Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-2010 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, August 11, 2010 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL — EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the July 14, 2010 Board Minutes D. Special Exception: EXC10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard and Robin Chambers for a reduction in the principal building setback requirements for property located in the RS-5 zone at 907 Fifth Avenue. E. Appeal: Discussion of an appeal filed by Tracy Barkalow to overturn a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission denying a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 837 Maggard Street. F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: September 8, 2010 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC10-00006 907 Fifth Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Lot Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: August 11, 2010 Richard and Robin Chambers 907 Fifth Avenue Iowa City, IA Adjustment to the principal building setback requirement in the RS-5 zone. To allow an attached garage within the rear setback (9 feet from the property line). 907 Fifth Avenue 75' x 80' Single -Family Residential (RS-5) North: Single -Family Residential (RS-5) South: Single -Family Residential (RS-5) East: Single -Family Residential (RS-5) West: Single -Family Residential (RS-5) Applicable code sections: Specific criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements, 14-2A-4B-5; purpose of the minimum setback requirement, 14-2A-4B-1; general criteria for special exceptions, 14-4B-3 File Date: BACKGROUND: July 15, 2010 The subject property is located in the RS-5 zone along Fifth Avenue. Most properties on this block and in the immediate neighborhood are oriented in a north -south direction facing onto lettered streets with deep (150'+) lots. Properties addressed along the numbered streets (the short side of the block) tend to be smaller in terms of area and depth —they are approximately half as deep as the north -south lots. The subject property is 75'x80'. The applicants are in the process of converting their attached garage into living space. The applicants would like to construct a new attached garage to the rear of the house with access from the alley. Attached garages are subject to the principal building setback: 20 feet for rear setbacks in the RS-5 zone. The proposed garage (21' x 21') would be set back 10 feet from the rear property line. By right the applicants may build a detached garage of the exact same size just 3 feet from the rear property line. Detached garages, which are considered accessory structures'-, are subject to different rear and side setback standards. A detached garage would be separated from the house by 6 feet.. The property at 907 Fifth Avenue was granted a special exception in 2008 in order to reduce the front setback requirement to allow the construction of an open-air porch. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-4B-4E-5 pertaining to principal building setbacks in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements (14-2A-413-5). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. The subject lot is just 6,000 square feet —the minimum size allowed in the RS-5 zone. This is significantly smaller in size than most other lots on the same block and in the neighborhood in general. Most properties have deep rear yards with vehicle access provided from the alley. The subject property is located on the short side of the block —a shallow lot. The house is set back 25 feet from the front property line (with the open air porch set approximately 14 feet from the property line). This leaves little room in back of the house to site a garage off the alley. The applicant does have the right and ability to build a detached garage of the same size along the alley. Due to the shape and size of the property and existing buildings, a detached garage could only be located with a 3 to 4-foot setback from the rear property line. This situation is peculiar in that an attached garage would actually provide a deeper setback. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement due to the shallow depth of this parcel and the size of the lot (6,000 sq. feet). The parcel is 75 feet wide and 80 feet deep, whereas typical lots for this neighborhood are approximately 150 feet deep. 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The purpose of the setback regulations is to a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protections and access for fire fighting; b. To provide opportunities for privacy between buildings; c. To reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City's neighborhoods; d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences. e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. ' Accessory structures are subordinate to the principal structure, in this case the residence, and are subject to stricter building height and lot coverage limits than the principal structure. Staff believes that the reduction in the rear setback requirement is not counter to the purpose of the regulations. The applicant has the right to build a detached garage just 3 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the neighboring garage along the alley. Allowing an attached garage in this situation will actually provide more space between the garage and the adjacent property than would be provided if the applicant built a detached garage. Most properties along this block provide garage access from the rear alley. Allowing the attached garage will therefore not create an unreasonable physical relationship between buildings. In order to ensure that the addition remains comparable in scale to other garages and accessory buildings, staff recommends limiting the height of the garage according to the standards for detached garages (14-4C-3D-a): "In Residential Zones, one story accessory buildings and structures ... may not exceed a height of 15 feet. One and one-half story and two-story buildings may not exceed a height of 20 feet." 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The proposed setback reduction will result in more space (10') between the structure and the adjacent property line than would result with a detached garage.. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The proposed attached garage would be located no closer than 10 feet to the rear property line. The zoning code requires a 5-foot setback from the side property line (alley). The proposed garage is set 9 feet from the alley.. General Standards: 14-48-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. This situation is unusual in that granting the setback reduction for the purpose of an attached garage will actually provide a larger setback (9') than would be achieved with a detached garage of the same size (3-foot setback). The proposed garage will have its entrance from the alley and will be more than 80 feet from the street right-of-way (Fifth Avenue). 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. See #1 above. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. See #1 above. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. With the exception of a sidewalk along Fifth Avenue, all necessary utilities and facilities are already in place in this neighborhood. Sufficient right-of-way exists for future construction of sidewalks and the proposed setback reduction will not diminish the opportunity for installation of sidewalks in the future. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Vehicle access will be provided via the alley and the proposed rear setback reduction will not have any effect of visibility for motorists or pedestrians and will not contribute to traffic congestion along public streets. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The proposed exception must comply with all other standards in the code, including those for the driveway entrance to the garage. This application will be reviewed by the Housing and Inspection Services Department to ensure compliance with other City codes. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan does not address this situation directly, but does provide incentives for the use of alleys and private rear lanes for vehicle access on small lots (lots under 8,000 square feet in the RS-5 zone). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00006, a special exception to reduce the rear setback requirement for principal buildings from 20 feet to 10 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the garage limited according to the standards for detached accessory structures. 2. The setback reduction is for the 21-foot depth of the proposed garage only. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial views of the proposed location. 2. Location map 3. Proposed site plan and elevations 4. Application materials Approved by. / Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development m W �I "W 0 0 O i O and (M l HlE7 V w 3AV Hidn03 -� 3A d H1313 d and H1XIS Ln 0..4 o z O w w ,4TT,-GHMC-tQT �1`2. s 0 Z N N I Z. JA v I V) U- m O cs r x? ■■u■■■u [� j/. / 2/« 2�\ d%) ©wdGG d/\ away& y6d/ >9 e, ',TTACHMENT 3ab, vu D 0 Z 2 \' � A� W J H Z H3 jr- TTACHMENT 3--d v 0 6C It) - 0130r) r APPLICATION TO THE 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT-,.--,--,''ul� U 4 1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION -0- DATE: r I- JUL-Y -)-O/D PROPERTY PARCEL NO. /Q/ 41-- PROPERTY ADDRESS: ✓ 0 7 R rT N IhVel JuE PROPERTY ZONE: 7�11 S — 5 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 7 S ' X eO ' APPLICANT: Name: R [GH A -PA PRm,t P4 CH-�-IP71 Address: 9 D7 FIFTH A Vstlua Phone: 31 9 - b' 9 9- 02789 CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: S 74M E (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: Is Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz&owacty.or . To�2t!+- 2-- A13-S AwusTmF-NT 1n1G'4L_ 1Rr--T3#CK Purpose for special exception: S ATIACHMJE-:NT 'I Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -3- D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. This exception will not block the view for street or alley traffic, nor will it create a fire hazard. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. The exception will enhance the appearance and fiinction of the property, thereby benefiting the neighborhood at large. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. The new garage will have driveway access from the alley, as do most of the garages on the block. The garage will not be very visible from the street, and will not detract from the appearance or function of the neighborhood. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities and necessary facilities are already in place, and will not be affected by the garage addition. -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. With the addition of the new garage, auto access to the property will be a driveway off the alley. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14.4E as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j The homeowners will work with the Iowa City Building Department to meet all applicable codes. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The city's comprehensive plan calls for the preservation of existing neighborhoods. This special exemption will be an improvement to the property and to the neighborhood, and may encourage further investment and improvement of property. M NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1 E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. Date: 1 20 w— 9—� Signatures) of Applicants) Date: ppdadminlapplication-boase.doc 20 Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) Attachment # 1 Purpose for special exception: In Section 14-2A-3 of the Iowa City zoning code, Table 2A-2 lists a minimum rear setback of 20 feet. The homeowners request a special exception to reduce the rear setback to 10 feet, to allow construction of a new attached garage. Robin's father has been living with us for six months, and is making this his permanent home. He requires a first -floor bedroom and bathroom. The most expeditious answer for our space needs is to convert the present garage to living space, and to add a new attached garage. The accompanying elevation drawings show the current structure and the plan for the new construction, which is consistent in design with the rest of the house and other properties in this neighborhood. City of Iowa City --- ---- -- -- MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney DATE: August 5, 2010 RE: Appeal from Historic Preservation Commission's denial of application for Certificate of Appropriateness; 837 Maggard Street (Tracy Barkalow) The Board of Adjustment has the power to hear appeals from zoning decisions made by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) when it is alleged that HPC erred in making such decision. In this case, Tracy Barkalow has alleged HPC erred in denying his application for a certificate of appropriateness for his property at 837 Maggard Street. The purpose of this memo is to set forth the rules and standards that govern your consideration of the above - referenced appeal. Standard of Review In deciding the appeal you must first determine: 1. Whether the Historic Preservation Commission's (HPC) decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness was supported by substantial evidence; and 2. Whether the HPC's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether HPC's decision was supported by substantial evidence. It is important that you carefully review the transcript and applicable regulations prior to the Board meeting. "Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings." City of Cedar Rapids v. Mun. Fire & Police Ret. Sys., 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1995). Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether HPC's decision to deny the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. Dico, Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 355 (Iowa 1998). This "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Board judgment for that of HPC. In other words, you may because you disagree with it—HPC's decision should could disagree with the conclusion reached. Alleged Errors is not entitled to simply substitute its not reverse HPC's decision merely be affirmed even if reasonable minds In addition to this memo, you are being provided with a memo from Sarah Walz explaining the background of this matter and the nature of the errors the Appellant has alleged. With regard to the alleged bias/conflict of interest, you should carefully review the record to August 5, 2010 Page 2 determine a) whether there was actual bias on the part of a Commission member and b) whether this alleged bias tainted HPC's decision. A conflict of interest has been defined as an interest "which is different from that which the quasi-judicial officer holds in common with members of the public. . .. In addition, such interest must be direct, definite, capable of demonstration, not remote, uncertain, contingent, unsubstantial, or merely speculative or theoretical." Bluffs Development Co Inc. v. BOA of Pottawattamie Co., 499 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 1993). HPC's decision is not invalid by reason of a conflict of interest unless that vote was decisive in HPC's decision. Iowa courts have held that "there is no mathematical way to quantify interest necessary to taint the process and disqualify quasi-judicial officers from acting on the matters before them." Bluffs Development Co Inc. v. BOA of Pottawattamie Co., 499 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1993). Procedure You may affirm the decision, wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of HPC to deny the application. You do not have the authority to waive or modify the regulations themselves. If you find that substantial evidence shows that HPC exercised its powers and followed the criteria established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must affirm HPC's decision. However, if you find that there is an insubstantial amount of evidence to support HPC's decision, or if you find that HPC-acted arbitrarily or capriciously, then you may make such decision as ought to have been made. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of HPC and are bound by all the criteria and rules that govern HPC's decisions on applications for historic review and may make a decision in accordance with those criteria and rules. You are required to decide the appeal within a "reasonable time." If, during Wednesday's meeting, you are in need of any additional information in order to make a decision, then you may defer your decision and request that additional information or testimony be given. If, however, you decide that you have all the information you need and no further time for deliberation is necessary, you should close the public hearing and decide the appeal. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm or reverse, wholly or partly, or modify the decision of HPC concerning the application. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the Historic Preservation Commission. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated. If you have any questions, please contact me. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 2010 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: APL10-00001, An appeal of a decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for synthetic siding for a non- contributing structure located at 837 Maggard. BACKGROUND: At its May 27, 2010 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow vinyl siding for a non-contributing structure located at 837 Maggard Street. The subject property is located in the Clark Street Conservation District. The appellant, Tracy Barkalow, has requested an appeal of the decision of HPC for the denial for 837 Maggard. Mr. Barkalow has cited the following grounds for the appeal: o The decision was unfair because adjacent properties in the neighborhood are sided in vinyl siding and the Board approved the application of vinyl siding to the adjacent property at 841/845 Maggard (also owned by the appellant) at the same meeting; o A member of the Commission (Pam Michaud) made statements prior to and during the meeting indicating a bias against the appellant; o The cement board siding approved by the applicant is too expensive. The Assistant City Attorney has drafted a memo explaining your role in hearing this appeal. This memo, however, is intended to provide you with the background information regarding this application and Staff's recommendation. Historic Preservation Guidelines: When districts are evaluated and nominated for preservation and conservation, each property is visually inspected and historically researched by a professional architectural historian. Individual properties are classified as either contributing or noncontributing to the historic character of the proposed district. The classification of the property determines the degree to which the property is regulated by Iowa City's historic preservation regulations. The primarily building on a contributing property must (1) have an architectural style and character that is clearly evident and (2) have been constructed during the district's period of significance and relate to a significant historic context in the neighborhood's history. All properties that are not classified as contributing are classified as noncontributing. Noncontributing properties have a primary building that has been significantly altered or that is non -historic. The house at 837 Maggard is considered non-contributing because, although it was built during the Clark Street Conservation District's period of significance, enclosure of the house porch and the application of wide replacement siding seriously impair the historic integrity of the property. Non -historic buildings are buildings constructed after a district's period of historic significance or were less than 50 years old at the time the district was designated. The home located at 841/845 Maggard Street is considered non -historic because it was built in the early 1980s. August 6, 2010 Page 2 All properties located in a conservation district zone, even if those properties are non- contributing and/or non -historic, are regulated by the zoning code and historic preservation guidelines. Certain exceptions to the regulations and guidelines are permissible, however, depending on the categorization of the structure, with non-contributing structures regulated more closely than non -historic structures The rehabilitation of noncontributing historic buildings to its original historic significance is a goal of the City's adopted historic preservation guidelines [emphasis added]. (See Handbook 1.4) The HPC design guidelines pertaining to siding may be found in section 4.11 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook (page 17). Exceptions to Iowa City Guidelines may be found in section 3.5 of the handbook (page 10). ANALYSIS: The Appellant has alleged that HPC erred in denying the certificate of appropriateness for 837 Maggard because HPC treated this property differently than it treated other structures in the neighborhood. Staff finds that HPC was not arbitrary or capricious in denying the certificate of appropriateness. This transcript shows that the Commission cited the property's non-contributing status and that the property is non-contributing, in part, because of the current siding on the home. A reasonable interpretation and application of the zoning code and historic preservation guidelines supports the conclusion that the application of new vinyl siding to this non-contributing structure would not serve to rehabilitate the historic character of the house, but rather further perpetuate the non-contributing status. Staff further finds it reasonable that HPC treated the property at 841/845 differently in allowing the applicant to put vinyl siding on that property since it is non - historic. The Commission drew a distinction between the adjacent properties based on their different designations (non-contributing and non -historic). Staff finds that such a distinction is consistent with the stated goals and purpose of the historic preservation guidelines. The appellant has also alleged that a member of HPC was biased. Staff finds that the record does not indicate such a bias, and, even if there were such a bias, it did not taint the Commission's decision. HPC voted unanimously (7-0) to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the application of vinyl siding. A simple majority vote was required, and therefore one alleged biased member's vote did not materially affect the outcome of this decision. The basis for the decision was well discussed and documented, as can be seen in the enclosed staff report, HPC meeting minutes, and transcript. Lastly, the Appellant is asking the Board to reverse HPC's decision because he believes vinyl siding is the only economically viable option. As explained in the Assistant City Attorney's memo, the Board does not have the authority to grant relief from the HPC guidelines based on economic hardship in this context. CONCLUSION: Staff finds that HPC's decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness for 837 Maggard was well grounded in the zoning code and historic preservation guidelines. The reasons for HPC's decision were thoroughly vetted during the public hearing. Staff finds that HPC's decision did not rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious, and was not influenced by any alleged bias against August 6, 2010 Page 3 the Appellant. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Board deny Appellant's appeal and uphold HPC's decision in whole. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from the City Attorney 2. Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Sections 1.4, 3.0-3.6, 4.0, 4.5 3. Iowa City Zoning Code, 14-8E-2, 14-313-3 4. Letter requesting appeal 5. HPC Staff Report on 837 Maggard 6. Transcript of the discussion of 841/845 Maggard and 837 Maggard from the May 27, 2010 HPC meeting 7. Minutes of the May 27, 2010 HPC meeting 8. Resolution Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness Approved by: Ate` Jeff Da idson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development 14-8E-2: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVAL PROCEDURES, HISTORIC REVIEW: C. Approval Procedure: Applications for historic review will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable approval criteria for historic review as set forth in chapter 3, article B, "Historic District And Conservation District Overlay", of this title. Historic review will result in one of the following outcomes: 1. If the proposed material change to the property will have no effect on any architecturally significant feature, or there will be no change in appearance to a landmark or property located within a historic or conservation district, a certificate of no material effect will be issued, signed by the chair of thehistoric preservation commission or designee and be transmitted along with the application to the building official and the city clerk. 2. If the application is approved or approved with modifications acceptable to the applicant, a certificate of appropriateness will be issued, signed by the chairperson or designee and be transmitted along with the application to the building official and the city clerk. 3. If the application is disapproved, the commission will issue a written decision setting forth the factual basis for the decision and the vote of each member participating therein. The decision will be issued, signed by the chairperson or designee, and be transmitted along with the application to the building official and the city clerk. D. Appeals: Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commission regarding an application for historic review in a historic district or for a historic landmark may appeal the action to the city council. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commission regarding an application for historic review in a conservation district may appeal the action to the board of adjustment. Procedures for such appeals are as follows: 1. Any appeal submitted by the applicant must be in writing and must be filed with the city clerk no later than ten (10) business days after the filing of the above mentioned decision. An appeal submitted by an aggrieved party, other than the applicant, must be in writing and must be filed with the city clerk no later than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to an approved certificate of appropriateness, certificate of no material effect, or certificate of economic hardship is observable from adjacent properties or the public right of way or ten (10) business days after an alleged violation of this article is similarly observable. 2. The city council or board of adjustment, as applicable, shall, within a reasonable time, hold a public hearing on the appeal, give the public notice as required by state law, as well as provide written notice to the applicant and to the appellant, if different from the applicant, and decide the appeal within a reasonable time. 3. In deciding such appeal, the city council or the board of adjustment, as applicable, shall consider whether the commission has exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established according to this title, and whether the commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. 4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the city council or the board of adjustment, as applicable, may, in conformity with the provisions of this article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the historic preservation commission. 14-313-3: HISTORIC DISTRICT AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY, HISTORIC REVIEW: A. Purpose: The intent of the historic review process is: 1. To ensure that material changes to exterior features of landmarks and properties in historic and conservation districts do not substantially alter or destroy the defining architectural character of a building, site or neighborhood. 2. To provide property owners, contractors and consultants with technical assistance and design alternatives to ensure that proposed projects conform with the applicable historic preservation guidelines. B. Applicability: 1. If a material change that requires a regulated permit, as defined in chapter 9, article B, "Historic Preservation Definitions", of this title, is proposed for any property located in a historic or conservation district or to a property that has been designated a historic landmark, historic review is required. A minor, intermediate, or major review will be conducted as applicable, and as set forth in chapter 8, article E, "Historic Preservation Commission Approval Procedures", of this title, and if approved, will result in the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate of no material effect. (Ord. 05- 4186, 12-15-2005) 2. For purposes of this article, a "material change" is any act that adds new materials or otherwise modifies an exterior feature of a property. "Material changes" include alterations to the exterior features of a building or structure, demolition of a building or structure, demolition of a portion of a building or structure, and new construction on a property, including construction of any new street access drives. (Ord. 06-4245, 12-12- 2006) 3. Normal repairs or maintenance that do not involve material changes for which a regulated permit is required are exempt from historic review. For example, changes made in the color of the exterior surfaces of a building are considered normal maintenance and repair and are therefore not subject to historic review. C. Approval Criteria: Applications for historic review will be reviewed for compliance with the following guidelines and standards, which are published in the "Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook", as amended: 2. Conservation Districts: For properties located within a conservation district: a. "Iowa City Guidelines For Historic Preservation". B. Appeals: Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commission regarding an application for historic review in a historic district or for a historic landmark may appeal the action to the city council. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commission regarding an application for historic review in a conservation district may appeal the action to the board of adjustment. Procedures for such appeals are set forth in chapter 8, article E, "Historic Preservation Commission Approval Procedures", of this title. I o w a C i t y H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook Adopted June 20, 2000 Revised February 3, 2004 Contains guidelines for the historic review of properties in historic and conservation districts and historic landmarks, and Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook 1.0 Historic Preservation and Conservation in Iowa City 1.1 "Why should a community like Iowa City care about historic preservation?" "The simple answer is that conserving old buildings and neighborhoods makes a good community better. Iowa City is blessed with a collection of fine, well -maintained older neighborhoods and individual landmarks which are recognized and appreciated by the entire community. Historic preservation has the potential to enhance the quality of life and economic well-being of current and future residents. " Marlys Svendsen Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan In 1992, the Iowa City City Council adopted the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan that was prepared by architectural historian Marlys Svendsen. The plan carefully and thoughtfully evaluated Iowa City's historic buildings and neighborhoods and set forth a plan of action for their stewardship. Historic neighborhoods and buildings are protected by the designation of historic districts, conservation districts and historic landmarks. Designation provides for the careful management of these resources by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission through the historic review process. The purpose of historic review is to preserve or conserve historic architectural resources by discouraging alterations that either destroy the unique characteristics of a building or alter the character of historic neighborhoods. 1.2 The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was created by local ordinance in December 1982. Its mission statement as described in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan is "To identify, protect, and preserve the community's historic resources in order to enhance the quality of life and economic well-being of current and future generations." Its members are citizen volunteers appointed by the City Council. Many of the members reside in historic districts and have expertise in fields related to historic preservation. The Commission is responsible for surveying historic neighborhoods and recommending to City Council neighborhoods that should be designated as conservation or historic districts, as well as individual properties that should be designated as historic landmarks. Once districts and landmarks are identified and designated, the Commission reviews proposed changes to the exteriors of these properties through the historic review process. 1.3 Districts and Landmarks Historic and conservation districts, and historic landmarks, are designated by ordinance by the Iowa City City Council with recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission, the State Historical Society of Iowa, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Recommendations for the historic designation of districts and properties are also received from professional architectural historians following an intensive survey and evaluation of a neighborhood's historic properties and resources. Historic Districts Historic districts are geographically cohesive areas with significant concentrations of buildings and other resources that possess a high degree of historic integrity. Historic districts are typically first nominated to and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and then designated as local historic districts. Designation as a local district provides the Historic Preservation Commission with the authority to review changes to properties that may affect the historic character of the property and the district. The overall character of a historic district must convey a distinct sense of time and place. 3 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook r 0 Conservation Districts Conservation districts are neighborhoods that appear similar to historic districts in character. However, because they have fewer properties that retain a high degree of historic integrity or contribute to a distinct sense of time and place within the neighborhood, they do not qualify as historic districts based on State Code. Because they are still considered worthy of protection, City Council may designate these neighborhoods for historic conservation. Iowa City Historic Landmarks Historic landmarks are buildings that are individually significant for their architectural and/or cultural merits. Like historic districts, these properties are typically listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or are eligible for listing on the National Register. 1.4 Classification of Properties in Districts Properties in conservation and historic districts are classified based on their historic and architectural significance and integrity. Because neighborhoods change over time, these districts typically have some structures that are not historic or that have been severely altered. Buildings in historic or conservation districts may range from outstanding historic landmarks to architecturally incompatible, modern structures. Depending on the classification of a property, certain exceptions to the guidelines or financial incentives may be applicable. To determine the classification of a specific property in a historic or conservation district, refer to the Table of Contents to locate the appropriate district map that indicates the property's classification. To determine if a property has been designated a historic landmark, see section 12.0 Historic Landmarks. Contributing and Noncontributing Properties When districts are evaluated and nominated for preservation and conservation, individual properties are classified as either contributing or noncontributing to the historic character of the proposed district. Contributing Properties In historic districts, to be classified as a contributing property the primary building must (1) have an architectural style and character that is clearly evident and (2) was constructed during the district's period of significance and relate to a significant historic context in the neighborhood's history. The period of significance and the historic context(s) for each district are determined by professional consultants prior to designation. Contributing properties in historic districts may be eligible for Federal, State and local tax incentives for substantial rehabilitation. Conservation districts tend to exhibit a greater variety of building styles from different time periods and are less culturally cohesive, so their historic contexts are more loosely defined. The primary determining factors in classifying a property in a conservation district are (1) the historic integrity of the primary building and (2) the age of the primary building, which typically must be at least 50 years old at the time a district is designated. Noncontributing and Nonhistoric Properties Properties that are not classified as contributing are classified as noncontributing. Noncontributing properties have a primary building that has been significantly altered or that is nonhistoric. Nonhistoric buildings are buildings constructed after a district's period of significance and were generally less than 50 years old at the time the district was designated. These properties are NOT exempt from historic preservation regulations, but exceptions to the guidelines are applicable. The rehabilitation of noncontributing historic buildings is encouraged. The demolition of existing nonhistoric buildings and construction of new, more architecturally compatible buildings is allowed. 4 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook 2.6 Certificates of No Material Effect The Commission Chair and the Preservation Planner or their designees may issue a Certificate of No Material Effect if the work contemplated in the application will have no effect on the appearance of significant architectural features and review by the full Commission is not required. 2.7 Appeals Applicants may appeal decisions of the Commission to the City Council for properties in historic districts and landmarks, and to the Board of Adjustment for properties in conservation districts. The Certificate of Appropriateness, or the Resolution of Denial, which states the reason for the decision, will be filed with the City Clerk within five days of the decision. The applicant has 10 days from the time it is filed with the Clerk to file a letter with the Preservation Planner requesting an appeal. The City Council or Board of Adjustment will determine if the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission was arbitrary or capricious, but neither the Council nor the Board has the authority to override a decision by the Commission if it is determined that it was not arbitrary or capricious. 3.0 About the Guidelines for Historic Preservation The purpose of the historic preservation guidelines is to: Provide comprehensive design guidelines for construction projects to landmarks and properties within each district. • Provide property owners with design criteria that will be the basis for approving or denying Certificates of Appropriateness. • Identify the defining characteristics of each individual historic or conservation district. In writing the historic preservation guidelines, the Historic Preservation Commission has made every effort to clarify the criteria for historic review. However, not every situation can be anticipated. The Commission, at its discretion, may allow some flexibility for unique properties and situations. The Preservation Planner is available to answer any questions, assist an owner or contractor with their project, and provide additional preservation information. 3.1 Iowa City Guidelines These guidelines were written by the Iowa Historic Preservation Commission to address specifically the historic preservation issues in Iowa City and to provide more detailed guidance to property owners and builders as they design their construction projects. The guidelines are based on The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which can be found in section 9.0. The Iowa City Guidelines are the guidelines that will be used to evaluate most projects. If there are issues that are not addressed in these guidelines, then the Historic Preservation Commission will use The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, which are guidelines for interpreting the Standards. Typically, there are four types of projects that modify the exterior of landmarks or properties within districts. The Iowa City Guidelines are divided into four sections that correspond to these project types. These are: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines forAlterations 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines forAdditions 6.0 Iowa City Guidelines for New Construction 7.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Demolition 9 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook Alterations Alterations are modifications to a site or to the exterior of a building that do not increase the size of the building's footprint. Most maintenance and remodeling projects such as siding repair, reconstruction or repair of historic porches, adding dormers to convert an attic space to a living space, and replacing doors and windows are considered alterations. These projects will be evaluated using 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations. Additions Construction that results in a larger building footprint, increases the building's overall height, or adds an attached structure to a building are additions. Additions include construction of a new room, porch, or deck. These projects will be evaluated using 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions as well as 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines. Setback Additions A setback addition is constructed behind an existing building, opposite the street facade, and is set back eight inches or more from the side walls. The roof of a setback addition can be no higher than the roof of the existing building. This results in an addition that is narrower and no taller than the building to which it is attached, and is therefore not highly visible from the street. Setback additions are encouraged because they have less impact on a historic building and district. Therefore, the guidelines for these structures are less stringent. Setback additions will be evaluated M using 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions as well as 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines. New Construction Although most lots in conservation and historic districts are developed, there may be occasions where a new primary building or outbuilding is constructed. Outbuildings include garages, garden sheds, gazebos and other accessory structures that require a building permit. Under most circumstances, nonhistoric buildings and structures may be demolished and the lot redeveloped. However, the new building and the demolition must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission before any building or demolition permits are issued. These projects will be evaluated using 6.0 Iowa City Guidelines for New Construction , 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines and if applicable 7.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Demolition. Demolition Demolition involves the complete removal of a building or a portion of a building. Removal of dormers, decorative trim, porches, balusters, chimneys and other significant features requires a building permit for demolition, and therefore historic review. Demolition projects will be evaluated using 7.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Demolition. 3.2 Exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines In order to provide flexibility for changes to properties in conservation districts, noncontributing properties in historic districts, and setback additions, a number of exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines have been created. These exceptions are intended to provide additional flexibility in cases where a proposed construction project does not significantly affect the architectural character of a historic structure. These exceptions, where applicable, are listed at the end of each section of the guidelines. 3.3 Exceptions for Nonhistoric Properties The historic preservation regulations are intended primarily to protect the character and integrity of historic properties and districts. The great majority of properties located in historic and conservation districts are historic properties, and were constructed in or before 1945. For the relatively small number of properties that are classified as nonhistoric properties and were constructed after the period of significance of a district, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines. In order to qualify for an exception, the proposed change to the exterior of a nonhistoric property must comply with the following criteria: 10 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook 1. Does not further detract from the historic character of the district. 2. Does not create a false historic character. 3. Is compatible with the style and character of the nonhistoric property. Examples of exceptions that may be granted for nonhistoric properties are: • Use of vinyl and vinyl clad wood windows and snap -in muntin bars for replacement windows. • Installation of sliding patio doors or other modern -style doors. • Use of synthetic siding on existing buildings provided the replacement siding is similar in appearance to the original siding. • Use of synthetic siding on new accessory structures. • Use of concrete for a porch floor provided the floor is less than 18 inches above grade. • Use of dimensional lumber for porch floor boards provided the gap between boards is no more than 1/8 inch • Alternative baluster and handrail designs. 3.4 Additional Historic Preservation Guidelines Neighborhood District Guidelines The size and location of a primary building on a site are some of the defining characteristics of historic and conservation districts. The size of buildings, lots and yards, as well as the architectural character of the buildings varies by district. Section 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines deals specifically with site, scale, structure location, and architectural style for properties within individual historic or conservation districts. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings are national standards for historic preservation. The Secretary of the Interior defines rehabilitation as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural value." The goals of the Standards can be summarized as follows: 1. Identify and preserve those materials and features that are important in defining the building's historic character. 2. Undertake routine maintenance on historic materials and features. Routine maintenance generally involves the least amount of work needed to preserve the materials and features of the building. 3. Repair damaged or deteriorated historic materials and features. 4. Replace severely damaged or deteriorated historic materials and features in kind. The Iowa City Guidelines are base on the Standards, but they provide more specific guidance. Occasionally alterations are proposed to properties that were not anticipated in the Iowa City Guidelines. When this occurs, the Historic Preservation Commission will refer to the Standards when deciding on a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Standards are located in section 9.0. Design Guidelines for Multi -Family Buildings in the Central Planning District These guidelines are based on the Multi -Family Residential Design Standards in the Central Planning District of the Iowa City Zoning Code and apply to the construction of buildings with three or more dwelling units. Typically, a new multi -family building would be evaluated by the Staff Design Review Committee. However, if it is located within a_historic or conservation district, the Historic Preservation Commission is responsible for design review and has adapted the 0 z d L a _M N 0 c� 0 L 0 O a 0 M 11 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook original guidelines to be more applicable to districts. Within districts, more weight is given to the architectural style of the proposed building and its compatibility with other historic structures. The Design Guidelines for Multi -Family Buildings are located in section 10.0. 3.5 Building Code and Zoning Ordinances The requirements of the building code and the zoning ordinance must be met in addition to the requirements of the Iowa City Guidelines. For certain requirements such as mass, scale, size, siting considerations, and setbacks from the street, the Iowa City Guidelines may be more stringent than the building code or the zoning ordinance. The Historic Preservation Commission does NOT review projects for compliance with the building code or zoning ordinance. Please consult with Housing and Inspection Services to ensure the project complies with these regulations. 3.6 Alternative Designs Alternative design solutions or exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines, the Design Guidelines for Multi -Family Buildings, or the Neighborhood District Guidelines may be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission. The intent in considering alternative designs is to allow architectural flexibility in exceptional circumstances. The intent is not to reduce the scope or quality of work required by these guidelines. 12 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook 4.5 Siding Wood siding is prevalent throughout the historic neighborhoods in Iowa City. Most often it is plain clapboard siding with an exposure between 3 and 5 inches; however, it is sometimes tongue and groove, shiplap, or wall shingle siding. Wood siding along with the trim details and a variety of paint colors combine to make one of the most important defining characteristics of historic districts. This display of detail and color is essential to the character of the old neighborhoods, and therefore siding must be protected by the design guidelines. The primary threat to the traditional appearance of older neighborhoods has come with the application of synthetic siding. This has been installed in an effort to avoid periodic painting. While synthetic siding may last longer than a paint job, it does deteriorate over time and does need to be replaced when it fades, cracks, dents, or deteriorates. The application of synthetic siding covers many architectural details of a building, damages the historic siding and trim, and in some cases, necessitates the removal of historic elements altogether. For all of the reasons stated above, the covering of historic properties with synthetic siding is not allowed. Recommended: Historic siding • Repairing historic wood siding and trim. • Replacing deteriorated sections of wood siding with new or salvaged wood siding that matches the historic wood siding. • Removing synthetic siding and repairing historic wood siding and trim. Wood substitutes • Substituting a material in place of wood siding only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. In many ap- plications, fiber cement board is an approved wood substitute. Synthetic siding • Matching synthetic siding may be used to repair dam- age to existing synthetic siding. Disallowed: Historic trim • Removing historic trim pieces such as door and window trim, skirt and frieze boards, and corner boards. • Covering historic trim such as door and window trim, skirt and frieze boards, and corner boards. Synthetic siding • Applying synthetic siding such as aluminum, vinyl, or false masonry siding. Exception Applies to:Conservation Districts Noncontributing • Synthetic siding may be used provided: • All sources of moisture that have caused damage to the structure are corrected and the damage repaired prior to the application of the siding. • Historic architectural features such as window trim, brackets, moldings, rafter tails, columns, balusters and similar details are not covered, removed, cut or otherwise damaged. Unless severely deteriorated, historic wood siding must not be removed. • To the extent possible, the synthetic siding appears similar to the original wood siding in exposure, texture and design. • Trim boards extend in front of the face of the siding. 17 1210 HWY 6 WEST STE 400 IOWA CITY IA 52246 BUS: (319)-354-8644 TOLL FREE: (800)-728-6819 FAX: (319)-354-8652 WEBSITE: www.barkalowhomes.com June 15, 2010 City of Iowa City 410 E Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 City Clerk, I hereby request an appeal to the decision attached on the property referenced 837 Maggard Street Iowa City Iowa. I would like to have a meeting or hearing on this matter please advise me to the next step. Thank you Tracy Barkalow Broker —Owner C-D �.7- �mr c c ' <1 Licensed Real Estate Brokers in the State of Iowa. Locally Owned Locally Operated. EQUAL HOUSING R E A L T O R `0 OPPORTUNITY Page 1 of 2 Sarah Walz From: Tracy Barkalow [tracy@barkalowhomes.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:27 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: RE: Appeal to the Board of Adjustment Sarah - I would like to make the appeal based on the fact that all the properties adjacent to my property have vinyl siding and that is even a large apartment complex across the street from me with vinyl siding. Not to mention the other property 841/845 Maggard Street that I own right next door was approved that night for vinyl siding to be installed on it right before you came up with a more than $15,000 hardy board plan for my other house at 837 Maggard St that is more than a years rent on the property. Another point to appeal this is the fact that one of your members of the Historic Preservation Committee (Pam Michaud) was not fair in dealing with this issue and stepped so far past the line by coming to my office the week of the meeting and harassing my staff asking were I get my money and that I should stop doing what I do it is not good for the neighborhoods. I received a call from Mayor Matt Hayek apologizing for her actions. Then this same person at the meeting in front of the entire committee stated that I could afford to pay for the improvements to this property from other funds I make on other properties, that was way out of line Sarah Walz and the rest of the committee moved on and cut Pam off. This was a comment Pam M made after I said that it is not affordable to put hardy board siding on a rental property do to the major cost of the improvement and the low return on this property it would take me 10 year to make up that loss. I have also seen that many of the other properties in the area have vinyl siding on them including the ones that surround this property. Not to mention that I see several new construction properties and or rental properties being built brand new in that same area and the builders are putting vinyl siding on those properties as well. I really think that this is a cost issue and it is not affordable to put hardy board siding that is not a historic material in the first place on this home. If the committee does not want me to side the property all I will do is paint the exterior and be done the home will look really bad with just a pint job in my opinion. Thank you TRACY S. BARKALOW - CBR COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REAL ESTATE BROKER Barkalow & Associates Realtors 320 S Linn Street Iowa City Iowa 52240 Mobile 319-631-3268 Office 319-354-8644 Toll Free 800-728-6819 ext.222 Fax 319-354-8652 Website: www.barkalowhomes.com Licensed Broker in the State of Iowa This e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510- 2521, is confidential, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then please delete it. Thank you. 8/4/2010 Staff Report May 27, 2010 Historic Review for 837 Maggard Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Non -Contributing The applicant, Tracy Barkalow, is requesting approval for a proposed project at 837 Maggard Street, a non- contributing property the Clark Street Conservation District. The applicants are seeking approval to apply vinyl siding. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: . 0 Iowa City Historic PresenatiOn Guidelines fo)-Alterations 4.5 Siding Staff Comments This two-story gable roof house features a broad front porch across the gable end and an addition to the SW corner. The alterations to the front porch and the application of wide replacement siding seriously impair the integrity of the property. For these reasons, it is considered non-contributing in the Conservation District. The applicant is proposing to cover the existing siding with vinyl siding. Details of the proposed siding have not been provided. The Guidelines have an exception in 4.5 Siding for non-contributing properties in Conservation Districts that allows the application of synthetic siding provided • All sources of moisture that have caused damage to the structure are corrected and the damage repaired prior to the application of the siding. • Historic architectural features such as window trim, brackets, moldings, rafter tails, columns, balusters, and similar details are not covered, removed, cut, or otherwise damaged. Unless severely deteriorated, historic wood siding must not be removed. • To the extent possible, the synthetic siding appears similar to the original wood siding in exposure, texture, and design. Trim boards extend in front of the face of the siding. Under Section 3.2 Exarptiom to the Iozeu City Guidelines, it states, "These exceptions are intended to provide additional flexibility in cases where a proposed construction project does not significantly affect the architectural character of a historic structure. There are cases where the structure is considered non-contributing because of the application of synthetic siding, as in this case. It is up to the Corrunission to determine if the application of vinyl siding will further move this structure from being a contributing property in the conservation district. In Staff's opinion, it is questionable if this project meets the exception as laid out in the guidelines. Staff is concerned that installing vinyl siding will perpetuate the non -conformity of the property. Staff also believes that evidence of what is under the existing siding needs to be presented and that a better alternative to vinyl siding is the application of fiber cement board siding. In order to make a more complete analysis, staff believes further information is required. Staff recommends the approval of 3-5" reveal, smooth faced, fiber cement board lap siding, with minimum 4" trim around all windows and doors, if it can be proven that the existing siding and any original siding underneath cannot be repaired. Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C, Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff use: Date submitted: Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness ,® Major review ❑ Intermediate Review n Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. _ Property tJwnii/APOUc nt I>aformatioin (Please check primary contact person) Property Owner Name: T2 h C-'1 3f1�1L hy4� Email: T"" Phone Number: 35`1 8b� Address: i Z 10 \-\ W `k 1rJ _ss4by City: b.ra Pl 'M State: �`_ Zip Code: 4 Z A6 Contractor / Consultant Name: , 5+41 Z Email: Phone Number: ( 0 This property is a local historic landmark. OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District 0 Longfellow Historic District 7 E] Woodlawn Historic District 0— Clark Street Conservation District College Hill Conservation District Q Dearborn Street Conservation District Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing XNoncontributing 0 Nonhistoric Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) Building Elevations [] Floor Plans Q Photographs Product Information n Site Plans Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) Building Elevations [] Photographs U Product Information Construction of new building Building Elevations Q Floor Plans Photographs 0 Product Information Site Plans Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) Photographs ( Proposal of Future Plans Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. Ph tograplts [ Product Information Other: E-M W40 Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. i�rnnnanitl prA�pP* lnP�'4�4 Proiect Description: VyNK� .SA-DS WO NN yC C C.