HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-18 CorrespondenceMarian Karr
From:
Jeff Davidson
Sent:
Friday, October 31, 2014 1:26 PM
To:
Marian Karr
Cc:
Tom Markus; Geoff Fruin; John Yapp
Subject:
FW: IC Comp plan update input 11/18
Attachments:
2014.10.31 ICDD comment on Civic District to City.pdf
Marian,
This correspondence is directed to the Mayor and City Council.
JD
From: Nancy Bird [mailto:nancy@downtowniowacity.com]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:25 AM
To: George Etre; Karen kubbykpobox.com; billnusserggwestoffice.net billnusser(cr�,gwestoffice.net; Catherine
Champion; Patricia McCarthy; Kent KJehle(2midwestone.com; Kdigmann Digmann; Mark Ginsberg; ritu
Jain; david-kieftguiowa.edu david-kieftkuiowa.edu; stevegzephyrprinting com; Joni
Schrup; naftaly_(a)oasisfalafel.com; Mark Weaver; steve e iowacityarea.com; Nancy
Quellhorst; kmorelandkicadgroup.com; mnolte e,icadgrogp.com; Joshua
Schamberger Joshua(a,iowacitycoralville.org; Betsy Potter; Marc Moen
Cc: Jeff Davidson
Subject: IC Comp plan update input
ICDD Board and Partners,
At Wednesday's ICDD board meeting, we had a great discussion about our vision for growth downtown Iowa
City and the close -in environments. As we discussed, infill development is critical to accommodating growth in
an environmentally and socially sustainable way.
The City is seeking public input regarding land use decisions for the "Civic District" (east of Gilbert) and the
"North Clinton / Dubuque Street District" (Clinton to Dubuque north of Iowa) and what community members
would like to see in these areas.
http://v ww.ic og v.oriz/planui)date
This is a great chance for our individual voices to be heard about what land uses should be considered in those
areas. Please take 5 - 10 minutes to fill out the City's survey monkey to give them our input. This input will
help drive the direction of future comp plan updates - so let's make sure the City hears from all of us. Please
forward these links to others, as well. Without our voices, other input will guide the process.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DRGW8CB
The public open house on these districts will be held Thursday Oct 30 from 5:30 - 7:30pm if you are
interested, as well. Please give me or Jeff Davidson a call if you'd like further information.
Thank you!
Nancy Bird
Executive Director
Iowa City Downtown District
319.354.0863
October 31, 2014
Mayor and City Council
-
City of Iowa City _CD
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for inviting the community to comment on the Civic and North Clinton/Dubuque Street -
Districts and the comprehensive plan vision for these areas. As you know, the Iowa City Downtown
District is a non-profit entity with a mission to champion the Downtown District as a progressive,
healthy, and culturally vibrant urban center of the region.
The ICDD Board of Directors has discussed the City's Comprehensive Plan review for these areas and
proposed development plans within the Civic District. We are unanimous in our support of increased
mixed-use density in both the Civic and North Clinton/Dubuque Street Districts. New, dense infill
development that brings additional residents, employees and exciting entertainment and cultural uses
like bowling, cinema space, and other amenities to our near -in environments is a win for our commercial
core. Similar to the newly selected site for the University of Iowa Museum of Art and the Voxman
School of Music underway, the Chauncey and New Pi developments will support our existing businesses
with an influx of new people that will help keep the Downtown and Northside Neighborhood businesses
economically viable.
The ICDD also believes in a "2% Solution" for supporting a vibrant downtown (Bruce Katz, Brookings
Institute.) This entails providing opportunities for 2% of our community's population to live in our City
core. New developments that include a mix of housing units tailored towards a mix of incomes and
household types will help us achieve this goal.
The ICDD is growing in a positive direction and the "natural" boundaries of Downtown are evolving.
Community members are already calling areas to the east of our boundary to Ralston Creek and along
the Burlington Street Corridor "Downtown." We believe that accommodating equally dense
developments in these close -in areas is a sustainable and efficient approach to growth that best utilizes
public infrastructure already in place.
Thank you very much for your hard work, patience, and vision for the sustainable growth of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
/�� d0---Ze
Nancy Bird
Executive Director
Iowa City Downtown District
Iowa City Downtown District 14'/ S. Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 319-354-0863
11-18-14
4f(2)
November 3, 2014
Attention:
Mayor Matt Hayek &City of Iowa City Council Members
As you know, the residents of the Peninsula area are deeply concerned about access to our
homes should the low section of Foster Rd. flood as it did in 2008.
In a March 20, 2014 memo to Peninsula Neighbors, Jeff Davidson explained three access
options and the cost of each. He made a clear, understandable case for the extension of Laura
Drive when "the Arn/Cole property between Forest View Mobile Home Park and Mackinaw
Subdivision" is redeveloped.
That is clearly—both strategically and economically—the best choice. However, the nearly 1,000
residents who live up the hill on the Peninsula are worried about the "what if" factor. What if
Foster Road floods before the re -development occurs and the new road is constructed?
It would seem that a forced evacuation of nearly 1000 of these current households—a much
larger number than in 2008—would be impossible and create a great hardship to the residents.
We know that the City is working on a long term solution for this issue.
We respectfully request that a short term contingency plan be developed that would give the
residents of the Peninsula peace of mind and allow them to stay in their homes should Foster
Road flood before a second road is constructed.
Peninsula Area
Roger Beyhl representing the Elks Club
Mark Wyatt representing Elk Run Condominiums
Jamie Jones representing Oak Grove Condominium Association/Louis Place
Carl Baker representing Mackinaw Village
Amy Pretorius and Tony Weiler representing the Peninsula Neighborhood
Paula Brandt representing White Oak Place
4CDY
Jerry Moore
PO Box 501
Iowa City IA 52244
tet,ep,'' ovte, alt :Get 310,-351-371,12
')ec,:,t (.1,crqot & 9own t otun4z,,4
11-18-14
4f(3)
)c""-,- on
be;,'Cvee.;s c52--,! )abt(�4c on �`7,he i`Ztt
ry
cn
'13
Marian Karr 4f(4)
From: Tim Smith <chemsmith1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:55 PM
To: Council
Subject: Rezoning Behind Regal Ln
Hello,
It has come to my attention that there is a plan to build on the wetlands area behind Regal Ln in SE Iowa City.
Please reconsider. I previously have lived on Regal, and we bought the house in part thanks to that wild area.
When living there, I found huge turtles, and snakes, and other wildlife. Certainly they will lose their homes
should housing move in right there.
Try to build *around* that area, not right through it.
Thank you,
Tim
Tim C. Smith
Adjunct Professor
Department of Chemistry
300 College Park
University of Dayton
Dayton, OH 45469
chemsmithl@amail.com
513-267-2773
Sarah Walz
From: Sarah Walz
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 10:22 AM
To: 'chemsmith1 @gmail.com'
Subject: Sycamore Woods
Attachments: Plat.pdf
Tim,
The City Manager forwarded your email to me for a response.
A number of other neighbors have contacted me about this plat. I am attaching a pdf of the plat being proposed. This
shows areas being preserved and replanted as well as how the residential lots and streets will be laid out.
The subject property was rezoned in 2007 to allow a sensitive areas development plan. That is, to allow a somewhat
non-traditional street layout and clustering of homes to minimize disturbance to sensitive areas --the woodlands,
wetland, and stream on the site. At that same time a preliminary plat was also approved. While the zoning is still in
effect, the preliminary plat has expired, and so the developer has come back with a new plat submittal. The current plat
is the same as the old; the only substantive change being that he has reduced the number of lots from 122 to 115. The
lots and streets are located in the same manner as the previous plat.
On November 6, a preliminary plat will be under consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission
will offer its recommendation; then the plat must be approved by City Council. This is just the first step toward
development. The applicant must then have a final plat approved by Council. In order to move forward with actual
clearing and construction of the subdivision, the applicant must show that he has all necessary approvals from the Army
Corps of Engineers, Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I have had a couple of neighbors mention and endangered turtle on the site. We have no record of this in our files,
though we are aware that there are turtles in this and other areas of South Iowa City.
Let me know if you have any questions about the plat or the sensitive areas plan.
Sarah
PROTEST OF REZONING ~�
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL !
IOWA CITY, IOWA
CITY 10 WA crrr
We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property
which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is
proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
� �") f'i y e � B j G Li ,qua �fa.� ri Ve,
This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the
Code of Iowa.
Property Address:2�ii
Pro rt Uwne •
By: _
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):CD
-}
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: cn
t.0
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 4aAH (Date) by
and �'_ (name(s) of
individual property owner(s)).
EN MA
Notary Public in and for the Stat of Iowa`s l i
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S):
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY) ss:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by
(name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of
(name of property owner) .
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
piriy3d FnUIPr 02/2013
PJAVA-
+�J°rsl AA _
CLUID' C^ - 3 G - Gaut-,► cd -414 tAc R I I P,
PROTEST OF REZONING
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA I �r
CfT t' OF f 0 4VA CITY
We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property
which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is
proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
VV ► u"iYl Meadow' � �--r1 S*+a-Y r7Ve.
This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the
Code of Iowa.
Property Address: ZED 0. A v
/ �
-_—_ e—
Propert Owner(s):
By:
By..;
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY) ss:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on P o Vp'M g Z'° ' L/ (Date) by
r o rl r� \/e1.-1ffX*P and 4 GDS A (name(s) of
individual property owner(s)).
Notary Pu in and for the State of IoVI HARRY RUEBER
Commission Number 13
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S):
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY) ss:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
(name(s) of person(s)) as
(Date) by
(type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of
(name of property owner) .
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(lri o'hi�tcriu� 9J O� 02/2013
Ct.'eJk t''�t p LZ - C- WV V j
4f(5)
Marian Karr
From: WELSHBOB@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 8:08 PM
To: Council
Subject: Development Proposal at Linn and Court
Iowa City -City Council
have read the proposal for the Linn/Court Lofts. I have a long history in relation to senior housing.
I am strongly in support of a University Based Retirement Community in downtown Iowa City.
strongly support the features outlined on page 39, such as: Apartment for Life, Universal Design and Smart
Home Technology, and Research and Learning Relationships.
I also strongly support senior housing in the north part of the River Crossings development which will enable
seniors to have easy access to downtown and the university.
The only part of the proposal that I find objectionable is the request for $14,144,000 TIF. I believe the
Linn/Court Lofts would add to the diversity and vitality of downtown. I realize that there are reasonable
objections to using TIF for residential developments, but I realize that the Council has by past actions already
deemed them to be appropriate. Even so, I would hope CG Hanson could find other financial resources and
not need to rely so heavily on TIF.
If your process allows, I would hope that you would communicate to CG Hanson your interest in a University
Based Retirement Community and ask CG Hanson, Inc. to explore other financial alternatives and, if they
deem advisable, to submit an amended proposal within the next 30 days.
Bob Welsh
84 Penfro Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Marian Karr
From:
R. Michael Hayes <rmhayes@belinmccormick.com>
Sent:
Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:24 PM
To:
Marian Karr
Cc:
Mike Oliveira; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Tom Markus
Subject:
November 6, 2014 City Council Work Session
Attachments:
11-6-14 City Council Letter (01994328x9D4A5).pdf
Dear Ms. Karr:
I enclose a letter to the Mayor and Members of the City Council on behalf of Prairie Sun Building Services, L.L.C. that I request be
included in the packet for the City Council in connection with its Special Work Session meeting at 5:00 p.m. today. Thank you.
