The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-10-2007 Board of Adjustment ~,~.- CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VVednesday,January 10, 2007 5:00 P.M. Emma J. Harvat Hall 5T AFF REPORT CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Planning & Community Development AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Election of Officers D. Consider the December 13, 2006 Minutes E. Special Exception: 1. EXC06-00020 Discussion of an application submitted by Bethel A.M.E. Church for a special exception to allow the expansion of a religious institution in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 411 S. Governor Street. As part of the special exception, the Church is requesting a Historic Preservation Exception to allow a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces, reduction of all required setbacks for churches located in the RNS-12 zone and to allow a waiver from the maximum building coverage. 2. APL06-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. F. Other: G. Board of Adjustment Information H. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -February 14, 2007 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DECEMBER 13th, 2006 - 5:00 PM EMMA J HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY/CITY HALL PRELIMINARY CALL TO ORDER: Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright, Carol Alexander MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Leigh STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: John Beasley RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after seDarate Council action): None CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 16 and NOVEMBER 27.2006 MINUTES Wright said that on page 15 of the November 16th minutes, one variance was written as VAR05-0001 instead of V AR06-00001. MOTION: Wood moved to approve the November 16 and November 27, 2006 minutes as submitted. Alexander seconded the motion. The motion was approved: 5:0 APPEALS APL06-0004 Discussion of an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. Walz noted the correspondence from the office of John Beasley, which was provided to the Board of Adjustment and stated Mr. Roffman's request for a rehearing regarding the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission's denial of Mr. Roffman's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Alexander read the correspondence from Mr. Beasley out loud. Holocek noted the 2:2 vote from the November 16th Board of Adjustment meeting. Holecek said that those members of the Board who made the "No" vote may make the motion to reconsider the appeal. Holocek said that anyone on the Board may second the motion. Wood asked for clarification. Wood asked why Mr. Roffman's appeal proceeded if the applicant knew that the full Board of Adjustment wouldn't be there. Walz said that applicant did not know this. Walz said that while the Board knew that the full Board would not be present, the applicant did not know. MOTION: Wright moved that APL06-0004, discussion of an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue, be approved. Wood seconded the motion. The motion was passed: 4:0 Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 Page 2 OTHER Alexander asked about the new member of the Board of Adjustments. Walz informed the Board that the new members name is Edgar Thornton. Walz said that she has spoken with him on the phone but she has not met him person. Alexander asked if Thornton would be attending the January 10th Board meeting. Walz said yes. Shelangouski asked if there will there be new evidence regarding Roffman's appeal at the January 10th meeting. Holecek said that it is a new hearing so there can be new evidence. Beasley requested minutes be provided to Thornton before the next Board meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Meeting is adjourned at 5: 15 pm s/pcd/minutes/boa/2006/12-13-2006.doc ..... C:"C CD ... E 0 ..... 0 U) CD ::sO::: '- CD "CCDO <cOO c: ....CUN O"C "CC: ... CD CU= ~<C M ~ ...... >< >< >< >< -... M 0 ...... f'. ~ r::! >< >< >< >< ...... 0 ...... 1.0 ~ ...... >< >< >< >< -... ...... 0 ...... -q- ~ 0 >< >< >< >< -... 0 0 ...... M ...... >< >< >< >< >< - 0'\ 0 0'\ ~ 0 >< >< >< >< - 00 0 0 M ~ ...... >< >< >< >< -... f'. 0 0 -q- ~ ...... >< >< >< >< -... 1.0 0 0 0 ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... lrl 0 M ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... -q- 0 00 ~ ~ >< >< >< >< M 0 0 00 0 >< >< >< >< >< -... M 0 ...... ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... ...... 0 CI'J f'. 00 0'\ 0 ...... E.~ ~ ~ 0 ...... ...... -... -... -... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... V ~ 0 0 0 0 0 -... -... -... -... -... t-<~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 0 0 0 .. .... :.; ~ "0 fJJ ~ = = ~ .... = ~ .. ~ ~ "0 ~ .... = ~ ~ = ...-:l < - = ~ ~ - ~ ~ V = - ~ .c ~ ~ = .c 00 .. .. CJ "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ u z "'Cl V CI'J :i OJ) ~ ::: ~.~ ::: V ddV::;S ~v15o ~15<z ~< II II ~ II II ~::;s ~><ooz STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC06-00020 411 S. Governor St. Bethel AME Church GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: January 10, 2006 Bethel A.M. E. Church 411 S. Governor St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-7876 Melvin O. Shaw, Trustee 4715 White Oak Ave., SE Iowa City, IA 52240 319-430-3434 Special Exception for the expansion of a religious/private group assembly use in the RNS-12 zone and a special exception for modifications to certain dimensional and site development standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. To allow expansion of the Church building. 411 S. Governor Street 39.83 x 149.92 feet Religious/private group assembly; Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) Residential; (RNS-12) Specific criteria for religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 zone (14-4B-4D-14); specific requirements for adjustments to principle setback requirements 14- 2A-4B-5b; Purpose of the minimum setback requirements 14-2A-4B-1; Dimensional Requirements in the RNS-12 zone, 14-2A-2; Minimum parking requirements, 14-5A-4B; 2 File Date: Historic preservation exception for dimensional standards, 14-2A-7B-1; Historic Conservation District Overlay, 14-3B-2; Multi-family site development standards, 14-2B-6. October 12, 2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Bethel AME Church would like to build an addition to its existing church located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) Zone at 411 S. Governor Street to accommodate future growth of its congregation. The existing church building measures a little more than 20 feet wide and 30 feet deep. The proposed addition measures 29 feet wide and would increase the depth of the church by 70 feet. The addition will increase the occupancy load of the sanctuary from its current capacity of 40 to approximately 100 persons. In addition to the main sanctuary the applicant is also proposing to construct a lower level social hall and kitchen which will accommodate at least 80 occupants. A special exception is required to establish or expand a Religious/Private Group Assembly Use in the RNS-12 Zone. The Bethel AME Church is one of Iowa City's significant historic buildings and its only historic black church. Built in the later part of the 1860s, the existing church building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. A modest one-story, simple gabled structure with little exterior ornamentation, the building has had no substantial alteration in more than 50 years. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) Zone1 and is also within the Lucas- Governor Historic Conservation District Overlay2. The existing church is a legally nonconforming structure located on a legally nonconforming lot. Since the church was built prior to the adoption of zoning laws and has not been expanded or changed use since it was built, it has never been subject to review for a special exception and has been allowed to continue as a legally nonconforming situation. The existing nonconformities are as follows: . The existing building does not meet the front or side setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in the RNS-12 zone; . It does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirements; . The lot on which the property is established does not meet the minimum lot width standards in the code. Because of these non conformities and the fact that the requested addition increases or extends the nonconformities, the expansion would not normally be allowed. However, the zoning code contains provisions that allow flexibility in application of the dimensional and site development standards in order to protect significant historic properties. The applicable provision is Historic Preservation Exception per paragraph 14-2A-7B-1 (page 20) of the code, which states: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City I The Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12) is described in Section 14-2A-1 E (page 5):. 2 The Conservation District Overlay is described in Section 14-3B-2 (page 128-129) 3 Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in 14-48, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. As a condition of the Historic Preservation Exception, the applicant has applied for and been granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design of the addition by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. However, letters subsequently received from the State Historic Society of Iowa (SHSI), a State agency charged to oversee the protection of all properties listed on National Register of Historical Places within the State of Iowa, indicate that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission decision to grant this certificate was made in error and is in conflict with standards which should apply to the expansion of a historic property. ANAL YSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant a special exception to allow establishment or expansion of a religious/private group assembly use in the RNS-12 only if the application meets all of the specific criteria listed in Section 14-4B-4D-14 (page 199) as well as all of the general criteria in 14-4B, which apply to all special exceptions. Due to the very narrow configuration of the lot and the existing nonconformities it is impossible for any addition to meet all of the setback requirements and it is also impossible to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements. In addition, the expanded church, as proposed, exceeds the maximum building coverage allowed in the zone-an adjustment for which the Code does not explicitly provide a special exception. Therefore the applicant is requesting a waiver or modification of the setback requirements, the maximum building coverage, and the parking requirements through the Historic Preservation Exception described in 14-2A-7B-1 (page 20). The proposed expansion of the historic Bethel AME Church at 411 S. Governor Street poses a very difficult set of questions with a complicated list of competing goals and regulations. What the Board is being asked to balance in this case is the strong desire to preserve a significant historic structure and its historic use with the interests of the surrounding residential neighborhood, which are expressed through both the zoning requirements and the descriptions provided for the RNS- 12 zone and the historic conservation overlay provided in the code. The proposed expansion must be reviewed in the context of its current non-conforming status with regard to setbacks and parking and the underlying intent of the specific and general approval criteria for the special exception. While the applicant has applied for and been granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design of the addition by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, City Staff has received two letters from the State Historical Society of Iowa (SHSI) that raise concerns about the National Register status of the church should the addition and other modifications to the original church structure be constructed as proposed (see attached letters). Barbara A. Mitchell, the architectural historian for the Iowa Historic Preservation Office, indicates that the HPC did not condition the COA on the placement or size of the addition and thus the proposed design of the expansion is not in keeping with the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for 4 Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Ms. Mitchell notes that the proposed size and placement of the addition may affect the historic and architectural integrity of the property and has offered the assistance of the preservation architect in her office to come up with a more appropriate addition. A subsequent letter submitted by Jack Porter, the Preservation Architect for SHSI, lays out the issues of concern for the historic status of the property and potential solutions that would create an addition that better complies with the historic standards. Both letters are attached for your review. The staff report of the City's historic preservation planner, Sunil Terdalkar, which raises concerns similar to those of the SHSI is also attached. Because the intent of section 14-2A-7B-1, the Historic PreseNation Exception, is to allow flexibility in applying the zoning code in order to help preserve historic structures, and the information submitted by the SHSI calls into question the affect of the proposed addition on the historic status of the exiting building, it does not appear that the application as submitted complies with the requirements of section 14-2A-7B-1. Beyond the historic preservation concerns, if a proposed use or the expansion of an existing use cannot meet the dimensional requirements provided in the code, or if the proposed use or expansion is in conflict with other specific criteria required in the Code, both staff and the Board must seriously consider whether the proposal is appropriate at the location or whether to modify the requirements of the Code in balance with the surrounding residential neighborhood. In other words, the limitations imposed by a site or lot-its size or configuration-do not in themselves constitute a rationale for waiving the dimensional requirements nor for putting aside any other criteria to which the special exception is subject. While this is a difficult task for all parties involved-the Staff, the Board, the congregation, and the community-it is important to be very clear that the Board's decision with regard to this application is not whether the congregation can continue to use the property as it is established, nor whether the church may be expanded at this site, but whether the specific proposal for the church's expansion as presented in this application meets both the standards and the intent of the zoning regulations and the goals of historic preservation and the Comprehensive Plan for Iowa City. Specific Criteria for Religious Private Group Assembly in the RNS-12 zone, Section 14-4B- 40-14 (page 199). a. Vehicular Access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement width greater than 28 feet. Access to the church would be provided along S.Governor Street, an arterial street which exceeds the 28-foot standard. b. Minimum Setbacks: front, 20 feet; side, 20 feet; rear, 50 feet. The proposed church expansion fails to meet any of the required setbacks for religious/private group assembly. The established church is already set within the required front and side setbacks and the proposed addition would increase these existing nonconformities. In this case the setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in the RNS-12 zone pose a significant obstacle to any expansion of the church. Strict conformance with the 20-foot side setback regulations would preclude any enlargement of the structure at all. For this reason the applicant is requesting a Historic PreseNation Exception to allow a reduction of the setback requirements. Iowa City's Zoning Code provides different dimensional requirements for different use categories. Under the current code, churches are classified as a religious/private group assembly use. The category is based on certain common functional or physical 5 characteristics of the use, including the intensity of use, hours of operation, and vehicle activity generated by such uses.3 The City's Zoning Code provides for the location of churches and other civic uses in appropriate locations within residential neighborhoods. However because these uses tend to have larger buildings and attract more people and traffic (at certain concentrated times) than the surrounding residential uses, the Code requires deeper setbacks. These larger setbacks are one way to ensure that the use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and that any negative externalities created by the use-the additional traffic and noise that are associated with any large assembly use or the larger building scale or mass often associated with the facilities- are mitigated to the extent practical. Front setback: The historic church, which was built before any other structures along this frontage, is set back approximately 12 feet from the street right-of-way line. The current front setback requirement for religious/private group assembly (as well as the setback required for non-residential structures in the RNS-12 zone) is 20 feet. It should be noted that the existing church is set significantly closer to the street than any other building along the frontage, including the two adjacent properties, which are set approximately 20-30 feet, respectively, from the street right-of-way line. The church has proposed a new covered entry to the church to replace the existing covered entry. This new entrance would not change the established 12-foot setback. Side setbacks: Since the subject lot is just less than 40 feet wide, it is literally impossible to meet the 20-foot side setback requirements. The existing building is set approximately 12 feet from the south side property line and just under 5 feet from the north side property line. Religious/private group assembly uses are required to provide 20-foot side setbacks. The proposed addition would reduce the south side setback to 5 feet and the north setback to 4.33 feet. (The required side building setback for residential uses in the zone is 5 feet.) Rear setback: The existing rear setback for the church building is more than 100 feet. The setback requirement for church uses is 50 feet. The proposed addition would reduce the rear setback to just under 37 feet (36'10"). The purpose of the setback requirements are stated in Section 14-2A-48 (page 8): . Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting; . Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; . Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods; . Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and . Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. Staff considers the proposed expansion of the church to be in conflict with the purpose of the setback requirements. While there are a few buildings of comparable size in the area (for example, the apartments located at 419, 404, and 338 S. Governor, and the Sorority at the corner of Governor and Burlington), these buildings are all set on lots that 3 14-4A-2 (page 146) Use categories and regulations. 6 are significantly larger (anywhere from 2,000 to 7,000 square feet larger in the case of the apartment buildings). The proposed addition to the church adds another 70 feet of building length that is at least 26 feet in height on a site that is already at a higher elevation than the lot immediately to its south. In the opinion of staff such an expansion reduces light and air separation between the church and the abutting residential properties and reduces the opportunity for privacy for those properties. In staff's opinion, the mass of the proposed addition (both height and length) when set within 5-6 feet of the adjacent properties does not promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings. It is therefore not compatible with the buildings in its vicinity, nor does it reflect the general building scale or placement of structures in a neighborhood that is noted for its large back yards and deeper front setbacks. Moreover, given the length and height of the proposed addition, there is little if any opportunity to provide screening or landscaping to minimize the effect of such narrow side setbacks. The narrow setbacks also provide little room to manage storm water run off as discussed in more detail below. Historic Preservation Exception If reviewed under the criteria established in the code for setback reductions, it would be difficult to justify such a significant deviation from the zoning requirements. However, there is the historic value of the use to be considered. In this particular situation staff believes that it is desirable to preserve the cultural history of the property as a religious use-its historic congregation-if that can be achieved in balance with the surrounding neighborhood. Thus some modification of the setback requirements may be justified to allow the church structure to expand. Staff believes that a smaller addition can serve the needs of the church to increase its occupancy and meet the intent of the setback regulations. Moreover, a smaller addition-one that more closely conforms to the recommendations expressed by the State Historical Society to create a transition from the old, original church building and the new addition-would help to preserve the historic and aesthetic attributes of the property as described in the first criteria for the Historic Preservation Exception (Section 14-2A-7B-1a, page 20). c. The proposed us will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and amount of paved areas. The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with the surrounding residential uses, or may require additional measures to mitigate these differences. Additional requirements may include but are not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and design of buildings. In Staff's view the proposed expansion in combination with the raised elevation of the site and substantially reduced setbacks creates a property that is out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood and contradicts the purpose of the setback requirements in the code. Furthermore, as already noted, the small side setbacks that remain provide little if any opportunity to provide a landscape buffer or screening. This is particularly noticeable on the south side of the building where the entire length of the setback along the addition would be paved. The site plan shows a building that not only exceeds the maximum building coverage, but one in which all but approximately 20% of the lot is impermeable surface-either pavement or building. This creates a substantial challenge for providing adequate drainage on a site that slopes back to an unpaved public alley. Staff believes that the applicant has not adequately addressed the issue of drainage (see general criteria #4 7 below). As part of the City of Iowa City's site plan review standards, the proposed plan will need to address storm water management and its impacts to neighboring properties to the south and west as well as to the public alley. d. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single family residential character of these zones, the Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the minimum required. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on-street parking, the estimated parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other non-residential uses in the vicinity of the use. Based on the square footage of the building, the occupancy load of the existing church is approximately 40. (Because the current church does not have fixed seating, this calculation is based on square footage). The current zoning code dictates that the minimum off-street parking for a church with this capacity is 1/6 the occupancy load or 7 spaces. The church does not currently provide any off-street parking-all parking is provided on-street. The church has a long-standing arrangement with the City, to allow a limited amount of on-street parking (the equivalent of 10-11 spaces) along the west side of Governor Street for Sunday services. Parking is prohibited along the west side of the street at all other times. The arrangement to reserve on-street parking along the west side of Governor during Sunday services may be extended to accommodate more cars subject to a traffic study and approval of the City Council. The applicant currently proposes to expand the church to accommodate approximately 100 members as shown in their fixed seating. This occupancy would require 17-18 off- street parking spaces. In addition to the main sanctuary the applicant is also proposing to construct a lower level social hall and kitchen which will increase intensity of use and time period for which parking spaces will be needed to serve the occupants of the building. The church has proposed 3 off-street spaces, including 2 handicapped spaces at the rear of the property off the alley. The applicant proposes that all additional required off-street parking could be provided on-street. The church proposes to request an expansion of their current on-street reserved parking along Governor on Sundays. When considering the capacity of the street to handle all or most of the parking demand for the church, we must consider not only the required off-street parking but also the existing additional on-street parking generated by the expanded church. The west side of Governor between the Burlington and Bowery provides approximately 1,000 feet of parking space (the length of the block minus driveways and restricted areas near the Bowery and Burlington intersection. Approximately 45 cars could be parked along the entire western length of the Governor Street frontage assuming a standard 20 to 22 feet of space per vehicle. The applicant has indicated that at the church's current capacity (40 persons) they park 10 to 15 cars along the street. A twofold increase in occupancy would indicate 20 to 30 cars along the street, well within the capacity of the west side of the street. It should be noted that the on-street parking arrangement provides parking only during Sunday services. The applicant has not addressed how parking will be provided for the expanded activities that are associated with a larger church use. Moreover, there is an inaccuracy in the occupancy load estimated by the applicant. The applicant has indicated a fixed seat count of 96 in the main sanctuary and an additional 11 seats near the altar. The actual calculated fixed seating, at a rate of 18 inches (a little larger than the size of a standard office chair) per seat for pews, which is the City Code standard, is approximately 146. An occupancy load of 146 would require 24 parking off-street 8 spaces. Assuming a threefold increase in occupancy, it is reasonable to assume the need for 30-45 on-street spaces or the entire estimated parkable area along the frontage of Governor Street between Burlington and Bowery. Historic Preservation Exception The applicant is seeking to reduce the off-street parking arrangement through the Unique Circumstances clause in the code, Section 14-5A-4F-5 (page 243).4 While the applicant has demonstrated the limited capacity of the lot to accommodate parking, there is no evidence that the "specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive." In other words, there is no evidence that members of the AME Church are less likely to drive to church than members of other churches. However, a reduction in the parking requirement may be granted through the Historic Preservation Exception, which allows a waiver or modification of site development standards. Again, staff believes that some modification of required parking spaces may be in order to allow the historic church congregation to continue use of the property. However such a modification must balance the interests of the residential neighborhood, which currently has significant demand for the on-street parking spaces. Although there may be sufficient on-street available on Sundays at other times, the proposed modification exceeds the limits of what can reasonably be provided on street and may lead to spillover parking into other areas, including the alley. e. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors and litter. Staff does not anticipate substantial adverse effects from noise, glare, litter, etc. as described here. However, because there is little opportunity to create any buffer via space, landscaping or other screening, or to manage storm water runoff, the surrounding residential properties will be affected by the proposed reduction in setbacks, which will reduce opportunities for light, air, and privacy. Again, a modification of the church design to create some additional space between the residential structures and the church addition would provide some opportunity for buffer between the new addition and the existing residential structures on the abutting lots. f. Not applicable g. Because the proposed use is in a residential zone and in the Central Planning District it must comply with the Multi-Family site development standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6 (page 35). The site plan as proposed is not in conflict with these standards. General Standards: 14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. In the opinion of Staff, the lack of appropriate drainage on the site may be detrimental to the public safety, comfort and welfare for the surrounding properties and the Governor Street and rear alley public rights-of-way (see general standard #4 below). 4 14-5A-4F5 reads: "Parking Reduction for Unique Circumstances: Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces up to 50 percent (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark or listed on the National Register of Historic Places)." ~.",-..__.,-".."-_.~--"--~~~-,--",<,--"----_.,~--------,- 9 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. With regard to the reduced side setbacks for the proposed addition, staff believes that the special exception may be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the abutting residential properties. Given the elevation of the site and the substantial increase in the size of the church, the reduced setbacks would allow little opportunity for screening or buffering between the church and the adjacent properties or to provide drainage from impervious surfaces. Moreover granting such a great reduction in the side setbacks is counter to the purpose of the setback requirements in that it reduces opportunity for light, air and privacy for abutting properties. In addition the substantial reduction in off-street parking may have negative consequences for a neighborhood that already has a high demand for its on-street parking. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. While the surrounding properties are fully developed, the intent of the RNS-12 down-zoning of the neighborhood, which took place in 2000, was to encourage the preservation of existing single-family homes and to foster improvement to property. For the reasons sited in response to general standard 2 (above) as well as to the responses to specific criteria, the abutting properties may be negatively affected by an expansion of the size proposed by the applicant. Moreover, the lack of adequate drainage from the site (see below) will likely affect the abutting property to the south as well as those west of the alley. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff from the City Engineer's Office have reviewed the site and proposal. They have noted that with the expansion of the building and proposed parking and paved sidewalks, most of the lot would become impervious surfaces-unable to absorb rainfall. Currently, stormwater that is not saturated directly into the ground flows southwesterly across the back side of the adjacent property to the south to a low point in the alley, and westerly across the alley and onto private property on Lucas Street. There is no storm sewer system in the alley, which is unimproved (unpaved). The nearest storm sewer intake is located on Lucas Street, north and west of Bethel Church (in front of 324 Lucas). The site plan design standards in the City Code state that "the design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property so that the proposed development will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property." In the opinion of Staff, drainage and erosion problems are likely to occur with respect to neighboring and downstream properties and to the public alley. In lieu of direct access to a City storm sewer, the applicant has proposed draining the runoff onto the public alley to the rear of the property. However, removing stormwater from the applicant's own property is not a solution to the problem of stromwater drainage. Once the stormwater reaches the alley it will drain onto private properties to the west. The issue of stormwater management must address impacts to adjacent properties. A more appropriate method of stormwater management will be required in order for a building permit to be issued for the expansion. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. In Staff's opinion, the applicant has not adequately addressed the issue of parking for those functions that do not take place in conjunction with Sunday services. In staff's opinion this additional demand for parking will have consequences for the neighborhood and the potential to exacerbate the parking shortage that ,...----..~--'_._.^",.-.._~.----,_..,-,._~-'"-,~'"----~.~,----- 10 already exists in the neighborhood, where parking sometimes spills into reserved private areas or into the public alley. 5. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The expansion being proposed meets the building height and width standards in the code. However, the proposed addition would exceed the 40% maximum lot coverage standard of the RNS-12 Zone. The calculated lot coverage for the existing church with the proposed expansion is 44.5%, approximately 300 square feet more than what is allowed in the RNS-12 Zone. The applicant must also obtain a historic preservation exception to waive this standard of the code. For the same reasons mentioned with regard to modifying the setback requirements it is difficult to see how an expansion of this size is necessary to preserve the historic use of the property. Staff advises that a smaller expansion may be warranted and achieve the goals of the church, goals of preserving the integrity of the historic building and also reduce potential externalities to surrounding properties. If the addition is reduced in size, this waiver of the lot coverage standard may not even be necessary. As mentioned previously, the proposed method of stormwater management does not meet City Code standards. The final site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all other building code regulations. 6. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. As stated above, the Comprehensive Plan allows for the location of religious/private group assembly within residential neighborhoods where appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends the preservation of historic properties and landmarks. However, the Comprehensive Plan balances these worthy goals within the context of the neighborhood character and the zoning regulations that apply. In staff's view, based on the opinion of the State Historical Society and the City preservation planner, the proposed addition would not result in the preservation of this historic building nor would it achieve a balance between the goals for historic preservation and the interests of the residential neighborhood as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION Despite its humble design and small size, the Bethel AME Church is a significant historic building. Its preservation is worthy of careful consideration. Added to its architectural and aesthetic attributes is the fact that for all of its nearly 140 years, and despite the significant changes to the surrounding residential neighborhood, the property has been home to one congregation-The African Methodist Episcopal Church, a church that has made its own unique and rich contribution to American history and thus the cultural value to the site. While the dimensional regulations in the Zoning Code pose a substantial obstacle to the church's expansion, Staff believes that it is possible to accommodate some expansion to the church on its current site. While it is most certainly desirable to preserve the cultural history of the property as a religious use and, moreover, that it be used by its historic congregation, there are physical limits to what such a small property can and should accommodate. There must be a balance between the expansion and preservation of the historic use and site and the interests of the surrounding residential neighborhood-with careful attention to the abutting properties. In the opinion of staff, the proposed expansion goes beyond those limits to the point at which it undermines the historic integrity of the site. The proposed expansion increases the existing non- conformities of the property by expanding further into the required side setbacks. The proposed expansion increases the non-conformity of the property by reducing the minimum rear setback and by exceeding the maximum building coverage for the lot. It should be noted that if this property II were not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, no additions could be considered due to the existing nonconformities. It is its status as a National Register Property that gives the Board some flexibility to consider waivers of zoning requirements. To approve an addition that calls into question the National Register status of the property would be counter to the intent of Section 14- 2A-7B-1, the Historic Preservation Exception. Even if the addition where determined to be historically appropriate, the concerns of setbacks, drainage and parking should be considered. Staff believes that an expansion of somewhat smaller size and scale would meet the standards for historic preservation and the interests of the residential neighborhood and would accommodate the desire of the congregation to expand. We believe that he best course of action would be to defer consideration of this application to allow the applicant to consult with a architect that specializes in historic buildings to try to achieve a design that accommodates expansion of the congregation in a manner that is compatible with the historic building and this residential neighborhood. Given the physical constraints of this property it is not likely that an addition of the size proposed by the applicant is feasible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC06-00020, an application for a special exception to allow expansion of a religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 zone and to allow a historic preservation waiver to: reduce the setbacks, maximum building coverage, and minimum parking requirements at 411 S. Governor be deferred to allow redesign of a smaller addition. If the applicant does not agree to a deferral, staff recommends that the application be denied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Letters from the State Historical Society 4. Historic Preservation Staff Report 5. Application Materials 6. Correspondence ~ -', ~ / //i .. t.. Approved by: .,,' zrt~" / .....<!;' . Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~Y-/I/ V-<J<t.I.'.~...Y/}ViLY'./~'~ ~j7V //Vr /~//' ......... ........... I~' v.:....:..:... :::..... .:....:.-:.......: ....... ':"0":'.' .....:. :....: ':". :::.... ..:.-.. ":". .....~.. : . ....:.-: ''':''. '..:..:. ..:.. ...... :2' I, .' . . . ...... . . . . . . . ''-ll!l . .. . . vr 1/ ........ ..... ........... .... ......:..........:. ........ ". .............. ....;f~..... .... ............... --'/ ................................. .1:.... .... ..................."L .J'" ...IS..}IJNWn.S..... ~ er~l; ........................ .......i:i)......-.r.-- </ ......... ffi ~ / ............. . .,' . . . .5: ............:.-....:.......................:.......:......:......................................:..............:.............:~. );i// / ~~ ~~~\~~~ ~~~"~ ~ ;::;'~~ '-/l7v~lXlj~~~cr~~~,t~0~1~1;~I~ <= 7/ // v7///~~~ /~W~~~~~<<:,. w tt ~I/Vv/~I/ ~~V~/,,!;.~/V~// / ('.J I l ~~~~ f:J~~v /:~r.J'1'/:~1~~0/ ~ . ~ / V / 1/ 1/ ,/ ~v ~ /I-V 'l~" / / / V / / ~ U J ,/ j':1/~Vi/ /I/I/"'~ /[/ ~V / // v / /1/ \.3 l~'" '-,/~~ ~~ /:r~~~I~I/A':~[/ r'I~ ~ ~/~ ~j~1/ ~ _ ~ / /'/ '/ /7// / / //'/ / '/ / /......7 /~;/)i'1M ~I. to r1f[7 /vV~VW/ / /1~VVV / /~l//I/I/ / //1/ S2 ~ l:~I~Vr::~:~IX~~cY~j~i~I~I~ ~I~~V~~~ ~ ~ I L[]~ T ~~I I 8> ~~y( -~ '. '. Ji ~i= r u IT I lS 3~OOO - ~ lS NOSNHor ULn rIJ It , ~ nR N'ii^~I---~= lj f \.-- ( I ( L I--- : f---- - I--- ( ( ~ ~3tJn8 N'ii^ o C\J o o o I co o () >< W +oJ C/) ~ o c ~ Q)~ > o (!J C/) ,.- ~ ~ . . Z o ~ f-l < U o ~ ~ f-l ~ rJ) STATE HISTORICAL 10%\01 A Division of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs December 26, 2006 Mr. Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, Iowa 55240 RE: Bethel AM.E. Church, Iowa City Dear Mr. Terdalkar, The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) appreciates being made aware of the proposed addition to the Bethel AM.E. Church, and we understand that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) acted on the proposal by approving a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the project, with conditions, on December 14,2006. We agree with the conditions suggested, but noted that the HPC did not condition the COA on the placement or size of the addition. We also noted that drastic changes are proposed for the front entry and for the interior of the original building, which could possibly affect the historic and architectural integrity of the National Register-listed property. We are concerned that the proposed work is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards/or Rehabilitation and GUidelines/or Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Our office understands the strong desire of the congregation to increase the size of their facility and appreciates their willingness to retain the historic building and to remain located within this neighborhood. We know the congregation is proud of its history, as members of the church initiated the listing of the property on the National Register of Historic Places in the late 1990s. However, we believe the congregation's facility needs could be accomplished through a more sensitive rehabilitation and addition. SHPO Preservation Consultant Jack Porter expressed his initial opinion on the proposed addition in an email to you on December 7. In that email, he indicated that he felt "the new church will need to be pushed back and separated from the historic church more than is shown on these drawings. As it presently is designed, the new church addition will appear to overwhelm the historic church by just its mass and closeness." Unfortunately, Mr. Porter was unable to provide a full analysis of the design prior to the HPC meeting and will not be able to do so until he returns to the office on January 3,2007. We recommend that the architect of the addition discuss the proposed design with Mr. Porter to determine whether or not a more appropriate solution can be found. He can be reached at 515.242.6152 or at jack.porter@iowa.gov. With slight changes to the design and placement of the addition on the lot, it may be possible to respect the historic building and provide a new home into which the congregation can continue to grow and flourish. Sincerely, '"' ~,')I) ,>, >>, I' DA L'O-"aLt I 1.;t..l.t"k9.A~, Barbara A Mitchell, Architectural Historian Iowa Historic Preservation Office 600 EAST LOCUST STREET, DES MOINES, IA 50319-0290 P; (515) 281-5111 F; (515) 282-0502 STATE HISTORICAL ISOCIETY of OWA A Division of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs January 3, 2007 Mr. Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 55240 RE: Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Dear Mr. Terdalkar, In reviewing the proposed design for the Bethel A.M.E. Church, we wish to underscore our concern the currently proposed addition and changes to the historic building could jeopardize the standing of this building as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Although our office will not unilaterally recommend the church be de-listed, we recommend the final design avoid such a future possibility. The reasons for our concern are essentially two fold. One, the proposed revisions to the historic church's entrance and interior changes are not in keeping with Secretary ofInterior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard 1 states, "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment". The front fat;ade and sanctuary are important character defining features. To widen the primary entrance and change the interior sanctuary by infilling a once open space with new walls is not in keeping with Standard 1. We realize the proposal to widen the front door is intended to allow room for a casket with pall bearers to enter into the building. An alternative to allow direct access into the proposed new sanctuary could be designed. Perhaps an ADA compliant ramp could be designed immediately adjacent to the historic church and provide an entrance point at the same first floor level of the new sanctuary. If such a ramp is feasible, the split stairway and wheel-chair lift could be re-designed. Secondly, the proposed addition is so large and so close it appears to overwhelm the historic church building. Standard 9 states, "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize a property. 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 and its environment". This effect could be lessened to some degree by moving the new addition back and thus creating a greater separation from the historic building and new addition. This separation could create a design opportunity for the transition space between the historic church and the proposed addition. Please feel free to contact our office at any time to further discuss our concerns and to discuss alternative design solutions. Sincerely, Jack C. Porter Preservation Consultant 600 EAST LOCUST STREET, DES MOINES, IA 50319-0290 W: (515) 242-6152 F: (515) 282-0502 Staff Report December 14, 2006 Historic Review for 411 Governor Street District: Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Key-Contributing On behalf of the Bethel A.M.E. Church, the applicants, Rev. Dial and Melvin Shaw, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 411 South Governor Street, which is a contributing property in the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. It is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The applicants intend to construct an addition measuring approximately 29 feet x 70 feet at the rear of the existing church. The proposed structure will be approximately 26 feet in height. The applicants also intend to 1) alter the existing front porch by replacing the shed roof with a gable roof, and by removing the existing partial enclosure, 2) construct a steeple on the existing building, and 3) close the existing exterior entryway to the basement and remove the shelter for the entryway. The applicants propose to use brick veneered foundation, vinyl siding, vinyl clad windows for the new addition. In addition to the exterior revisions, the applicants are proposing to divide the original sanctuary into smaller rooms. The Historic Preservation Commission normally does not review interior changes, but this application is also seeking a special exception to waive or reduce parking and setback requirements per section 14-2A-7 Special ProviJions B. 1. HiJtoric PreJen;atioll ExceptiollJ of the zoning code. This section states: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicants must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Therefore, given the historic and cultural significance of the original sanctuary, the Historic Preservation Commission should consider the overall effect of the proposed changes to this historic structure. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Staff Comments The original church was built in the later part of 1860s and according to the Iowa Site Inventory Form it is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. It is a modest one story, simple-gabled roof frame structure with little exterior ornamentation. Its size, scale, Page 1 of 4 proportions and fenestration are similar to a domestic structure than that of a religious structure. This was one of the earliest buildings (can be seen on an 1868 Iowa City map) built in this area sometimes mentioned as Charles H. Berryhill's Second Addition to Iowa City. In September 2000, this property was listed on the National Register for Historic Places. The National Register Nomination provides a comprehensive account of the Church, how it has survived over 138 years, and continues to serve its members as a social and religious institution. In 1868, James Howard purchased the land where that church stands today, from Charles Berryhill. After ten years, he sold the southern half of lot to the trustees of the 'First African Methodist Episcopal Church'. Howard founded the was also one of three trustees of the church. It appears that the original lot purchased by Howard was 80 feet wide. A parsonage building, built in 1893 existed behind the church until 1988, and was used as the residence of the pastor. In the early 1920s, the foundation walls of the church were raised to build a basement. The property is located in a residential neighborhood, and is zoned as Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12). Religious/Private Group Assembly uses are allowed in RNS-12 only after a special exception approval from the Board of Adjustment (BOA). This is also applicable to the expansion of an existing religious use. Due to the site constraints, it would not be possible meet the setback and parking requirements for the resulting use with the proposed addition. Therefore, as note above, the applicants is seeking approval for a special exception from the BOA as per the special provisions in Zoning Code - Historic Preservation Exceptions (14-2A-7 B). This provision allows for waiver or modification of any dimensional or site developmental standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. One of the special exception approval criteria is obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Another criterion that must met is that the waiver or modification will help preserve the historic, aesthetic or cultural attributes of the property. Therefore, the Commission is charged with the duty to consider this proposal and find whether the addition would be compatible with the existing historic structure, surrounding properties and the neighborhood, while considering the need to expand the structure. As the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines do not clearly address rehabilitation of non- residential buildings, the project should be reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The applicable standards are: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. See comments under standard number 2. below. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. In this case to allow for an expanded congregation the proposed changes are not minimal. Although the property itself would be used for its historic purpose the sanctuary would not. Page 2 of 4 The applicants proposes significant changes to the historic sanctuary by dividing into smaller rooms to the extent that the original space would be unrecognizable. If an addition to this building is approved, it would be appropriate to require that the sanctuary be left in tact. It could perhaps be used for reception, meeting and or gathering space without being subdivided into smaller rooms. In Staffs opinion, as discussed in more detail below under standard number 9, the scale and design of the proposed addition would change the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. The addition the proposed steeple would be in appropriate according to this standard. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. 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 and its environment. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings-New Additions published by the National Park Services provide further guidance on this issue. The guidelines encourage exploring all the options for incorporating the new use by altering the non-character-defming interior spaces of the existing structure. Staff recognizes that the applicants would not be able to meet the space needs of a growing congregation in the existing structure. In such instance, the guidelines state that the additions are acceptable if they are designed and built so that the character-defming features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation. Staff believes that the most significant and character-defming feature of this building is its modest Mid-19th Century architecture. Therefore, primary design consideration should address the massing, size, scale issues. The placement of the proposed buildings on site is also an important factor that would affect the existing structure. The guidelines recommend locating the addition at the rear or inconspicuous side of the historic building and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. The proposed building is at the rear of the existing church however is significantly larger and taller than the existing church. The proposed addition would measure 70 feet in length, 29 feet in width and approximately 26 feet in height. The existing structure measures approximately 30 feet in length, 21 feet in width and 18 feet in height. The structure is located on a lot measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 150 feet in length. It would occupy a much larger percentage of its lot than the existing church or the residential buildings in this neighborhood. The existing building will be connected with the proposed addition with a nominally offset 'breezeway', which would be only 18 inches long (by 12 inches from the north and south building plains). Staff believes that the addition as proposed would overwhelm the historic church. Page 3 of 4 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In staffs opinion, the proposed alterations to the original church would take its historic and cultural significance away from the building, as it would be reduced to a subordinate use of the proposed church building. Thus, the historic church would no longer be used for its historic purpose and would be changed such that, although not impossible, it would be difficult to reclaim its integrity. Staff believes that the church building could be expanded on the site in a manner that would honor and maintain the historic character of the church. However, such addition would need to be compatible with the scale and size of the existing structure and should not be overwhehning. An addition that is subordinate in height to the historic structure would more likely achieve the objectives of the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The connection between the exiting and proposed building should be more than a nominal offset. It should clearly separate the old and the new parts. The integrity of the existing sanctuary should be maintained to the extent possible and any future uses should reflect the existence of the sanctuary. Staff believes that the steeple should not be added to the existing building. The applicants is proposing to use vinyl siding and vinyl-clad windows both of which are not allowed per Iowa City guidelines. The revised plans should include use of wood or allowed substitute materials for siding and windows. The applicants should also provide additional information about the front porch - design and materials of the porch columns and railings. From the elevation drawings submitted, it appears that the existing double-hung basement windows will be replaced with smaller windows. The size and proportions of these windows should be compatible with the proportions of the existing fenestration. Staff has expressed these and other concerns to the applicants in pre-application meetings and has requested them to revise the designs to comply with the standards and guidelines. Staff recommends deferral of this application until revised drawings are submitted. If it is not possible for the applicants to design an addition which is compatible with the historic structure, it would be inappropriate to use the Historic Preservation Exception of the Zoning Code to grant reductions in setback and parking requirements for this property. Page 4 of 4 --, ,,,,,--------- ~-------- - .LS ~ON~^09 S J ----- ---- -- ------,,-- ..t) I ~ , -,,- '-lO" >(D'z tH() ()l- '0- r ' <() ~ - I - I I It<( I u- I xO- ' u- "'t I "'t k 4'_ '-6" ,. , ----------II01-,1:l€--- 1 -- - --, --- -- -- ..t) T - --- - "- ---- -- --~------ )"~11'V 11 II II II II II II II II II -U-o II II II II II II \I II II LLIl II II II II II II II II II II II II -1J ~ ~ lii ~ i II I r---- i L ~ ~ ~ . ~ ll~ , I : · -t rrrTrTII ~! !!; ~I ~ I ~ctJ I . ---l r ------1 j iii --1 ~ ~ :n IOCLCIJ:Jl lem: _ rrI.:TJTTf1 Ul- I ITTI [=-n~III-T~l !!; - -..- ! ~ Iii Iii ~ ~ i i I I 8 IL ~ _ .1 r .. .......- .,. ..-..-.... o II ; l ----+ 11 I ,. ~ 1 i i -=--::~-~trT I'll ~ ' I I ! I i . i i l ( i I i ! ( ). -----t I ~ ---~~ > II . ( ~ '. j' I ( I.. I ( ) -----t I I ! I i . U . : , i _,..,._,.,_,,_....LLJ , i ~~--=====-~-=--=~=~=:=~':::_,,~:::~:J II ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (---) (~) 1(' ) ( ), -' ( )~-- (-) ~ ; (.- ! (- ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ~ ['--\ .~ i--J" ~ ':1 i) ~ \_._~ Ian ( I (-~ ( . 'I I ( . \ .' ( .. \ \ ) z -<( 0.. ~ I: U 0:: UQ W-- ~~ <u .J~ Wo I:- I- W m rt-t-----------r -------f t I ~ XC(f)/p ~ (j)(/;I/J 'UP 12eY 15'ID....1 ::1t-'?-- APPLICA TIC)I\I TO THE BOARD OF AI),JUSTMENT SPECIAL E:(~~EPTION DATE: December 19,2006 PRO PEHTY PARCEL NO. 105102005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY ZONE: 411 S. Govemol Street, Iowa City RNS-12 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 149.89 x 39.80 APPLICANT: Name: Bethel A.M ,E. Church Address: 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, 52240 Phone: (319) 338-7876 CONTACT PERSON: (if other than applicant) Name: Melvin o. Shaw, Steward; Rev. Orlando R. Dial Address: 4715 White Oak Ave. SE, Iowa City, 52240 Phone: (319) 430-3434; Rev. O.R. Dial, (319) 230-2077 PROPERTY OWNER: (if other than applicant) Name: (~,C) Address: Phone: (.,.,.) ....,....j Specific Requested Special Exception; Applica ble Section(s) ofthe Zoning Chapter: Expansion of Religious Assembly in RNS-12, 14-4B-4-D- '4, 11-2A-4B; Off-street Parking 14-5A-4F-5 Purpose for special exception: Permit the alteratl 'In and exoansion of Bethel A.M.E. Church Date of previous application or appeal filed, if. ny: 08/17/06; 10/10/06 (Applications withdrawn) -2. Please see 14~C-2 in the Code for more detailed information on special exception application and approval procedures. Plannins I stiff are available to assist applicants with questions about the application process or reg ulations and standards in the Zoning Code. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLlCA NT: A. leaal descriDtion of property (attach se )arllte sheet if necessary): B. *Plot Dlan drawn to scale showing: 1. lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structure 5 with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, includi 19 the location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting th4' prc>perty in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existi 19 Ilnd proposed. *Submission of an 8 Yz" x 11" plot plan i ~ preferred. C. Review: The Board of Adjustment is el1 lpowered to grant special exceptions to the provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code only in circumstances specifically enumerated within the Code. To enSUrE thut the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done, no speci II exception shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates thi It all of the specific and general approval criteria are met, as described below. SDecific ADDroval Criteria: In order to giant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception n leets the specific approval criteria set forth within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space provided below or on an attached ShE et, address the areas of Board review that apply to the specific requested speci al E!xception. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just 01 )init)ns, that demonstrate that the requested special exception meets each of the sl )ecific approval criteria listed in the Zoning Code. (Specific approval criteria for uses I sted as special exceptions in the base zone are set forth in 14-48-4 of the Zoning Code. For othnr types of special exceptions - modifications to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. . n fer to the relevant approval criteria listed in the Code. Planning staff is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval criteria for your requested exception.) Attach addition; I sh.:tet if necessary. See Attached for responses to items A, B, and C above :~;-... \.J.) C.:> -J -3- D. General ADDroval Criteria: The Board mu:st also find that the requested special exception meets the following gene. al approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space )rovided below, or on an attached sheet, provide sDecific information. not just (,pinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets th ~ g'imeral approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not releva lt in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exceptioll wi II not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. See Attached 2. The specific proposed excepti on will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impa r p"operty values in the neighborhood. See Attached 3. Establishment of the specific pre ,poned exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and in IpfCIvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in "rhich such property is located. I..G See Attached .~._) (',,0 -..I 4. Adequate utilities, access road!, dl'ainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. -4. 5. Adequate measures have been (Ir wm be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic con! lest ion on public streets. See Attached 6. Except for the specific regulatic ns and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, th 9 specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applic IbIE! regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Del >ending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific con, jiticms may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance VI'ith the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-48 as well as requirements listed in the ba:se zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development stalldalrds (1~5A through K).] See Attached 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. See Attached -'-II ',I'::> 'c-j I I ~) -J -5- E. List the names and mailing addresses )f the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of tt Ie property involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS See Attached .~, ,~::" w --.l -6. NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special ex, :ep1tion, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but 10t limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completioll dl3adlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, high Na'J' access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limit ltions on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board d !e1T1S appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are neces lary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the t uilcling permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtair ing a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the ten 1S of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board me IY extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the nerits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person o,r persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under tI1 e provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and spec tying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shilll be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in tt e 01ffice of the City Clerk. .'- Date: I)~~ ~ lct 20 Db . - Me \Vl ~ O. S ku.,vJ J ~-\e l.A.Q./'tC~ U!)j~ Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Date: ,20._ Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) ppdadminlapplication-boase.doc \~C) Tl --, ("__J --1 A Lellal Descriotion S 1/2 Lot 19, Block 1 C.H. Berryhill's 2nd Addition 11 \,""".c.: B. Plot Plan (:....) A Retracement Plat, dated August 18, 2006, is attached to this Application. A site plan, drawings of the elevation, main and lower levels, and exterior views showing the proposed addition to the existing structure are also attached. C. Soecific Aooroval Criteria The applicable sections for existing nonconforming structures are 14-2A-4B-l, 14-2A-4B-5b, 14-2A-7B-l, 14-4B-3-A, 14-4B-4D-14-b, 14-2A-7B-l, and 14-4E-6A-1. Under Section 14-4B-3-A, the Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant a special exception to the above provisions of the zoning code to ensure the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. A Certificate of Appropriateness for the renovation and expansion of Bethel AM.E. Church was granted pursuant to section 2.4, Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Major Review and Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 14,2006. Under the criteria set forth in 14-2A- 7B-l, the Board of Adjustment may recommend a special exception to reduce the setback requirements through the Historic or Preservation Exception criteria set forth in 14-2A- 7B-l. This section allows the board to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standard that would prevent use or occupancy of a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places. Bethel AM.E. Church was registered on the National Register and by the State Historical Society of Iowa in 2000. Additionally, section 14-5A-4F-5 establishes the parking requirements for religious/private group assembly uses. As discussed below, Bethel AM.E. Church has demonstrated that the specific use of the structure has unique characteristics such that the number of parking spaces required is excessive. Accordingly, it is requested that the Board of Adjustment exercise its discretion and grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces by up to 100%, as Bethel A.M.E. is registered on the National Register of Historic Places. 1. Aoolication of the Soecific Criteria to RelilZiouslPrivate Grouo Assemblv in RNS-12 Zone '. ," ------ '",:~) ! I " .,.j . Bethel A.M.B. Church respectfully requests the Board of AdjustmeJ:it. ~grant :.l! -."'-;.- "'.:.~ special exception to Iowa City Zoning Code for the Expansion of Religious/Private> Group Assembly in the RNS-12 Zone. Iowa City Zoning Code Section 14-4B-4D-14 sets forth the specific criteria applicable to the establishment or expansion of religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 zone. Under 14-4B-4D-4-b, the minimum setbacks for religious structures in the RNS-12 zone are front and side: 20 feet; rear: 50 feet. As shown by the retracement plat and site plan, the current structure does not conform to the minimum setback requirements. The grant of a special exception will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, and cultural attributes of the church facility. The lot on which Bethel A.M.E. sits measures 39.80 x 149.89 feet. It is technically impossible for a church structure of any size to meet the minimum setback standards on this lot. Indeed, the Bethel A.M.E. Church structure predates the enactment of the applicable city zoning codes. Because the size of the lot is narrow, the new addition must take on an elongated shape. This shape is necessary in order to provide the amenities and seating capacity that meets the spiritual and functional needs of the church. Included among the new amenities are a gathering area, an ADA-compliant entry, an enlarged sanctuary, fellowship hall, and classroom space. Section 14-4E-6A-1 states a nonconforming structure "may be structurally altered or enlarged, provided it is structurally altered or enlarged in a way that will not increase or extend its nonconformity." The footprint of the current structure is 20.3 x 30. The proposed addition to the current structure measures 29 x 70 and would increase the total dimensions of the church to 149.11 x 39.10. Because of the limited width and length of the church lot, the 50 feet and 20 feet setback requirements would render any alteration to the existing structure technically and financially impracticable. Years of research and planning, as well as decades of history show that the proposed floor plans are reasonably drawn to provide the amenities and seating capacity described above and depicted by the floor plans attached hereto. Compliance with the minimum setbacks requirements would effectively preclude any substantial renovation that would meet the needs of the church. For example, the addition of new features and upgraded standard amenities such as a sanctuary, classroom, and reception and gathering areas could not be reasonably and practicably made. Additionally, there would not be 2 any appreciable additional seating capacity, which is a paramount consideration for purposes of altering the current structure. Currently, 50 persons are members of Bethel AM.E. Church. Approximately 26 feet, or one-third of the proposed new structure will be used to provide seating to approximately 100 worshippers. The enforcement of the minimum front, side, and rear setback requirements would require a total 70- feet reduction of the current design. The entire floor plans of the two levels are dedicated for highly functional use. The imposition of the setback requirements would leave limited floor space that could be used for utilitarian purposes, such as worship services, programs, and meetings. Again, it is technically impracticable to make alterations to the existing structure based on the setback requirements and still erect a structure that would serve Bethel AM.E.' s current and future generations of worshippers, and the community. Moreover, were the City to require compliance with the setback requirements, the renovation project would become financially impracticable. The proposed structure is estimated at $475,000 to $500,000. Based on the current and planned space requirements, it would be financially imprudent to undertake a renovation project that would result in a structure that is substantially less than 5,800 square feet. Further, there has not been a major renovation of the church in more than 50 years, and structurally, the church is unchanged from its circa 1900 interior and exterior design. It is an onerous task to seat 50 persons comfortably in a 20 x 30 feet space where movement among people during church service is as much a part of worship as the messages deliver~ from ~ pulpit. ; !"~l II. Aoolication ofSoecific Criteria under Section 14-2A-4B-l w :::.~' :~ A. Setback Requirements The grant of the special exception by the Board will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations listed in Section 14-2A-4B-l for the reasons discussed below. The current facility will not be expanded so as to further increase the nonconformity of the 50-foot front setback requirements. Even though the current facility is not within the setback requirements, at no time in the recent past has a property owner or tenant of a rental property who resides within 300 feet of Bethel AM.E. Church has complained of the gathering of worshippers outside of the church following worship 3 services. With the increased size of the building and seating capacity, there are designated spaces in the main and lower levels for persons to comfortably conduct church business and congregate. Currently, most persons gather outside of the church because the size of the current facility is inadequate for post-service socializing. Further, the existing non-conformity has not adversely affected the orderly development of neighboring properties, access to the church or neighboring properties by emergency access vehicles or city services. There has not been any adverse affect to pedestrian use of any of the public sidewalks or spaces adjacent to properties neighboring the church. Similarly, there has not been any adverse affect on the orderly flow of traffic along Governor Street. The proposed design of the new structure is also consistent with 14-2A-4B-l-d, which states that setback requirements are intended to promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences. The physical relationship between the proposed structure and existing buildings would not be upset by the grant of a special exception, as the proposed structure is consistent with the overall look of the historic structure that is the church, and does not visually detract from the other structures located in the neighborhood. The distance between the property line of the northerly section of Lot 19 and the property immediately south of the church will be five (5) foot. Also, the renovation plans incorporate appropriate landscaping, outdoor seating, and other features that will serve as a buffer and preserve a sense of privacy between the adjoining properties, and will permit the continued use and enjoyment of the property to the south and north of Bethel A.M.E. Church. Further, the space design permits unobstructed access to the church and its property by emergency services personnel and equipment. It should also be noted that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The new structure is designed to facilitate ingress and egress from the east, west, and south entrances. The various entrance and exit doors will serve to disperse and lessen the gathering of a significant numbers of people in any single area of the building. It is further noted that tl:1e great~t number of people who would likely gather at the church at anyone time worihi.o9curdP Sundays, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., which is an off-peak time for motorists alOIlgGoverhor Street. \:;) --;1 B. Size, and Scale of the Proposed Structure ;'"7~ --J -~ ,," ". Regarding the size of the structure, any impact on neighbors or~wners M property within 300 feet of Bethel A.M.E. Church is minimal, if at all. The current 4 structure is located four (4) feet from the property line of the abutting north lot and over five (5) feet of the adjacent south lot. The design of the new addition allows for the uninterrupted use of the properties on either side of Bethel AM.E. as any development of those properties or use and enjoyment of those properties can be maintained. Bethel is further confident that any impact will be minimal, if at all, based on the comments of several record owners of property along Governor Street. At a December 11, 2006, open house to discuss the renovation project, seven (7) property owners of record within 300 feet of Bethel AM.E. expressed unequivocal support for the project. All of the property owners who attended were fully informed and expressed support for all aspects of the renovation and expansion project, including the size of the proposed structure, the increased seating capacity, and parking. Some of those same property owners expressed written support of the project to the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. In March 2006, letters were sent to 39 owners of property within 300 feet of Bethel AM.E. Church. Of those 39 persons, only one property owner, Mary Lou Russell, 431 S. Governor Street, responded to the letter. Ms. Russell stated that she supported the project and that the renovation would be great for the neighborhood, and "her blessings are with Bethel and its improvements." A renovated Bethel A.M.E. will do much to attract single families to the Longfellow Neighborhood, as the church provides a sense of stability and community. As discussed below, the size of the church positively affect the general welfare of the neighborhood and Iowa City community. Moreover, the alley to the west of the proposed structure is 16 feet wide, which will easily accommodate emergency vehicles and personnel. For the reasons discussed above, the grant of a special exceptioEJVouldllbt render the new structure incompatible with buildings in the vicinity. -:: l""r) III. "...'1 , ',-,..... :c j:7 ..c- /' Bethel AM.E. Church respectfully requests that the Board find that the lot 'of Bethel A.M.E. church presents unique characteristics such that the number of parking spaces required is excessive under 14-5A-4F-5. Under that section, the Board may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces by up to 100% for properties designed as a local historic landmark or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The grant of the special exception for on-street parking standards comports with the spirit of the ordinance and would not work a substantial injustice to the 5 record owners of property or other residents along Governor Street. Under 14-5A, a religious institution is required to provide parking spaces based either on the square footage of the facility, or based upon a number equivalent to 1/6 the occupancy load of the main auditorium or the largest room in the building, whichever is greater. Bethel A.M.E. Church has undertaken efforts to renovate and expand its existing facility to accommodate approximately 100 persons. Applying 14-5A and the Special Exception Criteria of 14-4B-3, Bethel A.M.E. is required to provide 16 on-site parking spaces. For the reasons stated below, an exception to the ordinance should be granted to allow on-street parking. A special exception is requested because the lot size of the church will not allow for parking on either the north or south of the church, or greater than 3 parking spaces on the west property boundary of the church. The lot measures 149.89 x 39.80. The combined length of the existing and proposed structure is 100 feet and the width is 29 feet. The shape of the lot is such that no more than three vehicles can be parked on the western edge of the property. It is readily apparent the size of the lot will not accommodate both the proposed structure and 16 on-site/off-street parking spaces. An alley immediately west of the church prohibits the development or acquisition of land for parking purposes. The structure to the north of the church was recently built and there is no chance of the church purchasing that property for parking purposes. The property owner immediately south of Bethel A.M.E. Church has told the former pastor and various trustees of the church that she has no intention of selling the property. Over th~past eigltt (8) years, Bethel A.M.E. Church has made several entreaties regarding the ~chase~:6f the property. ' " Essentially, there is no land near the church to be purchased for parking~purpos~s, and given the size of the lots of the adjoining properties. Bethel A.M.E. qifueh ~ taken steps to enter into an agreement for shared parking. Negotiations ar~iufderway with the property owner of the property immediately north of the church rei~ding t& rental of parking spaces. In the meantime, Bethel will continue to exercise its privilege to provide on-street parking along Governor Street. Because of the unique parking circumstances that affect Bethel A.M.E. Church, the City granted the Church permission for on-street parking on Sundays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Roughly ten (10) vehicles may be parked along the designated parking area each Sunday. Based on the parking formula above, the church would have to accommodate on-street parking for six (6) additional vehicles. Worshippers ungrudgingly park more than 100 feet away from the church entrance. Indeed, persons park further than 100 feet away from the entrance to area sporting arenas. A special exception to waiving the 6 -rl '--1 '. _-Ji parking requirement is certainly consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance, and would not adversely affect the orderly flow of traffic along Governor Street, as on-street parking will primarily be utilized during off-peak traffic periods. Bethel A.M.E. Church expects that a City-conducted traffic survey of on-street parking near the church may be performed to assess parking needs based on an increased church facility. We expect that such a survey will not present transportation issues and that the City of Iowa City Transportation Department will recommend to the Iowa City City Council the alteration or extension of the on-street parking privilege along Governor Street. 1. The soecific orooosed exceotion will not be detrimental or endanl!er the oublic health. safetv. comfort or l!eneral welfare. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Ordinarily, parking is permitted only on the eastern side of Governor Street, which is directly opposite of the church property. For decades, the City of Iowa City has granted Bethel A.M.E. the privilege of allowing worshippers to park along both sides of Governor Street during the ordinary hours of worship, which is Sunday approximately from of 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Two regulatory signs indicating permissible Sunday parking are posted within 300 feet of the Bethel A.M.E. On August 16, 2006, Sgt. Lord of the Iowa City Police Department reviewed the records available to him and was unable to state when the permission was granted. Typically, 10- 15 cars are parked each week along the western half of Governor Street, and this arrangement has not impeded the orderly flow of traffic, created health or safety concerns, or adversely affected the comfort of residents along Governor Street. Each week, as many as ten (10) cars are parked along the westerly side of Governor Street. Some decades ago, the City of Iowa City granted Bethel A.M.E. permission to park vehicles on the westerly half of Governor Street. Specifically, over the past five years, there has not been a single vehicular accident within 300 feet the church during the Sunday morning and early afternoon hours of 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Moreover, the worship services are held during off-peak traffic hours. Services are ~~ Sun~ mornings from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. As noted above, parking on either side ot:t!overtlor Street has not presented an issue of safety or general welfare. Iowa City Traffic Engineer Anisa Williams in June 21, 2006, provi<JedBeili~lo--! A.M.E. with comments regarding the typical traffic flow along Burlington and:A~~e~~r streets. According to Ms. Williams, 3,020 vehicles traveled along Burlingtori~Sireet altJi ............> .,..- Governor Street in 2002; the count does not include Sunday vehicular traffic, as ltfi 7 counts are available for Sunday, she said. On Burlington Street, west of Governor Street, an average of 14,700 cars daily were counted. Further, Governor Street east of Burlington showed 7,500 vehicles per day; residential streets have on average 500 cars per day or 3,000 per day along a minor arterial street. A State Department of Transportation traffic study of the junction of Governor Street and Dodge Street, which is 0.486 miles in length, shows the average daily traffic is 8,500 vehicles. Bethel A.M.E. Church is requesting a special exception that would effect traffic that traverses less than a less than two blocks of Governor Street during hours which the traffic along Governor Street is considerably light. Again, an average of ten (10) vehicles are parked along the east side of Governor Street each week. It is reasonable to conclude that permitting on-street parking for 16 vehicles would constitute an upward change of the current average by a mere 16 vehicles. Therefore, on-street parking for 16 vehicles will not work a condition that endangers the public or adversely affects the safety of motorists, nearby property owners or residents. Based upon the above, the on- street parking exception will not work a substantial injustice to either of residents or nearby property owners or other members of the public. Further, at least two churches that have congregations twice or three times the size envisioned for a renovated Bethel A.M.E. Church utilize on-street parking on Sundays. For example, parishioners of St. Mary's Church and the Newman Catholic Student Center park along both sides of Jefferson Street, a one-way street, on Saturdays during peak traffic hours. It is common knowledge that traffic is more congested along that portion of Jefferson Street, which is in close proximity to the downtown business district and the high-foot and vehicle traffic near the Pentacrest at the University of Iowa. In the case of Bethel A.M.E. Church, a special exception is requested for off-peak hours during Sunday when traffic is considerably lighter. The grant of on-street parking would be consistent with the grant offered to nearby churches along Jefferson Street and those situated along other nearby one-way streets and whose memberships exceed by two- to three times the capacity of a renovated Bethel A.M.E. Church. Based upon the above facts, Bethel A.M.E. Church has shown that a special exception is warranted and should be granted to allow on-street parking. (-'""' , 2. The soecific orooosed exceotion will not be iniurious to the use and~movment of other orooertv \':) , I ""b'''it -;-1 , , I As noted above, courtesy letters regarding the planned renovation an~t~xpansWn of Bethel A.M.E. Church were sent to the 39 owners of property within 30ctteet ofllie 8 church. Only Ms. Russell responded to courtesy notice. Bethel A.M.E. Church is the only church along Governor Street, and is located in a neighborhood of families and students. Arguably, the presence of Bethel A.M.E. enhances the neighborhood and the quality of living. For example, annually for the past four years, Bethel A.M.E. has held free Vacation Bible School programs which are open to the public. Each year, children from the Longfellow neighborhood, as well as from other neighborhoods in Iowa City and Coralville, attend the three-day event. Additionally, students and families from the Iowa City community attend Sunday worship services, Wednesday Bible Study, and Christmas and other seasonal programs. The activities held at Bethel are not such that they interfere with nearby owners' use and enjoyment of their property. All of the activities held at Bethel are contained within the property lines of Bethel, and except for Vacation Bible School and an occasional tent worship service, all worship activities are held in the sanctuary. Again, Bethel has not received any complaints about the activities by property owners or tenants of rental properties adjacent to Bethel. It can also be reasonably argued that a church in the Longfellow neighborhood adds monetary and other value to property along Governor Street. The maintenance of light, air, separation for fire protection and access for fire fighting will not be impeded by the alteration of the current structure. Moreover, the proposed renovation and expanded structure will neither adversely affect the right of access to light by adjoining property owners nor interfere with the access to the structure or property by emergency services. The height of the new structure will be approximately 36 feet; the height of the current structure is approximately 23 feet. Only two trees are located on the property on which Bethel A.M.E. sits. The majority of the south property line and the entire westerly portion of the property are also free of trees, natural objects and artificial monuments which may be deemed capable of obstructing light. t",:, c::~ ('~=) ~:' ,>-~: 3. The soecific orooosed exceotion will not imoede the normal and~erl~;; develooment and imorovement of surroundim! orooertv.u Granting permission for on-street parking will not impede the develQpmenfan -..,......,. - improvement of property surrounding Bethel A.M.E. Church. Bethel has e~.ited at ~11 y .,c. S. Governor since 1868. In the years since 1958, the church has not undergonea substantial renovation or remodel. The renovation to Bethel A.M.E., and the additional worshippers the renovated facility will likely attract, cannot reasonably and substantially 9 impede the development or improvement of surrounding properties. Surrounding property owners will continue to be able to develop their property during hours which Bethel A.M.E. will not take advantage of the on-street parking privilege. Similarly, the service and construction vehicles can continue northerly travel along 411 S. Governor Street without significant impairment. For example, within the past year, one owner of property directly east of Bethel A.M.E. installed a new roof on his property. The re-roofing project took more than two weeks, and a utility truck for hauling away roofing shingles and other machinery and equipment were parked and or stored along Governor Street. During that time, Bethel continued to hold Sunday worship services and Wednesday evening Bible Study. The property owner was able to continue improvements to his property even though vehicles were parked along either side of Governor Street. Similarly, the immediate and adjacent owner of property of the North 1/2 of Lot 19 Block 1 demolished an early 1930s home and built a modem apartment. The months-long construction project continued unabated even though Bethel utilized the on-street parking for 10-15 cars along Govern Str et. It can be maintained that granting the permission for on-street parking D 25 s will not impair the development of the neighborhood because the on-str t p 109 will occur at off-peak hours, and during a day in which most residential or commercial improvement does not occur . 4. Adeauate utilities. access roads. have been or are Drovided The granting the special exception for the on-street parking requirement will not adversely affect the utilities, access roads, drainage, or other necessary facilities. The required electrical, sewer, and other utilities will be installed according to the code of the City of Iowa, and the installation of the utilities are unrelated to the special exception granted. It should be noted that Bethel A.M.E. Church is bordered on the west by an alley, and that alley can serve to provide access for utility vehicles, should such vehicles need to access the church property or that of adjoining property owners during the time on-street parking is used. The site has a natural slope from front to back. The alley in the rear of the property is roughly 10 feet below Governor St. in elevation. The following are the options for rainwater drainage for the new addition as well as the exiting struQtu,re. T4~? !' "_.~-' three options primarily depend upon the location of city storm sewers, whic~~:: if'jit ~l~ may be located either in the rear alley, off Governor St: --_, -- :;-,' \.D !1 -"1 10 - - .. .J- c.n 1.) If there is a storm sewer in the alley, Bethel A.M.E. will move the rainwater from the roofs, then to gutters, then to downspouts, and will transition the rainwater from downspouts to drain tile at grade to avoid surface draining. Finally, the same will be connected to the city storm sewer system in the alley. 2.) A second option, which also depends upon the location of city storm sewer locations, is to install drain tiles that would connect to the city storm sewer to the east side of the site along Governor Street. 3.) A third option exists if there is not city storm sewer system. Here, rainwater would be moved from the roof, to the gutters, to the downspouts, and then transitioned to drain tiles at grade. The rainwater would then be transferred under the sidewalks to avoid water on the walkways, and toward the westernmost part of the building in order to maximize use of natural sunlight. Finally, the rainwater would be transitioned away from the building to follow the current slope of the land. The surface outlet should be located as near to the alley as possible to avoid dumping water that would eventually freeze near the o:p.....::;ite '-.."..1 handicap parking to the west of the new addition. . . 5. Adeauate inlZress and el!ress desil!ned to minimize traffic,,; , conl!estion will be provided '".:>,':;' The lot dimensions of the Bethel A.M.E. Church are narrow and long. A surve~f the lot shows the lot size measures 39.80' in width and 149.89'in length as measured from the east property line at Governor Street to the western edge of the property. Because the small size of the lot, ingress and egress will be provided via a main entry door facing east towards Governor Street, or a ground level door located near the south property line, and lastly, an exit door located on the west of the property. Even with three points of ingress and egress, worshippers will primarily access the church from the east main entry doors, near the on-street parking site. Governor Street is a one-way street north and all traffic along that street must flow into traffic along adjacent streets the intersection of Governor and Burlington streets. The fact that Governor Street is a one- way street provides further support for the Board of Adjustment to grant the special exception because the flow of traffic will not be impeded as all worshippers must initially travel in the same direction upon leaving the designated on-street parking area. . ;-j j 11 It should be noted that although the renovation plans call for seating approximately 100 persons, it is unlikely that an average of 100 persons will attend service each week. The current capacity is 50 persons; on average 40 persons attend weekly services. It can be maintained that it will take some months-or a few years- in order for Bethel A.M.E. Church to consistently realize full capacity in the sanctuary. General observations regarding attendance show that attendance is highest during December and in the early spring. While the aim is to grow the membership of Bethel, it is practical to presume that even with steady growth the average attendance is projected at 85 persons each week. This number is based on current attendance patterns. We have allotted for 100 persons in order to accommodate special events and other ceremonies, such as weddings and funerals, which may not occur with such frequency as to constitute a burden on the traffic patterns or endanger the health or safety of the property owners, area residents, or the public. Access to the utilities will be made easily accessible. Currently, access to utilities such as gas, water and telephone, are available from either the north or south exterior of the building. While those utilities may be relocated at the time of remodel, the conventional access afforded to those utilities will continue to be provided. 6. The renovation of Bethel A.M.E. Church conforms in all other reSDects to the aQDlicable rel!Ulations or standards Currently, Bethel A.M.E. Church does not meet the required setback requirements of Front: 20'; Side: 20'; and Rear: 50'. Although the lot size of Bethel is fairly narrow, the drafter of the site plans and elevation drawings and or contractor, Apex Construction Company will ensure that the renovation plans complies with other Iowa City regulations and ordinances. A copy of the main and lower level floor plans is attached for reference. The renovated Bethel A.M.E. Church will comply with building scale, landscaping and paved areas; see attached site plan for reference. The drawings show that the renovation of the church is in conformity with the character of the existing church and is compatible with the surrounding residential use. The Historic Preservation Commission granted the church a Certificate of Appropriateness to undertake the major remodel of the facility. In granting the certificate, the Commission a1!foved s~e building design, regarding it as one that maintains the historical, aestheti~ ,~d 0.ther _..:~'" ~'---i r-i'. features of the original facility, is compatible with other structures in th~J1istoriC:and .-n conservation district, and other structures in the neighborhood. : ~D ----'1 .'-"";~ ...- - 12 CJ1 7. The nronosed use is consistent with the Comnrehensive Plan Bethel A.M.E. Church is located in the North District of Iowa City, and is bordered by Interstate 80, Dubuque and Dodge streets. The City of Iowa City has indicated that the maintenance and enhancement of housing is one of the core objectives among the North District Planning Principles. The granting of the special exception will aid in the retention and redevelopment of housing along Governor Street. It is recognized that neither every resident along Governor Street nor every property owner within 300 feet of Bethel will take advantage of the worship services. Still, the renovation of the church can be a catalyst for other development and redevelopment of housing, and in time to come, the presence of the church can be a factor that influences the buying decision of prospective homebuyers in the Longfellow Neighborhood. Additionally, the church will indirectly but beneficially serve the University of Iowa as it seeks to attract students and faculty. The drafters of the Comprehensive Plan recognized that housing in an energetic city builds a community of neighborhoods that is safe and attractive for all residents. As nearby homeowner Ms. Russell, remarked, the renovations at Bethel will be "great for the neighborhood." A renovated Bethel will transform the church from its 19th century schoolhouse design to one that is modem and inviting for all of Iowa City residents. One of the aims of the church is to build and become more active civically in the community. The objective of Bethel comports with that stated in the Comprehensive Plan. For more than 100 years, Bethel worked to build a community of believers. As noted above, the membership at Bethel is approximately 40 persons. During some years, membership was far less than 40. Despite the occasional low membership and dearth of financial resources, Bethel continued to provide a place where students and resident~_"?f Iowa City could gather. The current members of Bethel intend to continue @ serve :~e __ ",....J. community by holding various programs tailored to single and married persoqi. iiose;~d by faith and others. It can scarcely be maintained that those objectives of Bethel'A.M:E. c_ l...C:.J Church are incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. ~t:~ As previously stated, the Historic Preservation Commission granted a~~~jtificfu:e ""':.