HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda packet 6.10.2021
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, June 10, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 5:30 p.m.
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificate of Appropriateness
1. 120 North Dodge Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (screened porch
addition)
2. 815 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (internal gutter
removal)
3. 638 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (window and door
changes)
E) Review property classification of 721 Dearborn Street (Dearborn Street Conservation District)
F) Review of draft exception for Siding Guidelines per City Council request
G) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members,
staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by going
to https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJEsfuiqrD8jHNSNlK_k_Ky6u4V9N5BEsmVs
to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting the required
information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join
the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number
found in the email. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer
without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and
entering the meeting ID 951 9122 4960 when prompted. Providing comment in
person is not an option.
Minor Review –Staff review
1. 203 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (Commercial Signage Installation)
2. 614 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (Radon System Installation)
3. 810 Roosevelt Street – Clark Street Conservation District (aluminum siding removal and original
siding repair)
Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review
1. 114 North Gilbert Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof replacement and front porch
reconstruction)
2. 727 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (non-historic door removal, deck
reconstruction, front stoop reconstruction, site stair reconstruction)
H) Consideration of Minutes for May 13, 2021
I) Commission Discussion
1. Lead Paint letter from Mike Oliveira
2. Outgoing Commissioner Thank you
J) Commission Information
K) Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica
Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged
to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Staff Report June 3, 2021
Historic Review for 120 North Dodge Street
District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Karen Eldridge, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 120 North Dodge
Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists
of the construction of a screened porch to the back of the house.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
4.5 Foundations
4.6 Gutters and Downspouts
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
4.8 Masonry
4.9 Paint and Color
4.10 Porches
4.11 Siding
4.12 Site and Landscaping
4.13 Windows
4.14 Wood
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
5.2 Decks and Ramps
Staff Comments
This house was built in 1852 as a two-story gable front Greek Revival Brick building. The stone sills and
lintels, moderately pitched gable roof, and the transom and sidelights at the front door are Greek Revival
elements. A north wing was built ca 1875-6 with a side-facing gable. The house has Gothic Revival elements
in the elongated arches that work like brackets on the porch and the entry canopy added to the main entry
door. The house had a one-story kitchen addition on the back that was built prior to 1899. This addition was
expanded ca 1956 and the garage was built in 1967.
The applicant is proposing to construct an 11’ x 22’ screen porch addition to the back of the house on the
northeast side. The porch will sit to the north of the one-story kitchen addition and behind the 1875 wing of
the house. The porch will attach to the historic portion of the one-story rear addition and extend further east
to align with the east edge of the later kitchen addition as shown in the plan drawing. The porch will have a
Treated-wood framed structure sitting on concrete piers and will tie into the existing flat-roof structure on the
back of the house, continuing the roof edge detail.
An existing window in the east side of the 1875 addition will be turned into a new entry door, to be located
inside the porch. And existing window in the north wall of the kitchen addition will remain. A skylight will be
located on the roof of the porch. The porch will have a beadboard ceiling and wood painted wood trim and
screen structure. The applicants have proposed a Douglas Fir tongue-and groove porch floor in the
application but include pre-treated tongue and groove porch floor Trex in the drawings. Open space below
the porch will not exceed 18” at any location so the applicant does not propose to install porch skirting. The
new door will be a Therma-Tru fiberglass door with a 3/4 -lit and a single panel below.
In Section 5.2 Decks and Ramps, the guidelines recommend locating them on the back of the house and
setting them in from the sidewalls of the existing house. If a screened porch structure is being created, it
should follow the guidelines for porches in section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint. This section
recommends construction new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar to porches of
the same architectural style. New porches that are more than 18 inches above grade should use typical porch
construction including wood joists and skirting. The skirting is not required if the space is less than 18 inches.
Generally, with additions, it is recommended that roof pitches, overhangs, and soffits are consistent with the
existing building. Exceptions exist for rear additions in Conservation Districts that would allow porches on
rear elevations to not reproduce historic details and to use pretreated porch decking or dimensional lumber
for the flooring provided the gaps between floorboards do not exceed 1/8 inch.
Staff finds that this location meets the guidelines because it is on the back of the house and set in so that the
roof edge, which will match the one-story addition to which it is attached, will not overhang the north wall of
the house. Extending the porch east to align with the east wall of the more modern kitchen addition to the
south will provide a more useable space than by terminating it at the adjacent wall. The screened porch will be
close to grade so that neither skirting, nor traditional construction with porch piers is required by the
guidelines.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve a tongue-and-groove porch floor in either Douglas Fir, a
treated wood, or a product like Azek instead of dimensional lumber with gaps because of the age and
importance of this house. The application also requests approval for the use of Azek instead of wood for the
fascia and other trim on the screened porch. Section 4.14 Wood allows the Commission to review the use of
wood substitutes on a case by case basis. Staff recommends the use of wood on this building for this project.
