Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-25 HPC Agenda Packet IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 11, 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. HPC25-0087: 521 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (demolition, new addition, and window alteration) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review 1. HPC25-0070: 1527 Muscatine Avenue – Dearborn Street Conservation District (stucco and window trim repair and replacement) 2. HPC25-0072: 803 E. College Street – College Green Historic District (siding replacement project on accessory building and concrete step repair) 3. HPC25-0077: 314 E. Davenport Street – Northside Historic District (repair project – siding, roofing, brick foundation) 4. HPC25-0079: 725 North Linn Street – Brown Street Historic District (porch balustrade replacement) 5. HPC25-0083: 1107 East College Street – East College Street Historic District (deteriorated soffit replacement) 6. HPC25-0084: 629 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (pointing, cedar shingle repair, stucco repair) 7. HPC25-0085: 529 Ronald Street – Brown Street Historic District (repair of siding and soffit) Minor Review – Staff Review 1. HPC25-0046: 608 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (deteriorated rear window replacement) 2. HPC25-0066: 747 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (front stoop and step replacement) 3. HPC25-0071: 829 Kirkwood Avenue – Local Historic Landmark (step and stoop replacement) 4. HPC25-0075: 402 Ronalds Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (synthetic siding removal) 5. HPC25-0080: 1050 Woodlawn Ave – Woodlawn Historic District (replacement of asphalt roofing shingles) 6. HPC25-0086: 314 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (deteriorated window sash replacement) Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review 1. HPC25-0068: 702 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (Asphalt shingles replacement) 2. HPC25-0073: 430 S. Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (Repair of porch columns) 3. HPC25-0078: 614 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (minor change to prior approval - adding landing to stair) 4. HPC25-0082: 505 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (construction of new shed) F) Consideration of Minutes for November 20, 2025 G) Commission Information H) Commission Discussion 1. Historic Preservation Awards – Save the Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 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 December 10, 2025 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Historic Review for HPC25-0087: 521 Clark Street General Information: Owners: Greg Kovaciny Contact person: Peter Correll, Martin Construction peter@icmartin.com District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: The owner is proposing to demolish a rear enclosed porch and add a new addition within the same footprint. The project also includes the alteration of the windows in the attached garage one of which is proposed to be replaced. 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 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition Property History: The house at 521 Clark Street is a two-story American Foursquare with Craftsman and Prairie influences that was built ca. 1910 -1920. The main hipped roof has hipped dormers to the east (front) and both sides (north and south) and a wide eave overhang with closed soffits. The west end of the south wall has a squared two -story projection that sits under the eaves of the main roof. A one-story garage with a flat roof is located on the north side of the house. To the rear of the garage is an open porch that has been partially enclosed with storm windows. A one -story kitchen projection on the west side and the open porch share the roof with the garage. The house and garage sit on a brick foundation. The walls are clad in shingled siding with mitered corners. The windows are mostly Craftsman windows with a five-over-one sashes. On the south wall they are hung in pairs. Elsewhere they are mostly individual windows. Some windows, such as those on the garage are narrower and are configured as four-over-one sashes. The house has several Craftsman or Prairie influenced decorative windows including the two vertical, double-hung or sash windows flanking a central, horizontal fixed transom window on the first floor of the front façade. The entry is asymmetrically placed in the north half of the façade and has a pedimented entry canopy set on wide sculpted brackets. Detailed Project Description: This project includes the demolition of an existing enclosed porch on the western (rear) façade. The roof will remain. In the footprint of the existing enclosed porch the owners are proposing a new addition. The proposed addition will use cedar shake siding to match the historic siding. The trim will match the rest of the trim on the house. The addition includes double hung windows on the northern portion of the addition to match the existing historic windows. Two picture windows (no divided lights or operable sashes) are also proposed, which would face the backyard. The owners enjoy bird and nature watching and plan to use this area for this activity, hence, the request for no divided lights. The owners requested that staff share a number of photographs to show the variety of wildlife that visit their backyard. The photos are attached to this report. The project also includes converting the rear portion of the attached garage to a laundry room. With this alteration the owner proposes a rear entrance door on the western facade. The proposed fiberglass door has a divided