Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-23 Info Packet City Council I nformation Packet J anuary 23, 2020 IP1.Council Tentative Meeting S chedule Miscellaneous IP2.Memo from City Manager: S ister City I nformation IP3.Memo from City Manager: S ummer Meeting Schedule 2020 IP4.Memo from City Clerk: Proposed Council Meeting Schedule, May - A ugust 2020 IP5.Memo from City Clerk: 2020 L istening P ost Tentative S chedule IP6.Memo from Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator: E mergency F unding Criteria IP7.Memo from Transportation S ervices Director: Update on bus shelter revitalization project IP8.Memo from B udget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly F inancial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2019 IP9.I nvitation: J ohnson County A ffordable Housing Coalition: J anuary 24 IP10.Civil S ervice E xamination: Communications Aide Draft Minutes IP11.Historic P reservation Commission: J anuary 9 IP12.Human Rights Commission: J anuary 7 January 23, 2020 City of Iowa City Page 1 Item Number: 1. J anuary 23, 2020 Council Ten tative Meeting Sched u l e AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Council Tentative Meeting S chedule Item Number: 2. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from City Man ager: Sister City Information AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from City Manager: S ister City I nformation Item Number: 3. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from City Man ager: Summer Meeting Sched u l e 2020 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from City Manager: S ummer Meeting Schedule 2020 Date: January 23, 2020 To: Mayor and Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Summer Meeting Schedule In past years, the City Council has occasionally made modifications to its regular meeting schedule to accommodate summer travel plans. I spoke with Council Member Salih about her summer travel plans to Sudan and reviewed the calendar to determine if modifications might be possible to minimize the number of meetings that she would not be able to be physically present for during her trip. If the Council is agreeable, we can change our June meetings to the 9th and 30th. We can then cancel the July 7th meeting and keep the July 21st meeting as regularly scheduled. In doing so, the Council would be meeting every three weeks instead of two from May 19th through July 21st. Staff does not see any problems with this revised schedule. If an emergent issue arises requiring more immediate City Council consideration we would work to schedule an additional special meeting. Staff requests council consideration of this change so we can plan and prepare future action items accordingly. Item Number: 4. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from City Clerk: Prop osed Cou n cil Meetin g Sch edule, May - Au g u st 2020 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from City Clerk: Proposed Council Meeting Schedule, May - A ugust 2020 Item Number: 5. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from City Clerk: 2020 Listen ing Post Tentative Sched u l e AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from City Clerk: 2020 L istening P ost Tentative S chedule Item Number: 6. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from Neig h b orhood Services Coord inator: Emerg ency F u n d ing Criteria AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator: E mergency F unding Criteria Item Number: 7. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from Transportation Services Director: Up d ate on b u s shel ter revitalization proj ect AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from City Manager: Update on bus shelter revitalization project Item Number: 8. J anuary 23, 2020 Memo from Budget & Comp l ian ce O fficer: Q u arterly F inan cial Su mmary for Period En d ing Decemb er 31, 2019 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from B udget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly F inancial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2019 Item Number: 9. J anuary 23, 2020 Invitation : Joh n son County Affordab l e Housin g Coalition: January 24 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description I nvitation: J ohnson County A ffordable Housing Coalition: J anuary 24 Item Number: 10. J anuary 23, 2020 Civil Service Examin ation : Communication s Aide AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Civil S ervice E xamination: Communications Aide Item Number: 11. J anuary 23, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission : Jan u ary 9 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Historic P reservation Commission: J anuary 9 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL January 9, 2020 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen, MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyndi Kiple, Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Olivera, Sarah Clark, Sean Hilton, Nathaniel Bequeaith, Ginalie Swaim, Robert Michael RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 330 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (Second curb cut and driveway with parking pad)* deferred from December 12, 2019 meeting. Bristow explained 330 North Gilbert Street is in the Northside Historic District. It is a non-historic property. She said this is discussed in the Staff report, as well as in a memo response to a letter from the applicant’s lawyer. An additional letter from the lawyer was received earlier in the week and was emailed to the Commission and is available if anyone wants to see it now. Bristow said any property within the district needs to follow the guidelines whether it is historic, non-historic, contributing, or noncontributing. There are some exceptions in the guidelines that can be made for properties depending on the section of the guidelines and depending on how the property is categorized. For site and landscaping there are no specific documented exceptions. Bristow said there are some general exceptions (not guideline-section-specific) that could be made by the Commission for non-historic properties as