
'! I _ ~+'Y;± "r` N # _ €+ ��" _ * - # - •tom q.ry40
* + +' - - - ' r �y__ '' _~' t•{ _ _{;� #ems -r{k r ; �Y
orl
t �
-IPI +
91
MdEMdPP
cif I' �'i� � �.- +� � �i
f iy1 aF'y _ - - +
LOU- low-
705 Grant St
Iowa City, Iowa
0 Google SUM View
V.
35;, W-sr
r .+
'�� •ram - + . � -
i yl �1 Oki,.
F y L L. j ■
':`_ • k _. 4+ x I _y. k f Y• S' 4 I r r f ' u J' r +• a i
Ar
3L_,
_ x '
pr
I. - � i•4 f
F'LrrJ - ' '�� r y7r' +' t�_} a' _ '. r! •� :�.� 1. �+ i,; ^1�
- Y���� Y •_ ~ � - r - - I�Y •F + - _ � _-- a r� � -A�ALPAror
+#
1
- TMI.
' I - � T t _ i■ J �
{+'' ' f
i_
low
y ~
r 49P
`r•#
L
_%k
'11 Grant St
OW8 -City, Powa
Google Street View
V 2024 See more dates
t
N
Aid
NPI
442
it
lp
.�
{r., mmk
-4 -,§ -
16 r'
- P1.
G7 W
Google Mops
-P i-
Xi
ilty, iOr�+' . y" F " i r . e 5', y - r r �.. ': jf �. ' •'
bk.
Gwgle Street mew .� y * '' • #. •.' r
MIN4'_4 SL'e I'lOre VC9s �3 t R ► ri F - Al
A'ip
'++R;y a }
TF——
#4
W—K
,iF*-�y '
I jfm
VL
41.
- ' r —fir- •.' t -�- _ - f+ * -
I.— dip r *y - "r '
qr Will
- 1p
Plp
lb
r —■ t
jr ;-A �. -f ■+ �` r#
_ .;r ;, .� �-ram• ,� --, , _ �
jr
t
o e maps _
3 ram -St
City, Iowa
mangle Strom Mew
i
4
f
od
.41
JPL-
r s -Oop
Ilk' Ve '+PY
A.
.al `•.+fir � - F �.-�{,� j 4 - T --�,y •a � " ` # T
rr
�,.`#j yr' j'•,a,t� +' .,�_�. +'i
'+ y -A—i
wL
h !
s
j.
d1f 1
x dv lk
AT-
. � �.. r ,
APy
737 ant St I
Iowa City, Iowa
Jul 2024 See more d tes , ;46
+ '
r !ram L - T yT y a ' M1 • ' * y i■ `
�. V 4.
y
0
� a t
Fj
I
Y�
� L
Iq�
w
j����5555• �� fyF ' FJ
' r r rt�{' r■4• i41 44
J
Google Maps
-.
- - — - �O_
fir* � ■
y ' + % a
Is k
Y
f i
741 Grant St
s
4
{�Ya�iY's1•a, IjC'',': J*y�••�� �y�+•
� OO& Street YI r* ■■
Jul 2024 See more dates
■ rPI
` * h 4' ` err. •'r . ' _ [ T'
+ +
WL
-+ 'r
. # + * �F _Yk •r +4 i f 4•�•i i 1 •+! J��rt * �'1+ R — +�'3 4• 7 ffi - .
Arl
14
lift
OP5 �
I
F
dL
r, •••
` +�
i
J.,�.� 1F �• � + � ti yY
r
Google maps
3 }
Ar
Ap-
-
.'i y F
11 ' - 11 7/9" 19' - 0 7/9"
First Floor Plan
1/411 = 1'-011
10/22/25
Project North
T
Sple 1/4"=1'-0"
First Floor Existing
1
E
First Floor Plan
i1� 1/411 = 1'-011
z
757
E Z
Ix 0
i c
O Z
N
N
�/ In
i = Q
cc
U U
cc
2 00
r
10/22/25
Project North
T
Sple 1/4"=V-0"
First Floor Proposed
'+� :`•��� ...(R raw `* �ti *✓ • xe r1 `%
rT
' c
�`
Y _P61.
I I I L
i
I
• '- _ - :4. - '6C/- ;� •*c�f'}+.'•Y�' a �i
.! - •- � ... , ,� - .` .. � � . .,� - � . - r _ .. {•:r }• � ,.emu, x� ; .h�. ��-� "` --
_� u Y f _� _ -•may w+' •, •1,ti .. r '- � _ 1 .��� i• ••1 _ , n w =: _ �. - r ��
•� _f.Y-• i --r •`.- .. `.r ' 1- -�� •:�` •1,. '.x\+]; � ♦:. - •J �l. J'1r �•. �a. [y, �[.��, .\-(.Jr l� +�v. � _•
•.' - • / - r - 4' •-'�'•] r - 4 . J - } .+)#.• .f,?!�`�'� , •-'•1 :fir r. i a �ti,' �:�
t • ►4r' ,� •_ 7 p r. �� •.r y.. 1 +r r4 . :i� ��it` . ` .. i. _ ,ti y 7 .�1,�i F'
- ' .. � � A - •-�. � �' r..r , - w i � . .. , .a , ,i '' � ' : -%� _4rr - •, � � ` • -+�. • ���'+� I r y _ } �II i ,S }%:�. j 1 1' S `'r ' ' S.
do
N
MA
0 op -0 f- ..- - .. �.
At 140
OF _sue v - �: _ .�.fi A •+� _ '�'y'•
...,. J `H 4� • ��¢ •! � _ .i'► .'r..i'� to
1
,1�� •.Y. �• ihY� �1��� r'''y f.