-.-....'.. -- of Appropriateness to permit the alteration of the church. Bethel A.MJE. Chq,fGh respectfully requests that the Board of Adjustment grant the Special Exception to 14-5A, and permit on-street parking and waive or modify any dimensional or site development standard that would permit the use or occupancy of Bethel A.M.E. Church. Based on the facts and discussion above, Bethel A.M.E. Church has shown based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the exception for on-site parking request meets -Tl 13 the special exception criteria set forth in 14-B-3. The special exception is required in order for Bethel A.M.E. to renovate the century-old facility and to accommodate new and successive generations of worshippers. r ..-~~ '.~.~...., (..11 14 ICj '" I'" I I I I I I I~ IS I I I I I I 10 I: ~~ ~~ !l' 20' o o -0 co >0 lO U1 (39.80') ALLEY Assumed o o -0 bearing NOO'OO'OO" E - 125.13' (45,50') ~~ " Vl 00 "'I '" .... r-3 lO :5f' I S V:? (0/ :J ~CO >0 ~ .... lO 00 ,S 13.9' a.tnO? ~.gp ::J(J}u:! 13.6' (65') "J ..,.- L - 1 ~ ~ 0 concrete o~ co N lO U> Ul-J1"ll - ~~ 3~ ~ o ~ Q " !loll- ~ "J1" f~ ~ i ~ hn p'!j:2: Cl.g.~UI ~~ ~ [ "~~ ~ 'L~" S.h~ ~~f~ !:;f(j'lM('l " g" ~ o~lg ~ ~ " ~. Q.g:i~ :fl.o. S. GOVERNOR ~ ~ I 6; g to ~ ';)~ UHI, CD \J ;::Vl ~Vl m~.~~ '" 00 o:~ -~~ ;0 co ~ << '" :,. :J g !!.~. S.~ 0=' -l ;u 0 9....g >~ VlAJ ~ -;N ;0 0 Vl 0, '" '" '" 00 0" )o-Vl '" ""- (0 -:t~ '" '" n :J < r- ~=i >0 g!.g 0 otll2, '" -no 1J' ~~ ~~~ J:'" :TO o l: _a. "'"0 ~ :J 0'" :!.3 a .. g co ~ I i ~~ ~a. ~!i: 0;:: . '" :T" a. ma. 0 cO-m z -; :;: 2~ :3' ;!- ~)o-o "0 ~ 00.0 !i: 0 '" .. 0. " "'~ ~ g:X" -l [ I '" - " 0 0'- N :;;! '1J 6' 00 "':J :J :J C? a. ~ :::1 co glz I 00 "l '" .... I~ I~ I~ I~ CT ::l. 0.0 3')<" ~g _.OJ o a. (I) ()) ::l 0 :r ~ jgo 20.2' 00 o lO r I (39.80') OJ (/l r '" <b 1J iI 0 m 79 )<" '" (") I 00 '" ~ ^ '" I N '" '" -->. 5.7' 6.0' (39.82') ST. !" ~z .~ e.Qo~)> ~()a.Ui'~~ U)<(')QIIl~OO (D" 3=:oCAc :cct:J gj W'()g:-o ~ ~a.~g q (.1)0::1(1),< c... ~ o ~~o3-..., ~s..~~ ci ~~::3 Q ~-:.~ M- q 6'Ul;r~:r ~~rn~ g 1""'"1 "0 6;:J ::;' (0 lJ) __' ~ a; --"0 :J OID{/),< u INs=CO~ ~~~~ ~ o.~=:~::r (() g ~ro ~ (f) g: ~ .-+ ~ :;' _ g: ~ Z 0 - 0..__0 ~~~~~a S~~~ NCI)Ci1Etr o.:J~Ul . ~:~ 3g:-~ (Q U1 ::r ~ g- (1l :i-.g ~ ~ (b (Xl ., ~J o .... o --F-- Z ~ LD I I I r; x' ~ ~~'" I; C-Io 1 0 :;u::C () fT1 ~o ....::cr lO 0- 00 5 8' 5 4' . .' . r N o ~u= "'';':,... <p n~~g "'0; G'l c::, 'O~ )> [QJ ~ z ~~ o~ l:!.;;1M~ >: .z';':,... .!.~I S2 ~ 1I:..c:z "'OM~~ ~~ (45.50') -u ;0 iI ~ I'l '" u -l 0 OJ ;0 0- CT )> '< -l :T () 0 3 fTl 0 '" ~ )0- ;:l. ::T 0 I'l :J '< Z 01 '" -l U> (/l 0 00 LJ :;: '" ~ r <b )> ~ <b OJ -l 00 <b 0' ~ 0 n ? 0' ~ 0 t:; lO t;; U> .... I lO 00 -Po '"'" o o u <::\ N ~I I I I I I I NJ CD I I I I I I gl ;1 N co '" !II ~""'i'li'- OI-tlgn. ......~Ut~!!! ~t>;.. _ "~~@2_ 1l~8Nli_ ;g !St04'U~t_ ,..~Ul!~_ VI --liSl_ (...)! ~-~- ~ ~,.~- .. "';;';0. ., N~_ !!..- ti~_ :1- ~..O ~'D ;t, -'::'.:c. ~ 1 ~ ~, - ~ :::;~ ~ ~ ~fI"'~ ~. . ....." :::::::::::::-= ~""~. ::::.::---=:::: '. ---=:: ::::-----::::::. ~ -. -. '~ ::::::::-~ =- ~ - ------- = mu ~ =. ~-- , " cr \or . CD -pc,9-- -*()r'fj -to ~ hO-ros F Q :~~ (j -..,... ..- .:-) ---; r -'j '. =-< [:'; G--, "'=:~ :;:~ -'- .oc:::..-_.... p. j..........:) C~::> = 0-' CJ --, ,J II \.0 ::::z, -~,~ -n -~ '.J <..n w ~ =. "- --) c.:> <::>" (:;:::. 0 CJ ~.;:.. "'~- r .t' I 11 -'-'" - " n --- ,...-\ \., j --- \.0 --J - \.. , i i ~ .:- G :x::. --1 -,. '-1 - , , 7" '--:: ...~-> ).; c.n J w .... --- ... - - - - -"'- "'-'- -- ------ ------ -- - -- ----. - -------- - J1. l .I. l- ~" ~_~ It I '; 'I f ~M -~'--lf \';. . .\ <r'~ . . - 1(~~~. /-' . I ? ----- ~ ~ = 0 ~'::::J c:r-- <: Q ~ ::::~ ", 1 T1 - - () C. -<, '..0 --, --; ~ J .-:.... . ~ fTj j ._, ---. - ) >'-...1 . I _.~.- ,.~ //........ - <..... U1 )> J W - I ... l r ~..~. . - -.').:.fif ~ ,;----=-=--=-- '~f) " ~--~ ------- "-- --- ' --==-----:-- --~ ~- = ------= --....-..- --.. - --- --.--- -.--- ""'""'-....-- r _ _ r--~ 0 = 0'"> ""> 0 CJ ~-; , rq --n - C) c-'} r \.0 ") '- n -'" =: r il ---, "--1 ~- ~......_.I '-' ^ - ..,....." -> .. )> CJ1 W f f " I"'.' ....,. I '" => Q = <::T" ~.:,> n C' --- '-..""! !l ...,....> '--:J , " ~ - \.0 r n " .. : ~:.. : ,- ~ I , ~._J ;-', -;:- "-~~ r ...-> S> (J1 w 1"-.) C) i::::::J c:::> ~- 0-. ~.,.. Q :::J :1:;- ~ --- . . ( -' n 11 , -'j C ....!:) _/ " 'll fli :::> (~ ~ .....,:... ~ ~ ,.,.-........ ',._1 CJ1 W To the Board of Adjustment From Wanda Wilker I, Wanda Wilker, am the owner of 415 S. Governor St., which is directly south of the Bethel A.M.E. Church at 411 S. Governor St. I have opposition to the proposed expansion of the Bethel A.M.E. Church. I do not believe that they have met the requirements that fall under Section 14-4B-3 Special Exceptions. I first need to clarify a point made in the proposal which is not true. In section 3, page 6 reference is made to the fact that I have been approached a number of times by the Bethel A.M.E. Church with regards to their desire to purchase my property, but I have not been approached by the church. A report was made that I stated that I have no intention of selling the property, but this is also not true. I feel that this is a deliberate statement made to sway the Board of Adjustments to think that they have exhausted other parking options. Perhaps they should have purchased the property to the north when it was for sale a few years ago. I have in fact been talking with my family about selling the property as I am getting too old to deal with the problems that arise, and it hurts too much to see the neighborhood change from a historic 19th century feel to more modem square buildings, built on lots too large to accommodate them, like the apartments across the street, the apartment building to the north of the church, and this new proposed extension of the Bethel A.M.E. Church. Pursuant to the Approval Criteria numbers 1,2,4, and 5: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Since the proposed new building would come so close to the edge of the lot, I feel that it would pose a greater fire risk for the two adjacent buildings, including my home. If a fire started in anyone of the three buildings, 415, 411, and the building to the north of 411, it would be much easier for the fire to jump to a neighboring building that was built too close according to standard regulations. Emergency vehicles will be able to respond to emergencies only from Governor St. and not from the alleyway. Access to the back of the property by way of the alley is usually impeded by numerous cars and trucks parking in the alleyway. The alleyway is always in disrepair with potholes and large puddles. The city does not maintain it because it is not a throughway alley. Therefore, the potholes are actually deep enough to damage vehicles. A fire engine would not be able to get through the alley on a normal day. It is sometimes very difficult for even a single car to navigate through the obstacles. As owner of a truck, I often find it difficult if not impossible to get to my property at 415 S. Governor due to the many illegally parked cars and potholes. Counting on an emergency vehicle to have access through the alleyway would not be possible as the proposal suggests. The extended building will not be easily accessible to a fire truck, and impossible to reach from street side, thus endangering all inhabitants and adjacent neighbors. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. I feel that my property value will be impaired due to the fact that I have always told prospective renters that they can enjoy quiet surroundings. Many students have finished their degrees while living there. With the church's expansion I suspect that there will be not only Worship Services on Sunday but also choir practices, church schools for children, general meetings, weddings and funerals, outdoor events and more that will impede the quiet of the neighborhood. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. I feel the drainage is a major problem. The entire lot with the exception of three parking spaces is to be covered by a building that exceeds regulation size, and concrete that goes to the edges ofthe property. Their proposal suggests a storm sewer in the alleyway, a storm sewer on the east side along Governor St, or thirdly to let the water run naturally following the natural slope of the land. If water is allowed to flow the natural slope of the land, it would be disastrous to the basement of my property, which does not currently have any water leaks. It also would be detrimental to the alleyway already impaired by potholes and flooding; and certainly it would be damaging to the houses located at the lowest point of the hill, in the 400 block ofS. Lucas Street. There is not currently a sewer system in the alleyway and an insufficient storm sewer on the east side of Governor St. This leads me to believe that the rainwater will run naturally, endangering my house, the alley, and the houses and property located in the 400 block ofS. Lucas. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. A problem exists due to the sidewalk space that is currently provided. Quite often people and especially children walk or run across my property. Both of my apartments have bedrooms on the north side, and I have had complaints from my renters saying that on Sunday mornings the parishioners sometimes stand directly outside their bedroom windows talking and laughing. This is not conducive to the tenant sleeping late when one has worked the late shift. With the increased services and parishioners that this addition might generate, it is likely to be an increased amount of noise. Also, if the sidewalk is continued to the edge of the property it brings the people even closer to my home and lawn, thus inevitably making more noise and increased traffic on my grass. I feel that the value of my apartments will therefore decrease because there will not be the quiet neighborhood that I have advertised in the past. I have a small parking lot with five allotted spaces in the back of my property and already have a serious problem with people parking there who do not have the right to park there. I currently have three renters, one of which is my daughter. Between the three, they have two cars and there are times when they come home and there are no parking spaces for them. The expansion of the church with 100% exception to the parking regulation of providing only 3 parking spaces greatly increases the likelihood that people from the church might park in my lot even if for only a few minutes. That few minutes may be just the time when one of my renters returns home and needs that place to park. In addition to the above mentioned problem with emergency vehicles gaining access from the alleyway, if street parking is allowed on the west side of the street at times other than Sunday from lOam - 1 pm when there is more traffic, it will turn a 2-lane one-way street into a one-lane one-way street. I do not feel that the statistics given on traffic numbers are typical of normal everyday traffic. Governor St. and Dodge St. were made one-way streets in order to facilitate easy travel through the city, and obstructing one lane of Governor will greatly diminish that intent. As mentioned above, there is already such an abundance of vehicles parked in the alleyway that the overflow is taken up by street parking. Most of the time it is extremely difficult to find a parking place on the street. The additional traffic created by the expansion and programs of the church will greatly exacerbate the shortage of street parking. In addition, if it is the church's intention to rent parking spaces from an adjacent apartment building to the north, it will increase the need for on-street parking for the residents and their guests. This will contribute to the congestion on the street. Rules are made with a specific goal in mind. Everything about the addition contradicts these goals. The house at 415 S. Governor was built in 1951 by my mother, and has been inhabited almost all of the time to the present by me or someone in my immediate family. The neighborhood architecturally was once a quaint neighborhood of the early 1900's. A large stately home with wraparound porch on three sides across the street was razed to make way for two large square apartment buildings. A cute little 1900's house on the other side of the church was allowed to be razed to make way for another large square apartment building. What a pity and how disheartening it is to see this lovely historic 19th Century architecture being replaced by modern square buildings, which to me is not an inviting architecture. The current church is a beautiful structure and has a rich history. It would be a shame to alter such a beautiful historic building by turning it into a modern structure. Perhaps the church should consider purchasing separate land, which would allow them to preserve this beautiful historical building and construct a separate facility of the size desired, with a parking lot to accommodate all of its parishioners. If a similar entity such as a sports arena were to build in a residential neighborhood asking 100% exception to the parking ordinance, I hope that they would also be turned down. It is my feeling, that this expansion would create a safety problem, would lower the value of my property, would potentially cause flooding in the neighborhood, would increase the on-street parking problems on days other than the Sunday Worship hours, would promote more noise and traffic, and would destroy the beauty of the original historical building. Thank you for your consideration. January 4, 2007 Board of Adjustment City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Bethel A.M.E. Church - 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Johnson County Members of the Board: I am the historian/architectural historian who authored the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the above-referenced historic church building. I worked on this project in the late 1990s and it culminated in a successful listing in 2000. While this particular nomination was performed pro bono because I grew up in the Longfellow neighborhood and had a long-standing interest in this building, I also do this type of work professionally all across the state. My firm performs various levels of architectural studies and assessments ofNRHP eligibility for many clients, including federal agencies, the Iowa Department of Transportation, various municipalities, and many large architectural/engineering firms based inside and outside the state of Iowa. Over the last 20 years, I have evaluated the historic integrity and potential historical and/or architectural significance of literally thousands of examples of Iowa architecture, from farmsteads to factories. It was and remains my professional opinion that the Bethel AME Church is a highly significant historic resource within the heart of this city. It is the physical legacy of a very different era of American society, both nationally and locally, and deserves every bit of recognition and protection available to it. The little church is certainly one of a kind in Iowa City and one of only a few, relatively speaking, historically black churches extant in the state. As such, it was very easy to argue for its National Register significance, especially since it had changed little in its many decades of service to the local African- American community. While I am heartened at the health of the congregation and its growing membership rolls, I am very concerned about the plans for expansion as presented to the Historic Preservation Commission in December, 2006. I do think a more modest and sensitive addition can be designed. However, the present plans will leave the building ineligible for continued listing on the National Register. If it had already been remodeled under these plans when I first approached the nomination project, I would never have pursued it. The building's historic integrity would have been too diminished by modem alterations. Letter to the Iowa City Board of A4justment, Re: Bethel AME Church, 4 January 2007 My main concern is the overwhelming scale of the new addition, which virtually dwarfs the historic church visually from all angles and, in effect, replaces the original church and reduces it to a vestibule for the new addition. The monumental new "church" looming behind the little historic building would certainly represent the success of a growing modem Iowa City AME membership, but also ignore the generations of small groups of worshipers from past decades who struggled just to keep the door open and the building heated. The need for a better visual separation or architectural segue between the new and the old buildings is also critical and not evident in the present design. In general, exterior alterations and details of the new addition should meet the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. The City's staffhas already quite thoroughly analyzed the plans within these guidelines. I agree with the staffs conclusions completely. Inside the building, my biggest concern is the subdivision of the sanctuary into smaller rooms. Granted the church is not a public building per se, such as a courthouse, but unlike a private home where there is no expectation of public access, this church building has always welcomed a variety of visitors and does have a semi-public character. The essential historic nature of the interior is the sanctuary and the volume of open space it encloses. Partition walls would destroy this essential character. Combined, the massive scale of the planned addition and the reduction of open interior space effectively destroy the historic integrity of the church building. Its best chances for long-term preservation are not to immediately destroy its integrity, as the present plans would do, nor to render the building obsolete by rejecting all attempts by the congregation to expand and meet present needs. Rather, some design compromise must be found that results in a more sympathetic and scaled-down addition that still gives the congregation some room to grow. This expansion project needs to return to the drawing board. Thank you. Sincerely, Jan Olive Nash January 5, 2007 To: Board of Adjustment From: Friends of Historic Preservation Re: Bethel AM.E. Church Proposal 411 South Governor Lot 19, Block 1 Dear Board Members: Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP) became aware of the applicant's intention to expand the church and the circumstances under which they are seeking an exception when they filed for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the Historic Preservation Commission in December 2006. FHP recognizes the significance of the Bethel AM.E.'s presence as the oldest standing AM.E. church in Iowa. As an organization that has actively participated in the preservation of Iowa City's historic community for over 30 years, beginning with saving Old Brick. We believe it is our responsibility to bring to your attention our concerns regarding the plans for expansion. 1. Integrity of the original sanctuary. Constructed in 1868 and updated in the 1920's, the church building remains a modest, simple structure. The sanctuary holds a raised, platform chancel along the west wall that accommodates the pulpit, piano and ceremonial chairs. The remainder of the space is open for rows of seating. Below, the basement has been set-up for social functions with a small kitchen and a bathroom. Proposed plans for the current church indicate that the sanctuary space would be subdivided to provide for an enlarged bathroom, coat room, office, reception and foyer. While these changes may be practical and needed by the church, they significantly alter the structure, so that it is no longer a historic sanctuary. We believe that these plans do not meet the criteria to help preserve the historic, aesthetic or cultural attributes of the property. 2. Differentiating the new addition from the historic structure. The proposed plans indicate an 18 inch separation between the historic church and the addition. Rather than differentiate the two buildings, the size of this "breezeway' compacts the design and contributes to the mass ofthe addition overwhelming the original church. 3. The size and scale of the proposed addition overwhelm the existing church and surrounding structures, threatening the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The National Register application for the church states, " Sitting on a narrow half-lot, the church building fills that portion of its site nearest Governor Street...A short driveway leads from the street to the south side of the church and the fence line for a nearby house lies close to the church on the north side. Occupying just half an 80' x 150' lot, the 20' wide church leaves roughly 10 feet of yard space between it and the adjacent properties. Mature trees on the lot add to the congested feeling. Off the church's front north comer is a very large white oak thought to be more than 100 years old and "one of the best in the neighborhood." Off the southeast comer is a fence line catalpa about 65 years old." As noted on the plans provided by Bethel A.M.E., the lot width is 39' 10" and with the construction ofthe addition there would be 5' 10" and 4' 4" set back from the adjacent properties. The set back is further reduced by the two side windows and roof line detail. In addition, the property would lose the mature trees and other space to accommodate the addition. In contrast to other residential properties in the area, the enlarged church would occupy a larger percentage of its lot, changing the character of the area to a more urban than residential place. Secondly, the mass of the addition overwhelms the original church. As noted under #2, the lack of differentiating the spaces make the addition tower over the original church. As planned, the addition would be 26 feet high with a steeple adding additional height, while the original church is only 18ft high. Despite these challenges and others, FHP is optimistic and believes that with additional design assistance, input from church planning experts and a little time, a solution will be found that will pay reverence to the congregation and church that have been part of Iowa City since 1868. FHP stands ready to help find a solution. Respectfully, Friends of Historic Preservation City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 5, 2007 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: . APL06-00004, Reconsideration of the appeal of a decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located at 923 Iowa Avenue. Please note that for the reconsideration of this appeal I am re-submitting to you all of the materials included in the Board's November packet-the materials reviewed by the board prior to the November consideration, including my November 6 memo, which lays out the scope of the case. In addition you will find enclosed here the portion of the November meeting minutes that pertain to the appeal, all new materials submitted by the applicant at the November meeting, and all new materials submitted subsequent to the December vote to reconsider the appeal. While all board members should review the November minutes, it will be especially important fo the two members who were not present at that meeting (Ned and Edgar) to review those minutes. This will allow you to reconsider the case in the most efficient manner-not having to repeat all previous testimony. Please contact me if you have any questions. A IT ACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of the November BOA meeting. 2. Additional materials from the applicant. All materials previously submitted to the board at or prior to the November 16 meeting: 3. Memo from the City Attorney 4. Staff memo for November 6 5. Location map 6. Application for appeal from Frank Gersh 7. Correspondence regarding the appeal 8. HPC Staff Report on 923 Iowa Ave, including Multi-family site standards 9. Memo to HPC from Sunil Terdalkar regarding section 8.2 of the preservation manual 10. Aerial views of the subject property 11. Final HPC application materials for 923 Iowa Avenue including sketches 12. Correspondence regarding the HPC application from Frank Gersh and surrounding neighbors 13. Minutes and transcripts of the Sept. 14 and Sept. 28 HPC meetings 14. Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook 15. Additional materials provided by the applicant at the November 16 meeting ~'N"'f:\ Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 6 of 23 4.) The front setback reductions are approved only for the length of the building along the Brown street frontage as proposed by the applicant 5.) A convent is recorded with the property that the subject balconies may not be enclosed. Evidence of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Leigh asked if there is any additional parking. Howard said no, but converting form a fraternity, it'sa more limited parking demand. Howard said that within the RM44 zone, there can be up to five unrelated persons in each condominium dwelling. Howard said the applicant can address who their intending to rent the condominiums to. Public Hearinq Open Bill Franz of Franz Construction, the applicant, said he can answer any questions. He said he will have 3 condominium units for sale. He will be providing 3 single car garage units and 3 outdoor spaces. Franz said that the first and second floors are each 2,300 square feet. The third is 1,446 sq. feet. He said that they will be, in Alexander's words, upscale condominiums. Sarah Holecek said that the City doesn't have the ability to regulate whether the condos would be owner- occupied or not. The purchaser could use it as a rental property as long as they obtained a renters permit form the City. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Shelangouski moved that EXC06-00025, submitted by Frantz Construction Co. for special exception to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback from 13.5 feet to 0 feet in the high density, multi-family RM-44 Zone at 724 N. Dubuque Street, be approved according to the staff conditions listed above. Wood seconded the motion. Wood said the standard is peculiar to the property in question and the right-of-way is unusually wide. He doesn't have concerns. Wood said there is practical difficulty in compliance with setback requirements and it will provide some relief for parking. He said it will remove fire escapes that are "somewhat of an eyesore". Wood said that it won't impact privacy of dwellings in that area. Wood is happy with the requirement to keep the balconies open. Wood said that the special exception will not be detrimental to public health, nor are other properties affected. Wood said that it will not impede normal and orderly development in surrounding property. Wood said it will not affect ingress or egress. He will vote in support. Alexander agreed with Wood and would vote in favor. Shelangouski agreed with both Wood and Alexander for reasons stated. She would vote in favor. Wright agreed with the Wood, Shelangouski and Alexander. He called it an "attractive re-use of a building with potential". Leigh agreed with board. Motion was approved: 5:0 Wood excused himself because he had somewhere to be at 7 pm. He said he didn't want to have to leave in the middle of discussion of the next case. ~ APL06-0004 Discussion of an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Resid~ntial (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. Walz said this is somewhat of an unusual case for the board and appreciated everyone's preparation as the reading materials were lengthy. Walz said that at its September 28, 2006 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue. She said the original building was destroyed in the April 2006 tornado. Walz said the appellant, John Roffman, was proposing a new building to replace the original building on the site. Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 7 of 23 Walz said the HPC denied the Certificate of Appropriateness citing the mass and scale of the proposed structure. Walz said the applicant believed the denial was actually based on the density of the proposed building. Walz said that the new apartment building would include 6 three-bedroom unite apartments, different from the original, which had 9 one-bedroom units. Walz said that the HPC guidelines that apply to the proposal for 923 Iowa Avenue may be found in section 10.0 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. Walz said that at an earlier meeting, the HPC had requested a clarification from the Zoning Interpretation Panel (ZIP). Walz said that the ZIP decision indicated that the specific limitations imposed under section 8.2 apply only to single family buildings and duplexes and not to the multi-family building under consideration. Walz said that the applicant revised his plans and provided final sketches of a slightly smaller building. Walz said the revisions meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Code. Walz said that the HPC has no authority to regulate density of the underlying zone. Density, Walz said, is regulated exclusively through the Zoning Code. Walz said that whatever people may wish for that sight in terms of density is done through the Zoning Code. The only criteria in question were scale and mass. All other aspects met with approval. Walz said the issue was, when the Historic Preservation Commission denied the Certificate, was their decision based on scale and mass or was it based on what we consider density. Walz referred to the original building (on screen) and said that the applicant's final proposal at the September 28th meeting showed a building that was 52 feet wide by 69 feet deep. Walz said she made a mistake on the memo. Instead of the roofline being just less than 28 feet, the new proposal's roofline was in fact less than 34.9 feet. Walz said that the original 3-story building being replaced had a footprint of 42 by 50 feet and a roofline of 38 feet and ten inches. The roofline, Walz said, of the new proposed building is about 4 feet shorter than the older building. Walz said that the authority of the HPC extends only to the overall compatibility of that design with the surrounding neighborhood and district as described in section 10.0 of the handbook. Walz said the issues of scale and mass require interpretation based on the facts specific to the application under consideration. Walz said that she wanted to mention a couple of things she failed to note earlier. There is a page in the appeal application showing other projects that have been approved by the HPC. The table focuses on the change in depth that came with addition to various applications to the HPC. Walz said that a change in depth is not necessarily a change in scale and mass. Walz said, for example a deep one story addition may not be perceived in the same way in terms of scale and mass as if you are extending the entire building. Mass and scale need to be applied in context. Walz pointed out an error in the percentage increases indicated in the applicants table-those percentages are inflated. Walz said she is confident that this was just a mistake. For example, one lists an increase of 239 percent. Walz said it's an increase of a factor of 2.3 but that's a 139 percent increase. Walz said that the board must decide based on the following: 1.) Were the criteria regarding scale and mass applied appropriately in this case? 2.) If you should decide that the Historic Preservation Commission acted in error, you may overturn the decision or, by acting in the role of the Historic Preservation Commission, you may render a new decision based on the facts presented in the attached documents or any additional testimony given at this meeting Walz said that the drawing before the board showed the front of the old building in bold line. The "ghosted out" gray lines are setback 20 feet out but the building does come out a bit wider. But the front fayade doesn't represent the width of the whole building. Walz proceeded to show the rest of the slides. Walz said that the illustrations showed the newly proposed building and the outlines of the buildings surrounding the property. Holecek said that in deciding this appeal, the board "steps into the shoes of the Historic Preservation Commission", examines their decision and decides whether there were any underlying issues of arbitrary or capricious pretext. Once you decide that initial inquiry, Holecek said, the second issue is how you are going to decide: you can affirm or modify the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Holecek suggests the board splits it into two votes, as listed above. Holecek said that a modification might mean the board says a dimension needs to be scaled back, for example. Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 8 of 23 Alexander said she wanted clarification as to what kind of group the Historic Preservation Commission is. Holecek said the Historic Preservation Commission has two functions: studies and recommendations for the implementation of conservation districts within the city. Then they become quasi-judicial to give out Certificates of Appropriateness. Holecek said that the Historic Preservation Commission is both legislative and quasi-judicial. Holecek said that this issue is in the realm of quasi-judicial. Holecek said that the board was provided with the minutes of the previous Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Holecek said that the Historic Preservation Commission is empowered to address historic issues that relate to design, architecture, and aesthetics. Walz said that there is no staff report interpreting the Historic Preservation Commission meeting because the evidence is in the minutes and transcripts. Public Hearinq Open John Beasley. attorney speakinq on behalf of John Roffman in support of his appeal. Beasley said that he brought some "school supplies", referring to his notebooks for the board. Beasley said that the photographs at the Historic Preservation Commission presentation were shown via computer projection and he felt these were not an accurate portrayal of "what was occurring out there". He felt his notebooks were better. Beasley said his notebooks show 6 exhibits.. The first is a representation of what Roffman hopes to construct. The second, Beasley said, shows the West elevation. He did not include the east because the Historic Preservation Commission concerns came from the west primarily. Beasley requested an easel for his visual aides. Beasley said that exhibit two shows that they took an outline of the proposed construction and took a dark line and superimposed what was there before the demolition. This was done for both north and west elevations. Leigh said that her understanding that on the sides, the proposed building goes out to the darker lines drawn on Beasley's illustrations. Walz said that the lines represent the top roofline of the bay but yes, the side of the building does come out to the darker lines. Walz urged Beasley to speak into the microphone because the recording was not picking him up. Beasley said that the third photograph shows a bird's eye view to show the relationship between the building footprints. Beasley said the last depiction showed an expanded view to include the property adjacent and the two properties to the west. The dark line, he said, would represent the previous footprint. The light blue line would represent the proposed structure. Beasley said the photographs purpose were to give the board another view of this mass-depth discussion. Beasley said that exhibit 5's aerial views show the relationship between property to the west and multi- family properties to the east. Beasley said he also included some photographs of some of the larger multi- family structures not only adjacent to the property but in the nearby area as well. Beasley said the last exhibit is a depiction of various other projects that increased the depth footprint in resulting mass of various projects that have been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Beasley said he attached the actual Certificate of Appropriateness that go along with the various projects. The point of the Certificates, Beasley said, is to demonstrate that the Historic Preservation Commission has approved similar requests in the past. Beasley pointed the board's attention to a staff report pertaining to Roffman's proposal before the first Historic Preservation Commission meeting, September 14, 2006. Beasley said this staff report discusses the appropriate guidelines in relation to Roffman's proposal, in particular 10.0. Beasley said lighting, parking, height, and building materials were all concerns of the staff. It indicates that this proposal satisfies minimum point requirements for approval. There is no mention of depth, mass concerns, Beasley said. Beasley said Roffman's architect sent a memo before September 14th meeting that responds to concerns, also in board's packet. Beasley said that the concerns of the September 14th meeting, according to minutes, are whether guideline 8.2 applies to a multi-family unit. Beasley said one reading only 8.2 applies to multi-family and duplexes. Beasley said the Historic Preservation Commission requested a deferment so Holecek's department can render a legal opinion. Beasley there was not discussion about depth of west elevation. Beasley said that 8.2 doesn't apply, which was discussed at September 28th meeting. Beasley said that the primary concerns is that the new building is going to have 6 units with 3 bedrooms a piece, which will result in a different clientele. Beasley said that the depth and mass only become an issue at the September 28th meeting. Beasley's position was that zoning, not Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 9 of 23 Historic Preservation Commission, controls the density. The Historic Preservation Commission translated concerns about the inside of the building and used the argument of depth and mass as a pretext. Beasley said he looked at the guidelines and the one that was relied on by the Historic Preservation Commission was building heighUmass. Nothing else, he said, appeared to be an issue. Beasley said that the history of the Historic Preservation Commission shows that when depth and mass has been increased, they have not denied applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. Beasley read some of the transcripts of the September 28th Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Beasley focused on Carlson's quote, "There is nothing in our purview that reflects building depth. We have no say over that whatsoever." Beasley said he doesn't believe the Historic Preservation Commission has the authority to deny a certificate based on depth, regarding guideline 10.0. Beasley said there have been design features put into West elevations to reduce visual mass. Beasley said that this project meets the minimum point requirements. Beasley said that his view is that you need to read 10.1 and 10.2 together. Beasley said that 10.1 offers subjective material but 10.2 is an effort to bring some objectivity to some of the criteria that are outlined in 10.1. Beasley said that staff's position is that minimum point requirements have been satisfied. Beasley said that the September 28th meeting brou~ht new concerns to Roffman that were not staff concerns as presented in the previous September 14t meeting. Beasley said that the Historic Preservation Commission's decision was a result of neighbor complaints, and this is not a basis to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission made a decision outside of their purview, Beasley said. Beasley said that there is a timeline to follow when submitting a Certificate of Denial, which the Historic Preservation Commission did not follow. Beasley said these are grounds for the board to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. Beasley asked the board if he could have "a couple minutes" to address any concerns that the public may raise. Jim Enloe. Colleae Street. former Historic Preservation Commission board member. He asked for clarification on Beasley's illustrations. Enloe requested to see the slide that showed the front elevation. He said that the illustrations show a significant increase in the visual mass of the building. He said he wanted to clarify that. He said he didn't take part in any of the Historic Preservation Commission's deliberations on this issue. He said that the Historic Preservation Commission's function is to protect the historic nature of architecture in a conservation district to make compatible decisions. Enloe said that scale and mass are with the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. Enloe said that the Historic Preservation Commission hasn't approved all applications, as Beasley said. Enloe said the Historic Preservation Commission has a considerable amount of expertise and this decision was not made to stymie a developmental project. He said it was egregious to say this decision was a pretext. Enloe said that the judgments of the Historic Preservation Commission should not be second-guessed by the BOA. Ann Estin. Colleae Street. She wanted to say she supports the Historic Preservation Commission. It is important to her to preserve the historic values. She is concerned with the new evidence of the applicant. Esten said that it seems to her the issue is whether the Historic Preservation Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Esten said that she attended the September 14th meeting and she heard a lot of discussion of scale and mass. Esten said she thinks it's unfair to assess the Historic Preservation Commission's findings based on Beasley's arguments that the neighbors' complaints influenced the Historic Preservation Commission. Phillip Lutaendorf. 911 Iowa Ave. Lutgendorf said that his house was also badly damaged in the tornado and reconstruction has been a meticulous process. Lutgendorf was at both of the past Historic Preservation Commission meetings-September 14th and 28th-and he said that scale and mass were indeed discussed at both meetings. Lutgendorf said he brought them up. Lutgendorf said that the way the overlays are put up now is more representative of a building that is 10 feet wider and 29 feet longer, which is a significant increase. Lutgendorf said this is supposed to be a neighborhood of mixed-owner occupied dwellings and in the last 20 years, the neighborhood has seen a transition to increased rental properties. Lutgendorf said that families are moving out of the block because of the rental buildings. Bu Wilson. Colleae Street. Wilson agreed with previous speaker. Her neighborhood is becoming an increasingly irresponsible form of rental properties. Wilson said that Iowa Avenue is a historic street because it was designed to have the Capitol on one end and the Governor's mansion on the other. She said that the building at 932 Iowa was always out of scale but it was there. But to replace it with Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 10 of 23 something that was even more massive, Wilson said, is absurd. He said that the Historic Preservation Commission deserves to be given its purview. It is wishes to take a broad view of its mandate, take the broad view. She said history is not a matter of adding up points. Mike Cervantes. 918 E. Washinqton Street. Cervantes said that he knows it's a mixed neighborhood. He said he's 12 feet away from his neighbor on one side, to add 10 more feet would make it difficult. He said 12 feet would have a big impact on the neighborhood. He said he's not criticizing the design. He's concerned about the increase in mass. Susan Lutqendorf. 911 Iowa Ave. Lutgendorf read a letter from Wanda, a neighbor who had to leave the meeting. The letter asked the board to respect the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Lutgendorf said that the comments of Roffman's attorney, calling the Historic Preservation Commission's decision capricious, were not correct. Lutgendorf referred to the minutes of the September 14th Historic Preservation Commission meeting. She read a comment made by her husband, which brought up scale and mass. Lutgendorf said that the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission was well considered. Lutgendorf said that she is spending a huge amount of money to reconstruct her own house. The idea of a neighbor encroaching on the side and back, she said, changes the appearance and devalues her property. Nancy Carlson. 1002 E. Jefferson. Carlson referred to Beasley's comments that the Historic Preservation Commission had approved numerous other additions and so they should approve Roffman's design. Carlson said that she believed each case brought to the Historic Preservation Commission should be treated independent of any other site's case. Carlson said that the people who have spoken here have spoken because they have an investment in the neighborhood as neighbors. There is no monetary investment. They want to protect the area they live in, Carlson said, and they are grateful for the help from the City. Carlson said that in 2000 the city said they wanted mixed neighborhoods. Carlson said that if we cannot work out a way where owner-occupied people can feel safe in their neighborhoods, then why does the city continue to talk about mixed neighborhoods? Tim Weitzel. Chair of Historic Preservation Commission. Weitzel said he wanted to make some clarifications. Weitzel said that it was presented to the Historic Preservation Commission that the building was beyond repair. Weitzel said that as far as new construction, there is a building on Dodge Street that was allowed an increase in mass. However, he said, the building that replaced it stayed within compatibility of scale and mass. Weitzel read various Historic Preservation Commission guidelines in addition to 10.1. Weitzel read guideline 2.0 in its entirety. Weitzel read guideline 3.4 as his "fallback position". Weitzel referred to guideline 8.2 and said that the Historic Preservation Commission initially deferred the decision to seek legal advice in regards to their purview. Weitzel referred to guideline 9.0, item 9, and read it in its entirety. Weitzel said that Historic Preservation Commission discussed scale and mass in both meetings. He pointed out that both meetings should not be looked at as separate meetings. The second was a continuation of the first meeting. Weitzel said that the original dimensions of the building were 42x40x39 and the proposal would increase them to 46x69x36. Weitzel said that the footprint went from 1680 to 3174, the frontage went from 1646 to 1656, and the total mass went from 65,520 cubic feet to 111,090 cubic feet. Weitzel said the Historic Preservation Commission needs some latitude and it will not work if you make it a "flow chart process". Alexander asked Holecek about the BOA's responsibility in this matter. Holecek said all commissions have to apply the guidelines before them and it is the BOA's responsibility to decide whether the Historic Preservation Commission followed such guidelines. Holecek said that while additional evidence can be submitted to clarify things, all decision must come back to the guidelines. Holecek said that intent doesn't get you far, you have to look at the law. Holecek reiterated that intent doesn't get you to the standard you are applying. It sets out a goal, but not the law. Holecek said that it is the BOA's responsibility to look at the evidence as objectively as possible, and apply the relevant guideline, 10.1, and find whether that was appropriately applied by the Historic Preservation Commission in denying the Certificate of Appropriateness. John Beasley. attorney sDeakinq on behalf of John Roffman. Beasley said that this is not a historic neighborhood, it's a conservation neighborhood. Beasley said that in exhibit 2, the difference of 10 feet from the street is irrelevant because in the guideline that deal with issues of mass calculations are inapplicable to multi-family. Beasley said that he's seen it all but he's never seen a person who is Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 11 of 23 supposed to be unbiased, impartial commission member come to an appeal and advocate on behalf on one side or another, referring to Weitzel. Jim Enloe, Colleqe Street, former Historic Preservation Commission board member. Menloe said the issue of mass is not defined by the surface area of the fa9ade, but instead by the volumetric calculation of width depths, and height. and it is in the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. Alexander asked for Enloe's view on "visual mass" and Enloe said he won't speak for the Historic Preservation Commission but his view is that "visual mass" has to do with shape and size. Enloe said that, in this case, visual mass is a large increase. Enloe said that the Historic Preservation Commission has granted increases in depth, but they have also denied increases in depth. Mass and scale, Enloe said, have always played a part in any Historic Preservation Commission decision. Enloe said he does not believe the Historic Preservation Commission acted capriciously. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Wright moved that APL04-0004 , an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue, be denied. Leigh seconded the motion. Wright said that the building in question will loom over the neighborhood even more than the original building. Wright said the Historic Preservation Commission has a very difficult decision before them. he issues that the Historic Preservation Commission had to take into account were multi-faceted. Wright said that the Historic Preservation Commission acted within their purview. Wright said that there were larger issues, such as the fact that the other residential properties are a good deal smaller than the proposed structure, which, according to Wright, is a mass argument that the Historic Preservation Commission had to take into account. Wright said it is a significant lot on Iowa Avenue. Wright said they did not act capriciously or arbitrarily in their decision. Alexander said that she is troubled with the findings. Alexander said that they need to base their decision on the record and not on new evidence. Holecek said that the district court will allow additional evidence in cases when a commission's decision is appealed. Alexander said she is sensitive to this topic because the BOA has been appealed before. Alexander said she's sensitive to stated findings. Alexander said if findings are not clearly stated, it puts the board in the position of "mind reading". Alexander said she's concerned about the lack of finding of fact in the records she was provided. Alexander said that she's not finding a lot of evidence in the record. Alexander said that there are things where one will talk about density and neighborhood concerns, but when she's referred to 10.1, she doesn't know how to take such new evidence into account. Alexander said that she doesn't know how to determine the intent of the Historic Preservation Commission. Wright said he is troubled as well. Wright said that guideline 10.1 is not a clear help. The transcripts are "mixed" and he said that the question that BOA is being asked to respond is quite limited. Holecek clarified that the board's job is to affirm whether the Historic Preservation Commission's decision was based on 10.1? Or, Holecek said, another way to look at it is whether someone exceed their jurisdiction? Alexander would like to send this back to commission and have them do it in a way to make it clearer. But she said that she knows that is not in the board's jurisdiction. Alexander said that she doesn't like meddling in the business of other commissions. Shelangouski said that she agrees with Alexander's confusion. She said that she doesn't understand the intention based on the Historic Preservation Commission based on the evidence provided. Shelangouski voted against Wright's motion. She said that after reading through the material, it seemed to her that when people gave their reasons, they always went back to something they weren't supposed to consider. She said that she would vote against Wright's motion because of this. Alexander agreed with Shelangouski's reasoning. Alexander said that she hopes there are lessons learned in terms of how findings are stated by a commission. Alexander also voted against Wright's motion. Iowa City Board of Adjustment November 16, 2006 Page 12 of 23 Leigh voted in favor of Wright's motion. She agreed with his reasoning. The motion fails: 2:2 Beasley asked about the issue regarding the HPC's failure to meet the time constraints in submitting their denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Holecek said that it's the mere filing of the decision outside the five-day limitation and she doesn't find any prejudice and it's not contained in the guidelines or the ordinance to say that failure to meet the five-day time limit automatically results in a approval. Holecek said, "Especially since it's already been on record." Alexander asked if they should make a separate motion. Holecek said yes and Alexander requested Holecek to give them the appropriate language to do so. Holecek offered the correct wording: "The motion to deny the appeal based on the HPC's failure to file their decision denying their Certificate of Appropriateness within 5 days of the meeting." MOTION: Shelangouski motioned that the appeal based on the Historic Preservation Commission's failure to file their decision denying their Certificate of Appropriateness within 5 days of the meeting be denied. Alexander seconded the motion. Leigh asked Holecek for clarification. Alexander said she will base her vote on Holecek's lack of damage to the appellant. Shelangouski said that since nothing "spells out" that such a failure results in automatic approval she will be voting for the denial. Leigh agreed. Wright also agreed with this. The motion is approved: 4:0 VAR06-00001 Discussion of an application from John and Sandra Hudson for a variance from the zoning requirements to allow up to twenty (20) residents for a rooming house located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 932 E. College Street. Walz noted that she had distributed correspondence to everyone. Some of which, she said, they had received the previous day. She said there were letters from Hillary Sale, Christine Walters, Michelle Campo, Matt Kressewick, and Pat Eckhardt. Walz said that Eckhardt's letter mentions she was on the Board of Adjustment when the original variance was granted. However, Walz said, Eckhardt's letter is on behalf of herself. Walz said that the applicants, John and Sandra Hudson, are requesting a variance to allow up to 20 roomers to occupy the building located at 932 E. College Street in the Neighborhood Conservation (RNC- 12) Zone. Walz said that in 1997 a variance was granted to allow a rooming house for up to 30 residents subject to three conditions: 1.) The variance being conferred specifically to Leighton House, L.C., which will provide resident management of the rooming house consistent with the principles outlines in the business plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997: the density variance is not applicable to any successor in title to the property. 2.) Any exterior change to the structure requiring a building permit requiring approval by the Historic Preservation Commission 3.) The removal of the concrete basketball court located in front of the residence, and the installation of landscaping instead. Walz said that because of the first condition, the rights of the variance may not be transferred with the sale of the property and therefore the current applicant is seeking a new variance. Walz noted that the variance would be transferable to a buyer who purchases the property with the Leighton House LC and operates the rooming house in accordance with the principles in the Leighton House business plan. Walz said that in 1997, a variance was granted against the staff recommendation. Walz said the building had fallen into a state of considerable disrepair, and the Board had cited a concern that the historic building would be demolished and that the professionally supervised private women's dorm would be preferable to the options that could potentially affect the property. Walz said that the business plan on which the Board of Adjustment based its 1997 decision relied on the then applicants' educational background, plans to provide twenty-four hour on-site management, 321 East Market Post Office Box 2150 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2150 Phone: (319) 354-1104 Fax: (319) 354-6962 E-mail addresses: attomey's last name @ptmlaw.com www.ptmlaw.com William V. Phelan PHELAN TUCKER WALKER TUCKER MULLEN GELMAN LLP ... A~1' t l/ /) Jti 1 fr~1 cdi St.(.f j Jl llle c/ f-y .it~ _ (<ff/t{'at Ll /~/o<1 );6 A T TOR N E Y S A T LAW December 21,2006 Sarah Walz City of Iowa City - Associate Planner Planning & Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Bruce L. Walker Re: John Roffman Parcel No. 1010416002 Richard M. Tucker 923 Iowa Avenue Iowa City, IA Thomas H. Gelman Gary J. Schmit Margaret P. Winegarden John E. Beasley Dean D. Carrington Susan J. Frye Pope S. Yamada Daniel W. Boyle William M. Tucker [1922-2003] Charles A. Mullen [1937-2001] Dear Sarah: Enclosed are six (6) copies of materials pertaining to Bethel A.M.E. Church's, (411 South Governor Street, Iowa City, IA 52240) Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). It is my understanding that this Application was approved by the HPC on December 14, 2006. I provide as further support of Mr. Roffman's appeal that HPC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Mr. Roffman's request for Certificate of Appropriateness. Please provide these materials to the Members of the Board of Adjustment. Thank your or your assistance. Application for Historic Review Attachment A-Bethel A.M.E. Church 1 Owner: Bethel AM.E. Church, Rev. Orlando R. Dial, Pastor; Melvin O. Shaw, Steward (319) 338-7876; (319) 230-2077; (319) 430-3434 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 odiaI5542@msn.com; meloshawuv,yahoo.com Phone: Address: E-mail: Contractor: Address: Phone: E-mail: Apex Construction Company, Attn: Harvey Miller 4218 Yvette Street, P.O. Box 2297, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 339-1543 Consultant: Tim Hasdall, Drafter and Designer; OPN Architects, Inc., James Gast, AlA and Bradley Fritz, AlA 1310 Tower Lane NE, Ste D, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402; OPN Architects, 200 Fifth Avenue SE, Suite 201, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 (319) 533-8303; (319) 363-6018 thad sall{{i),hotmai I.com; i meier- gast([i),opnarchi teets. com; bfritz@opnarchitects.com Address: Phone: E-mail: Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site Plan Floor Plan Building Elevations Photographs of Bethel A.M.E. Church and surrounding properties Property Information Address: Property Use: Constructed: 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Religious Assembly in RNS-12 Zone 1868 Historic Designation Bethel AM.E. Church is a national and state historic landmark Bethel AM.E. is located in the Longfellow Historic District and the Lucas-Governor Conservation District Classification Contributing Project Type 'Alt;~;i:;),f an existing building T Jj~fffiml ~ ..---- Application for Historic Review Attachment A-Bethel A.M.E. Church 2 Project Description The members of Bethel A.M.E. Church, 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, propose to remodel and expand the existing church facility, which has served as a place of religious worship to thousands of members, visitors, and others in the Iowa City-area community since 1868. The existing structure, as shown by the accompanying photographs, has not undergone a substantial renovation in more than 50 years. Further, because of the limited amenities and space of the existing structure, the church lacks adequate space to moderately and comfortably seat more than 50 persons at a single church service, such as regular Sunday worship service and Sunday School. Also, because of the space limitations, efforts to increase participation in services by way of visitor attendance have been forestalled. Moreover, well- intentioned plans to become further involved in Iowa City-area community events have been hampered because of inadequate space and amenities, such as meeting rooms for member- and community-focused religious programming. For the above reasons, and others, the members of Bethel A.M.E. Church have engaged OPN Architects and designer Tim Hasdall to prepare plans for an expanded and remodeled facility that complies as reasonably possible, with the provisions of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and Iowa City zoning regulations. The plans as submitted are lot-sensitive and compatible with the existing neighborhood. Further, the historic character of the property is retained and preserved as a place of religious assembly. The current design preserves the overall look and design of the current historic structure and retains to the defining characteristics of the historic structure. For example, the current structure will continue to be used for religious purposes, such as service planning, the conduction of church-related business and other matters. The new addition and exterior alterations do not involve destruction of historic materials but includes replacement of worn materials and structural improvements that currently make up the existing historic structure, such as a shored-up porch, replacement of steps and handrails for safety. A smartly-designed extension will serve to connect the existing and new structures so as to retain the essential form and integrity of the historic property without substantial impact or impairment ofthe historic structure or its environment. Moreover, the new addition and alterations are compatible with the purpose of the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization Zone (RNS-12) in that the church preserves and encourages the single-family residential character of the Longfellow Historic District and the Lucas-Governor Conservation District. The new addition and alteration are further consistent with the provisions for special exception under Section 14-4B-3. A separate application will be made to the Board of Adjustment seeking the grant of a special exception under Section 14-4B-3. Main Level The plans as submitted call for an expansion of the size of the Main Level to 70 feet from 30 feet. The Main Level will include, for the first time, areas for reception, an office, coats, and a unisex bathroom, as well as an ADA compliant wheelchair lift, and a sanctuary that seats approximately 96 persons. The existing structure accommodates only 50 persons and lacks space and amenities which are commonly found in places of worship. Application for Historic Review Attachment A-Bethel A.M.E. Church 3 Lower Level The plans for the Lower Level call for an expansion of the Lower Level to be consistent with the Main Level. The Lower Level will include for the first time, a mechanical/storage area, areas for a Fellowship Hall for meal services, separate female/male restrooms, and a rear building egress. Materials to be Used The Exterior of the building will include: · Foundation-poured concrete wall with brick veneer-4" concrete interior finished floor; · Building exterior finish-I" x 6" cedar siding with 4" reveal-painted; . Shingles; · Vinyl clad window allowance; and · Finish grade, textured paving, and seed as needed; The Interior of the Main Level will include: . Carpet throughout; · Wood doors/jambs/casinglbase stained; · Drywall textured and painted; . Ledgestone rock at altar; · Glass windows at crying room; . Glass windows at stairwell; · Aluminum front entry door; and · Mechanical and electrical work as required The Interior of the Lower Level will include: · VCT throughout with vinyl base; . Acoustical ceilings; . Wood door and frames; · Wheelchair lift; . Aluminum door at west exit; · TGI floor joist cavity between basement and finish floor insulated for sound; . Kitchen cabinet allowance; . Kitchen appliances (stove, refrigerator); and . Mechanical and electrical system as required. Existing Main Level . Remodeling of existing building as required Exterior Appearance Changes · Replace roof covering east entrance porch and make structural improvements to the same by constructing a gabled roof; remove side panels of porch and replace with handrails flush with east exterior wall; · Replace single east entrance door with double doors; · Add new southeast entrance door at ground level for ADA purposes; · Install crosses as religious symbols near ground level of new southeast entrance; Application for Historic Review Attachment A-Bethel A.M.E. Church 4 Exterior Appearance Changes (cont 'd) · Connect existing structure to new structure with 18" entryway; · Construct 12" wall extension at south and north elevations; · Construct new addition with synthetic vinyl siding and install five (5) windows at south and north elevations of new addition; · Provide handicap parking spaces at west portion of lot; and . Landscape as appropriate .....__._.. _ ......._... _. ~L........... ... ......_.._ .is ~ON3^09 S ]" l r I I I. I.. .. ~ . " .............. .Q T . ..{ .'t .". :.,. "." ..: ,,,01-.1::>6" ,. . ~ . " ',' ",;G':',O'~. 0:~~~~~~~~ "-:'~~,.,~: . , .1'\ ''0,~''-: " .::--." 'U I"~, " '. ~":'<" Z . \ "'>' '. ','.' - \J :\ '<'- .. \~.,.'", I- n~ <<:-" c:- '- '" . t"\ L.l- ..,'~.. (1);: '<:-. \J I :::) ~'. '. \. " .......,., - J: ~>~." '-":;: X \,) ". .,<, .~~~~~~~.~. '-10" ]" ~ ~ .. , '1 .. ~x... . '~:~~ y ~ . >:,~~' I . '.<"x>' :> . . ,St '<-ex'.,J. '}( v ,.r;: i' I ':.. :.xl'. ..;.:,.?~., '.; I ' 4'- '.~......."""" .. ... "': .,. .,...... "'~'-6" 1'r-1, . .... '. ''''.''rrr-1. ..........~...it:Frr=1..,.".,.,..,...,.u;.11 \ I I /[11>1 ,~~.,.~ :1,' I, I \ i:.>,:l:~:~:;~:: i :J<.;,JJ.l~;I;..;.'d : ,'.... . . '~', .., .' .' " , .,..:+,.~',~';~'f:~~:'.'._.' {,-.-.----"Ol-, b6---- -T J \L} ! I ..... .......--.... -.. .-........... ~ ..._.............. ..". ...-...-."..- ... ...._.......-... .... )'311~ I: U 0:: :J I:~ Uo - LLI~ ~~ <u ~ ..JO LLI_ I: I- LLI OJ -fl II 1/ II 1/ 1/ II 1/ II II II II II II II II -u-n --n II II II II II II II II II 1/ II II II II U-ll II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 1/ II II --tJ ----T 1 I I 'I , f I ~ -11 I L" +--.n---1 : -- -T--r--,----r--n I ... I I I , I J I I I I I (?J~ ! c: ) I 1,,-\... I) I '-..../ I I j I I -i- - .b.-.d I I ..1.... I I f I I I II ll,~~ i I! I ! I I I r L__~..:::r:::LJ""] I L,_~L-L-..L_L-_U I IC~--r-:L~ ~ , i I I I ~ --- --1 ~ t I I i ~ I I~ -- --- ~ ! -{ i j I I I ----------- ------t ! , ~ ! I i I I -1 ! , I I f I . ( ) CQ) ( ) ( .)) )) ( ) \, 2 (~)i(( ( C ) __J/ . ( ) ( -) ~ ~ (____3) C ~) ( ) C ) ( ~) ~ ( ) ( ~ ) . ( \. ( 11 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ~ ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( . ) ( ) ( ~ ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( .> ) -- ----L ~- I I j j I 'I:;'$J ~" w Staff Report December 14, 2006 Historic Review for 411 Governor Street District: Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Key-Contributing On behalf of the Bethel A.M.E. Church, the applicants, Rev. Dial and Melvin Shaw, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 411 South Governor Street, which is a contributing property in the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. It is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The applicants intend to construct an addition measuring approximately 29 feet x 70 feet at the rear of the existing church. The proposed structure will be approximately 26 feet in height. The applicants also intend to 1) alter the existing front porch by replacing the shed roof with a gable roof, and by removing the existing partial enclosure, 2) construct a steeple on the existing building, and 3) close the existing exterior entryway to the basement and remove the shelter for the entryway. The applicants propose to use brick veneered foundation, vinyl siding, vinyl clad windows for the new addition. In addition to the exterior revisions, the applicants are proposing to divide the original sanctuary into smaller rooms. The Historic Preservation Commission normally does not review interior changes, but this application is also seeking a special exception to waive or reduce parking and setback requirements per section 14-2A-7 Special Provisions B. ,. Historic Preservation Exceptions of the zoning code. This section states: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicants must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Therefore, given the historic and cultural significance of the original sanctuary, the Historic Preservation Commission should consider the overall effect of the proposed changes to this historic structure. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Staff Comments The original church was built in the later part of 1860s and according to the Iowa Site Inventory Form it is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. It is a modest one story, simple-gabled roof frame structure with little exterior ornamentation. Its size, scale, Page 1 of 4 proportions and fenestration are similar to a domestic structure than that of a religious structure. This was one of the earliest buildings (can be seen on an 1868 Iowa City map) built in this area sometimes mentioned as Charles H. Berryhill's Second Addition to Iowa City. In September 2000, this property was listed on the National Register for Historic Places. The National Register Nomination provides a comprehensive account of the Church, how it has survived over 138 years, and continues to serve its members as a social and religious institution. In 1868, James Howard purchased the land where that church stands today, from Charles Berryhill. After ten years, he sold the southern half of lot to the trustees of the 'First African Methodist Episcopal Church'. Howard founded the was also one of three trustees of the church. It appears that the original lot purchased by Howard was 80 feet wide. A parsonage building, built in 1893 existed behind the church until 1988, and was used as the residence of the pastor. In the early 1920s, the foundation walls of the church were raised to build a basement. The property is located in a residential neighborhood, and is zoned as Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12). Religious/Private Group Assembly uses are allowed in RNS-12 only after a special exception approval from the Board of Adjustment (BOA). This is also applicable to the expansion of an existing religious use. Due to the site constraints, it would not be possible meet the setback and parking requirements for the resulting use with the proposed addition. Therefore, as note above, the applicants is seeking approval for a special exception from the BOA as per the special provisions in Zoning Code - Historic Preservation Exceptions (14-2A-7 B). This provision allows for waiver or modification of any dimensional or site developmental standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. One of the special exception approval criteria is obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Another criterion that must met is that the waiver or modification will help preserve the historic, aesthetic or cultural attributes of the property. Therefore, the Commission is charged with the duty to consider this proposal and fmd whether the addition would be compatible with the existing historic structure, surrounding properties and the neighborhood, while considering the need to expand the structure. As the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines do not clearly address rehabilitation of non- residential buildings, the project should be reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The applicable standards are: 1, A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. See comments under standard number 2. below. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. In this case to allow for an expanded congregation the proposed changes are not minimal. Although the property itself would be used for its historic purpose the sanctuary would not. Page 2 of 4 The applicants proposes significant changes to the historic sanctuary by dividing into smaller rooms to the extent that the original space would be unrecognizable. If an addition to this building is approved, it would be appropriate to require that the sanctuary be left in tact. It could perhaps be used for reception, meeting and or gathering space without being subdivided into smaller rooms. In Staffs opinion, as discussed in more detail below under standard number 9, the scale and design of the proposed addition would change the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. The addition the proposed steeple would be in appropriate according to this standard. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. 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 and its environment. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings-New Additions published by the National Park Services provide further guidance on this issue. The guidelines encourage exploring all the options for incorporating the new use by altering the non-character-defming interior spaces of the existing structure. Staff recognizes that the applicants would not be able to meet the space needs of a growing congregation in the existing structure. In such instance, the guidelines state that the additions are acceptable if they are designed and built so that the character-defming features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation. Staff believes that the most significant and character-defming feature of this building is its modest Mid-19th Century architecture. Therefore, primary design consideration should address the massing, size, scale issues. The placement of the proposed buildings on site is also an important factor that would affect the existing structure. The guidelines recommend locating the addition at the rear or inconspicuous side of the historic building and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. The proposed building is at the rear of the existing church however is significantly larger and taller than the existing church. The proposed addition would measure 70 feet in length, 29 feet in width and approximately 26 feet in height. The existing structure measures approximately 30 feet in length, 21 feet in width and 18 feet in height. The structure is located on a lot measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 150 feet in length. It would occupy a much larger percentage of its lot than the existing church or the residential buildings in this neighborhood. The existing building will be connected with the proposed addition with a nominally offset 'breezeway', which would be only 18 inches long (by 12 inches from the north and south building plains). Staff believes that the addition as proposed would overwhelm the historic church. Page 3 of 4 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In staff's opinion, the proposed alterations to the original church would take its historic and cultural significance away from the building, as it would be reduced to a subordinate use of the proposed church building. Thus, the historic church would no longer be used for its historic purpose and would be changed such that, although not impossible, it would be difficult to reclaim its integrity. Staff believes that the church building could be expanded on the site in a manner that would honor and maintain the historic character of the church. However, such addition would need to be compatible with the scale and size of the existing structure and should not be overwhelming. An addition that is subordinate in height to the historic structure would more likely achieve the objectives of the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The connection between the exiting and proposed building should be more than a nominal offset. It should clearly separate the old and the new parts. The integrity of the existing sanctuary should be maintained to the extent possible and any future uses should reflect the existence of the sanctuary. Staff believes that the steeple should not be added to the existing building. The applicants is proposing to use vinyl siding and vinyl-clad windows both of which are not allowed per Iowa City guidelines. The revised plans should include use of wood or allowed substitute materials for siding and windows. The applicants should also provide additional information about the front porch - design and materials of the porch columns and railings. From the elevation drawings submitted, it appears that the existing double-hung basement windows will be replaced with smaller windows. The size and proportions of these windows should be compatible with the proportions of the existing fenestration. Staff has expressed these and other concerns to the applicants in pre-application meetings and has requested them to revise the designs to comply with the standards and guidelines. Staff recommends deferral of this application until revised drawings are submitted. If it is not possible for the applicants to design an addition which is compatible with the historic structure, it would be inappropriate to use the Historic Preservation Exception of the Zoning Code to grant reductions in setback and parking requirements for this property. Page 4 of 4 t?A Nev~\ MA-.p CDME- C)NKtt(lVVN}~_ ~ '" (Sketch Map) ^ N - -t.:::..::.:..-. -, . .-.---'- 'f ~, ,~ fL I... I ~ ., ~j, GJ:! ~~~_:i~ x.; 14'iJ' · ~ ~...Ji!P: ~ ~ . .' · 1_-l.: . ,,:> 00 ), '1 I~ '. '> :t .llIIIfl ('11 ,. ,. () . J 0~ .', ~ / . ..-..-.-..--.-- - ., \tr' p, ~d . .....lE]. ~. oJ t' ,.' ~~.~ J-..~ ~ . ri~ ..J "oW ~ ' ~, . , " -"1 I I I ~--r.l' I I~~ I .~ ~ Pholography ~J"I Date Apnl2OO1 City of Iowa City Mapping ~ scale 1 """200 P81cm D.:'~la CoWl~Y 0.1 ...Lh\'SOh Count)' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of Adjustment Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney November 6,2006 Appeal from Historic Preservation Commission's denial of application for Certificate of Appropriateness; 923 Iowa Avenue (John Roffman) The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above-referenced appeal. In deciding the appeal you must first determine: 1. Whether the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law and the Historic Preservation regulations of the City Code; and 2. Whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from Planning staff on the background of the appeal, the record produced by the Historic. Preservation Commission (HPC), and outlining the applicable guidelines that govern the HPC's decision. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether the Commission properly followed (used/relied on) the relevant guidelines (specifically, 10.1). Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Commission's decision to deny the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. Dico, Inc. v. Iowa Emplovment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352,355, (Iowa 1998). The above-stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Board is not entitled to simply substitute its judgment for that of the Commission. In other words, you may not reverse the Commission's decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must affirm the Commission's decision. If you find that the Commission did not exercise its powers and follow the guidelines established by law, abused its discretion or acted patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Historic Preservation regulations, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the Commission to deny the application. You may make such decision as ought to have been made, and to that end you will have the powers of the Commission. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the Commission and are bound by all the guidelines and rules that govern the Commission's decisions on applications for certificates of appropriateness and may make a decision in accordance with those guidelines and rules. November 6,2006 Page 2 With respect to your deliberations in connection with the above, it is essential that you read the entire record of the proceedings before the Commission and all information submitted to you as part of the public hearing process. You are required to decide the appeal within a "reasonable time." If, during Wednesday's meeting, you are in need of any additional information in order to make a decision, then you may defer your decision. The agenda is only intended to give notice that a motion to decide the appeal may be made. The substance of that motion is, of course, unknown at this point. If, on Wednesday night, you decide that you have all the information you need and no further time for deliberation is necessary you should close the public hearing and decide the appeal. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm or reverse, wholly or partly, or modify the decision of the Commission concerning the application. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the Historic Preservation Commission. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated. If you believe it necessary, the Board could divide its deliberations into two separate motions and votes. The first motion could be framed to answer the question of whether the Commission's action was pretextual, arbitrary or capricious. If the Commission's action is deemed arbitrary or capricious, a second motion could be framed to address the appropriate relief (Le. reverse the Commission's decision in its entirety and issue a certificate of appropriateness for the building as proposed, or partly reverse the Commission's decision and issue a certificate of appropriateness with modifications to the proposed building design). Lastly, I note that the applicant has also asserted that the Commission's failure to file its Resolution of Denial within five (5) days under section 2.7 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook requires the Board of overturn the Commission's decision and issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. While section 2.7 does state that a Resolution of Denial will be filed with the City Clerk within five (5) days of the decision, the guideline does not provide that failure to meet this filing deadline automatically requires issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Rather, the guideline provides that an appeal must be filed within ten days of the filed denial. This provision essentially provides timing mechanisms for perfecting and appeal. Given that the applicant and his counsel were present when the Commission's decision was announced and given that the appeal was filed within the ten day timeframe, the applicant has not been prejudiced or suffered injury as a result of the Commission's failure to meet the five day timeframe and this failure should not automatically result in the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. If you have any questions, please contact me. cc: Sunil Terdalkar Karin Franklin Sarah Walz Bob Miklo Steve Atkins CllY of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 6,2006 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: APL06-00004, An appeal of a decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located at 923 Iowa Avenue. At it's September 28,2006 meeting, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue. The original building at this site was severely damaged in the April 2006 tornado and subsequently demolished.1 The appellant, John Roffman, was proposing a new building to replace the original building on the site. Though the Commission denied the Certificate of Appropriateness citing the mass and scale of the proposed structure, the appellant believes that the denial was actually based on the density of the proposed building. The original building on this property had 9 one-bedroom units. The applicant was proposing a new apartment building with 6 three-bedroom unit apartments. The HPC design guidelines that apply to the proposal for 923 Iowa Avenue may be found in section 10.0 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook (beginning on page 38). I have provided a copy of the handbook for your reference. It should be noted that the proposed building meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the density of the underlying zone. It should also be noted that the Commission has no authority to regulate density-density is regulated exclusively through the Zoning Code. The only criteria cited in the denial were scale and mass; all other criteria for the building design met with approval. The Commission's (HPC) discussions regarding the proposed structure occurred over the course of two meetings, September 14 and September 28 (minutes and transcripts for both meetings are attached). At its September 14th meeting, the Commission discussed whether the neighborhood district guidelines (section 8.2 of the handbook) regarding specific size limitations for the front elevation would apply to the proposed building. The Commission voted to defer the application to its . I Section 7.0 (page 32) of the HPC guidelines state in order to demolish a principal building in a conservation or historic district, the property owner/applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness t demolish. However, before the certificate to demolish is approved. the Commission must approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the building that will replace the one being demolished. In the aftermath 0 the April tornado, the Commission waived this requirement and approved demolition prior to the applicant submitting an application for a new building. November 7, 2006 Page 2 September 28 meeting and requested a Zoning Interpretation Panel (ZIP) decision to determine whether those restrictions applied. The ZIP decision indicated that the specific limitations imposed under section 8.2 apply only to single family buildings and duplexes and not to the multi-family building under consideration. In the interim, the applicant revised his plans, and provided final sketches of a slightly smaller building at the September 28 meeting-the final sketches were never reviewed by staff. The final sketches are included for your review. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) Zone. A lot of this size in the RNS-20 zone is allowed up to 7 units, and each unit is allowed a maximum of 4 bedrooms. (This number may be limited by the amount of off- street parking that the owner is required to provide.) The property is also located within the College Hill Conservation District. As explained on page 4 of the handbook: "Conservation districts are neighborhoods that appear similar to historic districts in character. However, because they have fewer properties that retain a high degree of historic integrity or contribute to a distinct sense of time and place within the neighborhood, they do not qualify as historic districts based on State Code. Because they are still considered worthy of protection, City Council may designate these neighborhoods for historic conservation." The original building at 923 Iowa Avenue had at one time been a single-family home, however, in more recent years it had operated as a 9-unit, 9-bedroom apartment. Over the years, the original building (as it existed just prior to the tornado) had been adapted such that it was designated a non-contributing structure-a structure that is not considered an integral part of the historic context or character of the district. The final proposal submitted by the applicant at the September 28 meeting showed a building measuring 52 feet wide by 69 feet deep, with a roofline just under 28 feet. The original 3-story building being replaced had a footprint of 42 by 40 feet and a roofline of 38 feet and 10 inches. Two of the illustrations provided with the final proposal submitted by the applicant show the size of the original building as a dotted line. Two aerial illustrations show the layout and relative size of other buildings in the immediate vicinity. Along with the application for this appeal and the minutes and transcripts from both HPC meetings, I have included all of the documents reviewed by the Commission: . Site location maps (zoning and aerial views) . Application for the appeal . Staff memo for the September 28 HPC meeting . Application for Historic Review of 923 Iowa Avenue, including all final sketches . Correspondence from neighboring property owners I have also included new correspondence from Frank Gersh, a resident in the district, regarding the appeal. Once again, the authority of the HPC extends only to the overall compatibility of that design with the surrounding neighborhood and district as described in section 10.0 of the handbook. The issues of scale and mass require interpretation based on the facts November 7,2006 Page 3 specific to the application under consideration. You, as the Board, must decide the following. 1. Were the criteria regarding scale and mass applied appropriately in this case? 2. As explained in the City Attorney's memo (attached), if you should decide that the Commission acted in error, you may overturn the decision or, by acting in the role of the Commission, you may render a new decision based on the facts presented in the attached documents or any additional testimony given at this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from the City Attorney 2. Location map 3. Application for appeal 4. Correspondence regarding the appeal 5. HPC Staff Report on 923 Iowa Ave, including Multi-family site standards 6. Memo to HPC regarding section 8.2 of the preservation manual 7. Aerial views of the subject property 8. Final HPC application materials for 923 Iowa Avenue including sketches 9. Correspondence regarding the HPC application 10. Minutes and transcripts of the Sept. 14 and Sept. 28 HPC meetings 11. Iowa City Historic Preservation Ha book Approved b . Kari Franklin, Director Department of Planning and Community Development ~": ~. _ -. ~~I~.~~j;;*,?' ...... ---- ~ l/r/\ 3 -- - - 0':' : :: : :: : :: l' :: 'Il :: : :: : :: : :: : ~ r--y t. "!. .: . :: . 0 -- _ - - . .' .' .' '1' .' .' .' .' . VI ..Y ~~ .' .'. g ~~'I""".I:'.'.'."""."""""."'" · -- ~ ~'~1:~ ~ I '" I _ ,. --: ~ : ...... <.. ...."~I~:tt~l/~ ~ ,'-." ....... ., \..i"'?:/~1/1/),;-7>" I - - I I ~J ~ _,~.. 0: ~~~~~13&'ij~~0~ . 'n 6. V~~~~t?%~~~~-0~ ;;::c: '" ~-- ~ \ .01 /1'7 / / / ij~iY"/7 <" ~ . i~.. ~ - I ~~r::~;~{~?1%/-tc( ~ = . '/0~////'';;'//7/~/:~'~rj^o~ ~! ~~&i?;;~~~'iCI ~ tJr / ~;r ~p:~~ t(~t%~e: ~ ~.v \ 1/br7d//I/ / [0 ~//l',:;: = L. I'~ ~ ~ ~./ '/ ~ /;Z; /?"J/ ;sV;ffri ........ ....... ..' ~ I ~ (/lL /~/ //' ~/~~I~ljP~>/' ':............. ~ " ~- ~~~/~I ... // / / )/ . y;:..... ~... ~ 1\ /// / /. ..... ..' I~ ~ ~ ;/;/./ /////V:-'.:I..... 'l:'-''-:'-'-':;'-.''-;' ~ /.;;; //// \. /./ l/ r . .- : . .-,.-. :.i.-'- J .- .- ..- ". _ i~ ~./G" ;///>~ I/>~~~ ~:.-:.-:: f.-:.-,.:..':.....-..;.-:..-;.-. 1 ~11'''''I\I! (~/(/ ~~~YIt0~' 'J;'I;"'\iJS~(:r,............ \ II / /1/J"7/r;/:>u '" /// .;.: '.-:~~~, .-':'Qj.-'.-:'.- :: II / / / 1/ / / ~.' . >-..:.~ . 'C1 '\ ...... . ~ ~ _ddVlJ . . z o ~ .....--.. E--i~ < co U E 0"0 ~ @ ~- ~-tc Cf) ........... /'\'PL u G - ODC,() i\ APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL DATE: October 12, 2006 . PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010416002 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 923 Iowa Avem lP, T OW;:J Ci -ry, T A PROPERTY ZONE: RNS-20/OCD PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 80 x 170 APPLICANT: Name: John Roffman Address: 1314 Burry Drive, Iowa City, IA Phone: (319) 631-1808 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Jo1m E. Beasley (if other than applicant) PO Box 2150, Iowa City, 52244-2 Address: IA Phone: (319) 354-1104 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: John Roffman (if other than applicant) Address: 1314 Burry Drive, Iowa City, IA Phone: (319) 631-1808 50 f'." ... ~ '';..,., (=:J c"-\ The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Please see 14-8C-3 in the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and standards in the code. Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an error has been made by the following administrative official (list title) Historic Preservation Corrrn. on (date) 09-28-2006 in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the property listed above . Please indicate the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the official's decision: Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook Section 10 Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision based on the interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. (This section of the code mayor may not be different from the section cited in the decision being challenged.) Summary: In the space provided below, or on a separate sheet, summarize the basis for your appeal referring to the code sections listed above and providing sound reason(s) for overturning the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating that the decision was based on an improper or erroneous interpretation of the Zoning Code). See attached Appeal which is incorporated by reference. {..-) ('..'" J'.:_ _." /- ,.,) -":,''; -' i; C'" Remedy desired: Overturn the decision of the Historic Preservation Corrrnission denying John Roffman's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 923 Iowa Avenue and require the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. ppdadmi rl,app eal.boase .doc 2 APPEAL - 923 IOWA AVENUE On September 28, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) denied John Roffman's Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a proposed building at 923 Iowa A venue. The claimed basis for the denial was the increase in the depth of the proposed building and resulting increase in mass of the sides of the building relative to the pre-existing building. It is Roffman's position that the HPC denial was arbitrary and capricious and was based on the increased occupancy of the proposed building. Background The pre-existing building at 923 Iowa Avenue was damaged beyond reasonable repair by a tOl11ado on April 13,2006. Mr. Roffman requested and was granted by the HPC a demolition pel111it and the pre-existing structure was demolished. The property is now vacant. The pre-existing building was classified as non-contributing to the character of the College Hill Conservation District. The property is zoned RNS-20 with a conservation district overlay. The proposed building is in compliance with the occupancy restrictions of the applicable zoning classification. At the September 28, 2006 HPC meeting, many of the comments in opposition to the proposed building were directed at the occupancy of the proposed building. It is Roffman's position that the HPC's denial of his request for a COA based on depth and resulting mass, was a pretext for occupancy concel11s. Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Section 2.7 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Section 2.7 (Appeals) states that applicants may appeal decisions of the HPC to the Board of Adjustment for properties located in conservation districts. Section 2.7 also provides that the Resolution of Denial, which states the reason of the decision, will be filed with the City Clerk within five days of the decision. The decision from which Mr. Roffman appeals was made September 28, 2006. The Resolution of Denial was not filed within five days as required by Section 2.7. _Therefore; the Board of Adjustment is required to overtUl11 the HPC's decision to deny the COA ~ require the issuance of the requested COA. "~,. ~ i. i Arbitrary and Capricious r.....) -\'^l: The HPC's decision was arbitrary and capricious for the following reasons: s:..... -'\"'P' ('"'"'.:~ 1. Authority. The HPC authority, as established by the overlay zone ordinance, extends to the architectural character and design of the exterior building. The occupancy density of a property is controlled by the base zone ordinance. The HPC has no authority on occupancy issues and it is inappropriate for the HPC to deny the requested COA based on building depth as a pretext for limiting occupancy. 2. Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook (the "Handbook") Section 10 ("Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings"). HPC's claimed basis for denying the COA at issue is the depth of the proposed building and the mass of the sides of the proposed building. The Handbook, Section 10.1 states in part "Compliance with the following design standards must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a CeIiificate of Appropriateness: " "Building Height/Mass. Measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its 'visual mass' and overall height". The Handbook, Section 1 0.2, provides a point system for determining compliance with design options. The proposed building satisfied the point requirements of Section 1 0.2 Neither Section 10.1 nor 10.2 pem1it the HPC to deny a COA based on concems of occupancy, building depth and resulting mass. These guidelines provide that the proposed building have design measures that help reduce its "visual mass" and height. The proposed building has design measures that reduce its visual mass and height and is therefore, in compliance with Section 10.1. Furthennore, the Handbook does not have any proVISIOns that limit the depth, and resulting mass increase, of any building in the College Hill Conservation District. Only the Summit Street Historic District has limits for the depth of a proposed building or addition. It has never been the intent nor the practice of the HPC to limit the depth, and a resulting increase in mass of the sides of a building, in the College Hill Conservation District. 