HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-25 HPC Agenda packet
Thursday
April 10, 2025
5:30 p.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, April 10, 2025
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
Agenda
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificates of Appropriateness
1. HPC25-0006: 1221 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (addition and garage conversion)
2. HPC25-0009: 203 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (alteration to front façade)
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff review
HPC25-0008: 538 S Gilbert Street – Local Historic Landmark (repair and replacement of exterior wood
elements)
Minor Review – Staff Review
1. HPC24-0041: 930 E College Street – College Hill Conservation District (basement egress window)
2. HPC25-0007: 431 S Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (replacement of first floor
asphalt shingles with metal roof)
3. HPC25-0012: 220 S Johnson Street-College Green Historic District (replacement of flat porch roof)
F) Consideration of Minutes for March 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 April 10, 2025
Historic Review for HPC25-0006: 1221 Sheridan Avenue
General Information:
Owners: Katherine Marqusee, Lucas McLeran
Contact person: Michael Nolan, michael@horizon-architecture.com
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: The owner is proposing an addition to the western side of the home
and converting the garage to indoor living space. Uncovered
parking is proposed off the alley.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
3.2 Exceptions to the Iowa City 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
Property History:
The house at 1221 Sheridan Avenue is a single-story Minimal Traditional house that
appears to have been built in 1941. The house is a side -gabled form with a projecting
front gable. The front façade features an entry in an open porch recessed under the
projecting gable. Small kitchen windows are located in the projection to the west of the
recessed entry. A garage is located on the west side of the projection. The main portion
of the house is rectangular with long 15-lite paired windows on the entry wall. A brick
chimney is located on the east end of the house. The windows are multi-paned double
hung sashes.
Some alterations to the garage are evident. It appears that the garage was extended
forward (north) and a window to the adjacent kitchen was enclosed. In 1981 Aluminum
siding and soffits were added. In 2011 the Commission approved a platform deck off the
rear, southwest corner of the house behind the garage but it does not seem to have
been built.
Detailed Project Description:
This project includes an addition to the western façade of the home and the conversion
of the garage to living space. A parking pad providing two parking spaces is proposed
off the alley. Drawings are attached.
The addition is set in from the walls of the historic home. It is simple in design to
compliment the historic home. New double hung windows are proposed along all
facades of the addition. The windows will be wood or metal clad wood with a muntin
pattern to match the window on the south end of the east façade. A new ½ lite
fiberglass door with panels below is proposed on the western façade of the addition.
Cast-in-place concrete steps or wood steps leading up to a landing is also proposed.
The siding will match the profile of the historic siding. Smooth LP siding or similar is
proposed. A carriage house type garage door with windows is also proposed.
Guidelines:
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• Installing new garage doors that resemble the styles of historic ones, or installing
new garage doors which are simple in design.
• Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in
the building.
Section 4.7 Mass and Roofline 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 substi tute 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.
• 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 s iding,
trim, moldings, and other details of the original building.
• It is disallowed to:
o leave large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors.
o 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.
Analysis:
Staff finds that the proposed addition and garage conversion will allow additional living
space in a manner that compliments the historic home. Staff finds that the proposal
meets the historic guidelines, except for the location of the addition.
To provide flexibility for certain changes and certain properties, th e Commission has the
ability to consider exceptions to the guidelines. Section 3.2 Exceptions to the Iowa City
Guidelines allows the Commission to consider exceptions due to “uncommon
situations”. The intent in considering alternative designs is to allow architectural
flexibility in exceptional circumstances such as non-compliance structures, irregular lots,
and projects which satisfy the intent of the guidelines as interpreted by the Commission.
When approving a project that requires an exception, the Comm ission shall identify the
guidelines for which the exception is being made, and the rationale for the exception.
In 5.0 Guidelines for Additions the Historic Preservation Handbook recommends
“Placing building additions at the rear of a property, if possible. Additio ns at or near the
front of an existing building must be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of
the historic building, and must be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other
means.” Due to the configuration of the historic home on the lot it is not possible for a
rear addition. Specifically, the home is approximately 10’ from the southern property
line.
The proposed addition preserves the original four corners of the historic home and is
simple in design to compliment the simple, single-story Minimal Traditional home. The
addition is set in 12 inches from the southern façade. On the north , the garage of the
historic home is maintained as the addition is set in over 7’ from the façade of the
garage, so that it is setback from the north face of the main volume of the house. The
addition also preserves the northern most window on the west side of the garage. The
drawings also show a change in the roofline. Although the garage will be converted to
interior living space an overhead garage door will remain and be sealed off.
In summary, staff finds that an exception is warranted for this project due to the unique
configuration of the home on the lot. Furthermore, the proposed addition does not
significantly affect the architectural character of the historic home.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1221
Sheridan Avenue as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines
allowing an addition to the side of the home due to the lot configuration that does not
allow a rear addition subject to the following conditions:
1. Window and door product is approved by staff.
2. Historic siding and trim configuration is documented and reviewed by staff.
1221 Sheridan Ave – 2024 Google Street View
1221 Sheridan Avenue – Existing east elevation
1221 Sheridan Avenue – Existing west elevation
Staff Report April 10, 2025
Historic Review for HPC25-0009: 203 N. Linn Street
General Information:
Owners: 203 N Linn St, LLC, peterbyler@gmail.com
Contact person: Michael Nolan, michael@horizon-architecture.com
District: Local Historic Landmark
Classification: Local Historic Landmark
Project Scope: The owner is proposing to add a secondary entrance along the N.
