Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-25 HPC Agenda packet Thursday March 13, 2025 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, March 13, 2025 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificates of Appropriateness HPC25-0002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (rear demolition and new addition) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff review HPC24-0102: 611 North Governor Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (siding and trim repair and replacement) HPC25-0005: 317 church Street – Northside Historic District (addition of two bath vents and one laundry vent) F) Consideration of Minutes for February 13, 2025 G) Commission Discussion 1. Work Plan Update H) 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 March 6, 2025 Historic Review for HPC25-2002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue General Information: Applicant/Owner: Karen Leigh, karenleigh804@gmail.com District: Woodlawn Avenue Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: rear demolition and addition Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Property History: This two-story house was built in 1891. It has a main gable-on-hip roof with two-story gabled projections on all four sides. A gabled roof dormer projects from the west side of the front facing gable. A full width front porch wraps around the west side. A one-story bay projects from the west side. A one-story rear open porch on the east side is mirrored by an enclosed one-story projection on the west side. The house is clad in lap siding and has elaborate, decorative trim that are suggestive of Stick Style and Eastlake details. The gable projections have decorative, carved barge boards, with lattice work in the peaks. Band boards wrap the house at the level of the first and second floor window heads. Above the second-floor band board the house and gable ends are clad in scalloped fish-scale shingles. A decorative band of half cove shingles between the first floor window heads and the second floor window sills wraps around the south and west sides of the house. The frieze board at the first floor on the west side differs from the frieze board found on the rest of the house. The front porch has a triangular pediment above the entrance and a Chinese lattice frieze, slender turned columns and small sandwich brackets. Detailed Project Description: This project removes the one-story rear portion of the house and replaces it with a new, slightly larger one-story addition. The addition will have a rear-facing gable roof similar to the main gables on the house. The siding will be a lap siding in wood or smooth cement board matching the siding on the house. The east side will have a pair of half- lite, two panel doors. The south side will have a pair of windows. The west side will have two evenly spaced windows. The windows will be wood or metal clad wood matching the historic windows on the house. The frieze will match the west side. Guidelines: Section 4.3 Doors recommends: • Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. 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. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. • For many applications, fiber cement board is an approved substitute for wood provided the fiber cement board is smooth faced with no simulated wood grain. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends: • 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. • Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile. • Installing doors in additions that match the material of historic doors, and have a similar style and appearance as the historic doors in the existing building. • Installing French doors, or doors of a similar type, in additions where a large opening is desired. • Following the guidelines for new doors in section 4.3 Doors. • Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. • Using windows that are of a similar type, proportion and divided light pattern as those in the original structure. • Following the guidelines for new windows in section 4.13 Windows. • Constructing additions with materials that appear similar to the historic siding, trim, moldings, and other details of the original building. • It is disallowed to: • Leave large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors. • Add space to a structure by enclosing a historic front or side porch. • Use synthetic siding on an addition instead of the historic siding type or a substitute material approved by the HPC, unless an exception is provided by the HPC. Section 7.1 Demolition recommends: • Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound and are a safety hazard Analysis: While the existing one-story rear portion of this house has been in place since before 1920, this portion of the house is unfinished, steps down from the main floor of the house, and is heavily deteriorated. It also has a different siding and trim configuration and a different style of window. The application is to demolish this 14 foot by 16 foot portion and replace it with a 15 foot by 18 foot addition. Due to the condition of the existing structure, staff recommends approval of the demolition with approval of the new addition. The application included elevation drawings of the three sides of the addition but did not include a plan drawing or a site plan drawing to show how the addition would connect to the rest of the house. The assessor sketch shows that the one-story portion is flush with the east wall of the house and is set in 2 feet from the west wall. It is 14 feet in this east/west direction. The proposed addition is 15 feet by 18 feet. Staff assumes that the east/west dimension will be 15 feet and the addition will extend south 18 feet. While the guidelines recommend setting additions in from the corner of the historic house, staff recommends that the addition is approved with the east wall flush with the historic portion of the house because this is an existing condition that is found with the current one-story portion. Staff recommends that the west wall is set in to comply with the guidelines, which is also an existing condition with the one-story portion. Since the proposed addition is one-foot wider than the existing construction, it would extend one foot further west. Staff finds this acceptable as long as the roof overhang terminates at the corner and does not project beyond it. This should be verified in a plan drawing with the roof termination shown in a revise south elevation drawing or a detail drawing. The application proposes to install a window in the point of the gable and the applicant submitted a photo of the gable-on-hip windows on the main portion