The applicant proposes to use a Therma-tru door which staff finds appropriate. The location for the new
door, in an existing window opening, is also considered appropriate because it does not make new openings
in the brick wall. Staff finds the incorporation of a flat skylight in the addition appropriate because it is
located on the back of the structure.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 120 North Dodge Street as presented in
the staff report with the following conditions:
The drawings are updated with a tongue-and-groove floor and wood trim
120 North Dodge (front = west, rear = east)
Detail of north end of Rear (east side). Location of new screened porch shown.
Looking south at existing rear one-story rear addition. Screened porch attached
in this location.
Qty
Sub-Total:
Tax (7%):
TOTAL:$1,156.86
3/25/2021 Page 1 of 1
Oil Rubbed Bronze Hinges
Prefinished Panel 2 Colors
$1,081.18
$75.68
Modern Roots- 120 N. Dodge St.
Description Picture (approx. look)Total
1
$1,081.18
2-6 x 6-8
S2200
Right Hand Outswing
6 9/16 Wood Jamb
Double Bore
Danny Brandt
Office: (319) 624-2253
Cell: (319) 541-3833
www.litewindows.com
interior floor level
ROOF SYSTEM:new flat roof trussesto match existing flat roofredo existing roof
Project Name:
Sheet Title:
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Issue Data:
OLGA BADOVINAC
Sheet Number:
Scale:
Design and Drawn By:
ELDRIDGE
RESIDENCE
IOWA CITY
IOWA, 52240
E1
PORCH ADDITION
120 N DODGE ST.
Iowa City, IA 52240
2071 S. Gilbert St. #7
MODERN ROOTS
DESIGN + BUILD
***.modernroots-db.com
ELEVATIONS
1/4"=1'-0"
MARCH, 2021
concrete slab
WALLS, SOFFIT, FASCIA, CEILING:pressure treated framing lumberwood trim boards and moldingbeaded ceiling panelsplywood fascia and soffitsmetal screens
ALL EXPOSED MATERIALS WILL BE
PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING TRIM
plywood fascia and trim to match existing
ledger board 2x10
ledger board 2x12
ground level-corner
new gutters to match existing
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
11'-3"
21'-51
2"
Staff Report June 7, 2021
Historic Review for 815 Bloomington Street
District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Horacio Bustos, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 815 Bloomington
Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists
of the removal of the internal gutters during a roof replacement project.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.6 Gutters and Downspouts
Staff Comments
This 1 1/2 story house was built in 1915 as a side-gabled Bungalow with Craftsman elements. The gable attic
dormer has exposed rafter tails and the eaves have knee-brace brackets. the house has a moderate-pitched
side-gable roof with a gable attic dormer centered on the front, extended slope of the roof. A broad gable
roof porch extends across the full front with balustrade, pillars, and pediment covered in aluminum siding.
the porch has ashlar block piers below the deck and a skirting pattern of narrowly spaced vertical boards. the
windows are on-over-one double hung, a hipped bay window on the west side and a Palladian style group of
flat-topped windows in the attic dormer. Aluminum siding was installed in 1977. The historic garage was
demolished and a new garage was built in 1995. In 2017, staff approved the construction of new front steps.
The applicant is proposing to replace the deteriorated metal roof, which can be done in a Conservation
District without approval. During the project, the internal gutters, located part way up the roof slope will be
removed. The roof will be replaced with an asphalt architectural shingle. External gutters have already been
installed.
The guidelines recommend in Section 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts to repair original built-in gutters. The
section states that Original built-in gutters are important design features of some historic buildings. Removing
them requires a building permit and must be approved by the HPC. Covering original built-in gutters and
applying exterior gutters may be approved only if the roof slope at the gutter is not altered. An exception
exits for the Commission to consider approval of the removal of the built-in gutters, when it does alter the
roof slope, if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need.
Staff has been aware of the condition of this roof. The standing seam metal roof is thoroughly rusted and
deteriorated. Repair or repair and coating is no longer possible. This house originally had a wood shingle roof
and no gutters. Once the metal roof was installed, internal gutters were built by creating a trough in the slope
of the roof. Removal of the metal roof will remove the internal gutters. This type of gutter cannot be
constructed in the same way with new roofing materials, including new standing seam metal roofs. Another
example of a roof with this type of gutter is at 409 Summit Street.
