Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-07-09 Info Packet
O CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET MISCELLANEOUS July 9, 2015 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP2 Article from City Manager: Why American cities need to double down on public housing IP3 Press Release: City Council Listening Post IN Copy of letter from Asst. Transportation Planner to resident on Westbury Drive and Court: Meeting to discuss traffic calming on Westbury Drive IP5 2016 Building Statistics IP6 Civil Services Entrance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor — Customer Engagement IP7 Letter from Mediacom: Digital Transition DRAFT MINUTES IP8 Board of Adjustment: June 10 IP9 Historic Preservation Commission: June 11 IP10 Housing and Community Development Commission: June 18 � c CITY OF IOWA CITY Date 07-09-15 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule LSP1 Subject to change July 9, 2015 Time Meeting Location Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:30 PM Special Formal Meeting Helling Conference Rm Monday, July 27, 2015 5:00 PM City Conference Board Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:00 PM - Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 1, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 1-6:30 PM Work Session Meeting Ashton House Strategic Planning and Orientation 07-09-15 From the City Manager 1P2 1 Why American cities need to double down on public housing From about the 1960s to the 1990s, the major problems in big, established American cities were declining populations and urban blight. Now, many of them are facing the opposite problem: an influx of thousands of new, middle-class residents — the dreaded gentrification. In the main, cities have tackled the problem in two ways: twiddle thumbs, or sprawl all over creation. Liberal cities on the coasts have mainly followed the former strategy, while conservative ones in the South and the Sun Belt have chosen the latter. While the sprawl method does at least lead to reasonably affordable housing, it's not so much the result of smart planning as lots of cheap surrounding land — the coastal cities are already boxed in, so they can't sprawl like Phoenix can. It's time to bring back public housing in a big way. In cities that are facing a looming affordability crisis, it serves as a key bulwark that must be strengthened. The typical liberal policy suite to boost affordable housing — centered on inclusive zoning and rent control — simply does not create enough units fast enough to prevent low-income people being priced out of the market in a few years. Portland, Oregon, probably has the cheapest and most agile housing market of any major liberal city (new apartment starts are up 10 -fold since 2011), and residents are still feeling the price strain — and starting to develop the usual case of NIMBYism. Of course, public housing has an absolutely terrible reputation, one that is partly deserved. Back in the 1950s and '60s, when much of the U.S.'s public housing was constructed, the dominant aesthetic was gigantic, poorly conceived towers that concentrate the very poor. They were also often constructed on land obtained by bulldozing existing low-income housing that was in equal or better shape. Is legal polygamy next? The hijacking of libertarian principles However, as Rachel Cohen demonstrates in a sharp piece, what remains still serves as basically functional housing for 2.2 million Americans, many of whom would have nowhere else to go. In high-pressure rental markets like Washington, D.C., public housing is essentially the only low- income housing that's left. There just isn't nearly enough of it. The D.C. Public Housing Authority closed its waiting list back in 2013, when it had 70,000 names waiting for 8,000 units. Meanwhile, there is quite a lot of empty land in D.C. — even wealthy Ward 1 has 255 vacant lots. Public housing can serve as a bastion of affordability. Being outside of the market, it is mostly free from market pressures that can quickly obliterate cheap market -rate housing. In theory, it can be built 2 more quickly, by condemning empty land or snapping up foreclosed properties — with the principle of always adding to the housing stock, unlike in the past days of "slum clearance." Of course, one needs a competent bureaucracy to run such things, and "competent" is not usually how Washington is described. But that is simply a background condition of all housing policy — the grinding slowness of the D.C. permitting process is a similar obstruction to more market units. So here are a few principles for 21 st-century public housing: 1) Abandon the Stalinist, gigantic apartment block model. These are more expensive, require a lot more land and maintenance, and tend to be built on mad -architect lines with a total disregard for functionality. Worse, they concentrate poverty, a known factor for all manner of social ills. 2) Public housing should be ordinary. Though obviously it should be built efficiently, public housing ought to appear just like any other building. Abolish the "projects" stigma. 