�r� • 1
ti �x
NI•1 f. 'f • •• �-. .vlt
.t•�
I I I.1II11I
r
i''`i � J i7'iS��ti � _ �•'_}. �► i :r� .k �-",'.j � Y - . � fie, •,,r �-= .-...
r'-
�
:41210
W
50" wfl� �4--
Rl
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOB E R 9, 2025 — 5:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Burford, Austin Curfman, Andrew Lewis, Deanna
Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown, Ryan Russell
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Martin, Frank Durham, Alex Andino
CALL TO ORDER:
Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CONSENT AGENDA — CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC25-0054: 622 North Van Buren Street - Brown Street Historic District (rear deck demolition and
door to window alteration):
Bristow stated she emailed everyone about how a consent agenda works. This project will not be
presented in order to keep things moving. This is a project where it complies with the guidelines
completely, so we can answer any questions but otherwise the Commission will make a motion,
discuss if needed, and then vote.
MOTION: Thomann moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 622 North Van
Buren Street, as presented in the staff report, which includes the removal of the rear deck and staircase
and the replacement of the associated door with a window.
Villanueva seconds the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC25-0030: 317 Fairchild Street- Northside Historic District (metal roof replacement and Yankee
gutter removal):
Russett stated this is a proposed roof replacement project on a house that was built between 1907 and
1912 and incorporates aspects of the Queen Anne style and the American Foursquare style. This
project is a replacement of a deteriorated metal roof with architectural asphalt shingles and the removal
of internal gutters and their replacement with external gutters. Russett shared some photographs to
show the deterioration of the roof.
In terms of the guidelines, the guidelines recommend repairing original built in gutters but there is an
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 2 of 16
exception in the guidelines to remove original gutters that are unable to be repaired. In terms of mass
and roof lines, the guidelines recommend preserving historic trim, and in terms of metal roofs they are
recommended to be repaired, but on a case by case basis, the Commission can consider their removal
and replacement with an approved alternative material due to deterioration, which is the case here that
the roof was determined to be too deteriorated to be repaired by Pardekooper Construction and they
recommend replacement. Mr. Pardekooper has experience painting and repairing metal roofs, but he
took a look at the roof and said it was too far gone to repair. Russett noted the removal of metal roofs
will remove the internal gutters, which cannot be constructed in the same way with new roofing
materials, even true for a new standing seam metal roof. The interior gutters on the rear portion of the
house will be removed with the roof material and external gutters would be installed and staff finds that
the removal of the internal gutters on the rear projection does not impact the historic character of the
house. The internal gutters on the east projecting bay and front porch will not be removed.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 317 Fairchild, which
includes the replacement of a metal roof with architectural asphalt shingles and the removal of the
internal gutters on the rear of the house through the use of an exception.
MOTION: Wagner moves to approve for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 317 Fairchild
Street, as presented in the staff report, which includes the replacement of a metal roof with architectural
asphalt shingles and removal of the internal gutters on the rear of the house through the use of an
exception to the guidelines to allow the removal of the internal gutters.
Villanueva seconded the motion.
Thomann understands these are old roofs and they get beyond repair, but it does make her sad and
she feels like a lot of these gutters could be repaired. She acknowledged they are going to a different
material, so this gutter is not going to function the way it may be originally did, but it makes her
disappointed. However, because staff is recommending approval, she is comfortable with that.
Burford stated he is happy that it's in the rear of the of the property.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
HPC25-0050: 721 Grant St - Lonafellow Historic District (rear demolition and new addition):
Bristow stated this house is a bungalow and a couple of years ago they had gone through an approval
process for an addition on the back of the house. The house was built in 1923 as a side gabled roof
with a shed roof dormer on the front. On the back, is a similar shed roof dormer as well as an addition
from about 1960 with an entryway to that area that's been enclosed. The plan is to remove both the
addition and the enclosed entryway and to create a new addition on the back of the house with a stoop
and step that is no longer enclosed. Bristow noted one of the main points with this particular project is
they have a very large old oak tree, and similar to the previous project that was approved, the goal is to
avoid disturbing the roots of the tree and not damage it so that it would have to come down. Therefore,
this addition will not have a typical foundation and instead it will be constructed on helical piers that will
be screwed into the ground, and that basically distributes the weight through the piers and helps to
avoid damaging the roots. Bristow stated one of the exceptions that was approved in the past, that staff
recommends approving here as well, is to create a foundation that appears similar to the house instead
of matching the foundation on the house, and that's to protect the oak tree.
Bristow shared images of the house plan and the portion that will be removed and the new addition.
She noted it is basically a kitchen addition with a couple pairs of windows on the west wall and a couple
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 3 of 16
pairs of windows and a door on the north wall, as well as the stoop and step. The roof will tie into the
down slope of the rear portion of the gable and it'll come up just a little higher on the wall of the dormer
than the existing addition, but it will match the slope of the dormer roof above. Bristow pointed out the
stoop and step are not covered by the roof, the roof overhang is 2' and the stoop and step will project
beyond that. Bristow shared the site plan details and elevations noting a big two car garage and that all
of the area up against the house is paved. Bristow pointed out in the staff report that most of the
windows are individual on this house, the front pair is a pair of windows which makes it more
architecturally significant. On the south side of the addition they have proposed to not have any
windows, on the west facing wall they have proposed two pairs of windows and will retain the window in
the back wall of the house. On the north elevation they can see the stoop and step, the entry door and
one of the pairs of windows, and again on the south wall of the new addition they're not proposing any
windows.