Staff finds that removing the internal gutter will not impact the historic character of the house. Removing
them will allow the existing roof slope to remain.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 815 Bloomington Street as presented in
the staff report.
815 Bloomington Street – internal gutter marked
815 Bloomington Street - internal gutter marked
815 Bloomington Street – internal gutter marked
Staff Report June 6, 2021
Historic Review for 638 South Governor Street
District: Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicants, Petra and Marek Sinagl, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 638 South
Governor Street, a Contributing property in the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. The project
consists of the replacement of a south-facing kitchen window and the installation of French Doors in the rear
wall of the kitchen.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
4.13 Windows
Staff Comments
This house, built ca. 1890, is a T-shaped vernacular cottage consisting of a two-story front facing gable and a
1 1/2-story side gable. Originally open porches were located in both of the El's on each side of the lower
portion. In ca. 1910, the rear open porch was modified in to a one-story kitchen addition. A rear-facing
dormer was also added to the back of this wing. The property also includes a barn-shaped house.
The applicant is proposing to replace the double-hung window toward the rear of the south side with a new
double-hung window with a higher sill to accommodate a new kitchen counter. A wood, full-lite French door
will be installed in the rear wall. The application proposed to replace the original windows in the house but
they will now be repaired.
The guidelines recommend that new windows match the type, size, sash width, trim, and overall appearance
of the historic ones. The window location should be consistent with the window pattern of the historic
building. New door openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows on the building.
Staff finds, that the kitchen window that is the subject of the application is located toward the rear of the
south side. It is also shorter than the other windows on this side of the house. Staff finds that installing a
window with a higher sill is appropriate. The applicant has proposed a Pella “replacement” window that staff
believes to be inappropriate because it is meant to be installed in the existing frame. Staff will work with the
applicant to approve a new window that will be the same size as the original except for the sill height.
Staff finds that the location for the French Door is appropriate because it is located on the back of the
kitchen addition and that a wood door is appropriate.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 638 South Governor as presented in the
staff report with the following condition:
Window product information is approved by staff.
Rear of kitchen addition – location of new French Door
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Memorandum
Date: June 7, 2021
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: 721 Dearborn Street Property Classification
The owner of 721 Dearborn Street, Jennifer Jorgensen, has requested that the Commission
review the classification of her house. The house, located in the Dearborn Street Conservation
District, is classified as non-historic. Reclassification of the property will make the house eligible
for the Historic Preservation Fund.
According to the site inventory form completed in 1998 the house was built about 1950.
According to the Assessor’s site, the house was built about 1946. The 1933-1948 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Map does not show the house. The Iowa City copy of this map, which was updated
until the 1970s does show the house. Staff believes that an approximate construction date of
1948 to 1950 is accurate. This construction date would result in the building being considered
historic, not non-historic.
The house appears to be a Minimal Traditional Style house which were most commonly built
between 1935 and 1950. In the 1940s they were often built as worker housing near WWII
production plants. After WWII they were often built to satisfy post-war housing needs. They tend
to have been built quickly and with little ornament.
The classification of buildings in districts is discussed in section 1.4 of the guidelines. The non-
historic building is less than 50 years old. A contributing building is constructed during the period
of significance for the district. A noncontributing building is either non-historic, significantly
altered, or built outside the period of significance for the district.
While it may be possible to review the entire Conservation District to determine if housing of this
era and type would be contributing to the district, that would require a more thorough map
update. A re-evaluation of the period of significance for the district would be required. Given the
scope of this reclassification, one building, staff recommends a reclassification of
noncontributing until the entire District can be reviewed.
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the reclassification of the house at 721 Dearborn Street as noncontributing to
the Dearborn Street Conservation District.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
1933-1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Iowa City updated copy of the 1933-1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
721 Dearborn Street
Date: June 7, 2021
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Proposed Amendment to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook
Background
At the Historic Preservation’s May 3 meeting, the Commission requested that staff revise the
draft amendment to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook related to siding. The
Commission requested that staff discuss issues with modern insultation in the walls of historic
homes, add information on energy efficiency, and provide more clarity on economic and
technical challenges. The Commission also expressed interest in providing general cost
information related to removing synthetic siding and repairing original siding versus removing
synthetic and original siding and replacing it with fiber cement board.
Based on this feedback, staff developed the revised draft amendment. To address the
Commission’s request, staff has incorporated some text into the introduction of the siding
section that outlines the problems that modern insulation can cause in the walls of historic
homes. Instead of revising or adding text related to energy efficiency, staff has proposed to
reference section 4.4 Energy Efficiency of the Handbook (Attachment 1). Section 4.4 provides a
number of energy efficiency solutions – from storm windows to insulating attics.
