Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.11.2024 HPC agenda packet (Revised 7.9.2024) Thursday July 11, 2024 5:30 p.m. Revised Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, July 11, 2024 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. REVISED Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness HPC24-0026: 410-412 North Clinton Street – Local Historic Landmark (portion of related new construction on the rear of the property) *HPC23-0070: 937 East Davenport Street – Local Historic Landmark (rear addition)* E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review HPC24-0051: 529 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof material replacement) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC24-0044: 921 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (basement egress window) 2. HPC24-0050: 312 South Governor – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (driveway and sidewalk approach replacement) 3. HPC24-0052: 520 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0046: 515 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (window alterations to garage) 2. HPC24-0053: 1230 East Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (rear basement wall reconstruction) F) Consideration of Minutes for June 11, 2024 G) Commission Discussion 1. Commission Officer Elections 2. Commission work plan and subcommittees H) Commission Information 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 July 2, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0026: 410-412 North Clinton Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Jeff Clark jeffmc1973@yahoo.com Classification: Local Historic Landmark Project Scope: Demolition of the historic garage and construction of a portion of the neighboring multi-family unit across the rear portion of the Landmark property as agreed in exchange for landmark designation. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.11 Siding 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.1 New Primary Structures 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features 9.0 Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings 9.1 Site Elements 9.2 Architectural Elements 10.0 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation Property History: The Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House was built in 1865 as a two-story brick Italianate House with a low-sloped side-gabled roof. The house has a simple cornice supported on paired brackets. The symmetrical façade includes a classically detailed center entry wit narrow sidelights and transom. The first-floor façade has 4-over-6 double hung windows extending floor to ceiling. The second-floor windows have heavy stone sills and lintels. The central windows are similar to the first-floor windows and the ones on each side are a smaller 4-over-4. The house had a small two-story addition by 1899. A two-story apartment building was built behind the historic house in 1969. A 2017-2018 landmarking attempt failed due to owner objection. Then the property was sold to the current owner. Discussions with the owner regarding a landmark designation tied to a development proposal first came to the Commission in January 2020. In July 2020 the proposal was revisited and both HPC and Friends of Historic Preservation provided comments and generally supported the basic proposal. The Commission held the public hearing for landmark designation in December 2020 and the property was designated by Council in January 2021. In 2023 Staff approved repairs to the front porch. In March 2024, the Commission approved the rehabilitation plan for the landmarked house. Recently, the development project has been proceeding through a design review process and has reached a point where the portion that impacts the landmark property is ready for review by the Commission. Detailed Project Description: This project demolishes the houses at 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street (which are outside the Commission’s purview) and constructs a 5 story multi- family structure in their place. As part of the development and landmarking agreement, a three-story portion of the building and the basement garage entrance extend across the rear portion of the landmark property to the alley. The demolition of the garage on the landmark property will also be a part of the project. The Commission’s purview extends to the review of the garage demolition and the portion of the new construction on the landmark property. The portion of the project under review includes a three-story flat roofed, brick wing of the new development. The lower, base of the building is a darker brick that will match the historic building. The upper floors are a lighter color that will be compatible to the historic building. The new construction will have stone coping at the roof edge, a stone band at the transition between brick colors, stone sills and brick lintels. The windows are rectangular double hung windows hung individually or in pairs. Areas between windows (vertically) will be accented with recessed brick panels. Balconies for second and third floor apartments extend north from the building toward the alley. Guidelines: Section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends: • Installing turned balusters in balustrades that have an actual diameter of 2 inches or greater, or square spindles that are 1-1/2 inches or greater in width. • Installing top and foot rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness. Section 6.1 New Primary Structures recommends: • Following the guidelines for new balustrades and handrails in section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails. • Using siding that is consistent with the architectural style of the new building. Most historic siding in Iowa City is wood. Fiber cement siding with a smooth finish is an acceptable substitute for wood siding in most circumstances. Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features recommends: • Retaining historic garages. If the period garage is insufficient for modern-day vehicles, efforts should be made to construct a new garage on another portion of the site. Section 9.0 Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings, Section 9.1 Site Elements recommends: • All exterior lighting, including balcony and porch lighting, must be carefully placed, downcast and shielded so that entrances, sidewalks and stairways are well lit, but the lighting is non-obtrusive to neighboring properties. • No exterior light source should be located on poles more than 15 feet high. When lights mounted on buildings are intended to provide site lighting rather than corridor or exit lighting, they must be mounted no higher than 15 feet. • Parking lots, including detached garages and carports, must not be located between the principle building and the street. Parking must be located behind a building, below grade, or under a building. • Where parking is located below a building, any exposed portions of the exterior walls of the parking area visible from a street must appear to be a component of the facade of the building. The use of similar building materials, window openings, and providing facade detailing similar to the upper levels are examples of how this can be achieved. In no case shall a building have the appearance from the street of being elevated above a parking level, or “on stilts.” Section 