R. Michael Hayes
666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000
Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3989
Direct Dial: (515) 283-4647
Cell: (515) 537-6207
E-mail: rmhayesO-)belinmccormick.com
BelinMcCormick
Attorneys at law
Confidentiality Notice: The email and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Belin McCormick, P.C., which may be confidential and/or
legally privileged. These materials are intended only for the personal and confidential use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient
or an agent responsible for delivering these materials to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmitted information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately
notify the sender of this message. Thank you.
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
BELINNtCORMICK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
R Michael Hayes
Direct Dial: (515) 283-4647
Direct Fax: (515) 558-0647
E-mail: rmhayes@belinmccormick.eom
November 6, 2014
E-MAIL
Honorable Mayor Matt Hayek and
City Council Members of Iowa City, Iowa
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re Request for Proposals for the Court Street and Linn Street Redevelopment Site
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Our firm represents Prairie Sun 'Building Services, L.L.C. which submitted one of the six
development proposals that the City received in response to its May 30, 2014 Request for
Proposals for the Court Street/Linn Street Redevelopment Site. The City Committee that
reviewed these proposals has recommended that the City authorize City staff to negotiate further
with three of the developers who submitted proposals.. All of these recommended proposals vary
materially from and are inconsistent with the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
adopted by City in January 2013 (the "Master Plan"). They propose student housing or hotel
uses or both, which are expressly not permitted uses for the Court Street/Linn Street site under
the Master Plan. The City will have to amend the Master Plan after the fact to accept any of
these proposals.
The process used in this request for proposals did not clearly advise interested developers of
what uses would be allowed for redevelopment of this site and did not place all developers on an
equal footing. After reviewing the Request for Proposals and the Master Plan and attending the
non -mandatory meeting for developers, Prairie Sun understood that student housing was not an
allowable use. Prairie Sun spent thousands of dollars in preparing its conceptual architectural
plans and its proposal that substantially conformed to the Master Plan and the goals of the
Request for Proposals in all respects, but that did not include student housing as a primary use.
Prairie Sun was advised by its prospective lenders that if it could develop student housing on this
site that development could be privately financed without need for any city subsidy. If Prairie
Sun had known that the City would allow student housing on this site, it would have submitted a
different proposal. Given the interest in this site when the allowable uses were unclear, it is also
likely that if other developers had understood that student housing and hotel uses would be
allowed on this site, that the City would have received additional proposals.
November 6, 2014
Page 2
The Iowa Code provides that a City may dispose of real property in an urban renewal area to
private developers only under a reasonable competitive bidding procedure. The Iowa Supreme
Court held that it violated this statute when a city waived compliance with bidding requirements
after the bids were submitted and accepted a bid that did not comply with the bidding
requirements. It stated:
"Public policy underlies the requirements of competitive bidding. The purpose of the
statute is that each bidder, actual or possible, shall be put upon the same footing.
Interested purchasers should be given equal opportunity to bid on the land bearing the
same restrictions. The municipal authorities should not be permitted to waive any
substantial variance between the conditions under which the bids are invited and the
proposals submitted. If any bidder is relieved from conforming to the conditions which
impose some duty upon him, or from strict performance of the terms of the invitation to
bid, such bidder is not contracting in fair competition with those bidders who propose to
be bound by all conditions. An indispensable element of such sale is the existence of a
definite common standard to which all competitive proposals alike relate"
The City Attorney has stated the Iowa City process to date is not an offering of the Court
Street/Linn Street site for redevelopment under the Iowa urban renewal statute, but is merely a
preliminary process. It appears that the City proposes to negotiate a deal with the developer
whose proposal it likes best and then amend the urban renewal plan and Master Plan to allow
that proposal to proceed. Thereafter, the City will publish notice of an urban renewal offering
under the Iowa urban renewal statute stating criteria on which it invites proposals, which criteria
will be tailored to the proposal it desiresto accept, and state it has received a proposal it intends
to accept unless a competing proposal is submitted within a stated time. In this case, the existing
Request for Proposals determined that a six week period was the appropriate time to allow for
development of competitive proposals. After expiration of that offering period and'a public
hearing, the City will formally accept a proposal for development of this site. However, this
procedure undermines the requirement for a "reasonable competitive bidding process". Even
though there is substantial developer interest in this site now, it is very unlikely any developer
will submit a competing proposal under this procedure, since it appears that the fix is in, that a
competing proposal is unlikely to be given fair consideration, and the developer will only be
wasting its money in an effort to compete. This process violates the spirit and letter of the Iowa
urban renewal statute and the Iowa Supreme Court decision described above.
If the City wishes to consider proposals for development of student housing or hotels on this site,
then the City Council must reject all existing proposals for development of the Court Street/Linn
Street site and start this offering process over. It should then clarify the allowable uses for which
development will be allowed, amend the Master Plan and urban renewal plan as necessary to
reflect those allowable uses, and clearly communicate these allowable uses and the criteria on
which it will judge competitive proposals, before it again invites submission of proposals for
development of this site.
November 6, 2014
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
ii Michael Hayes
For the Firm
RMH
BEL"0810\0001\11-6-14 City Council Letter(01994005-2).DOC
cc: Michael Oliveira, Marian Karr, Eleanor A Dilkes, Tom Markus
November 6, 2014
Mayor of Iowa City and Counsel Members
410 E. Washington Street NOV -6 Ph' 3: 00
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -CITY CLERK
RE: Development is the wrong use for the Court Street/Linn Street site' VA CI
Dear Mr. Hayek and Counsel Members,
After the 2006 tornado, in April 2008, the City acquired the former St Patrick Church site at 435
S. Linn Street, using $3,593,279 of parking system revenues, as a site for a city parking garage.
This is the site for which the City recently requested proposals for private, non -parking garage
redevelopment, as the Court St/Linn St Redevelopment Site.
In January 2013, the City amended its comprehensive plan by adopting a Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The new development contemplated by this Master Plan in the
Downtown and South Downtown Subdistricts of the planning area will generate an additional
parking demand of 3,449 parking spaces and the Master Plan only contemplates that the private
developers and the city together will provide 1930 of the needed parking spaces within these two
subdistricts, leaving a shortfall of parking spaces needed to serve this expected demand of 1615
parking spaces. Furthermore, this Master Plan contemplated that the City would provide 1341 of
those 1615 new parking spaces by constructing parking garages on the south side of Washington
Street between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street, at 435 S. Linn Street, and on the south side of
Court Street between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street, and would provide a surface parking lot
on the west side of the alley between Harrison Street and Court Street.
The Master Plan specifically provided that the 435 S. Linn Street property should be developed as
a mixed use development including a 600 car parking garage, 112 residential units (which would
need 197 of those parking spaces) and 8,000 square feet of commercial space.
There is already a shortage of parking in the Downtown and South Downtown Subdistricts, as well
as for uses in adjacent blocks, created by the existing development within these subdistricts and
the adjacent blocks that is not presently served by onsite parking. The Master Plan does not address
solving that existing parking demand.
The Master Plan specifically stated: "In order to achieve the desired level of development within
the South Downtown District, the City must address parking demand through a parking district
approach. Instead of addressing parking on a project -by -project or site -by -site basis, which
diminishes the urban nature of a particular area, parking must be provided on a district wide basis.
This means utilizing parking structures, shared parking, and demand pricing to address demand.
Two parking structures are shown in the South Downtown Plan, and would help address the high
demand in the district."
The City already owns the 435 S Linn Street site which could provide part of the solution to these
parking needs and that would be the best use of this site. The three proposals that the City staff is
recommending to the City Council for private development of 435 S. Linn Street would only
exacerbate the parking problems in the area as they involve hotel and student housing uses not
contemplated by the Master Plan in determining its parking needs, would not provide all needed
parking for those uses on site, and would increase the parking shortages in the area Private
redevelopment of this site is the wrong use for this site and the City should reject all proposals and
should instead pursue development of a parking structure on this site.
Respectfully yours,
Cleo bConnell
Resid"et*,Of Iowa City, Iowa
C-)
n
c:)
CD
November 6, 2014 FILED
Mayor of Iowa City and Counsel Members
410 E. Washington Street 2014 flO - 6 Pff 3: 0
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
CITY CLERA
RE: The City Council should reject the proposals for the Court SA, 91YKvent site.
Dear Mr. Hayek and Counsel Members,
On May 30, 2014, the Iowa City staff sent out a Request for Proposals for Private Redevelopment
for the Court St/Linn St Redevelopment Site. This RFP stated that the goals for the project
included:
• An urban building generally consistent with the goals of the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan.
• A variety of uses will be considered, including hotel, residential, office and/or retail.
• A minimum of 20,000 square feet of office space oriented towards research, business
accelerator/incubation type users.
• If residential uses are proposed, the following residential products are encouraged: units
oriented to permanent residents; higher quality/higher amenity units; units affordable to
`workforce housing" households (being households earning between 80% and 120% of
Area Median Income); and affordable housing (being households earning less than 80% of
Area Median Income).
• An active first floor frontage to a depth of at least 30 feet.
• The designs submitted were to be based upon the Form Based Code zoning standards that
had not then be adopted or applied by rezoning to the Court St/Linn St site.
The City received 6 proposals for redevelopment of the Court St/Linn St site. The city committee
reviewing the proposals concluded that all 6 proposals met offering criteria and recommended
three proposals for consideration by City Council. All of these recommended proposals vary
materially from and are inconsistent with the Master Plan for development of Court St/Linn St site.
The HUB at Iowa City proposal by Core Campus is to develop a 15 story building containing 430
student housing units with 818 beds, 20,215 square feet of office space and 497 parking spaces.
This use is not consistent with the goals of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossing Master Plan.
The Master Plan stated that student housing should only be located in the University Subdistrict,
the northern part of the West Gateway Subdistrict and the portion of the South Downtown
Subdistrict located between Burlington, Clinton, Court and Madison Streets. It further only
contemplated development of 584 beds of student housing in the designated student housing area
of the South Downtown Subdistrict and development of 589 other housing units throughout the
remainder of the South Downtown Subdistrict. The Master Plan is also concerned that the
proximity of student housing discourages development of other housing types nearby. While it
alleges that its market also includes young professionals, it does not provide any information
showing that any of the units are higher qualify/higher amenity units and its average square footage
is 475 sf for a 1 -bedroom unit, 800 sf for a 2 -bedroom unit and 1075 sf for a 3 -bedroom unit, and
its schematic floor plans appear to show a similar size unit on all floors for each bedroom unit
type, rather than varying units sizes.
The CA Ventures proposal is to develop a 117 room hotel, 3,500 gross square feet of retail space,
293 student housing units containing 467 beds, and 272 parking spaces, in three towers above
ground. Both the student housing and the hotel usage are inconsistent with the goals of the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossing Master Plan for this site. The Master Plan contemplates hotel
and motel uses only in the Park and West Gateway Subdistricts. Furthermore, the residential rent
contained in this proposal is $1179 per bed per month, well above the existing rental rate for
student housing in Iowa City. This proposal does not show any of the required office space, but
states in writing that as a design alternative, it could add 20,000 square feet of office space on and
between the two residential towers, but does not show how that would modify its design or
financial analysis. Again, its average unit sizes are just over 550 sf for a 1 -bedroom apartment and
around 865 sf for a 2 -bedroom apartment with most 2 -bedroom apartments at 850 sf. These unit
sizes are unlikely to attract non -student tenants.