3) Public housing should be dispersed. Smaller buildings ought to be spread out all over the place, not just in the poorest districts. Though the super -elite residents of Georgetown would collapse in paroxysms of rage to hear it, there ought to be a good number of units there as well. Indeed, rich neighborhoods are particularly well-suited to public housing. Poor people need the high-quality services and schools a lot more than rich people do. Again, this is only part of the solution. But while there is broad agreement that additional construction should be brought to bear on housing supply, advocating for public housing is typically met with scorn or sheer bewilderment. On the contrary, these are two great tastes that taste great together. 07-09- Marian Karr IP3 From: City of Iowa City <CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 1:46 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: City Council Listening Post © SHRRE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. r�°� 10WACITY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date July 8, 2015 Contact: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Phone: 319-356-5041 City Council Listening Post The second City Council listening post will be held at Lucky's Market, 1668 Sycamore Street, Wednesday, July 29, from 5:30-7:00 PM. Two Council Members will attend each listening post and those two Council members will report back to the entire Council. Members of the community are encouraged to stop by and meet with Council representatives to discuss any community issue. No formal agenda or presentation is planned. The City Council of Iowa City approved the 2013 Equity Report Action Plan and five areas of focus for relationship building at the February 23 Council meeting. The plan outlined top priorities and new initiatives developed by City staff and Council to promote racial equity and diversity. One of the new initiatives is to host listening posts in various locations throughout the year. Other listening posts are planned in other areas later in the year. For additional information, questions, or suggestions on future locations for listening posts please contact City Clerk Marian Karr at Marian-KarrAiowa-city.org, 319-356-5041; or Equity Director Stefanie Bowers at Stefanie-BowersAiowa-city.org, 319-356-5022. oil ST Nth 0 A CITY OF IO1'1'A CITY UN[SCOCIIY OF UTERAIU# Questions? Contact Us Date: July 6, 2015 To: Residents on Westbury Drive and Court From: Emily Ambrosy; Assistant Transportation Planner Re: Meeting to discuss traffic calming on Westbury Drive Dear Resident: -1 ,ru(4al1m IP4 I iz �. MWIe°r�i CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org The City has received a traffic calming petition from a group of residents on Westbury Drive and Court between Glastonbury Street and Lower West Branch Road SE. The City completed a traffic evaluation and determined that speeds on Westbury Drive, north of Westbury Court, qualify for the program based on the 85th -percentile speed of traffic exceeding 5 mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. The next step is to have a neighborhood meeting to discuss possible options and develop a consensus on a preferred traffic calming measure to explore. Some examples of traffic calming applications are speed humps, median islands, traffic circles, pavement markings, curb extensions, radar speed signs, on -street parking changes, and targeted police enforcement. For additional information on the traffic calming program, including examples of traffic calming applications in Iowa City, visit http://www mpoic or-/docs/file/transportation/trafficcalmina.pdf. If a consensus on a preferred traffic calming measure can be reached at the meeting, we will perform a study to determine if it can be implemented safely, followed by a formal mail -back survey of households to determine the level of support for implementation. Sixty (60) percent of responding households must be in favor of implementation for the City Council to consider approval of the measure. The intent of the City's Traffic Calming program is to implement traffic calming strategies only if desired by the neighborhood. Please consider attending the neighborhood meeting to discuss potential traffic calming options: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:30 p.m. at the Eastside Recycling Center 2401 Scott Blvd. SE I expect the meeting to last no more than one hour. If you cannot attend, please feel free to contact me with your comments or questions at 356-5250 or Emily-AmbrosyCaD-iowa-city.org. Sincerely, Emily Ambrosy Assistant Transportation Planner cc: Tom Markus, City Manager Doug Boothroy, NDS Kent Ralston, NDS Darian Nagle-Gamm, NDS Marcia Bollinger, NDS Ron Knoche, Public Works Jason Havel; Public Works Jon Resler, Streets John Sobaski, Streets Troy Kelsay, Police FIL S O O Q8 QJ x F co � T W N Z Z N co N O M 1n 0 00 p M N p N y O N 001 J N N 1n m N O O F NO O N N - O m n O n ? OD 001 co coN E m u __... _ _...._..... _. _.._.................. ......... 