9.2 Architectural Elements recommends: • The building should include architectural details to add interest to building elevations visible from the public street, including but not limited to the following: Quoins, dentils, cornice moldings, brackets, arches, corner boards, keystones, decorative lintels and sills, double-hung windows, soldier courses, belt courses, bay windows, and other decorative features as appropriate for the design of the overall building and materials being used. • The purpose of requiring an architectural style is to ensure that the mass, roof form, window style and configuration, and the basic architectural details of a building are generally compatible with the historic character of the historic or conservation district. New buildings should appear similar to a large house or a small historic apartment building. • Any building elevation that is within public view (visible from a public street, public sidewalk, public access easement, or other public way, or from a public park or other public open space area.), must be designed in a manner that is consistent with a historic architectural style typical of residential buildings in the historic and conservation districts. However, building facades that are visible only from public alleys are not subject to these standards. • Balconies, decks, exterior stairways, corridors, lifts and ramps should be designed so that they are integrated into the overall design of the building. Methods of integrating these elements into the building design may include, but are not limited to, fully or partially recessing them into the facade of the building, placing them under a roof that is integrated into the overall roof plan, utilizing supports that are compatible with the rest of the building in terms of materials and design, and utilizing supports that reach to the ground rather than append on the exterior of the building. • Balconies and exterior stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts must comply with the following standards: The design of any balcony, exterior stairway, exterior lift or exterior corridor must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the rest of the building. • Rooflines should reflect the predominant roof type, orientation, scale and pitch of existing buildings within the neighborhood. • The placement of windows and doors on street elevations should be consistent with the window and door patterns found on other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, and of a similar size, scale and proportion to the windows of other buildings in the neighborhood. Individual window units that are located in primary living spaces, such as living rooms, dining areas, and bedrooms, must have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater than the width of the window unit. Section 10.0 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation recommends: • 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. • 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Analysis: The Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House was locally landmarked as part of an agreement where the neighboring structures to the south would be demolished for the construction of a multi-family building, a portion of which would extend north toward the alley across the back of the landmarked property, necessitating the demolition of the garage. During the initial discussions, the Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation commented on the overall building design including number of stories and roof configuration. Now, during this formal review, the Commission’s purview only extends to the portion of the new construction located on the landmark property and the garage demolition. While this garage, is in good condition, likely built in the 1930s, it must be removed to provide access to the underground parking that is included in the project. Staff recommends approval of the garage demolition if the new construction is approved. The proposal includes a brick structure that attempts to work with the historic brick building. Staff had provided initial comments during earlier design phases including the fact that this portion of the building did not include architectural details that would help it to comply with the guidelines in section 9.2 that requires such details. The applicant provided a statement (which is attached here) that indicates that this portion of the building is meant to be a background building and the lack of ornamentation is “purposefully simple so that it does not detract for the historic building and the buildings are clearly distinguishable.” The addition of a brick wall adjacent to SE corner of the historic building and extending south to the new construction will further obscure the view of this portion of the new construction. The north, alley side elevation of the building includes the garage doors at ground level and below , the stone band above that marking the change from the lower area of brick to the upper, individual windows on each floor aligned vertically, and a balcony area. The proposal indicates that the wall in the balcony area will be a different material that has been indicated to be an aluminum siding. Staff recommends that this material is revised to follow the guidelines. Staff had also commented on the balconies during the early review since they were not integrated into the design but appended to the building surface. The elevation drawings continue to show this configuration as does the third floor plan. The second floor plan, however shows the balcony mostly, if not completely recessed into the structure. Staff finds this to be acceptable and recommends that the third floor balcony and the elevations are revised to show the balcony inset in order to follow the guidelines. The east elevation drawing most clearly shows the window patterning and other details since that will be the most visible portion of the building. Staff notes that the elevation shows first floor windows that are not shown on the plan drawing. Since the windows at this level help the building comply with the guidelines for parking areas, staff recommends that these windows are included in the approved project. Since the west side is very near the existing apartment building, staff does not think first floor windows are necessary there. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 410-412 North Clinton Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  Plans are revised to include the first floor windows on the east elevation and to inset the balconies as shown on the second floor plan.  Window and door product is submitted for review by staff  Aluminum siding is revised to a product that complies with the guidelines and is reviewed by staff and Chair. 