light pattern that matches the historic front door. The owner would like to re-use the existing wrought iron railing, but new steps will be constructed. Lastly, the garage has two historic windows on its northern face. The proposal includes relocating the windows along the northern façade up. This will allow some natural light into the laundry room. The height of the windows will align with the windows on the main home. The applicant has also requested replacing one of these historic windows with a new window to match . Staff has requested information from the applicant on deterioration. Existing: Proposed: 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 walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building. Section 4.13 Windows recommends: • Preserving the historic windows by repairing sashes and frames. • Retaining historic windows frames and replacing badly deteriorated sashes with new sashes that match the historic ones. • 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. • Replacing badly deteriorated windows with new ones that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. • Using new wood windows to replace deteriorated historic wood windows, although the use of metal-clad, solid-wood windows is acceptable. All replacement windows and trim must accept paint. Typically, sashes will be finished in a dark color either black or dark green. • Relocation and Closing Window Openings: o If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. 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 siding, trim, moldings, and other details of the original building. • Exceptions: Foundations: o For additions to foundations, concrete or textured concrete block may be used in place of masonry units that appear similar to the original masonry. o For additions to foundations, it is acceptable to match the color of the original foundation by using paint or masonry stain rather than matching the material and appearance of the original foundation material. • Exceptions: Windows: o Modern window types, such as casement windows, may be used in additions provided they have overall proportions comparable to those found on the historic building, and a similar divided light pattern. The windows must be trimmed to match the historic windows in the building. The windows may be installed side-by-side, but they must have a mullion between them if mullions were used between windows on the historic building. Transom-like or half-round fixed glass units may be used if they create a traditional-looking window arrangement consistent with the historic building style. Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features • 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: Staff finds that the majority of this project meets the guidelines . The proposed demolition of the enclosed porch aligns with the guidelines since the porch was partially enclosed and altered resulting in a non -historic change. The new addition will use cedar shake siding to match the historic shake siding. The north-facing windows within the addition match the divided light pattern of the historic windows. The new door is fiberglass and matches the front door of the house. The foundation of the addition will match the foundation of the house. All trim, including crown molding, will match the existing. There are two areas of the project that need more discussion: 1. Northern Windows on the Garage: The owners are proposing to move the windows on the northern façade of the garage up. This change will allow the garage windows to align with the windows on the house while also adding natural light into the new laundry room. In addition, the applicant has requested to replace one of the windows with a new window to match the e xisting. Staff has requested information on deterioration from the applicant. The guidelines recommend preservation and repair of historic windows unless deterioration is significant. 2. Western Picture Windows: The guidelines allow an exception for a fixed window, but there’s no exception to not match the divided light pattern of the existing windows. The homeowners have proposed not matching the divided light pattern because they plan to use this area for bird watching and would like unobstructed views. Exceptions: There is an exception in Section 5.1 that allows modern window types to be considered on a case -by-case basis as long as they include the historic divided light pattern. Sometimes historic homes have fixed windows. Examples include fixed windows in stairways or large picture windows in the front of the house. The Commission could use this exception to allow a picture/fixed windows. As was noted above, there is not an exception that would allow for a window that does not have the divided light pattern of the historic windows. If the Commission would like to approve the project as submitted, an uncommon situation (See Section 3.2 Exceptions) could be considered for the use of an exception. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 521 Clark Street with the following conditions: • The west facing windows are revised to include muntin bars matching the windows on the house, and • Both north-facing garage windows are retained (unless evidence of deterioration is discovered). If the Commission wishes to approve any of the conditions as proposed, they can do so through an exception to the guidelines for uncommon situations if they can determine that an uncommon situation exist. 