Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-12 Info Packet � r rrr®��� City Council Information Packet CITY OF 10"IA CITY October 12, 2023 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule October 16 Joint Entities Meeting IP2. Joint Entities Meeting Agenda October 17 Work Session IP3. Work Session Agenda IP4. Pending City Council Work Session Topics Draft Minutes IP5. Historic Preservation Commission: September 14 October 12, 2023 City of Iowa City Item Number: IP1. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 12, 2023 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Attachments: Council Tentative Meeting Schedule City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule nil Subject to change CITY OF IOWA CITY October 12, 2023 Date Time Meeting Location Monday,October 16,2023 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting ICCSD Educational Services Center Hosted by Iowa City Community Sch Dist 1725 N. Dodge Street Tuesday,October 17,2023 4:00 PM Special Formal City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 410 E.Washington Street 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, November 6,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, November 21,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, December 12,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,January 2,2024 B:OOAM Special Formal City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall Organizational Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,January 2,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,January 16,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Saturday,January 20,2024 8:00 AM Budget Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E.Washington Street Wednesday,January 24,2024 2:00 PM Budget Work Session(CIP) City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, February 6,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, February 20,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, March 19,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,April 2,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,April 16,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, May 7,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, May 21,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,June 4,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,June 18,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,July 16,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,August 6,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,August 20,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,September 3,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,September 17,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,October 1,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,October 15,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Monday, November 4,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, November 19,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday, December 10,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Item Number: IP2. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 12, 2023 Joint Entities Meeting Agenda Attachments: Joint Entities Meeting Agenda IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT child-Ce.Wea:n.mre-tn�sea Monday, October 16, 2023 Joint Entities Meeting Joint Entities Meeting Agenda Iowa City Community School District Educational Service Center 1725 N. Dodge Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Monday, October 16, 2023 4:30pm Meeting between the Cities of Coralville, Hills, Iowa City, Lone Tree, North Liberty, Oxford, Shueyville, Solon, Swisher, Tiffin, and University Heights; Clear Creek Amana Community School District Board of Directors; Iowa City Community School District Board of Directors; University of Iowa; and Johnson County Board of Supervisors A. Opening 1. Call to Order B. Welcome and Introductions C. Childcare Initiative Update - City of Iowa City 1. Update from ICCSD on Preschool Initiative 2. Updates from those involved in local childcare coalition D. Update from Johnson County Public Health 1. COVID-19 Update 2. Implications of a potential government shutdown E. Other Business F. Discuss schedule and hosts for upcoming Joint Entities Meetings 1. January 15, 2024 - Coralville 2. April 15, 2024 - Iowa City 3. July 15, 2024 - North Liberty 4. October 21, 2024 - University Heights 5. January 13, 2025 - Johnson County G. Adjournment Item Number: IP3. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 12, 2023 Work Session Agenda Attachments: Work Session Agenda Subject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final official copy, contact the City Clerk's Office 356-5041 If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event, please contact Kellie Grace at 319-356-5041 , kgrace@iowa- city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Iowa City City Council - Work Session r Agenda #A " t� Work Session E74 October 17, 2023 - 4:00 PM CITY Or IOWA CITY Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street www.icgov.org City of Iowa City Land Acknowledgment can be found at: icgov.org/landacknowledgement Meeting Rules can be found at: icgov.org/meetingrules You can watch the meeting on cable channel 4 (118.2 QAM) in Iowa City, University Heights and Coralville, or you can watch it online at any of the following websites: • https://citychannel4.com/live • https://www.youtube.com/user/citychannel4/live • https://facebook.com/CitvoflowaCity 1. Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a community violence intervention effort in close cooperation with local law enforcement 2. Clarification of Agenda Items 3. Information Packet Discussion [October 5, October 12] 4. University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates 5. Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Item Number: IP4. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 12, 2023 Pending City Council Work Session Topics Attachments: Pending City Council Work Session Topics CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS October 12, 2023 FY23-24 Strategic Plan Action Item Topics Reauirina Council Discussion: • Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property investors • Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more broadly incorporate form-based principles with emphasis on growth areas first and infill areas next,expanded missing middle housing allowances, minimum density requirements, and streamlined approval processes(Suggested Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission) • Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.Work with partners to undertake significant-scale affordable housing efforts • Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each entity's elected officials • Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail,bus rapid transit,or pedestrian usage • Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets • Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds,execute on agreeable recommendations in the Inclusive Economic Development Plan with a particular focus on actions that build long-term support and wealth-building opportunities for systemically marginalized populations Other Topics: • Quarterly American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA-SLRF)update • Consider a strategic plan decision-making framework • Develop strategies to address equity gaps noted in the Parks Master Plan and plan for the equitable distribution of destination parks within an easy and safe distance of all residents. • Review of Chauncey and RISE processes to inform future 21 S.Linn plans • Discussion on the impact of land use decisions on long-term City financial health Note:Some items on the Pending List may require staffresearch and information gathering prior to scheduling. Item Number: IP5. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 12, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission: September 14 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: September 14 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 -5:30 PM— FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nicole Villanueva, Noah Stork, Margaret Beck, Deanna Thomann, Carl Brown, Jordan Sellergren, Andrew Lewis, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT. STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: David Villanueva, Sharon DeGraw CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC23-0049: 813 Rundell Street—Dearborn Street Conservation District(roof alteration at screened porch): Bristow began the staff report noting this is on the edge of the Dearborn Street Conservation District and is a contributing building. It is a brick house with a front-facing gable and lap siding. In the front entryway is a California window and recessed entry. This project is about the roof so Bristow showed an aerial image showing the roof line, noting it is a ranch house with a main hip roof and a gable roof on the front. This project is about the screened porch which was on the back and originally built as part of the house. It has an effectively flat roof with a very low slope and it's been causing deterioration from water. The project is to replace the flat roof with another gable roof and it would be at the same slope as all the other roofs on the house. Bristow showed an image of the south side of the screen parch noting the eave line for the screen porch actually steps down a little bit and there's a fascia board around the top of the wall so another part of the project is to raise that to match the rest of the house. Bristow stated in the guidelines regarding additions they talk about continuing the horizontal lines on the house so they determined that they would go ahead and raise it. Bristow noted the guidelines that are associated with this project are from section 4.7 Mass and Roof Lines. With this project they will be preserving the historic trim such as crown molding, skirt and frieze boards. Replacing with wood to match is the recommendation and what they propose to do. Also preserving the original roof pitches and spans is required but the proposed project does not do that so there is an exception in this section available to all properties in all districts: minor changes to the roof pitch to address drainage can be done on a case-by-case basis. The Commission would approve that as an exception to the guidelines because it was necessary here in order to solve a drainage issue. Otherwise, the roof itself that they propose fits in with the guidelines to match roof pitches and roof HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 2 of 12 types and things like that. Since this house has a hip roof as the main roof, the decision could be made to make this new porch roof be a hip roof but because of the fact that the front facing projection is a gable roof that was the recommendation by staff to make the screen porch have a gable roof as well. The new roof will have asphalt shingles to match the gable in the front with the lap siding and raising the eave and soffit to match the main house. This project will also replace the battens and the screens on the screen porch. Staff's recommended motion is to approve the project as presented in the application through the use of an exception to the guidelines. Stork noted that that fascia board was going to line up with the roof line but they didn't have to do that because the whole project's an exception or because they can match the existing conditions so they could leave it where it is. Bristow confirmed they could do that but because they're changing the roof anyway it would then follow the guidelines and match. They could go in either direction with that particular detail either raising the part to match the frieze board or maintaining it where it is. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 813 Rundell Street, as presented in the application through the use of an exception to the guidelines. Thomann second. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HPC23-0050: 320 East College Street— Local Historic Landmark (signage): Bristow began the staff report nothing this is a local Historic Landmark in the Iowa City Downtown Historic District and reminded everyone the Downtown Historic District is only a National Register Historic District (not requiring review of projects) so they're reviewing this project because it's also a local landmark. The property is the Trinity Episcopal Church on the corner of College and Gilbert Streets. The church was built in the 1870s and has had several projects such as sign projects, roofing projects and there was a big project that replaced the foundation. The current project is to replace the sign, it is a modern wood sign, and the Commission doesn't have any specific guidelines about signs in the handbook. Therefore, they review signs against the Secretary of Interior standards. If this building was a downtown business, then they would review it against the Iowa City Downtown District sign guidelines but those also follow the Secretary of Interior standards. Bristow stated they will discuss not only the sign design but the material as well. There is a section of the guidelines about wood. The Guidelines would recommend substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood and that substitute material must be durable except paint and be approved by the Commission. The guidelines disallow substituting a material that does not retain the appearance, function and paintability of wood. For the Secretary of Interior Standards, the basic standards related to this project say exterior alterations shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property but the existing sign is not a historic sign. The sign will be placed in the yard near where the existing sign is so there won't be any historic materials that will be damaged. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property. Bristow stated one of the things that they would look at for a monument sign is whether or not that sign speaks to or works with the architecture and so that would satisfy standard nine. Standard 10 is adjacent new construction or related work shall be undertaken in a matter that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historical property would be unimpaired. Again, given the location and installation that would be satisfied. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14,2023 Page 3 of 12 Bristow showed the site plan for the church building noting the main historic portion and the more recent addition and the historic Parish Hall. She noted that to meet the zoning code and the sign permit application it has to be set back 30 feet on each direction from the corner and that it's a certain height. She showed an image of the proposed design for the new sign noting it'll have posts similar to the existing ones and then there will be a board that is suspended with several things that Trinity already has on their signage. The application was submitted to make the sign board itself out of HDU, which is a high-density urethane, and her research took her to at least two main web pages that talked about the fact that it's has become an industry standard for carved signs because they're not going to deteriorate in the weather, are paintable and it can be worked like wood. Bristow showed an image the applicant submitted and also a statement that this sign uses the same material that's being installed in a historic district in Washington DC right outside of National Park Service buildings. Given the research staff would agree that at least for a monument sign that the HDU material would be an appropriate material to approve. The Commission can just approve it for this project then or if interested in approving it for all signs like this as an appropriate Commission approved material they can also make a motion and vote on that. Staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project of 320 East College Street as presented in the application. Welu-Reynolds asked that on the current sign the piece painted right now looks like it's a high gloss paint. Bristow noted they are going to paint it red and so it is possible that they would use a high gloss paint. MOTION: Brown moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 320 East College Street, as presented in the application. Stork second. Welu-Reynolds asked how many applications the City gets for signs. Bristow replied about two or three a year, with monument signs it's going to be churches, maybe a random business, or the Greek houses, there's not going to be a lot of monument signs. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Request,Comment on a Proposal at 431 South Summit Street: Villanueva recused herself from this discussion. Bristow noted this house is in the Summit Street Historic District. She showed an image of the front of the house stating this house was an Italianate house originally and was remodeled in the 1930s by a local architect after a fire. It's also pretty obvious that the rear portion of this house was an addition at some point in time. She stated this type of Italianate house is noted by the front proportion and the rhythm of windows, it could have a wide eave overhang that probably would have had an internal gutter in it and it would have had brackets. Bristow showed other examples of Italianate houses, including one at 618 East Davenport is a local landmark and happens to have a Gable front roof. The house at 431 South Summit Street has a really low-pitched hip roof. The overall project is to add an addition to the back of the house and during design review of the project it became apparent that one guideline wasn't being met and it's a guideline that impacts the location of the addition. So, prior to having the architect work on any design revisions that might be HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14,2023 Page 4 of 12 needed staff wanted to come to the Commission to determine whether or not the Commission is likely to approve an exception to the guidelines to allow the project to happen. The Commission won't be making a motion or voting on this, it is really just to get a feel from the Commission to determine whether or not it it's likely to be approved one way or the other. Currently the house has a dining room and a kitchen in the rear of the house and part of the applicant's reason for wanting to put the addition behind that is because they want to keep the historic dining room as it has built-ins and a plaster cartouche in the ceiling. However, the kitchen is very small with numerous doors that make one end of the kitchen not really usable. The guidelines in question is section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint which states that unique setback guidelines exist for Summit Street and on this street the rear wall of the primary structure, the house, must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. The purpose of that restriction is it preserves the openness of rear yards and