410-412 Clinton Street- Front (west) façade 410-412 Clinton Street- View from SW corner showing apartment building behind 410-412 Clinton Street- View from NE corner showing apartment building behind and location of the new construction (left side) 410-412 Clinton Street- Looking SE. Apartment building addition (right), garage to be demolished (center left), 112 E Davenport house to be demolished (center background) 410-412 Clinton Street- garage to be demolished- NE Corner 410-412 Clinton Street- garage to be demolished- south elevation Project statement from owner and owner’s architect This is a two- story historic property that has a non-historic addition of approximately the same height on the east side. The addition also extends to the south where it is partially visible from the street. The new structure for which a COA is requested, is located behind both the addition and the historic building. It is two-stories in height and only about 42 inches taller than the historic building. The view of the new building and addition will be further obscured with the construction of a 6-foot tall masonry wall in front of the addition. Thus, given the arrangement of all three structures on the site, the new building will become a background building and be only partially visible from the street. The historic building will be the most prominent building on the site. The color of the new masonry fence and the new building base will match the historic building. The upper portion of the new building will be a compatible lighter brick color but of a similar hue. The massing and details are also designed to be purposefully simple so that it does not detract from the historic building and the building are clearly distinguishable. Color will be the unifying element of the composition. Section 3.2. Exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines allows for exceptions to the guidelines in Uncommon Situations. The construction of a new building behind a historic building and an inappropriate addition is an uncommon situation. This provision also provides for use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in Section 3.3 Additional Historic Preservation Guidelines. SOI Standard #9 states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Report July 9, 2024 Historic Review for HPC23-0070: 937 East Davenport Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Marybeth Slonneger Classification: Local Historic Landmark Project Scope: Construct an addition on the back of the hous. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.9 Paint and Color 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 Property History: The cottage at 937 East Davenport was built before 1874, as a side-gabled one-room cottage with a loft above for the children to sleep. The front door is centered on the house and there is a single window to the east of the door. A gable addition was added to the rear of the house before 1882 and a second, smaller gabled addition was added prior to 1920. Also prior to 1920 an open porch was added to the EL created by the original portion of the house and the first addition. The house has wood lap siding with corner boards, minimal flat casing surrounding double-hung windows, and a brick chimney in the end of the first addition. This house has had very few changes since 1920. At some point, rolled asphalt siding was installed, covering the original wood. The asphalt siding was removed before 2012 and the roof, which was originally wood shingle and likely replaced over time with metal, was also replaced by then with the existing metal roof. The current owners extended the porch to the rear of the house, along the side of the rear addition. New trim boards have been installed over the original trim which remains underneath. This alteration could be reversed. Detailed Project Description: This project adds a room to the back of the house. That addition is set in an unknown amount, presumed to be about 1 foot, on the east side and extends to a similar setback on the west side, enclosing the southern end of the existing porch. The addition will be a single room with a side-facing gable, similar to the oldest portion of the house closest to the street. The addition will have wood siding and trim to match the historic house. The drawings mention enclosing the existing open porches with screens but information about the framing, doors and other details have not been submitted for review of that alteration. The addition will have one window in each of the east and west walls. The south wall will have two windows and a centered door. Guidelines: 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 4.13 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. • If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. • If an opening is to be closed on a framed structure, appropriate siding that matches the existing should be used with its members being placed across and randomly extended beyond the opening. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 5.1 Expansion of the 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. • 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. • Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation. • 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. • Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. • Constructing additions with materials that appear similar to the historic siding, trim, moldings and other details of the original building. Analysis: In Staff’s opinion, a small, simple, single room addition is most appropriate for this house. The main concern is whether or not the addition can be located as shown on the drawings due to site setback requirements. While the drawings show the house with a property line located roughly 5 feet from the existing house, the Johnson County Property Information viewer shows that the house is located at an angle in relationship to the property line (so the existing setback changes along the length of the house) and is roughly 1 to 2 feet from the house. The new addition may need to be revised to meet the zoning code requirements. Staff recommends that the new addition is set in from the west edge of the existing porch, which aligns with the west edge of the oldest (north) portion of the house. The drawings do currently show this. The existing building includes three rooms built at different times with the existing south room having a different eave height than the earlier portions of the house. Since the new addition will attach to the south room, staff recommends that the new addition matches this addition in regard to the requirements of the guidelines. The drawings appear to show that the new addition will match the roof slope, eave condition and eave height of the rear addition to which it is attached. The addition will be constructed on a slab on grade. Staff recommends that the floor height of the existing house is matched in the new addition. Since this house is not raised above a tall basement, it sits close to grade, setting the house on a slab could be considered appropriate if the floor elevation is maintained and the addition is not a step down. It is likely that the proposed new door will need a landing and two or more steps down to grade. It is also likely that this door will need to be 6’-6” tall to meet code requirements. Staff recommends that this door is a wood or fiberglass half-lite door with two or three panels below. The project says that the new addition will have a standing seam metal roof. This type of roof is approvable but the approvable roof would not match the existing agricultural metal roof on the house. Staff recommends that the new addition either has a flat panel standing seam metal roof or asphalt shingles which are both approvable. The historic house originally had wood shingles which were covered in a flat panel standing seam roof historically. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 937 East Davenport Street as presented in the application with the following conditions:  Window, door, and roofing product information is submitted for review by staff.  