0 0 z 0 v d E v n w rn Q' i T 7 �,Of1� 1n O(O 0? OO V NO NM R M (o 01 I� OND O a m N CD - N pl y C O 000 C4 (Ni1 N 7 O m in co N N M O I- N CO N V N O N O -T 00 M m O co 1n cn h N O OD00 O (O Oi N W < O06 N L O OOD M N O MO N O 00 CO OD N M O CO O O O N O 1n Q1 G N r O O N O N N Q M 1n N M O �- O O _ .....................__ .............. ......._.. _. _ O N N Ln 10 N O M O N (o......_ (o V v(o to O o 1n CN m v n n O cn rll M O M co N o 0 ONi ..... Z' ........ _ p ..... ._.__ .__.. _.._.. ........_ ...._ _._ __ __ -_ ._ __ ......._ _........ .__.. ._. ._ .— O ..... O .._.... __. .._.... ..._.... __._ .. M N O N O �- N M OD N co a(mo O (i N m m 0 rn co o v LL d 0 ...... .._..... .._......... ... ...... ........ ..... _._. .......... .._ ..... ......._ ...... _.._ .. ....... .._.. ......_.. ._ ... ....._ GO N ... OD O N M __ _ _ N V n N 7 G � il- N 0 INii N N 4r w « M : N N 2 4N- I a y d s d a € C m c y1 a a a a N oa d a? N a a(na ] ca d �a as oa �a 0 m9 m `o d o ° `o c o `o o `o j a w- Y E E E E E L E E r E E > E > LL E > E a E `o m d E a °i ° E (a E �' E a E m > E > E c > E .��ee > > > > r U a > m > J J S. z w Z y z j Z Z y E E u` a = z H Z_ a z z y z a m o O O F LL d a o z in v A o r z x z o L o 2 0 r d 0 o N D o rn m U 5 (si = O a (n a a a ! r 1 -Ps _,. — 4 ®kQ-. CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 3S6-5009 FAX www.icgov.org July 6, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Recreation Program Supervisor — Customer Engagement Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position Recreation Program Supervisor — Customer Engagement. Amanda Opitz IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Mediacom the power to simplify July 2, 2015 Ms. Marian Karr City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 Dear Ms. Karr, iLEFj' 2015 JUL -6 PM I: I L .' 0;7A Cil Y, i„l�v;�i•\ In order to complete the digital transition in your community, Mediacom will migrate channels currently in the Local Plus Tier from an analog signal to an All Digital signal. This transformation will take place throughout the month of August in a 2 -phase process. The following channels will move to a digital signal on or about August 4, 2015. On or about August 18, 2015, the remaining channels between 2 and 22 will be moved to a digital -only signal: Family Channel Digital Channel QAM Channel Family Channel with Digital Adapter or Digital Receiver 79.10 QVC 12 82.1 MC22 22 79.20 On or about August 18, 2015, the remaining channels between 2 and 22 will be moved to a digital -only signal: Family Channel Digital Channel with Digital Adapter or Digital Receiver QAM Channel KGAN (CBS 2) Cedar Rapids 2 79.10 KFXB (CTN 43) Dubuque 3 79.16 City Channel 4 118.2 Local Access 5 118.3 KPXR (Ion 48) Cedar Rapids 6 119.2 KWWL (NBC 7) Waterloo 7 79.12 KFXA (FOX 28) Cedar Rapids 8 79.4 KCRG (ABC 9) Cedar Rapids 9 79.6 KWKB (CW 20) Iowa City 10 79.8 KTS (Educational Access) 11 117.3 KIIN (IPTV PBS) Iowa City 12 79.18 HSN 16 82.23 University of Iowa TV 17 118.5 Public Access 18 118.6 Iowa City Public Library 20 118.4 Local Access 21 118.7 Mediacom Communications Corporation 6300 Council St. NE 9 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 • 319-395-7801 9 Fax 319-393-7017 The display channels will remain the same for the channels in the Local Plus tier. However, a TV with a digital QAM tuner or a Mediacom Digital Converter is needed on each TV to receive these channels once in the digital format. Digital adapters are now available from Mediacom. Each household will be issued up to 3 digital adapters at no charge through July 31, 2016. Beginning August 1, 2016, a charge of $.99 per standard adapter will be assessed or $1.99 per HD adapter. Additional adapters will be available at a cost of $.99 per standard adapter and $1.99 per HD adapter. Customers using digital TVs with CAM tuners instead of Mediacom equipment may need to run a one-time channel search by selecting that option from their television menu. Customers in your community have received several letters communicating the timeline of the transition. Mediacom has provided customers multiple avenues to obtain their free digital adapters including: • Call 1-800-479-2095. • Go to www.MediacomCable.com/Order. • Pick them up at a local Mediacom office: Cedar Rapids Office: 6300 Council St. NE Iowa City Office: 546 Southgate Ave If there are any questions please call me at 319-268-5033 or email Igrassley@mediacomcc.com Sincerely, 0t 4W't- Lee Grassley Senior Manager, Government Relations M OWWWW rl M 2 1 P a g e 07-09-15 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 10, 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: Brock Grenis STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz, OTHERS PRESENT: Mitch King, Gary Klinefelter, Chad Crigger, Janet Crigger CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 13, 2015 MEETING MINUTES: Goeb moved to approve the minutes. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00009: An application submitted by Mitch King to allow a non -conforming rooming house to be converted to another non -conforming use of less intensity for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332 Ellis Avenue. Walz presented the staff report, beginning by stating that this application is converting a non- conforming use to another non -conforming use of equal or less intensity. She showed the location of the property, it fronts on Ellis Avenue and on the back side of the property is Ridgeland Avenue, with an alley that runs along the side of the property line. She showed the zoning map which showed the surrounding zoning is RNS-20 zoning in the immediate area with RS -5 single family zoning a block or so away. The RNS-20 zone includes a number of apartments as well as some fraternities and fraternities that have been redeveloped into apartments or condos. Walz explained that rooming houses are not a permitted use in the RNS-20 zone, which is why this use is considered non -conforming. A rooming house with 25 rooms is required to provide 19 parking spaces. The parking areas for this property are non- conforming as well due to a number of design elements, and have never met the parking standards. The applicant, Mitch King, is requesting a special exception to convert this building (which is in some state of disrepair) to a multi -family use with 11 units and a total of 15 Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 2 of 15 bedrooms. The proposal results in 1 efficiency apartment, 7 one -bedroom units, 2 two- bedroom units, and 1 three-bedroom unit. Two of the one -bedroom units are in the basement, or garden level. The RNS-20 zone does allow multi -family units and if this building were removed from this lot, based on the lot size, a new structure with 8 two-bedroom apartments could be built. The applicant is requesting less bedrooms, but more units due to financial reasons for the existing building, but the end result is comparable in terms of the number of residents that will be in the finished space. Walz noted that Ridgeland Avenue is a city street but does function more like an alley and it is used more in that fashion. It is narrow and without sidewalks. Walz stated that the special exception is to allow the reuse of existing property structures in a way to get the property closer to conformance for the area. The specific standards ask the proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is not currently allowed in the zone. Walz noted it is unlikely this building would ever be used as a single family house, it's just too large. Fraternities are allowed in this zone, but this property has not been used as a fraternity in the past few decades. The next standard is the proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the existing use. Walz explained they look at the potential number of residents that will be on the site, the traffic, etc., and with 11 units and 15 bedrooms it is unlikely there would be more than 25 people living on this site. It is more likely to have significantly less than that. Also mentioned in the staff report is ensuring that the proposed result be fewer than the current number of occupants. The staff member that oversees rental properties did not feel it would be enforceable to restrict the property tenant numbers on the basis of the number of bedrooms, so staff looked at other ways to ensure there would not be more than 25 tenants on this property. Staff is therefore recommending imposing a condition that the occupancy not exceed the total number of bedrooms provided. The units would be limited to two unrelated people or a family in the 1 and 2 bedroom units. In the 3 bedroom unit maximum occupancy would be family or no more than three unrelated persons. Walz did note that the front doorway on the building is blocked off which is not within code, which does require for a multi -family structure to have an entrance at the front of the building for aesthetics, ADA compliance, and safety reasons. The applicant was able to submit a building plan that changed a 1 bedroom unit into an efficiency unit to allow space for the front door entrance. Walz explained that the parking allocation will come closer into compliance with this application. Given how deeply the house is set back on the property it is difficult to come into full compliance and create a setback between the house, the back parking lot, and Ridgeland Avenue. Staff recommends approval of EXC15-00009, an application to allow conversion of a non- conforming Independent Group Living Use to a non -conforming Multi- Family Use located at 232 Ellis Avenue in the RNS-20 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. The occupancy of the building will be regulated as follows: the efficiency unit is liminted to an occupancy of one; 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units are limited to a maximum occupancy of two unrelated persons or a family as defined in the zoning code; and the 3 bedroom unit is restricted to a maximum occupancy for a household as defined in the zoning code. 2. The converted use shall consist of 11 dwelling units: 1 efficiency, 7 one -bedroom units, 2 two-bedroom units, and 1 three-bedroom unit. 3. Substantial compliance with the floorplan submitted, with the adjustments to the first Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 3 of 15 floor units to be approved by the Building Official. 