Bristow stated there are numerous guidelines that relate to this project, there are guidelines about the
stoop and step and the baluster and handrails, there are guidelines about adding new door openings
and trimming them to match the existing ones and also there is a guideline about the material for doors,
and typically they don't approve metal doors, they approve either a wood door or a fiberglass door that
could be painted in replacement for wood. Mass and roof line guidelines recommend preserving the
original roof pitches and spans which will be preserved in this case and preserving the original walls
and vertical corners that define the massing of a building, which will also be preserved here. For siding
the applicant has proposed a cement board or LP and the house has mitered corners in the siding so
staff worked with them so that their drawings include aligning the lap and the addition will also have
those mitered corners. Regarding windows the guidelines recommend matching the overall
appearance of the historic windows, which is what the applicant has proposed, adding new windows in
a location that's consistent, using wood or metal clad wood, and then there is a guideline about the
simulated divided lights. Matching key horizontal lines in the building is one guideline that is reviewed in
additions and they look at the eave line, window heads, windowsills, etc.
Bristow shared more guidelines about additions, making sure that the wall areas and the roof pitches
and spans are all consistent with the existing building. In this case the addition's roof line will match the
slope of the dormer above. Constructing roof overhangs and soffits and eaves so that they match. She
stated it is noted that one of the things that is disallowed is leaving large expanses of wall surface
uninterrupted by windows and doors and that's because a lot of modern homes have windows on the
back and in the front and nothing on the side, but that is not the case in a historic house, historic
houses have windows on all sides in order to take advantage of natural light, being able to look across
backyards, and in order to avoid having a large expanse of wall that is completely unadorned.
Bristow stated there are two exceptions they need to utilize for this addition, and they were both also
used for the previous approval. First is the one about foundations, where it's acceptable just to match
the color and in this case they would be using a material to make a fake stucco to be similar to the
stucco foundation on the house. The other exception allows for additions on the back of a house to not
necessarily replicate all of the trim details but would still expect them to have the basic details like frieze
boards at the top of the wall. However, this house actually has brackets and they're not proposing to
add that here because it is just a one story addition and the brackets seen on the house are up on the
main roof and on the dormers. Staff does recommend moving the north wall in so that the stoop
terminates before the corner, partly because of the big two car garage and a bunch of pavement, and
that the pavement goes right up to the house, but also to avoid having that stoop and step project
beyond the side of the house. Also, currently the drawings show the eave height of the addition is
higher than the eave height on the main roof so staff would recommend that it was dropped slightly so
that the eave fits with the window head and everything is similar to what is on the main house. Staff
also recommends that the south wall incorporates a window or two. Bristow also noted all of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 4 of 16
windows that are shown on the addition are paired windows and on the house they only have one
paired window on the front, which is architecturally significant, but the rest of the house is all individual
windows, so staff would recommend that that window patterning is what is matched in the addition to
comply with the guidelines.
Bristow stated the staff recommendation includes conditions that would alter the project to comply with
the guidelines so the Commission can pick and choose or do however they wish with those conditions.
Andy Martin spoke as the contractor on the job and admittedly it may not be the way things were done
150 years ago or whatever, but the floor plan is driven by the internal workings of the house. So in
order to get the space they needed in the new kitchen they had to push that window over towards the
driveway side and then also that's the reason they don't have windows on the south wall, because it
would really disrupt the floor plan and the way they intend to use the house. Martin also noted the new
addition will stick out another foot or two from what the old addition but from the street they're not going
to see this addition and that's why they were hoping to get some leniency on this, again it will greatly
affect the way they can use their home and the floor plan that they've laid out. Martin stated he doesn't
think it's going to affect the character of the neighborhood, all the neighbors directly to the south will be
able to see that, but they've been looking at that view for 65 years or whatever and have seen an
addition with no windows on it, so it's not going to be a major change for them. It'll actually be an
upgrade because there'll be a nicer space, the siding will look better and the structure will be nicer, but
it won't severely impact what they're used to seeing.
Lewis asked if putting a window on the south side, to not have just a blank wall, how would that
influence how they use the space. Martin confirmed it would due to the way the kitchen is laid out. If
they were to put a window in there, they would have to move the stove, and that would probably affect
the island and would take away some cabinet space.
MOTION: Beck moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 721 Grant Street as
presented in the staff report through the use of exceptions to the guidelines for the foundation and
simplified trim with the following conditions:
• The north wall is set in so that the stoop and step terminate before the corner of the house.
• The eave height is lowered to match the house.
• Windows are added to the south wall of the addition.
• Windows are revised to reflect the window patterning on the historic house.
• Window and door product information is submitted for review.
Villaneuva seconded the motion.
Thomann noted they've had projects that have used a fake window before.
Villanueva stated to her it is not that big of a deal if that south wall doesn't have a window, if it's
possible to do fake window, she is all for it but out of all these adjustments that one is very low on the
list.
Burford stated it is offset by the fact that there would no longer be the two skylights, which are not
historic and not terribly esthetic, so there's a tradeoff there.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 5 of 16
Wagner noted going back to the number of windows, there are now four windows and if they reduce the
two on the west side to one each, down to two total, and put one on the south side, they'd have three
windows instead of four, which would free up wall space for cabinets. He noted the concern about what
is seen from the street, that eave height in the back might not be such a big deal to match the house,
because they really might not see but the window patterning, and the window on the south wall, he
thinks they'd want to have a window in the south wall for morning light, especially since they are getting
rid of the ones that are in the ceiling.