The Linn and Court Proposal by Sherman Associates is to develop a 146 room hotel, 23,000 square
feet of flex office space, 91 market rate apartments with 107 beds at an average square footage of
799 sf per apartment and an average monthly rent of $1155 per bed per month. Again, the hotel
use is inconsistent with the goals of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossing Master Plan for this
site. The Des Moines Register also carried an article on October 5, 2014 in the Business Section
detailing the issues Sherman Associates is having in timely performing its obligations under
existing urban renewal projects in Des Moines, Iowa, included stalled or delayed projects,
delinquent property tax payments and alleged construction defects. This developer's submission
also listed a number of lawsuits that have arisen at its existing projects.
Further, if student housing and hotel uses are permissible, it materially increases the ability for a
developer to obtain private sector financing without need for City financial incentives. If other
developers had known the City would approve student housing and hotel uses, even though they
were inconsistent with the Master Plan for this area, then they well may have submitted different
proposals than were submitted and other developers who did not submit may have been interested
in submitting proposals. The fact that the request for proposals did not clearly communicate the
criteria the City was going to use in selecting a developer and the issues discussed above with the
recommended development proposals are reasons enough that the City should reject all existing
proposals and reconsider the use of the Court St/Linn St site.
If the City is willing to consider student housing and hotel uses on this site, then it should reject
all of the proposals submitted this time, amend its Master Plan and Urban Renewal Plan
accordingly, revise its request for proposals to unambiguously set forth the criteria on which all
proposals will be judged, and only then resolicit new development proposals.
Respectfully yours,
e;
Cleo McConnell,
a
Resident of Iowa City, Iowa
Cn
."..'
rn
ca
.
C:)
P R E S T G E
i r`
e
November 6, 2014
Mayor of Iowa City and Council Members
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Hayek and Council Members:
The current request for proposals of the Court St/Linn St site is an example of the
processes gone amok and fails to follow the statutory requirements for Iowa City to
located in an urban renewal project for redevelopment.
planning
sell land
On October 23, 2012, the City Council adopted the 10th Amendment to the City -University Project
1 Urban Renewal Plan to include the Riverfront Crossings area as part of the urban renewal
project covering the downtown area. This 10th Amendment did not designate Court St/Linn St
site as a disposition parcel for redevelopment and did not adopt specific land use provisions for
this property. While the City Council has since adopted two additional amendments to the City -
University Project I Urban Renewal Plan to provide for sale and redevelopment of other parcels in
this Urban Renewal Area, including other land in the Riverfront Crossings Area, it has not
amended to this urban renewal plan to provide for sale and redevelopment of the Court St/Linn St
site.
On January 22, 2013, the City Council adopted the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan as an amended to the City's comprehensive plan to revise the allowable development in the
area covered by that Master Plan. This plan was developed with significant public input gathered
through a series of public workshops and focus group sessions over many months prior to its
adoption. This Master Plan divided the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area into 8
subdistricts with detailed development planning guidelines for each area. The Court St/Linn St
site is part of the South Downtown District. This Master Plan stated a number of planning
objectives that are applicable to redevelopment of the Court St/Lin St site:
• Student housing should occur only in the University Subdistrict, the northern part of the
West Riverfront Subdistrict, and the portion of the South Downtown District bounded by
Burlington Street, Clinton Street, Court Street and Madison Street.
• Hotel and motel uses should only occur in the Park and West Riverfront Subdistricts.
• There is a need to develop additional housing products besides student housing
throughout the area covered by the Master Plan. The amount and proximity of student
housing adversely affects the development of other housing types. There is an identified
need to develop higher -quality, higher -amenity housing aimed at young professionals and
329 E Court Street Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240
319.512.7616
admin@prestigeprop.com
N
C=
i
The current request for proposals of the Court St/Linn St site is an example of the
processes gone amok and fails to follow the statutory requirements for Iowa City to
located in an urban renewal project for redevelopment.
planning
sell land
On October 23, 2012, the City Council adopted the 10th Amendment to the City -University Project
1 Urban Renewal Plan to include the Riverfront Crossings area as part of the urban renewal
project covering the downtown area. This 10th Amendment did not designate Court St/Linn St
site as a disposition parcel for redevelopment and did not adopt specific land use provisions for
this property. While the City Council has since adopted two additional amendments to the City -
University Project I Urban Renewal Plan to provide for sale and redevelopment of other parcels in
this Urban Renewal Area, including other land in the Riverfront Crossings Area, it has not
amended to this urban renewal plan to provide for sale and redevelopment of the Court St/Linn St
site.
On January 22, 2013, the City Council adopted the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan as an amended to the City's comprehensive plan to revise the allowable development in the
area covered by that Master Plan. This plan was developed with significant public input gathered
through a series of public workshops and focus group sessions over many months prior to its
adoption. This Master Plan divided the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area into 8
subdistricts with detailed development planning guidelines for each area. The Court St/Linn St
site is part of the South Downtown District. This Master Plan stated a number of planning
objectives that are applicable to redevelopment of the Court St/Lin St site:
• Student housing should occur only in the University Subdistrict, the northern part of the
West Riverfront Subdistrict, and the portion of the South Downtown District bounded by
Burlington Street, Clinton Street, Court Street and Madison Street.
• Hotel and motel uses should only occur in the Park and West Riverfront Subdistricts.
• There is a need to develop additional housing products besides student housing
throughout the area covered by the Master Plan. The amount and proximity of student
housing adversely affects the development of other housing types. There is an identified
need to develop higher -quality, higher -amenity housing aimed at young professionals and
329 E Court Street Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240
319.512.7616
admin@prestigeprop.com
empty -nesters, housing targeted for workforce employees, and, as provided in a May 20,
2014 amendment to the Master Plan, affordable housing.
• There is a need for additional office space.
• There is a need to address parking on district wide basis, not just on a project -by -project or
site -by -site basis, and the City needs to provide parking structures to meet that need.
• New development in the Downtown and South Downtown Subdistricts will generate a
demand for 3,449 additional parking spaces, but the plan only has the private developers
and city providing 1,930 additional parking spaces, with the City providing 1,341 of those
spaces through 3 parking garages and a surface parking lot.
• The Court St/Linn St site was specifically identified for development with a 600 car parking
garage, 112 residential units and 8,000 square feet of commercial space.
At the September 3, 2013 meeting of the Economic Development Committee of the City Council,
City staff indicated it had talked with several developers about possible private development of
the Court St/Linn St site and developers expressed interest in developing student housing or
hotels on the site. Councilwoman, Payne stated that the Master Plan did not contemplate student
housing at this location, but closer to the river. Councilwoman Mims stated that student housing
would be the last thing they want to spark development of the area and that she is not interested
in a project that is predominantly student -oriented. Councilwoman Payne concurred. City staff
asked about hotel development and stated there is developer interest but not without incentives.
Mayor Hayek stated he would not be interested in incenting student housing.
Notwithstanding this discussion with the Economic Development Committee, the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan has not been amended to provide for student housing or hotel
uses in areas other than those originally designated under the Master Plan or to provide for other
uses on the Court St/Linn St site.
Further, although the City -University Project 1 Urban Renewal Plan has not been amended to
show the Court St/Linn St site as a disposition parcel or to specify uses for that parcel and
although the City Council did not authorize the City staff to request proposals for redevelopment
of the Court St/Linn St site, on May 30, 2014, the City staff sent out a Request for Proposals for
Private Redevelopment for the Court St/Linn St Redevelopment Site.. This RFP stated that the
goals for the project included:
• An urban building generally consistent with the goals of the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan.
• A variety of uses will be considered, including hotel, residential, office and/or retail.
• A minimum of 20,000 square feet of office space oriented towards research, business
accelerator/incubation type users.
• If residential uses are proposed, the following residential products are encouraged: units
oriented to permanent residents; higher quality/higher amenity units; units affordable to
'workforce housing" households (being households earning between 80% Wd 120% of
Area Median Income); and affordable housing (being households earn§gessA_han 80% of
Area Median Income). -
• An active first floor frontage to a depth of at least 30 feet. C-)
r--
cC �
329 E Court Street Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240_
319.512.7616=
admin@prestigeprop.com GJ
ray
• The designs submitted were to be based upon the Form Based Code zoning standards that
had not then be adopted or applied by rezoning to the Court St/Linn St site.
The City received 6 proposals for redevelopment of the Court St/Linn St site. The city committee
reviewing the proposals concluded that all 6 proposals met offering criteria and recommended
three proposals for consideration by City Council. All of these recommended proposals vary
materially from and are inconsistent with the Master Plan for development of Court St/Linn St
site. One recommended proposal is for 430 student units containing 818 beds, 20,215 square feet
of office space, and 497 parking spaces. A second recommended proposal is for a 117 room hotel,
3,500 square feet of retail space, 293 student housing units containing 467 beds, and 272 parking
spaces. The third recommended proposal is for a 146 room hotel, 23,000 square feet of flex office
space, 91 market rate apartments with 107 beds, at an average square footage of 799 sf per unit.
The Iowa Code provides that a City may dispose of real property in an urban renewal area to
private developers only under a reasonable competitive bidding procedure. The Iowa Supreme
Court held that it violated this statute when a city waived compliance with bidding requirements
after the bids were submitted and accepted a bid that did not comply with the bidding
requirements. It stated: "Public policy underlies the requirements of competitive bidding. The
purpose of the statute is that each bidder, actual or possible, shall be put upon the same footing.
Interested purchasers should be given equal opportunity to bid on the land bearing the same
restrictions. The municipal authorities should not be permitted to waive any substantial variance
between the conditions under which the bids are invited and the proposals submitted. If any
bidder is relieved from conforming to the conditions which impose some duty upon him, or from
strict performance of the terms of the invitation to bid, such bidder is not contracting in fair
competition with those bidders who propose to be bound by all conditions. An indispensable
element of such sale is the existence of a definite common standard to which all competitive
proposals alike relate."
In this case Prairie Sun Building Services, LLC submitted a proposal that substantially conformed
to the Master Plan in all respects, but did not include either student housing or hotels as it did not
understand that those were allowable uses for this site under the Master Plan. We spent
thousands of dollars preparing conceptual architectural plans and our proposal. If we had known
that student housing was allowable we would have submitted a different proposal that did not
require any city subsidies for development. Further, if it was clear that student housing and hotel
uses were allowable, then the City may well have received more than 6 proposals.
The City. Attorney claims that the Iowa City process is not a true offering under the Iowa urban
renewal statute, but is a preliminary solicitation of proposals. That the City will then negotiate a
deal with the party submitting the proposal it likes best, then amend its comprehensive plan and
urban renewal plans, and thereafter the City will publish an urban renewal offering under the.
statute stating the criteria on which it invites proposals, that it has received a propogl it intends
to accept unless competing proposals are submitted within a stated time per*d, whish likely will
be too short to a time for others to develop a reasonably competitive pro Wil, aAl theRMnly
formally accept the selected proposal after this second offering period and a Y9 hring.-many
of the original proposers desire to complete further, then they must spend Q4nb�l adEdonal
time and money to revise their proposals, knowing it is unlikely the city will ay gj&e oti
329 E Court Street Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240
319.512.7616.
admin@prestigeprop.com
proposals a fair consideration. This process used by Iowa City violates the letter and spirit of the
Iowa urban renewal statute and the Iowa Supreme Court decision described above.