Linn Street façade.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
10.0 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Property History:
The building at 203 N. Linn Street is a four-story Mid-19th Century/Greek Revival
building that was built c. 1862. The property was designated as a Local Historic
Landmark in 2014 and a year later was listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
The summary paragraph from section 8 of the National Register Nomination states the
following:
“Union Bakery is locally significant under Criteria A and C as a good
example of the activities of early Iowa City entrepreneurs – especially
those of the resident German immigrant community – and the efforts to
establish and grow successful commercial ventures in a dynamic Midwest
town just a few decades old. It is also significant as a rare surviving
commercial property type in Iowa City, a property type characterized by a
size and scale larger than most of its contemporaries, together with its
19th century brick and stone construction methods and materials, and its
historic lodging and commercial functions in a close-in location. This was
neither a narrow attached storefront catering to retail customers in the
downtown, nor was it was an industrial/commercial business sited by its
owner at edge of town where access by rail or wagon would be easy.
Rather, the building was constructed in the midst of mixed residential and
retail blocks where walking was still the major means of getting about town
and where the pedestrians (and therefore potential customers) might be
visitors to the city, or local workers in the nearby breweries, or university
students. The period of significance runs from c. 1862, when the original
building was constructed on the corner of North Linn and East Market
Streets, until 1965, the moving 50-year rule of the National Register
program. This period includes the 1893 addition to the original building
and acknowledges the building’s continuing contribution to the evolution of
Iowa City’s commercial life, especially within the vibrant Northside
commercial neighborhood. “(Section 8 page 10)
Detailed Project Description:
The applicant has submitted two plan sets both of which include adding a new entrance
to the eastern façade of the building. Full plan sets are attached.
Version 1, below, shows a new storefront entrance with a concrete landing and steps
and steel railing. The proposed landing is within the public right -of-way which requires
approval of a temporary use of right-of-way permit from the Public Works Department.
Public Works has concerns and questions regarding the request. No approval has been
granted.
Version 2, below, shows an additional entrance proposed on the eastern façade that
leads into a vestibule. Within the vestibule are two more doors – one leading up to the
residential units and one leading into a commercial space. Concrete steps are shown
within the public right-of-way, which also requires a temporary use of right-of-way permit
from Public Works which has not been obtained.
Guidelines:
Section 10 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
1.A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial
relationships.
2.The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships
that characterize a property will be avoided.
3.Each property will be recognized as a physical reco rd of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4.Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
5.Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved .
6.Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and
physical evidence.
9.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.
Analysis:
In reviewing the proposed change to the building, staff reviewed the National Regis ter
Nomination to better understand the significance of the building. The nomination notes
that the building is “also significant as a rare surviving commercial property type in Iowa
City, a property type characterized by a size and scale larger than most of its
contemporaries, together with its 19th century brick and stone construction methods and
materials, and its historic lodging and commercial functions in a close -in location.” This
is a large building significant in part due to its scale. It was also noted that it was not a
“narrow, attached storefront.”
The building features a corner entrance at Linn and Market at the SE corner of the
building. This entrance reflects the corner entrance of the Un ion Brewery to the south.
This type of corner entrance is rare in commercial buildings of this era in Iowa City.
Many commercial buildings in town are divided into bay s, each with their own separate
entrance and display window. While it is known that all of the windows in the building
have been replaced, on the east façade none of the openings above the basement level
have been further altered. There is no evidence that the east façade had any entrance
other than the corner entrance. This building only has one façade entrance, not multiple
bays with separate entrances.
Furthermore, the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps following the construction of the 1893
addition shows that the two commercial spaces were connected from an interior
opening within the wall. Detail from the 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map also shows
the Union Bakery (Central Hotel) with an interior opening connecting spaces within the
building.
Detail from 1899 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map.
Detail from the 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map.
Based on the information available to staff, a second storefront entrance never existed
along the N. Linn Street façade of the Union Bakery building. The building is significant
for its architecture and for its size in relation to the majority of the commercial
architecture downtown. The corner entrance is similarly significant. Altering the east
Wall openings between
first floor spaces.
façade by creating a second storefront entrance would have a negative impact on the
historic character and significance of the building.
Staff provided comments to the applicant on Version 1, as Version 2 was shared with
staff on April 2 and not submitted with the original application. Staff suggested to the
applicant that they explore adding another entrance to the southern façade. This is the
secondary façade and it has been altered in the past. Access from the south side could
make it easier to provide an accessible entrance to both first floor spaces since this side
already has an accessible entrance. Regarding the proposed entrance on the eastern
façade, staff also has concerns with the location of the opening. The entry storefr ont
proposed in the center of the north half of the building does not reflect the rhythm of
opening in the façade where the existing opening is located at the corner.
In comparing Version 1 with Version 2, staff has more concerns with Version 2. Unlike
Version 1 it is not a storefront, but rather a vestibule which staff finds to have a
significant impact on the historically significant façade. Instead of a single window and
transom in the space, which is the existing condition, or a door with sidelights and
transom, this version creates an interior entry vestibule open to the elements. The floor,
sidewalls, and ceiling will all be new conditions exposed to the elements. The materials
used and their design would be subject to historic review and have not been included in
the application. In addition, from the exterior, the vestibule does not lead to a single
door to the space, centered on the main opening. Instead, the focal point will be a wall
between a door into the space, and a door to new s tairs to the second floor. Neither of
these doors will be fully visible from the exterior as shown in the rendering.
Based on conversations with current and former staff of the Iowa City Downtown
District, it is our understanding that there is a need for smaller retail a nd business space
within the downtown. Given the size of the first floor of the building it is no surprise that
the applicant is attempting to break up the space and provide individual entrances to
each space.