3. Inconsistent with Precedent The HPC has established a precedent of allowing additions or new construction that substantially increase the depth, and resulting mass increase, of the pre-existing buildings. This is consistent with the Handbook. (The only guidelines that limit the depth for the construction of new buildings or additions pertain only to property on Summit Street in the Summit Street Historic District.) Since 1998, the HPC has issued COAs for additions to and construction of buildings located in historic and conservation districts that substantially increase the depth and resulting mass of pre-existing buildings. Moreover, there are a number of historic buildings in the College Hill Conservation District and neighborhood that have a depth and mass similar to the proposed building. Thus, the approval of a COA for 923 Iowa Avenue woulq;o~e con&J~tent with previous decisions of the HPC and the character of the College Hill Neighborfi,Qb,d: 'e" 1'-""') -~(~, .10:- L-::> 0', -2- The following are specific properties 111 which the HPC approved a COA and the building depth and mass was increased: Address Existing Depth % Depth Height Dwelling EPe Depth wi Addition Increase Increase Unit Approval Date Increase f---~ 1 621 Summit St 36 ft 86 ft 239% Oft 0 06/22/1998 2 6 Bella Vista 46 ft 74 ft 160% Oft 0 09/14/2000 3 521 S Lucas St 34 ft 65 ft 191 % Oft 1 10/23/2003 4 14 S Dodge St 22 ft 34 ft 155% 20 ft 2 04/10/2003 5 542 Clark St 24 ft 40 ft 167% Oft 0 08/26/2004 6 1201 Seymour 28 ft 51 ft 182% Oft 0 01/1912006 CONCLUSION The decision of the Historic Preservation Commission must be overturned and the requested Certificate of Appropriateness issued as the City of Iowa City failed to meet its deadline for filings its Resolution of Denial and the Historical Preservation Commission's denial was arbitrary and capricious. It is simply inappropriate for the Commission to determine it does not want to increase the occupancy of a specific property and then deny the application based on depth of a proposed building and the mass of its sides. 12. f IO-12~O'" ~ Date Jollllp . Beasley ~ PI} # AN, TUCKER, MULLEN, 'ALKER, TUCKER & GELMAN LLP 1 E. Market Street, P.O. Box 2150 Iowa City, IA 52244-2150 Phone: (319)354-1104 Fax: (319) 354-6962 E-mail: beaslev@ptmlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR JOHN ROFFMAN '.....) i -3- Imv;\ Cit\ Historic Preservation COffilnission Cit\ I loll], 410 I,: \\'asll1l1gl'.lI1 Srred, \"wa Citl. L\, ~2240 RESOLUTION DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 923 Iowa Avenue A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on September 28, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Pam Michaud,]im Ponto, Tim Toomey, and Tim Weitzel. By a vote of 1-6 the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness, for the proposed new construction project at 923 Iowa Avenue, which was a non-contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. In a previous meeting the Commission had conditionally approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the storm-damaged structure on this property. The Commission denied the Certificate for the proposed new construction of a 52 feet wide, 72 feet long and 32 feet tall building to replace the storm- damaged 42 feet wide, 40 feet long and 36 feet tall building. The Commission found that the proposed building does not meet the Mandatory Compliance Items listed under the Design Guidelines for Multi- Family Buildings of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. The 13uilding Height/Mass' item in the guidelines requires incorporating measures into the design of a new building to help reduce the visual mass and overall height. The Commission found that the measures incorporated into the design of the new building to help reduce its "visual mass" were insufficient, and that the overall architectural mass of the proposed building was significantly larger than the demolished building on the property as well as other houses in the district. The Commission therefore found that the proposed project is not consistent with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. The decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment, who will consider whether 'the Historic Preservation Commission has exercised its powers, and followed the guidelines established according to this Title [Title 14 of Iowa City Zoning Code], and whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious (Iowa City Zoning Code, Article 14-8E-2D). To appeal, a written letter requesting the appeal must be flied with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after the date of this resolution. ~~im Weitzel, enili Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission L~-: <i4..-J:... Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner lanning & Community Development r'" .k.__~. ('..1 Ll- t..-- (, .) c:' :....-.- <::~ C:;::~ (.) I C?/II/66 I I Date Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Frank Gersh [frank_gersh@hotmail.com] Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:43 AM Sarah Walz proposed apartment building at 923 Iowa Avenue Dear Ms. Walz and members of the Board of Adjustment: I am writing as a concerned neighbor and former member of the Historic Preservation Commission to express my support for their decision to deny a building pemit for the proposed apartment building at 923 Iowa Avenue. I agree with the Commission's decision because the mass of the proposed building is so much greater than that of all the other buildings on the block except the tan brick apartment building. The footprint of the building and its height are greater than any of the other houses. The mass of a building is certainly something that is within the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission. I recently have reviewed new plans for this building, and the architect proposes buillding back into the lot further. This addition would dominate the back yards of the adjacent house and the first house up Governor Street from Iowa Avenue on the east side, and take away any sense of openness to the sky and sun and other backyards that these houses now have. By doing this, it is contrary to the idea of neighborhood and community. I was hoping that the tornado last spring would give Iowa City a chance to renew the historic value of the neighborhoods that were most damaged, especially this last block of Iowa Avenue. By renew I mean make the buildings more like they were at the begining of the 19th century, or before, when many of them were built. The proposed new buidling would never have been built in these times and is a travesty to anyone with a sense of archtectural history. Respectfully yours, Frank S. Gersh 1041 Woodlawn Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more...then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001 1 Staff Report Historic Review for 923 Iowa Avenue Classification: Noncontributing District: College Hill Conservation District 'Il1e applicant, John Roffman, is requesting approval of the design of new 6-unit, 18-beclroom apartment building to replace a 9-unit, 9-bedroom, building that was severely damaged in the April tornado. '1l1e Commission approved the demolition of the damaged building at an earlier meeting. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 10. 0 Design Guidelines fro Multi-Family Buildings and Multi-Family Site Development Standards of the Zoning Code (copy attached). The Design Guidelines and zoning code contain mandatory requirements that all projects must meet. Unless otherwise noted below the applicant's proposal appears to meet the mandatory requirements. Staff comments pertain to requirements where there is a need for more information or there is a question regarding compliance. Lighting The plan does not include infonnation regarding exterior lighting. I11e guidelines require lighting to be designed to provide for safety yet be non-obtmsive to neighboring properties. The zoning code also contains lighting requirements that must be met. A lighting plan should be submitted prior to approval. Parking Landscaped screening consisting of densely planted evergreen shrubs, a hedge, a combination of evergreen and deciduous shrubs, or a decorative masonry wall in combination with landscaping must be used to screen the parking lot from adjacent properties. The zoning code requires that this landscape bed be at least 10 feet wide. The current plan depicts some landscaping along the west property line but the size and species of the proposed trees and shmbs are not identified. The width of the landscape beds on the east and south sides of the parking area are less then 10 feet. The plan should be revised to illustrate the minimum 10 foot wide landscaping bed on each side of the property and the size and species of trees and shmbs should be labeled. A 10 foot setback is required between the paring area and the building. At least 50% of this area must contain landscaping. The plan currently does not comply with this requirement. It appears that the plan will need to be redesigned to meet the parking area setback and landscaping requirements or that fewer parking spaces will be possible on this property. If 12 parking spaces can not be fit onto the site in conformance with the site development standards, the number of proposed dwelling units or bedrooms will need to be decreased. Height The zoning code requires that any portion of a multi-family building that is located within 15 feet of lot containing a single-family use, be limited to 2-1/2 stones. A small portion of the proposed building is located only 14 feet from the property shared with the adjacent single family use. The building will need to be set back an additional foot or reduced in height. Building Materials The zoning code requires that the concrete base of a multi-family building in the Central Planning District be fInished with masonry, stucco or dressed concrete with a decorative face. The plan indicates that the base of the building will be concrete but does not describe the fInish. 111e plan should include details regarding the proposed finish. . Design Point Items In addition to meeting the mandatory requirements not above multi-family building must also achieve a minimum of 20 points from the design options contained in the guidelines. It appears that these points can be achieved from the Porch (0 to 10 points), Architectural Details (0 tolO points) and Building Materials (3-7 points). Staff recommends that this project be revised to show compliance with all of the mandatOlY requirements of the Preservation Handbook and the zoning code. This requires the submittal of more detailed infonnation regarding lighting, landscaping and the finish of the concrete base. 111e parking lot also needs to be redesigned and tlus may result in fewer parking spaces fitting onto tl1e property. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones lots must be 28 feet wide. 711 the Single Family Density Bonus Options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly (See Section 14-2B-4A, Minimum Lot Requirements). 6Addilional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to Single Family Zones or Single Family Uses (See Subsection 14-2B-4C, Building Bulk Regulations). 9See the Special Provisions of this Article regarding minimum lot area per unit requirements in the RNS-20 Zone. 14-28-5 Maximum Occupancy for Household Livin Uses The residential occupancy of a Household living Use is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. 14-28-6 Multi-Famil Site Development Standards A. Purpose The Multi-Family Site Development Standards promote safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods by preventing expanses of concrE;!te, blank walls and parking lots along street frontages; controlling the building bulk; screening unsightly features; ensuring that pedestrian entrances are visible and clearly identifiable from the street; and minimizing potential conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. B. Applicability 1. The standards of this Section apply to all Multi-Family Uses, Group Living Uses, and Institutional/Civic Uses located in Residential Zones and in the Central Planning District (See Central Planning District Map, below). 2. Single Family Uses and Two Family Uses located in a Multi-Family Zone must comply with the Single Family Site Development Standards specified in Article 14-2A, Single Family Residential Zones. Two Family Uses located in the Central Planning District must also comply with the provisions of subsection 14-26-61, Additional Standards in the Central Planning District, which will be administered through the Design Review process, as set forth in Article 14-88, Administrative Approval Procedures. 3. For properties located in the RM-12, RNS-20, RM-20, and RM-44 Zones outside the Central Planning District, the standards in this Section will be administered through the Site Plan Review Process, as set forth in, Title 18. For properties located in the Central Planning District and the PRM Zone the regulations of this section will be administered through the Design Review process as set forth in Article 14-88, Administrative Approval Procedures. 4. For properties located in a Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone, the standards of this Section will be administered concurrently with review of the proposed development by the Historic Preservation Commission. If the provisions of the Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone conflict with the provisions of this Section, the provisions of the Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone will supercede the provisions of this Section. 35 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones C. Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached Garages 1. Location Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading areas must be located behind principal bullding(s) and concealed from view of fronting streets. Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between a principal building and the street or within the required side setback area. Any portion of a parking or loading area that is not completely concealed from view of a fronting street must be screened to the 52 standard (See Figure 2B.4 and 2B.5, below). Figure 2B.4 - Location of surface parking for properties with a single building Street Unacceptable &2 ICf...n~ 1 (J) Street Acceptable ~r"f~' 't: :)' ~: ::J t'.{'.:.: Street Street Acceptable Acceptable Figure2B.5 - Location of parking for properties with multiple buildings 1il '. ~ J.. en Street ~ U5 Street Acceptable Acceptable . Street Unacceptable 37 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones 2. Aisles and Drives A non-hard surfaced drive or aisle may not be located closer than 3 feet to a lot line, except at the point of access with a street, alley, or private rear lane. Hard-surfaced drives must be set back at least 3 feet from any side or rear lot line, except under the following circumstances: a. The drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of water onto adjoining property; or b. A drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm water runoff; or c. Any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a drive is shared with an abutting lot; or d. At the point of access with an alley or private rear lane. 3. Landscape buffering a. A buffer area at least 10 feet in width and landscaped to at least the S2 standard must be provided between any parking area and adjacent properties and between any parking area and street rights-of-way (See Article 14-SF, Screening and Buffering Standards). The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or drive is shared with an abutting lot. b. A buffer area at least 5 feet in width and landscaped to the 51 standard must be provided between any parking area containing more than 8 parking spaces and an adjacent alley. c. No parking area or drive shall be closer than 10 feet to any portion of a building other than a garage entrance or loading area apron. This 10-foot area must be used for walkways and landscaping consisting of at least 50 percent vegetative coverage. If parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground level windows, said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the 52 standard. D. Building entrances for Multi-Family and Group Living Uses 1. For Residential Uses, buildings must have at least one door on the exterior of the building that provides pedestrian access to dwelling units within the building. Access to dwelling units must not be solely through a parking garage. 2. When a lot contains one principal building, the building must be oriented such that at least one fa~ade faces a public or private street. The street-facing facade must have at least one main entrance to the building, or may contain separate main entrances to ground level dwelling units. If the building is located on a corner lot, only one wall must meet this requirement. 3. . When a lot contains two or more principal buildings, the buildings must be oriented towards a public street, private street, or interior courtyard. Any building with a street~facing fa~ade must have at least one main entrance oriented toward the street. Buildings located interior to a lot must have main entrances that are clearly visible from interior private streets/drives or surface parking areas. 38 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B . Multi-Family Residential Zones ) / 4. Main entrances to a building', Including main entrances to ground level Individual dwelling units must be clearly demarcated by one of the following means (See Figure 26.6, below): . a. Covered porch or canopy; b. Transom and sidelight windows; c. Pilasters and pediment; d. Other significant architectural treatment that emphasizes main entrances. Simple trim around the doorway does not meet this standard. Figure 28.6 - Main Entrances a. Canopy a. Porch b. Transom & sidelight windows c. Pilasters & pediment 5. Patio-style doors, such as sliding glass doors, may not be used for main entrance doors. \ )l 6. To provide for the safety of residents, access to entrance doors of any individual dwellings units located above the ground level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairwell. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairwells may not be used as the primary means of access to upper level units. This provision does not preclude the use of fire escapes. 7. A pedestrian circulation system must be provided that connects residential entrances to adjacent public rights-of-way, and to parking areas and other on-site facilities. E. Building scale 1. In the RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, and PRM Zones outside the Central Planning District Street-facing walls that are greater than 50 feet in length must be articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (See Figure 2B.7, below) according to the following standards: a. Bays and projections must be at least 6 feet in width and at least 16 inches, but not more than 6 feet In depth. Recesses must be at least 6 feet in width and have a depth of at least 16 inches. b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the roofline or, alternatively, must bedistlngiJished by a corresponding change in some other architectural element(s) of the building, such as a change In exterior wall materials, a change In window pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height; or variation In architectural details, such ! I as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents. 39 12/28/05 Tille 14, Iowa Cily Zoning Code 14-2B Mulli-Family Residential Zones Figure 2B.7 - Building Articulation B88BB8BB8 B8BB 88BB Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 2. In the Central Planning District The width of the front facade of new buildings must be no more than 40 feet. Buildings may exceed this limitation if the street-facing plane of the building is broken into horizontal modules that give the appearance of smallerr individual buildings (See Figure 28.8r below) Each module must meet the following standards: a. Each module must be no greater than 30 feet and no less than 10 feet in width and must be distinguished from adjacent modules by a variation in the wall plane of at least 16 inches in depth. For buildings that are 3 or more stories in height, the width of the module may be increased to 40 feet. b. Each module must have a corresponding change in the roofline. c. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least one of the following means: (1) Variation in material colorsr types or textures; (2) Variation in the building and/or parapet height; (3) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative bandingr revealsr stoner or tile accents; (4) Variation in window pattern. (5) Variation in the use of balconies and recesses. 40 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones ) Figure 28.8 - Horizontal Modules l--Module-l f--Existing--j ~MOdUle~ ~.Module-1 New MF Building------1 ~Module --I !---Existing--\ F. Balconies and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts Balconies and exterior stairwells, exterior corridors and exterior lifts must comply with the following standards: 1. Exterior stairwells, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited in the PRM Zone. In other zones, exterior stairwells, lifts and corridors must be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. Said roof should be incorporated into the overall roof plan of the structure. Alternatively, such features may be recessed into the fa~ade of the building. Exterior corridors may not be located on a street-facing wall of the building or within 20 feet of a street- facing wall. 2. Balconies, exterior stairwells, lifts and corridors may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property that is zoned Single Family Residential or that contains an existing Single Family Use. Buildings that are set back at least 40 feet from any such property are exempt from this standard. 3. The design of any balcol}Y, exterior stairwell, lift or corridor must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the rest of the building. Figure 28.9 - Balconies/ exterior corridors Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable 41 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones G. Building materials 1. In the Central Planning District, the exterior wall material of a building must consist of clapboard-style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone, or stucco. 2. In the PRM Zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a building must be constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired brick, stone, or similar material, not including concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material when used in combination with other masonry finish. 3. In the Central Planning District and in the PRM Zone, buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco, must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building. a. Window and door trim that is not less than 3 inches wide. b. Comer boards that are not less than 3 inches wide, unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the comers. c. Frieze boards, not less than 5 inches wide, located below the eaves. Figure 28.10 - Bui/ding Materials Masonry base Frieze board- Comer board~ WindowtrimJ 4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using similar materials and design as the front fa<;ade. 5. Exterior walls of buildings that are not predominantly masonry orstucco, must have a durable base consisting of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete that extends at least 2-feet in height above grade. If the base consists of concrete, it must have a decorative face. 6. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any fa<;ade that faces a street-side lot line. 7. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building. 8. For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of a building is a different material than what is used on the street-facing wall, the street-facing wall material must wrap around the corners to the sides of the building for at least 3 feet 42 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones 9. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 58.11 - Changes in exterior wall materials Horizontal band Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable H. Mechanical Equipment/Utility Meters In no case shall mechanical equipment or utility meters be located along the street side of a building. Mechanical structures must be set back and screened according to the applicable provisions set forth in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. I. Additional Standards in the Central Planning District 1. Front Setbacks The front setback for new buildings must not deviate more than 5 feet from the average setback of existing principal buildings along the same frontage. A new building may not be located closer to the street than. the existing principal building that is closest to the street along the same frontage. This setback standard supercedes the setback standards of the base zone. 2. Windows and Fenestration Individual window units that are visible from a public or private street and that are located in primary living spaces, such as living rooms, dining areas, and bedrooms, must have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater than the width of the window unit. Individual window units may be located side-by-side In a wider window opening. Bathroom, kitchen, skylights, and decorative windows, such as stained-glass and ocular windows, are not required to meet this standard. Figure 28.12 - Windows width EE ~ "j )( "1 .... 43 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones 3. Architectural style The purpose of requiring an architectural style is to ensure that the mass, roof form, window style and configuration, and the basic architectural details of a building are generally compatible with the historic character of the Central Planning District. From the street, new buildings should appear similar to a large house or a small historic apartment building. a. The following architectural elements must be consistent with a historic architectural style typical of residential buildings in the Central Planning District. (1) Form and mass of the building; (2) Roof configuration and pitch; (3) Window style and pattern; (4) Window and door trim, eave boards, frieze boards, and other trim; (5) Porch and entrance features; (6) Buildi.ng details and ornamentation. b. Detailed information regarding historic residential building styles is available in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. The Design Review Committee and the Historic Preservation Commission will use this information as a means to evaluate new buildings in the Central Planning District. c. Alternative designs that have been prepared by a licensed architect may be acceptable and will be reviewed on acase-by-case basis. J. Minor Modifications A minor modification to adjust or waive specific provisions of this Section may be requested in either of the qualifying situations listed in the paragraphs below. Such requests will be reviewed jointly by the Design Review Committee, the Director of Planning and Community Development, and the Building Official according to the procedures for Minor Modifications as set forth in Article 14-8B and must meet the following approval criteria. The following approval criteria are to be applied in lieu of the general approval criteria listed in Section 14-4B-1, Minor Modifications. 1. Qualifying Situation: The configuration of the lot or other existing physical condition of the lotmakes the application of a specific standard impractical. In such a case, the applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met: a. The applicant must provide evidence that the configuration of the lot, the topography, or other physical characteristic of the property makes the application of a specific standard of this section impractical. Examples of situations that may qualify include double-fronting lots, triangular shaped lots, and steeply sloping lots. b. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed alternative design is not contrary to the intent of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards. c. The applicant must propose an alternative site or building design that best meets the intent of the specific standard being modified or waived. 44 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones ) d. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be Injurious to other property or Improvements In the vicinity and in the zone In which the property Is located. e. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. f. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 2. Qualifying Situation: The proposed site or building is uniquely designed to fit the site and the surrounding neighborhood. In such a situation, the applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met: a. The applicant proposes an alternative design solution that equally or better meets the intent of the specific standard being modified or waived. b. The proposed site and building design is uniquely designed to fit the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood such that it equally or better meets the purpose of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards. c. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located. d. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. e. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 14-2B-7 PRM Zone Bonus Provisions A. Purpose The PRM Zone Bonus Provisions provide an incentive for developments to incorporate features that provide a public benefit and also encourage excellence in architectural design. B. Application The bonus provisions will be administered through the Design Review Process as set forth in Article 14-8B, Administrative Approval Procedures. Bonuses include allowance of dwelling units in excess of the density otherwise achievable under the provisions of the base zone, additional building bulk, and/or reductions of the required setback area. Bonuses are based on a point system. Points may be awarded for public benefit features that the Design Review Committee determines are appropriate in design and location. Bonuses will not be granted for site development features or standards already required by this lItle. Decisions of the Committee may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The number of points allowed for public benefit features and the number of points required per bonus item are set forth below: 1. Public Benefit Features a. Materials Masonry finish on all non-fenestrated areas of walls visible from a public street. 45 12/28/05 . ]()\v;! Cil\ I-Iistoric Preservation COlTIlTIission [lalL -11111,: \\;\;1'\"\'.1"" SIred, 1,,\\,;\ I .1.\ '':):'111 MEMORANDUM Date: September 28, 2006 To: The Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: September 28 Meeting Agenda Items 805 E. Washington Street This application was tabled at the September 14 meeting to allow the applicant to reconsider the garage design. The applicant has agreed to revise the garage design and incorporate some of the original stylistic features of the original garage. The applicant has also agreed to provide a revised sketch prior to the meeting. . ) 923 Iowa Avenue The Commission directed staff to seek a legal opinion whether the College Hill Neighborhood District Guidelines can be applied to the new multi-family structures. The Zoning Interpretation Panel (ZIP) has reviewed this matter and determined that there is ambiguity in the manner in which the College Hill Neighborhood Guidelines are written. Although it may have been the intent to apply them to multi-family structures, the second sentence of the guidelines that refers to them applying to single-family and duplex buildings, appears to limit their application to single-family and duplex structures. For this reason the panel determined that the guidelines in Section 8.2 do not apply to multi-family building. However the ZIP indicated that the Building Height/Mass standard under Section 10.1: the Mandatory Compliance Items implicitly serves the same purpose as the Site and Scale Guidelines under the Neighborhood District Guidelines do, to maintain the building scale and the character of the neighborhood. Building Height/Mass standard requires that measures should be incorporated into the new building design to reduce the 'visual mass' and overall height and provides examples of such measures. One such measure suggested is to reduce the height of a taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two-stories or lower in height. The Commission may consider other measures to achieve a smaller visual mass and overall height. Prevention of Demolition by Neglect - 17 South Governor Street " j Please refer to an email from the building official regarding the measures taken to prevent further damage. Page 1 o~: , \ '\ Sunil Terdalkar From: Jann Ream Sent: Thursday, September 21,200611 :33 AM To: Sunil Terdalkar Subject: 17 S. Governor e Sunil _ Doug received the memo from HPC and asked that I let you know what the plan of action is at 17 S. Governor. After October 13, I will be able to require that the building be registered as a vacant building. They will have 30 days to register. If they don't, I can issue a citation for not registering and ask the court for a court order to require that the rest of the 2nd floor windows be boarded up. If they still don't do it, then we can get the courts permission to go on the property and do it ourselves with costs assessed to the owner. If they do register the building, then we would also require that the windows be boarded up. The vacant building ordinance just gives us a little more clout. So I am fairly confident that we will be able to get all the windows boarded up before winter. That's about as far as we will be able to go. As a vacant building, we would inspect it to make sure that it stays secure and that it is not a nuisance (weeds, garbage etc. - essentially what I am doing now). If it is registered and stays secure and does not become a nuisance or, for some reason, declared a dangerous building, it can remain in that status indefinitely until other factors could be proven to be causing demolition by neglect. .. 9/21/2006 .,~ . ,'" 't .. ",' ',' .. >''\, '" \..JJ o ;J1 ~g 30 '" .. 0- ~~ ~~ " oiS .. - ij;c8 ?;~ ;J,~ \;l~ ~<C ;;; o o ~ (J) (') Ql ~~ -" 8 ~-\JU ~ L-----=-~=llf~:-------~---1Jo L.JQ---- Governor St. ._J~\ L_..~\ ! ! I , , I I I \ I } , i \ I i j ! i I ; I I i~''''''''~''"U" ! I . I ' I I' I ''''__'"''~,, ~w'l L. o [lo (--, ......-.....1-. o I Q __ 0_____ ____ _ _. _ __ _ ~ .__. _I o -:: , -u -~ is !5-it ~cr 50 <>co g~ ~~ ~ ""~ i~ ~i \, ~ I I o -- r-+ '< o --fo'\ - o ~ OJ o -- r-+ '< ~ 0.:> -0 -0 -- ::J c.o Cf) o !!. 1~ ..... 8 Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process. explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. icgov. orglH Phandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. ~:t~t~~b~~ed .....~j../.r![I..t!(f;.......... (J Certificate of No Material Effect ~ C~ficate of Appropriateness IZf Major review (J Intermediate review (J Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) (J Owner .JdlJ:)....b[/~.I.t-.,............................ Phone...........~3/~/fl.t).S............................................. Address ...../$/f:.gpr~...j)r/~~............... ....................htv14.uit.....1A.....SP?:;?ft;........ (J ~::~~~.~~.~..:::J~:::bJj;;~;;::~:::::::::::::::::::: Add ress .............................................................. .c..................... ..... Pho ne.............................................................................. ................ o ~::~~;;:~;.3.b;1~.d~~................. Add",,~.:5.'$I-h/4l)i .................../L.l4lt..Uf:J....../4....S;;;f?I... Phone..........3/?:::...5f1......f4.~Z................................. ~.;.;;~ii:::::::::::"5..hi//1ri(lZ~::(!:;,;1~::}j;:t:.::::::::: Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ~ Site plan JlI Floor plans \t Building elevations b Photographs (J Product information (J Other....... ... ....... ............. .............. ....................... ........... If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property .......~.;3......~1OA.................................. ~~~..~;.~~.~~~.~~:::::::4i~:~;;;;1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Date constructed (if known).......dL..................................... Historic Designation (J This property is a local historic landmark OR ~ This property is located in the: (J Brown Street Historic District (J College Green Historic District (J East College Street Historic District (J Longfellow Historic District (J Summit Street Historic District (J Woodlawn Historic District (J Clark Street Conservation District ~ College Hill Conservation District (J Dearborn Street Conservation District (J Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: (J Contributing ~ Noncontributing (J Nonhistoric Project Type (J Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) (J Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) (J Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch. chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ~ Construction of new building (J Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance (J Other. ................. ............ ....... ....... ..... .... ....... ................. ............. .... Project description CnJ~?J;Q:1.A<.I.t/.l.HtJ.~a/.ll!.:.dIlAdpof:i~d./H?rw. /l.r.::(f"J.,t~"iuaj,j/.'Oi/..fhrd'Jf/1P:d,p.m.~oI.k...w ................................................................................................................................................................................,................................................................. ...........................".........."......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................,............................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................,..................................,..........",...................,........,..'.......................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................,...................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used ...:5~t......dalP//)f.~........................................................................................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................".......................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior app'earance changes . ....~(......d.Q..((?j./.:7f-~....=.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1fh;~~jkj,;;>Jj~:;j;k.~Zl~;.;;;jk~;:;;;;1l .... .. '.{J~61....ktJ.l/l....k....<';;I>~8.-kd../z:'s~.jJ.h.II-It1t"..I.'$:..........w............... .....~~/rn~.J.....h.....&p:L..b~.......fr?......~;tD/~...r~/~..../tIJ~b...Be-................... :~~~~~.~~~~~=::::~~:=~~~/~~~~:~::::::::::: .............................................................................................................................................................................!............................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP HandbookJApp.p65 SHELLEY MCCAFFERTY Residential Architecture 228 S. Summit Street #04 Historic Preservation Iowa City. IA 52240 Urban Planning 319.541.4047 shellmac@att.net H E H 0 To: From: Date: RE: Historic Preservation Commission Shelley McCafferty September II, 2006 923 Iowa Avenue Please find attached a site plan revised per the Staff Report provided in your packet. Revi- sions to the site plan are as follows: Lighting: The site plan indicates the concept for exterior lighting. Prior to application for a building permit the fixtures and photometrics will be specified as required. To the extent possible. the lighting has been located on the building. A pole light in compliance with the zoning code will be located towards the rear of the lot to reduce light glare in adjacent build- ings. If required to meet photometries. an additional pole will be added on the west side of the parking lot. Parking: The parking lot has been redesigned to provide for the required landscape buffers. Existing trees along the west lot line will be preserved to the extent possible. Exact species will be specified as required by code prior to application of a building permit. Height: The building width has been reduced by one foot, thus providing for a 15 foot set- back along the west property line. Building Materials: Given that the site slopes and the front will be landscaped with shrubs, little of the raised foundation will be visible. Therefore, the applicant proposed to paint the foundation rather than use a masonry or dressed finish. If the Commission chooses to prohibit this treatment of the foundation, the applicant will back plaster/stucco the foundation. The applicant requests that the Commission approve the revised site and building plans sub- ject to the approval of the landscaping and photometries by the building department. As noted in the memo submitted with this application, if once the site survey has been com- pleted and if significant changes are required in the site plan. the applicant will resubmit the plan for Historic Review. ~ ~_._.~J ..........i-kJi. i , ; i 1 ~ I J--i~71 1 ._-~ I I I I ..------J ;-~--'----- I --, L i i J .:2.3/ ....:... o ~ OJ )> < CD '--1 i-~---.l L. r-~'-~ I -- I I -----, I :::E~-i-n-n -(:S-<"""" ":l-n"Q~ :x: ::4--1 .~~~f!! ~.;F~ ~~!:!!ilO::! ~::;;g~~ '3 "" '0 ~ " o Z -i t< f> ,- , I~ qq " " ;>0 '" ~ ~ I' w ,- q 1-~- I I I I i , i I I I 3B' -10" PREY _1--] -------------- 34r~ci' PROP .-. - -- - -------- - I I i -~: \ II \ , I \ I \ i I \ ) L ,,(J -I,-~---------n---~~Tr ,1 II I! I -------~~~l~:':;o;RE~-==+l- I I I 1 I I i II II II II II II II / / / Cf.) m -0 N co l::5 o 0> I :0'-0" -t I I I I ' r---+--.c--i - I ~ i ...~.~\~~;" l'--'''''--~r- I"c ,\ -/-;:c ~' ~I 00 '-;';(;I,,\~F I ' ~~~ q ~I ,--- 00 -~:.-_;I,/i~?,_~_~~_'-~:?"-,,,.j'1 >::-,' 1'i'-6" -4-{--- .-- 22'-0" ~I-- 18'-6" - L', I~ '1 &; ----~- 1l /y 'JI\\~ I ~ I '" J~ _ - q~ ' I\~' I ~ ~ - --- - 1Ir1 [I-t .... j::;'l!1 _~_ ~~'\I;{b I : ~ --~--- ~;I~~I -(~0\- ~ i \y/ I -~~" ~--_J\ \ ,- , U' --J ,- q ,----------- I I I I I ! ~~-:~; I.~~$~...-. ~l- -y I ~W~l1\\ I I~j)~~~~ I ,\\"//,_ I ~$(~ ~ -02 I -~I,r)~~ ' ," I ~~" ---t ~~-- I 1~."~~\\V'(t~;g;,. I ~__ I I/"-;/(!,I,\~~" ! I ~~'I'(i:~< [ ~ I~\\\~\\~~ t//IPli\t\' , " ----==~- _! --I -- I I I 7'-0" r I I I I I I I I I __~___J " -<> ,- I q ~ '" 1 J VI. il ' \\-il/~""--bl' ,\ 11/'1;'''-- ~ ~ . I~ ~I~.'~I~ . ~ ~~~W ~41~Z~/4 ~~z:. ~d~\~ '-". ""'.. \. \" ". , \ '1; .-- o I I II (,0 I I rn II u r.....:> ex, I I "--:> II II C' = 0-> , I ' I II i l~ i i CJ I \;'! 0-'1' tf '" ;<J ~J - q'-I~' -" ! : 8 J~=J i ' II \ I i i I _ _ q'-O' - -----{ I I , ~~._~ II ____..~~~_I! -~~._---~ I I ! 'r' I <Ji ,- q i L-- I I i I I , ' I <5 ,- q +- '" ,- q rr :0 ,- q j I I i~ II~ I ~ +f' "l'~f ,.,!, . +~~ II I I g'-O' J , , : ' I I ~-~:]1Nlc- :i I I I I ! ! Im-'[,,:=,_,f,-,'~!,! tal E8. c~BI !! fi~ II .=------cc I I I I I I " '" II II Orn '" rn ---iZ -<0 ,,'" I I , -l II I I ;z:I: ~PJ II rnrn :ii "'<: :t>- , ---i I I q 6 II I I J Z II I I II I I I I I II II I I II I I II "'-'"-~---'-_..",.-~---- I I II I I II 900Z 8 Z d3S I Iii I I I I I I 1 I \ \~ \! I \ ~ \ I' , : 5 I I I ! I~ ~ -tt --- QI-16' - _ +t--- QI-16'-1f- ql-o'-t , i I II I I \ \ - I I " I I I 11---~11 i IEr3-.I.\ I I I Iii L] II II' -- II ~=-~-II -j] 1m i' I J ~ " I~I , I I ' ! : \ I ~" 8JI: W" i I. . \ I I I , I ! _ I liESII I I : i I I I I I \ I it I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II ' I I II I I II I I 1 I I ' I I II I I I I I I II I I I I 900G 8 Z d3S Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Attn: Sunil Terdalkar City Hall, 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 September 20, 2006 Re: 923 Iowa Avenue Dear Commissioners: As residents of the "Governor's Square" area, we are writing to express our concern about the structure proposed to replace the demolished apartment building at 923 Iowa Avenue. Several of us attended your meeting last Thursday night and our concerns were expressed by one property owner (P. Lutgendorf), but others were unable to attend because of other commitments. We would like our views to be taken into account by the Commission when it next meets to consider this proposal. We are seriously concerned about the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building, which considerably exceeds that of the structure it is to replace. This increased size is to enable the property owner to double the number of tenants, and although this last point is not within your purview, we trust that you will understand our further concern about this. The 900 block of Iowa A venue has become dominated by student renters, and the few remaining single family home owners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. We understand the aesthetic and architectural guidelines of Historic Preservation and Conservation to ultimately be in the service of quality of life, and also intended to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. We consider the massive building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles, and we hope that you will seriously consider the intent of Section 8 of the Guidelines. We urge you not to approve the current proposal, and instead to request a revised design that does not exceed the size of the demolished structure. Thank you for your attention. " l-:>ll; t (,~~' '1 ,,q ;/(: ( r;t- ....I' Y. . ,~.., ce" , j 1, . a:..e~i Sincerely, '*-\5~Cv'~ j.-( 11f<t~~ Ot~' q '11 )'~J /lAC, " i ~. J' Co> ,__J L~ ... ;:....ij'1C' { 7<-(:5 A v,,: ~. (// J~; , :>. /') 't/ I .J' ! '" "A.4../ /'-!/f.A 1--(i:/[.-tC L../L/(! l)lCCJ.-~ /" " .... 1 . c' ',Il.> , ,,' " d th l tl) )c.f,--:{ Jilt 'rv'L," of. ;", ' , if /-. ~ ", . k . K I C!,\i\jr? C.A c>O J--- 5 (iFt ,1'1. " i f (V1/ t-(fc Cl' '.y/ t:".: ~r-\ i e ~~;> i1~ I L.j S. (;oyer f)or .s+- . Sunil Terdalkar From: Sent: To: Subject: Frank Gersh [frank_gersh@hotmail.com] Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:29 PM Sunil T erdalkar new building at 923 Iowa Avenue Dear Mr. Terdalkar: As a concerned neighbor and former historic preservation commissioner, I am writing regarding the proposed new building at 923 Iowa Avenue. While the building looks good, I am concerned about its increased size not fitting in with the remainder of the block, which is primarily single family dwellings, duplexes and other similar sized rental units. At least part of the mandate of the Historic Preservation Commission is to preserve historic neighborhoods. To allow this building to be built would, in my opinion, initiate a change in the neighborhood that violates its historic character. I say this because of the size of the building. Although this is not ostensibly the business of the Commission, I also am concerned about the increased noise and number of people on the block that such a building would bring. This should be of concern to the Commission because part of the character of a nighborhood is its density, its quietude or lack thereof, and other such less tangible, non- architectural features. I see the tornado as providng the city with an opportunity to improve the eastern-most block of Iowa Avenue, and make it more like it was in the period in which most of the buildings were built. To allow this building to be build would violate this spirit. I trust that you will see that this letter gets to the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely yours, Frank S. Gersh 1041 Woodlawn Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 The next generation of Search--say hello! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARV AT HALL - City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Michael Gunn, John McCornally, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Carlson, Tim Toomey STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Guy from Sears Home Improvement, Ben Lewis, Philip Lutgendorf, Shelley McCafferty, John Roffman, Rebecca Routh, Terry Stumpf, Tim Taffe RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Terdalkar suggested that the election be deferred until later in the meeting. MOTION: Ponto moved to defer the election of officers until later. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness. 923 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that this property recently received a certificate of appropriateness for demolition from the Commission, without a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of the proposed building on the site. He said the Commission is now reviewing the proposal for the new structure on the site. Terdalkar said the applicant is proposing a six-unit, 18-bedroom apartment building to replace the storm- damaged nine-unit, nine-bedroom rooming house. He said that the staff report is based on the Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings, (Section 10) which require certain criteria to be demonstrated before a certificate of appropriateness is issued for the project. Terdalkar said that staff has asked the applicant to revise the drawings to comply with all the guidelines and regulations. McCafferty, the consultant for this project, distributed a revised site plan. She said that the only changes to the building that are not reflected in the Commission's packet are that there will be 18 inches taken out of the depth, the length of the building. McCafferty said that the side elevations would therefore not be changed. 1, HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 2 McCafferty provided an elevation to show that the building would comply with the front setback requirements and where the building sits in relationship to the other properties on the block. She said the building should therefore comply with the multi-family guidelines in the historic preservation handbook. McCafferty said there was a lot of discussion in the staff report about site issues. She said that the owner would like to request approval of the architecture at this time, as well as the site plan as it is right now. McCafferty said the site plan is still somewhat of a concept, because the owner did not yet have the site engineering. McCafferty said the owner did not want to engineer the site around a building that may not be approved by the Commission. McCafferty said the owner would therefore like to have approval of the building. She said that, when the application gets to the additional stages of site engineering and there is a possibility of a sensitive areas rezoning, this would come back to the Commission for an amendment. McCafferty said that the owner would, however, like to have the confidence to proceed with the engineering of this building at this time. Weitzel asked for clarification that McCafferty is therefore asking for approval of the architectural plan at this point and the concept for the site plan, which the Commission would then review at a later date. McCafferty said that if there are significant changes, it could be reviewed again. She said that if the site can be engineered pretty much to be exactly what is shown, she would leave it to staff and request that it not have to go before the Commission again. McCafferty said there will probably be retaining walls and other things like that that are not yet resolved, and they may be of a height and such that this needs to come back. McCafferty pointed out that she tried to design this so that it complies with the guidelines. She pointed out the front elevation and the drawing that shows how this would compare to the outline of the previous building. McCafferty said the goal of the elevation was to lower the overall eave height and put living units more under the roof, so that there are three stories but with a lower eave line. McCafferty said that the building is much more articulated than what was there previously. She added that it is a little wider than the original building, but her intent in designing it was to design it so it looks more like a large duplex. McCafferty said there are two front fayades essentially connected by a stairway. She said she lowered the eave line where the stair is to accentuate the fact that it is more of a link that is pushed back. McCafferty said the intent is to maximize the look of this as a duplex as opposed to an apartment block. Swaim asked how much wider this would be than the original building. Terdalkar said that the original building was 42 feet wide, and the new building would be 58 feet wide. McCafferty said that with the side bay, which is back away from the front fayade, it would be 58 feet, and without the side bays, it would be 52 feet. She said the perception of the building from the front is going to be that it is ten feet wider. McCafferty said that the site plan shows a darker outline showing the relative difference in the footprint of the old versus the new. She added that she broke up the pitch and articulation of the roof and some articulation to the front surface by using the two different siding materials. McCafferty stated that it would all be done out of fiber cement board, with a concrete base. McCafferty said that, given the slope of the site, not a lot of the bottom foundation would be visible. She said that with the ramp, there will probably be some landscaping to deal with that, so that one would not really see any of the foundation. McCafferty said that at this point, she is proposing to just paint the foundation. Michaud asked what the difference is between the sidewalk elevation and the plateau. McCafferty said that it goes up approximately nine feet within 15 feet of length, which is about a 60% slope. She said that, with that slope, in order to get the ramp, there will probably have to be an easement on the adjacent property, and there is a verbal agreement to do that. McCafferty stated that the slope will have to be 2 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 3 softened somewhat on the side next to the large apartment building on the east side in order to have ramp accessibility from the front. Ponto said that staff had discussed the issue of lighting in his staff report. McCafferty said that on the revised site plan, she did indicate some lighting. She said that typically, a civil engineer will do a light plan to guarantee downcast, shielded lights with appropriate lumens and so forth. McCafferty said that this plan is not at that step yet, so she is basically proposing a concept. She said there would be lights underneath the porch, on the back of the building, underneath the roof over the rear stairway, and there will probably have to be a pole or two in the back. McCafferty said she is trying to push them as far back as possible so as not to add glare to the single-family house. She said that there are buffering requirements, and there is already a natural tree line, and she is showing some supplement of that. Phillip Lutgendorf requested permission to address the Commission as a neighboring property owner. He said that he has lived at and owned the adjacent property, 911 Iowa Avenue, for 21 years. He said the Commission is mostly concerned with how things look, but he has other concerns as a neighborhood resident, and he wanted to at least express them. Lutgendorf said the building that was at 923 Iowa Avenue was a remarkably good neighbor in that he has never had a complaint toward that building. He said that in terms of noise, a major issue on that block, he has never had a problem with that building. Lutgendorf said he suspects that the reason for that is that there were one-bedroom apartments and only nine people living there, and they tended to be quiet students. Lutgendorf said that his biggest concern about this plan, apart from the sheer size of the building, is the fact that it would double the density of people living at that site. He said that he also feels that three- bedroom apartments will attract a different kind of clientele - people living with their friends and having parties. Lutgendorf said that the reality is that what is driving single families off that block on Iowa Avenue is the noise from parties. He said that the police have been called many, many times, mostly because of houses on the north side of Iowa Avenue. Lutgendorf said that the thought of having that now come in right next door is really troubling to him. He said that if the goal it to stabilize that block as mixed, single-family and rental, this is a step backward, not forward. Weitzel said that the Commission has had direction from the City Council that if it does not take neighborhood concerns into consideration when discussing historic preservation, then it is not doing its job either. Weitzel said the Commission, however, is primarily looking at architectural, aesthetics and historic character issues. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Iowa Avenue, with the stipulation that things may changed based on the site plan. Ponto seconded the motion. Michaud said that she thinks the design looks like a historic duplex. She asked if there would be retaining walls, as one can't really put grass there. McCafferty said that would be part of the next step, the engineering process. She said that she would like to minimize the amount of retaining wall required, but that will be dependent on working out the plan. Roffman said that what is helping a lot is that the Clarks to the east have verbally agreed to let him extend his ramp over the front of their property, which is the lower part of the slope. He said that will then be blended in to work with the topography. Roffman said he would then share access to the ramp with the neighbors. 3 HPC minutes: 9/1412006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 4 McCafferty said that one of the other issues is working with the City. She said that at this point, the slope of the hill starts right at the sidewalk, which is within the City right-of-way. McCafferty said if she has to cut back to the property line and then back an additional 42 inches, that is where there would be the most retaining wall. She said that if she can work with the Engineering Department to start the sidewalk and ramp right at the City sidewalk, that would help reduce that. McCafferty said that is still in negotiation. She said that the ramp access has to be in the front of the building. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if the Commission has any purview over the type of material used for the retaining wall. Terdalkar said it would have purview if a permit is required. Michaud said that this plan conforms with the density the City allows there; however, it would double the number of tenants. She said that perhaps there could be some stipulation in the leases to restrict times that parties can be held. Swaim said that she likes the look of the proposed building but agreed that it is a substantial increase in the number of tenants. McCafferty said that when this conservation district was rezoned, the Commission specifically responded to concerns of landlords that if in fact a building was destroyed, that it would not be a down zoning and the owner would not be unable to reconstruct to the same size. She said that is the reason there is not a fayade limit on multi-family. Gunn said that in this conservation district, the size limitations are fairly clearly spelled out. Weitzel confirmed that there are site and scale guidelines. Terdalkar said the guidelines state that the Neighborhood District Guidelines apply to single-family and duplex units. Weitzel said there was a lot of opposition from those owning larger buildings who were concerned that if the building was destroyed in its entirety that there would be a lowering of their potential. Weitzel said that it is a neighborhood conservation zone. Terdalkar said that a neighborhood conservation zone is intended to stabilize the neighborhood with lower density. McCafferty stated that under the current RNS zoning, seven units would be allowed, and Roffman previously had nine units. Terdalkar said that seven units would be allowed if one only considers the land, without parking requirements. McCafferty agreed but said that with what is allowed just basically by doing the numbers in that particular zone, the owner could not go back and build nine units, but the bedrooms under density are not specified, so that is where the density is increased. Weitzel said he assumes this plan reflects the required parking spaces. McCafferty confirmed that it reflects required parking and the required buffering necessary per the zoning code. Gunn asked McCafferty if she thinks the fayade area requirement does not apply here. McCafferty said that when the conservation district was designated, the concern was that if a building was destroyed and the existing fayade square footage was X amount, would the owner then have to go down to Y amount, based upon the neighborhood guidelines, and the owners considered that a down zoning. She said that is her recollection of why the area requirement does not apply to the multi-family, because it would be a de facto down zoning. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if that fayade area requirement would apply, because the guidelines don't allow that. Terdalkar replied that staff feels that the standard as written does not apply; because the introduction states that it applies to single-family and duplex. He said he thought, however, one could say that it does not state that they do not apply to multi-family. McCafferty said that this is an SO-foot lot. She said that legally, based on the zoning, this could be divided into two 40-foot lots. McCafferty said the building proposed is approximately 2,170 square feet, and that is including the roof, which slopes back. She said that the previous building was approximately 1,600 square feet. McCafferty said there are two ways it could be done. She said that forced with this limitation, 4 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 5 one could do a 1,600 square foot building on an 80-foot lot or do two three-unit buildings of a 1,200 square foot fa9ade and get exactly what is proposed. Terdalkar said he had some reservations about whether that could be done. He said that if a building is within 15 feet of a single-family zone, the height of the structure is limited to two and one-half stories per the zoning requirements. Terdalkar said that if one splits the lot and builds a three-unit building on each lot adjacent to a single-family structure, the zoning code limits height of the structure to two and one-half stories. He said that McCafferty is not presenting complete information when she says that one could build two separate buildings by dividing the lot into two small lots McCafferty said that even if there were two single-family houses, there would still be less aggregate square footage in this particular proposal than there would be with two single-family houses. Terdalkar said the intent of the neighborhood guidelines is to limit the size of the front elevation to 1,200 square feet. He said it the guidelines do allow two buildings with 1,200 square feet, as other existing buildings in the area have similar elevation sizes. He said that it is not appropriate to say that the proposed building would be smaller than two separate buildings combined into 2,400 square feet, the overall size of one building should matter. McCafferty said she is just using this as an example to gauge the size of what is being proposed versus what could be done with two single-family houses. She said this is something that would be of a scale of the smaller sorority houses in the neighborhood so that the scale of the proposed building is not unusual to the College Hill area. Brennan agreed that the scale of the building is similar to other large buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood, some of which are old but most of which are newer. Gunn stated that the guidelines are perfectly clear. He said there was a lengthy discussion when the guidelines were being drafted, and the argument was that because the predominant fa9ade size of a structure in the district is only 1,200 feet, if one has a large apartment building and it burns down, can it be rebuilt. Gunn said the answer is yes, and that is why it says, \land if the structure has a street elevation surface area of 1,200 feet or greater, it may be reconstructed, provided the street area does not exceed the area of the pre-existing primary structure." He said he reads this to say that one can build a building back as big as it was but cannot built it back bigger than it was. Gunn said that to say this whole thing doesn't apply because this is a multi-family building is a stretch that would come from a contorted view of what the guideline is. McCafferty pointed out that the architectural features have been added to this to reduce the perceived scale of this building overall. She said that if one is discussing just the technical square footage, a large portion of it will be such that it is not going to be seen in the same way that one sees a big, flat surface, for instance, with the bays in back receding quite a bit. Weitzel said this building does borrow architectural elements from buildings in the near vicinity. He said one question would be if there are any examples of duplexes. McCafferty pointed out that there are some duplexes around town with a similar concept as that proposed. Weitzel said that the examples show peaked gables facing out and a single roof behind that, cross- gabled, so it is the same design. He said there are architectural elements from the neighborhood and a style that is prevalent in Iowa City. Weitzel asked Terdalkar whether the Commission has any purview over the neighborhood issues. Terdalkar said that if the Commission members feel there is an issue that affects the character of the conservation district, the Commission may consider it. Weitzel said the Commission can therefore talk about the neighborhood issue to a certain extent, but the reasoning has to be made clear when voting. 5 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 6 Swaim said that, in terms of the neighborhood and the number of tenants, she did not know about the other houses and how many bedrooms are in their units. McCafferty said she believes the Clark apartments have one and two-bedroom units. Michaud said that there are three to five-bedroom houses across the street. Swaim said that this is an attractive building that in some ways will fit better into the neighborhood than the very big, three-story building did. She said she is empathetic with the issue of noise. Swaim said it is an issue that a lot of older neighborhoods have to stay on top of and find some good solutions. She said she did not want to single this out as not being a workable project because of the increased number of tenants. Swaim said she would rather find better ways to address the noise issue. Michaud said that, as a landlord, if she puts some restrictions such as quiet hours on her tenants, she has very cooperative tenants. McCafferty said that she feels that better maintained buildings tend to have better, quieter tenants. Roffman disc;:ussed the appearance of the building prior to the storm; he said he has always tried to maintain the building and increase the street appeal. Gunn said that in his tenure on the Commission, a lot of times a project has come in and everyone says it is big and really out of scale with the neighborhood, but there is never anything in the guidelines to prevent it from going up. He said that here, it is very clear in the guidelines. Gunn said that this building was big for the neighborhood, and if the new building is constructed, it's going to be bigger. He said that the whole point of controlling the scale is to control the size of the building, and the only way the Commission thought it could be done legally was to define it as front elevation. Gunn said that if this project is to be 1,600 square feet in its front elevation, as defined in the guidelines, then it's a wonderful building. He said, however, that if it is 2,000 or 2,400, he thinks it is clearly way too big and would vote against it. McCafferty read from the guidelines, "The College Hill Neighborhood District guidelines apply to the College Green Historic District, East College Street District, College Hill Conservation District. They apply to single family and duplex buildings in these neighborhoods." She said she would like to get clarification, as it seems rather clear that it does not apply to multi-family dwellings. McCormally said that there is another large, blue apartment building near the corner of Iowa Avenue and Dodge Street that is still in the same district. He said that the building replaced many smaller buildings, and it is gigantic and has an enormous frontage. Weitzel said that building was constructed well before this was a conservation district. McCafferty agreed and said that regulations have been changed because of that building. Gunn said that there are several apartment buildings within the district larger than the 1,200 square feet, but they all existed prior to the conservation district being established. Weitzel asked Gunn if he would be okay with the building if it were reduced in size. Gunn confirmed this. He said that the original building was big, and this would be bigger. Gunn said he doesn't buy the argument that somehow if one builds a big enough building, the scale doesn't apply, because the lot is big enough. He said that the whole point of the guidelines was not to allow this to happen. Swaim asked clarification about the issue of and the demolished square footage of the front fa9ade. Terdalkar said that the front fa9ade of the original building is estimated to be about 1,600 square feet. He said the footprint was about 42 feet wide, and the height is about 35 feet. Gunn said that 1,632 would be one thing, but 2,200 square feet is hard to ignore. He said it is a nice looking building, but it's not small, no matter how many bump outs there are on it. Swaim asked about the 2,100 square feet figure and if it comes from not only the front forward fa9ade but also anything that is facing north. Gunn confirmed this and said that the roof would also be included. 6 HPCminutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 7 McCafferty said that another option is to make this narrower, but one ends up filling all the recessed areas and ending up with basically one large roofline that will look much more boxy. She said that the plan is for a wider building so that it would fit in the neighborhood. Gunn said this is just flat out making this a whole lot bigger than it was, which absolutely flies in the face of the guidelines. He said that if the Commission approves this, it is saying that the scale doesn't matter. Brennan asked if this was originally two lots that had been joined. Weitzel said it was not; he said it was part of the Governor's Square and was subdivided into this size lot. Brennan said the owner could split this into two lots and put up two 1,200 square foot facades that would be bigger than this. Terdalkar said that the lots can be split, but new buildings would need to comply with all the site requirements and design guidelines. Terdalkar said that from his perspective, the guidelines intend to achieve compatibility. He said that one can certainly build six units, by reducing the number of bedrooms, and reduce the size of the structure which will reduce the number of parking spaces required. Terdalkar said that from his perspective, the scale standard is not limiting anything to add more units than what was there before. He said it is certainly possible. Terdalkar said the question is if it is appropriate to build the maximum possible or something that is compatible with the whole neighborhood. Brennan stated that he thinks this is consistent with other buildings that already exist throughout the entire district as a whole, and that is what the Commission has to look at is the district as a whole. He said the Commission can't just isolate a block here or there, or it makes the meaning of the district disappear. Brennan said that given the consistency, the size, and styling, and that the owner could split this into two lots and have larger massing than what is proposed, he would be inclined to vote in favor of the proposal. Michaud said she respected Gunn's opinion about the building. She said that McCafferty has done a great job with the blueprints. Michaud proposed that there be some kind of compromise. She said there is one more indentation than seems necessary, and it might look more convincing to do away with the some areas, such as the dining room windows. Michaud said that one of the things that contributes to parties, in her experience, is having a big living room area with a connected dining room and kitchen. Ponto said he likes the looks of this and thinks that from the street this will not have the appearance of the mass that the big box did. He said, however, that he did not think the Commission could go against the guidelines. Ponto pointed out that Section 3.6 has alternative design criteria to allow the Commission to deviate from the guidelines in exceptional circumstance, but he is not convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance. McCafferty said that if the Commission is basing its decision on the 1,600/1,200 square feet issue, she would request an opinion from the legal department on whether this applies to a multi-family building. Weitzel asked if the owner would agree to have the Commission table this issue at this time and have that issue investigated. He said that the Commission could have two meetings this month to reconsider this issue at the second meeting. Roffman said yes. Gunn said he was okay with tabling the proposal. He said that he might be unable to attend the next meeting but added that he would be amazed if the legal opinion is that the guidelines don't allow the control of a new structure in the place of one that was destroyed. Gunn said that would be a ridiculous contortion of the guidelines. Weitzel said that it is important to find out what the Commission's latitude is with these sorts of issues. MOTION: Ponto moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Iowa Avenue. Gunn seconded the motion. 7 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 8 Terdalkar asked if this is the first time such an issue has come up. Weitzel said the Commission considered this with regard to Brad Houser's house on Dodge Street. Weitzel said that the Commission did hold Houser to the height requirements. Terdalkar said that if the intent of the guidelines is to not allow large buildings, then the language should be clarified to reflect that. He said the guidelines should say that it applies to single-family, duplexes or multi-family buildings. The motion to table carried on a vote of 8-0. 726 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that the applicant for this proposal requested deferral of the item at a previous Commission meeting. He said that the application is for the review of windows on a carriage house garage at the back of the property. Terdalkar stated that this is an Iowa City landmark property and part of a conservation district. He said that the windows that were used as replacements are vinyl windows. Terry Stumpf of Stumpf Construction introduced himself and Tim Taffe, the owner of the house. Stumpf said that he was the contractor for this project. He said he was at the house for another project, but Taffe had told him that the windows didn't open and could not be cleaned. Stumpf said he looked across the alley and saw a new structure with vinyl windows, and he didn't give it a thought. Stumpf said that he just left the existing frames outside and nothing would change; he put the vinyl sash in to have a functional window with the least amount of money spent. He said he did not think about the house being in a historic district. Stumpf said he has never put vinyl windows in a new structure but does think there is a place for them, and he just didn't think about putting this in a garage. He said the windows are all up high, and all the original trim and wood jambs are left. Stumpf said he believes that the garage was built in the 1970s, based on the material and subflooring, on the existing foundation where an old garage used to be. He said the windows apparently came from an old house. Stumpf said this is in the back alley where no one can see it. He said there is also a vinyl window on the south end of the house. Taffe said that his house is the prettiest house on Iowa Avenue. He said that the last two owners haven't cared about the house. Taffe said that when he bought the house, it had a sagging front porch with rotten pillars and beams. He said that Stumpf has put the porch back together with new concrete, and now it is level. Taffe said that all of the tongue and groove is exactly the same dimension as it was before. Taffe said that on the roof, the bottoms of the dormers were all rotten, and he had Stumpf fix that and replace the trim where it was missing. Taffe said the house is a gem, and he is making it a lot better than it was before. Taffe said that the garage in the back is not a gem and is not a carriage house. He said that it is a two-car rollup door garage. Taffe said he loves the house, but the garage is not the house. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of vinyl windows at 726 Iowa Avenue, as proposed, because the garage was built in the 1970s and is on the back alley. Michaud seconded the motion. Gunn asked how the Commission would know that this is a 1970s garage. Terdalkar responded that the contractor can tell the best by the kind of materials used. He said that it cannot be determined by the exterior appearance. Terdalkar said he checked the Sanborn maps, and there appears to be a similar footprint on the site after 1930, so if this is a new structure it may have been built upon an older foundation. He stated that the site inventory form for the landmark designation does not mention any of the outbuildings on the site. Weitzel said that he is familiar with Stumpfs work and is prepared to accept what he says as legitimate and right on target. 8 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28,2006 - 6:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn, John McCormally, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Joseph Codr, Ann Estin, James Estin, Alison Ames Galstad, Susan Lutgendorf, Shelly McCafferty, Beth Rapson, John Roffman, Mike Waltz RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: The election of officers was deferred until later in the meeting by consensus of the Commission. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 923 Iowa Avenue. MOTION: Ponto moved to take consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 923 Iowa Avenue up from the table. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar referred to the memorandum, issued at the request of the Commission, in the packet containing an opinion from the Zoning Interpretation Panel regarding the guidelines. He said that the Panel has basically said that the guideline in Section 8.2 is not applicable to this project. Terdalkar said the Panel rendered that opinion because there is a particular section for multi-family buildings and their design in the guidelines and also because there is a sentence in the guidelines in Section 8.2 that says that those guidelines refer to single-family and duplex buildings. However, he said that the design guidelines for multi-family buildings do address the issues of scale, mass, and height of the proposed building, so the Commission may choose to apply those guidelines in this case. Weitzel re-stated, for clarification, that Section 8.2 is from the College Hill Neighborhood Guidelines, which do not apply, according to the Panel. He said, however, that Section 10, Design Guidelines for Multi-Family buildings, does allow the Commission to consider the effect on the neighborhood. 'l HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28,2006 Page 10 Weitzel said that correspondence was received from Frank Gersh and Susan Lutgendorf. He said the Commission also received a petition stating that the undersigned had concerns that the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building will enable the property owners to double the number of tenants and that Iowa Avenue has become dominated by student renters and that the few remaining single-family homeowners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. Weitzel said the petitioners argue that the aesthetic architectural guidelines for historic preservation and conservation should ultimately be in the service of quality of life and also intend to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. He said the petitioners state that they consider the mass of the building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles and hope the Commission will seriously consider the spirit of Section 8 of the guidelines. Weitzel said there is also a proposal by Susan Lutgendorf that the Commission defer consideration of this item, based on the number of people who may be absent from the meeting. Public Comment: Susan Lutgendorf stated that she wanted to underscore some of the things written in the letter. She said that she has always considered the 900 block of Iowa Avenue to be an ideal place to live. Lutgendorf said it is easy to bike and walk to downtown, and this is an ideal block for families to live on. Lutgendorf said it is real important to her to preserve the quality of life on that block and to stabilize the neighborhood. She said she was glad to see that there is a provision in the guidelines that does relate to mass and size of building, because her concern is that the massive structure that is proposed, something about the sheer size of it and the fact that it is going to be substantially larger than the building that was previously there, really changes the character of that neighborhood. Lutgendorf said it introduces a larger apartment building, and she feels that it really does further destabilize the neighborhood. Lutgendorf said her great concern is that the Commission has made its own guidelines for stabilization of neighborhoods, and she did not see anything in this matter so urgent as to cause the Commission to renege on the guidelines that it has made. Lutgendorf said she understands that the owner of the property is allowed to replace the number of units that he previously had, and that is his economic prerogative. She said, however, that if there were nine people there before, why could there not be three apartment units of three people each or six apartment units of two people each. Lutgendorf said that just because there is a certain number of bedrooms, that does not mean there will only be one person residing in that bedroom. Lutgendorf said that the amount to which the population density will be increased could be quite massive. She strongly requested that the Commission honor its own guidelines regarding the character of the building and the character of the neighborhood. Alison Ames Galstad said that she has lived on this block for about 14 years. She said she chose this area, because it is a mixed neighborhood and because it is walking distance from downtown. Galstad said that as a property owner, she respects what the City is trying to do in terms of historic preservation. She said she is disappointed to see people stepping away from the intent of those guidelines. Galstad said that in the case of her neighborhood, she hoped that the Commission would stand up for the intent of the guidelines. She said that it is of great concern to see the population density here increase so drastically. Shelly McCafferty, the consultant for the applicant, provided some revised handouts for the Commission. She reminded the Commission that its purview is the architecture, and the scale, design, and mass of the 10 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 11 architecture. McCafferty said it is not the Commission's purview to look at the underlying zoning code or the housing code. McCafferty said that this neighborhood is not all single-family houses or all smaller scale houses. She showed some photographs of other buildings and said that as one stands at the end of Iowa Avenue, there are a couple of large buildings in view that are substantially larger than what the applicant proposes. McCafferty said that Washington Street has additional large buildings, varying from 50 to 75 feet in width. She stated that a larger scale building is not necessarily out of place in this neighborhood. McCafferty said she has been working on revising this building to make it smaller, based on previous public comments. She showed an illustration of the proposed building surrounded by blue lines to represent the previous proposal. McCafferty said the width of just the front fa9ade without the bays would be 46 feet; the original building at the front was 42 feet. McCafferty also showed an illustration of how the proposed building relates to the previous building, represented by red lines. She stated that the front elevation area of the proposed building would be 1,656, and her best estimate of the front elevation area of the original building is 1,646. McCafferty said that the front wall area, which excludes the roof, would now be within 50 square feet of what it was previously. She said that the typical eave height would actually be three feet lower than that of the previous building. McCafferty said that the roof height as the Building Department would measure it would be four feet lower than the previous building. She said the only dimension that is not less than what the previous building had is the width; the new building would be just four feet wider than what the previous building was, excluding the base. McCafferty showed the side elevation of the building. She showed the base laid out in the lighter lines on the left and right of the building and on the side elevation. McCafferty showed examples of bays on buildings in Iowa City. She showed the bays from the side and showed how from the front, they are essentially not visible and do not contribute to the perceived mass of the buildings. McCafferty said that to look at the straight elevation and measure it is not really an accurate portrayal of what the perception of the scale of the building will be from the street. McCafferty showed what the building would look like in three dimensions. She said that mostly what one would see is the porch and the front projecting gables. McCafferty showed examples of flat elevations of various buildings. She said that seen in three dimensions, the sense of scale of the buildings is significantly different. McCafferty said this proposal is for a building that is not a solid mass, as the previous building was. She said that it is a little bit wider but is more articulated, however. McCafferty said that one's perception of the building as seen from the street is actually going to appear smaller than what it was previously. She said that is what should be discussed: the scale, the perception of scale, and how it relates to the neighborhood. Lutgendorf asked if she had a side elevation for the side of the building would look like as compared to the previous building. McCafferty said that she did not have photographs of the side of the previous building. Lutgendorf said that she will be experiencing the building from the side, not from the street. McCafferty said that the previous building would probably have gone back to the middle of the large center bay. She said the exterior back wall was previously about at the middle of the center bay. McCafferty said the depth would increase from 40 feet to 69 feet. McCafferty said that there are screening requirements to mitigate having multi-family next to single-family. She said there is a required setback of 15 feet from the side property line, but this will actually be at 21 feet at the base and 24 feet at the largest mass of the building. 11 HPC minutes: 9/2812006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 12 McCafferty said there is a screening requirement for parking, but she also put in screening along the property line where the building is. She showed another larger, over story tree that she said will further diminish the appearance of the back of the building from the street. Beth Rapson asked how the placement of the building on the lot would relate to the building that was there before. She said she is the person who will be most impacted by this building, as it will take away light and privacy and will add noise and a structure where there was open space before. McCafferty said she did not know exactly where that building was before, as she did not have exact dimensions. She said that it would go back a little bit further and would be a little bit closer, maybe three or four feet. John Roffman, the owner of the property, said that the west line would not be a whole lot different than it was on the previous building. He said there was an addition on the east with that offset, and there was still side yard beyond that. Roffman said there is only a seven-foot side yard over there now, and to that front porch there would have been about ten, so it would be about three feet less there, so it might be a foot closer. Michaud asked if the space where the rear shed was located would be used. Roffman responded that it was part of the building; it was not a shed. He said he would be using that space and then perhaps another foot to the right. Michaud asked if it would be one foot closer for the most extreme bay on the west side. Roffman replied that that would be his best guess. Regarding light and so forth, McCafferty said that at the portion of the building adjacent to the single- family house, there should actually be more light. She said that it will not be as tall of a building overall, and it is also going to have a slope on it. McCafferty agreed that there will be more length. Michaud asked if going from nine efficiency units or single-bedrooms to three-bedroom units has all been cleared with the zoning plan. McCafferty said that it all within the zoning code. Weitzel said that it is Neighborhood Stabilization 20. McCafferty said this is allowed under the baseline zoning, and what the Commission is looking at here is really the mass and scale of the building. Michaud asked if the footprint is then not relevant. Weitzel said that under Section 10, the Commission can look at front setback; lighting; parking; parking below buildings; garages; building orientation; pedestrian access; balconies and decks; building height; mass; roofline; building modulation, which is the street elevation setback; window fenestration and architectural style. He said there is also a series of building point items to be awarded to a multi-family building. Terdalkar said that the building has already been determined to qualify for the required minimum points. Carlson asked if there is anything in the Commission's purview that would relate to building depth. Weitzel said the Commission never has traditionally been able to do that, except for in the Summit Street District where it is specified in the guidelines. Terdalkar said the Commission can consider the mass of the building, which is the overall size of the building-all about the height, scale, and depth of the building. Michaud said that square footage is therefore relevant. Terdalkar read from the Building Mass/Height item of the Design Guidelines for Multi- Family Buildings, "Measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its visual mass and overall height. Examples include 1) holding the height of the eave line down by making the upper floor of a building a half story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of the floor area, 2) stepping the height of the taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two stories or lower in height, 3) providing significant variations in the roofline and front building plane which help to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape." Terdalkar said these measures can be incorporated into the design, and this is not an exhaustive list of what can be done to reduce the building mass and height or the perception. 12 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 13 McCafferty stated that although application of the 1,600 square foot front elevation language in the preservation handbook may not have been correct in terms of saying it only applies to single-family and duplex buildings, the reason it dealt with the square footage of the front fa<;ade and not with anything dealing with depth was to ensure that a multi-family property that was destroyed could be reconstructed and that the depth was something that was specifically not addressed. She said that the specific intent was to only deal with the square footage of the front fa<;ade, and this proposal is within that, regardless of whether it would be applicable here or not. Weitzel said that this [application] was tabled to get a clarification of whether the fa<;ade square footage guideline applied here. He said that it does not, but the building height and mass standard section 10.1 can be applied. Weitzel said the Commission is charged with whether or not this building and this design meet these guidelines. Lutgendorf asked, with respect to the mass issues, if there is any way that the mass consideration can be thought of with respect to the depth and if the architectural design issue can be applied with respect to the depth to make it a less massive building from the side. She said that Section 10 of the guidelines has to do with ways to make a building more architecturally appealing. Terdalkar said it doesn't just limit the Commission to review the architectural features. He said the section states that one way to reduce the overall height is to step down a building that is adjacent to a lower building, so that does address the overall mass. Lutgendorf said that, as someone who is going to be impacted by the mass of this building, if one just considers how big this is going to be, she would ask the Commission to consider whether there is any way to scale this back. Regarding the dimensions of the building, Terdalkar said the dimensions for the front elevation, as shown on the drawings distributed today, do not include the overall width of the building. He said the dimensions do not include the projections [referred as bays by the applicant], and for the sake of clarification, the guidelines define the area of the elevation as the entire front elevation shown on a drawing, so the faded lines should be included in the elevation. Roffman's attorney asked if there was an updated staff report since the last meeting. Terdalkar said the memorandum with the opinion of the Zoning Interpretation Panel was included in the packet. Regarding the revised proposal, he said that he just received it as the commission members, so that he was not able to comment on the new plan. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised plan for the building at 923 Iowa Avenue, as presented. Brennan seconded the motion. Ponto said he likes what McCafferty has done to minimize the visual mass from the street. He said he remains concerned about the length of this. Ponto said his personal interpretation of mass would include three dimensional, so that the length of this is still a concern. Ponto said this is a real exceptional case, because, in general, the guidelines do not allow a demolition permit until the Commission has first approved the replacement building. He said that because of the tornado damage, the Commission deemed this an exceptional case and went ahead and approved the demolition permit before there was a plan. Ponto said that if he had seen this plan before the demolition permit was approved, he does not think he would have voted for it, because he would have thought this is much bigger than the previous building, and he would have wanted to see something more in the three- dimensional mass of the previous building. 13 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28,2006 Page 14 Baker asked if, in Section 10.1 under building height and mass where it says, "Design of the new building to help reduce its visual mass," visual mass includes the side view. Weitzel said that Terdalkar's opinion is that architectural mass is the 360 degree view. Weitzel said that as McCafferty pointed out earlier, when the Commission looked at these guidelines, there was discussion about limiting buildings and their size, and that is not specifically in these district guidelines. McCafferty said her recollection is that depth is not one of the dimensions that the Commission was going to enforce in a conservation district; it was the front dimension that was of primary concern . Toomey stated that this is a big increase in density. He said that comes with the accompanying baggage of having to supply parking, and that impacts the neighborhood too when there is not a yard but a concrete pad. Toomey said this would have a major impact on the neighborhood. Ponto said that a counterargument would be that the Commission has always allowed additions on to the back, many of which have had additions a third as large as the house. He said that if there was a request to add a third again addition to the back of the original building, that would approximate this. Ponto said, however, that most additions would not have the same height, would have a somewhat smaller scale, and would probably be set back as well. Toomey asked if this was built as a single-family house. Carlson stated that the core of this structure was built as a single-family house, but it was expanded to a fraternity in the 1920s, and that is when the third and one-half story was added. Brennan said that the neighborhood, as defined in the district, runs along Iowa and Washington from Johnson to Muscatine, on College from Governor to Summit, and on Burlington from Summit to Muscatine. He said that is the neighborhood this concerns, and one shouldn't focus just on a little block, because the City has defined this neighborhood as that area. Brennan said the neighborhood is sprinkled with very large buildings, as shown in the photographs provided by McCafferty. Brennan said that the proposed building exceeds side setback requirements, has a sloped roof, and the fa<;ade is certainly no greater than that of the buildings the Commission was shown photographs of, and they are fairly liberally sprinkled around the entire neighborhood. Carlson stated that he agrees with Ponto in that he has to view the depth as part of the mass of the building. He said he likes the fact that this was scaled back quite a bit from the original proposal, but it still is much bigger than what was there before, and what was there before was already bigger than most things in this neighborhood. Carlson said that at this point, he did not think he could vote for approval of this plan. Michaud said she lives on College Green Park and is sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. She said that if this was being built next to her property, she would be ambivalent, because the owner is making an attempt to do landscaping and ameliorative things. Michaud said she would not have any problem agreeing to the height and width of this if it were for two-bedroom units with the same original footprint. Carlson said that the fa<;ade is bigger than what was there but is within reason. He said the Commission shouldn't be taking landscaping into consideration when considering the mass of the building, because it is not known whether the landscaping will always be there. Carlson said the issue is really what one can see based on the buildings around this right now, and it will clearly be a very deep building from the street. He said that if there was some way of reducing setting back the back of the building in some way- making it shorter or pulling it in - that could reduce the scale enough to make it within the guidelines in his opinion. Carlson said that as it is now, he does not think it is within the guidelines. 