The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-14-25 Historic Preservation Commission lowd Preserydtl*on C Thursday August 14, 2025 5:30 p.m. — o — '� _ 4 I 11uIyI1lIIIIItN et,.• - V Cf ! I V I C Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall r'Yl 0 i IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 14, 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. HPC25-0036: 311 Brown Street—Brown Street Historic District (front porch roof replacement and removal of internal gutter,removal and replacement of crown molding) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Minor Review—Staff Review 1. HPC25-0043: 406 South Summit Street—Summit Street Historic District (porch roof replacement) 2. HPC25-0045: 1022 East College Street—East College Street Historic District (garage roof replacement) 3. HPC25-0048: 332 East Davenport Street—Northside Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 4. HPC25-0047: 821 North Linn Street—Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement with standing seam metal roofing) Intermediate Review—Chair and Staff Review 1. HPC25-0049: 810 North Johnson Street—Brown Street Historic District (radon mitigation system installation) F) Consideration of Minutes for July 10, 2025 G) Commission Information Open Meeting Training Requirements H) Commission Discussion Awards 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 August 14, 2025 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Historic Review for HPC25-0036: 311 Brown Street General Information: Owners: Chad and Jennifer Miller Contractor: Phil Scheets, Tomlinson Cannon phil _tomlinson-cannon.com District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: The project consists of the following on the front porch: 1) replacing the existing metal roof with a membrane roof, 2) removal of the internal gutters, 3) removal and replacement of the crown molding, 4) modification of the roof line, and 5) installation of a new half round gutter. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Property History: Built c. 1898 this 2-story wood frame home incorporates aspects of both Victorian and Georgian Revival architecture. The house retains a front porch and features a complex roof pattern and returned cornices. Detailed Project Description: This project includes the removal of the existing roofing material on the front porch roof and replacing it with EPDM (i.e. rubber membrane) roofing materials. In addition, the applicant is also proposing to remove the internal gutters on the front porch and associated crown molding. The crown molding will be replaced and a new half round external gutter installed. These proposed changes will also result in the roof line of the front porch being modified. See attached photographs of the internal gutter provided by the applicant. Guidelines: Section 4.6 Gutters recommends: • Repairing original built-in gutters. EPDM rubber sheeting is an economical replacement material for the original tin flashing. • Covering original built-in gutters and applying exterior gutters only if the roof slope at the gutter is not altered. This can be accomplished with horizontal blocking and flashing above the old gutter. Disallowed: • Altering the roof pitch when covering historic built-in gutters Original Built-in Gutter Exception applicable to All Properties: • Removal of original built-in gutters unable to be repaired. On a case-by-case basis, the Commission may consider allowing removal of original built-in gutters if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need. This may include damage to the roof itself or inability to repair built-in gutters to properly working condition. • Minor changes to the roof pitch to address drainage concerns. On a case-by- case basis, the Commission may consider allowing minor changes to the roof pitch if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need. Work should be done to ensure other significant architectural features such as trim and brackets are not altered. Roof Pitch - - Modified rcwflinc, built-in gutters Modified roalline. built-in guttm have beers removed and the roofline covcrc&rernoved. a slight slope has straightened. This altem the character Original Kooning with the built-in been added to allow far drainage. A definiatg hared roof edge and lower.: g wicrs. Simply covering the built-in slight modification of the roof pitch at the cornice of the building, gutters does not allow for adcquatc the built-in gutter is allowed to Dnnimancailly altering the ruufpitch al, roof drainage. accommodate drainage, the built-in gutter is not allowed. Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends: • Preserving historic trim such as crown molding, skirt and frieze boards, and decorative metal Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features disallows: • Removing any historic architectural feature, such as a porch, chimney, bay window, dormer, brackets or decorative trim, that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. Analysis: Although staff can administratively approve the replacement of the existing metal roof on the front porch with EPDM, the other aspects of the project require consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission. Specifically, the removal of the internal gutter, the removal and replacement of the crown molding, and the modification to the roofline are not recommended by the guidelines. Section 4.6 Gutters recommends repairing original built-in gutters. Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends preserving crown molding. Section 7.1 Demolition disallows the removal of any historic architectural feature. If the Commission is inclined to support the applicant's request they must do so using an exception to the guidelines. Section 4.6 Gutters includes the following two exceptions: • Removal of original built-in gutters unable to be repaired. On a case-by-case basis, the Commission may consider allowing removal of original built-in gutters if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need. This may include damage to the roof itself or inability to repair built-in gutters to properly working condition. • Minor changes to the roof pitch to address drainage concerns. On a case-by- case basis, the Commission may consider allowing minor changes to the roof pitch if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need. Work should be done to ensure other significant architectural features such as trim and brackets are not altered. The applicant has provided photographs showing the deterioration of the gutters. Staff Recommendation: If the Commission determines that 1) the built-in gutters are unable to be repaired to properly working condition, 2) the alteration to the roofline is needed to allow proper drainage, and 3) the removal and replacement of the crown molding will not substantially alter or destroy the defining architectural character of the building or neighborhood they can recommend approval. Y J ivVdr NMI ic ^•��4 4'P ' J • t - { y T P Wm iJ.