If the Commission is inclined to approve a new entrance in the eastern façade an
exception to the guidelines will be needed. Conditions related to the preservation of the
limestone sill on the building should also be included.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends deferral of this application to allow staff and the applicant time to
revise the plans to align with the guidelines and acquire a determination on a temporary
use of right-of-way permit from the Public Works Department.
If the Historic Preservation Commission is inclined to approve an additional entrance on
the eastern façade through the use of an exception, staff recommends deferral to allow
the applicant time to revise the plans to ensure that any new entrance on the eastern
façade is designed in a way to limit any impacts to the building’s historic significance.
203 N. Linn Street, East Facade – 2024 Google Street View
203 N. Linn Street, South Façade – 2024 Google Street View
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
C-101
COVER SHEET
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SHEET INDEX
ID
C-101
G-101
D-101
A-101
A-102
A-201
A-202
A-301
Name
COVER SHEET
LIFE SAFETY PLANS
DEMO PLAN
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
ELEVATIONS
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING SECTION
VERIFY SCALE
BAR IS ONE (1) INCH LONG ON
ORIGINAL DRAWING
IF BAR IS NOT ONE (1) INCH LONG,
ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY
10
ABBREVIATIONS
A.D. AREA DRAIN
ABV. ABOVE
ADA ACCESSIBLE / AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT
ADJ. ADJUSTABLE
A.o.R. AREA OF REFUGE
ALUM. ALUMINUM
ALT. ALTERNATE
A.F.F. ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
AC. ACOUSTIC / ACOUSTICAL
A.F. ALUMINUM FACE
APPX. APPROXIMATE /
APPROXIMATELY
BD. BOARD
BLK. BLOCK / BLOCKING
BLDG. BUILDING
B.O. BOTTOM OF
B.O.S. BOTTOM OF STEEL
CAB. CABINET
C.C. CENTER-TO-CENTER
CLG. CEILING
CLOS. CLOSET
C.M. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
C.J. CONTROL JOINT
CONC. CONCRETE
CORR. CORRIDOR
COL. COLUMN
CONT. CONTINUE / CONTINUOUS
CONTR. CONTRACTOR
DIA. DIAMETER
DTL. DETAIL
DN DOWN
DWG. DRAWING
DEPT. DEPARTMENT
DBL. DOUBLE
DIM. DIMENSION
DR. DOOR
EXIST. EXISTING
EQ. EQUAL
E.C. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
EL. ELEVATION
ELEV. ELEVATOR
ELEC. ELECTRIC / ELECTRICAL
EXP. EXPANSION
EXT. EXTERIOR
EA. EACH
F.D. FLOOR DRAIN
F.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHER
F.E.C. FIRE EXTINGUISHER
CABINET
FIN. FINISH / FINISHED
FLR. FLOOR
F.O. FACE OF
FT. FEET / FOOT
FLUOR. FLUORESCENT
GYP. GYPSUM
GALV. GALVANIZED
GA. GAUGE
G.C. GENERAL CONTRACTOR
HR. HOUR
H.P. HIGH POINT
HVAC HEAT, VENTILATION, AIR-
CONDITIONING
HORIZ. HORIZONTAL
HT. HEIGHT
INSUL. INSULATION / INSULATING
I.D. INSIDE DIAMETER
INCAND. INCANDESCENT
JAN. JANITOR
JT. JOINT
LBS. POUNDS
LAV. LAVATORY
LAM. LAMINATE
L.P. LOW POINT
MAX. MAXIMUM
MFR. MANUFACTURER /
MANUFACTURED
MTL. METAL
MIN. MINIMUM
MIRR. MIRRORED
MTD. MOUNTED
M.O. MASONRY OPENING
MISC. MISCELLANEOUS
MECH. MECHANICAL
N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT
NO. NUMBER
N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE
O.C. ON CENTER
O.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER
OPP. OPPOSITE
OPG. OPENING
P.C. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR
P.F. PANEL FACE
PR. PAIR
P.T. PRESSURE TREATED
PL. LAM PLASTIC LAMINATE
QTY. QUANTITY
R RISER
R.W.C. RAIN WATER CONDUCTOR
REINF. REINFORCING / REINFORCED
REQ. REQUIRED
R.O. ROUGH OPENING
REV. REVISED / REVISION
REFL. REFLECTED
REC. RECESSED