The City Council should (1) reject all existing proposals, (2) determine whether this site should in
fact be privately developed or should be developed as a parking garage as set forth in the Master
Plan, (3) if they chose to have this site privately developed, clarify the development criteria on
which they plan to judge competitive proposals, amend the comprehensive plan and urban
renewal plan as necessary to reflect those competitive criteria, and clearly communicate those
criteria in the request for proposals, (4) then publish notice again soliciting proposals for
development of this site, (5) allow. sufficient time for interested developers to prepare a
competitive proposal for the complexity of the project the City desires, and (6) thereafter after a
public hearing select a proposal that meets all of the stated criteria.
Our objective is to put some transparency into the process. Hopefully, you will do the right thing
and consider the contents of this letter.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Mike Oliveira
General Manager, Prestige Properties LLC. Family of Companies.
329 E Court Street Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240
319.512.7616
admin@prestigeprop.com
w
r~
rr:
CA)
329 E Court Street Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240
319.512.7616
admin@prestigeprop.com
11�4
4f(6)
Karr
From: Jeff Davidson
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:01 PM
To: Marian Karr
Cc: Simon Andrew
Subject: 629 S. Riverside correspondence
Attachments: Who is Emrico.doc
From: cherylcruise@aol.com [mailto:cherylcruise@aol-com]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Matt Hayek
Subject: Questions I have about a TIF on Riverside Dr before it gets on the agenda
Matt,
sent this out to all the council members but spelled your name wrong! Now trying again for your copy :)
Best regards,
Cheryl Cruise
Questions about a TIF on Riverside Drive before it gets on the agenda:
Numbers provided:
Total cost= $16,106,000
Projected loan= $10,029,000 UICCU 62.27%
TIF "needed"= $1,810,000 11.24%
Investor capital= $4,267,000 26.49%
Expected rate of return= 8.5%
Who is Emrico? Are there connections between these investors and the
entities creating the numbers- Build to Suit, Southgate Development,
appraiser Rick Inman, or UICCU? Any conflicts of interest?
Are these firm bids for the project or rough estimates that could go up or
down? How competitive are they? Is Build to Suit or Southgate really the
builder? Would other appraisers agree on the projected value of the
property?
What banks were approached? Just the Credit Union? Other banks may loan
80% rather than 75%. (or 62%)
Couldn't there just be more investors, more capital in?
Are these structured as condos with low beginning taxes relative to
commercial apartments which are just beginning to get a break on high taxes
and will take years to achieve the same status as residential? (Many people
did not make coops out of their apartments.)
Why 120% AMI on the affordable rentals which are for workforce housing?
That would be about 66K for a one person grad student/medical resident.
Who are these lucky 12 when all others are likely to be as much or more
impoverished? Most renters in town have incomes less than AMI. Do these
12 "affordable" units pay any property taxes? .... (since city public housing
and LIHTCs pay no property tax.) I thought that workforce affordable
housing was supposed to be 80% AMI.
Does the $1.20 per sq ft rental charge suggested include utilities, cable, wifi?
What kinds of tax breaks does the property get already from the solar
rebates, both Federal and State?
The gap making TIF "necessary" has to do with demolition costs and putting
in underground parking. Apartments all over town have paid these costs
without a subsidy. The desire to have nice materials on the exterior is now a
requirement to please the city design team and not a necessity of subsidy.
While "virtually no west side development" has happened since Grandview
was remodeled, there are hundreds of apartments in the area of the UIHC
complex which have been remodeled or maintained during the last 10 years
and which house non -undergraduates in quiet buildings at a reasonable cost.
Of course, they are not considered luxurious.
Couldn't investors just accept a little less ROI?
Wouldn't rents eventually just be raised as others do to cover the costs?
There is no guarantee of forever reasonable costs for luxury apartments.
Usually one pays more to stay in a luxury hotel as compared to a more
modest brand.
Why would taxpayers ever want to subsidize luxury apartments within a
mile of downtown so that grad students can pay the same amount as those in
non luxury units? Lots of apartments have been built south of Burlington
and up Benton Street with no subsidy and paying full tax loads while
borrowing money at high interest rates.
How could this be considered a blighted area when it was just unfortunate to
have tornado damage and flood damage? Other nice new structures have
gone up in the area since the disasters including a hotel and Staples, and
there is a planned McDonalds upgrade.
I am representative of many local developers who are always looking for
good, close -in projects to develop or redevelop and the opportunities are
scarce. We would be happy to do so without a TIF.
This project is going to go forward with or without a subsidy. Let's reserve
the TIF possibility for something different.
Cheryl Cruise, taxpayer
Iowa City, IA
Marian Karr
From:
Jeff Davidson
Sent:
Monday, November 10, 2014 3:44 PM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
FW: November 9, 2014 message to Mayor and City Council; 629 S. Riverside Drive
Marian, I fixed one typo. JD
From: Jeff Davidson
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:59 PM
To: 'cherylcruise@aol.com'
Cc: Tom Markus; Geoff Fruin; Simon Andrew; Marian Karr
Subject: November 9, 2014 message to Mayor and City Council; 629 S. Riverside Drive
Hello Cheryl.
Your message to the Mayor and City Council was forwarded to me by the City Manager's Office for response. I will
attempt to address the points in your correspondence.
The developer EMRICO Properties LLC has requested Tax Increment Financing assistance for their project at 629 S.
Riverside Drive. This has been vetted through our standard financial gap analysis process that all requests for public
financial assistance are subjected to by the City of Iowa City. A financial gap of $1.81 million has been identified.
EMRICO Properties is an LLC that has been established for this project. Our contact person is local businessperson
Kevin Hanick.
For the purpose of the financial gap analysis the City contracts with a private third party, the National Development
Council. NDC is a private non-profit entity that assists local municipal governments across the country with evaluating
financing arrangements for development projects. This arrangement allows us to tap into the extensive knowledge of
NDC's financial experts. They exhaustively evaluate the financing components called out in your message: percentage
of senior debt, non-bank equity, construction costs, tax credits, rental rates, and Return on Investment. Our arrangement
allows this evaluation to occur between NDC and the developer, so that confidential financial information and proprietary
business information can be part of the evaluation but not disclosed publically. We then receive a final report from NDC
summarizing their analysis and identifying a financial gap, if any. The report for this project can be found on page 18 of
the October 18, 2014 City Council Economic Development Committee meeting packet:
http://www.icqov.org/docs/auto/boards/10-13-2014 CouncilEconomicDevelopmentCommittee Agenda.pdf
The City Council has established a definition of Workforce Housing of 80-120% of Area Median Income, and the 12 units
identified for this project will be required to meet that definition. This was negotiated with the developer. The City is
currently evaluating a requirement for affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings district, so this provision may change
for future projects receiving public financial assistance.
Our analysis has identified the Riverside Drive area as one where financial risk factors may be inhibiting redevelopment
activities and justify public financial assistance. The area does meet the State Code definition of a blighted property. It is
certainly our hope that projects such as the one proposed for 629 S. Riverside Drive will be a driving force in eliminating
these risk factors, reducing the need for public financial assistance on future projects.
Thanks for your message. This response will be provided to the Mayor and City Council.
Jeff Davidson, Economic Development Administrator
The City of Iowa City.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 4f(7)
M D U M
ESU
RAN
Date: November 6, 2014
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Ronald R. Knoche, City Engineer
Re: Competitive Quotation Results
Normandy Drive Restoration Project, Phase IIIA
Competitive quotations for the Normandy Drive Restoration Project, Phase IIIA were
opened on October 22, 2014 and the following quotes were received:
Advanced Electric Iowa City, IA $ 29,303.90
Neumiller Electric Iowa City, IA $ 29,650.73
Engineer's Estimate $ 21,992.00
Parks and Recreation recommended and the City Manager awarded the contract to
Advanced Electric of Iowa City, Iowa. The project will be funded by the General fund.
Fairmeadows Park Public Restroom
Competitive quotations for the Fairmeadows Park Public Restroom Project were opened
on October 23, 2014 and the following quotes were received:
Seydel Construction Iowa City, IA $ 103,800.00
Schafbuch Concrete Iowa City, IA $ 87,555.00
Engineer's Estimate $ 90,000.00
Parks and Recreation recommended and the City Manager awarded the contract to
Seydel Construction of Iowa City, Iowa. Due to Schafbuch Concrete's lack of any
building construction experience, they are not considered a responsible bidder. The
project will be funded by the General fund.
Marian Karr
From: Frommelt, Gregory J <gregory-frommelt@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:27 PM
To: Council
Subject: Iowa City Narratives Project: Interview Request
Hello!
My name is Greg Frommelt and I am currently a freshmen at the University of Iowa. I have been assigned a
group project entitled "Iowa City Narratives" for my Rhetoric class and I was hoping the City Council could
help me in the completion of this project. The project consists of telling a rather unknown or important story
from the community in a 8 minute podcast. Me and my group had previously investigated the local bar "The
Field House" for a related project that led us to the topic we wish to cover after hearing of the affects of the 21 -
Ordinance on its business. We wish to tell both sides of the 21 -Ordinance story and we knew the city council
would be a good source for an interview. You can see examples of previous projects on
the httv:Hideal.uiowa.edu/ page. I look forward to being in contact with you! My contact information is listed
below.
Thank You!
Greg Frommelt
Cell: 641-204-9375
Email: gregoiy-frommelt@,uiowa.edu
Accredited by
National Institute of
Senior Centers
Director, Linda Kopping
Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
28 South Linn Street,
Iowa City Iowa 52240
Dear Linda
I am pleased to officially inform you that the Accreditation Board met on November 8, 2012 and
unanimously approved the recommendation for accreditation of the Iowa City/Johnson County
Senior Center. Successfully achieving accreditation status takes the work of many people both in the
senior center and in the community. When these two groups work together the rewards will be felt
for many years to come. Your organization demonstrates outstanding leadership and commitment to
quality programs and services. This letter is your official notification that Iowa City/Johnson County
Senior Center has been accredited by NCOA/NISC for a period of five years (November 8, 2012
through November 8, 2017).
Your Peer Reviewer observed many strengths of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center. These
included:
• An excellent process to prepare for accreditation, including an operational assessment,
development of Goals and Objectives, and a Strategic Plan,
• Multiple collaborations with community partners,
• Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization,
• Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours with volunteer building supervisors,
• Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs and activities, showcased in an
exceptional program guide,
• Important stewardship of a historic building in the community.
Suggestions for the future included:
Develop long term outcome measures to include with other trend and benchmark reports,
Review staffing pattern vis-a-vis using volunteers as sole support to facility open times (usually on
evening or weekends),
National Council on Aging
1901 L Street NW 41h Floor Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202-479-1200 • TDD 202-479-6674 • Fax 202-479-0735 • http://Www.ncoa.org
• Consider the development of a Volunteer Coordinator position to administer and focus on this
important human asset,
• Investigate Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for 501(c)(3) Friends Group, if warranted,
• Investigate an updated electronic system to keep and gather participant and program records,
• Discuss with City Attorney's Office their position and case law regarding the release of personal
participant information,
• Review, monitor, and revise old lease arrangements for the kitchen areas to meet current Center
needs.