� Zip h%1YkL . Materials to be Used: j v ` 5 "' o" f �V Exterior Appearance Chances: C c E.P"A V e `'-I-I i & W t M"W' � H Ppdadm/histpres/appforhistoricrev - fillin doc N EX 4, H 6 cA-! W TRANSCRIPT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING IOWA CITY MAY 27, 2010 841-845 Maggard Kuecker: This is an application for a siding replacement. Um, this is a non -historic home on the end of Maggard Street. The applicant would like to place vinyl siding on this property. The guidelines do have an exception for siding on non-contributing properties in conservation districts. I've outlined those stipulations from the handbook in your staff report. Essentially, historical features need to be retained and if there's wood siding it shouldn't be removed, it should go on top, and that moisture problems are fixed. And then also there's exceptions for non -historic properties that essentially they can be used as long as it doesn't further detract from the historic character or doesn't create a false sense of historic character. In staff's opinion, the project meets the exceptions laid out in the guidelines, and since it is a non -historic property built in the early 1980s, vinyl siding on this property would not impact the historic integrity of the district or its property and recommends approval for vinyl siding on 841-845 Maggard Street. Michaud: So your Tracy, not the contractor? Barkalow: Correct. I am Tracy. Michaud: I went by and looked at the property and I was kind of surprised because although the windows need to be painted, I didn't see that the damage, the vinyl was damaged. Barkalow: The vinyl on the 841, up by the road area there? Michaud: Right. Well, anyway, that's, there is some damage? Barkalow: Yes. We intend to go over everything and make it look a lot nicer, I guess. What's the question? Michaud: Well, one thing that we often recommend that looks a little bit more historic, even though this is not necessarily the candidate for that, is cedar? Downing: Hardiboard? Michaud: Cement board. Kuecker: Fiber cement? Michaud: Fiber cement board. And it might be a little bit more durable actually than the vinyl. I don't know what your plans are for the property. Barkalow: Well, I think that we're, we plan to do, and I think it's apparent in the neighborhood I think if you look at the adjacent properties, each side of it, there's vinyl siding on all of them. I think that's what we'd prefer to do. Every property on the street that touches us, with the exception of the train tracks, are vinyl sided. So I think that's what we would intend to do with the property, from a cost standpoint, I think, too. We do have a property that we finished in North Liberty. Obviously, it's not Iowa City, but North Liberty gives you an idea of kind ... of kind of the clean look that we're going for on the property. We did put new roofs on the property a few years back, cleaned up that as best as we could, and uh ... Michaud: You've had the property for a few years? Barkalow: Yeah, we've owned it for a few years. I bought it from a client that had bought another property for me. We did go through the whole historic review --was it last year? -- for the deck? Last year for the deck on an adjacent property. We just intend to clean these two up and I intend to own them for quite a long time. Michaud: Now the 837 is right next to it? Barkalow: Right next door. Michaud: Okay. I guess... Kuecker: We'll get to 837 next. Michaud: Well, if we're gonna make a decision on vinyl here, I think... Kuecker: They're different situations, I think. Michaud: Yeah. I can't say that, you know ... every, that it makes sense for that one to have vinyl on it whereas the rest of the block hasn't had vinyl because they're newer buildings, so I guess I can't encourage it. Downing: The existing siding is steel, is that right? Or is it aluminum? Barkalow: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. I didn't, I guess I never really looked at that close. Baldridge: If it's your plan to own the property over a longer period of time, vinyl is not your best investment. Barkalow: Well, everything I've done vinyl -wise I think has been the longest ... long- time, has lasted quite a bit of time for me. I guess 1 mean, I still, and in tend to keep this one for quite a long time. I don't have anything that's had issues with it in the past sided, I guess. I'm not sure, vinyl seems to last 20-30 years. I would imagine it's probably gonna do that. Paint or whatnot is not gonna last as long as the siding or whatnot. Downing: The siding on my house is 121 years old. Michaud: I guess the concern is usually that the moisture, you can address that moisture issue more articulately than I can. Downing: Oh, this is the house that's built in 1980? Barkalow: Yeah. 1980. Downing: Oh. Probably you have a vapor barrier built into the inside of the exterior walls. Sorry. It's not as big an issue, but older houses, you know, they put a lot of exterior insulation or vinyl there's a lot of migration of moisture from the inside that would condense and tend to get the insulation wet and damage the... Michaud: So when this is taken off, they're going to seal it up the right way? Barkalow: I believe we proposed to ... didn't we propose to go over it, or did we propose to remove it? Kuecker: I don't know. Barkalow: I believe we were gonna just go over it with the urethane. Michaud: And then trim out the windows with vinyl, or what? Barkalow: Yeah. Trimble: Any more discussion? ...Want to make a motion? Downing: Well, I guess I'll move to approve the certificate of appropriateness to the project 841-845 Maggard Street as presented in the application. Baker: Second. Trimble: Discussion on the motion? Wagner: Just remember it's the exception. Baker: Right. Wagner: For non -historic properties. I don't like it, but it's an exception. General agreement. Trimble: A lot of us on the Commission have seen some pretty bad cases where vinyl siding has been put on, and I think that even though this is a non -historic property, I think that's why you're seeing a lot of reservation from a lot of us. Wagner: That's another point in the discussion, I was going to bring up later. There's a property on the corner of --a non-contributing property in a historic district --on the corner of Dodge and Washington Street that had an 8 or 10" reveal with masonite that failed. And now that they're putting on fiber cement board at either a 4 or 6, and it looks really good and it's gonna last forever. You might look at it, just as an option. That's not that big, and you know by the time you trim out the windows just to go over that, your expense might the same or less, and think about fiber cement board. It might be something to think about. Michaud: Cause that holds the paint. You could get a prefinished paint and then it doesn't need to be repainted for 20 or 30 years. It's very durable. Well, the other thing is to think it would improve it even if you went with the vinyl, to do a shorter ... Wagner: Reveal Michaud:... reveal. Just a little bit more, because this kind of jumps out at you as1980. Trimble: That's what it is. Downing: It's a historic home in about 20 years. Laughter. Barkalow: I'll still own it then. Downing: All right. You'll be back in front of the Commission for residing... Barkalow: Hopefully not. Trimble: Well, anymore discussion. ... All in favor? General: Aye. Trimble: Opposed? 837 Maggard Kuecker: This is 837 is a non-contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District and the applicant is also seeking approval to put vinyl siding on this property. The reasons that this property is non-contributing is because of wide replacement siding and alterations to the front porch. The owner/applicant has in the past year removed an enclosed front porch and built this, although not the historic front porch, a more historically appropriate porch. These alterations and the siding are the reasons for it being non-contributing. As in the last application, there are exceptions for non- contributing properties in conservation districts that allows for the application of synthetic siding. All sources of moisture need to be mitigated before the application of the siding. Historic features need to be retained and the historic wood siding cannot be removed. To the extent possible, the synthetic siding needs to appear original to the wood siding and the trim boards need to extend in front of the face of the siding. However, under Section 3.2, where it explains the exceptions, it says that "these exceptions are intended to provide additional flexibility in cases where a proposed construction project does not significantly affect the architectural character of a historic structure." That was for instances such as this where this house is non-contributing because of the application of synthetic siding, and staff is concerned that if vinyl siding was put on this property that it would further perpetuate the non -conformity of this property. Staff believes that the existing siding should be removed and if there is wood siding underneath it, it should be retained and repaired or restored; and if it is not there, then staff would recommend approval of a 3" - 5" reveal, smooth -faced fiber cement board lap siding with a minimum of 4" trim around all windows and doors instead of the vinyl. Trimble: Does the applicant have anything? Barkalow: Again, I would just like to point out that the front porch was removed because it was collapsing. I just want you to know that's not something that I wanted to go in and do. It was just collapsing. And I feel that again just the adjacent property, would be the 831 Maggard, to this property, which is a duplex. That the front door faces this building, and that adjacent property owner and I talked, and they would just like to see this cleaned up and sided and moved on. And across the street, I did an overview too, of the site. 840 Maggard is a 16-18 unit complex right across the street, apartment complex. I don't feel that doing the siding would really upset the tenants in that building as well. Just from a cost standpoint, I can't see it being feasible to go back and tear everything apart on a rental property like that, not modified to that level. It's just not financially feasible, after we've already done a new roof and a very expensive deck system to the front of the house, it's just not cost-effective. And from a timing standpoint, the rental department would like to have something done by the first of the month on this, and I've got a crew that's available to work with the City to get this done within a timeframe based on the rental department as well. Michaud: I guess ... I did walk by that too, and there are lots of layers on there right now. So they have to be taken off anyway, don't they? There's, there's a fake brick asbestos shingle ,that's the lowest layer ... and there's some kind of another asbestos? Kuecker: I'm not sure. Downing: Slate? Michaud: Slate's on top of that. So there are already three layers on it right now, and you would have to take them off to put on vinyl, wouldn't you? Barkalow: I, to be honest with you, when I talked to the contractors they thought they could go over it, so I'm not sure. To be honest with you, that's the first I knew there were multiple layers on it. Michaud: It's chipped off in the back. You can see all the layers. Right. Barkalow: Okay. Michaud: And I guess you must have ... you've been properties like crazy this year. So I guess you must have a lot of them. I kind of think that they would all kind of average out to do what's needed to be done on this old house. Barkalow: I guess, respectfully, I don't know what my other properties would have to do with this one, but ... Michaud: Well, if the argument is that it's cost -prohibitive, I guess that's my point — is that, you know, by the same token ... Kuecker: Cost shouldn't come into the Commission's decision. You should be basing your decisions based on the guidelines and what's appropriate for the property. Michaud: So there's no, the Code or the Building Department determines what, how the siding is applied or is that not their purview? It doesn't matter how many layers are under it? Kuecker: I don't know. I'm not sure. Downing: There are some building code limitations to siding, but I don't, I can't quote what they are right now. Michaud: Because they only allow one layer of shingles on the roof now, so I don't know, you know why there wouldn't be a limitation on anything else. Downing: What's the age of the original construction of the house — do we know? Kuecker: Um. I usually put that in the staff report. I'm not certain. I can look it up. Downing: That's all right. When was the deck built? Kuecker: Last year. Downing: Did we see that then? Kuecker: Yeah. Downing: Okay, I thought so. Michaud: How did that work? Barkalow: It was having a lot of problems. The previous owner I bought it from, the gentleman had never done any work to the property. It was collapsing and worth reinvesting back into it to make it a better place, I think. And we worked with it diligently to make sure that the deck was there. Our contractors worked on it, I think they got a few things they had to add at the end because they didn't quite get it right, but they got it right and it cost me quite a bit more than a standard deck. And I'm willing to invest in these things, I really am. I just don't want to overspend on something that's not, from a cost standpoint, affordable for us to do. We may have other properties, but it's just across the board ... I can't see it ... we've already spent, I don't know what - $5,000 on the deck and $6,000 on the roof in the last year — on a property that hadn't been touched in 100, 1 don't know how many years it is old. Fifty years, 60 years old, at least. And again, the siding, my issue is there's siding on all three sides of the property and train tracks at the end of the road and it's not a heavily trafficked road, it's a dead end. There's no high visibility of traffic from there other than the tenants that rent from us. And the tenants adjacent on all three sides of the property, so it just — I respect the historic thing, I just don't see this not being an exception. I guess it would be a good exception to the rule to do this in a cost-efficient way and make it look a lot better for the area and comply with the other properties adjacent to it. Downing: To counter that, there are principles of historic preservation that we're trying to maintain that if, for instance, someone were to use your house as an example when presenting to us and say similar to each house, similar existing conditions when it was brought to us... Wagner: Setting a precedent. Downing: Setting a precedent, maybe there's isn't in the same geographic location as yours, but taking the house as an isolated building, we don't want to go against our own principles in order to set a precedent we wouldn't want to see repeated. Wagner: I think the difference here too is with the first property, the previous one — that probably wasn't, it was sided originally. Kuecker: Yeah, this probably has its original siding on. Michaud: Whereas, this one I think they had the brick asbestos siding like in the 1920s in Iowa City because it, there might be brick underneath it, even I think they put that on there to cover up brick sometimes, so. Barkalow: No, the front's, the front's all the back to where the deck is, the wood, there's just wood exposed right there currently. That's, I know that's all the way down to the actual... Wagner: That matches the house originally? Barkalow: It's just, it's plywood — that's plywood or sheeting right there. Michaud: Oh right — yeah. Barkalow: So it's down to it and, to... Michaud: The studs? Barkalow: The studs are just on the other side of that. Michaud: Right, right. Yeah, that vertical siding, I forget the, texture 1-11? Or... Downing: T1-11. Michaud: T1-11, from the 80s, you know, I mean, that wasn't the way it was built. But anyway, and that must have gone over a window or something because there's some window on the front of the house. Barkalow: Everywhere on the front of the house where the deck was taken off, that's exposed all the way across. I don't know if that's continuous all over the house, but that is all the way back to the actual studs. I don't know if that makes a difference, but that is what's there. According to my contractor, all the way around the house, in his opinion. That wood that's on the front, I don't know what it's called — T1 whatever. Michaud: Plywood. Barkalow: Plywood. Michaud: Well, it's not one of the layers that was shown in the back of the house, so I guess I should have taken a picture or something. I didn't realize that was gonna be up for debate but ... All right. So, I've guess I said enough. Kuecker: Just to give some precedent, this Commission has approved vinyl siding on non-contributing properties before. However, they have been non-contributing for a reason like the different architectural style than the rest of the neighborhood or... Downing: More modern. Kuecker: Or more