The eave and floor height of the existing southern room is matched in the new addition.  The addition has wood lap siding, corner boards and other trim to match the historic house.  The windows match the proportion of the south-facing window in the rear addition. 937 East Davenport Street – north elevation 937 East Davenport Street – NE Corner 937 East Davenport Street – NW corner 937 East Davenport Street – south (rear) elevation 937 East Davenport Street – SW corner Proposed site plan It does not appear that the site plan is accurate in its depiction of the existing distance between the structure and the east property line. 937 East Davenport- existing plan Bath, Stair to attic, and Closet In this area Proposed Plan Proposed East and west elevations Proposed South elevation Inspiration image- summer kitchen at 724 East Bloomington Street Image from Johnson County Property Information viewer MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2024 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Andrew Lewis, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Christina Welu-Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Simon Andrew, Martha Norbeck, GT Karr, Mark Russo CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC24-0038: 426/430 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (garage demolition): Bristow noted this is in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District on the corner of Church and Van Buren. 426 Church Street is the house and it had aluminum siding removed recently so some of the photos she showed were old. 430 Church Street had a long-term owner and it has recently changed hands. The subject of the project is the shared garage between the homes. The houses were built on a lot that used to extend all the way to the alley and then it was divided in half north and south and then divided again in half east and west. Both homes are catalog homes built about the same time and have a shared driveway and a shared garage. Bristow said the issue with the garage is that it's 16ft by 16ft and a legal parking spot is 9ft by 18ft so it is too short to fit modern cars. Since the 426 property was purchased by the current owner they've been talking about this garage. With the previous owner there was no need for the corner property to have driveway or garage space but then the property changed hands and now both property owners are interested in being able to park on their property so that they don't have to park on the street. Staff has been working through this for a long time with the homeowners trying to figure out ways to first save the garage but there was no way to just add to it and make it workable, especially for two cars, and Iowa City's zoning code does not allow a garage to be built that crosses property lines. They need to have required setbacks, which can be reduced, but not to zero. The current garage not only crosses the property lines but it also is within a foot or two of the rear property line and all of the properties have to maintain a certain amount of open space. For the corner property, adding a driveway off the side street and putting a garage in the backyard would mean that they have no open space. So the solution they came to was that the garage would need to come down. Typically the Commission would look at the condition of the garage prior to approving demolition and this one does need repair. It has been repaired in the past, the doors are bead board with the framing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 2 of 11 on the outside but garage doors can be replaced and they can also repair the garage itself as it is not beyond repair to the point where they would normally allow demolition. However, in this case the only way to allow both of the properties to have a place to park is to remove the garage. The proposal is to take down the garage and have a parking pad on each side of the property line. They do plan to separate it by 6 inches, Bristow is not really sure exactly why they plan to do that perhaps due to some code requirements that a property owner doesn’t have water that drains from one property to another. Also, when driveways are on the property line it's required to curb them so that the water just does not run onto the adjacent property but in this case it would be difficult for either vehicle to really get from the shared driveway and the apron into the space if it was curbed so it will just become a parking pad. Bristow stated that again they don't tend to approve a demolition for a building that is not beyond repair and if they have a contributing building and it's going to come down they typically require a new one is constructed, especially a garage to avoid surface parking, especially in a rental neighborhood. She explained that is not possible with this project so staff does recommend that the Commission approves the demolition so that the property owners can have parking. Bristow stated it would need to be approved through the use of an exception, and the recommended motion is to approve the project using an exception for the uncommon situation of very small lots with a shared driveway. The guidelines related to this special exception are that sight and landscaping, the provided parking is behind the primary structure which they'll be doing. There is not a new driveway, they're using the same one, but the guidelines talk about driveways being 8ft to 10ft in width which this does comply with. The guidelines also stated to have driveways typically from an alley if possible but there's no alley here. In the guideline section about demolition it talks about retaining historic garages and designing replacement garages but again that will not work in this situation. Lewis asked about the limitations on where a garage can go and why that is not the same for parking pads. Bristow believes the parking pads can be closer to the property lines as it is just concrete on grade. Stork asked if they would be allowed to put any type of covering over these parking pads. Bristow replied no, they would not be able to have a carport due to City zoning code. Stork asked if carports have the same limitations as garages. Bristow doesn’t know if they're exactly the same but they're similar as again they don't want a structure near the property line because if there's a structure fire it spreads to the other property, that's one of the reasons for setback requirements. Thomann asked if there is any way for them to come back in a couple years and request a garage. Bristow replied again no, there's no possible way. Had this garage been taken out by say a tornado they could rebuild it within a certain limited time period regardless of the zoning code because if something's taken out by weather or fire it is allowed. However, they wouldn't have been able to make it bigger to fit two cars. Bristow also noted they had looked at options to add weird little bump outs so that they could come in and park, or to add a lean-to extension and that would solve the length issue but it wouldn't solve the problem with only one being able to park one car in it. MOTION: Wagner moves to approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 426 and 430 Church Street as presented in the staff report using an exception for an uncommon situation. Villanueva seconded. Thomann noted it really is an uncommon situation and feels bad because the garage reminds her so much of her own garage but of course she does haven’t to share it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 3 of 11 Sellergren is curious if they are planning on just fully demolishing it or if they going to put it up on Craigslist. She always asks about garages because she needs one. Bristow is unsure. Stork is curious how common this is in districts to have shared garages. Bristow replied she knows of a few shared garages but all of the other garages that she knows about are of a size where two cars can actually park in them. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HPC24-0040: 726 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (new construction): Bristow noted there may be some places in the report and agenda that list the address as 728 but the address is 726 Ronalds Street. This is in the Brown Street Historic District and previously the property had been divided with the student-built house built on the western lot and this application is for the house construction on the eastern lot. Bristow noted there are quite a few guidelines, and they're all listed in the packet, but one of the important parts of new construction in a district is choosing a style. The Foursquare style was chosen partly because of the fact that there are so many in the neighborhood. While it's definitely prevalent in the neighborhood there's quite a variation between them. A basic Foursquare is generally cube shaped, often slightly rectangular, with a hip roof and then a regular pattern of windows basically in each corner of the square. Some of these houses are from a transitional period so the roof type may vary. The Foursquare came out of the development of the Prairie Style so they often have a wide overhang. Submitted as part of the application were some catalog homes that provided inspiration for the design. Bristow shared the site plan noting where the first house that was built on the west side and the property line that divides the lot in half, she reminded the Commission there was an odd sewer easement that very much impacted the depth of the house on the western lot which then impacted the style and what type of architecture would be used. This house on the eastern lot has a little bit more room but there is a steep drop off from the sidewalk, there is only about 10ft or so and then it drops off sharply to the backyard and so that also impacted the design. Bristow said it will be a rectangular Foursquare with a full width front porch and a walkout basement in the sunken area of the backyard with retaining walls around it. The front facade of this house will have three columns, it is typical to often have three columns if they're the thinner columns. However many of the Foursquares with Classical Revival details, like in the Longfellow neighborhood to the south, have large piers and box or ganged columns and so they'll have two instead of three. Bristow pointed out the pattern of double hung windows in a matching pattern. She showed the rear elevation and where on the foundation a door will be cutting through grade and the stairs going down away from the door. The retaining wall will require a railing along it because it'll be greater than 30in. tall. The basement plan walks out and there's the steps up to grade, so it is a sunken patio area, there's a bedroom with an egress window, a bathroom and mechanical stuff. On the first floor is the main entry with the dining room, the kitchen, living room and a bedroom and bath. Upstairs is a series of bedrooms and a bathroom. Bristow said the Housing Fellowship owns the property and has a goal to be able to house some larger families so having this many bedrooms would allow them to do that. Bristow also noted the building HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 4 of 11 inspections and zoning code staff have noted that they would not be able to turn the basement into an accessory dwelling unit so it would not be able to be a separate living space. All new buildings follow guidelines related to how big the façade is and this one is just over half the limitation so it's fine, the height of the building being one and a half or two stories, the front setback is consistent with the neighboring property, adding doors that match what is typically seen on a historic building and using siding that is consistent, in this case a smooth LP product with a flat casing. The windows have been submitted as part of the project and is a window that has been approved before. One of the issues is the guidelines do require that a new construction in a historic district is built so the first floor is at least 18in above grade. Iowa City has had very few new constructions in a historic districts, one of them was a Habitat home over in the Dearborn Neighborhood which is a Conservation District so they did require that the front porch on that house be 18in above grade as they were able to create their zero step entry, which is required on all new constructions, at the back door which was right next to the garage and would be the main way that the occupants of the home would enter the house. In this case because of the fact that the lot slopes so drastically off in the back it's not possible to have a zero step entry into the main living space at the back. This is also the case with the property next door they're creating that zero step entry at the front porch and therefore an exception needs to be made to allow that. Also, because the porch floor will be concrete and the guidelines would have any new porch on any property traditional porch construction, an exception would need to be made for having just a concrete slab on grade. Bristow said the American Foursquare styles often have attic dormers or roof dormers on their hipped roof but this one does not, partly to reduce cost and complexity since they do have students that are building the house. There are many examples in town of Foursquares without roof dormers so staff finds this acceptable. One of the questions was about the porch columns. The porch columns as drawn are considered a round classical revival column but because of ease of construction and everything they would prefer to do a square column and staff finds that it would be acceptable to do a square column but with some added conditions to make sure that they're sized properly. The staff recommendation for this application includes conditions that the door product information and the porch column design are reviewed by staff. Sellergren is curious if there is a side door on this house. Bristow replied no, there's the rear door on the basement level but no side door. Bristow noted an entry canopy is something that they might want to consider adding over the back door. Wagner stated it's not required because of the grade, but he noted they might consider some type of porch railing for accessibility and ease of access to the home at the front door. Bristow said it’s not required but they did consider that. Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) stated they are very pleased with how the first house turned out and they are excited to get the second one going. Bristow also wanted to point out the plan for the basement shows a window on the side and it's not included in the elevation because of the fact that they have already accomplish the required egress window on the bedroom on the back. Staff would assume that this is a traditional basement window size as that would also prevent them from having to put a window well into the side of the hill and the setback requirements that are involved with that. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Martha Norbeck (C-Wise) stated these are her drawings so everything mentioned she has thought about. With the basement window they need to have a 24in deep open web trust so that they can run the duct work so that means that basement window is suddenly 24in down from the water table and they have to have a window well and that adds so much cost and complexity and they already the door with the light and the egress window they’re going to wind up with no window there. It would have been great to have the extra light in there but from a logistical standpoint it just won’t work and again since this is a student build they don’t want to be too complicated. Also, a lot of these decisions are being driven by cost for the Housing Fellowship as well as the constructability for the students. They’ve already got the guard rail necessary for the entry in the back and had the stairs there so to add the railing going up to the upper level made the kitchen/living room situation untenable by creating that access to that door. She wound up actually deciding to make that first floor room an accessible bedroom and accessible bathroom, which takes up a lot of space, and to make the living room and kitchen work in a way that actually felt like a place she would want to live and therefore got rid of the first floor back door which saves the cost of the overhang over that exit and then it also saves the railing and the landing at the at the top. GT Karr (General Contractor, Sueppel’ s Building and Remodeling) wanted to take the opportunity to talk about the positive things and how things turned out at 728 Ronalds Street. They had 16 students on the build, they’re going to have a family that's a block away from Mann moving in and they got affordable housing ,LEED gold certification, historic district house on the Parade of Homes. He noted they had a 20-year hiatus from student builds but have 26 students involved for next year. His favorite story is it's been on the parade and other than just seeing the kids and the turn out from the neighborhood and all the positive feedback, the Parade of Homes is judged by other home builders’ associations, people in construction from Des Moines and Davenport, they judged this home against the half million dollar homes. He’s had 150-200 people go through the house last weekend as well but when people in construction who are doing it for a living think they just redid a house and not build from scratch, that is showcasing the good work the students did. MOTION: Lewis moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project of 726 Ronald's Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: the door product information and porch column design are reviewed by staff. Beck seconds the motion. Thomann noted she was able to be at the open house on Saturday to see the new home there and it does look like an old home that got a facelift so they did a really good job and she is also pleased with this design too and excited to see something that will accommodate even a bigger family. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HPC24-0045: 1210 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (rear addition): Bristow stated this house is in the Longfellow Historic District and is a Minimal Traditional with an entryway that is Tudor Revival because of the asymmetrical steep angle of the roof. The lap siding with the mitered corners is pretty much the only ornamentation on this home, there had been shutters on it at one point in time, but it is unknown if those had been added or were historic. Bristow noted the grade dropping off behind the house. The windows on the house have been repaired recently. Showing an image of the back elevation of the house Bristow pointed out a little door and a bump that she is not entirely sure when that was done. Bristow showed the 1933 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map and noted this house was pasted in and that means that it's an alteration to that Sanborn Map. Iowa City’s copy of the maps were altered eight HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 6 of 11 different times up until the 1970s and so there are a lot of pasted in pieces but that is consistent with the fact that they think this house was built in the 1930s and it would have been built after 1933. The picture on the map does have that projecting entry but it does not have a bump out on the back. Bristow did note sometimes Sanborn Maps have errors but not too often so she would tend towards thinking this is accurate. She also looked back through the old housing inspector’s forms where they'd sketch properties and make notes of things and the first time they visited this house was 1973 and it did have the bump out at that point in time so she is assuming because of the Sanborn Map it was an addition that happened within the first 30 years or so of the house being built. When she was talking to the owner who proposed an addition Bristow noted that little bump out complicated things quite a bit as they have a very small house and so they want to make any addition simple and not complicate the house too much. She was not sure how they would resolve the roof and some of the set-in requirements because of the grade falling off. Bristow used the property information viewer image and sketched in where an addition would be and it looked like they do drop two feet or so by the time they get from where the current back is to the new back of the house. Bristow showed the existing house plan with a living room, kitchen, two bedrooms and a tiny hall bathroom. The proposed addition is to increase accessibility because as of right now to come into this house and go to either of the bedrooms one would have to enter into the small hallway with doors that don't allow for wheelchair accessibility. The plan proposes an addition where that bump out is. Where the bedrooms were in the original plan, one is now labeled closet and it will have the window replaced with a door that goes into a large bathroom that's accessible and a large bedroom that is also accessible through the kitchen area. The roof issue is resolved by basically removing one wall of the bump out and the roof will be replaced to go over the entire addition including the porch. Bristow compared the existing rear elevation noting the existing door and the two windows and looking at the new addition elevations. She noted that the new addition is set-in on the west side and the wall of the new bedroom is technically set-in on the east side as well by encapsulating both the existing bump out and the new addition under the one roof it keeps it simple for a small house. Staff would recommend approving this addition even though it doesn't necessarily fit some of the ways they normally like to see additions done as they’re not maintaining the roof on that little bump out but removing it and basically keeping the little salt box that was probably built historically with a crossing gable coming off the back. The main gable roof of the house is much taller so they won't be seeing this addition from the front and since the new wall is set-in that won't