Lewis agrees that it's not super visible from the street and they make a lot of judgments based off of
that. He questions the stoop and step and is there anything in the guidelines that says the stoop and
step must be set or is this just a concern of visibility. Bristow noted generally if they have an addition,
they want the whole thing set back so that they aren't seeing a tiny portion of it projecting beyond the
house. She can think of an addition on College Street that was approved, but that was case where
there was no driveway and they had an alley garage, but that addition was set in maybe 18 inches and
then they had a stoop and step that projected out. She acknowledged they have approved additions or
stoop and steps that project in the past. Lewis stated as long as the main part of the addition is set in,
but the stoop and step aren't, and if it doesn't actually violate the guidelines, it's okay.
Villanueva noted the concern would be when they walk past it, what would they see. For her it wouldn't
bother her if she was walking past and saw a stoop and step hanging out a little bit.
Thomann asked what balustrade or railing would they see from the side. Bristow stated it would look
just like any stoop and step that is approved, the railing would need to follow the guidelines and under
the stoop there would be a post aligned with the railing post above. Thomann asked if there would be a
roof covering. Bristow noted on the drawing they're putting on the new addition a 2' overhang to match
the main one on the house so it would cover a portion, but it won't cover the whole stoop and step.
Villanueva asked if they did not approve the exception, would the stoop and step have to be 2' smaller.
Bristow stated they would have to move the wall in 2' because code wise they couldn't make the stoop
smaller.
Bristow stated typically, they would require a post in the railing, even though it is not drawn that way,
and they would also require that there's a corresponding post below that, and the space would be
enclosed with skirting, which is required to match the skirting on the front of the house. Those are all
parts of the guidelines that go with stoops and steps.
Lewis stated then the major concern would be the window on the south side of the house, and the
windows overall because one of the conditions is to make them single windows instead of twin
windows.
The Commission discussed the conditions on the motion.
Beck amends the previous motion to remove the first two conditions.
AMENDED MOTION: Beck moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 721
Grant Street as presented in the staff report through the use of exceptions to the guidelines for the
foundation and simplified trim with the following conditions:
Windows are added to the south wall of the addition.
Windows are revised to reflect the window patterning on the historic house.
Window and door product information is submitted for review.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 6 of 16
Villanueva seconds the amended motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
HPC25-0056: 415 Clark Street- Clark Street Conservation District (new aaraae):
Bristow sated this is a regency style home, which is actually very rare in Iowa City, it has a low,
moderate hipped roof. It has quoins, which historically would be stone and are meant to reinforce the
corners but here it's just for style. There's lap siding below a smooth pseudo stucco kind of finish on the
second floor. On the upper level there are some arched wall dormers, two on each wall all the way
around the house, and the entryway has a little copper hood. This house does have a historic garage
that was built at the same time, but it's just a small one car garage, and the applicant is wanting a larger
garage. Bristow explained it is not possible to expand the existing attached garage to the north,
because the property line is much closer than the fence that is there. She stated they always in
preservation like to try to keep the historic garage if possible, so the proposal is to leave it and retain it
as a garage and to build a second garage in the backyard.
In 2005 the Commission approved an addition, it has a similar hipped roof and while the house has a
very small eave overhang which is very indicative of this Regency style, the addition has a little bit
larger overhang because they like to build overhangs in modern properties for shade and to prevent as
much water from running down the wall.
The plan is to add a curb cut and driveway that goes along the south side of the property and to place a
garage in the back corner of the property. Bristow stated they typically don't necessarily approve a
second curb cut on a property and tend to prefer to have one or have a garage entered off an alley.
However, in this location there is no alley and the only way to save the existing garage is to add a
second curb cut. Bristow also noted putting the garage in the back corner of the property will minimize
its impact on the neighborhood as it's a large lot. The proposal is a two story garage, they plan to have
a recreation space above, the bump out on the north side is where the stairs are to the upper level. The
garage will include wall dormers to match the house. She stated it has a complicated roof, with the
bump out, but staff will support that design decision because it helps minimize the size of everything
and won't compete with the house. Bristow shared the rendering of the garage noting a very wide eave
overhang shown so staff does recommend that it is reduced, not to the point where it matches the lack
of overhang on the house, but at least reducing it down so that it's similar to the other addition, or even
smaller, which will help with the gutter situation and the downspouts and how they come out. The
existing historic garage has a flat roof with a terrace on it, which is an alteration, the new garage will be
sitting down a little bit lower than the house which helps minimize its presence. They've included three
wall dormers on the front facade of the garage, which is more complicated than the house, which only
has two, so part of the recommendation is to reduce it so that they're not competing with the house and
making something that's more elaborate.
The products they will be using for the new garage are a smooth Hardie board siding, the lap would
match the house, which is fairly wide, it would be mitered at the corners. They have chosen an
overhead door configuration that is generally approved. It would have composite overlay squared
windows, the windows are on this project are a vinyl window and because this is a conservation district,
there is an exception to the guidelines to allow a vinyl window on an outbuilding in a conservation
district. Bristow stated one of the things included on the back of the garage are two pairs of sliding
windows and sliding windows are actually a modern window type that is disallowed in the guidelines.
Also, on the drawings they have shown a door that looks like a craftsman door and that's not
considered appropriate for a Regency style home, it's more in the Colonial Revival style of architecture.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 7 of 16
Bristow shared some examples from a reference book of some typical Colonial Revival styles and what
staff would probably recommend, a crossbuck pattern in the lower portion for a garage. Another thing
they typically approve for garages is a basic historic back door, which is a half-light two panel door, and
that is very similar to what they are proposing, only this would be glass with two panels instead of one.