Additionally, staff proposed some additional language to clarify the meaning of “technical or
economic challenges” included in the proposed amendment.
Related to the cost estimates, any cost estimates will soon become outdated and vary based on
the project. Therefore, staff does not recommend including cost estimates in the handbook. The
exemption already includes language that states: Removal of the synthetic siding and repair of
the original wood siding and trim is often the most sustainable and affordable solution.
Revised Draft Amendment
4.11 Siding
Wood siding is prevalent throughout the historic neighborhoods in Iowa City. Most often it is
plain clapboard siding with an exposure between 3 and 5 inches; however, it is sometimes
tongue and groove, shiplap, or wall shingle siding. Wood siding along with the trim details and a
variety of paint colors combine to make one of the most important defining characteristics of
historic districts. This display of detail and color is essential to the character of the older
neighborhoods, and therefore siding is protected by the design guidelines.
The primary threat to the traditional appearance of older neighborhoods has been the
application of synthetic siding. This has been installed in an effort to avoid periodic painting.
While synthetic siding may last longer than an application of paint, it does deteriorate over time
and does need to be replaced when it fades, cracks, dents, or deteriorates. The application of
synthetic siding covers many architectural details of a building, damages the historic siding and
trim, traps moisture within the walls, and in some cases, necessitates the removal of historic
elements altogether. For all of these reasons the covering of historic properties with synthetic
siding is not allowed.
June 7, 2021
Page 2
The presence of modern insultation in the walls of historic homes can also result in moisture
damage. For recommendations on ways to improve the energy efficiency of a historic home,
please reference section 4.4 Energy Efficiency.
Recommended Amendment 4.11 Siding - Exception
The following exception provides flexibility to owners of eligible buildings with existing synthetic
siding installed over original wood siding. The City recommends repair of original wood siding
over replacement whenever feasible. Removal of the synthetic siding and repair of the original
wood siding and trim is often the most sustainable and affordable solution. However, some
property owners may have legitimate economic or technical concerns due to the deteriorated
condition of the original wood siding or the impact rehabilitation may have on building
performance, health or safety such as the potential for moisture damage due to the presence of
modern insulation. Therefore, this exception encourages City staff and the Commission to
consult with homeowners and/or their professional agents to assess applications involving the
presence of synthetic siding and provide flexibility to situations where property owners wish to
avoid economical and technical challenges such as moisture damage, remove the synthetic
siding and the original siding, and replace it with an appropriate material as described in this
handbook that matches in exposure, texture, and design.
Applies to: Non-historic, noncontributing, and contributing properties, both primary structures
and outbuildings, in historic and conservation districts
Local historic landmarks and key contributing properties in historic and conservation districts are
not eligible for this exception. This exception only applies to buildings with wood siding and not
stucco, stone, or brick.
Synthetic siding may be removed, and if original wood siding exists underneath it may be
repaired or removed and replaced with wood or an approved alternative material, provided the
following conditions:
• Synthetic siding covers the original wood siding;
• Evidence of technical or economic challenges is noted related to the deteriorated
condition of the original wood siding or the impact that rehabilitation may have on
building performance, health or safety.; and
• If original wood siding is removed, it must be replaced with an appropriate material that
matches in exposure, texture, and design.
Technical challenges could include situations where synthetic siding covers original wood siding
and evidence exists of modern insulation within any exterior wall of a historic home. Although
moisture issues may not result from the application of synthetic siding and modern insulation,
there is no way to guarantee that moisture will not become a problem. In these situations,
property owners may be concerned with potential moisture issues and wish to remove the
synthetic siding and insultation.
Economic challenges could exist in situations where compliance with the guidelines results in
costs that are exorbitant. In order to demonstrate an economic challenge, applicants must
submit detailed cost estimates. Staff and the Commission can evaluate if the added costs to
comply with the guidelines is necessary or if there is another less costly solution.
Staff and the Commission can evaluate other technical or economic challenges on a case-by-
case basis.
Attachments:
1. Section 4.4. Energy Efficiency of the Historic Preservation Handbook
1
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
May 13, 2021
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile
Kuenzli, Lyndi Kiple, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Maeve Clark, Andrew Letarte,
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the electronic meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. utilizing
Zoom.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Andrew Letarte, a member of the public and the owner and president of Mended Rose
Properties (a veteran-owned house-flipping business), said thank you to the Commission for all
that they do and said that Bristow has been great to work with. He said that they currently have
a property at 614 Oakland Avenue which happens to be their very first flip/project. He said that
they had issues with the vinyl windows and they’re replacing them with metal-clad windows.