outlined I section 3.2. One criteria for an exception is the project still needs to maintain the historic character of the property and the district. Since this property is considered non-historic, the Commission would be concerned mostly with the character of the district. Bristow explained this house was built in 1953. It is a two-story house with brick cladding. There is an addition on the back and a chimney. There is a garage attached to the house. Bristow shared a view from the other corner showing the garage, as well as a view showing the addition off the back and the stone fireplace. Bristow noted the application is to add a curb cut to this property. She showed the existing curb cut into the driveway. The application was originally submitted to come off Davenport Street south into the lot for a driveway width that was 9 feet x 25 feet, set back from the property line HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 2 of 16 six feet. There is some discussion in both the memo and the Staff report that, as submitted, it did not meet some of the zoning code requirements. Also, it did not meet some of the Commission’s requirements. Some of the discussion in the Staff report was about how it would need to be designed to make it meet the requirements. If the Commission were to approve the additional curb cut it would need to meet requirements of a maximum 8 to 10-foot driveway width, 3-foot radius on the curb on each side, and it would project south. The parking area would need to be a legal parking spot that would not begin until ten feet back from that face of the building. That would be written into the Certificate of Appropriateness if the Commission does approve it. The second letter from the lawyer does say the applicant would agree to meet those parts of the guideline. It would be screened with landscaping. Bristow shared a Google street view showing the area. She said the shed in this view was gone. The driveway would come in behind the house. For zoning code, they do need to maintain a 500-square-foot area of open space with no dimension less than 20 feet. Staff does not recommend approving this application. The memorandum put out with the latest packet, since this was deferred from the previous meeting, includes a list of reasons why Staff recommends denial on the last page. This is an historic neighborhood which was developed in a way, historically, where access to the property was typically gained off the alley. This would concentrate all the car traffic and the parking in the back of the lot so the front porch would be open and the house, and the occupants of the house would then engage the street. Along the street would be the pedestrian right-of-way. Staff performed a brief parking study of the district, Originally all these properties in the district have their access off the alley only. Which you can see generally in the middle of the block in the center of the district. They do not have curb cuts. Most of them tend to be along the main east-west streets with the alley going the same direction. It wasn’t until later when some of the corner and side lots started to be divided up that you started to see some curb cuts being introduced. Bristow noted the blue color on the study map represented properties where they have alley access, but they also have an additional curb cut. She said that probably had something to do with when and how some additional garages might have been added or lots were further subdivided from the original lot size. She said the properties in yellow on the map show properties where they have curb cuts, but they are always shared with the neighboring property. She said there are also properties off Davenport and Linn Street where there is a shared driveway that runs all the way behind multiple properties. The shared driveway properties that have asterisks not only have a shared driveway, but they also maintain alley access. Bristow said no property in this district has two curb cuts. She said this would add a new situation to this historic district. She noted curb cuts do tend to be on the corners because they divided up the end lot and then lost alley access. Out of 119 properties there are 45 total curb cuts. Bristow pointed out this property does have off-street parking. It has a legal-sized parking spot in the garage. It has been that way since 1953. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 3 of 16 This is the list of reasons why Staff would recommend denying this application: • Section 3.2 contains reasons why an exception for a property would be granted. One of the reasons for exception is making sure it does not detract from the historic character of the district. The Commission needs to determine whether this second curb cut would fit the character of the historic district. It would be a unique situation since it does not exist otherwise in this district. • In the guidelines about alterations generally, Section 4.0, it discusses the fact that alterations to properties need to be appropriate to the style and the age of the neighborhood. That again is an area where adding the second curb cut would not fit with the style of the neighborhood. • Section 4.12 is the section that talks about site and landscaping. That section does talk about if alley access is needed. If it is available, provide site access from the alley. Site access already exists here, so we are not trying to create something this property doesn’t already have. If this property was one of the 12%, which is amended from the Staff report, that do not have off-street parking in this historic district then, yes, Staff would recommend to the Commission that we look at the idea of adding a single curb cut to the property. That is not the case with this particular property. Bristow stated this property does have an existing parking area and driveway access. No other properties in the district have two curb cuts. In the Staff report we talked about the fact that there were 15% of the properties in the district that did not have off-street parking. There was an error in that. It is actually 12%. That 12% of the properties in the district rely on on-street parking. They