of the house. These windows are a particular feature of a gable-on-hip roof that is not typically found in the peak of a gable roof. Staff does not recommend approval of a gable-on-hip attic window since that is not the proposed (or recommended) roof type at the new addition. Instead, staff recommends that the new gable peak matches the other gables on the roof with shingle siding a small half-round window and stick-style ornamentation in the gable peak. The application proposes to match the trim style found on the first floor of the west side of the house where the frieze pattern is a vertical pattern instead of the fishscale pattern found elsewhere. Staff finds this appropriate since it is the only single-story area found on the historic house. The house has a stone rubble foundation. The proposed addition includes a stone-line façade for the foundation. Staff recommends further information or product submittal for approval. The door shown in the east elevation is shown with the door head significantly shorter than the head height for the existing doors and windows. Staff recommends this is revised to match the other openings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at Address as presented in the application with the following conditions:  A plan drawing is submitted.  The new gable peak matches the other gables on the house, instead of the gable-on-hip roof.  The west roof overhang terminates at or before the corner of the historic house and is verified in drawings.  Foundation, window and door product information is submitted for approval.  The new door opening is revised to match the height of existing doors. 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – North Façade 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – rear one-story portion to be removed (note that the sidewall of this portion aligns with the wall of the main house) 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – interior of unfinished and deteriorated one-story portion 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – Assessor sketch South West East 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – west side of rear of house 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – west side showing first floor frieze. 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – south elevation drawing of addition 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – east elevation drawing of addition 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – west elevation drawing of addition MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 2025 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Christina Welu-Reynolds, MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Burford, Frank Wagner, Nicole Villanueva, STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Daniel Lopatka, Brenda Barger CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC24-0119: 420-422 North Linn Street- Northside Historic District (front deck reconstruction): Bristow stated this house is in the Northside Historic District, on the agenda she had accidentally written Brown Street Historic District. She noted it's an interesting house and is very old, it's shown for the first time in the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps in 1899, it is a brick house and was built as a duplex with an open front porch on each of the halves and a one-story section on each of the rear portions with an open porch. Long ago, prior to 1912, the brick was clad with wood siding and it showed that way until the 1933 Sanborn map. Also in the 1933 Sanborn it shows a full width front porch but Bristow thought that might be an error as it’s clearly two separate front porches through all of the other Sanborn maps. Bristow stated they also know in the 1950s or 1960s the columns and railing were replaced with wrought iron and in 1977 asbestos siding was installed over the wood siding. In 1998 the porch roof and columns were removed and at least one version of the deck was built in 1999. Bristow stated this project is a reconstruction of the structure for the deck, and it is enough of a reconstruction that it does require a building permit. She noted often what happens in this situation is they would consider it no longer grandfathered in, however with this particular project there's enough of the materials being reused that the staff recommendation is to go ahead and approve the current configuration. They're replacing much of the structure that can be seen using new wood but they're leaving some of the structure and reusing the railing. In January it was floored over, reusing the same flooring that was there. Bristow noted there are two guidelines that correspond to this project. One is about the handrails, and she included that because if it was a new deck that was being reviewed it would have to follow the handrail guidelines, which this one does not. The deck guidelines recommend the decks and ramp are located on the back of the building and attached in a manner that won't damage the historic wall. Then it recommends following the guidelines for handrails and balustrades. It then states it is disallowed to construct a deck between the street and the street facing facade if it detracts from the neighborhood or is not compatible with the architectural style of the building. However, as she mentioned because many HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 13, 2025 Page 2 of 6 of the materials are being reused, staff does recommend to approve this deck to be reconstructed with an exception for an uncommon situation and that situation is that while it does require a permit for a new deck, they are reusing a lot of the structure and this house has been heavily modified over time. Daniel Lopatka (420-422 North Linn Street) appreciates the work Bristow has done on this. He has lived in the home since 2010 or 2011 and that deck has been there since he’s been there. It also sounds like the deck has been there for at least 50 years, and maybe since 1933 in some form. Bristow did note there is a distinction between a deck and a porch, because a porch has a roof. This deck has always been very sturdy and very functional, there were just a few boards that needed to be replaced. Lopatka stated they completed a tuck pointing job on the interior basement last year and along with the tuck pointing they wanted to do a little exterior tuck pointing so some of these pictures with the deck exposed was to look at the exterior tuck pointing along the front underneath the house. So incidental to the tuck pointing they removed some of the boards and that’s why in some of the pictures shown boards are missing. Lopatka stated this