The guidelines state matching the trim, substituting wood, and the same with the siding.
Regarding the site and landscaping and the parking and curb cut it talks about making sure that they're
parking back behind the house and this project would comply with these guidelines. The second curb
cut is the only thing that's not something normally approved but is recommended here. Bristow did
point out there is a limit on how wide a driveway can be until back behind the house, a maximum of 8'
to 10' wide. Windows are generally relatively small and rectangular, but in this case they're making
something that's more similar to a carriage house, and so they're matching the windows on the house.
Again, staff would like to see the front facade reduced to just two wall dormers instead of three, if they
wanted more light staff would approve a skylight on the garage. Also, the guidelines disallow the use of
modern window types so staff recommends that on that west side those two bands of sliding windows
are changed to either the typical rectangular garage window, which could be fixed or operable,
depending on if they want, or just match the other windows. Staff would also need to approve the vinyl
windows through an exception, and that exception is written into the guidelines. Staff recommends
reducing the eave overhang to V or so instead of what they have and also changing the passage door
from a craftsman door to more suitable Colonial Revival door.
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 415 Clark Street as
presented in the staff report with the following conditions:
• The vinyl -clad windows are approved through an exception to the guidelines.
• The west -facing windows are revised to windows that comply with the guidelines.
• The eave is revised to a V overhang and reduced to two dormers in the front facade.
• The passage door is revised to a Colonial Revival Style.
Burford asked what the advantage of vinyl clad windows is it simply cost. Bristow replied, initial cost
because they wouldn't last as long.
Thomann noted they don't consider the interior but is the top space a recreational area or is this an
accessory dwelling unit. Bristow stated they have not given any indication that they are going to do an
accessory dwelling unit, but they probably could and go through a zoning code review to do so.
MOTION: Wagner recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 415 Clark
Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:
• The vinyl -clad windows are approved through an exception to the guidelines.
• The west -facing windows are revised to windows that comply with the guidelines.
• The eave is revised to a V overhang and reduced to two dormers in the front facade.
• The passage door is revised to a Colonial Revival Style.
Burford seconded the motion.
Villanueva stated this house was in the Parade of Homes a few years ago and it was gorgeous on the
inside.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 8 of 16
Lewis noted the front of the house has two dormers and a circular window, would it be possible to
mimic that in the new garage, they would still get three windows but only the two dormers. Bristow
thinks they would not want that because they would want it to be simpler than the house. The staff
recommendation is since they have a very large elaborate carriage house to simplify it so that it avoids
competing with the house. The guidelines state to always have the garage or carriage house to be
subordinate to the house.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
HPC25-0060: 332 North Johnson Street - Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (rear porch
demolition and new addition):
Bristow stated this is a very old house built in the 1880s and originally it was just a portion of the size it
is now, it was basically what was called a hall and parlor type of house, it had two rooms and that's it.
They added an addition behind the north half at an unknown date, and then before 1899 they added
another addition per the Sanborn Historic Fire Insurance Maps, a very Victorian addition. They basically
had a very simple Goosetown cottage, and they added a hip roof Victorian addition to it. On the back of
the house there used to be an open area that was an open porch but that was enclosed by 1899, and
then someone added a poorly constructed open porch on the end of that and didn't have proper
support for the columns, and the columns aren't really the right style, etc. Bristow stated this house is
clad in asbestos siding, and after staff got further photos to review, she thinks that it might be the case
where this house actually does not have siding under the asbestos, which would be rare. She noted the
reason for that thinking is because of the relationship between the trim and the asbestos, the trim still
projects beyond the asbestos, similar to the way it would with the original siding, meaning that maybe
there's not room for siding under there. Bristow noted with an addition they always like to match the
historic siding on the house, and they will be removing some of the asbestos in order to do this addition,
so staff has the general recommendation to match the historic siding however, if there is none, then
they would just follow the guidelines, which ask for a three to five inch lap siding, and corner boards
and typical trim. They would probably be able to tell what was on the house once they see the nailing
pattern and stuff underneath, it could have been a shingle siding or something and maybe that's why
they removed it, if they did.
Bristow stated they are changing the layout, removing a wall and that porch, and expanding to make it
into a sunroom with a new roof over the whole thing. The sunroom would have two windows on each
side and a passage door and the addition would have a flat roof matching the eave height of the
existing roofs.
This is again the same guidelines as for other additions. Of note is the fact that this was enclosed by
1899 and there is a historic corner of the house still there, typically with an addition they are looking at
retaining those corners and will set the addition in. However, to do that on such a small house would
mean that they would have to shift the whole hallway over and lose important space on the inside, so
staff does recommend that guideline about retaining the corner in this case is allowed to not be
complied with, basically because it is such a small space. Regarding the guidelines about siding and
windows Bristow reiterated the analysis on this is basically allowing it to align with the corner, knowing
that they will match a historic siding if they can, and use a three to five inch lap siding if there is none.
Also, instead of trying to match the existing roofs staff is recommending a flat roof on this addition
which will allow all of the roofs to drain out towards the east. This house has individual windows, the
Victorian addition has some paired windows on the front, because this is very small house and they're
creating a sunroom, staff does recommend that they allow the windows on each side of that sunroom to
be paired. The applicants originally had a craftsman door but staff recommends a half-light, two panel,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 9 of 16
basic door and they have revised their drawings to show that.
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 332 North Johnson
Street, as presented in the staff report, with the following conditions:
The door is revised as a half-light door.
The flat roof is membrane is gray.
The trim condition matches the existing house.
Bristow noted the top condition has already been met, so they don't need to include that condition to
revise the door.