Letarte said that Mended Rose Properties is a community-based company, so he wanted to
share his perspective on a very expensive mistake that he made in the hopes that it could be
helpful to someone in the future. He said that there was nothing in the legal documentation of
614 Oakland Avenue being in a historic district. He said that he thinks it would be helpful for
consumers and homeowners to know if their property is within a historic district so that they
know the restrictions that come with that and recommended that it be incorporated into the
seller’s disclosure statement and legal paperwork. He also said that he would recommend that
those applying for permits within a historic district also submit a certificate of appropriateness in
order to qualify for the permit. He said that he appreciated the Commission’s work and their
patience and kindness to him through this misunderstanding.
Boyd thanked Letarte and said that the Commission is listening to public input and appreciates
all of the helpful feedback.
Boyd closed the public comment period.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff
and the public presented by COVID-19.
2
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
628 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (rear demolition and new addition)
Bristow said 628 North Johnson is a key property and probably a catalog house. She said that
the house contains craftsman elements in the knee braces supporting the main roof and porch
roof as well as in the mitered siding. She said that it also has Colonial Revival elements in the
window types, which are six over one double-hung windows and the trim. Bristow said that saff
has previously approved removing the car port on the side of the house.
Bristow said that the current project is a kitchen and small bath addition to the rear of the
property following the removal of a porch that was added a few years after the construction of
the house. She said the bump out and the front porch of the house are not set in but rather a
continuation of the wall, and the new kitchen addition is proposing to do the same thing. She
said that the project will retain the existing window in the back, and include the addition of: two
windows, a half-light door, a hip roof, a landing with stairs, a small transom window, and a single
window on the south side. She said the applicants also proposed to replace the other windows
in the house over time as they can, in order to bring them back to the six over one double-hung
window. Bristow said that Staff recommends approving this project as proposed, and also
proposed putting in a vertical trim board in the south wall to distinguish the original house from
the new addition.
Kuenzli asked if the new windows would be metal-clad wood or vinyl. Bristow said that they
would be metal-clad wood.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
Boyd said he thinks this is a great project with a lot of exciting elements. Kuenzli agreed.
DeGraw said that it is nice that it is a university house that is continuing to have nice
improvements done.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
628 North Johnson Street as presented in the Staff report. Kuenzli seconded. The motion
carried on a vote of 9-0.
502 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (rear demolition and new addition)
Bristow said that 502 Grant Street is a Moffit & Blakeslee house with a large lot. She said that it
is a Colonial Revival home with six over one double-hung windows, shingled siding, a bump out,
and a classical entrance and sun porch which both have a balustrade. She said that the bump
outs and additions on this house are also a continuation of the front wall.
Currently, Bristow said the house has a small bump out and a casement and double hung
window on the rear and the windows do not match the rest of the house. She said the original
application requested to reuse these windows on the new addition, but Staff recommends using
six over one double-hung windows to match the others on the house. She said the new kitchen
addition will have: a pair of French doors, a stoop and step, and 3 six over one double hung
windows with raised sills. She said this project proposes to replace the central rear window with
a door leading out to a patio, and that it is proposed to be six feet deep. Bristow said a
traditional porch area to sit is normally eight feet deep, but Staff does not propose that this is a
condition for the project approval. Rather, she said that Staff wants the Commission to approve
the project proposal with the possibility of it being either depth. She said the applicants do
propose to put a balustrade on the patio as well, and Staff recommends that since they will need
to be taller to meet code, that they are narrowed from the existing examples to better fit the
3
proportions in the existing ones. She also said that the trim and siding will match the existing
house.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
502 Grant Street as presented in the Staff report with the following conditions: the
addition windows match the rest of the house as described in the Staff report and
materials are approved by Staff, the doors are wood or fiberglass and approved by Staff,
the width of the new balustrade piers is reduced as described in the Staff report, and the
proposed porch can be either six or eight feet in depth. Burford seconded. The motion
carried on a vote of 9-0.
REVIEW OF DRAFT EXCEPTION FOR SIDING GUIDELINES PER CITY COUNCIL
REQUEST:
Russett said that the City Council discussed the proposed amendment to the siding guidelines
on April 20th that the City Manager had presented to the Commission at previous meetings. She
said that Staff presented the City Council with four options on how to move forward, and the City
Council chose the second option which was to provide the Commission two to three more
months to review the amendment and situation in order to formulate their own recommendation.