do not have parking on their lot like this property does. Adding an additional curb cut would reduce the availability of on-street parking. Bristow brought up how parking impacts the walkability of a neighborhood. She said in these neighborhoods that historically had alley access, you would imagine people freely walking along the sidewalk, not having to be concerned that a car could pull out of that driveway without looking for them, and that they would have to stop or delay. The fact that we don’t have an impediment to people walking and people’s safety is part of ensuring the walkability of this neighborhood. Bristow reminded the Commissioners they have the two letters from the lawyer, the Staff report, and the memo from Staff about the project. Staff recommends denial of this project. Boyd asked for any clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. Mike Olivera, 331 North Gilbert Street, owner of Prestige Properties, asked the Commission if they had read the two letters sent by Michael Hayes of Belin McCormick. Olivera said these letters were important and he would summarize some of the key points. He did not believe City Staff presented the application appropriately according to guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook. Olivera believed his property was being classified as historic or contributing by Staff. It is not historic or contributing. As such, he believed Section 3.2 of the Handbook was irrelevant. Olivera said 330 North Gilbert Street was purchased to convert it from a rental back to a single- family home and that is why they are requesting additional parking. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 4 of 16 Olivera noted Staff referenced section 4.0 of the Handbook in support of its recommendation because a small minority of properties have zero off-street parking and rely on on-street parking for their vehicles. He said Staff fails to consider that the residents at 330 Gilbert Street will park on the street if a curb cut is not allowed, thus any reduction in on-street parking is offset. Olivera did not believe an additional curb cut would create a barrier or hazard to pedestrians. Olivera recommended the Commission only consider Section 4.12 of the Handbook to determine if his request complied with that section. He believed his request complied and fit squarely within the intent of the section. He said this section recognizes that properties in an historic district have the same need for modern site amenities, including off-street parking, as other properties in Iowa City, and modern site amenities can be provided without taking away from the character of the neighborhood. Olivera said he had this property on the market for over two years. When showing the property, the main feedback received was the need for more parking. He noted people have more vehicles today than they did at the time the property was constructed, and vehicles are much larger than they used to be. To comply with this purpose for creating historic district overlays and encouraging reinvestment in historic neighborhoods, Olivera requested the Commission recognize the need for properties in the historic district to account for the changes in the size and amount of vehicles and thus issue a Certificate of appropriateness for this project. Olivera showed a view looking from the front porch of his house down Davenport Street. He believed that once a fence and landscaping were installed, a curb cut would not be noticeable and would not distract from the quality of the neighborhood. Olivera used 332 North Van Buren Street as an example on the north side of a recent curb cut. He said that property has multiple curb cuts that were reviewed and approved by City Staff. He wondered why it did not go through the Historic Preservation Commission. He said 332 North Van Buren has additional parking all around the house, while he is asking for only one spot. He expressed his frustration with the time and effort spent asking for something he believed to be necessary and that would not detract from the neighborhood. Boyd asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. Sarah Clark, who lives on the north side, noted at the December meeting a suggestion had been made to the applicant to enlarge the garage that already exists. She thought that was a great solution. She said she did understand what the applicant had to say about larger vehicles but, since off-street parking was already available, she agreed with the Staff report. Olivera added that he checked with his neighbors and they had no problem with his request for a curb cut. He said he could get that in writing if necessary. Boyd closed the public hearing. DeGraw asked if the 500-square-foot area was supposed to be parking. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 5 of 16 Bristow said it was an open space requirement of the zoning code. The image in the slide was just showing a diagram of how the original proposal needed to be modified in order to be approved. Kuenzli said at the Commission’s last meeting the major problem seemed to be that although there was a garage, it would not accept a larger vehicle. The applicant was offered the option of adding to that garage. She said since a viable alternative was given and, putting more parking in a backyard rarely enhances either the yard or district, it seemed a reasonable compromise was offered. Kuenzli said she would be in favor of denying the application because a viable option was offered and the concern is not with the house, it’s that the house sits in an historic district. The Commission is concerned with what will affect the appearance of the district. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 330 North Gilbert Street as presented in the application and Staff report. Kuenzli seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Agran said he looks at Section 3.2 and the historic character of the neighborhood. He believes preservation of the neighborhood is under the purview of the Commission. While the structure, itself, is not from the period, the property itself is. That’s the logic he uses. Agran noted this neighborhood is valued and held up as an example of a walkable neighborhood. He said if you walk with a stroller or a toddler, or with a wheelchair, you know what the impact of curb cuts are on the pedestrian experience and the safety experience. Agran responded to the example given of 332 Van Buren Street. He said he brought it up at a Council meeting the other week and agreed that he didn’t know what happened. At the same time, he said there were not three curb cuts on one property. Agran said he was looking to the overall character of the neighborhood, which has much more to do with a pedestrian experience than automobile experience, so he will vote to deny this certificate. Boyd said when he looks at the Commission’s standards for an entire district, it’s about protecting the entire district, and he looks to section 3.2. He believed the impact of a second curb cut would negatively impact the overall district, so he would also vote not to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion failed on a vote of 7-0. PRESENTATION ON THE IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION INITIATIVE BY THE STUDENTS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING. Anne Russett, Neighborhood and Development Services, welcomed the students to the meeting. She said the City has been working with the students for about six months, along with Nancy Bird and the Iowa City Downtown District. The students came to update the full Commission on the work they are doing. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 6 of 16 Sean Hilton, a second-year student in the School of Urban and Regional Planning, introduced himself, along with Nathaniel Bequeaith, also a second-year student. Hilton said two members could not be present – Megan Schott and Ayman Sharif. The students are working with Professor Connerly and Professor Nguyen, as well as Travis Kraus and Maura Pilcher. They are working with the City and Nancy Bird from the Downtown District. Hilton provided a background on the project. There are several historic buildings in downtown Iowa City. The Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation are a little bit vague and don’t necessarily address contemporary social issues. He said their project is aimed at closing the gap and making sure that preservation can assist in addressing other city goals. This kind of approach has been suggested by Patrice Frey, the Director of the National Main Street Institute. The project area chosen was inspired by the recent historic survey that was done by a consultant last year – Alexa McDowell. The district identified is bordered on the north by Iowa Avenue, on the west by Clinton Street, south by Burlington, and then on the east by Gilbert Street. Hilton displayed a map they created using the resources identified by that study with noncontributing, contributing, key contributing, individually eligible, and individually listed properties. There are several in the district that could be in a National Historic Preservation District. The students’ objectives in this project are to document how preservation tools are used in Iowa City, inform discussion about preservation’s role and other City goals, understand the opinions and perspectives on preservation from building and business owners in the downtown area, compile the goals of the City and compare those to preservation, and then measure the effectiveness of those tools. The students’ report has been put together using case study research, stakeholder interviews, special analysis, financing data, and property data. In completed interviews, Hilton said they talked to some members of the Preservation Commission, a member of Friends of Historic Preservation, the Englert, and in their case study research they talked to a planner from Missoula, Montana, the National Main Street Institute, Primus Companies to get an architectural opinion and construction opinion on preservation. He said they have a few pending interviews and then two presentations – one to the Downtown District Board and the one presented tonight. Opportunity Statement: Hilton said the why is that preservation is often misunderstood. Business owners and building owners can feel it is sort of an infringement on their rights rather than something they can use to promote the full use of their buildings. The social goals being focused upon are economic, environmental, and social goals. In that is included accessibility, mobility, sustainability, affordability, and community development. Hilton said the how was previously presented in their methodology. Some of the challenges identified by the students: The beer and pizza crowd – local college students and the strong local bar scene; e-commerce and the effect it has on downtown retailers; the demand for a walkable and bikeable environment downtown; rapid investment in the downtown, which could lead to creating conditions that cause demolition; and the process of HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 7 of 16 historic preservation being misunderstood; gaining a better understanding of the social value of buildings and the gaps and overlaps in relevant policies. Some of the opportunities discovered: Hilton said there is new enthusiasm from some business owners for character-rich space, which downtown provides with some historic buildings; a diverse building stock that encourages a strong lease market, which we see in Iowa City’s downtown constantly; some opportunity to promote other values through preservation; the assets of historic places; and any existing community support that may be there. Boyd asked when the students began their project. Hilton said late August and they go until May. Boyd thanked the students for the update. He asked what happens between now and May. Hilton said they were in the process of compiling interviews and seeing what comes out of those for incorporation into the greater report. He said they did a lot of case study research in the first semester and now they are getting feedback, suggestions, and input on the process. He said they would be happy to hear any thoughts and take any feedback, as well as set up interviews for other times. Burford