We are pleased to have the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center on the list of more than 130
senior centers who meet the standards as developed by NISC. These are centers that are held up as
models for others to follow. We know that you and your staff will continue to improve and adapt to
meet the changing needs of the older population. We congratulate you and your staff in striving to
meet the needs of the older population in your community.
Sincerely,
Maureen Arsenault
NISC Program Manager
National Council on Aging
1901 L Street NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202-479-1200 • TDD 202-479-6674 • Fax 202-479-0735 • http://Www.ncoa.org
WHEREAS, The vast majority of city sponsored senior services are provided through the Seni
Center (Nka The Center). The Vision of the Senior Center is that it "will be the commun'tie
primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promo
optimal aging". The Mission n
o
r
ser'c
aedngulatsgebmy eonfft,erainngd pinroteglrleacmtusaal ongdroservS.icesothat pnrrmoo
0m
m
sriooCttseo
e
"
n
wwo
tv
e
ee
c
rllI
l
ln
emso
evs,tesoocpiatiml inaltearagcintigona, mcoonmgmoulnd
public through intergeneration
programming and community outreach. ",* and
WHEREAS, According to the United States Census Bureau, the segments of the United Stat
65 years ana o1cer. Statistics on Me State UT r7na
population is growing in similar fashion-, and
WHEREAS, The City Council recently adopted its 2014-15 Strategic Plan, which includes
*Wa Citv S rateoic Plan also includi
iw�' sli
WINC I 'III yNaINT 1=0
citizens; and
and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City residents in order to ensure that municipal services a
best meeting the needs of the population; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has expressed a desire to evaluate the current services offere
by the Senior Center in order to ensure that the City Is effectively meeting the needs of th-
senior population within the community. I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
1111111 `I�IIIIIJJIIIIJII
desirable expertise not available from applicants who reside in Iowa City.
Resolution No.
Page 2
3. Applications for membership on the Senior Services Committee shall be announced,
advertised, and available in the same manner as those for all City boards and commissions. The
terrn of members shall commence immediately upon City Council'appointment.
4City Council shall select the Chair, who when present will preside over all meetings, and
the Vice -Chair, who will serve as chair in absence of the Chair.
5. The City Manager and City Clerk, or their designees, shall staff the Senior Services
Committee.
6, The Senior Services or, shall determine the frequency and conduct of its
meetings. The meetings will be open to the public in accordance with Chapter 21 of the Iowa
Code,
7. The Senior Services Committee shall serve from May 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014 and
shall have an organizational meeting no later than June 13, 2014.
A, To
g
evaluate the current vision, mission, programmin, and recent
accomplishments of the Senior Center, as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report.
Further, and to review the current demographics of the participants served by
existing operations. Such evaluation should consider the 2013 Senior Center
Survey of Members, Former Members and Non -Members, as well as other
available data sources from the Senior Center, and determine whether segments
of the senior population are not accessing available services. A summary of this
committee evaluation and its related findings shall be included in the final written
B. To make recommendations to the City Council on how Iowa City should use
current financial and physical resources to meet the needs of Iowa City seniors.
These recommendations should consider the City's use of existing resources and
the vision, mission and programming required to more effectively serve the
growing senior population in the community in accordance with the inclusive and
sustainable values expressed in the City's Strategic Plan. Such recommendations
shall include commentary regarding the specific segments of the senior population
that they are intended to serve,
C. To identify any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be hindering
the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make recommendations that
would minimize or eliminate such obstacles.
9. The Senior Services Committee shall submit a written report to the City Council by
December 1, 2014, that responds to each of the charges listed above and that contains
recommendations, if any, with respect to each of the charges.
7y the Uty Uounc
I
Resolution
Page 3
Passed and approved this __t�tt dayof____jftbrua-ry_,2014.
J
Resolution No. 14-37
Page
It Nvas moved by Mims — and seconded by Pavne tile
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Botchway
Dickens
Dobyns
flayek
Mims
Payne
93=
City of Iowa Cit �
y
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney QW,
DATE: October 2, 2014
RE: St. Mary's Appeal from Historic Preservation Commission's Decision Denying
Certificate of Appropriateness for window replacement
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 provisions of the City
Code;and
2. Whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious.
A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the
facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 8 (Iowa
1997).
The above -stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. Council is not entitled to
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 or did act arbitrarily or capriciously you may, in conformity with the
provisions of the Historic Preservation regulations, reverse or modify, wholly or partly,
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 be bound by the same
guidelines and rules that govern the Commission's decisions on applications for
certificates of appropriateness.
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, at Tuesday night's meeting, you are in need of any
additional information in order to make a decision you should continue the public hearing
and defer a 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 Tuesday 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 Historic Preservation Commission
October 2, 2014
Page 2
concerning the application. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated.
I will be available to answer questions at your meeting on Tuesday.
Cc: Mike Pugh, attorney for applicant by email
Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
®,.IT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 2, 2014
To: City Council
From: Ginalie Swaim, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission
Re: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission decision -220 E. Jefferson Street
Introduction: At our meeting on August 14 the Historic Preservation Commission denied an
application to replace 28 windows at 220 E. Jefferson Street (St. Mary's Rectory). The rectory
along with St. Mary's Church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is an Iowa
City Historic Landmark. It is also located within the Jefferson Street Historic District. St. Mary's,
the applicant, has appealed the Commission's decision.
Guidelines: When considering window replacement, the Commission follows the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for treatment of historic buildings. These standards are incorporated into
the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, the adopted guidelines the Commission uses to
review applications (see attached Exhibit A excerpts from Secretary of Interior's standard and
Exhibit B, excerpts from the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook).
The guidelines recognize that windows are an important element of a historic building and
should be preserved when possible. Documentation of deterioration is required in order for the
Commission to approve replacement windows. A subcommittee of the Commission, including a
member who is a building contractor knowledgeable of window repair, visited the rectory and
examined the windows. We found that although the windows are in need of routine
maintenance, including repainting, putty repair and rope replacement (several local contractors
have expertise correcting these conditions), the overall condition of the windows is good.
Conditions that warrant replacement, such as rotting or warped wood, were not evident.
Concerns about ease of operation can be addressed by replacement of the broken sash cords.
Concerns about energy efficiency can be addressed by repair or replacement of the storm
windows. Concerns about peeling lead paint, a condition common to many historic buildings,
can be addressed by a painting contractor.
Replacement Windows: When the Commission does find that window sashes are in
deteriorated condition, new sashes that match the historic ones are allowed. The model of
window replacement proposed by the applicant would not have matched the existing windows
and therefore would not meet the requirements even if the historic windows were found to be in
need of replacement.
Findings: Based on the information submitted by the applicant and the Commission's
subcommittee examination of the windows, the Commission found that the windows were not in
deteriorated condition and should be repaired rather than replaced.
Attachments: In addition to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Historic
Preservation Guidelines, your packet includes the Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness,
minutes of the August 14 and June 12 meetings at which this application was discussed, staff
reports, material submitted by the applicant, and information about historic windows and energy
efficiency.
Pugh I 100 SIXTH STREET
SUITE 102
CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241
PHONE 319-351-2028
FAX 319-351-1102
J, 1 11 �,, �m
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS PUGHHAGAN.COM
MPUGH@PUGHHAGAN.COM
August 28, 2014
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Ms. Marian Karr
City Clerk
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: Notice of Appeal
Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness
Dear Marian:
1 (171
This office represents St, Mary's Roman Catholic Church CSt. Mary's") with respect to
its Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for its proposed window replacement
project at 220 E. Jefferson Street, Iowa City.
Please consider this letter a notice of St. Mary's request to appeal to the City Council the
Historic Preservation Commissions denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness. A copy of
the Commission's decision is attached for reference.
Please forward this request to members of the City Council and please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration,
MJP/dab
cc: St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church
r- r- 1, C, N
5) c �N
(00021972)
Sincerely,
PUGH HAGAN PLC
me
is I I J. Pugh
I ,
a
W
Iowa C tv
Historic Preservation Commission
Garr 11,J!, 110 1? \K.,3shjno oii Str,,ct, low.i i itt I\ 52240
DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
220 E. Jefferson Street
A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at City Hall on August 14, 2014, at 5:30
p.m. The following members were present: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Andrew Litton, Pamela Michaud, Ben
Sandell and Ginalie Swaim. By a vote of 6-0, the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
proposed alteration at 220 E. Jefferson Street, a local Landmark and National Register property.
The proposed alteration consists of the replacement of existing windows in the rectory house, a total of
approximately twenty eight windows. The application was denied due to the following reasons:
The Commission found that the proposed work threatens to destroy an element of the historic
character of this house, and is therefore unacceptable. The existing historic windows are distinctive
features that significantly contribute to the building's historic character. Referring to the Iowa City
Historic Preservation Handbook, the guidelines recommend repair of existing historic windows, and
reserve replacement only for badly deteriorated windows. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation, on which the guidelines are based, state that distinctive features shall be preserved,
and deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, with exceptions for severe
deterioration. Based on inspection by members of the Commission and City staff, the Commission
determined that the historic windows are in good to fair condition and not deteriorated beyond repair.
The decision may be appealed to the City Council, which 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 filed with the City Clerk
no later than 10 business days after the date of the filing of this certificate.
Ginalie Swaim, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
�6
Cheryl Peter on, Preservation Consultant
Department of Development Services
I AY -t Zvt
Date
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AUGUST 14, 2014
EMMA HARVAT HALL
220 East Jefferson Street
Swaim said the Commission looked at this item at its June meeting. She said that after that
meeting, there was a subcommittee that looked at the windows later in June.
Peterson stated that this is a National Register property. She said it is a City landmark and is a
key, contributing property in the Jefferson Street Historic District.
Peterson said that on June 27th, the subcommittee was able to look at the windows again inside
and out. She said staff has the same recommendation, in that there is not the level of
deterioration such that the guidelines would allow replacement. Peterson said staff would
recommend repair, and the applicant can change out storms to be more functional and energy
efficient.
Peterson said these are really monumental windows in that they are bigger than most
residential -scale windows. She said they are all original. Peterson showed a view of the bay
window. She pointed out the detail on the window and the paint that is in need of replacing.
Peterson said that inside, a lot of the windows have the original finish. Peterson said the
screens/storms are not original to the building.
Peterson showed the west elevation and said she also had photographs inside of the main
sitting room and the window facing west. Peterson said the detail shows a metal weather-
stripping that was added at some point that shows the access for the weight pocket that was
under there. She showed the window in the stair landing on the west side. Peterson said it's
big, the glazing putty has failed, and it is painted shut at the upper sash. She said it needs
maintenance, because it is not working well, but it is not deteriorated.
Peterson showed the existing window with the more modern combination storm that is on it
now. She said one can see where the original storms would have hung from the hooks at the
top. Peterson said the staff report makes note of the distinctive brick mold that matches the
brick mold on the church.
Peterson said this is a proposal for a lot of windows, but the subcommittee did not see any that
meet the criteria for replacement. Swaim stated that the subcommittee was comprised of
Ackerson, Peterson, Alicia Trimble, Wagner, and herself.
Ozeroff stated that he is the applicant for this proposal. He said he does not know that anyone
has determined that these are actually the original windows. Ozeroff said the sash may have
been replaced at some point. Ozeroff said that one of the recommendations is to use some
beeswax and replace the sash cords to bring the windows to good, easily operable condition.