14 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 15 Weitzel said that this is a tough case, because it concerns landowner rights as well as the rights of the neighbors. He asked what historic preservation is if it isn't taking into account what something does to the community. Weitzel said the Commission can't always make everybody happy. He said he did not remember ever having this much opposition to a project in recent times from the neighborhood, so he would have to vote against this. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6. with Brennan votin~ in favor. Weitzel suggested the applicant work on another design or consider the appeal process, which determines whether the Commission has been arbitrary or capricious in its decision. 805 East Washinqton. MOTION: Ponto moved to take consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 805 East Washington Street up from the table. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar stated that this item was deferred at the last meeting, because the applicant could not attend the meeting. Terdalkar said he suggested that the design of the new garage should be somewhat compatible with what was demolished. He showed sketches that he had discussed with the applicant. Terdalkar said the applicant was going to determine the cost of the brick needed for the project. Terdalkar said he suggested that if there is not enough original brick salvaged from the original structure, the owner can probably use face brick to match the portions of the brick, and use stucco as it was on the original structure. Terdalkar said he also asked the owner if he could install a window on the south fayade to match the original. Terdalkar said if that is a concern, with regard to a nearby parking lot, the owner could build a recess in the stucco, which would give a break in the mass on the side and give the impression of a window. Terdalkar said that instead of the addition that was done to accommodate a larger car, he suggested just installing the roofline on the front of the building, which will somewhat replicate the front elevation, which will be similar to this. Joseph Codr, the owner of the building, said that he likes Terdalkar's proposal. Codr said that Terdalkar gave him six to eight ideas, and he thought they were all right on. Codr said he wants this to look as much like the original as possible. He said he has no problems with anything proposed by Terdalkar. Michaud asked about the depth of the gable part. Terdalkar said that the eaves on the house are very deep. He said it could be about the same depth as the eaves on the house, about one foot or so. Terdalkar said the garage will be 18 feet, to accommodate a modern car. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 805 East Washington Street in accordance with the drawings provided at this night's meetings. Baker seconded the motion. Terdalkar said the wall will be constructed with concrete block, which will not make it easy to build the step down from one end to another. He said it will have a shed roof, as it did before, which will drain toward the east side. Weitzel said the building was demolished as a safety issue, because the north wall was pretty much gone after the tornado. Codr said he has to use block, because the north wall is against the steps of the house, 15 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 TRANSCRIPTS TRANSCRIPTION HISTORIC PRESER V A TION COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 14,2006 Weitzel: Okay, seeing none, we will move on to item four, items of consideration, beginning with the certificates of appropriateness. We've had a request to move 923 Iowa A venue to the beginning of the meeting. Is there anybody that has an objection to that? Seeing none, we will do that, so under B, item seven, we will begin with 923 Iowa Avenue. Weitzel: Staff report Terdalkar: 923 Iowa Avenue. This project was recent was approved for a demolition permit recently by the Commission without a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction... can't hear. . . prub?.. of the proposed building on the site. So we are reviewing right now is a proposal for the new structure on the site. The applicant is proposing a six-unit, 18-bedroom apartment structure to replace the storm-damaged nine-unit, nine-bedroom apartment or rooming unit, because it was damaged and followed of the demolition. Terdalkar: Staff has provided the staff report based on the guidelines, design guidelines for multi-family buildings, Section 10, which require certain items that have to be that have to be demonstrated before the certificate... can't hear... is issued for the project. We have requested the applicant to revise these drawings to comply with all the regulations or all the guidelines and the regulations thereof to to allow them to redesign the structure to comply with all these requirements. TerdaIkar: I believe the applicant has some new drawings and... McCafferty: Here is a revised site plan that I'll pass around. The only changes to the building that which are not reflect in what's in your packet is there's gonna be 18 inches taken out of the depth the length of the building. So probly about six inches in two bedrooms and maybe another six inches in the living room. So the the side elevations as you see them in your packet are not going to change significantly. McCafferty: This is another site.. .can't hear.. .review?...issue just for your to demonstrate that this does comply with the front setback requirements and show where the building sits in relationship to the other properties on on the...can't hear... So this should all comply with the multi-family guidelines in the historic preservation handbook. McCafferty: I guess the other thing I'd just like to note relative to the site issues is, there was quite a few issues in the staff report about that, is we would like to request approval of the architecture at this time and the site plan as it is right now. Now the site plan is still somewhat of a concept because we have not yet engineered the site. We didn't wanna engineer the site around a building which may not be approved by the Commission. So we would like to have approval of the of the building. If, when we get to the additional stages of the site engineering, there is a possibility of a sensitive areas rezoning here, we will come back to the Commission for an amendment, but we do want to have the confidence to proceed with the engineering of this building at this time. Weitzel: Okay. Just to reiterate then, you are asking for approval of the architectural design at this point and the concept, basically, for the site plan, which we would then come back and review? McCafferty: Well, if there are significant changes, I would say, according to staff, we would ask, you know, we will come back and review it. Ifwe find that we can engineer it pretty much to be exactly what you have, we would leave it up to staff, ask request that it not have to go back through the Commission. Weitzel: Okay. McCafferty: There will be probly retaining walls and things like that that are not yet resolved, and they may be of a height and such that we will need to come back. HPC: 9/14/2006 1 Weitzel: Okay then our our, when we make a motion that would need to reflect that then. Point that out. Anything else? McCafferty: Well, everything's I I pretty I think you could.. .can't hear. ..of the building. Ponto: Yeah. Weitzel: Hmm mmm. McCafferty: I guess I'll just proceed with pointing out some of the design ideas within the building and how we tried to design this such that it complies with the guidelines. This front elevation drawing that you have here in your in your drawing, I have shown here basically how this compares to the outline of the previous building. The goal in doing this elevation was one, to lower the overall eave height and so generally the the mass, appearance of the mass right, what it was previously was pretty much one big block. Ponto: Right. McCafferty: So we've lowered the eave height. We've put actually living units sort of more under the roof so we get the three stories where we actually have a lower eave line. We also have the building much more articulated than what was there previously. It's a little wider than what was there, but the my intent in designing it was to do it so it looked more like a duplex. So you've got the two front faces essentially connected by a stairway and then a porch here. I lowered the eave line here where the stair is to sort of accentuate the fact that that's more of a link that's pushed back from the main plane planing. So again, the the intent is to try to maximize the look of this as a duplex as opposed to an apartment block. Swaim: Shelly, how much wider is it than the original? McCafferty: The original, let's see it's... Terdalkar: The original structure was 42 feet wide, and now it is 58 feet wide. McCafferty: 58? No. Oh, okay, it depends It is with the side bays here which are are back away from the front fayade a little bit, with those side bays, it would be 58. Without those side bays.... Terdalkar: 54. McCafferty: It is 52. So sort of the the perception ofthe building from the front, which is really these front projecting gables is going to be that it's ten feet wider. Swaim: Okay. McCafferty: Okay. You know, we went ahead, you know, added some dormers and articulation along the side to deal with the head room but then also to you know so you don't have the perception along the side of this being a railroad car kind of thing going back along this skinny building. Weitzel: Other questions? McCafferty: So then here's sort of the effect that we to to break up the side, particularly on the side where you have a single-family house adjacent. That was a concern. If you do look at that site plan again, it shows you, oops not this one, this one right here, there's a darker outline that shows you the relative difference in the footprint of the old versus the new. McCafferty: But we really broke up the lot the the pitch of the roof, the articulation of the roof, with the steeper pitch, which is more prevalent within that neighborhood. Gives some articulation to the front the surface by using the two different materials, the siding materials. It'll all be done out of fiber cement HPC: 9/14/2006 2 board, with a concrete base. We have noted that the base will be cast concrete. There's not going to be a lot of that bottom foundation which is visible given the slope of the site. And with this ramp and so forth, it'll probly be you know some landscaping here to deal with that. So you're really not gonna see any of the foundation. So at this point we're proposing if you would just allow us to paint the foundation and not, you know, do a decorative masonry or plaster or anything like that. You know, it's gonna be on a hill. Those you look up from the street you you will.see it given...can't hear...site lines. Weitzel: Questions for the applicant and consultant. McCafferty: This is, I I I'm just talking this some to John here, but this is a some more of a three- dimensional look of it. I added the shadows so you get a better sense of the articulation of the building. Weitzel: Are there further...? Yeah, go ahead. Michaud: Is it, what is the difference between the sidewalk elevation and the and the plateau? McCafferty: It goes up approximately nine feet within 15 feet of length, which is about a 60% slope. What we're doing with that slope is in order to get the ramp, we're probly have to have an get an easement from the adjacent property, and we have a verbal agreement that that'll be okay. And that slope is gonna have to be softened somewhat on the side next to the large apartment building on the east side so that we can get the ramp up. HIS, Housing Inspection is telling us that we have to have accessibility from the front. And the, you know, the other option would be to basically cut a trench going back to the building and having an elevator, which would be not, well an eyesore but also quite expensive. Weitzel: What's, what's the height of the hill itself? McCafferty: It's about it's nine feet up to the top of the stairs. Weitzel: Oh okay. McCafferty: And then it continues to slope back up. Weitzel: Right, right. Okay. McCafferty: I estimate Weitzel: But it's... McCafferty: probly about Weitzel: Okay, okay. McCafferty: five or six feet you know back to the lot line. But that's... Michaud: Where's like Washington Street, Washington and Van Buren, they do have that, what looks like it's now a tunnel going into the basement. McCafferty: Yeah, now that would have been the other option... Michaud: Uh huh. McCafferty: Or or to have a little tower sitting out front. Michaud: Vh huh. HPC: 9/14/2006 3 McCafferty: But you know we don't know, there's no definition of that in the zoning code, so we don't know where we could even put it. Michaud: Right. I think this the duplex looks good, and as a pedestrian who walks her dog in that neighborhood, I think that the ramp is gonna be more prominent than anything. Weitzel: Okay, we need to, we need to at this point, we need to concentrate on questions and after that we need a motion so we can then go into discussion. Michaud: can't hear...Sidebars? McCafferty: Oh yeah, yeah never mind. Weitzel: Yeah, we need questions or so we can go into a motion. Ponto: One of Sunil's points was regarding lighting. McCafferty: Hmm hmm. On this revised site plan, I did indicate some lighting on here. Now what typically happens is that that the civil engineer will take and do a light plan for us that that guarantees that we have you know downcast shielded. .. Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: ... the appropriate lumens and so forth. Well, at this point, we're not at that really step yet. So what I am proposing here is basically a concept. We've got some lights underneath the porch... Ponto: Hmm hmm. Hmm hmm. McCafferty: Some lights on the back of the building, underneath the the the roof over the rear stairway, and then we'll probly have to have a few a polo or two in the back. Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: And where I'm showing them is trying to push them as far back as I can so that they... Ponto: Hmm hrom. McCafferty: don't add glare to the the single family house. There are you know these buffering requirements that... Ponto: Right. McCafferty: we're showing on here. And it is already a natural tree line here and I'm showing, you know, some supplement ofthat so there's a buffer between the single family and... Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: and this property. Weitzel: Further questions, or can we have a motion so we can begin our discussion? What? Terdalkar: There's some public member that we can... we have to... McCafferty: Oh, public comment? HPC: 9/14/2006 4 Weitzel: Okay, then it, okay, staff is pointing out that if there is anybody from the public wants to comment on this that you should do it at this time. Lutgendorf: My name is Philip Lutgendorf, and my wife, Susan, and I own the building directly adjacent to this, which is 911 Iowa, which is being repaired after extensive tornado damage, being restored really nicely. And 1 guess, you folks are mostly only concerned with how things look, but as a neighborhood resident, I have other concerns that I want to bring up. And maybe they're not relevant, but anyway I just want to at least express them. Lutgendorf: We've lived there for 21 years, and the building that was there, 923, was a remarkably good neighbor to us over that time in that we've never to my recollection had a complaint towards that building, except one about drainage, which Mr. Roffman very kindly dealt with right away. Lutgendorf: But in terms of noise, which is a major issue on that block, we never had a problem in that building. And I think the reason was because it had one-bedroom apartments in it and only nine people living there, and they tended to be quiet students. And so my, our biggest concern about this, this plan, apart from sort of the sheer size of the building, which is gonna kind of really dominate the side of our garden, but is the fact that it's going to, it's doubling the density of of people living at that at that site. And it's going to three-bedroom apartments, which it seems to me are gonna attract a very different kind of clientele. You'll have people living in with their friends and you know, having parties. And I mean, I the the reality is that what's driving single families off that block on Iowa Avenue is the noise from parties, at least that's my perception. And we've had to call the police many, many times because of houses on mostly the other side of the street, the north side ofIowa Avenue. Lutgendorf: So the thought of having that now come in right next door is really troubling to us. And I don't know that this commission can say anything about that or not, but that's that's my biggest concern. think the design is attractive, you know, for a new building. I can see that a lot of effort has gone into trying to make it fit, and I I certainly appreciate that, but going from nine to 18, with parking and and three- bedroom apartments is really a big change for the neighborhood. And if the goal is to sort of stabilize that block as mixed single-family and rental, I just seems to me like this is a step backward, rather than than forward. Thanks. Weitzel: I'm not sure we can specifically address those questions or not, but I do know that we've had direction from Council that if we do not take neighborhood concerns under issue when we're discussing historic preservation, then we're not doing our job either. So we are primarily looking at architectural aesthetics and historic preservation, you know, historic issues. Anybody else who would like to speak from the public? Ifnot, I would like to hear a motion, so we can begin our discussion. Swaim: I move we begin discussion. Weitzel: You actually have to... Swaim: Oh, what am I doing? Weitzel: .. .make a motion about the project. Swaim: Oh, I move we begin discussion on 923. Weitzel: You have to be... Swaim: to say... Baker: You have to move approval. Swaim: I move that we... HPC: 9/14/2006 5 Weitzel: You have to speak the terms for approving this project. Swaim: Oh, I didn't know we were at that point, frankly. Weitzel: Right. Legally, we're supposed to... Swaim: Oh, in order to discuss it we have, I move... Weitzel: ... we have to have a motion on the table so we can have discussion. Swaim: Okay, I move that we approve this project, 923 Iowa Avenue, with the stipulation thatthings may change, based on the engineering, do we need that at this point? Weitzel: For the site plan, yeah. Swaim: For the site plan. How'd we do? Weitzel: I think that's acceptable. Second? Ponto: I'll second. Weitzel: Okay. Moved by Swaim, seconded by Ponto. Is everybody clear of that motion? Then we have discussion. Pam, would you like to resume where I cut you off earlier? Michaud: Well, Idid start out with a question and that was how... Weitzel: Yes. Michaud: what the difference is Weitzel: But I felt the segueway... Michaud: Yeah, yeah, right. So yeah, I guess as a pedestrian, yeah, it would be great to have something that looks like a historic duplex. However, would you would you have like retaining walls? You can't really put grass in there. McCafferty: That's going to be part of the of the whole next step of the engineering process is, and as I would like to direct them, and I think from a cost point too is to try to minimize the amount of retaining wall and so forth that we have so we don't have this big base of stone there. But part of that will be dependent on on working with all of this whole thing out. I would say, you know, we want to minimize it, but I I can't tell you at this point how much retaining wall is going to be there on the front faryade. Michaud: Dh huh. Right, because of course then the neighbors, are, it's going to suddenly be... Roffman: What is helping u~ a lot is the Clarks to the east have verbally agreed to allow us to extend our ramp over front of their property, which is the lower part of the slope, and so we kind of blend that in, and as it goes west, it gets a steeper slope, so we can kind of, like I say, work with the topography and that, just within our own... Michaud: And then will you share access to the ramp then, with them? Roffman: Hmm hmm. Michaud: So they can use it for their. .. Roffman: Correct. HPC: 9/14/2006 6 Michaud: Yeah, that makes sense. So maybe there could be some ameliorative consideration with the other neighbors, I don't know, it, with the planting or something. McCafferty: Yeah, the Clarks have been very, they've been very cooperative. One of the other issues is is working with the City, because at this point, the slope of the of the hill starts right at the sidewalk, which is within the City right-of-way. Ponto: Hmmmm. McCafferty: So if we have to cut back to the property line, then back an additional 42 inches, that's probly where we would have the most retaining wall. Ifwe could work with the util, the the engineering department and allow us to start our sidewalk and our ramp right at the City sidewalk, that would help reduce that. But that is in negotiation. We still have to pursue that. Weitzel: Would we have any purview over the type of material used in the retaining wall? Terdalkar: If it requires a permit, yes we... Weitzel: Ifit requires a permit, we could, we could come back then and discuss the type ofmaterial...can't hear...at that time. In fact, we'd have to, unless we wanted to specify it tonight. McCafferty: Somehow we have to get handicapped accessibility. Swaim: Have to what? McCafferty: We have to get the handicapped... Weitzel: They don't alIow that from the rear? McCafferty: No, they do not. Weitzel: It has to be from the street. McCafferty: Their interpretation of accessibility from the public way is from the the street on the front of the building, not from a public easement or a public alIey. Weitzel: Because the alIey doesn't have... Terdalkar: There is no alley. Weitzel: There's no alIey. Oh. Terdalkar: It's a private drive. McCafferty: Yeah, even ifit was an alIey, they won't accept it. Weitzel: WelI, sidewalk, it's not...can't hear...fake?... McCafferty: Yeah, it has to be from the front. Weitzel: It's not accessible. McCafferty: Yeah, it has to be if you're a pedestrian walking down, you can get to the building. Weitzel: Okay. Further comments, questions. . HPC: 9/14/2006 7 Michaud: Yeah, this, I do. This has to do with the Lutgendorfs concern, and I guess, because I was a few minutes late, this is according to the density that the City has established for that block. However, it is doubling so, you know, I live downtown, I know how this is with parties, and maybe there could be some consideration given and some stipulation in the leases like mine that there are various restrictions on party times. This is possible. I think it's a civilized way to do it. You could say in your lease that, you know, parties should be quiet after II. I don't know. There are reasons to be good neighbors. I'll just throw that out there. It has nothing to do with historic preservation except for the historic neighborhood. McCafferty: Sure, sure. Swaim: Well, I I guess the fact that Mr. Roffman has been responsive to concerns is a plus that the neighbors aren't having a lot of complaints, that you would have some leverage with your tenants to squash that. Roffman: Right, we're a mom and pop operation. It's managed by ourselves so, you know, we do have a lot of direct involvement, we all, completely involved, I guess you could say, in leasing and management, maintenance. Swaim: Because that is a substantial... I like the look of the building. It is a substantial increase in tenants. McCafferty: I guess I would I would... Ponto: Well, and as it's point out, a different clientele, it, one-bedroom versus three-bedrooms tend to attract different people. McCafferty: I guess the one thing I would just pointed out is when this the conservation district here was rezoned is that the Commission specifically responded to concerns of landlords that there was a concern that if in fact their building was destroyed, that it would not be a downzoning and they would not be able to reconstruct to the same size of what they had previously. Now this, you know, I certainly, I I understand the concerns of the neighbor and so forth, but you know that's the reason why we don't have the fayade limit on multi-family specifically. ..can't hear... trails off.. .only applies to.. .can't hear... Right? Gunn: Well, I was, goes to my question. I, well, probably the first time in however many years don't have my guidelines in front of me. But it seems to me like they have scale guidelines, and there's all sorts of zoning things that we don't know about. But in this conservation district don't we have... Terdalkar: Section Eight. Gunn: Isn't it fairly clearly spelled out about the size limitations? Weitzel: Site and scale guidelines, Section... Terdalkar: The reason that that caught my mind when I was looking reviewing this project, the reason I did not think that out in the staff report is because the guidelines start with saying that these guidelines apply to single-family and duplex units. It doesn't say it applies to only single-family and duplex, so one would say that it should apply to the multi-family guide buildings. Weitzel: But we did specify that they don't. So... Terdalkar: Well, it doesn't, one one way to see it is that it one could have said specifically that it it specifically applies to single family and duplex. Weitzel: It does. They apply to single-family and duplex in these neighborhood districts. Terdalkar: Right. And, I I'm not sure why the language is that way. I wasn't here, so... HPC: 9/14/2006 8 Weitzel: Well, I think what Shel1y said was we'd been had a lot of opposition on people that owned larger buildings, and they did have a concern that if a building was destroyed in its entirety that there would be a de facto lowering of their potential. On the other hand, it's a neighborhood conservation zone, so I don't know what that zone means either. Terdalkar: Neighborhood conservation and stabilization zone means that to encourage stabilizing the the neighborhood with lower density. Weitzel: And did that zoning... Terdalkar: And that, that would encourage... Weitzel: Was that downzoning already reflected when they created that zone, or was that an assumption that there were non-conforming buildings that would not be al1owed? Terdalkar: I think there was notice.. McCafferty: Under the current.. Terdalkar: ... from that time for that... McCafferty: .. .RNS zoning, seven units would be al1owed. And Mr. Roffman previously had nine units. Terdalkar: I think there should be a correction there. Seven units, just if you only consider the land, period. McCafferty: Right. Exactly. Terdalkar: You have to provide the parking that's required. McCafferty: Right and that's why.. . Terdalkar: Wil1 that all ow you the seven density? McCafferty:...we can't get seven units on. I'm, but I'm, I'm... Terdalkar: So, to present it as you are gaining seven units is not right, I think. It's not complete information. McCafferty: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying what is al10wedjust basically by doing the numbers in that particular zone. He could not go back and build nine units, but the bedrooms under density is not specified, whether it's a one-unit or... Weitzel: Yeah, I was gonna point that out. .. McCafferty: ... or a three-unit,... Weitzel: ..that we don't do that. McCafferty: ... three one-bedroom unit or a three-bedroom unit, so that's where the density is increased is with the number of bedrooms, not sort of a base, underlying zoning density. . . Weitzel: So, so we assume that your plan does reflect the number of parking spaces you're al1owed. McCafferty: It does reflect with all the required buffering that is necessary per the zoning code. HPC: 9/14/2006 9 Gunn: You you think that the faryade area does not apply here? McCafferty: I, when we did the conservation district, there was, Brad Houser, I remember specifically, and I and cup and one or two others that. . . Weitzel: Jim Clark. McCafferty: Was Jim Clark one of them? Was he? Okay. Where the concern was, and, you know, who would have thought a tornado would come through, you know, you sort of think this is a long that something is gonna be completely destroyed, particularly with... Weitzel: Clark's example. was part of his building burned, would he have to tear down his whole building and build a historic structure. McCafferty: Well, it was, the the concern was if, you know, if you had, you know, for instance like a sorority a sorority-house sized building and it burned down, and your existing far;:ade square footage was X amount, would you then have to go down to, you know, Y amount, based upon these the neighborhood guidelines. And that they were considering a downzoning. And I think what we were and so that that is my recollection of why the multi-family faryade, the area does not apply to the multi-family unit is we didn't want to doa de fact downzoning. Gunn: Right. And that and that... Weitzel: Let me ask... Gunn: That discussion did... Weitzel: Let me ask Sunil if that faryade area, does that apply. I mean, do you, to your understanding, cuz our guidelines don't allow that. Terdalkar: One could, the stafffelt that one could make that that interpretation of the guideline that it applies to, because it doesn't specify that it is only for single-family and duplex, it may apply here. But we thought that it was it was not in the guidelines stated particularly that it will it will also apply to the multi- family we thought that we may we should not probably bring that in here. McCafferty: What I I would say is that this is an 80-foot lot, and legally, based upon the zoning, this could be subdivided into two 40-foot lots. The building that we are showing is, I believe it's approximately 21 square feet, and that is including the roof, you know, and of course the roof slopes back. This building here was approximately 1,600 square fe.et. So if you, you know, there's there's two ways that it could, you could do it. You could say I'm gonna do, but we're gonna force this limitation like you do a building which is 1,600 square foot on an 80-foot lot or we could do three, two, three bed, three-unit buildings of 1,200 square foot far;:ade and get exactly what we're proposing. Terdalkar: Again, I have some reservation about getting that. We, if you are within 15 feet of a multi, of a single-family zone, you have to reduce your, limit your height of the structure to two and a half stories. That's a zoning requirement, so you will have to reduce, at least if you'll split the lot and you build a three- unit building, which is a multi-family building, on the lot which is adjacent a single-family structure, you will have to reduce the height of the structure, limit the height of the structure to two and a half stories. So, we do not believe that you will be able to get as many units as you want. McCafferty: Yeah let me, let me just clarify one, and I... we... Terdalkar: So that's... McCafferty: But two and a half stories would be what the front faryade of this building is, correct? HPC: 9/14/2006 10 Terdalkar: Or is it? We do not have a definition. We haven't discussed that because that's not on the... McCafferty: Okay, so let's not go there at this point. But there is, you know... Terdalkar: You wanted to go there. McCafferty: Even if it was two single-family houses, you know, we would still have less aggregate square footage in this particular proposal than what we would have with two single-family houses. Terdalkar: I guess that's not the point. From where I'm reading the guidelines, it is to limit the size of the the unit by limiting this front elevation square footage to 1,200 square feet. You were there when the guidelines were written so you mi, you may know more about the intent of that guideline than me, but that says you can have two individual units with 1,200 square feet, but you cannot combine them into 12 2,400 square feet. That's what the intent is. McCafferty: But I'm just using this as an example. I'm not saying that legally you can combine. I'm kind of using this as an example of where, how, of sort of gauging the size of what we're proposing... Terdalkar: But I think that... McCafferty: ... versus what we could do with two single-family houses... Terdalkar: that comparison. I'm sorry. McCafferty: So, let's not, I mean that's that's what I'm trying to say is that this is well, we'll just leave it at that. But what you have here is basically something which would be ofa scale of some of the more, the smaller sorority houses in in the neighborhood. So it's not unusual to, the scale of this building is certainly not unusual to the College Hill Neighborhood. Gunn: The discussion that... Brennan: That was gonna be my comment is that the scale of the building is similar to other buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood that are there. Some of them are old. Most of them are newer. A thumbnail sketch, I've got about 1,700 square feet offayade, not counting the top part of the gables. Do you know? . Terdalkar: For the purpose of calculation, everything that you see in the elevation will be calculated. Brennan: Right. McCafferty: Where's the elevation that the the... Brennan: So... McCafferty: ... I passed around. Did I pass that around? Gunn: It's in the packet, or there's something in the packet here. McCafferty: No, there was an elevation to show the shadows. Can I see that please? Gunn: But here's one that shows the old. McCafferty: Right, that's the previous, uh huh. Gunn: But isn't that what we're talking about? HPC: 9/14/2006 11 McCafferty: Yes. Gunn: So, what, I would like to address the discussion that led to these guidelines and point out that I think the guidelines are perfectly clear. Shelly's right. There was that discussion, and it was a lengthy one, and the argument was,just because the predominant structure or the predominant size of the structures in the district is only 1,200 feet, if I have an apartment, a large apartment building and it bums down, can I rebuild it? And the answer is yes, and that's why it says, and if the structure has a street elevation surface area of 1,200 feet or greater, it may be reconstructed provided the street area does not exceed the area of the pre-existing primary structure. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: So, I read this as being you absolutely can build, can build it back as big as it was. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: I also read it that you can't build it back bigger than it was. So I mean I don't know that, I'm not confused about this issue, but whether to say this whole thing doesn't apply because it's a multi-family I I think is a stretch that that I I don't know where that would come from other than a really contorted view of what this guideline is. So, I mean if the old one is 1,600 square feet, then I then I don't have any problem saying 1,600 square feet for a new one is fine. The 1,200 doesn't, doesn't apply if you don't want it to. Two 1,200 square feet properties side by side would fit into the district. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: But the issue is putting something, I mean, that's a big building for the district. Now you're proposing what looks like a little bit bigger one but it certainly can be a big one back. McCafferty: Yeah I mean I I guess what I would also like to point out is the the the architectural devices we've added to this to reduce the perceived scale of this building overall. A portion of this square footage, if you take just the technical square footage, a large portion of of it will be such that it's not going to, the bays in back here, for instance the top of the roof, that is all receding quite a bit in so you're not, it's not gonna be, you're not gonna see it in the same way that you see a big flat surface like you have right here. Weitzel: The original was a large flat fa~ade. Ponto: Yeah. Roffman: Square box. McCafferty: Square box. Ponto: Yeah. McCafferty: Right. Weitzel: But the that techni-thing you're talking about, we had a flat canyon wall, originally, now it's sloping back. It's a hillside. McCafferty: Yeah, yeah. I mean that's would be one way to, you know, but we had a building like this and now we're having something more, you know, it's gonna be perceived more like this in terms of the area. Weitzel: I think it does borrow architectural elements from buildings in the neighborhood, the near vicinity. The one question would be do we have any examples as duplexes, well we didn't build duplexes, HPC: 9/1412006 12 so now we have to, you know, it's that whole thing. They didn't do duplexes, so, in Iowa City much, so what do we do about that. McCafferty: So do you, you're talking about. .. I would just go back to, there is a duplex, which is sort of a similar concept to what we have right here. This one happens to be on the north side. If you look to the back of your packet. I specifically I specifically put some duplexes in here that you don't really notice around town, but they are there Weitzel: This one's on Church Street. McCafferty: Where's another one? Gunn: Do I have it here? McCafferty: If you look at page 43... Weitzel: This one's on Melrose. McCafferty: This one is sort of similar, but actually our fa~ade is gonna be much more articulated than this that we've done. It isn't gonna look quite as as tall. And this is a two and a half story structure that you have here on the front, which is similar to what we have. You know there's... Weitzel: And and and what we see in these is that we see peaked gables facing out and a single roof behind that cross-gabled. Same design. And I guess just also larger apartment buildings too. McCafferty: For instance here we do have some dormers at the top, which we could have designed this such that we had the side wall being flat beside the side wall, which technically would have reduced that square ...can't hear... as it's defined in terms of its measurement in the packet here. But we chose to bump that bay out so that you wouldn't have this giant flat wall along this side, that it would be more articulated. Weitzel: Okay, so we have we have architectural elements from the neighborhood and we have a style that's actually prevalent in Iowa City. What else do we want to say about the architecture? While you're thinking about what you want to talk about with architecture, I want to confirm, do we have any purview over the neighborhood issues? Can we actually talk about... Terdalkar: If you if you feel that it is issue, an issue which is about the conservation district, you have... Weitzel: We did that last meeting. We did talk about allowing changes to a building that we normally wouldn't allow because of the presence of an apartment building. Terdalkar: Yes, you sure do have a purview over the overlay zone, because you you have jurisdiction over that. Weitzel: And that's part of the reason why we have historic preservation ordinance. So we can talk about that to a certain extent, I think. But your reasoning has to be clear when you make your vote. Swaim: Well I guess in, in terms of the neighborhood and the number of tenants, I don't know the the in terms of the other houses, how many bedrooms are in units. I would expect there are more than one- bedroom units, but I don't know that. McCafferty: In this proposal? Swaim: No, the other ones on Iowa Avenue. McCafferty: Okay, yeah, yeah. HPC: 9/14/2006 13 Michaud: The Clark apartments, for instance, are they one bedroom or? McCafferty: I think they're one and two bedrooms. I don't think there's any three bedrooms, but I could be wrong. Swaim: Okay. McCafferty: I looked briefly at the plans, but Michaud: And there are three to five-bedroom houses probly across the street that you have trouble with. Swaim: I guess, I think this is an attractive building that in some ways will fit better into the neighborhood than this very big three-story building has. I'm empathetic with the issue of noise, because I've lived down the street from there. I think it's an issue that a lot of older neighborhoods have to stay on top of and find some good solutions. And I guess I don't want to single this one out as not being a workable project because of increasing the number of tenants. I'd rather we we found ways, and it may not be our purview, but to make the the noise issue and being good neighbors an easier thing to accomplish. Michaud: Well, as a landlord, I I find that if! put some restrictions on my renters, they lap it up. I've got graduate students. They don't destroy the walls. And so people welcome that it's gonna have quiet hours. I have quiet hours, and I get very cooperative tenants, and they don't destroy the building. So if you've got a brand new building, I'd say, you know, you can do that, you could leverage that. McCafferty: I would be, and this is just one of my theories, I mean just, I'd be very curious to see if there was any, if you could get any data that basically says, if you have a building that's well-maintained, it's well kept for responsible landlord, that looks like a ni, you know, a place you'd want to live, I would tend to think that you you would have better tenants than if you have a dumpy building like you have across the street, it's not necessarily maintained, that isn't, you know, where it's already so damaged that, who cares if you party and you damage it more? Weitzel: I think that's... McCafferty: I wish we had, I'd be curious... Weitzel: I don't have hard data, but I have anecdotal evidence that that's true in Iowa City. You look at the buildings. The ones that are in good shape and have interesting architectural have... Ponto: Mark McCallum has said things along those lines. Weitzel: Yes, yes, he's, I guess he's noticed that in his building, and that's actually a good, pretty good example. Anecdotal still but... McCafferty: But he may not have the...can't hear. Weitzel: Yeah, we don't have hard facts, but we have pretty good notion that that may be the case. Michaud: I think it starts working against the landlord when they have hundreds of units to fill, then they can be less, pro, selective of their renters. If you have less than a hundred units, maybe you can be more selective about your renters. Roffman: Well, I think, you know, the appearance of that building there is pre to the storm, and you know, I was happy the way it looked, and you know, we did go through and added multiple colors and do things to, you know, try to to increase the street appeal, I guess you would say. You know, so I guess that is the best representation that you're gonna have of what we try to do. HPC: 9/14/2006 14 Weitzel: Yeah just just to point out, I mean I think everybody's in agreement the way this original building was managed was acceptable to everybody. And the tenants, I ran into a tenant the day after the storm who said that she was really sorry to see that building go down. She'd lived there and really, really liked it. It was so quiet she said, it was just a responsible household. So we can, we can hope that goes forward from here. And I guess all I can say is ifit doesn't it'll be an example to the the contrary, but sounds like we have our discussion wrapping up here. Are we ready to vote? Gunn: Are we gonna say why we're gonna vote the way we vote, or are we just gonna vote? Well, I'm free to say whatever I want I guess, as far as a vote. Weitzel: Go ahead. Get started. Go ahead. Gunn: You know I've been on this Commission a lot of times where the project comes in and everyone says, oh this is big, this is really out of scale with the neighborhood, and we never have anything in the guidelines thats prevents it from going up. Well, here it seems like it's very clear in the guidelines that if it exceeds the, this building is big for the neighborhood. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: Now it's gonna, if if this is done, it's gonna get bigger. So the whole point of controlling the scale is to control the size of the building. And the only way we thought we could do it legally was to define it as front elevation. So if this project is 1,600 square feet in its front elevation as defined in the guidelines, then then I think it's a wonderful building. But if it's 2,000 or 2,400, I think it's way too big, so I'm gonna vote against it. It's just, it's clearly too big. McCafferty: I guess, Ijust wannajust read briefly from the guidelines, if that's allowed. Weitzel: Yeah, sure. McCafferty: And that is, that the College Hill Neighborhood District Guidelines apply to the College Green Historic District, East College Street District, College Hill Conservation District. They apply to single-family and duplex buildings in these neighborhoods. McComally: May I ask a question at this point? McCafferty: So, I would like to get some clarification if they apply, you know, it seems rather clear there that it does not apply to multi-family. Weitzel: Well, that's what I was reading earlier, and that's where I was in doubt about that phrase, whether that applied to these or not. Your question. McComally: There is another large apartment building on the comer of, I believe it's Iowa and Dodge, the large blue apartment building there that was, does everyone know the building I'm talking about? Weitzel: Iowa and Dodge. It's actually not on the comer. It's... McComally: It's set in a couple houses but that's still in the same... Weitzel: The vinyl sided building used to be several small buildings, correct? McComally: Yes. That's still in the same district, is it not? That's still in the College... McCafferty: That's, yeah it is. Unless we, we... Gunn: There are several apartment buildings... HPC: 9/14/2006 15 Weitzel: ...ljust can't remember now... McCornally: Well, no, I guess what I'm saying is that particular building replaced many smaller buildings, and it is gigantic. My question is if a building of that size was allowed to go up in in this neighborhood, and I'm unclear as to the this frontage issue, but that building seems to me to be have an enormous frontage, how is that different? Swaim: Was that, was that before this was a conservation district? Weitzel: It was well before. McCafferty: And there are also some additional regulations that have changed that allowed the parking underneath, and the stilts and the berms and there were regulations changed because of that building, actually, as I understand it. Weitzel: Yeah, I don't think that building is a good example of anything... McCornally: Okay, I just wanted to know why why that building was different, because that building to me seems to be very out of character with that neighborhood. Gunn: Right. All the buildings that are... Weitzel: In fact it it it caused, its reaction was to have more preservation in town, I believe. That was one of the things that people will cite. Gunn: There are several apartment buildings in within the district larger than the 12, 1,200 square feet certainly. But they all existed prior to the conservation district being established. Weitzel: So if this building was reduced in size, then, then you'd be okay. Gunn: Sure. Weitzel: Okay. Gunn: But it's, it's,... Weitzel: Yeah. Gunn: That, that's big, this is bigger. I mean it, I I think there's no getting around that. Weitzel: Well, I think this is... Gunn: And either we're gonna say the scale, you can, you can try that maneuvering if you were in, in the, you know sitting down at this end of the table, you wouldn't buy that argument, I don't think, and I'm not gonna buy that argument, that somehow if you build it big enough it doesn't apply, the scales don't apply here, because you can, I don't know, because you've got a lot big enough. I mean that was the whole point of the guidelines was not to allow this to happen, so... Swaim: I need to understand this issue better. The original, this house, we're talking about the square footage of the front fa<;:ade, correct? And this house was... Terdalkar: About 1,600. Swaim: 1,600. Terdalkar: If you were to see this in the format that you have, the elevation there... HPC: 9/14/2006 16 Swaim: The new one. Terdalkar: This house. Swaim: Yes, yes. Terdalkar: If you were to see the elevation of this drawing, what is the square footage that you calculate on this the elevation, that is considered for this standard here. Swaim: Okay, and so... Gunn: And and how do we, do we have dimensions of it or, I mean is it about 1,600, is it 1,650, is it... McCafferty: That was my loose calculations. We don't have, I don't have frontal dimensions, I just guessed by floors. Terdalkar: We are cal, we are calculating it by guess, and which is counting the the stories and so we are thinking that the height ofthe original structure was about 39,37 feet plus. Gunn: So are we, I mean are we pretty satisfied with 1,600 as being representative of what it was. Terdalkar: can't hear...applicant provided us. Roffman: can't hear...on the east end. McCafferty: Oh no, that doesn't included that bumpout there. I mean I guess... Weitzel: Well, what is, what is your estimate? Terdalkar: About? Weitzel: Your informed estimate of what the building front was. Terdalkar: I think I would, the the footprint is 42 feet wide, and looking at the structure, it looks like it is almost about 35 plus feet high. So that is about the number that she is putting. Weitzel: Okay, so we're, I think we're agreed on 1,600 as the original, unless there is anybody who wants to disagree with that strongly. Gunn: You know, if we're talking about the new one is 1,632, and we're at 1,600, and you know that's one thing, but 23 or whatever you 2, I 00.. . Terdalkar: 2,117 Gunn: 2,100, I mean that's not, I mean that's that's hard to ignore that. And it's it's just not, it's it's nice, it's a nice duplex, or a looking building. I don't have, you know, this isn't architecture at all, I think it's a fine plan architecturally, but it's not small. I don't care what it, how many bumpouts you can put on it, it is stilI big. Swaim: So when we're talking about this 2,100, if that's the figure, we're getting that from, not only these, which are the most front forward, but also these recessed. McCafferty: The recessed... can't hear. Swaim: Anything that's facing north, is that correct? HPC: 9/14/2006 17 Gunn: And the roof. Swaim: And the roofs. McCafferty: And the bays, I'm assuming, that are recessed back. I mean our other option in looking at this is that we can make this narrower, but what we end up is is we end up filling all this in and ending up with basically one large rootline across there, that's going to look much more boxy and look, you know, we can do a roofline like this. I haven't done a study yet to see exactly how many bedrooms we could get in there, but the reason that we was to let it go a little bit wider as opposed to making it narrow and more boxy like this is to make it fit in the neighborhood as before. Gunn: So if it were smaller it just couldn't fit in the neighborhood? McCafferty: Well, ...can't hear...smaller we fill in this whole central area and we... Gunn: It's either oversized and attractive or or in in size and ugly. Is that it? McCafferty: Can't hear.. . everyone talking. Gunn: You know, it's just flat out making it a whole lot bigger than it was, and that's an absolutely flies in the face of the guidelines. You know, it can, everything you can accomplish except the square footage by making it smaller. It can still look the same, you can cut in instead of out, I mean there's all kinds of ways you can do things. But, you know, it's just, you know, if if we approve it we're saying the scale doesn't matter. Brennan: Was this originally two lots that have been joined at some point? Terdalkar: No. Brennan: But it can be split into two lots. Weitzel: It's part of the Governor's Square and was subdivided into this size lot, I'm pretty sure, on this street. Brennan: So... Weitzel: It was a large square that for a long time was one big large lot intended for the governor's mansion. Brennan: So they could split it into two lots and put up two 1,200 square foot fa9ades that would be bigger than this. Terdalkar: Sure. Gunn: Absolutely. Terdalkar: Perfectly all right. Provided all the parking requirements, can't hear.. . accessibility. Weitzel: Provided all the site requirements are met. Terdalkar: From my perspective it is to provide lesser density. You can certainly provide six units, reduce the number of bedrooms. You can reduce the number of parking spaces, you can reduce the size of the structure. So it's not limiting anything to, from my perspective, to gain more than what was there before. It is certainly possible. The way, is it the maximum you want or is it the that is it something which is HPC: 9/14/2006 18 compatible with the whole neighborhood is what is wanted. That's the question. Nothing is limiting what can be done on the site. Weitzel: I think what Mike started is a good thing. Let's, let's go around and express our opinions. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Gunn: Yeah, I just happen to have a very definite opinion. Weitzel: I think it's important we have our discussion so our reasoning is there when we vote. Brennan: Say, I think it's consistent with other buildings that already exist throughout the entire district as a whole, and I think that's what we have to look at is the district as a whole. We can't just isolate a block here or a block there, or it makes the meaning ofthe district disappear. It's, given the consistency in its size and styling, that they could split it into two buildings and have larger massing than what's here, I would be inclined to vote in favor of the proposal. Weitzel: Okay. Michaud: I I guess I, I respect Mike's opinion about it, and Shelly's done a great job with the iIIustra, the blueprints. I'm just proposing some kind of compromise that there's one more indentation than seems necessary and it might look more convincing even to do away with the little... Weitzel: Those secondary.. . ? Michaud: I don't know if you can just take that that area out and then have these two, instead of having little dining room windows, for instance. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Michaud: I think one ofthe things that contributes to parties, in my experience, is a large living room, a big living room and dining room, a kitchen area, one big space, that's great for a family with two teenagers in the suburbs, but if you have a big living room and dining connected kitchen, I think you're asking for parties, and so that might accomplish both things. I don't know how feasible it is with your design with all the stairways. Ponto: I really like the looks ofthis, and I think that from the street, this will have the appearance of not the mass that that big box did. But I I don't know how we can go against our guidelines. There, 3.6 does have alternative design criteria where we can deviate from the guidelines in exceptional circumstances, but I'm not yet convinced this is an exceptional circumstance. McCafferty: I guess what I would like to request of staff is to get an, if we're basing our decision here, on the 1,600, 1,200 square foot, I guess I would request that we get an opinion from the legal department on whether this would apply to a multi-family building, because it seems to be that it doesn't. Weitzel: This this is where I was in doubt and I was gonna suggest a similar thing if we got to this point. Are you acceptable with letting us table this for tonight, letting us go from our requirement to vote it up or down tonight, and we can table it and have that investigated. McCafferty: When will your next, will you be meeting at the second meeting, on the fourth? We have two meetings this month or just this one? Weitzel: We certainly could. Terdalkar: Yeah, if that's a request, we can do it. Michaud: Fourth Thursday? HPC: 9/14/2006 19 McCafferty: The fourth Thursday, yeah. I don't know what that date is. Ponto: I'll be here. Weitzel: I think there's a good chance, we'll probably have more projects by then anyway, so... Terdalkar: Certainly. Weitzel: So certainly we can meet on the fourth Thursday, right? Is people, needing a quorum? Ponto: Hmm mmm, I'll be here. Swaim: I will probly not be here. Weitzel: You will not be here. Pam, can you be here? Michaud: I should be here yeah. Hmm mmm. Weitzel: Jim? Ponto: Hmm mmm. Baker: Yeah. Gunn: I think it's parent teacher conference night, so I won't be here. Weitzel: Okay so Mike's not. Okay. Terdalkar: And we have to find out if Tim can make it, Tim Toomey. Weitzel: And Richard Carlson? Terdalkar: Doubt it. Weitzel: Doubt it? Terdalkar: He has told me when he'II.....can't hear. Swaim: What is the date of the fourth Thursday? Brennan: 28th. Swaim: I'm pretty sure I'll be gone. Weitzel: Are you comfortable, Mike, with letting us table it and then moving to a time when you might not be able to attend. Gunn: Well, that's not my, you know you have to call a meeting, but, I would be amazed if... Terdalkar: 28th. Gunn: .. .ififthe legal opinion would be that our guidelines don't allow the control ofa new structure in the place of one that's you know that was destroyed, already being built bigger. It would be a ridiculous contortion of the guidelines and just the fact that you've decide to build something great big and call an apartment means the guidelines don't apply, I just don't buy it. But if that's what legal says, then, then, HPC: 9/14/2006 20 then you can toss the scale out the window, and we'll forget about it. But if that's what legal says, then then that's what they say. Weitzel: I think it's important to find out what what our latitude is with these sorts of issues, and if people are in agreement I would entertain a motion to table. Ponto: I'll move to table. Gunn: I'll second. Weitzel: Moved and seconded. Terdalkar: Is this the first time we are apply applying this sort of guideline or have we done it in the past? Weitzel: Did we did we not do that on Brad Houser's house on Dodge? McCafferty: That would be on Dodge Street, yeah, that was a multi- I Weitzel: We did hold him to the height of the existing buildings there though. He increased the size by... McCafferty: Right, he had a full three-story. I mean, I'd be curious to go back and measure that. I I don't have, it's in the file. Gunn: He replaced a very small, right? We're talking about, very small. So... McCafferty: It was very small, yeah. On a very small site, I mean it was a , and it was four, three four- bedroom units that they put in there. ***Tape speeding up here; can't hear most*** Weitzel: I think, yeah. Someone: But it's not very big.. .can't hear... in the demolition. McCafferty: No, it was a big box, but it's... Terdalkar: As Mike is saying, if the intent of the guidelines is to not allow large structures, then it should reflect them in the guidelines the way they are written. And that is why I said, it doesn't say it only applies to single family. McCafferty: It does though. Woman: The word only isn't there. McCafferty: It's not only. Okay, never mind, okay. Terdalkar: All right... can't hear.. . that's what I'm saying. Weitzel: Exactly my ambiguity there. Further discussion on the motion, which is to table. Ifnot, those in favor of tabling say aye. All: Aye. Weitzel: Opposed, same sign. Wow, I guess the certificate is tabled. Gunn: ... tabling the motion. HPC: 9/14/2006 21 Weitzel: We're tabling the motion basically. We're tabling, and we can come back, and we'd have to pick up where that motion was, so when we come back to the table, so, remember that. Terdalkar: Okay. Weitzel: Thank you very much for coming. Roffman: Thank you. HPC: 9/14/2006 22 TRANSCRIPTION HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 Weitzel: Items for consideration, certificates of appropriateness. We first need to take up deferred applications, and I believe actually 923 was tabled before 805, so we should decide whether we're gonna take that up first or not. Before we deliberate, do we have, what's the order, do we take that up and then we have people present or... Terdalkar: I, yeah, we need to have the dis, item was tabled so we can discuss it. Weitzel: So we need a motion to... Ponto: I move we bring 923 Iowa up trom the table. Weitzel: And a second? Ponto: up to the table, whatever. Brennan: Second. Weitzel: All in favor. All: Aye. Weitzel: All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. So we can now consider 923 Iowa A venue. At this time, does the staff wish to add anything to the staff report? I believe there's a memo in our packet. Terdalkar: Yes. The Commission had asked staff to find out the interpretation, if the interpretation of the guidelines... this particular project, and I have included those opinions trom the Zoning Interpretation Panel, and they have basically said that... Woman: Sunil, could you speak up, because it's hard for people who are here to hear. TerdaIkar: Sure, yes. The Zoning Interpretation Panel has rendered an opinion that this particular guideline in mentioned in Section 8.2 is not applicable in this for this project, so the reason they they came to that conclusion was there are specific guidelines for the, the reason the the Zoning Interpretation Panel rendered that opinion because the there is a particular section for multi-family design, multi-family buildings and the design for that in the guidelines. And for that reason and also the fact that there is a sentence in the guidelines in the section 8.2 that refers that those guidelines apply to single-family and duplex buildings. However, the design guidelines for multi-family buildings do address the issue of scale, mass, and height of the the proposed building, so the Commission may choose to apply those in this case. Weitzel: So 8.2 is the College Hill Neighborhood guidelines, which do not apply, according to the panel, but the section 10 under design guidelines for multi-family buildings does allow us to consider effect on the neighborhood. That's the short version of that. We have, also we have correspondence, correct? Terdalkar: Yes. Weitzel: I believe everybody has a copy of correspondence. Toomey: Gersh? Frank Gersh? Weitzel: Frank Gersh and also Susan Lutgendorf. TerdaIkar: .. .can't hear.... HPC: 9/28/2006 23 Weitzel: Oh, that's just me? Terdalkar: Hmm mmm. Weitzel: Okay, we'll take that up in a second. And we have a petition as well. And the petition basically states that the undersigned are concerned at the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building, increased size will enable the property owners to double the number of tenants and that Iowa A venue has become dominated by student renters and few remaining single-family homeowners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. So they argue that we understand the aesthetic architectural guidelines historic preservation and conservation should ultimately be in the service of quality of life and also intend to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. We consider the massive building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles. We hope that you will seriously consider the intent of Section 8 of the guidelines, which we can't do, but we can do Section 10. And that is, that is the undersigned. Weitzel: We also have a proposal by Susan Lutgendorfthat we actually not consider this tonight, but, based on the number of people that would be absent from the meeting. That's a, that's a request. Brennan: Were there actual names on this letter? Carlson: That's what's being passed around here. Weitzel: On the petition? Yes. Weitzel: I guess at this time does anybody from the public have anything to say? Lutgendorf: Yeah, I'd like to say something. Weitzel: Sure. Lutgendorf: My husband is one of the people who is out of town tonight and can't be here, among other people who were not able to come tonight. What I'd like to say is to underscore some of the things in the letter that were written. We have always considered the 900 block ofIowa Avenue to be an ideal place to live, and it has been very easy for us to bicycle to the University, for our kids to walk to the library, to go downtown, to ride their bikes to school, etc. And and it is to us it's an ideal block for families to live on as well as, even though there are student renters. And I I know there are a number of other families that live on the block. It's real important to us to preserve the quality of life on that block and to stabilize the neighborhood. And and I was glad to see that there is a provision in the historic code that does relate to mass and size of buildings, because frankly, our concern is that the massive structure that is proposed, we, we really appreciate Shelly's efforts to make it historic looking, but something about the sheer size of it and the fact that it is going to be so much substantially larger than the building that was previously there really changes the character of that neighborhood. What it does is it introduces a large apartment building, and our feeling is that it really does further destabilize the neighborhood. Lutgendorf: My great concern is that this body has made its own guidelines for stabilization of neighborhoods, and frankly, I don't see anything in this matter which is so urgent as to cause you to renege on the guidelines that you yourselves have made for stabilization of neighborhoods. I don't really see any reason why this couldn't be a, you know, I understand that that the owner of the building is allowed to replace the number of units that he he previously had and, you know, that's his economic prerogative. On the other hand, if there were nine people there before, why couldn't there be three apartment units of three people, six apartment units of two people, you know, just because you have two, a a certain number of bedrooms doesn't mean that you're gonna have one person living in those bedrooms. You could have two people living in those bedrooms. So, you know, the amount to which the the population density is gonna be increased could really be quite massive. And and that's of great concern to us. So we we request HPC: 9/28/2006 24 strongly that this Commission honors its own guidelines and not sway from them in considering the character of the building and the character of the neighborhood. Thanks. Weitzel: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of the project? Any other speakers, at all? Okay. Go ahead. Galstad: I've also lived on the block for a long time. I I relocated there about 14 years ago and raised my kids there or am raising my kids there. And again, 1, like the Lutgendorfs, I chose chose that neighborhood because it's a mixed neighborhood, because it's walking distance from downtown. It's, I guess I'm just disappointed, I I think we're all, you know, as property owners, as citizens that respect what Iowa City's trying to do in terms of historic preservation, I guess I'm disappointed to see people stepping away from the intent of those guidelines in in in the case of of our neighborhood. I would hope that as a commission you would stand up for for the intent of of the guidelines and, you know, those of us that live there, we know what the population density already is. And it's of great concern to see this increase so drastically. Weitzel: Thank you. McCafferty: We do have additional information to present as well. Weitzel: Okay. We will... McCafferty: Okay. Weitzel: We will give you ample opportunity. McCafferty: Okay. Weitzel: Is there anybody else that'd like to speak? Or should we move into the consultant and applicant's portion of this? Okay, go ahead. McCafferty: Well, I'm a little concerned, I don't know why this is not coming up in proportion, so, given that we're talking about scale and proportion, try to make the adjustments. Here are some additional revised handouts for you. What I do wanna remind you of, you know, particularly since we've heard from from other people in the audience here, is that what your purview is is the architecture, and the scale, the mass, the design of the architecture. It's not your purview to look at the underlying zoning code or the housing code, for that matter. But we're here to look at specifically is is the architecture and what we, what we're gonna replace this particular building with that has been destroyed. McCafferty: Wow, the proportion is. ..Anyway, first of all, what I, 1 wanna remind you of is that this is not a neighborhood that's all single-family houses, original single-family houses, or smaller scale houses. That indeed as you're standing at the end ofIowa Avenue, we actually have a couple quite large buildings within view which are substantially larger than what we're proposing. Likewise, within the neighborhood, just up the block on Iowa, that's Washington, excuse me, we have additional large buildings. These vary from, you know, 50 to 75 feet in width. So a larger scale building is not necessarily out of place within this neighborhood. But what I also want to show you is that we have been working quite a bit in trying to revise this building and make it smaller based upon what we heard from the public previously, and so I've done a lot of, it's been sort of a Chinese puzzle getting it smaller. So what this illustrates is, if you look at the blue lines, that is where we were at the last proposal that we showed you. Now the drawing behind the blue lines, or in front of the blue lines, is actually where we're at now. So if you look at the width of just the front fac;ade without the bays, okay, we're at 40,46 feet right now. The original building at the front was 42 feet. So we're now within four feet. McCafferty: And this is how it relates to the previous building. The red line indicates the building that was destroyed. If you look at your handouts, let's see, I we we I don't know what's wrong with this view here, but if you look at your handouts, I give the statistics of where we're at in terms of the size on this building. We're now at a front elevation area of 1,656. From my best estimates, the original building was 1,646, so HPC: 9/28/2006 25 that means we're now within ten square feet of this front surface, front elevation dimension of the previous building. So with that being the fact at this point, I think the discussion last week regarding the size of the fayade is actually a moot point, regardless of whether it should have applied to this or not. McCafferty: The front wall area, which excludes the roof, we're now within 50 square feet of what what it was previously. Our typical eave height is actually three feet lower than what the previous building was. The roof height, as the building department would measure it, we're now within four feet, we're four feet lower. The only dimension which is not less than what the previous building is is the width. Woman: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear. McCafferty: I, if there are any left over, I don't know if any... Woman: Could you, Shelly, could you please say what you said the last sentence? I couldn't hear you. Michaud: The last sentence. McCafferty: Oh, the last sentence. We're now, the only dimension which is not less than what the previous building was is the width. So we're now four, we're just four feet wider than what the previous building width was. And that's excluding the bays. And I'll get into the bays here. Woman: So the depth of the building is the same? McCafferty: No, but we're talking about here is the front scale of the building on the front elevation. Woman: But not the depth. McCafferty: But not the depth. Okay, this would be the side elevation. If you have, what what you see here the bays. They're in the lighter lines, what you see on the left and right of the building, and here they are on the side elevation. Now, here's what I want to illustrate. This is a, I've got some examples here. This is a bay on a building. These are very common in Iowa City if you look at the buildings of this vintage. Here is the bay if you look at it from the side, from the front it's essentially not visible, it doesn't contribute to the mass of the building, the perceived mass of the building. Here's another example. You see part of the roof, but generally speaking, you you don't see a lot of it. It's, doesn't really contribute to the mass because it's far enough back. Here's another one. This is a building that's on the street. If you look over on the right, you can just see the very corner of the bay. And this is the bay from the other side. And also if you look at the the top peak of the roof, you can see how that disappears in perspective. Okay. And here it is from across the street. You begin to see a little bit more of it. So to actually look at the straight elevation, as we were doing last week, and measure that up, that's not reaIly very accurate portrayal of what the perception of this is gonna be, the scale of this building is gonna be from the street. McCafferty: Here I'm trying to illustrate what it's gonna look like a little bit in three dimensions, given the shadow line. I I don't have the 3D software to, you know, to do this, so I'm gonna give you some examples of, so you can better understand what's gonna happen in three dimension, and the devices that we've incorporated into this buil, building to reduce the scale of it. Mostly what you're gonna see is the porch and the front projecting gables. Here is an elevation of a building, I wanna use an example, a flat elevation. It looks like a big massive building. But if we look at it in 3D, you can see how this, the sense of scale of this building is significantly different. You know, essentially all the area up on the top that's no longer solid, it's sky. If this were a solid building, pardon my little photos hop here, you could see that without those projections and without the recessed U in there, it is, would look like a significantly larger building. From the side, from the, as you approach the building, here it looks again like two, sort of like two buildings as opposed to one big building. You're gonna see a similar effect with the one that we're proposing, except you'll have the porch in front, so it will connect the two. Here's what it would look like if it was one big solid mass. HPC: 9/28/2006 26 McCafferty: So what we are proposing is a building which is not a solid mass, like the previous building was. It's a little bit wider, it's more articulated however, so your perception of the building as you experience from the street is actually going to appear smaller than what it was previously. And that's what we're here to to talk about is really the scale, the perception of scale, and how it relates to the neighborhood. Lutgendorf: I have a question I'd like to ask you. McCafferty: Yes. Lutgendorf: Do you have a side overlay of what the side of the building is gonna look like as oh compared to the previous building? McCafferty: You know, I don't have photographs of the previous building on the side. So... Lutgendorf: No, but even a design of how far back would the previous building... McCafferty: Okay. Lutgendorf: .. . have gone. Because I'm gonna be experiencing the building from the side, not from the street. McCafferty: Right. It would probably go back, probly towards the middle of that mid, ofthat the large bay. Okay, so this is about, we're... Lutgendorf: So... McCafferty: Let's see. What we're at, 69 minus 40. Roffman: Actually you've got that 19... can't hear... McCafferty: Yeah, about the middle of the center bay is where the exterior wall was previously, the back wall. Lutgendorf: So it's almost doubling the length of the building? McCafferty: We're going from 40 feet to 69 feet. Lutgendorf: Okay, so it's increasing it at least by a third. McCafferty: Yeah, that's prob, yeah. There are screening requirements to mitigate having multi-family next to single-family. We've got a wider setback, we've a required setback of 15 feet, what we're actually going to be at however is wider than that. We're gonna be at 21 feet at the bays, 24 feet at the the largest mass of the building. I propose, you know, we have a a required screening requirement, we've been showing along the bottom property line. It's actually not required for where the building portion is, but I went ahead and put that in. It's only required where the parking is. And then I'm also showing another larger, overstory tree, which is going to further sort of diminish the appearance of the back of the building from the street. Rapson: I have, I had a question, if! may. The, you said the setback you've got at 15 feet, even though it's not... McCafferty: It's required to be 15 feet. We're actually at 21 feet at the bay and 25 feet at the main mass of the building. So we've exceeded... Rapson: From the side property line? HPC: 9/28/2006 27 McCafferty: From the side property line. Rapson: And where, and how does that relate to the structure that was there before, in terms of its placement on the lot? Is it gonna be closer to Philip and Susan's house? Is it, is it, the structure actually going to be farther away... ? McCafferty: Well, this... Rapson: ...from Philip and Susan's house. I mean, they're the, they're people that are gonna be most impacted by this building. It's taking away light, it's taking away privacy, it's adding noise, it's adding structure where there was open space before, so I was wondering how it relates...can't hear...property. McCafferty: I don't know exactly where that building was, and I haven't looked at that since they revised it. Right now, my estimate is that it's probably gonna be more than.. .can't hear.. .closer, but I don't have exact dimensions of where that building was originally, but my my estimate is that it's, it's no more than... Woman: can't hear... it'll go back further... McCafferty: It'll go back further, and it'll be a little bit closer. Michaud: Is it gonna two feet closer, because it's four feet wider, and it's gonna be centered on the previous structure's... McCafferty: Well, here's.. Michaud: ... foundation or not. McCafferty: I don't know where, here, here's the thing is, and I don't know if you have more information. This is what I have in terms of trying to locate exactly where that building was from, with relative to the lots lines. This isn't correct, okay, as I I've looked at it. From my estimate, just looking at it, you know, going up there and visualizing where the building was, this one, you know, it'll be maybe four feet closer, three, four feet. Roffman: Ifwe're only four foot wider, I don't think it is, cuz if you look up there now, that back portion there was a bumpout addition there. They had an offset about, I don't know, five, six feet, and we still had our side yard beyond that. So, I don't see the west lot line being a whole lot different than it was in the previous building. And I... McCafferty: Yeah. Roffman: ...don't know that exactly. And there's probably not a thing out there you can identify with, but I say, if you look at that photo there, and and there was a bedroom kitchen apartment added on the side there on the east with that offset, you would still had side yard beyond that. Was, cuz we only got seven foot side yard over there now, and to that front porch, I would say there'd probly been about ten. So it'd be about three foot less there, so we you might be a foot closer, but I mean, here again that's.. . Michaud: So you're gonna be using the space that where that rear shed is sticking out. Roffman: That was part of the building. That was not a shed. Michaud: Well whatever that little first floor, level. Roffman: It was an appendage added on to it. HPC: 9/28/2006 28 Michaud: So you're gonna be using that space and then maybe one or two feet to the right of this prevIous.. . Roffman: About one foot, I would guess. Michaud: One foot. Roffman: If you look at the west wall there now in relationship to where it's gonna be, it's probly bout a foot difference, if we're only four foot wider, cuz we will be closer to the east than we were with the previous building, except for where that added on was. Michaud: So one foot foot closer of the most extreme bay on the west side. Roffman: That would be my best guess. McCafferty: In terms of light and so forth, at the portion of the building which is gonna be basically adjacent to, to your house, there should actually be more light. It's it's not gonna be as tall a building overall. And it's also going to be, have a a slope on it. It's not gonna be a big block. Woman: But it will be more building, cuz it goes way back. McCafferty: It'll be more length. It's the length. Yeah. There'll be more length. Weitzel: This is our traditional time to ask questions of the applicant. Are there more questions? Michaud: II I don't understand what's, how they go from nine efficiencies or single bedrooms to three- bedroom units. Is that, that was all cleared with the zoning, planning? McCafferty: That's all within the zoning code. Michaud: The density was allowed for... Weitzel: It's it's it's neighborhood stabilization 20. Michaud: 20 for? Weitzel: The the number is 20, which I believe is, I don't know the exact number... McCafferty: It's all legal within the zoning code. It's allowed under the baseline zoning, so I guess again I'd just like to to remind you that what we're looking at here is really the mass and the scale of the building. Michaud: And so the footprint is not relevant. The previous footprint's not relevant because you're going deeper. McCafferty: What we're doing right now proposing... Toomey: The mass is... McCafferty: ... is legal under the baseline zoning. Weitzel: Section 10 is what we can consider. McCafferty: What you, yeah, look at Section 10, that's that's your purview. Weitzel: So we can look at... HPC: 9/28/2006 29 Michaud: But I'm just saying that that was all clear. McCafferty: Yeah. Weitzel: We can look at fTont setback, lighting, which is an artificial lighting, parking, parking below buildings, garages, building orientation, pedestrian access, balconies and decks, building height, mass, roofline, building modulation, which is the street elevation setback, window fenestration and architectural style. And then there is a series of building point items that can be awarded to a multi-family building and, do we technically, do we need to go through and award these points? Terda]kar: In the staff report I did last time, we we did say that it will qualify for the required minimum points. Weitzel: It makes the points. Terdalkar: Yeah. Weitzel: Okay. So we don't need to do that. Man (App]icant's attorney?): What, what did you say? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Weitzel: There's there's a point system for multi-family buildings, and this building does require, it does, it meets the minimum requirements. Man: Okay. Great. Carlson: And, and so there's nothing in our purview that would talk about building depth. We have no say over that whatsoever? Weitzel: We've never traditionally been able to do that. Carlson: Okay. Terdalkar: But I think that will be part of... McCafferty: Except for in the Summit Street District. Carlson: Right. McCafferty: Right. Carlson: Where it's specified... McCafferty: ... can't hear. . . .everyone talking. . . Weitzel: It is specified in the guidelines there. Carlson: Right. Weitzel: Not here. Terdalkar: If it is not... I'm sorry. If it is not about the the depth of the building, you can consider the mass. That that is part of, mass is is all about height, scale, and and how deep it is, how tall it is. It's it's going to consider all those aspects, and you can consider that. Michaud: So square footage is relevant. HPC: 9/28/2006 30 Toomey: Cubic footage. Terdalkar: Sort of. In in a way. I can I can read you the the building mass section here. Measures incorporated, measures should be incorporated into the design of the new building that helps reduce the visual mass and overall height. Examples, and these are just examples, examples include holding the height of the eaves, eave line down to, down by making the upper floor of a building a half story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of the floor area. That's first one. Second is, stepping the height of the taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two stories or lower in height. Providing significant variations in the roofline and front plane, building plane, which helps to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape. So these are the measures, examples of the measures you can incorporate in the design. And it's not an exhaustive list of what can be done. McCafferty: The, I realize that you've got a lot of new commissioner members since when we did the conservation district, designated the district. And although the six, the the the application of the 1,600 square foot front elevation, the language that got into the the preservation handbook may not have been, may not have been correct in terms of the, of of the saying it only applies to single and the duplex buildings, but the reason that it dealt with the square footage of the front fas;ade and not with anything dealing with depth is was to ensure that multi-family properties that if they were destroyed in this instance, could be reconstructed and that the depth was something that was specifically not addressed. I think we could probly pull up the minutes and find that, but I'm just wanted to, for those of you who remember that designation, remind you of of that. We only, we, there's a specific intent to only deal with the square footage of the front fas;ade. Weitzel: We discussed this last meeting too. McCafferty: So, and we're within that, regardless of whether that would be applicable, you know... Weitzel: I guess just as a reminder, we tabled to get a specific clarification of whether or not we could discuss, I'm gonna refer to the memo. Whether the history guidelines could be applied or not, and as as we found it, those could not be but that the, the building height, mass, standard section or 10-1 can be considered. So that's sort of where we're at in the debate I guess at this point, where we left off. We were wondering if we could do that or not. So I guess what we are charged with at this point is determining whether or not this building and this design meets these guidelines. That's really what we're looking at. Lutgendorf: I have a question. With respect to the mass issues, is there any way that the mass consideration can be thought of with respect to the depth and architectural design issues be applied with respect to the depth to make it a less massive building from the side, or a building that would block our light less from the side? I mean, what what is all in the 10-1 section of the guidelines has to do with ways to make it more architecturally appealing. So is there any way to do that with respect to depth? Terdalkar: I don't think it just limits the the Commission to look at the architectural features. It it says that one of the ways to reduce the overall height is to step down the building which is adjacent to a lower building. So that is talking about the mass. Lutgendorf: Okay, well if somebody is gonna be impacted by an increased mass of building, if you just consider how big it's going to be, I would ask the Commission to consider, is there any way they can scale it back? Ponto: Why don't I go ahead and make a motion that we approve this newest plan so that if it gets seconded, we can discuss it. Weitzel: Okay. At at that point then, when it becomes a motion for the Commission it sort of closes the public hearing aspect. HPC: 9/28/2006 31 Ponto: Right, so I don't wanna do that prematurely, but I'm ready to if we're kind of winding down public discussion. Weitzel: We could have a, if we're, if we're uncertain whether or not we're ready to do that, we could have a motion to end debate. Woman: Can I just ask for a clarification? You're talking about the plan that... can't hear.. . showed us that is 46. Ponto: Tonight. Yeah. Woman: Okay. Terdalkar: Just a clarification about how these dimensions are put here. They are, the dimensions are about, for the front elevation, that do not include the overall width of the building. McCafferty: Right. Terdalkar: They do not include the bays, and when, for the sake of clarification, in the guidelines we have elevation which is shown exactly on these. So these faded lines should be included in the elevation. That's, that's for our clarification in the guidelines. McCafferty: And would, right. And I I just wanted to illustrate to you... Terdalkar: So this is, this is sort of. .. McCafferty: ... what... Terdalkar: ... information that is incomplete. Weitzel: At any rate, Jim, making a motion is something that we have to take in in course, if you make the motion so... Ponto: Anybody else out there want to say anything before I make a motion? Man (Roffman's attorney?): Just one question. Was there an updated staffreport since your last meeting? Ponto: Yeah. Terdalkar: In fact, the included memo in the packet is is what I, the question I asked to the staff about clarification on the guidelines, and that was, that's what I have.. . can't hear. Weitzel: It hasn't really changed the staff report. It's just a memorandum allowing us to find out what they decided on the on the Zoning Interpretation Panel. Terdalkar: I'm just getting this right now, so I I cannot comment on what is exactly in the being proposed here. Ponto: Well, just to, for us to be able to discuss it, ell make a motion that we approve this project as presented tonight. Weitzel: All motions in the affirmative. We have a motion, is there a second? Brennan: Second. Weitzel: Moved and seconded. Discussion. HPC: 9/28/2006 32 Ponto: WeIl, first I wanna say that I I really like what SheIly's done to minimize the visual mass from the the front elevation or the from the the street. I remain concerned though about the length of it. My personal interpretation of mass would include three-dimensional, and so the the length of it is still a concern. This, in my mind, is is a real exceptional case because, in general, our guidelines do not aIlow a demolition permit until we first approved the replacement. And because of the tornado damage, we deemed that to be an exceptional case and went ahead and and did the demolition prior to seeing this. If! had seen this before we had the demolition permit, I don't think I would have approved it, because I would have thought that it's much bigger than existing, And I would have wanted to seen something more in the three-dimensional mass of the existing. Weitzel: Thank you. Other discussion. Baker: In in 10-1, under building height and mass, where it says design of the new building to help reduce its visual mass, does visual mass include the side view? Weitzel: Our staff... Baker: Or does it only... Weitzel: Staffs interpretation is yes. Baker: It does include the side view. Weitzel: He says that in his opinion, architectural mass is the... Baker: Okay. Weitzel: ...360 view. Baker: Okay. McCafferty: Whose opinion was that, excuse me? Weitzel: Sunil's. As as SheIly did point out earlier, when we looked at these guidelines, there was discussion about limiting buildings and their size, and that's not specifically in these district guidelines. McCafferty: My... Weitzel: So... McCafferty: My recoIlection is that depth was not one of the dimensions that the Commission was going to enforce in the conservation district. It was the front dimension that was ofthe primary concern. Weitzel: I, yeah. I cannot confirm or deny that. I don't remember the discussion or the debate. I remember there was. .. debate. . . McCafferty: That's why...can't hear...someone...is here, because he has a good memory. Woman: I thought this was internal discussion of the committee and not people outside the committee. Toomey: You know, I I think that it's a big increase in density. I mean, it's a, just it is. It's just no difference if you increase the distance to it, you've increased the mass to it. And and it comes, that comes with an accompanying baggage, that you have to supply all the parking with it, and that has an impact on the neighborhood too, when your whole yard is a concr, is, is you're you don't have a, the neighbors have yards. This is a concrete pad. That's what, that's what the yard becomes. So this is major impact in, in HPC: 9/28/2006 33 that neighborhood. Even the sorority that, it's a, they're they're facing-that same problem, was because now the the codes require parking for all these places, and and and so that's my my impression of it at this point. Weitzel: Thank you. Ponto: In all fairness, I guess a counterargument would be that we've always allowed additions into the back, and many homes or whatever have had additions that have been a third a big as as large. So if we would have had that original building and then had that request to add a third again as big addition on the back" that would approximate this. However, most additions would not be at the same height but would have somewhat smaller scale to it. So... Carlson: And it would probably be set back as well. Ponto: Yeah, and and the setback as well. So, I'm I'm not sure that that would be a valid argument either. I just trying to look at all points. Toomey: Well this building might have been a a rooming house and everything, but it wasn't built as a rooming house. It was built as a family, single-family, I would imagine. Carlson: Actually, I think this, the core of it was a single-family, but it was expanded to a fraternity in the I nos, and that's when the third story was added, or third and, third and a half. So... Weitzel: Other discussion. Brennan: Well, the neighborhood, as defined in the district, runs along Iowa and Washington from Johnson to Muscatine, from College, on College from Governor to Summit, and on Burlington from Summit to Muscatine. So that's the neighborhood we're talking about. I don't think we can focus just on a little block and say this block, because the City has defined this neighborhood as that area, and it's sprinkled with very large buildings that Shelly showed a number of pictures of. The one that she photoshopped in, 228 South Summit, is immediately next door to a single-family residence to the south, and it's four, four floors tall without a a gabled roof. The proposed building exceeds side setback requirements, it has a sloped roof, the fa~ade is certainly no greater than any of the buildings we saw photos of, and they are fairly liberally sprinkled around the entire neighborhood. Weitzel: Other discussion. Carlson: I guess I I have to agree with Jim. I can't, I have to view the depth as part of the mass of the building, and Sunil I guess too. And I really, I mean I like the fact that it was scaled back quite a bit from what it was the last time, but it still is much bigger than what was there before, and what was there before was already bigger than most things in this neighborhood. So I, at this point, I don't think I can approve what's the the the current plan. Michaud: This might not be too relevant, but since I live on College Green Park itself and have a sorority annex right next to me, I'm sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. Ifit was going in right next to me, I'd, I'd feel clearly ambivalent, because you are making the effort to do landscaping, and things like that will soften it. As far as shade goes, we lost a lot of big trees, and shade in the summer is not necessarily a bad thing. So that's some ameliorative things. I wouldn't have any problem agreeing to the height and the width of this right now, ifit was two-bedroom apartments and the same original footprint. But that's in an ideal world, and I don't know if that's relevant, but going to three bedrooms makes a difference. And then you'd have twelve occupants, up from nine, instead of 18. Carlson: And again if the, the fa~ade is bigger than what was there, but it's still, it's it's within reason. Ponto: Yeah. Absolutely. HPC: 9/28/2006 34 Carlson: If it, it would, I mean, coming at it from the sides, I mean, we shouldn't be taking landscaping into consideration when we, when we consider the mass of the building, because we don't know that that landscaping is always going to be there. So it really is what what you can see based on the buildings around it right now, and you could, I mean there will will clearly be a very deep building from the street. Now ifthere was some way of reducing setting back the back of the building in some way, and making it shorter, pu\ling it in, that could reduce the scale enough to make it within the guidelines, in my opinion. But as it is now, I don't think it is, so... that's my opinion. Weitzel: Okay. Several people have had a chance to speak a couple times. Does anybody else want to speak at al1? I think this this one is a really, one of our tough cases that we sometimes run against. It has everything involved here. It has landowner rights. It has the rights ofthe neighbors. Well, what is historic preservation ifit isn't taking into account what it does to the community. It's tough, and I don't think, you know, we can't always make everybody happy, so but I don't remember when we've every had this much opposition in recent times to a project from the neighborhood, so I'm gonna have to vote against it. So... Toomey: So are we at voting? Weitzel: I think it's time to call the vote. Toomey: Okay. Weitzel: All in favor say aye. Brennan: Aye. Weitzel: Those opposed, same sign. All but Brennan: Aye. Weitzel: Motion is defeated, six to one. I guess at this point, we would encourage you to work on another design. McCafferty: We're, also familiar with the appeal process as well, so that would be another option. Weitzel: That is, no yeah, that's absolutely, you are, you are allowed to appeal. And the appeal process is to determine whether or not we've been arbitrary or capricious in our decision. Roffman: Thank you. Toomey: Nice building, wrong place, you know. Weitzel: Well, I think there's no doubt that this design.. .can't hear.. .did a lot of work. Toomey: Nice building, yeah. Ponto: My my only concern was the depth of it. HPC: 9/28/2006 35