asked if the students were looking to find a more holistic package way of addressing something in terms of historic preservation? Hilton said they are trying to find ways that preservation can be worked into other things, like the climate action plan, and to make sure it’s stated that there is a relationship, and that’s why preservation is important. Preservation should be continued to meet other goals. Kuenzli asked what some of those other goals would be. Hilton said he has focused on a lot of environmental things. There are a lot of things about embodied energy in buildings, the energy that’s required to construct a building, to make the materials, versus demolishing the building and the materials that would have to be taken into account. The energy efficiency of old buildings versus new buildings. Burford asked what their recommendations would be to an intact historic building that wanted to adapt. Hilton said from the environmental standpoint, they have been looking at a lot of ways to improve energy efficiency while maintaining historic character, so there are some workarounds, looking at solar panels and how to put those on historic buildings. Boyd suggested the Commissioners re-read the Patrice Frey article, sent to them last summer by Nancy Bird. He said it really helped. He said there are ways that preservation can partner and help achieve other stated goals. One set of standards used for a generation may not be the entire package of tools Nancy Bird, Iowa City Downtown District, mentioned that there is an opportunity for stakeholder engagement with the current developers and property owners who really haven’t been overly engaged with historic preservation in Iowa City for a lot of reasons. This student project provides an opportunity to help look at things a little more in depth, like the article from Patrice Frey, to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 8 of 16 work with the City of Iowa City, and to look at it outside the process. There is an opportunity to have these stakeholder engagement opportunities and interviews to really explore what works, what doesn’t work, and what could work with a more robust program for public-private partnership when it comes to historic preservation downtown. Bird said the students have been doing great work. She said it was a lot of work to get into the research and really understand how the historic preservation process worked well and where has it left some of the stakeholders, the property owners, behind. Figuring out why property owners aren’t engaging on things that are really important to them like accessibility and elevators. These things are critical. She said there are not many elevators downtown because they are so expensive. Grandfathering them in is not the best approach, saying you don’t have to do it because you are historic. That doesn’t solve anything for historic preservation or for accessibility, and downtown must be accessible. Bird said several interesting issues will come from this project. She encouraged the Commission to think about it, engage with the students, and provide feedback on some of these things because this is part of their overall research. Kuenzli asked if the students would be looking at incentives for property owners to engage in historic preservation. Bequeaith said they looked at some existing tax incentives and how they are used at federal, state, and local levels, at least ones that are applicable to downtown Iowa City currently. He said Missoula did an adaptive reuse where, instead of offering them straight-up financial incentives they offered them alterations that would save money when doing the rehab. DeGraw asked if they plan to revise the presentation Hilton said they condensed their regular presentation. He said when they have a finalized product there would be a revised presentation. DeGraw asked about new ways in which buildings or spaces were being used. She wanted to see the details. Hilton said that was the social value of space, which is mostly focused on what does having the enclosure of something like the pedestrian mall provide to the larger social context of Iowa City. DeGraw said Target plans to have a mini-Target. She’s wondered about pop-ups right before school starts, like IKEA, where students can go in and get the furniture they want, doing it in a small space and focusing on the type of things students need. Boyd said he met with the student project team and encouraged the Commission to put thought into this over time and set up a half hour with the team and talk to them or email them some thoughts. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review. 430 North Van Buren Street – Northside Historic District (roof replacement). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 9 of 16 Bristow explained 430 North Van Buren is noncontributing to its district because of synthetic siding. Its metal roof will be replaced with a new metal roof. 331 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement and other repairs). Bristow said 331 South Summit Street is doing numerous projects. Roof shingles are being replaced, as well as soffits. This house is also covered in synthetic siding, but some of the deteriorated wood, caused by trapped moisture, will be replaced. Minor Review – Staff Review. 