Thomann asked why the roof is gray. Bristow explained this house has some shingles and some metal
roof. It's in a conservation district and they don't review changing roofs in conservation districts. The
owners do plan to re -roof the entire house but that's not something that staff would review because it's
a conservation district. For the new roof they're using a roof membrane that comes most often in a
white color, and staff doesn't recommend using white because of how reflective it is and how it stands
out, instead recommending using either a gray to match what a metal roof would look like, or black
because it tends to not draw attention to itself.
MOTION: Burford recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 332
North Johnson Street, as presented in the staff report, with the following conditions:
The door is revised as a half-light door.
The flat roof is membrane is gray.
The trim condition matches the existing house.
Villaneuva seconded the motion.
Lewis noted a concern with saying it's small so therefore let's not follow a guideline.
Burford noted the additional windows seem appropriate for a sunroom, it makes sense.
Thomann likes that it's going to be a sunroom but is still following the guidelines of adding the more
historic windows.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
HPC25-0064: 409 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (roof cladding replacement and
Yankee Gutter removal):
Bristow stated this is a Victorian house built in the early 1890s with a front porch that wraps around and
a high gable roof. Similar to the earlier project, they have what's basically called a Yankee gutter which
is a gutter that is built out of the metal roof material in the slope of the roof. If they were to replace this
roof with modern materials the only way that they could make this kind of gutter would be a very labor
intensive stainless steel, hand soldered, welded together pieces and it would be very expensive and
complicated, therefore staff has determined that it's not possible to make a Yankee gutter in modern
roofing materials that's cost effective anymore. In addition to the Yankee gutter, which is all on the
historic portion of this home, this project is also about the crown molding that is at the eave edge.
Bristow also pointed out they do have an internal gutter on the flat roof of the front porch, but that is a
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 10 of 16
more traditional internal gutter that can be repaired, they can replace the pans or put a membrane roof
over them as a temporary, or short life span repair. On the back of this house is a two story flat roof
addition which ties in with some of the metal roof. Staff has been working with this owner for quite a few
years, tracking down people who might be able to repair or even replace this roof with a matching
material and it was just completely not cost effective. Bristow shared photos of the house and roof and
noted the damage and deterioration over time as the water gets in and has been running into the roof
framing and into the crown molding and the fascia. This project proposes to retain the porch roof
gutters per the guidelines.
Again, this is a situation where they do not have the option of maintaining metal roofs rather than
replacing them. All of these roofs were wood shingles before the metal roofs became popular and were
used so Bristow is sure they're going to find multiple layers of wood shingles under this metal roof when
they take it off. The existence of the wood shingles is part of the reason why they do allow an asphalt
shingle roof as a replacement for a metal roof, and that is what is proposed here. The applicant
proposed adding some roof vents in the gable end but staff recommended against that as the main
gables have fish scale shingle, so the contractor is going to put vents in the slope of the roof instead.
The guidelines state to repair historic wood elements rather than replace them and only replace any
damaged wood with new or salvaged wood components that match. It is only allowed to substitute a
material if it can be worked like wood and painted, and it is disallowed to remove historic wood
elements such as trim, porches and cornices and decorative elements. Bristow stated it's disallowed in
the guidelines to take off the cornice or the brackets or the crown molding unless it is deteriorated
beyond repair and replaced with matching material. It is also disallowed to substitute a material in place
of wood that does not retain the appearance, function and paint ability of the original wood.
The owners want to use the architectural asphalt shingles, staff would recommend a brown or gray to
be similar to a wood roof. Staff finds that removing the internal gutter on the main roof will not impact
the historic character of the home, because it is just a gutter in the slope of the roof, it's not something
with an elaborate eave condition creating an internal gutter, and also because it's not possible to make
a new roof with that same type of gutter. Staff does find that the applicant requesting to remove all of
the crown molding and replace it with an Azek material that is a similar profile would not comply with
the guidelines, and they should retain the historic crown where it's not deteriorated, and what does
need to be replaced, replace it with a wood that matches the same profile.
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 409 South Summit
Street, as presented in the staff report, with the following conditions:
The roof shingle is a brown or gray, and the porch roof membrane is gray.
The crown molding removal is limited to the deteriorated portions and is replaced with wood to
match.
Burford stated with the crown molding, to match it can be difficult, when he did his own house, they had
to custom make molding to fit. Bristow acknowledged the contractors had reached out about this. First
of all, they can determine what the existing profile is using a contour gauge and staff also know of a
number of carpenters and contractors in town who have made replacement molding for various houses,
some of them have machines and the knives that cut them set up to do that, but they can also make
knives that could make that molding. Staff is confident that they can find someone who could do it right.
Burford noted his concern was due to how hard it is to find craftsmen to repair metal roofs and was it
difficult to find craftsmen who could do crown molding.
Thomann thanked staff for explaining the relationship between the metal roof and the gutters as metal
roofs are a mystery and she often forgets that a lot of them came after wood shingles.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 11 of 16
Frank Durham (409 South Summit Street) stated their main question is going to be about how much
wood and how much non -wood materials are required for the crown molding, but they won't know that
until someone comes and really looks at it.
Alex Andino (contractor) has been working with the homeowner, Frank Durham, on this project for the
restoration of his roof. With regards to the crown molding, they found contacts and appreciate staff's
showing them a list of people that they can contact about this crown molding. The plan is to just replace
the crown molding in the areas there are damage.
MOTION: Villanueva moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 409 South
Summit Street, as presented in the staff report, with the following conditions:
The roof shingle is a brown or gray, and the porch roof membrane is gray.