RAD. RADIUS
S.S. STAINLESS STEEL
ST. STREET
SIM. SIMILAR
STL. STEEL
SQ. SQUARE
SAN. SANITARY
SUSP. SUSPENDED
STD. STANDARD
SPEC. SPECIFICATION
TEL. TELEPHONE
T.O. TOP OF
T.O.S. TOP OF STEEL
T.O.W. TOP OF WALL
TOIL. TOILET
TYP. TYPICAL
THK. THICK
TMP. TEMPERED
T.S.G. TEMPERED SAFETY
GLASS
U.O.N. UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED
U.L. UNDERWRITERS
LABORATORIES
VEST. VESTIBULE
V.C.T. VINYL COMPOSITION
TILE
W/ WITH
W.C. WATER CLOSET
WD WOOD
& AND
@ AT
± PLUS OR MINUS
° DEGREE
ANGLE
[ CHANNEL
# NUMBER
□SQUARE
Ø ROUND / DIAMETER
/ C.L. CENTER LINE
/ PL. PLATE
∏ U-BAR
∟ LEG-BAR
6" TYPICAL, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED
OFFICE
003
1/A-201
D01
.1
B2
C3
D4
A1
1.01.01
D01.1
S01
W01
GRAPHICSYMBOLS INDICATES SECTION
LOCATION ON SHEET
INDICATES SHEET
ON WHICH DRAWING
IS SHOWN
SECTION / DETAIL MARKER DETAIL / ENLARGED PLAN MARKER
INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER
INDICATES ELEVATION
LOCATION ON SHEET
INDICATES SHEET
ON WHICH DRAWING
IS SHOWN
ELEVATION / SECTION MARKER
INDICATES ELEVATION
LOCATION ON SHEET
INDICATES SHEET
ON WHICH ELEVATION
IS SHOWN
XX
YY
XX
XX
YY
DETAIL / ENLARGED PLAN MARKER
INDICATES DETAIL
LOCATION ON SHEET
INDICATES SHEET
ON WHICH DETAIL
IS SHOWN
SPACE DESIGNATION
WINDOW MARKER
DOOR IDENTIFIERS
SPACE NAME
SPACE NUMBER
WALL TYPE MARKER 4C
SKYLIGHT MARKER
DOOR IDENTIFIER
(ELEVATIONS/SECTIONS)
ENLARGED PLAN REFERENCE
KEYNOTE IDENTIFIER
XX
YY
DOOR
IDENTIFIER
(PLANS)
KEYNOTE; SEE KEYNOTE LEGEND
ON DRAWING'S LAYOUT
ALTERNATE KEYNOTE;
SEE KEYNOTE LEGEND
ON DRAWING'S LAYOUT
1.01.01
BUILDING CODE
SUMMARY
IBC 2021
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM
SECTION 602 AND TABLE 601
SECTION 903
III-B
MEANS OF EGRESS IBC 2021 REQUIRED PROVIDED
MAXIMUM PATH OF COMMON EGRESS TRAVEL
MAXIMUM EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE
MINIMUM CORRIDOR WIDTH
MAXIMUM DEAD END
MINIMUM NUMBER OF EXITS
SECTION 1006.2.1
SECTION 1017 & TABLE 1017.2
SECTION 1020
SECTION 1020
SECTION 1006 & TABLE 1006.3.2
75'
250'
44"
50'
2
63' MAX
44"
N/A
4
USE AND OCCUPANCY CHAPTER 3
BUILDING AND PROJECT DATA
A-2/R-2
TABLE 601, 602, 721 & SECTION 705
TABLE 601
TABLE 705.8.3
TABLE 705.8.2
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME TABLE 601 AND SECTION 704
BEARING WALLS
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS
NOT REQUIRED
FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS IBC 2021 REQUIRED PROVIDED
NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
FLOOR CONSTRUCTION
ROOF CONSTRUCTION
UNPROTECTED
PROTECTED
TABLE 601, 602 & SECTION 705
TABLE 601
TABLE 601
TABLE 601
0 HOURS
2 HOURS
0 HOURS
0 HOURS
0 HOURS
0 HOURS
0 HOURS
0 HOURS MIN
2 HOURS MIN
0 HOURS MIN
0 HOURS MIN
0 HOURS MIN
0 HOURS MIN
0 HOURS MIN
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED
BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND USE 1 STORY BLDG.COMMERCIAL, TENANT FIT-OUT
BUILDING HEIGHT
REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROVIDED
YES
BUILDING STORIES
TABLE 504.3 65' MAX.
TABLE 504.4 A:1, R:2A:3, R:4
3.,535 SQ. FT.LARGEST FLOOR AREA / STORY/1ST FLOOR AREA TABLE 506.2
OCCUPANCY CALCS OCCUPANT LOAD
APPX. 32'-0"
YES
BUSINESS
AREA REQUIRED
582 SQ. FT. (GROSS)3200 SQ. FT. / PERSON (GROSS)
ALL OCCUPANCIES 2,719 SQ. FT. (NET)124
APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES
2021 IBC: ALL APPLICABLE CHAPTERS
ANSI 117.1, 2009 EDITION: ALL APPLICABLE CHAPTERS
ASSEMBLY
172 SQ. FT. (GROSS)2150 SQ. FT. / PERSON (GROSS)
PROJECT SCOPE:
TENANT FIT-OUT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
63'
3,535 SQ. FT.
