Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-26 Info Packet rrr®jMc City Council Information Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY December 26, 2024 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Miscellaneous IP2. Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Operator - Wastewater IP3. Civil Service Examination: Senior Maintenance Worker - Wastewater Collection Draft Minutes IP4. Historic Preservation Commission: December 12 December 26, 2024 City of Iowa City Item Number: IP1. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 26, 2024 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Attachments: Council Tentative Meeting Schedule j , City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Subject to change CI F IQWA CITY December 26,2024 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday,Janaury 7,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Monday,January 13,2025 8:00 AM Budget Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 410 E.Washington Street Monday,January 13,2025 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting TBD Hosted by Johnson County Brd of Supervisors Tuesday,January 21,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Wednesday,January 22,2025 2:00 PM Budget Work Session(CIP) City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,February 4,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,February 18,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,March 11,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,April 1,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,April 15,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,May 6,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,May 20,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,June 3,2025 4:00 PM Work session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,June 17,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,July 8,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,August 5,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,August 19,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,September 2,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,September 16,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,October 7,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,October 21,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Monday,November 3,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,November 18,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Tuesday,December 9,2025 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J.Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Item Number: IP2. r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY a � COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 26, 2024 Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Operator - Wastewater Attachments: Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Operator - Wastewater CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org December 19, 2024 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Operator—Wastewater Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Operator—Wastewater. Aodan Seaghan Brown Iowa City Civil Service Commission Rick Wyss, Chair Item Number: IP3. r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY a � COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 26, 2024 Civil Service Examination: Senior Maintenance Worker - Wastewater Collection Attachments: Civil Service Examination: Senior Maintenance Worker - Wastewater Collection � 'PM CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1 826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org December 19, 2024 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Senior Maintenance Worker — Wastewater Collection Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Senior Maintenance Worker—Wastewater Collection. John Wombacher Iowa City Civil Service Commission Rick Wy9s, Chair Item Number: IP4. r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY a � COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 26, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission: December 12 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: December 12 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2024 —5:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner, Christina Welu-Reynolds, MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Russell STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC24-0048: 621 North Johnson Street- Brown Street Historic District(alterations to garage windows and doors): Bristow began the staff report stating this house is likely a catalog home. It has a couple siding patterns with a narrow lap siding with corner boards and also a staggered shingle with mitered corners, battered columns. The house is very intact and considered a key contributing property in the historic district. It also has a small historic garage, and some small changes to the garage are the project that's under review today. Bristow shared the site plan of the garage here noting it's located almost on the property line. Staff has been working with this property owner off and on for almost a year on various possibilities for using the space for living space. She next shared some photos of the garage noting the original swinging hinged doors on the north side and the one small window, which can be seen from Ronalds Street, there are no windows on the back and then on the south side, looking into the yard, there is just one small window. The plan is to make the garage into one large space with a laundry with a sink, and a bath with a toilet and a tub. They do plan for a mini split for some conditioning of the air and will likely, eventually put in some type of on demand water heater. Bristow stated she worked with the applicants and went through a few options. First the mini split was originally on the back but by code it has to be two feet from the property line so they're moving it around the corner to the south side. Regarding the windows there were a few options, if they wanted to retain the current type of window and not actually replace those windows, because they're not beyond repair and in pretty good condition, they would just add an additional window on the south side and a passage door. They also want to add some windows to the historic garage doors. And then the plan is to make the original windows operable and add a hinge and the ability to hold them open. At one point, they talked about skylights but that is not in the current plan. Bristow shared one of the windows, she had mentioned there