The crown molding removal is limited to the deteriorated portions and is replaced with wood to
match.
Wagner seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Bristow noted they had two projects on this agenda that had the same issue, a Yankee gutter in the
roof slope. A few years ago, they had the first one, and then that followed up with a second one so
these are three and four. If the Commission is interested staff would be open to the idea of saying
specifically Yankee gutter removal is something that could be approved as a minor review in the future.
It would then just be brought to the Commission as a staff review COA. The Commission agreed to
that discussion and Bristow will put it on a future agenda.
Villanueva asked if they should look at all internal gutters, because they're really struggling to find
people that can rebuild internal gutters. Bristow stated she has been working on the list, a couple years
ago they only knew one person and now they know of six and are continually expanding that list of
people. The list has some people who make new pans, some people who just line them with EPDM,
there are two people now who repair them with fiberglass, one has been doing that for 25 years in St.
Louis and now is doing it here. The Commission can certainly take it up but with most internal gutters
staff finds that if they were to approve removing them it would substantially impact the architectural
character of the of the building, and so that's why the guidelines disallow removing them. Bristow
added that's why it is really important for people to reach out to City staff because they do have lists of
experienced contractors and are continually updating them. Bristow also stated she wouldn't
recommend having it be staff approvable regardless because of the fact that it can really impact the
historic character. With the Yankee gutters it's just not possible to build them again in the same way.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect- Chair and Staff Review:
HPC25-0059: 810 North Johnson Street - Brown Street Historic District (partial foundation wall
replacement):
Bristow noted they've had a few projects because this house went up for sale, in this particular project
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 12 of 16
they are replacing the foundation wall on the north side and it won't be visible because it's at grade.
HPC25-0062: 431 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (window repair):
Bristow stated this is Villanueva's house and there are some windows that will be repaired. Villanueva
noted they did use one of the new contractors that staff recommended.
HPC25-0067: 1022 East College Street- East College Street Historic District (porch railing repair):
Bristow stated this railing is deteriorated enough to need replacement.
Minor Review - Staff Review:
HPC25-0042: 624 North Johnson Street - Brown Street Historic District (window sash replacement):
Bristow stated these windows were modern and they're replacing sashes. It is on the back of the house
in the kitchen, but the windows are not the same age as the front windows of the house.
HPC25-0052: 528 East College Street - College Green Historic District (roof shingle replacement):
Bristow stated the roof shingles are being replaced.
HPC25-0057: 813 Ronalds Street - Brown Street Historic District (Rear deck replacement):
Bristow noted this is actually a key property in the Ronalds Street Historic District that has changed
hands and they did a little work on the porch earlier, now they're replacing the deck.
HPC25-0061: 525 & 601 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (shared garage roof
replacement):
Bristow explained 525 and 601 Oakland Avenue share a garage and it needs some overall repair. This
project they're just replacing the roof shingles but there might be more work coming up on this in the
future.
HPC25-0065: 447 S Summit St - Summit Street Historic District (new mini -split HVAC units):
Bristow stated they are getting some mini splits, all the units all in the back.
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review:
HPC25-0051: 1046 Woodlawn Avenue - Woodlawn Historic District (replacement of stairs and decks):
Bristow stated this is a 1960s style ranch house duplex and it has two little entry decks on each side
that are going to be replaced.
HPC25-0055: 404 E Jefferson Street - Jefferson Street Historic District (foundation wall ventilation
alteration):
Bristow noted this is the St Paul's Lutheran chapel and they have been working through some HVAC
issues over time. This project is something that looks like an egress window in the foundation wall, but
it'll be a vent, probably with a grate over it. It is on the Jefferson Street facing side but it'll be down
below grade and hopefully not visible.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 13 of 16
HPC25-0063: 748 Rundell Street - Longfellow Historic District (shingle replacement project):
Bristow stated this little brick bungalow has shingle siding in the gables so while they're re -roofing this
they're going to put wood shingles back on the walls of the gable like it would have originally had.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 14, 2025:
MOTION: Thoman moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
August 14, 2025, meeting. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow stated all commissioners are required to do a training regarding open meetings, once
completed you will receive a certificate and will need to give that certificate to the clerk's office.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Iowa Highway 6 Bridge Mitigation Project:
Russett stated that Bristow spoke on this several months ago, but as a reminder this bridge has to be
demolished, so it's creating a need to mitigate the impact of the demolition of this historic bridge. When
the Commission discussed this last time there were three mitigation projects that were identified, the
Summit Street monument, doing a survey for Oak Grove Park, and the third one was survey of the
Lucas Farms/Kirkwood Avenue neighborhood. Staff has been in contact with the DOT throughout this
project and they reviewed the three options and determined that the Oak Grove Park survey would be
the most appropriate based on their time and resources. Russett shared the draft language that they
are proposing for the MOA and wanted the Commission to have an opportunity to look at the language,
and if there are any comments, to share those with staff so they can send those back to the DOT. The
DOT will do a survey of the park and surrounding residences. The Commission will then have an
opportunity to review the survey. The DOT will be hiring the contractor and the architectural historian to
do the survey and managing the project.
Bristow stated this is the park next to the railroad tracks that is believed to have a history as a Mexican
barrio. The Mexican immigrants who worked on the railroad lived in boxcars along the railroad, then
eventually the boxcars were replaced with a row of tiny homes that are now gone.
Historic Preservation Awards - Save the Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Lewis stated the committee will get together soon to discuss ways to promote it and get nominations.