KITCHEN
198 SQ. FT. (GROSS)1200 SQ. FT. / PERSON (GROSS)
1,767 SQ. FT. (NET)11815 NET
PLUMBING CLACULATIONS IBC 2021 SECTION 2902.1
CLASSIFICATION/DESCRIPTION ASSEMBLY/RESTURANT
WATER CLOSETS
REQUIRED PROVIDED
LAVATORIES
DRINKING FOUNTAINS
OTHER
2 2
2 2
IPC 2018 410.4 NOT REQUIRED N/A
1 SERVICE SINK 1 SERVICE SINK
REFERENCE FULL BUILDING DRAWINGS FOR CODE INFORMATION ADRESSING THE EXISTING BUILDING
STORAGE
PROJECT LOCATION
E MARKET STREET
N
L
I
N
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
M
U
L
B
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
E JEFFERSON STREET
N
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
L
I
N
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E MARKET STREET
N
GI
L
B
E
R
T
ST
R
E
E
T
E JEFFERSON STREET
N
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
GI
L
B
E
R
T
ST
R
E
E
T
N
NOT TO SCALE
1 PROJECT LOCATION
203 N LINN RENOVATION
203 N LINN STREET IOWA
CITY IA 52245
VERSION 1
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
G-101
LIFE SAFETY
PLANS
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DO
W
N
DOWN
BO
T
T
O
M
18 RISERS (6 31/32")
123
3 RISERS (6")
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BOTTOM
18
RI
S
E
R
S
(6
3
1
/32
")
36" DOOR
EGRESS CAPACITY - 180
OCCUPANT LOAD - 30
36" DOOR
EGRESS CAPACITY - 180
OCCUPANT LOAD - 32
36" DOOR
EGRESS CAPACITY - 180
OCCUPANT LOAD - 30
36" DOOR
EGRESS CAPACITY - 180
OCCUPANT LOAD - 30
36" DOOR
EGRESS CAPACITY - 180
OCCUPANT LOAD - 31
FEC
FEC
FE
C
RR
109
A: 57 sq ft
RR
108
A: 57 sq ft
COMMERCIAL 1
106
A: 799 sq ft
COMMERCIAL 2
105
A: 968 sq ft
STORAGE
109
A: 89 sq ft
KITCHEN
101
A: 582 sq ft
MECH
60
A: 59 sq ft
WALK-IN COOLER
60
A: 56 sq ft
OFFICE
60
A: 99 sq ft
OFFICE
60
A: 73 sq ft
STORAGE
104
A: 53 sq ft
TOTAL DISTANCE TRAVELED - XXX'EXIT TRAVEL PATH AND
DISTANCE (250' MAX)
EGRESS COMPONENT
CAPACITY
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
CABINET
LIFE SAFETY LEGEND
EXIT SIGN
FEC
1 HR RATED PARTITION
XX" STAIR
EGRESS CAPACITY - XX
OCCUPANT LOAD - X
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 FIRST FLOOR 0 2'4'8'
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
D-101
DEMO PLAN
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DOWN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF
WALLS, SHOWN DASHED, TYP
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF
PLUMBING FIXTURES, SHOWN
DASHED, TYP
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF
EXISTING STAIR
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF
EXTERIOR DOOR, PREP
OPENING FOR NEW DOOR
INSTALLATION
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 1st FLOOR DEMO PLAN 0 2'4'8'
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
A-101
LOWER LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
123456789101112131415
UP
15 RISERS (6 15/16")
1'
-
6
"
3'
-
1
0
"
4
3
/
4
"
2'
-
1
0
1
/
4
"
7 3/4"26'-3 1/2"14'-1 3/4"
2
A-201
2
A-202
1
A-202
101
A-301
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0 2'4'8'
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
A-102
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DO
W
N
DOWN
BO
T
T
O
M
18 RISERS (6 31/32")
123
3 RISERS (6")
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BOTTOM
18
RI
S
E
R
S
(6
3
1
/32
")
D101
D102
D105
D108 D107
D106
D103
D104
D109
D110
Slope 1:12 1
A-201
2
A-201
2
A-202
4
3
/
4
"
7'
-
2
1
/
4
"
4
3
/
4
"
4
3
/
4
"
8'
-
4
"
4
3
/
4
"
8'
4
3
/
4
"
5'
-
1
1
"
4
3
/
4
"
9 1/4"11'-4 1/4"4 3/4"5'-7 1/2"4 3/4"7'-1"6 3/4"7'-2 3/4"4 3/4"
4 3/4"15'4 3/4"5'9 1/4"9 1/4"11'-9"
4 3/4"4'-11 3/4"12'-9"5'16'5'
RR
109
A: 57 sq ft
RR
108
A: 57 sq ft
COMMERCIAL 1
106
A: 799 sq ft
COMMERCIAL 2
105
A: 968 sq ft
STORAGE
109
A: 89 sq ft
KITCHEN
101
A: 582 sq ft
MECH
60
A: 59 sq ft
WALK-IN COOLER
60
A: 56 sq ft
OFFICE
60
A: 99 sq ft
OFFICE
60
A: 73 sq ft
STORAGE
104
A: 53 sq ft
101
A-301
DOOR SCHEDULE
ID
D101
D102
D103
D104
D105
D106
D107
D108
D109
D110
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DOOR
W
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
HT
6'-7"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
THK
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
1 3/4"
GLZ
3/4
FULL
FULL
HW SET NOTES
DOUBLE SIDELITE, MATCH EXISTING FRONT DO...
45 MIN RATED DOOR
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 1st FLOOR 0 2'4'8'
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
A-201
ELEVATIONS
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
NEW STOREFRONT DOOR,
MATCH EXISTING FRONT DOOR
RETAIN EXISTING TRANSOME WINDOW
NEW STEEL RAILING WITH
HANDRAIL
CONCRETE LANDING WITH
CONCRETE STEPS
NEW STOREFRONT DOOR
FINAL ALLY GRADING MAX 1:20 SLOPE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
A-202
ELEVATIONS
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'
MA
R
K
DA
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
A-301
BUILDING
SECTION
#Pln
LM
3/14/2025
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
IA
52
2
4
5
C:\
Us
e
r
s
\Le
n
a
M
i
c
h
a
l
e
k
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
\Ho
r
i
z
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
-
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\G25
-00
8
2
0
3
N
L
i
n
n
\1
-
Mo
d
e
l
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
\20
3
N
L
i
n
n
.pl
n
20
3
N
L
I
N
N
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
10
0
%
DD
S
E
T
-
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"101 SECTION 0 2'4'8'
VERSION 2
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MARCH 13, 2025 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell,
Jordan Sellergren, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Frank Wagner, Nicole
Villanueva,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deanna Thomann
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh
CALL TO ORDER:
Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC25-0002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue - Woodlawn Historic District (rear demolition and new addition):
Bristow stated this house is located in the Woodlawn Historic District and it’s a contributing property.
This was Commissioner Wagner’s family's home and now has a new owner. The house has a main
hipped roof that has gable projections in three directions, and then a two-story extension off the back.