be visible either. The porch will have the beam that is typically seen on a porch. The one thing that did come up in the guidelines was the guidelines are very clear that a new porch must be built with traditional porch construction which means that the one column will have a pier under it and whether or not there is skirting under there would be up to them because it's going to be close to grade but it would need to still have that traditional porch construction. Also doing so would help them reduce the size of their foundation so it might help reduce the cost too. Bristow showed the west elevation and the entryway to the existing house and the addition. She noted the windows will be separated by framing with a piece of trim instead of being ganged directly together. On the east elevation she pointed out where the existing bump out area was on the existing house and the recessed area for the new addition. She noted they don't want to see a large expanse of wall that doesn't have a window in it but because this is also recessed into the porch staff doesn't find it really concerning. Bristow shared some of the guidelines such as doors trimmed to match other doors, preserving the original roof pitches and spans at least with that front salt box at the entry and all of that, preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building and while they are not preserving the roof for that bump out they are setting in from the northwest corner and preserving the actual bump out, adding windows that match the type and everything of the historic windows, adding new windows in a location that's consistent and this does have a few more paired HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 7 of 11 windows on the back that are somewhat traditional in spacing so staff didn't find that concerning. Bristow noted again they want the addition to be set-in so they can distinguish between the historic structure and the new but yet still need to match the eave lines, the window sill and head heights and those other horizontal lines on the building. The siding will match, it will be a lap sighting that has mitered corners to match the historic house, the foundation will need to match. The recommended motion for this project is to approve it with the conditions that the porch follows the traditional porch construction since the drawings didn't indicate that and that the windows are revised as noted and approval of the door product. Thomann is curious as they’ve got the porch that's at the back of the house but the stairs are coming off to the side, why not off the back. Bristow stated in this case it is because of the slope and change in grade to avoid a larger number of stairs. Sellergren asked if there are any guidelines about having a porch or stairs off the side. Bristow is not aware of any, it is required that the stairs have closed risers and some other things that are part of the design but the only time they would really want a stair on the back is if it was a two-story stair for something that's maybe not as historical. But if that is an issue for the Commission they could discuss it further. Mark Russo (1210 Sheridan Drive) is here with his wife Diana and stated the whole purpose of this addition is that as they age they want to get into a simpler arrangement and this is all one floor. He acknowledged the grade doesn't cooperate real well but it would be easy to grow old in this house because it’s all one level. He noted the reason the stairway is on the side is because there's a flat area of grade at the back of the existing bump out that’s about 8ft and then there's a drop off of at least 30in or more and there's nothing in the back except a yard so that stairway needs to return whoever is using it to the front which is unfortunately where they have to park because whoever landscaped this house years ago did not allow for any garage nor the ability to put in a garage unless they build a 10-ft retaining wall to the east and that’s just not going to happen. If they did go to the north with the stairway it would have to be probably a 15ft stairway they’re trying to avoid those issues. Also, regarding the age of the bump out, it wasn't in that original drawing but the siding is all continuous, so he has a hard time believing that this siding was removed to accommodate the bump out. The siding is mitered so it starts at the south end and goes all the way to the north end and additionally in the basement the cement wall was framed and not cut because there is a funny little storm shelter underneath, and somebody built a cement bench. This was all likely done in 1939 or 1940, prior to the nuclear age but that's what he knows about that and it might have been original. He will have to go back and look at it all more closely, it's an odd little structure that is a little dining area off of the kitchen and it's about 6 by 6 so two people can have breakfast or dinner in there but that’s all. They did recently rebuild the windows by Wadsworth Construction and bought storms from Adams Architectural so all the fenestration is original and completely working. His hope is they can find a manufacturer that at least in terms of look can replicate that. This house has been gone through the mill apparently it was owned by a an anthropology professor who left every summer for an archaeological dig and turned the yard over to the neighborhood as a community garden but it was really never attended to and up close the siding is really an issue because it's all peeling and there's so many layers of paint that have been applied and then blistered off. Bristow noted when she looked at the past inspector's notes both of the times they said it desperately needed to be scraped and painted. Russo stated four years ago they had it scraped and painted and now are right back to it looking as it did before. He is afraid he’ll have to be a little more aggressive do a project and perhaps have the siding removed and run through a machine to get it off because they HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 8 of 11 just can't scrape it off and there are also issues of lead, but that would be a different project to discuss later. Wagner had a question about which Sanborn Map Iowa City has because he stated one can go to the Library of Congress and go to their Sanborn Maps and they have each year that it's issued. Bristow acknowledged that but said they just don't have the 1930s ones and that may have something to do with what's in the public domain. MOTION: Beck moves to recommend approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1210 Sheridan Avenue as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: the porch follows traditional porch construction, windows are revised as noted, and door and window product information is reviewed by staff. Wagner seconded the motion. Beck noted this is a lovely house and appreciates them sharing their stories about it and really respects and appreciates that they're wanting to age in place. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Bristow noted in an effort to not have as many projects without a permit they are going back to what the Zoning Code really says and it does require that they review anything that requires a regulated permit that makes a material change and is in a historic district. So that means they will be reviewing some basic venting and stuff like that. Generally these are issued a certificate of no material effect and as long as it's not in an impactful area staff is approving it. However now the Commission will see these in the staff report. Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0035: 722 East College Street – College Green Historic District (mechanical venting): Bristow stated they have a kitchen area down in the basement of this church and are putting in some vents. There will be one on the side wall and the rear, both in areas where they are not visible from the street. HPC24-0036: 903 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (mechanical venting): Bristow explained on the back of the house it will have a vent between a back entry and a window that for a bathroom venting as they're adding a bathroom this house. This property is very interesting, it is a key property in this Conservation District and yet it has synthetic siding. It was damaged during the tornado. HPC24-0042: 1501 Center Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (siding replacement): Bristow stated one of the recent storms blew off the siding of this Moffit house. This house is contributing to the District and has had synthetic siding applied but in this case they approved them to just replace what's in the gable and they could match it and are going to paint it because that gable was the only part that was damaged from the storm. Also the porch is a reconstruction, it would not have had these spindle columns. HPC24-0049: 515 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (concrete stoop replacement): Bristow noted this house changed hands recently and it's been glorious to see its transformation. It was probably just a rental house before and now has been purchased by an owner who is completely HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 9 of 11 reworking things which is exciting. This project is replacing the concrete stoop. Minor Review – Staff review HPC24-0017: 818 Rundell Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (railing replacement and exhaust venting): Bristow stated this is a house on Dearborn that has synthetic siding, the porch has been reconstructed, it is actually a house that would have never had these spindled columns or this spindled railing, the railing is off the shelf from Menard's and it's way too small and too far apart in spacing. They needed to replace the railing now since it's falling apart and staff suggested square spindles and to matching the guidelines with the spacing. HPC24-0047: 830 E Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (enlarged rear stoop and stairs): Bristow explained they're replacing the railing and on the back the house has several bump outs and additions and several little stoops. One will be enlarged slightly and the railing will now follow the guidelines. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0037: 820 Park Road – Local Historic Landmark (roof shingle replacement with shingle-style metal roof): Bristow explained it's time to replace the roof on this house and it has actually always had an asphalt roof. This was a house built by an engineer and the City proposed to do a metal shingle and the Chair and staff agreed that could fit within what Ned Ashton probably would have wanted to do given the fact he was an engineer and given the fact that they have come pretty far in being able to make these shingles look like historic shingles now. Bristow showed some examples of what the shingle tends to look like when it's installed and the color that they're going with. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 22, 2024: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's May 22, 2024. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Work Plan and subcommittees: Bristow stated they started emailing about the awards and stuff so that's good. She was going to get a list of potential landmarks from the past hasn’t done that yet. Sellergren noted Ginalie from Friends of Historic Preservation sent out an email to all of their members requesting nominations this afternoon. Bristow noted they try not award the same properties and the same people all the time and also do awards for residential rehabilitation on anything on the exterior if anyone has nominations. There are also stewardship awards for anyone who has maintained it for a very long time over time. Sellergren stated the goal is to have a good list by July and the next thing they'll need to do is pick a date and find a location. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Sellergren went to the forum but was only there for a few hours but it was very interesting and they got a tour of Mount Pleasant. The town square is very nice with some really cool brick buildings like a large HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 10 of 11 brick hotel in the corner of the square and the first woman lawyer in the United States was sworn in at one of the buildings that's facing the square, the first courthouse in Iowa was located, there's also Iowa Wesleyan College there which just recently closed, it has a lot of old buildings and was the oldest college west of the Mississippi. Bristow did a lot of tours and attended a session that was more geared to mid-century properties and what's historic and working with them. One of the tours had to do with the Underground Railroad and what's interesting is a town south of that had a large Quaker population and the Quakers felt that they were not beholden to the laws of the land but beholden to higher laws and so they helped the Freedom Seekers. They toured a house owned by a Quaker family where they had places basically below the floor where people could hide. She also went on a tour that included the house that James Van Allen lived in and one of the descendants of one of his brothers was there for part of the tour. There was also a house that was lived in by one of Abraham Lincoln's sons and his wife. Sellergren and Bristow both saw a tour related to rehab and Bristow went on another one that was adaptive reuse. Their city hall building now is offices down below and apartments above. It’s a tiny city hall and not anything like what Iowa City would have but interesting. It was a very good conference, and she made notes for things that relate to Iowa City. Sellergren noted next year it's in Muscatine which will be interesting as a river town. Bristow stated the only other thing is Commissioner elections will need to happen at the July meeting. Beck was reappointed and Stork is cycling off the Commission. Bristow thanked Stork for his service and noted it has been very good to have him on the Commission because it is necessary to have a dissenting opinion as they do not need to be a unanimous voting body and it's very valuable to have people like him who live in the District and know what's going on be on the Commission. Wagner discussed the Terrace Mound open house on Saturday, it’s a house he has been working on at 5053 Highway 6 East, right across from Kinder Farm. It is an 1873 house that has been renovated and restored, the open house is Saturday from 1pm to 4pm. ADJOURNMENT: Villanueva moved to adjourn the meeting. Lewis seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:43pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 X O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X VILLANUEVA, NICOLE 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member