deck is functional and it's going to be painted and look really nice when they're done with it. He noted the owner spent $9,000 or $10,000 already a couple years ago just on the central staircase so it's just a matter of finishing the exterior tuck pointing and then connecting it with bolts through the ledger board, and then repainting the railings so they look not as weather beaten as they do at the moment. Lopatka noted he really cares about the neighborhood and wants it to look nice so they’ll do a good job on this. Lopatka noted the staff report states they will install a new support post next to the building to be used to support the deck instead of attaching to the masonry wall but they intend to keep it as is and just repair it by using new ledger bolts that aren't as rusted as the ones that are there so just repairing it and still keeping it attached to the house. Thomann noted she would love to see the siding taken off of the house and the brick returned sometime down the road. MOTION: Sellergren moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 424-422 North Linn Street as presented in the staff report with an exception to the guidelines for uncommon situations. Beck seconded the motion, a vote was taken and it passed 7-0. Certified Local Government Annual Report: Bristow stated this is the Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report and she will go through the questions on the report. First questions asks did they do any survey or identification projects last year, and the City did not. However, it is a CLG requirement so they need to explain how they plan to do that in the future and she responded with it being part of the Commission's work plan to have a landmark and district committee and that committee will look into potential districts or landmarks. Next asks did they do any registration or nomination projects in 2024 and while they did not a member of the public had nominated the Iowa City Rec Center for the National Register and as a CLG they had to review that. Bristow noted they used to ask about all changes made to National Register properties, but they no longer do that and just ask if any of them that are listed were moved or demolished and that's a no for last year. The report then starts talking about the local program and did they designate any local landmarks or local districts. Yes, last year 302 East Bloomington was landmarked. The next question is who is qualified, according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications, for the CLG and Bristow is in historic architecture and architecture history, and Commissioner Beck is also qualified in prehistoric archeology. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 13, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Did they pass any other ordinances that directly or indirectly impact the preservation of historic resources? Bristow talked with the other planners about this, and they did not pass anything last year that would impact historic properties. The next question is about planning and every year this Commission does create a work plan and the year the focus was on three action items. Next, they report any assistance they've provided with preservation projects, and last year they had the highest number of inquiries that they've ever had, more than 80 over the previous highest year. Bristow noted the highest year was that first year of COVID because everybody was home looking at their house. But this last year they had 312 inquiries and 119 applications. She did note a few of them were duplicates or voided, but that happens every year. Next item discussed is the preservation fund, it started at $40,000 a year and was raised to $42,000 for this current fiscal year and then it will go back to $40,000 for the fiscal year that starts in July. The City has approved 63 projects on 49 properties and paid out $222,000 and those projects total costs were about $559,000. Bristow stated that currently there are a few projects under contract, and a couple that are about ready to be under contract. They have will have allocated all the funds for this year. Since this question is talking about any assistance with preservation issues she listed a few larger projects. They helped with the second student build house on Ronald Street for The Housing Fellowship, they approved and helped Deluxe Bakery through the process for the permanent accessibility ramp at the bakery on Summit Street and they worked with facility management to approve a new metal roof that could be appropriate for the Ned Ashton House. Finally, they got through all of the stages of the review to landmark 410-412, Clinton Street and construct an adjacent development, which was a long, multiyear process. Next they are to describe community public education programs. Bristow stated they usually do the awards in September but postponed until February, so they didn't have anything specific that happened last year. The issues and challenges that they had this year was working through quite a few work without permits and that whole process of trying to get the word out to people in advance, she noted they aren't just skipping the historic review but also skipping getting building permits so the whole department has worked together to get the word out on that. Bristow also stated because staff has been trying to clarify for the public when exactly historic review is needed, and since the language in the code is that it's needed when a regulated permit is required and it's a material change staff is working through the process to determine what that means and not have to require historic review for the simplest of trade permits. Bristow reviewed some other projects from the year in the report, the property in the 800 block of College Street that had appealed their HVAC piping, nothing has happened with that. One of the good things was 302 to 316 East Bloomington Street was landmarked, that's where the Friends of Historic Preservation had hired Jennifer Price to write an assessment of the building that was then submitted to the state for their opinion on whether or not it was eligible for the National Register. They also then used that document as the backup document for the reason for landmarking the building. Other good news for the year was it was great to fill the seat in the East College Street District with Ryan Russell because that had been an empty seat for a while, they did the study for the Summit Street monument and got funding, unfortunately it is a complex project and the new location is undetermined so they will lose that funding, it was just not something that could happen on that tight of a schedule. The house at 1011 