The architecture style is called Stick style, partly because of all of the ornamentation: there is a band
board across the top of the second-floor windows and across the top of the first floor windows, there's a
narrow lap siding and corner boards, and there is shingle that is forming the frieze board all the way
around the top of the house. The gables have an elaborate barge board and some of the Stick style
detail in the gable peak. Additionally, each of the projecting gables have a half-moon style window. She
pointed out that between the band board that's at the top of the first-floor windows and the sill of the
second floor windows, there is a section that has a half-cove shingle and not the same fish scale as
above, it's a slightly different pattern. The rest of the house has large double hung windows and there is
an elaborate front porch that wraps around the west side and has a Chinese lattice frieze.
Bristow stated this house, with the one-story rear projection that is to be replaced, is visible on the
oldest Sanborn map of the area so they are unsure exactly when it was constructed, but it's in a slightly
different style and it's not a finished structure on the inside and has had some remodeling over time.
Located on the back of the house, it has a clipped gable with board and batten siding. The window
pattern is a completely different style, likely in place by at least 1920 if not before. Bristow noted the
interior of the one-story addition is not in good condition and there are some holes in the roof, and it is
basically an unfinished structure on the inside. The owner was talking about it as like a canning shed
where they could keep canned goods and stuff like that. It is also a step down from the rest of the
house as well.
The proposal is to remove that structure in its entirety and build a new one-story structure that'll have a
laundry, bath and mud room area. Bristow also noted it’s interesting that on the west side of the house
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 13, 2025
Page 2 of 8
there's a different Stick style ornamentation in the frieze board and on the detail of the one-story
projecting bay. Bristow next shared the assessor sketch of the house pointing out the one-story section
and that on the assessor’s photo the east side of the structure is aligned with the east side of the
house. She stated that normally if they were to remove this portion, they would want to replace it with
an addition that is set in on both sides. However, in order to maximize the space, the recommendation
is to go ahead and have this in line as it has been for over 100 years already. The west side will still be
set in but not quite as much as it is currently, it will be about one foot bigger. The recommendation from
staff would just be that it is set in enough that the roof will terminate at the corner board and not project
beyond to match the others. The plan is to have double doors on the east side and there would be two
windows on the west side, a pair of windows on the south (which is the back of the house) and then it
will be open to the rest of the house on the north. From the rear elevations it shows that they will match
the corner boards, the water table, the lap siding. Bristow is unsure if they would use wood or a smooth
cement board or Hardie boards, staff feels any of those would be appropriate as long as they are
smooth. The windows would match the historic windows on the house, Bristow noted the proposal had
a triangular window in the rear facing gable however the staff recommendation would be to match the
gables on the house and use a half-moon window. It would also be appropriate just to have maybe a
small square attic style window in that location if the owner prefers.
Bristow stated the main roof on the house is called a gable on a hip roof, and a hip roof is like a
pyramid and slopes in all four directions. She stated it can be extended so it's longer with a central
ridge and still have slopes in all four directions. If they want to get light into that attic they can extend
the ridge further to make a flat area of wall to put a window in it. This is the gable-on-hip as shown in
the triangular windows here.
From the east elevation Bristow noted they're showing the house has a stone foundation and they've
talked about doing something similar to that and staff just would need to know from the applicants what
exactly they want to do. Bristow explained since this is an addition they could do anything from a rock-
faced concrete block or put some kind of a stone facing on it. She stated while they usually like to
match foundations, it's hard to match a stone foundation so the foundation material is open as long as
it's not a smooth concrete or something like that.
Bristow pointed out the east side won't have any windows, it will just be lap siding, but it does show a
pair of doors. The rest of the house has a band board at a certain height at the top of the doors and
windows and all doors and windows come to the height of that band board so staff would recommend
that these doors do that too. Staff suggests that the doors are the same height as the others on the
exterior of the house, and whether or not it is a pair of doors or a single door doesn’t really matter.
The guidelines recommend that all the doors and windows are trimmed the same, preserving similar
pitches and to retain the corners of the building, to match the window types, sizes and matching a
window pattern. Bristow stated it appears from the application that the windows will match fairly well.
Bristow next reviewed the guidelines about demolition since they are demolishing a part of a historic
structure. However because that portion does not match the rest of the house and it’s in poor condition
the new owner has a desire for construction so that she can have actual living space and make it a
permanent part of the house and have it match the rest of the house.
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1025 Woodlawn Avenue
as presented in the application with the following conditions:
• 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
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 13, 2025
Page 3 of 8
drawings.
• Foundation, window and door product information is submitted for approval.
• The new door opening is revised to match the height of existing doors.
Karen Leigh (1025 Woodlawn Avenue) purchased the house in May 2023 and stated it is her dream
house, except for that back portion which is an abomination. Additionally, she believes it was an
abomination the day it was built, it is her understanding it was a canning shed where they did canning
and there was a big stove and a summer kitchen back there. To comment on the staff
recommendations, she has issues with three out of four of them. Leigh noted there's one gable peak on
the east side that is much simpler and does not have the protrusion or the Stick style ornamentation.
The other three gable peaks that exist on the house are just much too heavy for the proportions of this
proposed addition so she would very much prefer to have that triangular window as it would add a
lightness, not only to the appearance but more light to the interior of that space. She is hoping to get
some passive solar energy to heat that space. Then regarding products, she is happy to submit and
comply with whatever the regulations are but as far as the new door opening revised to match existing
doors the only existing door on that side is on that small back kitchen porch and it's higher than the
proposed roof line of the addition so she is unsure how it would match. Her salvage doors are not that
tall but has also talked about having a Simpson door product manufactured that would match.
Bristow stated they could look at something like that or potentially Leigh could have the frame made so
that maybe there was a transom above the salvage doors.
