Iowa City preservation commission defers decision on rear addition at 1025 Woodlawn Avenue

The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission voted to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed rear addition at 1025 Woodlawn Avenue, asking the property owner to provide scaled drawings showing how the new work will relate to the existing house.

The proposal would demolish an existing one‑story rear structure described by staff as an unfinished, early 20th‑century outbuilding and replace it with a new one‑story laundry, bathroom and mudroom addition. Jessica, a staff member, told commissioners the house is “located here in Woodlawn Historic District. It's a contributing property,” and that the staff recommendation was generally supportive of an addition provided certain rooflines, trim and window patterns be matched.

Staff described the main house as a two‑story, stick‑style residence with a hipped roof and projecting gables, decorative bargeboard and a band board and fish‑scale shingles at the gable ends. The rear one‑story element to be removed was shown in photos and assessor sketches as an early addition in poor condition; staff said the proposed new rear gable should match the other gables on the house rather than replicate a triangular gable‑on‑hip detail from one existing dormer.

Karen Lee, the homeowner, spoke in support of design changes to the staff recommendation. Lee, who said she purchased 1025 Woodlawn Avenue in May 2023, said the existing rear portion is “an abomination” and described the interior as unfinished. She asked the commission to permit a simpler triangular window in the addition’s gable to bring more light into the new space and to avoid what she described as overly heavy dormer details. Lee also said she intends to reuse salvaged doors where possible and discussed options such as adding a transom or ordering a new door from a manufacturer to match proportions.

Commissioners’ discussion focused on two technical points: (1) whether the proposed addition would intrude on horizontal lines and eave heights that the commission’s guidelines aim to preserve, and (2) whether the application contained enough context drawings to evaluate the requested exception. Lee said she planned a modest change in plan dimensions — the existing continuous east wall is about 28 feet long and she planned to add roughly 2 feet — and that the proposal reduces an existing 17‑inch overhang to about 11 inches on one side in order to center the addition and achieve an interior layout for a washer/dryer and a bathroom.

Multiple commissioners said they were sympathetic to the owner’s goals but wanted clearer, scaled elevation drawings and a side‑by‑side elevation of the existing house with the proposed addition so the commission could see how roof ridgelines, gutters and the fish‑scale shingle band would align or differ. One commissioner summarized the room’s concern by saying they could not “vote based on the drawings provided.” Staff and commissioners recommended submitting a drawing that shows a few feet of the existing house adjacent to the addition, door and window heights to scale (including any proposed transom for salvaged doors), and the proposed eave/soffit relationship.

Commissioner Celergan made a motion to defer the matter until the commission could review more thorough drawings; Commissioner Brown seconded. The motion carried with the commissioners voting in favor and no recorded opposition. The commission directed staff to work with the applicant before the next meeting and requested that the revised submission include scaled elevations and dimensions sufficient to evaluate whether an exception to the horizontal‑line guideline is warranted.

The commission also noted that because the proposed work involves demolition of an attached historic‑era addition and installation of a new addition visible from the side and rear, the packet should document window and door products and foundation treatment (staff suggested rock‑faced block or a stone facing as options) and clearly indicate where historic materials would be salvaged and reinstalled.

The item was deferred to the commission’s next meeting so that the applicant can provide the requested drawings and additional details.