is a possibility of making it either an awning or a hopper window by adding a hinge and she noted the trim is the stop for the window on the outside so the hinge and any adjustment to the stop will have to happen on the inside and for the windows to operate they will open inwards. Bristow still HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 12, 2024 Page 2 of 8 needs to discuss the new window operations with the applicant if they'll want the additional window to operate the same way as the original ones. Regarding adding windows to the two garage doors, the applicant submitted a few images of local garages as examples that have similar windows and staff does agree that a certain window configuration would definitely be possible. Bristow is unsure exactly how they will add the windows, so she did mention to them that they'd probably have to remove some of the bead board, keep the frame of the door, which is the entire structure of the door, and use the frame as the exterior stop. They'll then add some interior stop to hold the glass in place and mutton bars. It would also be possible to put in an insulated glass unit if they wanted to but the door itself isn't insulated. The passage door the applicant is proposing is a pressed steel door and staff finds that a steel door does not meet the requirements for a wood replacement in the guidelines. Steel doors are not paintable in the same way and they do tend to dent and rust. So typically either a wood door or a fiberglass door would be approved which the applicant did agree to, and since this house has craftsman details staff would find it acceptable to have a fiberglass version with two panels and a small divided window as typically seen on a garage or a Craftsman Style to match the house. Bristow stated because they also want to put laundry in this space, the dryer will need a vent by code, so there will be a small dryer vent hole that's put in the side of the garage. Additionally, they will probably install a water heater, she's assuming it might be a gas water heater, which also would have a vent and need some type of small opening on the side of the garage. It would be acceptable to have the vents on any side except for the front. The guidelines that relate to this project include retaining the historic garage doors, which the applicant voluntarily wanted to do and never proposed to replace, adding new door openings that are trimmed to match the others so that new door and new window will match the trim on the other windows. Bristow shared the guideline about substituting a material in place for wood, durable, accept paint and be approved by HPC and that a steel door is not approved. Regarding windows, preserving the historic windows, which they do propose to do, adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, etc., of the existing windows, adding new windows in a location that matches the window pattern already on the garage, and the windows on out buildings should be relatively small and rectangular or square. Bristow stated the recommended motion for this project is to approve the project with the condition that that the passage door is constructed of wood or fiberglass and that all windows and glazing complies with the guidelines so that they could work through the window alterations with the applicant. MOTION: Lewis moves approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 621 North Johnson Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1. The door is constructed of wood or fiberglass 2. All windows and glazing complies with the guidelines. Brown seconded the motion. Thomann stated she likes that this garage is being used in this way, they talk and hear about how more housing is needed in the City and this is a nice way to incorporate it within an old neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0. HPC24-0117: 518 North Van Buren Street-Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (chimney demolition): Bristow stated this house is located in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District and just across the alley is the Northside Historic District. The house has been highly modified and is HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 12, 2024 Page 3 of 8 considered noncontributing but looking into this house she did find some interesting facts. The survey stated it was built in or around the 1880s but it is not shown on the fire insurance maps until 1926. Bristow believes it was moved to this site between 1921 and 1926. The house is basically a Queen Anne cross gabled house with scroll brackets at the corners. There is crown molding and a band board separating the second floor from the attic. There is also an interesting belt course below the windowsill for the second floor, and that's shingled and tapered. On the south side there is a projecting bay, called a canted bay meaning the corners are cut off and there are scroll brackets that support the upper floor, which is not canted. These are Queen Anne details. On the back side is another little inset porch with columns also bracketed. Likely after it was moved, someone added a large masonry porch to the front of the house. It may have been considered a modernization with Craftsman details. At some point, someone decided to enclosed a portion of the porch and also added living space to the basement with egress windows on the front of the enclosed portion. There is also access to an upper floor apartment that goes across the front porch roof and up the side, and another basement entry on the north side.. The subject of this project is a chimney. They've had some leaks in the roof so they had someone go up and they were able to repair the larger chimney on the house by adding some flashing. While they were up there they determined that the subject chimney was not stable and they needed to take it down so currently there is just a stove pipe. The guidelines talk about the fact that historic chimneys should be preserved, typically repairing and capping unused chimneys in a matter that prevents vermin from entering but allows air circulation. The guidelines do not recommend new chimney pipes to just penetrate the roof and typically require that they construct a faux chimney with framing and thin bricks to obscure metal chimney pipes. They have to make sure there's enough support underneath, but using thin bricks and some mortar can approximate the look of a traditional chimney, especially when it's far away. It is disallowed to remove prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character the building. In staffs opinion, if this was not a used chimney and