+ VFW 49 "*', ✓ �-�w IR I TIIII";., 311 Brown Street — Existing Rear (South) Elevation + I� Y. r { -Ar 1' it r y E i Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Eastern portion of front porch roof a I I t. Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Northern (front) portion of front porch roof ruy a W/ N 1: Y i � F,. N7RT 1 JJ S J Y 11 /� "�P•-� ' Sri rry� °�� ,• 9h�;a -1 J' a ,45 • • •• • • •• •• -7r 1 r; Y r ,r - r j - Y Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Eastern side of front porch roof a' a� 4 5 . 6 7 8 9 11, 11213 !� Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Close up of portion of internal gutter • p �Y 4 t 00, --� - f .r=a 1 �k IWO- jlppdqd A 311 Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Photo of the crown molding •' U �'� f - � � •,. .<<...-may Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Photo of the crown molding at the northeastern corner of the front porch r \ ' \ 4 zr � � 1 w w I J/ Photos of Deterioration; Provided by Applicant Close up of the crown molding MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION J U LY 10, 2025 — 5:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Burford, Carl Brown, Austin Curfman, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Anne Russett, Rachel Schaefer OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Martin CALL TO ORDER: called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC25-0035: 755 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (chimney demolition and reconstruction in thin brick): Russett noted this home was built in 1910 and is a non-contributing structure to the Longfellow Historic District, the main house has elements of both Queen Anne style and Four Square. The application is to remove the non-significant chimney and construction of a new brick chimney at the rear of the home. Russett shared a photo of the chimney and explained the deterioration of the chimney internally. The applicants had a structural person assess the chimney and it is beyond repair. The applicable guidelines are in general historic chimneys should be preserved but, in this case, it's beyond repair. Another guideline is that boxing and finishing new chimney pipes that penetrate the roof with thin brick veneer or stucco is recommended, and that's what they are proposing to do. Therefore, in terms of analysis, the existing chimney is not a prominent architectural feature, it's slightly visible from the street, but it's located on the rear of the house and it's deteriorating internally. The complete demolition of the chimney is recommended by the contractor as the safest path forward for the homeowner. The existing chimney conceals venting from the furnace, so it must be boxed in and per the guidelines finishing for new chimneys must also use thin brick veneer, or stucco, which is being proposed as the applicant will construct a new fake chimney to conceal the venting and use a rustic color for the thin brick veneer. Staff is recommending approval of the certificate of appropriateness, as presented in the application for the property at 755 Oakland Avenue. MOTION: Villanueva moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 755 Oakland Avenue as presented in the application. Beck seconded the motion. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 10, 2025 Page 2 of 5 A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HPC25-0038: 1224 Sheridan Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (window addition to facade, window replacement, mini split installation: Schaefer stated this is a contributing property to the Longfellow Historic District. The house is a side gabled, minimal traditional cottage with projecting front gables that was built in 1947, it has a concrete block foundation, brick veneer cladding with synthetic siding in the gables and an asphalt shingle roof. There is a brick chimney that extends up the west facade and on the east is a similar side gabled projection that includes a secondary entrance. The main entrance has a short bracketed flat roof entry canopy, and the door is surrounded by fluted pilasters. The windows are six over six, double hung sashes, with the exception of the second-floor windows on the gable ends, which are one over one vinyl replacement windows, which are non-historic to the property. The main floor windows have projecting sills on row lock course brick with no visible lintel. The gable windows have aluminum coil stock over flat casing. Schaefer also noted the garage is typical of this architectural style and like the house has very little ornamentation, the garage was built at the rear of the house facing the alley in 1991 and replaced a smaller garage that was built in 1961. The project today is relating to the renovation of the attic into a primary suite, there's the addition of stairs up to that attic space to allow the second level being renovated. The windows on both side gables are replaced as is the front window. Schaefer stated the front window replacement is the main reason that this project is coming before the Commission today as they're replacing a vent with a new picture window which needs approval by the Commission. The project will also have skylights being added and a mini split air conditioning unit going above the egress window. Some of the items that typically are reviewed administratively are the replacing of the vinyl windows that were non-historic to the building on the side gables on the east and west sides of the home, those are being replaced with metal clad wood double hung wood windows which are compliant with what typically they would want to see with historic window replacements. Those new windows will match the historic windows on the ground floor. Additionally, the east gable window