then it refers to section 8.1 of the Neighborhood District Guidelines which state on Summit Street only the rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. Unlike section 5.1, the Neighborhood District Guidelines are not written as recommendations and there is not a specific documented exception to this guideline. Bristow noted they have a few ways that exceptions happen with the guidelines, one they're documented, for example the previous case regarding the roof that basically said if there's drainage issues the Commission can decide. For this section no documented exception exists but the Commission can apply exceptions of the guidelines through an uncommon situation. The Commission has used that for instance because the guidelines actually disallow attached garages on Summit Street and they've approved an attached garage because of the fact that the lot was too small to add a garage that was not attached to the house, so an exception was made to the guidelines in that case to use an exception to the guidelines. Since the applicant knew about the situation, as part of the application they submitted some measurements from a screenshot from the Johnson County property information viewer. Bristow noted they use that viewer every day to measure from one place to another, and she noted two things: one is the shapes seen are roof outlines so if somebody has a 24-inch soffit this is showing that whole size of the roof not the walls so they do need to take that into consideration. Second, there are other things such as making sure that the beginning and ending of measurement lines aligns properly with what you are measuring. The applicant also provided distances of just the backyards which is also useful. Even so, Bristow went through and measured the entire street for accurate measurements. When going through on each property she noted two measurements, what was the eave overhang and tried to come up with how far these rear walls are from the front street. She also looked at additions and when additions were done and came up with the table that was included in the agenda packet. Bristow pointed out 304 South Summit on the corner of Burlington Street and Summit Street extends past 125 feet, but that was also a historic situation it was either the house was built that way or they added on to it basically before 1942. The house at 624 Summit Street was actually just built really far back on the lot and set back a lot further than everybody else. Overall, she found out of the 43 properties 14 did not follow that guideline. Of those, six happened before 1942, another three had some kind of addition in the 1950s to 1970s, two were reviewed by the Commission in the 1980s or 1990s and that was before they had guidelines. Finally, three of them were reviewed more recently and Bristow reviewed those. The first is 409 South Summit and they had a historic sleeping porch that somebody had added and extended out prior to the 1970s and their project was enclosing the area below it. The Commission didn't talk about that set back in regard to this project, but it did not extend further than the existing building. The second is at 519 South Summit where they had an existing addition and the project added an addition. The Commission had felt strongly that this improved the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 5 of 12 appearance of the back of this house and that it would only project four and a half feet into that 125-foot setback. The third is 330 South Summit and this was a project where it was adding on to the back of the house a one-story bedroom/bath for the owner to age in place and then she wanted a porch that matched the front porch. In this particular instance they determined that this house had the biggest lot in that area and that even after this addition they would still have twice as much open space as anyone nearby so it was approved. At this point Bristow stated staff would not recommend approving an addition that extended past the 125 feet partly because staff doesn't find an uncommon situation or a limitation to apply an exception to the guidelines, and also because they feel that there's an opportunity to put an addition on another portion of the house instead. Effectively they could take the dining room space and move it outwards, they would have to replace some of the materials in there and it would retain the exterior window on both the north and west sides and then the extra space could be added to expand the kitchen. Staff would recommend that this would at least allow an addition and better follow the guidelines. Staff requests comments from the Commission if the Commission would consider the use of an exception to the guidelines for an addition to 431 South Summit to extend past the setback limitation on Summit Street. Bristow also wanted to note the house is only one foot from that limit right now so to entirely meet the guidelines they have one foot. The City has regularly allowed properties to go to 126 so it is feasible to add something of a foot or two. Another option is would the Commission consider the use of an exception for an addition that extends past the setback limitations less than the proposed 13 feet and if so what distance could it extend. The Commission has a role here of providing comment whether they think that there's an exception that is warranted to allow them to put the addition entirely behind the house and it is a 14-foot addition so that's where the 13-foot dimension comes from. Wagner noted 138 feet back is where they would be if they approved the entire addition. He asked what the square footage is roughly of the kitchen addition. Bristow believes it would be 14x18 but with what staff would suggest it would only be slightly smaller,just off the side, not the back. Stork noted however that suggestion basically destroys the dining room. Bristow clarified the recommendation is saying put the addition on the south side of the house, however that works out. Beck would definitely consider the addition going behind the house because it does preserve the dining room. She asked how far the front of the house is from the front of the street. Bristow replied from one of the dimensions that they provided they have 54 feet and it's aligned with the house next door. Beck noted the addition would go 13 feet back and they still have quite