there were no pipes involved, they would recommend approval to demolish it as it's on the back, and it wasn't architecturally significant. Because this house already has had some alterations, staff is recommending that they shorten the pipe to what code requires, which is two feet and straighten it. If the Commission wants to be flexible or lenient for this particular project that could be approved. However, they have also not approved leaving a bare chimney pipe like that so far. It is the Commission's role to decide. Bristow wanted to point out a few other alterations to this house. Originally the rear facing wing had extended and matched but then it has been built out to the south with a dormer above. Several entrances were added. Looking at the rear of the house, because of the fact that the chimney was there, it likely never had a window in that location but since there's now likely an apartment up here they've added a window at some point. She also discovered in the survey where they mentioned that at one point there was a basement garage, likely that came off the alley under the back part of the front porch and that would have been done when the house was moved to this location. Bristow reiterated that the current project is the removal of the chimney which is already complete. She doesn't know if they removed it below the roof or if there's anything in the attic to support it being rebuilt, so the Commission could either approve it as recommend by shortening it or they could also approve it stating they need to frame it out and use thin bricks as if it was a new chimney pipe that was penetrating the roof. Villanueva asked how this project came to the City. Bristow explained this is one of those situations where a neighbor reported that the chimney had been removed so the City sent an inspector out and the inspector let them know they needed to apply for a demolition permit. Then because an historic review is needed for a demolition permit this is being brought before the Commission. Bristow noted it is a rental property and she's been in conversation with the owner, or the person in HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 12, 2024 Page 4 of 8 charge, maybe a property manager, and feels they would agree to shortening it. She did however let them know that it's possible that the Commission could require that they rebuild it and make a false chimney. Brown asked if the owners had come to the City with the picture of the chimney in the state that it had been in before they demolished it what would the recommended approach have been. Bristow stated they would have recommended repairing the chimney. She looked back and there have been numerous violations of the chimney being in disrepair over the last three decades and she is assuming it has just never had been repaired completely after the derecho and/or other related storms. Brown asked in the demolition recommendations how do they determine if this is a historic architectural feature chimney or a non-historic architectural feature chimney. Bristow stated her recommendation is that this is not a significant architectural feature because it's utilitarian and not decorative. Also what remains is on the back and like many Queen Anne houses this house has a larger and more decorative chimney and while neither of the chimneys are readily visible from the street the larger one is more decorative. So if this smaller chimney was not being used, she would have recommend approving its demolition. Brown asked for a house that has multiple chimneys on it, there's sometimes a secondary one and it can be not architecturally significant but if a house only has one chimney, regardless of how decorative it is, is that chimney almost by definition is architecturally significant. Bristow explained the Commission has approved removal of the only chimney on a house before and in some cases those were the only chimney on the building. It is a case of looking at each individual house and its chimney separately. Beck asked if it matters that the house is noncontributing, does that factor into the discussion. Bristow stated it can, there is not a specific guideline that would allow an exception to the guidelines for a noncontributing property in these two sections. Thomann is curious about the pipe height and that it is not at a height that the code would approve at this point. Is that the code for the City or just for historic situations. Bristow explained the building code states the requirements for chimneys, and it can be a complicated, but basically where there's not another roof that's within 20 feet a chimney needs to project out of the roof two feet, it can't be shorter than that but it can be taller. She is assuming that at one point this chimney was taller but now they've lost those bricks. Lewis asked about the lost bricks. Bristow explained they've either fallen on the ground or fallen inside Bristow stated the staff recommendation allows them to leave the brick off, straighten the pipe, but shorten it and patch the roof to match. The Commission can make this motion or they can make a different motion. MOTION: Wagner moves approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 518 North Van Buren Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1. The existing chimney pipe is straightened and shortened to a code-required height(2 feet) 2. The roof is patched to match the existing roof. Villanueva seconded the motion. Sellergren stated she would prefer to just go with the motion, given the condition of the house she doesn't think there's a whole lot of point in preserving what's not there. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 12, 2024 Page 5 of 8 Lewis noted they've had people do this before, demolish things without getting approval and in this instance they would have likely had them repair so he doesn't think it's out of line to say build the chimney back up. Brown agrees and states he struggles often in these things, people do things and then once it's done the Commission just approves it, he's not a fan of that. There was a porch recently they talked about a whole bunch where that's what they did, they put a new porch in and didn't do it in any of the ways they were supposed to and the Commission made them rebuild it the way they were supposed to. In this situation it's compromised halfway so should they allow them to go ahead and cut the pipe down because they went all the way over and demolished it without asking first. Sellergren thinks that would stand more with her if the house weren't so heavily modified prior to guidelines being in place and it's so