Leigh next discussed condition number two, about the west overhang terminates at or before the corner
of the historic house. She really doesn’t want that east side to just be one long continuation, it’s 28 feet,
as it is right now and she’s proposing to add two feet. She noted it's got a real Motel 6 vibe to it that she
would really like to get away from and would like to have that inset even if it was six inches. Bristow
stated it would be fine to have it inset. Leigh stated a lot of time and effort has gone into that floor plan,
because there are not only features that she wants to have on the outside, but there are features she
wants to have on the inside. For instance, there is an old granite sink top that she'd like to incorporate
into that bathroom and it's very wide. She’d also like to have the light that's coming through there
because that's a very dark corner of the house and there are no windows on the south to have light.
The light coming in is coming all the way into the east side and go all the way to the hall but in order to
achieve that there's going to be an overhang of 11” on the west side where there is currently no
overhang. Leigh stated however that 11” is not visible from the street view, it's behind the two story that
incorporates the bay on the west side, and it would minimize the overhang that already exists on the
east side that's currently 17” as it would be 11” and that would give her the width to have enough space
for a washer/dryer, the layout of the bathroom as she would like to see it, and a hallway that meets
construction standards.
Sellergren asked for clarification about the overhang. Bristow explained what Leigh is proposing is to
actually set the addition in on that side so that it'll only extend 11” and the corner will be exposed to the
house which would be closer to the guidelines than the existing condition, and then the other side
would have the same 11” overhang in order to have the addition centered. Leigh confirmed she would
like to center the addition on the back of the house as the symmetry appeals to her but to do so would
leave 11” of overhang on that side.
Lewis asked if the guidelines only specify wall, or is it also overhang. Bristow stated the guidelines talk
about preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building.
The reason that they usually terminate the roof is to avoid some of the things that they have seen
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 13, 2025
Page 4 of 8
happen like if they have a roof that comes down and suddenly has an awkward projecting triangle of
siding, or they have a hip roof that then has to wrap around the corner three dimensionally, so they
typically avoid those kinds of situations. On this house it's been covered for so long, it just sticks out.
To center the addition there are concerns but a portion of the house will block that from view and it
doesn't actually violate the guidelines. They would want to be sure to maintain the horizontal lines, per
the guidelines they want the east and west gutters to be at the same height as the bump out, because
that's the horizontal line that they need to match and they wouldn't want them to extend lower than that
or have it higher, it has to match that height.
Leigh stated the problem with that is that the entire addition would have to be taller and the only thing
she loved about the old addition was the proportions of it in scale to the rest of the house. If she is to
make it taller then she is going further up into that fish scale band that's on the south side.
Bristow noted the Commission can make an exception to the guidelines, but here they have a guideline
where the height of this frieze would match the eave and that's a prominent part of the guidelines.
Leigh stated she noticed as she walked down the alley on her side of Woodlawn the additions and
windows that have been done in relatively recent years, their horizontal lines are lower than the original
lines. For example, the house directly to the east of her, their last addition has everything significantly
lower, with the exception of the water table and the drip cap, and that she would like to have it the same
height, but everything above that she doesn’t want that addition to be that tall.
Sellergren asked if there are any drawings that compare what Leigh is hoping to do to demonstrate the
difference. Leigh stated she has photographs on my phone. Sellergren would like to see drawings of
the complete addition, completed drawings of the addition in context of the rest of the house, to see
how the horizontal lines would work out.
Bristow stated photographs on a phone are not sufficient they need drawings to evaluate and if needed
they can defer it to another meeting so the applicant can produce drawings.
Beck asked if what Leigh is describing will require an exception and would the Commission have to
vote on that.
Reynolds stated personally, she is receptive to what Leigh is describing, it’s just simply a matter of
making sure that if the Commission does need to approve this they would need a different illustration to
make sure that they go through the proper channels.
Leigh stated to make sure she is understanding what Beck wants, would it be the south side of the
original house with the addition on it where there would be a deviation. She also noted some of those
interior rooms are going to end up being 5’ by 8’ and to have a 10’ ceiling those proportions would just
be ridiculous, it'd be like standing in a shoe box on end.
Sellergren would like to see drawings and/or elevations from the east and west side so they can see
what the horizontal lines will look like. She feels they need more information in the argument to make
the exception.
Bristow stated it’s the top guideline, the one in question as far as the horizontal lines. Based on what
Leigh has described here at the meeting they have a few things that are not necessarily shown
accurately in the drawings. One, what happens with the door and the door height, and two what
happens with the eave condition. Bristow stated typically they do ask for a drawing that shows a
portion of the existing house and how the addition ties in as an elevation drawing. That is done to show
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 13, 2025
Page 5 of 8
they’re matching the window patterning and that they match the same height, size and scale, and then
match the trim lines and such. Therefore, either the Commission writes an approval that says these
things will be matched, or if they really want to evaluate whether or not it's okay to make an exception
of the guidelines because they're not going to match, that's when they might want to have another
drawing.
Brown asked then can they request a normal and customary drawing that they see for most projects
that come before them. Bristow replied yes, any time the Commission needs to see more information is
common to defer the project until that's given. Brown asked if there is a concern with being able to
provide those drawings.
Leigh noted this was such a simple addition she didn’t feel it needed those drawings.
Sellergren stated it's a very prominent historic home in a very prominent historic neighborhood, so they
really have to be careful.
Leigh stated it is her understanding because this is on the backside of the house and nothing is visible
from the street view, that those kinds of exceptions were acceptable.