Letter from the University of Iowa related to the Cannon -Gay House and Sanxay House:
Russett noted there's the letter from the University in the agenda packet, the background is this is the
Cannon -Gay House that the University owns. There was a City right of way, an alley next to it and the
University requested that the alley be vacated and the City agreed to that but that the University needs
to protect the house. The University agreed so there is a deed restriction that protects this Cannon -Gay
House. Circumstances have since changed and there's a lot of development that's going on in this part
of the campus. There's also an effort to make Byington Road a two way street, and that's going to
coincide with the Burlington Street Bridge Project, the roadway will need to be realigned which could
impact the front yard of this house. Therefore, the University is proposing is to protect the home at 109
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 14 of 16
East Market Street, the Sanxay-Gilmore House in exchange for the demolition of the Cannon -Gay
House. There were earlier discussions around protecting the Sanxay-Gilmore House and moving it over
to the City -owned surface lot, and the City was going to give the lot to the University to do that.
However, once the costs came in on the house moving, it was over budget and that effort failed to
protect that house. So, this is an opportunity for the Commission to weigh in on this situation, it will be a
decision of City Council but any comments that this Commission has will be forwarded to Council.
Bristow added if members of the Commission want to attend the Council meeting and they happen to
have any time for members of the public to speak, Commissioners would be able to speak.
Thomann asked if the house that's along Market Street is occupied, it appears empty when she walks
by. Russett replied she doesn't think it's occupied or that the University is currently using it.
Lewis noted concern that they've developed enough over by the Cannon -Gay House that it's kind of
lost and the context of it doesn't really work but then in in a year or two are they're going to get another
letter saying they'd like to destroy the Sanxay-Gilmore House and they will protect something farther
away or whatever.
Thomann noted what's stopping Tippe from right across the street coming in with a huge donor.
Wagner stated that's the whole reason they have that big green space there, those were homes that
the University bought and the intention was to get rid of 107 and 109 Clinton Street and make that
whole section part of something to do with the College of Business. That house really should be moved
and saved because both the exterior and interior integrity is quite good. At one time Lutheran Campus
Ministries owned it, the English Lutherans, Gloria Day, and they rented it and then they sold it to the
University. The other one, the Cannon -Gay House, while it looks really nice on the outside, the
University used it for offices and they clobbered the inside, there's not one thing inside that is
salvageable. He took a tour of it with the hopes that maybe there's stuff to salvage but there was
nothing in that one that he could salvage.
Thomann is thankful for that context, because to look at that house it looks magnificent, but it is not so
much.
Wagner stated his understanding is the University could go in tomorrow and just knock everything
down. He has spoken to Rod Lehnertz at the University about 107 and 109 Clinton Street and that 109
Market should not be destroyed.
Lewis noted the business school is also expanding into Gilmore Hall.
Wagner stated that vacant lot, that's the next site for University development, so the house will need to
be moved. The question is where, but it can be done.
Thomann stated the University is doing a lot around there, they tore down a couple of houses on
Dubuque and Bloomington.
Wagner reported that a window from one of those houses got reused on a garage on College Street.
Bristow noted another interesting thing is the fact that the Cannon -Gay House was listed in the National
Register and then was locally landmarked it in 1996. South of that is the Melrose Historic District that's
also listed in the National Register. However, because there are so many University owned houses
along Melrose in that district the City did not locally designate that district and part of it was because
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2025
Page 15 of 16
they had the Cannon -Gay House that they agreed to locally designate. She added they also do not
have any local or national registered designation on the Sanxay-Gilmore House. Bristow stated when it
originally was going to be taken down a few years ago there was a push to save it and to have it locally
landmarked was discussed, but since it was owned by the University, and the City doesn't regulate the
University properties in the same way, that discussion didn't go any further. Russett stated that why the
with the Cannon -Gay House there's a deed restriction, it's not a rezoning like what would typically be
done for a landmark designation.
Lewis asked if the City Council agrees to this and they shift the deed restriction to the Sanxay-Gilmore
House does that mean if they want to change something they have to go through City Council. Russett
confirmed yes and the Board of Regents because the Board of Regents will probably the ones be
signing the deed restriction.
The Commission discussed the Cannon -Gay House and generally agreed that since it is unsalvageable
they are okay with the proposal.
Thomann asked if there was any way to encourage that if this is demolished that any salvageable
pieces go to the salvage barn or other outlets like that.
Bristow noted they are always looking for historic bricks, but depending on how it is demolished they
may not be able to salvage the bricks. It also has stone keystones over some of the windows, though
it's also not going to be a simple salvage, they would need a mason to salvage instead of just a
demolition contractor.
Bristow stated they could include a comment that suggests that they provide an opportunity for salvage,
that has been done that in the past when they took down Quadrangle and the house that used to be the
Women's Resource and Action Center.
Curfman noted there was a neighbor that wanted the front door. Bristow stated the house at 1011
Woodlawn that caught fire a while ago had a really elaborate pair of doors so the idea is that these
doors could go to that house.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
TERM
10/10
11/14
12/12
1/9
2/13
3/13
4/10
5/8
6/12
7/10
8/14
10/9
NAME
EXP.
BECK,
6/30/27
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
MARGARET
BROWN,
6/30/26
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
CARL
BURFORD,
6/30/27
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEVIN
CURFMAN,
6/30/2028
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
O/E
X
AUSTIN
LEWIS,
6/30/26
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
ANDREW
RUSSELL,
6/30/27
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
RYAN
SELLERGREN,
6/30/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JORDAN
THOMANNN,
6/30/26
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
DEANNA
VILLANUEVA,
6/30/25
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NICOLE
WAGNER,
6/30/26
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
FRANK
WELU-
6/30/25
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member