529 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (basement window replacement). All the basement windows, which are 100% below grade, are being replaced with new vinyl windows that otherwise match. DISCUSSION OF THE 400 BLOCK OF NORTH CLINTON STREET. Anne Russett presented a few slides and provided some context and background on this item. She reminded the Commission that the historic landmark designation of 410/412 North Clinton Street failed to get approval at the City Council level. Russett shared aerial imagery of the project area showing 410/412 at the north end. South of this is 400 North Clinton and to the east is 112 East Davenport Street. After the failed vote at the Council level, Staff reached out to the property owner to see if there was any way they would voluntarily designate the 410/412 structure. The property owner mentioned there was a possibility of acquiring 400 North Clinton and 112 East Davenport, and that he was open to exploring a scenario where they would get increased development potential for redeveloping 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street in exchange for the Local Landmark designation of 410/412 North Clinton Street. Russett said this was presented to City Council at a work session several months ago just to get a feel for how the Council felt about this. She provided the comments received to date, both from the Council and from Friends of Historic Preservation. The City Council was interested in exploring this option if it was a four-story structure or something like Currier Hall, which is across the street. They wanted to ensure compatible infill development and a high level of design review. Comments were also received from Friends of Historic Preservation. Friends had concerns related to the demolition of 400 North Clinton Street, but they were willing to consider redevelopment in order to preserve 410/412 North Clinton Street if certain provisions were agreed to. Those are listed here: Rehab of the 410 North Clinton Street building if it followed the Secretary of Interior standards; ensuring a compatible use; design review on the rehab work by the Historic Preservation Planner and the HPC. There was some discussion of listing it in the National Register and tax credits, and potentially design review of the new building by the HPC, as well as salvage of any demolition. Staff would like to add photo documentation. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 10 of 16 Russett continued, stating after receiving the go-ahead from Council to explore this, Staff reached back out to the property owner. Designs have been received and were included in the agenda packet. This is the site plan they submitted. The new building, encompassing 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport, would be accessed off the east-west alley. There are about 30 units total (70 bedrooms) and 20 underground parking spaces. It is a six-story building. Russett said 400 North Clinton Street was built in 1890. It is a former sorority house. 112 East Davenport Street was built between 1912 and 1920 with stucco cladding. Currier Hall is across the street from 400 North Clinton. Russett asked if the Commission was interested in considering redevelopment of 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street in exchange for the Local Landmark designation of 410/412 North Clinton Street, and why or why not. She said comments received would be summarized and shared with City Council at a future work session. Boyd opened a period of public comment. Ginalie Swaim, President of the Board of Directors of Friends of Historic Preservation, said Friends is not happy that 400 North Clinton might get torn down, but saw that appropriate development of the corner lot, as well as 112 Davenport, would be one avenue to landmarking the 1865 house, and they believed it was quite important to do so. She thanked the developer and City Staff for exploring solutions that could lead to that landmarking and appreciated being asked for input about the project. Swaim noted the plans show a six-story building, which is out of step with surrounding properties. She said the scale is too large and a six-story building in a place with largely two- story buildings doesn’t work. She acknowledged Currier Hall is a good four stories. Swaim presented the following recommendations from Friends of Historic Preservation: Recommendations for more appropriate scale and that the sixth floor be removed. On the plans the fifth floor is set back. Friends recommend it be extended to the full width of the first four floors to alleviate the reduction in bedrooms created by removing the sixth floor. They recommend the massive gabled roof be removed and replaced with a flat or very low-pitched roof. While it does have dormers like Currier Hall and other buildings in the area, Swaim said it becomes enormous when put on a six-story building. She believed these modifications could go very far in bringing down the visual scale and actual mass of the building. Robert Michael, attorney for the developer, said his clients are willing to allow for the landmark designation that was sought last year on the property but, to do that, and to make the project financially feasible by keeping 410/412 the way it is, to then purchase the additional real estate to the south and develop it, they need the design to be similar to what it is right now. He said it would not be financially feasible if it isn’t like that. Michael said they tried to make it similar to Currier Hall across the street, which sits up a little bit higher and has dormers. He said it would be a benefit to the City to be able to keep the structure at 410/412, which is sought to be designated as historic. The City will not have to pay any money to move the structure in order to save it. He said his clients are not asking for any incentives to construct the building on the corner. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 11 of 16 DeGraw asked how different it would be to take it down one level then flesh out the footprint of the fifth level to make it like the fourth floor. She wondered if they would end up with the same kind of apartments and bedrooms. Michael said they would have to look at it to see if it would be possible, but the number of units and bedrooms calculated in the current design were what’s needed to make it work . Kuenzli said it wasn’t just a question of height, but also the scale. She said it would take up a whole block and would not enhance the neighborhood or the City. She believed even five stories would be too high and that four stories should be the maximum. Kuenzli said development swaps implemented around town have been visually unsatisfactory, with the remaining building dwarfed by the structure built behind or around it. She cited the Unitarian Church and Tate-Arms as examples. She said there must be a better design solution. Kuenzli believed 400 North Clinton had been somewhat neglected, but had intrinsic style and enhanced the block, whereas