Reynolds noted it states matching key horizontal lines and this is the back of the house so she doesn’t
see this as a key horizontal line and thinks the argument is about the scale, that if they go up too high
up, it's going to go into that and that's going to look worse. It’s not about the bump outs on the house,
there's two bump outs before that back section and it’s not going to be seen and it's not going to be that
much lower than the other sight lines so she would have no problem approving this to have that roof a
little bit lower. This is obviously a homeowner that is very particular about this house and this is well
thought out. She noted they’re not trying to set a precedence, but this is also what they're supposed to
do and are supposed to look at something like this and if it makes sense not to have it go higher to not
force it. She wouldn't want an addition that small to have a 10’ ceiling in it, that wouldn't work. Looking
down the side of the house they can see that there's a bump out, and then there is the addition, no one
is going to see that roof line from the front of the house. Personally, she doesn’t have any issues as a
member of this Commission to approve lowering that sight line lower.
Beck agrees, but it was just simply a question about procedure and if it rises to the level where it
requires an exception and what do they routinely ask for to grant exceptions.
Bristow stated they routinely ask for an addition to show a portion of the house, because there are no
dimensions on this drawing so they don't know where that ridge line hits.
Sellergren stated she can't vote based on the drawings provided, it’s just not enough information. She
can't make a logical decision based on what they’ve seen. Sellergren thinks they could defer to the
next meeting and have the applicant bring in another drawing. A lot of them would feel a lot more
comfortable with that, they need more to work with and more information than they have right now.
MOTION:
Sellergren moves to defer to a point where they have more thorough drawings.
Brown seconds.
Beck feels like in the case of significant disagreement, the prudent course of action is to defer it, rather
than try to push anything through tonight.
Brown noted they don't have to have consensus, but don’t need one to vote. He is concerned if asking
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 13, 2025
Page 6 of 8
for additional drawings puts an excessive burden on an applicant, they now need an architectural
drawing when they weren't planning on doing one. They might be able to comply with all but one
exception based on what was shown tonight but it does seem reasonable to him for them to ask for a
more complete drawing like they see with most projects, even if it's a hand drawn on graph paper, just
something that shows the existing house and the change.
Reynolds noted the only question is the height of the roof line coming down, everything else was
spelled out like what materials they're going to use, etc. It's just the addition is kind of wonky to the one
side and it's going to get centered, and it's going to look just like that with the materials listed. She
stated it's just the roof is going to be lower and her vote is based on the fact that because it’s the back
of the house. She feels it is probably going to be within inches to possibly a foot. This is somebody
who cares very much about the home and wants to preserve it, and this Commission needs to work
with people to make that happen.
Sellergren feels if this is an exception then she needs to see the correct drawings with dimensions.
Russell agreed and said with just pictures it’s hard to see where those lines will be and needs
architectural drawings.
Brown added they have had cases like this in the past where they had a well-intentioned homeowner
and with all of the care for the house and the project and the historic neighborhood and so on, and they
are still cautious about making a motion and then approving a motion that allows a broad interpretation.
His concern is if they proceed with a project where they don't have a good idea of what it will look like in
conjunction with the rest of the structure then does that open up for approval of some other project
where they also can't quite see what it is, and that outcome will not be as nice as what this one will be.
Bristow stated she often asks for a drawing that showed the rest of the house, however she was sick
for a week that there was limited time.
Beck noted staff had a motion for the Commission to consider, and then there was some rethinking of
what was proposed.
Sellergren asked can staff and the property owner work together between now and the next meeting
and develop and work on new drawings and a more thorough example, so the Commission actually has
something that gives more information with regarding the guidelines that they can vote on.
Beck stated Brown’s mention of precedent is a good one. There's been some reasonable back and
forth in the room, there was staff recommendation, the applicant had some input, individual people on
the Commission have expressed receptiveness to all of this so it's simply a matter of treating everyone
fairly when they ask for an exception.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0.
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):
Bristow stated this is the Weatherby house at 611 North Governor Street and it is just basically a
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 13, 2025
Page 7 of 8
painting and repair project. There's some siding and trim that has deteriorated that'll need to be
replaced, and an overall painting project, the Historic Preservation Fund is helping with this project.
HPC25-0005: 317 Church Street - Northside Historic District (addition of two bath vents and one
laundry vent):
Bristow stated this was just the installation of some vents in the rear portion of the house.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2025:
MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
February 13, 2025, meeting. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of
9-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Work Plan Update:
Bristow stated she is hoping to take time very soon to start doing the map updates that Kevin Boyd had
gone through when he was chair of the Commission for the Northside. This will give them some ideas
about properties that might change classification.
Brown asked how a property changes classification. Bristow stated for many reasons, a house can
have alterations removed and bring back historic character to make it contributing. Also houses that
were considered non historic because they were built in 1948 would be historic now and it could just be
a matter of are they noncontributing because they don't fit the story the district, probably. She stated
there could then be other things to make a house go from contributing to noncontributing, but there is
less of that. Bristow will begin working on this and if it's something where she finds a way that maybe
the subcommittee could do a little leg work, she might reach out, otherwise she will do the work in
looking at the properties and then come back with a report for the Commission with the proposed
changes.
ADJOURNMENT:
Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. Wagner seconded. The motion carried on a vote of
9-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
NAME
TERM
EXP. 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/27 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/26 X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X X
BURFORD,
KEVIN 6/30/27 --- --- --- X X X X X X X O/E X
LEWIS,
ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X
RUSSELL,
RYAN 6/30/27 --- --- --- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E 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 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
VILLANUEVA,
NICOLE 6/30/25 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X
WAGNER,
FRANK 6/30/26 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X
WELU-
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
6/30/25 O/E X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member