a bit of space in the backyard before it hits their garage, it's also in the back of the house so it would not be seen from the road, it preserves the dining room, the stairs and things like that. Wagner stated this just this looks like a very modern kitchen to him and the way it juts out that two feet four inches is sort of contrary to what they usually say about an addition that it sets back in a foot well and if they're sifting in their dining room and look out the window they'll see the corner of the house. Brown stated it's set back from the main part of the house but not that kitchen area. Bristow stated they have noted that as one of the recommendations in staff review to be revised. In the mass and roof line section there is a guideline that requires that they retain the corners of the building so that one can always tell the extent of the original building, it also solves some major roof issues. She stated whether or not it is set in from that corner is not actually what they're concerned with right now. Brown stated his sense is they're being asked to think about if they would be open to an exception and his mind goes to what would be the reason for that exception and he doesn't think they have a reason right now for an exception. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 6 of 12 Sellergren agrees and would say that this is opening floodgates for no limitations on making exceptions after this because there's no necessary reason for this to happen besides wanting to have an addition. She noted they can't not make exceptions, and this is the oldest historic district in the City so if they don't draw the line here there's no line and the district guidelines are clear. Brown stated if there were a reason for the exception, such as they've talked about with other auxiliary units, and it could possibly happen but if there were some reason they could narrow the definition of what that exception is maybe but he doesn't see a reason for the exception other than their kitchen's really small and this is a better place to put it. Sellergren doesn't think they're necessarily going to need to destroy the dining room, they can save some of those pieces and build them in if they do extend to the south. She noted if they allow this anybody can come in here and cite this as a precedent and it doesn't end at that point. Thomann stated there is a precedent already through other properties. Wagner noted both of those are corner lots. Sellergren noted since she's been on the Commission this is the second major exception, they've made to the guidelines to accommodate a Commissioner's work on their home and she personally doesn't think it politically looks great. To approve a major addition like this that contradicts guidelines for a Commissioner she is personally not comfortable with that. Brown stated he thinks they do have to be flexible with the guidelines and possibly revisit this particular guideline and decide is 125 really what they want. He does think 13 feet past the 125 guideline is too far and they have to say there's no reason for an exception. Lewis noted there are other houses expanded that far and no one seems to have any concern, yes those were there before the guideline but still no one's complaining that it messes with the aesthetic of Summit Street. In addition it's on the back of the house and there's been a lot of discussion about things that happen on the back of the house that they seem to care about a little bit less than the things that happen in the front of the house. Thomann would also like to know where the 125 feet number originated from. Additionally, whether the house is owned by a Commissioner or by Joe Schmoe is not the issue, they are trying to preserve that dining room. Sellergren noted there's also something to be said for buying a home in a historic district, the oldest historic district in the town, and this is a luxury addition so to her it's very clear it's not an option unless they revisit the entire neighborhood or have to be prepared for an influx of requests like this. Stork stated this is a more unique guideline for this Commission and they don't normally see this backyard-type preservation guideline. It's not so much a structure guideline it is more of a way of life. Bristow stated she is sure the applicant believes saving the dining room is the reason for needing the exception. The 125 feet likely came from the fact that most the houses tend to be that depth and when coming up with that guideline they probably looked at what the length of general houses are and what they tend to be set back at and used some math. They likely don't have documentation about why the guidelines were set up in certain ways, but she does know that it was part of the 2004 guidelines. She noted one major project that came up since she's been here regarding how far a house projected HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 7 of 12 into the rear yard was in 2015 at 610 Ronalds Street where the house was pretty small and a developer bought it and he wanted to take it down claiming that it was structurally unsound and irretrievable, their engineer said that the typical historic construction was structurally sound but that it was irretrievable because of cat urine. As with any demolition the Commission has to look at the house but then also review the design of the replacement house. They were going to replace it with a basic gable front house that was two stories plus attic and it was aligned with the front facades but it was extending further back than all of the neighbors. This was an issue because in the neighborhoods where there is a rhythm of streets and alleys, being able to look across the backyards was part of that neighborhood and so they suggested to the owner and architect that they limit the size of the building. The project was not approved because of the length of the house extending into the rear yard and that is the just the only example she can really think of where they really were looking at what was happening in the space of the rear yards. Welu-Reynolds noted if the diagram was lined up so that they could get a better sense of how things fit in the yard comparatively it would be helpful. She had never even thought about site lines in the back yards until now. Bristow did note on the map it shows the house next to it as shorter