is a casement egress window, which is required by building code since it'll be a new bedroom up there. The next component of the project is to add three new skylights with exterior aluminum cladding to the north roof plane, which is at the rear of the home, so not facing the street. The applicant is also proposing to add a mini split on the east side of the home, and all of the components, like the drain line and other parts of the system, will be concealed inside the eastern side of the home and then run back to the northern side and down and be near the existing condensing unit. Schaefer noted guidelines require the concealing of those as much as possible on the side of the home and not facing the street. Schaefer stated again the main proposed change that's before the Commission tonight is the replacement of the gable vent on the front facade. They are proposing to replace that with a fixed sash metal clad wood window on the primary elevation of the home. The window will have a four light grid to match the existing windows on the ground floor, and that'll allow more light into the living space that they are proposing. The applicant intends to match the historic trim using flat wood stock for that window as well. Regarding guidelines for the window on the main facade, it is currently disallowed in the guidelines via section 4.13, so an exception will be required to approve that new window opening. Section 4.13 recommends that the new attic openings be located in a manner compatible with the historic window pattern. The proposed window will be in the same place as that existing vent, will be relatively small and match the historic character of the historic ground floor windows. Staff also looked at a neighboring properties when it came to granting this exception and there are several examples in the Longfellow Historic District for this style of home that do have a picture window in place of where there typically is a HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 10, 2025 Page 3 of 5 vent. Schaefer gave the example of 1231 Sheridan Avenue, which is right across the street, noting the gable window on the front facade, there is also a home at 747 Oakland Avenue with again, a picture window in the upper gable in the front facade. So again, to allow for additional light into the living space, staff sees the new window as a change that will have minimal impact on the home's historic character and will be an appropriate proposal to grant an exception. Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the project at 1224 Sheridan Avenue, as presented in the staff report, with an exception to allow for a window in the gable of the primary facade because the project meets the intent of the guidelines, the addition of the window in the primary facade will reflect the condition found in similar houses of the same style in the neighborhood. Burford asked if the egress windows is the mutton just on the exterior side of the pane. Schaefer believes it's both on the exterior and interior. Buford asked if it is put on with adhesive and Schaefer stated they can ask the applicant exactly what the product is. Thomann asked if the new window on the front of the house will open and close to allow air flow as well. Schaefer stated again that is something the applicant might be able to answer. Andy Martin is the general contractor for this project noted regarding the mutton across that divided window is pretty substantial but it is one piece of glass so it doesn't go through but is on the inside as well. Additionally, the front window is fixed and it won't open, he noted what the applicant envisions is a reading nook and it'd be nice to just have a little light in there. MOTION: Brown recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1224 Sheridan Ave as presented in the staff report with an exception to allow for a window in the gable of the primary facade because the project meets the intent of the guidelines. The addition of a window in the primary facade will reflect the condition found in similar houses of the same style found in the neighborhood. Burford seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect-Chair and Staff review: HPC25-0034: 111-115 South Dubuque Street- Local Historic Landmark (repair of roof TPO, stucco on west and north walls, and wood elements of storefront): Russett stated this is located in the Ped Mall, it is a roof repair and some repairs to the stucco on the north and west walls of the building. HPC25-0039: 528 East College Street- College Green Historic District (chimney repair including spalled brick replacement, pointing, and capping): This is the replacement of damaged chimney bricks from spalling. Minor Review- Staff Review: HPC25-0040: 718 South Summit Street- Summit Street Historic District (installation of three skylight windows): HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 10, 2025 Page 4 of 5 This was for the addition of two skylights. HPC25-0041: 815 Brown Street- Brown Street Historic District (window sash replacement This is a window sash replacement for one window. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 12, 2025: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's June 12, 2025, meeting. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Election of Officers: Vice Chair Russell moves that Beck be nominated for Vice Chair of the Commission. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 TERM 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 5/8 6/12 7/10 NAME EXP. BECK, 6/30/27 X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X MARGARET BROWN, 6/30/26 O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X CARL BURFORD, 6/30/27 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X KEVIN CURFAM, 6/30/2028 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X AUSTI N LEWIS, 6/30/26 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X ANDREW RUSSELL, 6/30/27 X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X RYAN SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X --- JORDAN THOMANNN, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X DEANNA VILLANUEVA, 6/30/25 O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/26 X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E FRANK WELU- 6/30/25 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X --- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member