modern style or something like that. Whereas, this property is non- contributing because of the siding. Trimble: What's your guess to the age? Kuecker: My guess is it's probably 1910. Wagner: 1910? Michaud: How do you ... I guess I must not have been here for that, but the top railing, how did that get on there? Kuecker: When this came before the Commission before, it was an enclosed room with a deck... Michaud: On the second floor? Kuecker: No. On the ground floor. There was already a deck above. Michaud: Okay, so it was just replicating. Kuecker: Right, so the Commission felt that it was more historically appropriate than the... Barkalow: That's the main access to the upper unit. Michaud: Oh. Downing: We couldn't remove your access to your unit. You have to have something. The baluster does look a lot better than it did. Michaud: Yeah. (inaudible comment) Wagner: The same reason we can apply the exception to previous property would be the same reason, then, I think we would require the fiber cement board on this one. Just because you can't make it more non-contributing when you're at this stage. And, 1910 . .. there's a bunch of ways you can find out what the age of the foundation block. Pull off the siding ... you an be fairly certain there's a 4-inch reveal and wood siding on all of it. Fiber cement board would bring it back to whatever it would be. Michaud: So does this mean that we have to go out and, somebody has to go out and see what it was historically before we decide? Barkalow: Well I think my other option if I remember correctly with the rental department, is just to paint the property. Is that correct? Kuecker: I don't know what the rental department... Barkalow: That's the only reason I guess I'm here. All I have to do is paint the existing siding. Kuecker: Okay. I'm sure there is something... Barkalow: And so my other option is rather than replace it, and I guess if I can't do the vinyl that would be our intent would just to paint what is there. If we can't do vinyl. Downing: You wouldn't even consider pricing? Barkalow: I can't afford it. I know it's gonna be quite a bit more than the vinyl siding, so I just don't even — I'd look at it, yes, but I just don't know if I'd want to go down that path of tearing it all off. It's not a process ... I know removing asbestos siding is not cheap. So I don't even, my option would be just to paint it and leave it the way it is now. Michaud: Well, asbestos shingles are different than asbestos insulation, right? Downing: Yeah. Barkalow: If the siding, though, correct? If the siding is removed, don't you have to treat it the same way? Downing: Different materials have different properties. I can't... Barkalow: I was talking to the Building Department or whatever — the rental people — they said it would have to be treated the same as removing asbestos from the interior of the home. A specialty company would come in remove it. And that's all the current layer around the whole ... Michaud: So you'd already talked about the asbestos shingles that were previously there? Barkalow: That are there now currently. The whole entire house is asbestos shingles around it, I believe. It is the same material consistently around it now. Downing: You can take a sample to the County Public Health Department and they would tell you whether or not it's the type that needs to be treated or a type that anyone can remove. Michaud: Okay, so if the cost and timeliness is important but there is plywood on the front, should he repair the front to make it coherent with the other sides with the slate? Is there salvage slate available to repair? You had a salvage slate house. It's unavailable? Wagner: No Michaud: Cause it, you know, to have T1-11 in the front, I guess it's already there and if they say it's all right... Barkalow: The issue on that was completely so you just kind of have an idea — that area was enclosed, it was just steel windows that were, the whole thing was buckling, like the walls were like this and the enclosure. So basically that was just the inside was the T1- 11. We didn't touch that, we didn't remove ... Michaud: Oh okay, right. Barkalow: That was enclosed, there was a wall that was coming down through the ... yeah, I mean it was a mess. A true mess. And there is no way to exactly match that outside exterior. Again, we can just paint what's existing and figure from there. Wagner: Ironically, that would be more historic than putting on vinyl siding. Downing: So, procedurally, I guess we'll make a motion to approve the application, and then we would vote up or down on it, correct? Kuecker: Right. Wagner: Well, the staff recommendation is what we should be voting on. Kuecker: No, you need to vote on the application, so somebody needs to make — and then you could do an alternate, like then you could do a second amendment, or not amendment, a second motion to approve what staff has recommended. But you do need to vote on what was proposed in the application. Yes, somebody needs to make a motion in the affirmative and if gets voted down, it gets voted down. Downing: Can I see that? Kuecker: It's the same motion as the previous one. Downing: Oh, same as the previous on which was to approve. Kuecker: Approve. Barkalow: Both properties are side by side. Downing: Well, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 837 Maggard Street as presented in the application. Baker: Second. Trimble: Discussion? ... All in favor? ....Opposed? General: Aye. Trimble: Someone want to make another motion? Downing: I make a motion to consider allowing the applicant to ... oh, approval of 3" to 5" reveal smooth -face fiber cement board lap siding with minimum 4" trim around all windows and doors if it can be proved that the existing siding and any original siding underneath cannot be repaired. Barklow: And that's only if I've decided to move forward in that direction? Downing: Yeah. You don't have to do that. Baker: Second. Trimble: Discussion? ... All in favor? General: Aye. Opposed? Baker: This gives you a pre -approved alternative as you move forward. maggard properties transcription 72810.doc MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Final MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing„ Pam Michaud, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Arnold, Tracy Barkalow, Jeri Hobart, Tom Hobart, Pat Naughton, John Reynolds, Judy Polumbaum RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) There was none. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 618 Dearborn Street. Kuecker said the applicant is seeking approval of an application to install a rear deck. Michaud inquired about the style for the rear door of the property. Kuecker explained this has not typically been a concern in Conservation Districts. Michaud said she was concerned about the safety of the deck, particularly the interior corners of the deck. The applicant, Pat Naughton, explained this design feature is meant for placing a permanent grill so the corners would not be exposed. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for a deck at 618 Brown Street, as proposed in the application. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann, Wagner, absent). 619 Brown Street. Kuecker said that the applicant is seeking approval of a 4'x9' addition on the east side of the house. The proposed materials match the house. There is currently a cellar door entry where the addition is to be constructed. The addition would be a one story bump -out on the original structure. Kuecker said it is Staff s opinion that the addition matches the historic characteristics of the house and recommends approval as presented. Michaud asked whether or not the exit would remain. The applicant, John Reynolds, said an exit would remain and explained the history of this portion of the house. Reynolds said the bump -out would not go past the existing bump - out MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for an addition at 619 Brown Street, as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 2010 Page 2 1205 Seymour Avenue. Kuecker said the applicant was seeking approval to remove lap wood siding and replace with wood shingle siding. The house next door has shingle siding and they were probably identical when built. Kuecker said the owner had a photograph of the original shingle siding and would like to use similar siding on the home. Kuecker said staff recommends approval as submitted. Michaud asked if the siding was cedar. The applicant, Jeri Hobart, said it was redwood because other materials had problems keeping paint. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the siding replacement project at 1205 Seymour Avenue as proposed in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. Michaud added that if the proper salvage could be found, the applicants should have the option to repair the siding with salvage materials. The applicant said they would consider looking for salvage materials, but added that redwood has tendency to split. The applicant said the moisture barriers on old houses are not very good, so replacement seems necessary. Michaud asked whether or not they would be re -insulating. The applicant said this was the second time they have sided the house and improved the moisture barriers as best they could. MOTION: Michaud moved to amend the motion to allow the applicant to use salvage materials if they could be found. Baker seconded the motion. The amendment carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). The amended motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Thomann, Swaim, McMahon absent). 630 North Dodge Street. Kuecker said the applicant was seeking approval of an application to add three dormers to the property and to install a cellar door on the north side of the property. Kuecker said that two f the dormers would face Ronalds Street and one would face the rear of the property. Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for dormers in that are compatible with the architectural style. She elaborated on the guidelines and stated that the dormers met most of the requirements. Kuecker said the dormers should have a roof pitch similar to that of the house. Kuecker said that, in staffs opinion, the dormers would be compatible with the vernacular Queen Anne style of the house, however the 6/12 pitch as shown appear too shallow compared to the 12/12 pitch of the house. Kuecker said an 8/12 or 12/12 gable pitch would be more appropriate. Kuecker said the applicant is also proposing a below grade cellar door on the north side of the house. She said a set of stairs would lead to the door, with a set of cellar doors covering the stairs and entrance. Kuecker said the applicant had selected a cellar door style to use and would explain the choice and location of the door to the Commission. Kuecker said that it is staff s opinion that the cellar door meets the guidelines and would have a minimal impact on the historic integrity of the house. Kuecker said staff recommends approval contrary to the deferment recommended in the packet. She said that staff recommend approval of the dormer project with the condition that the dormer roof had the same overhang and detail as the existing roof, the dormer pitch be changed to at least a 8/12 pitch, but not to exceed and 12/12, the dormer siding and trim match the existing siding and trim, the windows be solid wood or metal clad, and that windows be subject to staff approval. The applicant, Judy Polumbaum, gave a presentation about how her home flooded in 2008, She said she was in the 500 year flood plain and was eligible for the second round of buyouts. Polumbaum said she did not want to go through another flood again and accepted the buy out. Polumbaum said she was surprised her new home was in a historic district and that it was located near a commercial area as well. She said she is happy to be a contributor to the district, but was unaware of the designation. She began working on the house three days before receiving notice that the building permit required HPC approval. Polumbaum said there was a history of additions to the house, including a porch. She explained that due to size constraints and location of utilities, the rear of the house could not accommodate a cellar door. Polumbaum said the existing cellar stairs are original to the house and are very steep, making another cellar entrance desirable in order for the cellar to be usable. She said that construction stopped after the historic status was made known to her and has halted construction for six weeks. She pointed to such non -historic additions to the house like the greenhouse window and radon pipe. Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 2010 Page 3 Polumbaum pointed out the location of the dormers on a photograph. She said that she has already stuccoed the basement to make it dry and usable before construction. She said that the additions would make the house more livable and visually appealing. She said Brian Arnold would comment on the additions. Arnold said the windows are not egress windows. Wagner asked if the radon pipe would go in front of the dormer windows which would not be allowed. Arnold said he would need to check on that. Arnold said he chose the casement window because it would be consistent in size with the rest of the house. Michaud said the more window area in the attic would be better in terms of light and emergency. Michaud said she has a cellar door bulkhead like the one proposed. She said a dark paint color would help the cellar door recede. She said that having it pre -colored would save on paint in the future. Baldridge asked if they could move to approve without seeing the drawings of the steeper pitched dormers. Kuecker said that she recommends at least an 8/12 pitch, but didn't necessarily need to see the drawings. Michaud recommended a single window on the rear dormer to match the width of the window below. Arnold said that they would consider it prior to construction. Kuecker said that based on the meeting the windows should still be subject to staff approval based on the information gleaned during the meeting. Ackerson inquired about the pitch change on the rear window. Kuecker said the pitch should be consistent for all the dormers. Kuecker said a 6/12 would not be common on a Queen Anne style. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 630 Dodge Street, with the stipulation that the three roof dormers be closer to an 8/12 pitch with a single window in the northwest dormer and appropriately sized windows for the other dormers, subject to staff approval. Michaud moved to approve the cellar door as proposed. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). 