and then two of the longer ones on either side. Site line may be less of an issue unless the neighbors really want to see 419 South Summit. Bristow noted it sounds like everyone has a lot of different opinions and they're not all saying yes absolutely nor all saying no way. Perhaps they need to just poll each Commissioner because there are costs here that will affect the applicant. It won't be as formal as a certificate of appropriateness vote just a quick statement to gauge. Wagner agrees about setting a precedent if they allow it but also doesn't like the way it's it looks, it looks like a kitchen addition slapped on the back that doesn't belong with the house. He would say go with what staff recommends as an addition with the dining room and say okay to adding five feet to the back of the house to make it all bigger. That would look better and more in line with a lot of the other homes in that area. He noted that there's this idea about the dining room and one of those two built-ins in the corners, those are from the 1930s or 1940s, but they can get oak flooring or maple flooring and put it on a diagonal to make the new dining room look like the old dining room and make the rest of the house look like it's part of the house. In his estimation this addition does not work with that house and they can still make the kitchen bigger. Stork appreciates the fact that this meets the values of the Commission to keep the original structure and it's a shame to care more about the outside than the inside. The application does seem to go along with the values it just doesn't meet this one rule and that one rule just doesn't seem to apply in a way that to him makes sense. Sellergren asked: does the kitchen have to be that large, could it be a longer, narrower kitchen and still be an efficient space. Bristow stated the guidelines are for additions are really clear and start with a paragraph that says figure out what addition will work with the exterior of the house then figure out what the interior does. One shouldn't just work out an interior design they like and then make it fit, they should always have a design that works on the exterior first. She reiterated the first question is the Commission okay with a 13 feet addition and the second question is would they be okay with anything less. Wagner would be willing to entertain an exception based on what is the average of those properties that go past the 125 feet. Go down the whole block and obtain the average, if the average over the limit extension is eight feet then as a Commission they can say they are willing to make that exception HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 8 of 12 because that's the average. He stated set back averages are a thing that they do in general in non- historic district zonings. Brown asked about creating an exception and Bristow explained they would pick from the three types of exceptions, those being a documented exception from the past, an uncommon scenario or no applicable guideline existing. The Commission can apply an exception but they have to state the reason for it. Brown is open to considering an exception of the 13 feet past the 125 feet. Beck stated she is really torn between it being a super clear rule and 125 just being such an arbitrary number. Thomann stated she doesn't feel like they're being frivolous or opening floodgates. This is a historical addition to a historical house that will have to meet all guidelines. Beck added because the fact that there is an older neighbor who got to do it because it was before 1950 makes it feel okay. Stork stated if the guidelines are there to give everybody this nice, wonderful backyard he looks at the size of this house and that lot and is not sure that's restricting the rear yard on this house. Lewis asked does it actually preserve the openness of a rear yard, and who decides that. Sellergren asked if the architect was aware of the guidelines and was this misjudged. She acknowledges one of her hesitations is always not to make them spend more money or do more work but maybe more work needs to be done in this case. Bristow stated the architect measured from the property line instead and not the way it says from front street. Sellergren would like to see an alternative design but is open to the possibility of an exception. Brown is open to an exception, just not to the 13 feet because he doesn't see a justification for the 13 feet. Sellergren wants an alternative design, Stork is open to an exception, Welu-Reynolds is open to an exception, Wagner is open and basing it on an average of those properties that are over the 125 feet. Beck is open to an exception to line up with a pre-1945 immediate neighbor. Lewis is open to an exception, Thomann is not, but likes Wagner's idea to find a way to provide a limitation. She noted there has to be a reason for preserving the dining room but that's interior uncommon it's got to be something uncommon for the exterior. She doesn't feel this is setting a precedent because they review every house individually. Brown noted the homeowner has to present a reason for the exception correct and the Commission is to figure out which of the three exceptions the reason fits in and then vote on whether they approve that reason for the exception. David Villanueva (431 South Summit Street) stated in retrospect upon making the application he notes he failed to fully describe the full intent behind how they arrived at the design. The overall layout of the current house has a very small kitchen, it's seven feet by eight feet, so functionally that's New York City standards and not Midwest. He stated that's probably why when they first bought the home it had been on the market for six months because not many people want to live with that small of a kitchen. When they initially took a look at redoing the kitchen in terms of cost, they didn't want to build walls or have to move out, and they wanted to try and keep the charm of the house without impacting as much of the design as possible. They did look at just maybe tearing down some walls and trying to reconfigure things but ran into issues. Part of the reason why just simply bumping out that southern dining room wall, which seems like it's eight feet however they have take into account the fact they would still have to set it back from that southern den wall by the eave