521 Clark Street – Existing East (front) Façade 521 Clark Street – Existing West (rear) Façade 521 Clark Street – Existing Attached garage, portion of North façade 521 Clark Street – Existing South façade ATTACHMENTS Materials Submitted by the Applicant Ground Level +0' -0" Level 1 +4' -6" New awning window to match existing windows Double hung windows to match existing Patch existing cedar shake siding to match existing Level 1 +4' -6" 3 A.2 3 A.2 New masonry piers to match appearance of existing brick foundation New picture windows Cedar shake siding to match existing siding New fiberglass door to match existing front door Modify existing wrought iron railing and install at new stairs and landing. Skirting below porch and stairs Ground Level +0' -0" Level 1 +4' -6" cut back track and hang from wall w/ bracket LaundryPorch Storage Sheet No.©2025 Scale 1/4" = 1'-0" A.2 Exterior Elevations 1/4" = 1'-0"1 North Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"2 West Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"3 E-W Section looking North 12/3/25 solid foundation wall instead of piers w/ skirting between Existing window raised to align w/ new windows. Sill height will be above eye level. double hungMove existing double hung window up to align w/ new windows Foundation wall to match appearance of existing brick foundation solid foundation wall JANE LAHANN-KOVACINY & GREG KOVACINY A somewhat less incomplete list than the previous - Compiled Dec. 4, 2025 Version B-4 BACKYARD BIRDS VISITING 521 CLARK ST American Goldfinch (Female & Male) American Redstart (Male & Female) American Robin Baltimore Oriole Bay-Breasted Warbler Black & White Warbler Black-Throated Green Warbler Black-Capped Chickadee Blackburnian Warbler Blue Jay Bluebird Brown Thrasher Canada Goose Cape May Warbler Cardinal Carolina Wren Catbird Cedar Waxwing Chestnut-Sided Warbler Chipping Sparrow Common Grackle - (around 200 at once-Nov.2025) Common Yellow Throat Country Crow (single & in a small murder) Cowbird Downy Woodpecker Eastern Wood Pewee English Starling - (around 75 at once - Nov. 2025) First Year (Spring) Summer Tanager Golden-Crowned Kinglet Golden-Winged Warbler Great-Crested Flycatcher Hairy Woodpecker Hermit Thrush House Finch House Wren Indigo Bunting Junco Magnolia Warbler Mallard Ducks (Male & Female) Mourning Dove Nashville Warbler Northern Flicker Northern Parula Nuthatch – White-Breasted Nuthatch – Red-Breasted Orchard Oriole Ovenbird Pileated Woodpecker (Fly-over two different times) Red-Bellied Woodpecker Red-Headed Woodpecker Red-Eyed Virio Rose-Breasted Grosbeak (Male & Female, and Immatures) Ruby-Crowned Kinglet Ruby-Throated Hummingbird Scarlet Tanager (Male & Female) Swainson'sThrush Tennessee Warbler Tree Creeper Tufted Titmouse White-Throated Sparrow (Yellow Stripes On Crown) Wild Turkey Wilson’s Warbler Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker Yellow-Rumped Warbler Yellow-Throated Warbler Yellow Warbler Leucistic Robins & Cardinals (Partial, but not true "Albino") BUTTERFLIES & MOTHS Black Swallowtail - (also raised them one summer) Cabbage (Yellow & White) Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Hummingbird Hawk-Moth Monarchs - We've raised Monarchs since July 2018 - Members of Monarch Watch Painted Lady Butterfly Zebra Swallowtail MAMMALS Black-tailed Deer - Male - 1 Point (Dec.2025) White-tailed Deer - up to Family of 7 (2024) Up to 10 point Male Buck White-Tail Deer Red Fox Opossum Raccoons Chipmunks Rabbits Shrews Squirrels, Gray, Red, Black RAPTORS Barred Owl Cooper's Hawk Red-Tailed Hawk ORGANIZATIONS Member of Backyard Bird Count for Cornell Ornithology Monarch Watch National Audubon Iowa Audubon IMPORTANT NOTE: All photos are copyright Gregory Kovaciny or Jane Lahann-Kovaciny Except for standard cropping on some of these, and the rare simple color-correction for dark exposure, there is NO AI and NO digital trickery. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2025 – 5:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Austin Curfman, Ryan Russell STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Corral 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: HPC25-0074: 715 East College Street - College Green Historic District (historic outbuilding rehabilitation including roof material replacement and chimney demolition): Bristow noted this is the Musser Dixon house, Musser was a lumber yard man so there's a lot of trim details and things on this house that are really spectacular, as it was basically a display of his wares. The whole property is contributing, including the brick driveway and the carriage house. In the backyard there is a little cottage, originally it was the quarters for the chauffeur and then in the 1960s and 1970s a portion was added on and they're currently rehabbing this because since that was added on to there has been some plumbing accidents and issues and there was some settling of the foundation. The foundation is failing along the alley so the main part of the project is to replace the foundation wall. They will use concrete but will put a facing brick in the location where the piers were, so that it'll be visible in the future as that part of the history. Bristow noted that all of that part could have been approved by staff but there's more parts to this project. There is a small brick chimney on this building close to the front of the oldest part but is also thought to be an addition as the bricks are pretty sharply defined and likely added when the 1960s and 1970s addition was put on this building. The owner says that there's no foundation at all under the brick chimney, it sits on the floor and it's sinking and pulling the roof in and down. On the house there's a very decorative brick chimney, there used to be a chimney on the far the east end of Carriage House but during the tornado that Carriage House was shifted on its foundation, the whole thing had to be put back and the roof was then