He said that one can see from the photographs that there is lead paint in every frame so that
there would have to be an extensive amount of abatement before any of that kind of work could
be done. Ozeroff said the replacement windows would totally encapsulate that to eliminate the
lead issue, so there is a hazardous material to consider there. He said it is a little more
complicated and expensive than the staff report would lead one to believe.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 14, 2014
Page 2 of 12
Ozeroff said that what was proposed would keep the historic character of the building and
possibly enhance it. He said the storm windows would no longer be needed so that one could
see the windows. Ozeroff said the windows cannot currently be seen; one just sees the 40 -
year -old storm windows. He said he doubts that anyone walking past on the street would even
know that the windows had been replaced, as they have shown consideration for maintaining
the historic character of the building.
Ozeroff said he understands where staff is coming from but does not agree with it. He said he
appreciates the Commission considering this request.
Swaim said the Commission is bound to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards that
there must be evidence of deterioration beyond repair to allow this certificate. Ozeroff asked if
those are federal guidelines, and Peterson confirmed this. Peterson said the Secretary of the
Interior Standards are available online in the Historic Preservation Handbook in Section 10.
She said the entire handbook is based on these Secretary of the Interior Standards.
Swaim said the subcommittee saw a good sample of the windows. Ackerson said the windows
structurally seemed intact, but painted shut, particularly on the top. Peterson said that makes
operation of the lower sash difficult. Ackerson said that is true particularly for the ones that had
lost their counterweights. He said he believes that is something that can be repaired.
MOTION: Litton moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of 28
windows at 220 East Jefferson Street. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 6-0 (Agran, Clore Corcoran, Durham, and Wagner absent).
Swaim said she appreciates the applicant's efforts to make this work. She said it is a big
undertaking, whatever gets done with it, and the Commission appreciates the applicant sticking
with it for the long life of the building.
Q -0
Staff Report August 8, 2014
Historic Review for 220 E. Jefferson Street
District: Jefferson Street Historic District
Classification: National Register, Local Landmark, and Key Contributing in district
The applicant, Jon Ozeroff, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 220 E. Jefferson Street,
a National Register listed property, Local Landmark, and Key Contributing property in the Jefferson Street
Historic District. The project consists of the replacement of existing windows in the rectory house.
Aunlicable Regulations and Guidelines
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.13 Windows
Staff Comments
St. Mary's Rectory (1891) was listed on the National register of historic places in February 1980 as a part of
the St. Mary's Church nomination. The rectory is a hip roof rectangular structure of frame construction with
brick veneer. It features a two story bay with polygonal roof on the right side of the facade and an arched
porch across the rest. These round arches echo the arched fenestration of the neighboring church. The
rectory appears to be basically unaltered. As a National Register site it is considered to be a Key Structure in
the Jefferson Street Historic District.
The proposed project consists of the replacement of existing windows with Pella Architect
Series aluminum clad wood windows. With the exception of two decorative leaded glass windows on the
front of building, all twenty eight windows on the first and second floors are proposed to be replaced.
The existing windows are larger and a higher grade compared to typical residential windows. The exterior
trim includes a rounded brick mold that appears to compliment a larger version found on the windows of St.
Mary's Church, which is located adjacent to the rectory.
The guidelines recommend repair of historic windows before replacement is considered. The applicant must
demonstrate deterioration of the existing windows before replacement is approved. If it is determined that
the existing windows are deteriorated to the extent that replacement should be considered, then new sashes
which are the same type and size as the existing windows and match the sash width, trim, divided lites, and
overall appearance of the historic windows are required.
Staff visited the rectory with the applicant and viewed a sampling of the windows. No signs of deterioration
such as wood rot, warping, or water damage were observed. With the exception of broken sash cords, which
are easily repairable, the windows appeared to be in overall good condition. Some routine maintenance
including painting and putty repair may be necessary.
The applicant expressed a concern about ease of window operation. Replacement of the sash cords so that
they are reattached to the weights and using bee's wax on the channels on the sides of the windows would
make them operate smoothly. That, with repair and caulking of the storm windows, would likely be more
cost effective than window replacement.
On June 27, four Commission members and a staff representative were allowed to inspect the windows, both
outside and inside the house. Conditions observed included peeling exterior paint, upper sash that have been
painted shut, missing/failed glazing putty, broken sash cords, and original interior wood finish that has been
damaged by years of sun exposure. The windows with the most sun damage are on the west side of the
house. All of the conditions observed appear to be maintenance items that require proper repair but do not
justify window replacement.
o
With regard to storm windows, the existing non -historic aluminum combination storm windows are over
thirty years old according to the Church's Property Management Commission. These storms have functional
problems and the proposed work includes their removal. Note that Historic Review is not required for the
installation or removal of storm windows.
Staff's opinion remains the same as stated in the initial report: that the applicant has not documented
deterioration to the extent that windows should be replaced. If the applicant is able to provide documentation
that some of the window sashes are deteriorated and not repairable then replacement sashes, which match the
sash width, trim and overall appearance of the historic windows, may be considered for those windows. This
approach would minimize the loss of historic material in this significant Landmark building.
Staff recommends repair of the existing historic windows by an experienced craftsperson/contractor,
following accepted preservation standards. Staff further recommends installation of new combination storm
windows, sized to fit inside the distinctive rounded brick mold trim. New storm windows, properly installed,
will improve the overall energy efficiency of the building envelope, while protecting the historic windows
from the elements.
Recommended Motion
Move to that deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of twenty eight windows at 220 E.
Jefferson Street.
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JUNE 12, 2014
EMMA HARVAT HALL
220 East Jefferson Street.
Miklo said this property is in the Jefferson Street Historic District but is also individually listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and is a local landmark. He stated that the proposal is to replace
the windows on the first and second floors, with the exception of the decorative, leaded glass windows
on the front of the property.
Miklo stated that the windows on this property are somewhat larger and of a higher grade than one
typically sees in a residential setting. He said they also have a rounded trim detail that reflects similar
detail on the church itself.
Miklo said the guidelines encourage the repair of windows, especially historic windows, before
replacement is considered, unless there is an indication that windows are severely deteriorated and
would be difficult to repair. He stated that he and Peterson both visited the property and saw a I
sampling of the windows but did not see any evidence of the sorts of things that normally lead to
window replacement, such as wood rot or warping. Miklo said that the windows they saw seemed to
be in very good condition compared to most that they see. Miklo said that even the glazing was in
somewhat good shape. He said that, as with any window, periodic maintenance in terms of painting
and repairing the glazing putty would be expected.
Miklo said they did observe that the sash cords were broken, and therefore the windows were a little
more difficult to open than usual. He said that a solution to that would be to repair the sash cords — a
relatively simple fix.
Miklo said that Peterson has some expertise in terms of having attended training courses on
preservation of historic windows, and, based on staff's observation, they did not find windows that
warranted replacement. Miklo said that, based on the literature and information from the National
Trust and the State Historical Society, staff feels that repair of these windows may be a more cost-
effective approach compared to replacement.
Miklo said that at this point, staff does not recommend approval of the application. He said that if
certain windows are found or demonstrated to be in poor condition, as the guidelines require, then
staff would recommend replacement of just those windows with replacement sashes that do not
obscure the trim and that keep the same profile and design of the existing windows. Miklo said staff's
recommendation is to deny the application, as submitted, but the alternative motion is to approve the
replacement of just those windows that are determined to be in poor condition.
Corcoran asked if the windows are of the type that has storm windows in the winter and screens in the
summer. Miklo said that these have modern storm windows — combination storm windows. He said
the interior windows appear to be the original windows.
Peterson stated that the storms are well done and fit inside the distinctive trim.
Swaim said this is a lovely building that has been well maintained. She said that windows are
something that come before the Commission quite often. Swaim said there is a lot of research that
shows that replacement doesn't often offer a better alternative than actually repairing what is there.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2014
Page 2 of 15
She said that it also maintains the integrity of the house, because windows are an enormous part of
the expression of the house.
Spiegel said that he is the resident of this home. He said he has lived in the house for four years and
has been unable to open any window in the house simply for ventilation. He said that the windows
that are operable are only operable with great struggle and do not offer copious ventilation, especially
the storms. Spiegel said something about while the storm windows are modern, they're certainly not
contemporary, and they lack a great deal of usefulness as well.
Spiegel said that the consideration for this request to make this property more habitable. They are
respectful of the exterior and its design. He said they simply want to provide the residents of this
property, those of this century and not two centuries previous, the ease of their operation and upkeep.
Spiegel said they really want to be partners in the restoration or upkeep and they should not be
denied because they have kept up the property. He said that if they had allowed the windows to
deteriorate, there would be no question about this.
Swaim said that part of the problem is that there is no evidence in the packet to show the Commission
that the windows have reached a point of deterioration where they need to be replaced. Miklo
confirmed this. He said that, as noted, there were broken cords, which does make it more difficult to
open the windows. Miklo said that if the cords are reattached, the weights then make it easy to move
the windows up and down.
Peterson said she thinks that repairing the existing is the more appropriate means of upkeep. She
said she feels that total replacement is quite extreme. Peterson said these are not deteriorated; they
need routine maintenance. She said they are a very distinctive feature of the property.
Miklo noted that the storm windows could be replaced. He said the guidelines would allow that,
because these are not original storm windows. Miklo said that if the storm windows are part of the
issue with ventilation, those could be replaced.
Swaim asked how one would repair the sash cords. Miklo said there is a pocket toward the bottom of
the window to the side. He said there is a screw there to be unscrewed that would provide access to
the weight. Miklo said that one would then run a new cord, tie it to the sash, and reassemble. He
said there are several contractors in town who specialize in window repair and confirmed this is not a
complicated process.
Miklo said the proposal is to use the Pella architectural series. He said the sample that he saw did not
meet the guidelines, because it would call for removal of the sashes and installation of a new liner
with the window package. Miklo said that sometimes can obscure the trim. He said the profile isn't
the same as the historic windows. Miklo said that if the windows were determined to be damaged or
in poor condition, then there are several sash replacement brands that fit in the original opening that
would not obscure any of the trim. He said that also, the profile and size of the sash would better
match the historic windows.
Baker asked how it would be determined whether a window is irreparable. Miklo answered that
Peterson has had some training in this, and he would have her look at the windows. He said that in
some cases, where photographs have been submitted, it is obvious that there is wood rot and/or
separation of the joints. Miklo said that window replacement has been approved in cases such as
that. He said that in cases where it is questionable, he would recommend a site visit and possibly
also having a window contractor take a look at this with staff to determine if replacement is necessary.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2014
Page 3 of 15
Spiegel said maintenance of windows is also a concern, and a new product would solve this
maintenance issue. He said the problem that they are having is the inability to keep property
maintenance. Spiegel said he does not foresee them being able to overcome that problem. He said
the only way to overcome that is by using one of those that require less maintenance. Spiegel said
that one can simply maintain these windows and make some very easy adjustments, but these are
not easy adjustments. He said the maintenance is a problem, and that is what he wants to get away
from.
Spiegel said the fact that this is burdensome to them is clear by the fact that they have been unable to
do it. He said that is why they are before the Commission in the first place. Spiegel said that the
amount of maintenance these windows require, they can't keep. He said that they could spend
money and get them back into somewhat of a pristine condition, and they would be back again.
Baker asked what kind of maintenance is being put into these windows now that is so burdensome.