Russett said that this item is on the agenda for the Commission to discuss their next steps.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Maeve Clark, a member of the public and the president of Friends of Historic Preservation, said
that she thinks that it is important for the Commission to speak up about the importance of this
and that maybe there is a compromise that allows for them to give guidance to the homeowner
without letting things go crazily free. She said that it is important for the communication to keep
flowing back and forth and she realizes that there are some people who don’t want to deviate
from the guidelines, but she is afraid that if they do not they might end up in a situation that they
don’t like. She said that this is a very difficult position to be in and she empathizes with the
position the Commission is in.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
Boyd said that he wanted to hear everyone’s ideas to get them on the table first before starting
the discussion. DeGraw said that if they consider the 1133 E Court situation, she said that she
would be fine with the fiber cement board siding in the instance where it sounds as complicated
and potentially as expensive as it could be. She said that she has spent time looking at different
cities’ policies on fiber cement board siding, and Iowa City’s policy looks similar to those that
she found. She said that the city of Chicago surveyed 24 cities about this, so it could be
worthwhile for Iowa City to ask them what information they gathered. She said that there are pdf
files on other cities’ websites that have information on cedar siding, fiber cement siding, roofing,
etc. that can be easily downloaded and read, and they might want to talk about doing something
similar on their website or updating the Historic Preservation handbook.
Kuenzli asked if the applicants were to remove the vinyl siding from the main part of the house
and also from the addition, if it would be possible to use the cement board on the new addition
to restore the original wood on the main part of the house as well as install a vertical board
indicating the separation between the original house and the addition. Boyd said that they have
been tasked to look at their siding guidelines more broadly as opposed to looking at the specific
property on Court Street. He said if the Commission does not provide the City Council with a
recommendation, then they will approve what Staff recommended. Kuenzli said that she
4
believes what they have in their guidelines is clear and matches what other cities have in their
guidelines, so she is not sure why they have to change it. She said that it is hard to remove this
specific property from their discussion because it is what prompted the whole discussion.
Kuenzli asked if it is possible to leave the guidelines as they are. Boyd said that half the Council
wanted some sort of change and the other half wanted the Commission to look at the situation.
He said that he agrees with Kuenzli, but the Commission has to do something otherwise the
Council will approve what was already proposed, and that is just the reality of where they are
currently at.
Sellergren asked if it is possible to find some sort of formula to use as a comparative measure
against different houses. Boyd said that he had a similar suggestion and he thinks they should,
with Staff’s help, look at defining economic and technical challenges. He said that they should
look at creating a standard or a preservation of best practices for siding and installation
problems/challenges as well as using published sources when it comes to talking about climate
change. He said that the big thing is getting clear, economic, and legal definitions of what
economic and technical challenges are to help clarify exceptions that are presented to them.
Sellergren asked if the Iowa City Historic Preservation has the resources to create a
comparative standard and provide homeowners with that information. Russett asked Boyd if he
thinks the City should purchase an estimating software and do estimates for homeowners based
on different types of projects. Boyd said yes because the burden is currently on the homeowner
if something is deemed an economic challenge by the City. Bristow said that she is unsure
about providing cost information regularly, but she can see what Boyd was talking about and
that could work in a study comparing the estimated costs of repairing the siding versus replacing
it. Sellergren said that it would be interesting to have a few comparative examples set up as a
model if Staff time allowed. Burford agreed and said that it should also be illustrated. Sellergren
said that maybe they need to be allotted more time to make this information clear and available
to those who need it. Russett said that she has some concerns with Staff providing construction
costs for projects since they are not professionals within the industry. Sellergren asked if it
would be possible to hire a contractor to do that work on behalf of the City. Boyd said he thinks
it would be helpful for folks to know the cost difference as well as the embodied energy between
replacement versus repair. Sellergren agreed and said that this issue will most likely come up
again and that it would be helpful if they had some sort of equation. Bristow said that they have
a Certificate of Economic Hardship that takes some of that into consideration, but the burden of
proof is on the applicant to show they meet the conditions for that certificate. She said that it
requires them to show that what the Commission requires is so costly that it will allow the
applicant to have no return with the property. Boyd said that that current process comes on the
back end after the Commission has already denied something, but he wants to shift those
concerns to the front end to specifically define what the economic and technical challenges are
for the project. Brown said that he liked the idea of an equation (and linking it to the home’s
value as opposed to owner income), and he asked if, in the end, a technical challenge would
ultimately find its way to be an economic challenge as well. Boyd said that that was a good
point. DeGraw also said that the websites she visited had “on a case-by-case basis” stated, and
she feels that is important to include.
Boyd asked if the amendment becomes part of their guidelines if it would still move through the
Commission for approval. Bristow said that it would go to the Commission for approval.