replaced, and the chimney was taken down at that point in time. Bristow stated the chimney on the cottage is not visible from the inside yard at all and it’s only visible on the alley side, staff recommends approval to take it down. As part of the project they will temporarily patch the metal roof, but then the plan is to replace the metal with asphalt shingles. The house had its metal roof replaced with asphalt shingles in the 1990s, and then right after the tornado the Carriage House had its metal roof replaced with asphalt shingles. Because all of these buildings would have had a wood shake shingle originally, especially since it was a lumber yard person who built the house, staff would recommend approval to replace the metal roof with asphalt shingles to match the rest of the property. Bristow shared the guidelines regarding chimneys, it's disallowed to remove them when they're prominent or important to the historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Page 2 of 6 character of the building. Because this was an addition and it's structurally unsound for the foundations, staff thinks that follows the guidelines. Regarding metal roofs, usually they like to maintain them, but on a case by case basis the Commission can approve removing them. Staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for this project through an exception in the guidelines as presented in the staff report, and that exception is to allow the chimney to be removed. Thomann asked about the line in the siding that separates the two areas of the cottage, is that always kind of an indicator that they added on. Bristow stated it is one of the ways that they can tell, it really depends on how valuable and important the building is because if they don't do that, then they're going to basically remove some siding and two thin pieces so that they don't have one joint all at one place. So it depends on who did it and why and probably the funding that they had. MOTION: Wagner moves to approve for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 715 East College Street through an exception in the guidelines as presented in the staff. Villanueva seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. HPC25-0076: 718 Grant Street- Longfellow Historic District (rear enclosed porch demolition and new addition and front balustrade demolition and front step relocation): Bristow stated since this house was surveyed in 1995 there have been a couple changes. This house is one of the oldest in the district, its brick, and it's a Victorian cube cottage. The porch piers extend all the way up but they're just one foot so not very big, a lot of bungalows that are similar to this would have much bigger columns. The roof is a metal roof and at one time probably had either Yankee gutters or some kind of gutter system like that, it also used to have a flat roof at the top and because the dormers don't really match the shape of the roof, they think they are additions from the 1940s or so. Since then, the roof was replaced and they put on the kind of roof that the National Park Service had stated could make an individual property no longer eligible for the National Register. So the guidance was to not allow that type of change in 2015, but this roof was replaced before the guidelines change. When the roof was replaced, the chimney was removed, and they added a peak on the roof. Bristow showed an image of the house from the southwest corner, and the porch noting the brick and how the brick over the doors is unpainted. There's also an area under the back porch that's unpainted. The house is very Victorian with the window types and with the dormers. There used to be a historic garage, but it was replaced sometime in the 1990s and then there is an area that on the historic Sanborn maps, used to be an open porch but now is all sided in bead board. The porch columns were taken out, and so were the piers, so now it just sits on stacked concrete block. Bristow stated there's two parts of this project, first looking at a plan of the house currently there is the front porch and the rear porch. The rear porch is only about 5.5’ deep so the plan for the rear porch is to remove that and in its place construct an enclosed 8’ addition with windows on each side with a central door and steps leading down to the backyard. Originally, when these plans were submitted it was noted that the windows much shorter than the windows on the house, because they were doing the same idea as the existing porch by continuing the roof down. At that time staff suggested maybe bringing the roof up so that it actually overlapped the other roof and so that was what was submitted. The addition will have a lap siding, trim, and wood steps and stairs. Staff recommends approval to demolish the existing porch due to the structure is deteriorating, and the porch piers no longer exist, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Page 3 of 6 having been replaced with stacked concrete block. Bristow noted there is an exception in the guidelines for a house that's brick as it can be difficult to match that brick, so they often approve an addition not in brick, but in a wood siding that will also help differentiate between the old and new. There is also a documented exception in the masonry section of the guidelines that allows an addition on a masonry building to be clad in wood, so staff does recommend that here. The applicant has proposed a lap siding and there is lap siding on the front porch and also on the upper dormers, so that would be appropriate to match. Bristow noted drawing didn’t show trim so staff recommends that it has the typical trim with a watertable at the base of the wall, it would have