Spiegel said he thinks some of the window trim will crack and break in some areas and have to be
replaced. Spiegel said they are not modern window technology, and they would like to have that
technology.
Spiegel said that in other things that have been done with the building over the years, they have
always kept its historic appearance and presentation. He said they have done the things that are
appropriate. Spiegel said the cellar door is now made of steel, for example. He said it doesn't need
painting and seals better. Spiegel said this isn't an exhibition property; it is a living residence. He
said that historic tours of what it was like to live in an 1890s house are not conducted.
Swaim said she assumes that most of the cost of repair is labor. She said that cord replacement
would involve very little in the way of supplies. Swaim said that replacing the windows involves a
more monumental cost.
Peterson said that replacement is a bigger undertaking and a lot more disruptive. She stated that the
windows have held up all these years, because they are made of these very high quality materials
that one cannot get with modern windows. Peterson said the modern windows therefore do not have
the life expectancy of these originals that used old growth wood.
Peterson said that is why the old windows are preserved — because of the quality. She said that
anything needs maintenance, and as these are maintained, they have a much longer life expectancy
and so are more economical in the long run.
Swaim asked how often this maintenance has to be done. Miklo said that the cords generally last a
long time, perhaps over 20.
Ozeroff said that he is a parishioner at Saint Mary's and also a window replacement contractor. He
said that he was involved in planning for the replacement project. Ozeroff said that it is hard to tell
from the picture, but these windows are larger than typical. Ozeroff said that the windows on the
ground floor are 90 inches tall, and on the second floor the windows are 80 inches tall. He said they
are very heavy and are original solid, wood windows. Ozeroff said they are not easy to open up.
Swaim asked for the dimensions of the upstairs windows. Ozeroff said that it varies.
Corcoran asked if the application is to replace all of the windows, including those on the top. Ozeroff
confirmed this. Corcoran asked about the big picture window. Ozeroff replied that the big picture
window would not be replaced. The proposal is to replace the other 28 windows on the first and
second floor.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 12, 2014
Page 4 of 15
Swaim said that the windows in her house are 96 inches tall but not as wide as these windows. She
said that at one time they were painted shut, and then a painter used a putty knife and there was a
little touchup. Swaim said those that have been opened that way and those that were fine to begin
with really open quite smoothly.
Swaim said there are two ways of working this. She said the Commission could make a motion or
could set this aside and table it for a future meeting to enable some further examination of the
windows.
Corcoran said she would like to delay this consideration and discuss this further before taking any
action.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to defer consideration of an application for the wholesale
replacement of windows at 220 East Jefferson Street. Clore seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 7-0 (Ackerson, Baldridge, Durham, Litton, and Michaud absent).
Miklo asked if a subcommittee of the Commission would like to visit the property inspect the condition
of the windows. Swaim agreed and said that someone skilled in working with old houses and
windows should be present. She said she believes there is a solution that will work for everyone.
M
X
Staff Report June 6, 2014
Historic Review for 220 E. Jefferson Street
District: Jefferson Street Historic District
Classification: National Register, Local Landmark, and Key Contributing in district
The applicant, Jon Ozeroff, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 220 E. Jefferson Street,
a National Register listed property, Local Landmark, and Key Contributing property in the Jefferson Street
Historic District. The project consists of the replacement of existing windows in the rectory house.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.13 Windows
Staff Comments
St. Mary's Rectory (1891) was listed on the National register of historic places in February 1980 as a part of
the St. Mary's Church nomination. The rectory is a hip roof rectangular structure of frame construction with
brick veneer. It features a two story bay with polygonal roof on the right side of the facade and an arched
porch across the rest. These round arches echo the arched fenestration of the neighboring church. The
rectory appears to be basically unaltered. As a National Register site it is considered to be a Key Structure in
the Jefferson Street Historic District.
The proposed project consists of the replacement of existing windows with Pella Architect
Series aluminum clad wood windows. With the exception of two decorative leaded glass windows on the
front of building, all twenty six windows on the first and second floor are proposed to be replaced.
The existing windows are larger and a higher grade compared to typical residential windows. The exterior
trim includes a rounded brick mold that appears to compliment a larger version found on the windows of St.
Mary's Church, which is located adjacent to the rectory.
The guidelines recommend repair of historic windows before replacement is considered. The applicant must
demonstrate deterioration of the existing windows before replacement is approved. If it is determined that
the existing windows are deteriorated to the extent that replacement should be considered, then new sashes
which are the same type and size as the existing windows and match the sash width, trim, divided lites, and
overall appearance of the historic windows are required.
The applicant has not submitted evidence indicating that the existing windows are deteriorated. Staff visited
the rectory with the applicant and viewed a sampling of the windows. The Commission's consult, Cheryl
Peterson, AIA, who has training in historic window preservation, also attended. We observed no signs of
deterioration such as wood rot, warping, or water damage. With the exception of broken sash cords, which
are easily repairable, the windows appeared to be in overall good condition. Some routine maintenance
including painting and putty repair may be necessary.
The applicant expressed a concern about ease of window operation. Replacement of the sash cords so that
they are reattached to the weights and using bee's wax on the channels on the sides of the windows would
make them operate smoothly. That, with repair and caulking of the storm windows, would likely be more
cost effective than window replacement.
In Staff's opinion, the applicant has not documented deterioration to the extent that windows should be
replaced. If the applicant is able to provide documentation that some of the windows are deteriorated and
not repairable then replacement sashes, which match the sash width, trim and overall appearance of the
055
X
historic windows, may be considered for those windows. This approach would minimize the loss of historic
materials in this significant Landmark building.
Recommended Motion
Move to that deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the wholesale replacement of windows at 220 E.
Jefferson Street.
Move to approve sash replacements for individual windows where deterioration of the sash is demonstrated,
subject to the replacement sash being the same type, size and detail as the existing windows.
2
Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or
properties located in a historic district or conservation district
pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for
the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and
regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office
at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook
For Staff Use: _
Date submitted:
❑ Certificate of No material Effect
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness
❑ Major review
❑ Intermediate review
❑ Minor review
The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must
comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD
office by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application
deadlines and meeting dates.
Property owner/Applicant Information
(Please cheek primary contact person)
Property Owner Name: --:5 T M A 2 Ll ":5 C A i H 0 L C G H i.1 R C i-1
Email: W W KJ, t G S I' VYi 4 r o >'a
Address: 2 2 (�_ . �� �1+ FSS D a
City: a-0 W A C I T
R Contractor/ Consultant Name:
Phone Number: (3 /9) 3 3 -7
State: S Zip Code: Z 4
Email:i� O Z P ,r• C'�` Z 4� vn w�� .Gt,Phonc Number: ( 3 (q) � ' f - 6L/ h 7
Address. 3 3 NJ 0 P— Li
City: -1—� C) 17- `1 _ State: Zip Code: 2 2 -
Proposed
Proposed Project Information
Address: ;k,2, 0£ ►'^EF P 2 S o b3 S\ -776 W iA C 1'T `t S 2 Z4-4 S
Use of Property: 5T. M 11 fZ M �C' RECTO (Z t{ Date Constructed (if known):
Historic Designation
(Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook)
❑ This property is a local historic landmark.
OR
❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location):
❑ Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
❑ Northside Historic District
B— efferson Street Historic District
❑ Longfellow Historic District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District
13 Contributing 0 Noncontributing 0 Nonhistoric
Appti mUon UiMil irements
Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials.
Applications without necessary materials may be rejected.
❑ Addition
(Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.)
❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs
❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans
WAlteration
(Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch
replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the
scope of the project are sufficient.)
❑ Building Elevations R"Photographs RProduct information
❑ Construction of new building
❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs
❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans
❑ Demolition
(Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney,
decorative trim, baluster, etc.)
❑ Photographs
❑ Proposal of Future Plans
❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance.
❑ Photographs
❑ Other:
❑ Product Information
Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application.
Proposed Project Details
Project Description:
Oq R c t-+ 1-rrm <T E 12 1 A L LA, M 1,v,N 6A G L A .d 1N D 01O F 2 A ILA C—
Materials to be Used:
c H 1 T� G.T �� 12117 C W iNJDoLOS
Exterior Appearance Changes:
SAPCD\Hist Pres\app_for_historic_review.doc 12/13
Z-0
0
N
Exhibit A
26
R
V
Q
J
�
V
J
T
Qi
�
z
�
m
=
0
C/)
v
LLJ�ZOO
0
C/1)
LLQ
m
w
C/)
3
_¢
-:F
E
�=
JCID
E
o
= o
z
0
Llj
'
�o
(.5�
Q�
of
Q
�-
v)
i=
wLLJ
m
U�
LLL
Q
w
`r'z
C�
=�
�
rNSU-1
o
C/)J
0
N
Exhibit A
W
D
z
O
W
C
O
z
a
lO n l0
�i
50 d t6
N E
N
c
U L
S O T
N 3 d
N
3
E
E m o
c oca E
c�
d
L
p U a
O C
ami o
m a'
v 3
y 9
N
30
U Y
a N
d
Ia C
L
�p A
O a
T
ry
n
N
n
A
N
Exhibit A
01
N
M
0
M
rn
N
Exhibit A
d
C
N l0
d w
a 5
10
y
Y
N
0
3 `o
3
U
d m
C C
yj C O
b0 N
a N d
c 0
y N
9 c p
M O
t T
C d
d
o
O
A A
N
O- N
N
�
C 5
O d
A
3✓ N
y N�
GD
y
O
E
UE
'o
-
M
O
C
m L
C c C
y L
V
M-
3 L
U
03
v
M
y
Y
c d
c� a a
o
m w
a i
N d 4
L Y
N O U N
N
N T O
0
C
ajU
C; C
d
E
A@ m
ti E
c
a u m
w
E
a
El
m n A
m
rn
N
Exhibit A
Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook
4.13 Windows
Windows are one of the most important elements that define a building's architectural character.
Important window characteristics and elements include the window type, size, proportion, trim—
lintels, sills, decorative hoods and pediments, pattern of divided lights, mullions, sash and decorative
glass. Most often, historic windows are double -hung, but casements were occasionally used. Except for
small decorative windows, historic windows are generally taller than they are wide, and the lower and
upper floor windows are often aligned vertically. The Commission recommends repair of historic
windows before replacement is considered, and requires documentation of the extent of deterioration
in order to approve replacement of windows.
Recommended:
0
CT
Attic Windows, Vents, Window Air -Condition Units and Other
Similar Openings
• Preserving historic attic windows, their trim and installing
traditional wood vents.
• Locating new attic openings in a manner that is
compatible with the historic window pattern.
• Locating window air-conditioning units on a building
elevation which is not highly visible from the street.
Historic Windows
• Preserving the historic windows by repairing sashes and
frames.
Retaining historic window frames and replacing badly
deteriorated sashes with new sashes that match the
historic ones.
New Windows
• Adding windows that match the type, size, sash width,
trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the
historic windows.
• Adding new windows in a location that is consistent with
the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of
similar architectural style.
(Continued on page 32) Exhibit B
31
0
v
Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook
Outbuilding Windows
Windows on outbuildings should be
relatively small and rectangular or square.
Relocation and Closing Window Openings
If an opening is to be relocated, it should
not detract from overall fenestration
pattern.