height, which is at least probably six inches maybe more, maybe less, and therefore ending up at about seven feet of space which they could potentially work with but one of the things they tried to address in the design is functionally. The kitchen is half that size and they cannot touch the staircase, at least not without unlimited funds, as well HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 9 of 12 as the rear entryway to the house. The current kitchen layout is not only too small but has a bottleneck that creates barriers to open many things and it's also the primary pathway to two of the main places in the house. Villanueva noted when they tried to address the staircase the first issue is leading into the basement it's a 24-inch-wide space with 67 inches of headroom and it's an old basement and not going to have modern tread heights. So part of the redesign tried to incorporate a reworking of that basement entry and to try to funnel the rear entryway away from that choke point and try to create a little bit more open space in the kitchen. When they tried to incorporate all those things into the current space it was simply impossible, then when they tried to just bump out a couple feet one way or the other there was a concern to minimize disturbing the overall feel as one of the goals originally had been to minimize disturbance to the dining room because it is so beautiful and to bump out a couple of feet would have to completely eliminate that dining room or at least move it and the built-ins and things like that and they would still be very limited in the actual functional space they would gain. That is why their architect ended up deciding trying to extend in the rear. He acknowledges they all accept this design could use some work and it wasn't meant to be the final design. A problem they run into is they do have one of the narrow lots on the street and have 60 feet total. The house is limited in terms of extending north and they can't extend south so they're really left with no space to work with other than extending in the rear yard. They wanted to bring this to the Commission because they did review guidelines and the reason they included the average rear setbacks is to show they believe that they would not be violating the inherent nature or intent of what the guidelines were meant to preserve which is a spacious rear yard. By his very rough calculations approximately 134 feet is the average on Summit Street including all the houses on the western side of Summit Street (which is where their house is). The average rear yards on the eastern side of Summit Street tend to be much less. Villaneuva stated they believe 13 feet will still maintain a pretty spacious yard. The biggest reason they wanted to bring this to the Commission is to find out if this would be a project worth pursuing, without some rear set back modifications, the quantity of which they would leave up to the Commission and work with the architect to see if there's something they could do that would also incorporate maybe the southern side as well. However, if they are not allowed to violate that that rear setback at all they would have to put in a ton of work and the kitchen probably still wouldn't function nor would it be a project worth pursuing. His bigger sadness is ultimately this house by any modern standards does not function to what most people would want or expect on Summit Street. Most of the houses on Summit Street that have those amenities sell really quickly and the fact that their house took six months to sell shows that. Villaneuva wants to make this a home that people see as worth preserving not only today but for generations to come but if they don't make this house worth living in for families today then he worries what it would do for the future because they are very limited and he doesn't see those limitations necessarily changing anytime soon. Welu-Reynolds asked if they weren't able to redo the kitchen are they thinking they'll move. Villaneuva stated they don't have kids currently but if they did it would be impossible. Of course the past generations obviously did it but he doesn't believe they would want to. Beck noted these houses on South Summit and Brown Street and other historic neighborhoods shouldn't just be for somebody who has a wheelbarrow full of money in the sense of having to be so wealthy to afford these places to preserve them. Allowing this keeps a family in this house who wants to stay in this house, there is a big picture to historic preservation about getting people to raise their kids in these neighborhoods. She is not saying to willy-nilly allow anything but that's not what's happening here, they have an architect and people who are invested in this neighborhood, whether the owner is on the Commission or not has nothing to do with it, this is exactly who they want to see buying these houses and living in these neighborhoods and she thinks they have some justification for looking at a 13, 12, 14 or whatever addition on the back of this house because they do have the other two properties on each side, one's 145 and one's 137 so that's a 141 average and this is going to be 138 so she is totally open to an exception because this is exactly what the future is going to look like as they HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 10 of 12 need people to fix up these old houses and yet they shouldn't have to be so wealthy that they'll never be able to afford a house on this street, especially potentially young families. Sellergren stated she would still like to see another design. Villaneuva stated he doesn't think they'd be able to see another design if there was an ultimate consensus that there's no give on the rear set back because it's not worth doing another design. He thinks what they're hearing is that there may be potentially some give and with that in mind they could potentially approach the architect again and say what is the best, most concise plan, but again that's why they wanted to approach the Commission regarding the setback because without an understanding of where they stand further steps may or may not be worthwhile. The Commissioners agreed they are all open to an exception and Villanueva stated he has enough information to help them move forward. (Wagner left the meeting) REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Due to time and length of meeting, these items were not discussed. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 10. 2023: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 10, 2023, meeting, as written. Beck seconded the motion.The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Wagner was not present). COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Bristow gave an update on the Historic Preservation Awards. She will be assigning people who are going to present and also working on writing the scripts. Commissioners have been helping with the writing. The ceremony is Thursday September 28th at the Highlander, there will be cookies and juice at 5:00 with the presentation at 5:30. There will be a cash bar open right outside the area for milling around and drinking afterwards. {Brown left the meeting) Bristow stated regarding the Planning and Zoning items she didn't pull any slides together and also have not entirely read the memo but if there are questions, she can get answers or they can ask the questions directly to the senior planners Anne Russett, Parker Walsh and Kirk Lehmann, they're all interested in answering any questions. The memo talked about where they are in the process of the ability to have accessory dwelling units more widely and they are having an open house to discuss that. Sharon DeGraw(Iowa City) stated she is a former Commissioner and member of the North Side Neighborhood and the Friends of Historic Preservation and one of the things that is of great concern to them is a proposal for neighborhood stabilization for the RNS-12 zone and it deals with infill development of single-family homes and duplexes. What they're asking for is for the height of those new structures to have a 27 feet tall height limit. She stated it's good to take into consideration the way that height is measured, 27 feet should sound not tall enough, but they measure from eaves to the apex and divide that height in half. Walking around the North Side neighborhood one may see houses that HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14,2023 Page 11 of 12 look taller than 27 feet but it is really the first story, second story and then half of what that full top level is. DeGraw stated they walked around and measured every house in the North Side Neighborhood and could not find any structures that were single-family homes or duplexes that exceeded 27 feet. So, the conversation might be okay when talking about the North Side neighborhood but what about the other areas that have RNS-12. DeGraw stated they are starting to make contact with people in the College Hill area and the long-term residents that they've spoken to like the idea because it's all for neighborhood stabilization because a developer could come in and build something new in a non- historic district and currently have the ability to go up to 35 feet, and might be able to go a little taller than that perhaps in some of neighborhoods. A developer could remove a small cottage say and go up to 35 feet tall and do significantly bumping out in the back in neighborhoods where there are more modest structures and so some of the long-term residents and even newer residents who bought into a certain kind of neighborhood are realizing that there could be major redevelopment. 27 feet will not prevent redevelopment it just scales down what can be done when there is an RNS-12 lot that is right against a historic or conservation district. In terms of redevelopment it would be nice for a new structure to be similar to the neighboring homes and have the same proportions of height, density or scale and mass. She acknowledged there's sometimes the viewpoint that it's your land and it's legal to build what you want so they are thinking of how they can mitigate situations where things would be built out of scale and height. Sellergren asked does historic preservation has oversight over what can be built in many of these neighborhoods. Bristow stated yes, but there could be a property that's right next door where the boundary is. Sellergren noted then modifying the Planning and Zoning proposal would be to protect those situations. Bristow acknowledged there was a case where a house was built or proposed right next to a district and that house was tall and so the neighborhood came back with the idea of reducing the 35-foot maximum that currently exists to a 27 foot. DeGraw stated in that situation the design proposed was ultimately turned down through the Board of Adjustment because it had a three-car garage on the ground floor level, no basement and the living quarters were on the first floor and the second floor causing it to get so tall compared to other single- family home buildings. She noted for the bulk of the zoning code amendments that would be made people that are living in the close-in neighborhoods, some of them are historic neighborhoods, are liking the idea if Council could suggest pull out the University Impact area for now if they want to go forward in passing the zoning code changes because there are so many variables that have to deal with development and intensity of wanting to build up those close-in neighborhoods that it could transform neighborhood stabilization. Bristow stated any further questions or concerns can be directed to the Planning and Zoning staff. ADJOURNMENT: Thomann moved to adjourn the meeting. Weu-Reynolds seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Brown and Wagner absent). The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 TERM 9/8 10/13 11110 1/12 219 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 NAME EXP. BECK, 6130/24 X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X MARGARET BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X 0/E X X -- BROWN, 6/30/23 X X X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X CARL LARSON, 6130/24 O/E O -- -- - — -- KEVIN SELLERGREN, 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X X JORDAN STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X THOMANN, 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X DEANNA VILLANUEVA, 6/30/25 O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/23 O/E X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X FRANK WELD- 6/30125 X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA LEWIS, ANDREW X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member