Boyd said he thinks they still need clear definitions around those terms, and that is the direction
that the Commission would want to move in going forward. Russett asked if they would like for
Staff to come back with some definitions or a proposal for next meeting. Boyd said that having
options would be helpful. Bristow asked if Staff’s next step was to come back to the Commission
5
or report to a subcommittee instead. Boyd said that they have two to three months, so maybe
they could assemble a subcommittee before the third month if necessary. Kuenzli asked if they
could get some volunteers to contact other cities and find out about their historic preservation
guidelines to compare. Russett said if they find more resources to go ahead and send them to
Staff. Sellergren asked if they would specifically be looking for solutions to problems similar to
theirs. Boyd said yes and that it sounded like a great idea. Bristow said she wanted to caution
the Commission about rewriting their guidelines in their entirety because that would be a long
process. Boyd said that was a great point. DeGraw said it seemed useful for homeowners to
have more information in advance before deciding on fiber cement board siding or other
materials with permanent effects. Pitzen asked why fiber cement board siding was inferior,
historically, to other types of siding. Boyd said it wasn’t inferior, but that they just try to preserve
the original material if it’s there.
Boyd said that they seem to be in a good place with Commission discussion and having
individual assignments and asked if there was anything else to discuss on the topic. Sellergren
asked if they thought the homeowner would be compliant with providing technical and cost
information so that the Commission could use it in future situations. Boyd said that they could
certainly ask. Bristow said that they could estimate the cost of the project in both ways as well.
DeGraw asked if the city could continue with the university program to make some houses more
affordable, since living in a historic district is too expensive for some. Boyd said that that was in
their work plan and they could certainly have continuing discussions with other parts of the city
government about that.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review
621 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (window replacement)
Bristow said the owner just wanted to replace a few individual pieces of siding and a few rotten
sills.
422 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (chimney repair and new cap)
Bristow said that this project was a removal of a chimney cap and replacement with a metal cap
along with chimney repair.
Minor Review – Staff Review
727 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (window replacement)
Bristow said that the owner is having two of the three original windows repaired and voluntarily
replacing all of the other more modern windows in the house that were not the style of the
original windows.
603 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement with metal shingle)
Bristow said that this project is replacing the shingle roof with metal shingles, which should look
somewhat similar to the original wood shingle roof.
834 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (window replacement)
Bristow said that this was a ranch home with a second-floor addition and the owner is replacing
all of the windows.
6
505 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (basement window replacement and
egress window and window well installation)
Bristow said this project involves the installation of a basement egress window on the side.
811 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement and
soffit repair)
Bristow said that some of the work is internal and part of the project is with one of the other
rehab programs. She said they are fixing holes in the soffits from old internal gutters and
replacing the sashes on the second-floor windows.
Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review
630 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (pergola construction)
Bristow said that this building is no longer historic because it has been altered, but they are
putting up a pergola which requires a building permit in this district. She said it was a simple
style and painted to match the existing structure.
814 Rundell Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (rear deck removal and new
screened porch addition)
Bristow said that this is a non-historic house due to the entire second floor and rear addition
added in the 1970’s. She said they are removing the deck in the back and adding a screened
porch, as well as replacing the upper slider window with a window to match the ones on the
front.
614 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (window, door, and siding replacement)
Bristow that this is the project that Letarte was referencing earlier and had replaced all of the
original windows with vinyl windows and replaced the front door as well as some siding. She
said that this project includes replacing all of the new vinyl windows with metal clad double-hung
windows and installing a door more like the original that he removed.
741 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (front porch reconstruction)
Bristow said that this house started out as a repair, but the owner did not have a permit. She
said this house is non-contributing because it has a very large unsympathetic addition on the
back, but the porch is original. She said the columns are in bad condition so they will be
replaced with a close match to the original, the railing will be replaced, and the concrete stairs
will be changed to wood stairs.
Boyd asked how Letarte was able to get a permit without being informed that the house was
located in a historic district. Bristow said she wasn’t sure how that happened, but it could have
just been a mistake that the building officials did not catch. Kuenzli asked if Bristow talked to the
realtor association in April and informed them that they need to let people know about houses
within specific districts. Bristow said they presented to the Iowa Association of Realtors and did
mention that in their slides. Brown asked if the Commission could give a list to the city of the
houses within a historic district so that they can pass on to the owners getting permits that their
project, whether interior or exterior, might need a historic approval. Bristow said that she thinks
the building officials have a similar process as Staff when looking at permits which alerts them if
a house is potentially within a district or not. Russett said that Staff will be looking into this and
figuring out what happened.
7
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 8, 2021:
DeGraw said on page 4 she wants to replace “different city things” with “for a regulation, it sort
of becomes the golden ticket.”
MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the minutes from the April 8, 2021 meeting as
amended. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Letter in support of LGBTQ history markers
Boyd said that there are a few organizations that are fundraising to get some historic markers
for LGBTQ sites around the city, and he thought that fit in nicely with the Commission’s work
plan about telling a more inclusive history of the city. He said he was hoping to get the
Commission’s approval to sign a letter of support that the organizations could edit as needed as
they’re doing their fundraising efforts.
Sanxay-Gilmore House update
Boyd said they put the Sanxay-Gilmore House update on the agenda in case the Commission
wanted to have a discussion. Wu asked if there is any option to reopen dialogue with the city
about the house and the lot because he was frustrated with the process and the current
outcome. Russett said that the lot will not go to the university if they choose not to move the
house. Kuenzli asked Russett if she thought it would make any difference if there was some
city-wide reaction of people expressing interest in seeing the project move forward. Russett said
she thinks it is a money issue with the university and the bids they received for the move that is
not making the project work. Boyd said he thinks they should keep this in their discussions in
the future, but he feels it is promising that the university is not set on tearing the house down
yet.
Historic Preservation Awards
Boyd said that they have a subcommittee meeting next Thursday to set a date and time for the
awards. He said that the Commission generally approves the award winners. Bristow said that
the county will not be involved in the awards this year, but if the Commission wanted to (fully)
nominate people then they should do so by the subcommittee meeting next Thursday.
MOTION: Brown moved to approve the proposed awardees for the 2020 Historic
Preservation Awards and grant the authority to approve any changes to the awards
subcommittee. Pitzen seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow said that she will be signing up the individuals who wished to attend the State Historic
Preservation Summit in the near future, so they should expect to get an email. She said that this
is also her last day at home, so she will be at City Hall if they need her in the future. Sellergren
asked if they will be resuming in person meetings soon. Bristow said she thinks Council is
deliberating about that and will reach out to the commissions with more information. Russett
said that City Hall is opening to the public on July 1st. DeGraw asked if they could take a poll to
see who would be okay/not okay with meeting in person. Boyd said he thinks they should wait
for City Council direction.
ADJOURNMENT:
8
Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:10
p.m.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
NAME
TERM
EXP. 7/09 8/13 9/10 10/08 11/12 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08 05/13
AGRAN,
THOMAS 6/30/20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X
CLORE,
GOSIA 6/30/20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X
KUENZLI,
CECILE 6/30/22 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X X X X
WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E X
Prestige Properties, 329 E Court St, Suite 2, Iowa City, IA 52240
***.prestigeprop.com
319-512-7616
May 14, 2021
Historic Preservation Commission
Dear Historic Preservation Commission Members,
I am writing today to in regarding the inherent responsibility included in owning an historic home. In keeping up
a home to the standard of beauty, owners may and most likely will encounter exterior lead-based paint. The
responsibility is not just to the home itself, but to the safety and health of your neighbors and those parties
working regularly in the area.
It is to this, that I remind you as a Commission to not only review projects for appearance, but also add that
proper lead testing must be done and proper mitigation planned and performed. That homeowners and their
contractors have an obligation to ensure any exterior project causes no potential or actual harm to the ground
or directly to those living nearby.
Being in Real Estate as well as being a Lead Based Paint Certified contractor, there are requirements for
disclosure of the dangers of lead-based paint poisoning by Federal law and the State of Iowa through the Iowa
Department of Public Health Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. Homeowners can contact them at 1-800-72-
2026 to get a list of risk assessors who will come to the home and verify if it is safe from lead-based paint and
provide a list of certified lead abatement contractors in Iowa.
We have been on the neighbor side twice now of improperly executed lead paint removal and our concern is
growing as the regard for the seriousness of this issue seems nearly non-existent. It is irresponsible of the
Commission, the homeowners, and their contractors to turn a blind eye and simply pretend that not knowing if
paint if lead-based or not, is enough to balance out the danger of a possible debilitating poisoning to someone
or some neighboring child.
I believe this picture (from your own literature) of paint scraping without any
mitigation controls in place, in the presence of young person eating,
adequately shows the disregard for the potential dangers of lead-based paint
in these historic homes.
Please consider revisiting the Iowa Department of Public Health Lead
Poising literature after which we also hope that you decided to include testing
of historic homes for this toxin a bullet point in your review process as well. It
would speak well to not only the character of the homes you advocate for,
but the Commission as a whole functioning unit in our community.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Mike Oliveira
General Manager, Prestige Properties
Photo from: Historic Preservation
Commission Website
34th Annual Historic Preservation Awards
***********8.iowa-city.org/weblink/0/edoc/1575330/2016%20Awards%20Presentationfinal.pdf