If an opening is to be closed on a brick
structure, it should be recessed to express
the original opening and lintels and sills
should be maintained. On a framed
structure, appropriate siding that matches
the existing should be used with its
members being placed across and randomly
extended beyond the opening.
Replacement Windows
• Replacing badly deteriorated windows with
new ones that match the type, size, sash
width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall
appearance of the historic windows.
Using new wood windows to replace
deteriorated historic wood windows,
although the use of metal -clad, solid -wood
windows is acceptable. All replacement
windows and trim must accept paint.
Typically, sashes will be finished in a dark
color, either black or dark green.
• Divided lights may be true or simulated.
Simulated divided lights may be created with
muntin bars that are permanently adhered
to both sides of the glass, preferably with
spacer bars between the panes of insulating
glass.
• Replacing a bedroom window, if required for
egress by the Building Code, with a new one
that matches the size, trim, use of divided
lights, and overall appearance.
Storm Windows and Shutters
• Installing traditional wood storm windows
Typical window types:
and screens on older buildings. Storms
should fit the opening exactly, without the
use of spacers.
Installing wood -frame combination storm
windows with screens that resemble
traditional wood storm windows. The use of
metal -clad, wood -frame combination storm
windows is acceptable. Storm windows must
accept paint and should be painted the same
color as the sash of the main windows,
preferably black.
• Any new shutters should be
proportionate so that they cover the
windows if closed. The shutters should
be compatible with the style of the historic
house and should be louvered or paneled
wood construction.
Disallowed:
New and Replacement Windows
• Installing modern types of windows
including sliding, awning, casement, and bay
windows when they were not original to the
building, consistent with the architectural
style, or required for egress.
• Installing metal, vinyl -clad or vinyl windows
on primary structures or on contributing
outbuildings when they were not original to
the building.
• Using between -the -glass grilles or snap -in
grilles to achieve the appearance of divided
lights.
• Introducing new window openings into
primary elevations.
Shutters
• Installing shutters on windows on a structure
that did not historically have shutters.
Exception
In order to provide flexibility for certain changes
and certain properties, the Commission has
documented a number of exceptions to the Iowa
Double Hung window Casement window Awning window
32
(Continued on page 33)
Slider window
Exhibit B
Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook
City Guidelines. Projects requiring the exceptions corresponding to the property type listed below may
be approved by the Preservation Planner or Preservation Planner and Chair. Projects requiring
exceptions to the guidelines that are not listed may be considered by the full Commission under major
review. The Commission is afforded flexibility when reviewing applications in order to arrive at
historically and architecturally appropriate solutions in cases where a proposed construction project
does not significantly affect the architectural character of a historic structure.
In deciding on a project requiring an exception to the guidelines, the Commission may find guidance in
the additional guidelines, outlined in section 3.2. When approving a project requiring an exception, the
Commission shall identify the guideline(s) for which the exception is being made, and the rationale for
the exception.
For more information on exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines, please refer to section 3.2.
Applies to All Properties
New and Replacement Windows
• Fiberglass windows may be considered
for basement windows with
moisture problems.
• Modern window types may be considered
on a case-by-case basis in situations where
multiple window types exist on a building.
• Glass block may be considered in situations
where the glass would not be visible from
the street, or where privacy issues exist.
• Change in window size may be allowed for
egress requirements. The change of window
size should be considered a last resort.
Applies to Non -Historic Properties in all
Districts
New and Replacement Windows
• Vinyl or vinyl -clad wood windows may be
considered for replacement windows
provided they match historical proportions.
Applies to Noncontributing and Non -
Historic Properties in all
Districts
Outbuilding Windows
• Vinyl or vinyl -clad wood windows may be
considered, provided they match
appropriate historical outbuilding
window proportions.
Applies to Noncontributing and Non -
Historic Properties in
Historic Districts
All Properties in Conservation
Districts
New and Replacement Windows
• Vinyl or vinyl -clad wood windows may be
used for replacement of basement
windows provided the foundation wall is
no more than 18 inches above grade.
• Vinyl or vinyl -clad wood windows may be
considered for primary buildings in if
existing windows are vinyl or vinyl -clad
wood.
• Vinyl or vinyl -clad wood windows may be
considered for additions provided they
match historical proportions.
Exhibit B 33
A new report produced by the
Preservation Green Lab of
the National Trust for Historic
Preservation provides breakthrough
guidance for homeowners, designers
and building professionals about the
relative financial and energy tradeoffs
between replacing and repairing
older, less -efficient windows.
The study, Saving Windows, Saving Money. Evaluating the Energy Performance of Window
Retrofit and Replacement, concludes that several retrofit strategies deliver essentially the
same energy savings as full window replacement—but at a fraction of the cost. Applying
80 years of scientific research using sophisticated energy simulations, the research team
finds that saving and retrofitting old windows is the more cost effective way to achieve
energy savings and to lower a home's carbon footprint.
These results complement recent research by the Preservation Green Lab that showed build-
ing reuse almost always offers environmental savings over demolition and new construction.
Home energy consumption is a big concern at the national and household level. Residential
buildings are responsible for approximately 20 percent of total energy use and carbon
dioxide emissions in the U.S. Most of these buildings are single-family homes where
heating and cooling is the largest use of energy, and where windows are a major factor in
home energy efficiency. Americans spend over $17 billion annually on heating and cooling.
AJON
National Trust forHlstoric Preservation
77`��' Preservation Green Lab
The report's key findings include.,
RETROFITTING SAVES MONEY.
Almost every retrofit strategy, from weather stripping and
sealing, to installing exterior storm windows or interior cellular
shades, offers a better return on investment than outright window
replacement. Simple rates of return for window retrofit measures
ranged from 3 percent to 4 percent for most regions studied,
nearly double that of new, energy efficient windows.
RETROFITTING SAVES ENERGY.
Several retrofit measures perform as well as new replacement
windows. Specifically, interior window panels, exterior storm
windows and cellular blinds essentially match the energy savings
of new, efficient replacement windows. (See energy savings
comparison chart on Page 3.)
Interior storm panel.
Image courtesy of: Environmental
Window Solutions, LLC
CLIMATE DOESN'T (REALLY) CHANGE THE FINDINGS.
In both hot and cold climate regions, cost analysis revealed that retrofitting generally
provided a higher return on investment than replacement windows—though climate did
impact which retrofitting option(s) performed the best.
THE BOTTOM LINE: DON'T ASSUME YOU NEED NEW WINDOWS.
For years it has been commonly assumed that replacement windows alone provide the
greatest energy-saving benefit. This study's results refute that notion, giving budget -
conscious consumers viable alternatives that cost much less than window replacement.
The findings are especially important in the context of historic homes, where retrofitting
windows can help maintain the visual appeal and historic integrity.
Download the full report: www.preservationnation.org/saving-windows-saving-money
The report was funded by The National Park Service's National Center for Preservation
Technology and Training. Research support was provided by Cascadia Green Building
Council and Ecotope, a consultancy focused on energy efficiency and sustainability.
SAVING WINDOWS, SAVING MONEY
Annual Percent Energy Savings For Various Window Upgrade Options
30%
25%
20%
15%
t0%
s%
o%
Portland Boston Chicago Atlanta Phoenix
0 Weather strip Interior window panel
0 Interior surface film + weather stripping Insulating cellular shades + exterior storm window
0 Insulating cellular shades New high performance replacement window
0 Exterior storm window
Note: Percentage savings are not intended to predict actual savings. Instead, the results are meant to be used to evaluate the rela-
tive performance of measures where other more cost-effective energy saving strategies have been implemented first.
ABOUT THE PRESERVATION GREEN LAB
The Preservation Green Lab is a sustainability think tank and national leader in efforts to
advance the reuse and retrofit of older and historic buildings. A project of the National Trust
for Historic Preservation, the Green Lab was launched in 2009 and is based in Seattle, Wash.
Learn more at www.preservationnation.org/greeniab
A Report by: Funded by: In Partnership with:
Preservation Green Lab " e ^ ` "` J CASCADIA
�1 PEFN BUILBIXE <EUH[IL
ECOTOPE
SAVING WINDOWS. SAVING MONEY 3
Marian Karr
From:
jprobin@engineering.uiowa.edu
Sent:
Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:38 PM
To:
Council
Cc:
john-robinson@uiowa.edu
Subject:
St Mary window appeal Nov 18
St Mary's historic 28 rectory windows
Denial by the Perseveration Commission for functional environmentally friendly windows.
1. Visibility
a. Many of these windows cannot be seen by a person walking or driving by on Jefferson.
b. The rectory is screened/dominated by St Mary's church, Van Allen Hall, & the United Methodist church.
c. Most untrained persons (the little old man from Dubuque) would not notice the difference between repaired
originals and more efficient replacements. The window openings are not being changed, bricks would not be moved
around.
2. Stewardship
a. Rebuilding all 28 windows (in my experience) will result in more delay, substantially more cost, poorer performance,
& higher maintenance.
b. Requiring rebuilt originals ignores a century of improvements in window technology; and, imposes an increased
repair cost along with reduced heating and cooling efficiency on the members of the parish.
John P Robinson P.E. & PhD
Professor & Associate Dean of Engineering University of Iowa, Retired
N
Marian Karr
From: BStrub@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 5:39 PM
To: Council
Subject: St Marys RectoryWindows
St Marys rectory needs new windows... I hope the IC Historic Commission ..reconsider this.. or the city Council
reviews their decision.. Carl F Strub a parish member....
7
Marian Karr
From: Fred <fdery45@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 6:10 PM
To: Council
Subject: st mary church windows
I'm writing as a 4 year member of st Mary's church in iowa city as well as an individual who appreciates history
and has a grasp of financial realities affecting our nation today.
in regards to the 28 windows of the rectory which are in disrepair but apparently designated as part of a historic
landmark, I would suggest a compromise- allow our church to replace the current windows with ones that are
more cost efficient, in better working order, etc but keep the old ones on hand as a museum display of
some sort so that they can be enjoyed by future church goers.
I do not believe that the historical importance of the windows should trump common sense and good financial
management for future catholics of st Mary's.
FRED J DERY JR, MD
;Cl IILLIF:'.
CELL #:248-379-1488
"We are what we consistently do. Excellence, therefore, is not a singular act, but a habit."
"The world around you is a rat race where only the strong survive."
"The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few."
"I ask for no quarter, and I shall grant none in return."
"I detest that man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart, and speaks for another."
"A bore is a man who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company."
"Live free or die."
q
Marian Karr
From:
Eve Casserly <casserly@mchsi.com>
Sent:
Monday, November 17, 2014 3:00 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
St. Mary's rectory physical plant problems
St. Mary's parish rectory is over 100 years old as are it's windows which can no longer protect the building adequately
against the weather elements.
The parish wishes to replace these 28 windows in order to save energy and adequately heat the structure in an
economically reasonable manner.
The replacements chosen are such that they would complement the historic preservation of the rectory and eliminate
the need for aluminum storm windows.
The church and rectory were designated Iowa City Landmarks about 20 years ago.
Due to this the I.C. Historic Preservation Commission is opposed to the replacement of the windows.
They so voted at their August meeting, denying the parish a "permission"
required to proceed with the needed replacement of dysfunctional windows.
I would request that the Iowa City Councilors over -ride this recommendation of refusal and grant the parish the right to
proceed with correcting the heating and cooling problems effected by windows that do not close or open properly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Eve Casserly
St. Mary's parishioner
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com