corner boards and a frieze board at the top of the wall. She noted these are typical things that they'd see in almost every wood frame house. She also noted they wouldn't want the watertable to go up above the watertable on the house so one of the suggestions in the staff recommendation is just to make sure that that watertable around the outside of the addition aligns with the watertable on the house. Bristow stated the proposed foundation material is not included in the application and the guidelines would recommend that the foundation matches the brick but since it's disallowed actually to paint masonry, staff would recommend it was unpainted and for this reason, there's another exception in foundations to allow it to just be the color of the foundation or matching a texture. The owner could potentially use something like concrete or concrete block and add a stucco coating and that way they can paint it and it'll blend with the painted brick. And if an owner ever wanted to take the paint off the brick, they would have a stucco coated foundation, which would be fairly typical for an addition to a house like this. The other option would be to match the brick, but that might be difficult depending on the brick. Regarding the roof, looking at this proposed addition they can see that the roof has a wide eave overhang so staff would recommend that the addition has a hipped roof that would tie in properly with the existing roof and would allow an overhang on all three sides of the addition. One of the guidelines is that those eaves should just connect and flow together. Staff would recommend that instead of the shed roof as proposed, especially since they can't just continue the roof as it makes the wall too short, makes a connection that doesn't work, and doesn't comply with the guidelines, is why staff would recommend a hipped roof. The proposal is to use the same type of roof material, and because the guidelines were changed to avoid that type of roof material, if they ever replaced that roof it would have to be something different staff would recommend they go ahead and do the addition in asphalt shingles, so that when this roof needs to be replaced it would also be replaced in asphalt shingles. If the Commission wanted to, they could approve using the metal roof, but the recommendation is not written that way. Finally, the last thing for this part of the project is that the door was proposed to be either a wood or metal door. At the same time the roof guidelines were changed, the door guidelines were changed and part of that was to avoid metal doors. While metal doors can be painted, they tend to be harder for the average person to paint, they tend to rust, they get dented and just get damaged in a way that wood or fiberglass doors don't. Therefore, staff would recommend that this be a wood or fiberglass door instead metal. Bristow moved onto the second part of the project which is an alteration to the front porch. The house has a front porch that enters off the side and there are quite a few houses in town that have a similar situation. 430 Brown Street, 728 East College Street, and 707 Rundell are a few examples of houses with just a side entry porch, it's an architectural feature and does help give more usable space to the porch and was architecturally significant then. The current porch has a very low balustrade, it's historic and at the right height for the windows, it's basically what is called a solid balustrade, which is lap siding, and then there's skirting underneath. The guidelines state it is disallowed to remove historic balustrades or railings as porches are the focus of many historic buildings and they help define the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Page 4 of 6 overall character of the house. The guidelines also state front porches and sun porches should be preserved for their architectural character and social value. The guidelines also talk about the fact that approval is required to remove any architecturally significant or necessary part of a historic building, they can remove alterations that are not historic but it’s disallowed to remove any historic features, such as a porch, chimney, bay window, dormer brackets, or decorative trim that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. Bristow reiterated the key part is it needs to be significant. Because it's a part of the history of this building and its architectural style is to have this low band that goes across the front staff finds it is significant, the balustrade is historic, and it is disallowed to remove it. Therefore, staff does not recommend approval of the demolition and alteration. To have it approved through an exception to the guidelines the Commission would need to determine that it was an uncommon situation. Bristow noted in discussion with the applicant staff shared with them how they would need to do it if they were to add steps to the front and so there's an additional part of this recommendation in case the Commission might want to approve it. In historic construction if they were to have front steps, they would span from one column to another and that means because it's a partial width front porch they are going to have a partial height column that frames the stairs and that partial height column is always going to have a porch pier under it that matches the pier under the column. The applicant did submit one example, 617 Grant, where a porch had been altered so it currently has a short pier column, but there's no pier below and the stairs are just the half width. The staff recommendation is if they were to make just a partial width stair they would need to match the other columns on this house, which are brick, which