the structure proposed does not fit with the surroundings of the other houses on the block at all. She said she was conflicted because 410/412 is an important and beautiful structure, but it will be diminished by the current proposal. She wished there was a way to save 400 North Clinton Street, but she couldn’t make a big argument for 112 Davenport Street. She wanted the Civil War structure maintained but does not want to see it dwarfed and made irrelevant-looking next to the block-long, massive structure that is proposed. Clore asked why there was no discussion about the rehabilitation of 410/412. Michael said there would not be any rehabilitation. If the historic designation overlay was put in place, they would follow the rules, maintain it, whatever is required of them, but there is no proposed rehabilitation by the owners. He said his clients are responding to a request by Staff to save 410/412 North Clinton. This was their response. Clore said her question was based off the point raised by Friends of Historic Preservation when they said one of the points was ensuring that the rehabilitation and restoration of 410/412 North Clinton is done in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Michael said that was never brought up by his client and never agreed to by his client. Bristow printed out comments from Commissioner Wu so they could be part of the discussion. Agran brought up Washington Street, when the row of buildings went in south of where New Pioneer is, where that little line of houses was. In response to that project, the City amended plans to account for a more sympathetic transition between downtown and residential neighborhoods. Boyd believed it was form-based code. Russett said there is the East Side Mixed Use District, which is part of the City’s form-based code, but it is south on College. Agran believed that was enacted in response to development that happened on Washington Street. He said it happened in a reactionary way to a project that went through, community reaction to that scale shift. Agran said he was trying to draw a line between an earlier instance HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 12 of 16 of this, where the City reacted to a project exactly like this, and said that actually didn’t work very well in terms of the transition between downtown and the University and the neighborhood, so the City made an adjustment to the code on College to prevent that. Boyd asked if the Clinton properties being discussed were zoned RM-44, which Russett confirmed. With current zoning, he asked what could be built on that spot. Russett said they could develop an apartment building. The maximum height is 35 feet in RM- 44, so it would not be as tall, but it would have that same scale that was mentioned earlier. Boyd noted there are apartment buildings built on the Dubuque side of that block, presumed also to be zoned RM-44, that are big in terms of scale. At 35 feet, he asked how many stories that would be. Russett replied three stories. Boyd asked, if developing the whole property, how many units would there be. Russett wasn’t certain but said it could be calculated and provided to the Commission. Boyd said 410/412 has units existing that will remain. He said he was trying to figure out in equity, what is the net loss of not being able to produce on 410/412. Bristow said when this was originally coming up as a landmark, a study was done, just on the 410/412 lot, and that study basically said if you took down 410/412 as they were, you could build a building that could have about 25 units, 700-square-feet or so max size, one-bedroom. If you then were to keep the old part and take down the apartment building addition to it, and just redevelop that half of the lot to its maximum, between that new addition and the existing house you could have 24 units, so basically one less unit if you kept the historic house and redeveloped the back half of the lot fully. DeGraw suggested the dormer style architecture be removed and replaced with something that would look nice for the entire building and save some costs by not having the dormers. Kuenzli asked if there was anything in City code of regulations to prevent this kind of overscale structure next to a two-story, 19th Century home. Russett explained that current code would not allow a six-story building. It would allow up to 35 feet, but you could do an apartment style, multifamily building. Russett wanted to know if the Commission was comfortable with allowing more development potential on 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street in exchange for that local landmark designation at 410/412. DeGraw said she was not comfortable with any of the options but was open to considering it. Kuenzli asked why they couldn’t apply the benefit on some other property where the effect would be less dramatic on the remaining historic structure. Russett said they could ask the property owner about that. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 13 of 16 Agran said when the Council voted against the original landmarking the argument was about property rights. He said now that’s being paid for, because the history of the community is now being leveraged for private gain. He viewed this as an equal-opposite kind of argument and would ask that those Council members who voted against it think about the principle their statement represents about the values they have for the community itself and where do private property owners deserve to gain. Agran said he would be open to reconsider development. He said a lot of the property developers in town are asking for predictability in terms of City Staff and the direction from Council, like that form-based code on College Street that was reactionary to something we decided was not in line with our values as a community in the format of the built environment. He said the asset is too valuable to not work on it, but it requires direction from Council to City Staff to develop a form-based code, so this situation does not come up again. When an exception to the zoning is requested, we are acknowledging as a community we are doing something we have agreed