Woodlawn, which burned and sat empty, had sold at the end of last year by a couple who will rehab it. Bristow noted they did have many legal challenges in 2023 that carried over into 2024 and therefore amended the annual report last year to include them. They had open records request and needed to submit that addendum to the annual report. Those cases are included this year. The next section is about what partnerships did the Commission form or continue, Bristow stated back HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 13, 2025 Page 4 of 6 in 2020 she had given a presentation on the work of Richard Carlson, who had written the National Register nominations for the Tate Arms and the Iowa Federation Home but no one thought to record that presentation and they had a lot of people asking about it so she worked with the Channel 4 to make a recording of that. Bristow also worked with Parks and Rec to have them give the Commission updates on the City Park pool and also the long standing interest in the coming up with an appropriate name for Oak Park when it gets rehabbed. Other questions in the report, did they receive any grants, no, do they have a website, yes and then a self-assessment of the programs for which Bristow stated the Commission channeled most of their energy towards landmarking which also allowed them to work on public outreach and education to make up for the lack of the awards. The Commission also still has both the awards subcommittee and that district and landmarking subcommittee so even if they didn't necessarily tick off things on the work plan, they still made progress. Bristow reported they have an annual budget of $750 for training and expenses and $2,000 for the annual mailing. She reported they still have two long term vacancies, one in Woodlawn and one in the Jefferson Street District, where they've only once ever had a commissioner because it's mostly a student population. The report then includes all the current Commissioner’s information. She reported that she went to the Preservation Summit and Sellergren came for the CLG roundtable day, Bristow also did some other training through the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions and the National Trust Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors had a climate symposium, and she went to the Pass Forward Conference in New Orleans which was an interesting one, and then another one From the NAPC on navigating ADU development in in historic districts. The report then asks two questions, what training topic would be most helpful for the Commission, and she reported the fact that they've had a shortage of properly trained contractors, but if someone else has topic ideas please let Bristow know. Then they request suggestions for improvement and Bristow suggested that they might make a more active presence because a lot of commissioners don't know anything about them or that they exist, especially someone in a small town. The final part of the report is to submit a portfolio of images and Bristow said she would make a PDF of the awards presentation and submit that as it shows a lot of the people who have done good work in the City but again if anyone has any suggestions, photos or drawings of specific projects let her know. Brenda Barger asked about where are the official CLG files located. Bristow replied they are housed in the Neighborhood Development Services Department in City Hall. Thomann noted an error in the terms of each member of the Commissioners on the table so Bristow will update that. MOTION: Brown moved to approve the Certified Local Government Annual Report. Thomann seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review: HPC24-0118: 629 North Gilbert Street- Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (replacement of one porch pier): Bristow stated this house is located in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District, on the corner of Gilbert and Ronald. They are replacing a porch pier. She noted this is a rental property and HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 13, 2025 Page 5 of 6 even though it was a terra cotta tile construction with stucco over it all they need is the stucco coating so the property management company can make it a wood one just so long as it has a stucco coating so it'll match the other ones. HPC25-0004: 629 Brown Street - Brown Street Historic District (porch roof reconstruction and roof shingle replacement): Bristow stated they’ve been working on this one for a while and the porch roof will be replaced completely from the frieze board up, and the house will also get new roof shingles as well. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 9, 2025: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's January 9, 2025 meeting. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Annual Awards Presentation Update: Bristow stated their priority is to get the certificates made so that they can get signed by Lewis as the chair and then the mayor. After that the next priority is to invite the contractors and then go over the scripts. Bristow stated as she is compiling information for the certificates, she is depositing that information in the folders to help with writing the scripts. Sellergren is putting the submitted photos there as well. She is also ready to do the programs so whenever those are ready she can get those done. Work Plan Update: Bristow just wants to keep Work Plan Update on the agenda for a Commission discussion item for the future and as the committees do things they can present it. She didn't have anything in particular to discuss today but wanted everyone to remember to keep working on the plan. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Lewis noted the memo from the City Manager that was in the agenda packets. Bristow stated she doesn’t have much to add, it’s pretty self-explanatory and is something new that they're trying, and they'll see how it goes. ADJOURNMENT: Brown moved to adjourn the meeting. Reynolds seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 NAME TERM EXP. 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/27 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X BURFORD, KEVIN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- X X X X X X X O/E LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X RUSSELL, RYAN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E 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 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 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 X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X O/E X O/E X X X O/E X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member