841-845 Maggard Street Kuecker said this was an application for siding replacement. She said it is a non -historic home on the end of Maggard Street and the applicant would like to place vinyl siding on the property. Kuecker said the guidelines make an exception for the siding of non-contributing properties within a conservation district. She said these stipulations were included in the staff report. Kuecker said that historic features need to be maintained and not removed. She said in staff s opinion the project meets the exceptions laid out in the guidelines and since this is a building from the 1980's vinyl siding will not impact the historic integrity of the house or neighborhood. Kuecker said staff recommends approval. Michaud said she went by and looked at the property. Michaud said that they often recommend that non- contributing homes be renovated to look more historic using fiber cement board. She said it might be more durable than vinyl. Barkalow said he planned to use vinyl and that both neighboring homes have vinyl siding. He said that vinyl siding is also desirable from a cost standpoint and for a clean look. Barkalow said he put a new roof on the property a few years prior and mentioned the historic review process for a deck installed at a nearby property. Michaud asked whether the 837 Maggard property was right next door, Barkalow responded yes. Kuecker said the commission would get to 837 next. Michaud said it might not make sense for one building to have vinyl siding just because it was newer. Kuecker said they were to be discussed separately. Wagner asked if the existing siding was steel. Barkalow said he wasn't certain. Ackerson said that over the long term, vinyl is not the best investment. Barkalow said that vinyl has worked out well for him so far and anything needing paint wouldn't last as long. Michaud asked Barkalow to address the moisture issue further. Downing said that is more of an issue for older homes, particularly when insulation gets wet. Michaud asked whether the windows would be trimmed off with vinyl. Barkalow said yes. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 841-845 Maggard as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 2010 Page 4 Wagner said there is an exception for non-contributing properties, even though he does not like it. Wagner said a similar property on the corner of Dodge and Washington used cement board siding that is looking really good and would last forever. He recommended that Barkalow look at this example as an option that might also be cost effective. Michaud said that cement board holds color well too. Michaud asked if a shorter reveal would make the property look a little less 1980's. Barkalow said he would look into it. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). 837 Maggard Street Kuecker said the applicant is seeking approval to put vinyl siding on this property, which is non-contributing. She said the reasons that it is non-contributing are the wide replacement siding and alteration to the front porch. She said the owner replaced the porch with a more historically appropriate porch, although not historically accurate. Kuecker said there are exceptions for non-contributing properties in conservation districts that allow for synthetic siding provided that historic features are retained, the synthetic siding is similar to historic siding, and wood siding is not removed. She said that these exceptions are intended to provide additional flexibility in cases where a proposed construction project does not significantly affect the architectural character of a historic structure. Kuecker said that this property is non-contributing because of the current application of synthetic siding and this project would serve to perpetuate the nonconformity of the property. She said staff believes that the existing asbestos siding should be removed and if there is wood siding underneath, it should be restored. If not, staff recommends installation a 3-5 inch reveal lap cement board siding with a minimum of a 4 inch trim around all windows and doors. Barkalow said he wanted to point out that the front porch was removed because it was collapsing and was not something he wanted to do specifically. He said he had spoken with the adjacent property owner who said he wanted to see the property cleaned up, sided, and moved along. Barkalow said there is a large apartment complex across the street and doesn't think it would upset the tenants there. He said from a cost standpoint, it wouldn't be feasible to renovate or modify the property to any greater an extent after installing a new roof and porch. Michaud said she walked by the property and saw numerous layers on the structure. She said those would have to be taken off anyway. Michaud said she saw asphalt and slate that would have to be removed prior to vinyl installation. Barkalow said the contactors didn't think there would be any problem putting siding on and was not aware of the layers described by Michaud. Michaud said it was visible in the back of the house. Michaud said Barkalow had been buying properties like crazy this year and assumed he had a lot of them around town. She said this would average out so Barkalow could do what need to be done with a smaller house. Barkalow said that he wasn't sure what his other properties had to do with the one in question. Michaud said her point was that cost probably is not the issue. Kuecker said that cost should not enter the discussion; rather, the commission should look to the guidelines to judge appropriateness. Michaud inquired which department would decide how many layers are allowed under new siding. Kuecker said she did not know if there was a limit and that would be something to be dealt with by the Building Department. Downing said there are some building code limitations regarding the subject, but did not know detail. Downing asked the age of the original construction of the home and deck. Michaud inquired about the deck. Barkalow said the deck was collapsing and needed to be replaced and cost more than a standard deck. He said he didn't want to over spend on one property, especially one that had not seen investment in a long time. He said the neighboring properties have vinyl siding and the house is located at dead end so he thought that this case would be a good exception. Barkalow said it would be cost efficient and would make the area look better. Wagner said there are principles of historic preservation that the Commission is trying to maintain and does not want to go against the principles for this exception. Wagner stated that the same reasons and guidelines for granting the exception for the previous property make it difficult to grant an exception for this property. Kuecker said that the Commission has approved vinyl siding on non-contributing properties; however, they were non-contributing for a variety of other reasons. She said this property was non-contributing because of the siding. Trimble asked Kuecker to speculate the age of the property. Kuecker said she would guess around 1910. Michaud asked how the top railing was allowed to be constructed on the upper deck. Kuecker explained the history and said this deck was essentially replicating what was there before. Barkalow said it is the main access to the upper unit. Downing said the baluster looks a lot better than it did before. Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 2010 Page 5 Barkalow said that all that was required from the city now is that he simply paint the property. He said his intent would be to paint if the vinyl siding was not allowed. Downing asked if Barkalow would consider pricing other alternatives. Barkalow said that other options were not financial practical in light of the asbestos on the exterior. Michaud said that Barkalow should repair the front to make it cohesive to the rest of the house and required about the availably of asbestos siding. Barkalow said that he did not believe that there was a way to match that exterior. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 837 Maggard as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-7 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent).. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application of siding for 837 Maggard with 3 to 5 inch reveal lap cement board siding with a minimum of a 4 inch trim around all windows and doors if it can be proved that any existing siding or original siding underneath cannot be repaired. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 8, 2010. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 8, 2010 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon Swaim Thomann absent). OTHER: Wagner said the Commission might consider an award for a non-contributing property on Washington and Dodge that installed cement board siding. He said the results were very good. Wagner said it was good to use these materials even on non-contributing properties. Kuecker said she attended a corridor CLG meeting about disaster recovery and wanted to let the commission know that Iowa City was doing something right compared to other municipalities. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Jake Rosenberg Historic Preservation CommissiM (,',it vI foll, 41.0 F Wasl:III itr qj, ic'7wa C :it y. IA.., 7 240 RESOLUTION DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS &?'-Maggard Street A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hallon May 27, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Pamela Michaud, Alicia Trimble, and Frank Wagner. By a vote of 0-7, the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration project at 837 Maggard Street, a non-contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The Commission denied the Certificate for the installation of vinyl siding. The Commission found that this property did not meet the requirements for the exceptions as laid out in the Historic Preservation Handbook This property is designated as non-contributing because of the application of the existing synthetic siding, thus the Commission determined that the application of the vinyl siding will perpetuate the non-contributing nature of this structure. The Commission, by a vote of 7-0, approved the removal of the existing siding on the house and the installation of 3-5" reveal, smooth faced, fiber cement board lap siding, with minimum 4" trim around all windows and doors. The decision may be appealed to the City Council, who will consider whether the Commission has exercised its powers, and followed the guidelines established by law, this article of code, and shall determine if said commission has acted in a manner that was arbitrary or capricious (Iowa City Code, Article 14-4G7G). To appeal, a written letter requesting the appeal must be filed with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after the date of this resolution. 0. k�4� Alicia Trimble, Chair Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission ZL_Z Christ uAssociate Planner Iowa City Planning & Community Development Date S:\pCD\1_ff1stpres\1_1-Estotic Review\1 Major\2010\837MaggardC0A_RD.doc MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14,2010 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson MEMBERS EXCUSED: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Tom Walz, Del Stevens RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:15 p.m. ROLL CALL: Anderson, Sheerin, Tyson An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 10T" 2010: Tyson motioned to approve the minutes. Anderson seconded. The motion carried 3-0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 2 of 9 EXC10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Extend the Dream Foundation for a special exception to a General Community Service Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone and a Reduction in Parking for Unique Circumstances for the property located at 730 South Dubuque Street. Howard noted that this property is right along the railroad lines south of downtown and west of Gilbert Street. Howard shared photographs of the site to show its configuration. Howard said that both the Public Access Television (PATV) office and the Extend the Dream Foundation would share the parking facilities. Howard stated that the requested exception was for a Community Service Use in an Intensive Commercial zone. She explained that Community Service Uses can include anything from social service providers to community centers, and have a range of impacts on the area in which they are located. Howard said this range of impact is one of the reasons that a special exception is required; because so many different activities fall under this category, the impact of a Community Service use varies from case to case. Howard explained that this building had most recently housed a Community Service use as its upstairs tenant, so the use will not actually be changing for the property. However, at the time that the previous use was established, there was no special exception required for a Community Service Use in the CI-1 zone. Howard said that it is a somewhat unusual case, but the Extend the Dream Foundation does need a special exception to locate in that building, despite the fact that the use is not changing. Howard stated that the Extend the Dream Foundation is an organization that assists people with disabilities in the creation and operation of small businesses, and in providing safe, sane and sober places for people to socialize. Howard said that the use will be multi -faceted and the applicant would address that more specifically. Howard explained that there are a few specific criteria for a Community Service Use in a CI-1 zone. The CI-1 zone is a zone of mixed uses which allows quasi -industrial operations with outdoor storage and work activities, as well as uses such as daycare, offices, and other businesses. Howard said that some CI-1 zones are quite industrial looking, whereas the character of others can be more office commercial. Howard said this particular area has quite a mix of uses including quasi -industrial, commercial and even non -conforming residential. She noted that this is a part of town that has been targeted as an area for future redevelopment. Howard said that the property in question is right in the middle of the area the City calls Riverfront Crossings, which is the subject of redevelopment planning. Howard said that this neighborhood is in transition and that this area may feel pressure to develop into housing and mixed use commercial as the downtown continues to grow southward. Howard said that staff finds that the proposed use will not alter the overall character of the zone and will not inhibit future development in the zone. Howard said that this particular CI-1 neighborhood is not a typical CI-1 zone in that there is not a lot of truck traffic or outdoor storage and activities, and it is slowly transitioning to a more urban neighborhood. Further, the building in which the use will be located was previously used for a Community Service use without any adverse effect on the overall character or uses located in the zone. There are many similar public and private office uses in the immediate area that provide employment and general services to the public. It should also be noted that the commercial uses in the vicinity are lower intensity, with little of the outdoor display or truck traffic that characterizes some CI-1 zones. Howard noted that the area is characterized by the traditional gridded street pattern with Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 3 of 9 sidewalks and good pedestrian and transit access. It seems ideally suited to serve clientele of a community service use, where most clients arrive by public transit, walking or biking. Howard stated that the applicant has requested a second special exception; one which would reduce the number of required parking spaces for this particular use. Howard said that based on the size of this particular building the two uses combined would typically be required to provide 16 spaces. Howard said that there are currently 15 spaces on site; however, the parking lots which provide those spaces do not really meet current City standards. Howard said that in staff's view it might be a good idea to improve the site to make the driveway more defined, provide separation from the street, and separation between the sidewalk and the driveway. Howard said that the current parking configuration requires drivers to back out over the sidewalk and onto Dubuque Street, which is not ideal. The configuration proposed by the applicant reduces the total number of parking spaces by three; however, it provides a much greater level of safety, aesthetics, and compliance with current code. In order to get a reduction in the number of spaces required by the zoning code, the applicant must demonstrate that there is something unique to the use such that that particular use would not generate the level of parking required by the zone. Howard said that the applicant has indicated that most of the clientele and employees for the building would be arriving via bus, bike, or on -foot. She said that Extend the Dream Foundation felt strongly that reducing the number of parking spaces would not be a problem. She noted that the applicant has arranged with the University of Iowa to have permission to allow clients to park in a nearby University parking lot on those occasions where a larger event is being held at the site. Howard said that staff feels the applicant has met the criteria in the code that requires the applicant to demonstrate that their use is fairly unique and may not require the level of parking required by code. She said that the small enterprises within the Community Service use typically do not draw clients from the outside community, and PATV has indicated that they rarely make use of all of their parking spaces. Howard next addressed the General Standards. She said that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She said that in terms of the parking requirements, staff feels the current configuration is not particularly safe and that the reconfiguration, though reducing the number of parking spaces, will actually improve the safety of the site. Howard stated that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. She said that there is nothing about the characteristics of this particular zone that would be affected by this particular use, and it does feel like this use fits in well with the existing neighborhood. Howard said that the ingress and egress of the site will actually be improved by the proposed changes. She stated that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located. Howard said that when the final site plan is submitted and reviewed, the applicant will have to demonstrate that all other applicable zoning requirements are met. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 4 of 9 Howard said that the proposed use will be consistent with eth Comprehensive Plan as amended because the Central District Plan shows this area as a future mixed -use zone — a mix of commercial and high -density residential uses that are pedestrian oriented design. Staff recommends that EXC10-00005, an application for a special exception to allow a General Community Service Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 730 South Gilbert Street and to reduce the parking requirement from eight spaces to six spaces for the proposed use, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including a concrete pad for a bicycle rack the location of which will be determined by the City; 2) The special exception for a community service use in the CI-1 Zone at 730 South Gilbert Street is limited to the Extend the Dream Foundation; 3) The special exception for a reduction in the parking requirement from 8 spaces to 6 spaces is limited to the Extend the Dream Foundation. Because there is no change of use, the entire property will remain grandfathered at 15 required spaces, but this requirement will be reduced to 13 while extend the Dream Foundation is occupying the building. Howard asked the Board if they had any questions. Sheerin asked if Howard could clarify how six parking spaces was determined to be sufficient for a use which requires 16 by code. Howard explained that the zoning code requires a certain number of parking spaces per square foot of floor area. Howard said that according to that formula, each floor of the subject property would require eight parking spaces. She explained that there are 16 total spaces required for the entire property. PATV has their eight spaces already. Extend the Dream has requested a reduction in their parking requirement form eight spaces to six spaces. Anderson asked if staff wished to be more specific in its requirements rather than leaving the broad phrase "substantial compliance with the site plan" open to possible interpretation. Howard said that most of the details have been worked through already. She said that the curb cut would remain at 42 feet, with the drive at 24 feet. Howard explained that there are standard parking space sizes so there is really nothing too complicated about that aspect of the plan. She said that landscaping is also agreed on at this point. Anderson asked if there were limitations on the availability of potential on -street parking in the area. Howard said she did not believe that the parking was metered in that area. Sheerin said that if the area is in transition, on -street parking may become less available in the coming years. Howard said that as new buildings are built, parking needs are accounted for. Howard noted that the previous location for this organization had no off-street parking at all. Sheerin opened the public hearing. Tom Walz, Extend the Dream Foundation, said that he has been with the organization from its inception. He said that they had enjoyed their location on Gilbert Street, but had been virtually driven out of the location because of the ever-increasing rents. He said they had intended to purchase a building, but the deal had fallen through. Walz said that it was the organization's good fortune to be able to find a building that they could lease. The owner of the building is Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 5 of 9 another local non-profit, which, Walz said, really needs another non-profit as its lessee. Walz said that the Everett Connor Center, an agency serving the needs of the disabled in our community just as Extend the Dream does, had been the previous tenant. Because this was the previous tenant, the building is already ADA compliant, Walz said. He said that the move to the new location could not be more ideal for Extend the Dream. He said the location is between MECCA and the new Shelter House and downtown. He said that the location is near Capitol House, and in a low-income zone. He said that most of their clients and customers are people who do not own cars. He said that the clientele normally comes via SEATS, feet, or bus. Walz said the location is ideal. Walz said that PATV and Extend the Dream realized that their programs could be mutually beneficial in a relationship that was more than landlord/tenant. Walz said that while the two programs will not officially merge, they do wish to join together to become a neighborhood arts center that will bring the arts to the community in a safe, sane and sober environment. He said there will be a lot of focus on music, reading and book clubs. He said that he really felt their vision fit in with the community understanding for the way that the south side of downtown Iowa City should be redeveloped. Walz said that Extend the Dream is working with the University to create the nicest music venue in Iowa City, and to include those students under the age of 21 in their plans for the site. Walz said that the lack of two additional parking spaces will not be a problem for Extend the Dream. He said that that area of Iowa City is the most under-utilized, in terms of parking, in the whole town. He said that the organization has made agreements with the University and the County to utilize their nearby parking facilities during special events and times where overflow parking is needed. Walz said that they feel very comfortable with the site and the amount of parking available there. He said they are also very excited about the make -over the current parking lot will receive and the additional green space that will result. He said that will make a positive statement about the direction of redevelopment in the south downtown area. He said that he thought the building would be beautiful as well as functional. Del Stevens, architect for Extend the Dream, thanked Walz for the service Extend the Dream provided to the community. He said there was no greater service than trying to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. He said the plans follow Iowa City's requirements and improve the overall look and function of the area. He offered to answer any questions from the Board. Sheerin asked if one handicapped parking space was really going to be sufficient. Stevens said it is, particularly because the present site offers no off-street parking. Tyson noted that they are actually gaining parking. He noted that the parking space will actually be large enough to accommodate a full sized van, not just a car. Walz said that trying to watch a SEATS van unload off of a busy street is very frightening, and that this space will protect riders from those kinds of dangers. Sheerin asked if it was correct that the University parking spaces would only be available to Extend the Dream during some sort of special event. Walz said that was correct. Walz explained that Extend the Dream provides space for a lot of the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings in the downtown community. He said that noon AA meetings may need up to 15 parking spaces, but that PATV does not open until after that time, so their spaces will be open and available at that peak time. Walz said there is an entirely unused University parking lot nearby that Extend the Dream is negotiating for overflow parking. He noted that that lot becomes a public lot after five, so there will never be night-time parking issues. Anderson asked Howard to point that lot out on the map. She did so, adding that the County parking facility may also be a possibility for public parking in the evenings. Walz said there are no real reserved parking spaces in that ramp, and that while they have not specifically negotiated using Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 6 of 9 the parking space for anything except for one large, annual event, he did believe that it would be a possibility. He said those ramps were currently underutilized. There were no further questions from the Board. Sheerin invited members of the public to speak. No one wished to speak to the issue. Sheerin invited a motion. Tyson motioned to approve EXC10-00005, an application for a special exception to allow a General Community Service Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 730 South Gilbert Street and to reduce the parking requirement from eight spaces to six spaces for the proposed use, subject to the following conditions: 1) Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including a concrete pad for a bicycle rack, the location of which will be determined by the City; 2) The special exception for a community service use in the CI-1 Zone at 730 South Gilbert Street is limited to the Extend the Dream Foundation; 3) The special exception for a reduction in the parking requirement from 8 spaces to 6 spaces is limited to the Extend the Dream Foundation. Because there is no change of use, the entire property will remain grandfathered at 15 required spaces, but this requirement will be reduced to 13 while extend the Dream Foundation is occupying the building. Anderson seconded. Sheerin invited discussion from the Board. Anderson said he was quite comfortable with the plan, and he thinks it is a great addition to the site. He applauded the efforts of Extend the Dream. Tyson said she too appreciated all of the efforts the Extend the Dream Foundation has made in the community over the years, and is glad to see them moving forward. Sheerin said she felt the same way, and was glad that the organization was moving farther from the area of downtown that was saturated with alcohol. She said this seemed like a better location for them. Anderson presented the findings of fact. He said that the use would not significantly alter the overall character of the zone. He said the size and scale of the development and projected traffic generated to and from the site are appropriate to support the proposed use without negatively impacting nearby properties. Anderson said that this specific use has unique characteristic such that the number of parking spaces required by the zone are not really needed. He said the reduction in parking requirement is justified. Anderson said that the reconfiguration of the parking on -site is going to benefit the overall traffic flow. Greenwood Hektoen asked Anderson to expand a bit on what the unique characteristics are that make the parking reduction appropriate. Anderson said that he thinks the population served by the facilities and the modes of transportation generally used by the clientele (according to Walz) makes the parking reduction reasonable. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 7 of 9 Anderson said that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said the reconfiguration of the parking spaces is going o be a very good thing for the site. He said the added green space will also be beneficial. Anderson said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Anderson said that this was a very compatible use. He said the previous occupant was an organization that was similar in nature. He said that he did not anticipate any change at all in the surrounding neighborhood, and that he believed the location and the agency are a very good fit. Anderson said that utilities, access roads, and drainage are already in place and are adequate. The establishment of this exception will not impede the normal and orderly development of the area. Anderson said that adequate measures have been designed to provide for safe ingress and egress. He said that he is glad to see that arrangements are being made in case the need for additional parking should arise. The specific proposed exception in all other respects complies with the applicable standards of the zone. Anderson said that the final site plan will provide a better indication of this. Anderson said the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. He said the fact that this area is under redevelopment is a good thing. He said that if the area is to be made more pedestrian friendly, then the reduction in parking is a good thing. Tyson said that she agreed with Anderson that this is a fine use of the space and a good addition to the neighborhood. Sheerin said she too agrees with the comments of her colleagues. She said that the organization is sure to be a good addition to the area. She said that it appears that the nature of the clientele will be such that there are not a lot of heavy car users, so the full amount of parking may not be as necessary as it might be for another business. She said that the fact that the other occupant of the building, PATV, does not need all of its spaces all of the time is a contributing factor in her decision. She said this is a really good social service. Sheerin closed the public hearing. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused). The motion was declared approved. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Howard noted that the next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for August 11, 2010. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 14, 2010 Page 8of9 ADJOURNMENT: Tyson motioned to adjourn. Anderson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused). The meeting adjourned at 6:01 p.m. c CD E W Q 0 E m o rn m O U rn oco d L s 41 O N O M O 00 O O 00 W_ W_ O O x x x o x x x x x N W x O x Ln x x x x x x x O FX x x x M x O W N x x x o x M W x o x x x m Ln rn _ �- W o 0 0 0 0 c c c d Y bA O VA = W 1=/f L = Lto �' Q 0 ed co j Z OC m V 'v^ C O a a cd C N N aJ d v O C s L O L.. fd O O C bO .N u L L L c � m c o O a Q Q Z Z II II II LU II II X O Z