would be changing a porch that's very linear and horizontal into one with a lot more complexity because it wouldn't be feasible to just push the porch against one column and then have one short column, because the door is centered between the columns. They would need to have two short columns and two piers below, or a wood post with no pier below and staff finds that if they were to do it without a pier, as proposed, it's not going to follow what is seen in historic porches where the stairs span from one column to another and they have a short column with a pier below or they would add two and it would just alter the historic character of the porch. Again, that's why staff is recommending that the stairs not be changed but if the Commission wants to allow it that it's full width between the columns. noted if the Commission wanted to make an exception for the front porch, do they have a reason for the exception. Bristow stated any exception would need fit within certain categories and the only category she feels this would fit into would be an uncommon situation, and the Commission would have to define that because it's not something that's regularly happening. It's not a structural situation that needs to be changed, the porch has been functioning this way for 100 years. Peter Corral (Martin Construction) stated the intent with change to the entrance was to have more of a connection to the street making it a more open, welcoming front porch, that was just the goal of the owners. MOTION: Thomann moves to approve for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition project at 718 Grant Street, through the use of an exception to the guidelines for foundation material, and as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: • The addition includes all of the standard trim as described in the staff report with a watertable aligned with the solider brick course on the house • The roof is revised to a hip roof with asphalt shingles and exposed rafter tails • The passage door is wood or fiberglass • The porch alteration is not approved Wagner seconded the motion. Burford stated he is generally in concurrence with staff recommendation, however would be open to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Page 5 of 6 putting a metal roof on the rear addition as just might look more consistent. Lewis noted if they did the asphalt ones now it might save themselves some of the trouble when they have to replace the roof later but also doesn’t have a problem with it being metal now to match. Villanueva stated regarding the front entrance, it is a really annoying entrance because it's not by the driveway, it's not close to the garage, but they've got the back entrance, so it's not that big of a deal. Wagner noted also that moving it and centering it with the doorway doesn't save that many steps and it’s a bigger porch if they don't put the entry in the middle. Thomann likes the idea of it being a more welcoming space, but that's not a big argument as the current porch is architecturally significant to the home. stated regarding the roof, should they modify the motion to allow either asphalt shingles or metal so the owner has options. AMENDED MOTION: Thomann moves to approve for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition project at 718 Grant Street, through the use of an exception to the guidelines for foundation material, and as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: • The addition includes all of the standard trim as described in the staff report with a watertable aligned with the solider brick course on the house • The roof is revised to a hip roof with asphalt shingles or a metal roof that matches the existing roof and exposed rafter tails • The passage door is wood or fiberglass • The porch alteration is not approved Wagner seconded the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 9, 2025: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 9, 2025, meeting with edits. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: America 250 Planning Committee: Bristow stated this group is trying to plan how Johnson County celebrates the 250th birthday of the US, it was directed to do this by the State and would love to have some involvement. They're still trying to figure out what that looks like in Johnson County because they're trying to not make it just about Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty but trying to bring in the smaller communities as well. She asked Commissioners to please consider volunteering and to let her know at what capacity they might be able to volunteer. They are thinking of a variety of events basically May through at least the Fourth of July, but probably into this fall a little bit. ADJOURNMENT: Wagner moved to adjourn; Burford seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 NAME TERM EXP. 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 5/8 6/12 7/10 8/14 10/9 11/20 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/27 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 X X X X X O/E O/E X X O/E O/E X BURFORD, KEVIN 6/30/27 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X CURFMAN, AUSTIN 6/30/2028 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X O/E X O/E LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X RUSSELL, RYAN 6/30/27 X O/E O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X --- --- --- --- THOMANNN, DEANNA 6/30/26 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X VILLANUEVA, NICOLE 6/30/25 X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 X X X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X X X X X O/E X X --- --- --- --- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member