unlikely that the house would ever be brought back to the Queen Anne it once was. Welu-Reynolds agrees and feels they are at this stage because of that, what's already happened with the house and she doesn't want to be punitive, this is a compromise that she feels comfortable with given the house. To lower the height of the pipe will look good, it's also on the back of the house and not going to be seen from the street. Sellergren stated it's not ideal, but neither is the house in general, they have homes that really should be preserved because they're in good shape, or something close to good shape, and there's potential for them. This is not that situation, there's so much going on, and they need to pick their battles because they want the residents of Iowa City and property owners to be on their side. Lewis stated there are times they need to compromise, but maybe in this case the compromise would be shorten the pipe, but then build the chimney up to that level. He noted parts of this house are so far gone so what are they preserving at this point, but then what stops someone else from going in and just saying they are going to change what they want and then the house is beyond the point of historicity, Sellergren noted the example of the front porch was that house was intact beyond that porch replacement so such a different situation. Burford stated the point of shortening that the chimney is just aesthetic, it's not a working chimney. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-2 (Brown and Lewis dissenting). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect-Chair and Staff review: HPC24-0112: 1033 Woodlawn Avenue- Woodlawn Historic District (internal gutter, trim,and porch repair): Bristow explained this house is having some work done on the porch. There is an addition on this house and so some of the porch had been replaced in the past. The columns used to have nice, normal weep holes and they've been blocked out also the floor is rotting out. There's an internal gutter that has had some issues and the contractor is going to just repair it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 12, 2024 Page 6 of 8 HPC24-0113: 425 Oakland Avenue- Longfellow Historic District (brick step reconstruction and dryer vent installation): This house on Oakland Avenue has had a couple different projects: the Commission approved a rear egress window and window well on this house and they added a basement laundry. There is an old coal chute on the side and they had proposed to make a hole in the metal coal chute and put the dryer vent on it. Staff was concerned for multiple reasons and stated they need to make a hole in the brick wall on the back. So, on the opposite side of the sunroom they'll put a little hole in the wall, they changed around their basement floor plan so that was acceptable. Additionally, the brick steps had been covered with carpet and were totally deteriorating. Bristow met the mason at the house and he thought he was going to need to only take down some of the side walls and be able to put them back up. The surface is going to be brick and the stairs will be too. She gave them the option to use concrete but they decided they wanted to do brick. Minor Review -Staff review: HPC24-0115: 602 Dearborn Street- Dearborn Street Conservation District (new deck): Bristow stated last year the Commission approved an addition on the back of this house and they originally just had a little stoop and step but decided they wanted to do a deck. It will mostly be at grade but might still have a railing. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2024: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's November 14, 2024 meeting. Lewis seconded the motion.The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Election of Officers: Wagner nominates Jordan Sellergren for vice chair and Andrew Lewis for chair. Welu-Reynolds seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0. Awards Update: Bristow noted in the past, when they had the Historic Preservation Awards they brought them to the Commission for approval and then staff send out the notifications. Then a year or so ago the Commission voted that they didn't need to be approved by the Commission but they still want to show the awardees at this meeting. Bristow noted they don't currently have an application for the January meeting, but it doesn't mean they won't have a meeting. Bristow noted they do need to discuss the Commission's work plan so perhaps they could do that at the January meeting since they will do the annual report in February. She noted she will be out of town beginning the December 24—January 6. Bristow reminded the Commission the Historic Preservation Awards is February 27 at the library. They have gathered most of the information and the next thing is to figure out who's writing things and who's presenting things. Bristow noted the United States of America has a 250th anniversary that's coming up in 2026 and across the nation, and across the state, communities are doing official things to celebrate that. She isn't aware if the Iowa City community has already started working on this or has thoughts but there are some communities that have started working on it and it's just the kind of thing that presumably this Commission would be somehow involved in some way. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 12, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Bristow then reviewed the Historic Preservation Awards nominations with the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Lewis moved to adjourn the meeting. Wagner seconded.The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024 TERM 1/11 2/8 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 NAME EXP. BECK, 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X MARGARET BROWN, 6/30/26 O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X CARL BURFORD, 6/30/27 -- -- --- --- --- --- X X X X X X KEVIN LEWIS, I6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X ANDREW RUSSELL, 6/30/27 --- --- --- -- --- -- X X O/E X O/E RYAN SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X JORDAN STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 O/E X X X X X --- --- -- --- --- -- THOMANN, 16/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X DEANNA VILLANUEVA,NICOLE 16/30/25 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X WAGNER, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X FRANK WELD- 6/30/25 X X X O/E X O/E X X X O/E X X REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA I KEY: X = Present O =Absent O/E=Absent/Excused --- = Not a member