collectively through public process is not appropriate for this area. Agran said he does want to save the building but thinks it should happen in conjunction with something that protects this kind of leveraging of private property. He also was in favor of the suggestions from Friends of Historic Preservation. Clore agreed with Agran but said there should be some commitment to the landmarked building, as well. Pitzen also agreed with Agran. Clore added that, if form-based zoning could not be pursued, maybe there does need to be consideration of some bonus rights to the developer that they could carry to another building in another area. Kuenzli said she felt preservation was being held hostage to bad design for private gain in this issue. If the developer is willing to make some concessions, such as those that Agran and Clore described, she could say yes. She believed the proposal ruins the block, it ruins the house next to it, it does nothing for the City, it just lets the developer build another block-long structure that everyone looks at and says how do people allow that to happen. Boyd said he was open to the redevelopment. He wanted to echo the Friends’ suggestions, as well. He said with the last Council, there was a very rapid discussion of Transfer of Development Rights under a very tight timeline because there was a specific need. Boyd believed the Commission, with some direction from the current Council, needs to think of a broader policy to address these issues so people who are purchasing potentially landmarked properties have a sense of what it is and the community has a sense of what that is, too, and properties are not being looked at in a one-on-one way. Agran wanted to emphasize that the direction to Council should be to work on this. He said what’s in motion is in motion, but there should be a compromise. He also asked that Council look at other things in code that should reflect on community values, such as a requirement for a certain amount of affordable housing in a district. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 14 of 16 Michael responded to a couple comments about transferring development rights somewhere else. He said they tried that the first time and got nowhere, so believed it would not work. Boyd said his interest was to get the Council to think more holistically about what that would look like, not specifically for this property. Agran noted the proposal said it was not financially feasible to do it in any other way. He wanted to know all the net gains and losses. He said the City was going to give away something very transparent publicly, which is height and density, and he would want equal transparency with what the financial feasibility looks like for multiple different scenarios. Having that be part of the public presentation in Council would be nice instead of just the opacity around that phrase. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM. Bristow said the draft work plan was complete and needed approval so it could go into the Commission’s annual report to the state next month. The work plan is also sent to the City Manager and City Council so they know what the Commission has done and have planned to do. Since the last meeting where the work plan was discussed, Bristow did add in a high priority to update all maps in the guidelines. Properties are considered as they exist on the currently approved map. Bristow reminded the Commission the subcommittee for the preservation awards will need to meet to determine winners in late February so the Commission can vote to approve the winners in March. Now is the time to identify nominees. Bristow noted the Commission has two empty spots in districts and three terms will be up this summer – Agran, Boyd, and DeGraw. East College and Woodlawn, both tiny districts, are vacant. She suggested adding Commissioner recruitment into the work plan. Agran gave notice that he will probably step down from his position before summer and encouraged Commissioners to think of a possible replacement from the Northside Historic District. Kuenzli asked if reconsideration of Transfer of Development Rights was within the Commission’s purview or if it was strictly City Council business. She said it’s not just a question of allowing things that the zoning code doesn’t allow, it’s a question of allowing things our handbook doesn’t allow. The entire historic district needs to be considered. Bristow said it involves a lot of City Staff. She and Boyd said the Commission could always decide to discuss a matter, vote, and make a recommendation to Council at any meeting on anything. Boyd suggested the Commission pass the work plan as-is and it could be amended in a future meeting. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Historic Preservation annual work plan, including recruitment of new Commissioners. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 15 of 16 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 12, 2019 MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s December 12, 2019 meeting. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Civil Rights Grant Completion Update. Boyd said this was a success to be celebrated. Bristow explained the former Mayor had really pushed to investigate more about minority populations and their history in the Iowa City community. This Civil Rights Grant was one step toward that. ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Agran. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 9, 2020 Page 16 of 16 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2019-2020 NAME TERM EXP. 2/14 3/14 4/11 5/09 5/23 6/13 8/08 8/19 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/09 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X O/E PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X O/E SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 X X X X X O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WU, AUSTIN 6/30/20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E Item Number: 12. J anuary 23, 2020 Hu man Rights Commission: January 7 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Human Rights Commission: J anuary 7