4. Waterproofing and tile of the basement level to ensure a healthy living environment. 5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking areas as indicated by staff. 6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 7. Upon steps being taken to establish the conversion -issuance of a building permit and commencing of renovations -any right to re-establish a rooming house on the property shall be extinguished. Chrischilles asked when this area was zoned RNS-20. Walz believed it was about a decade ago, perhaps 2005, so this property would have been grandfathered into the new zone. It could continue at its current state of non -conforming use as long as it does not expand and meets all rental codes. Soglin asked if any input had been received from neighbors. Walz said there were a few inquiries but no objections. Baker asked if the parking area on the south side of the building will be paved and Walz confirmed that yes it must be paved. He questioned if there is still a City right-of-way beyond that paving connecting the two streets. Walz again confirmed that was correct. And noted that the building to the south also uses that area for parking, as parking on private property and onto the alley is allowed. Chrischilles asked what the requirement for the number of parking spaces should be if the property was conforming. Walz said it is based on the number of bedrooms, so it would be 15 spaces. This property will have 15 with the modification of the setback along the alley. Baker asked the applicant to come forward and address the Board. Mitch King (1545 McKinley Place) noted that the building in question is pretty dilapidated and feels the project will better the building and the neighborhood. Goeb asked about the front door that is currently blocked off and when the building is redesigned on the remodel, will that front door open to a common hallway area. King confirmed it would be a hallway that would intersect with another hallway with in the building. Walz noted that any apartment in the building would be accessible from that front door entrance. Goeb asked if the building was currently occupied. King confirmed it does have current occupants who are on month-to-month leases and would be given 30 days' notice that their lease would not be renewed as the building was being renovated. Soglin asked if there were current tenants in the basement of the rooming house and King said the basement rooms are currently occupied. Walz said the question about drainage is a normal question the inspector always looks at when there will be basement issues in a building, it does not mean there is currently any concern. King noted that the plan with the parking and landscaping is to grade it away from the building and they are also planning on waterproofing the basement so there should not be any water issues. Baker asked if King had any concerns or objections to the conditions that the Staff is recommending with approval of this application. King said that at first the front door issue Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 4 of 15 caught him off guard because he was not aware there was even a front door on the building, as it is fully sealed off from the inside. But there are not any issues or concerns he has with the conditions suggested. Chrischilles asked if there currently is a rear entrance into this building. King said there are currently multiple entrances, one on the south side, one down into the garden level, and then they will add the addition of the front entrance. Goeb asked if the rooming house was fully occupied right now. King believes there are currently two vacancies. Goeb asked if he was aware how many of those current tenants had vehicles, or how many vehicles are currently parked on the lot. King said he does not know for sure but there are never that many when he is at the property. Goeb questions that the reduction of bedrooms will actually be a reduction in cars parking on the property as the remodel will likely be more upscale and tenants more likely to have vehicles rather the rooming house month-to-month tenants. Baker opened the public hearing. Gary Klinefelter (1131 E. Washington Street) and owns the two buildings across Ridgeland Avenue (330 and 360 Ridgeland Avenue) and stated this property on Ellis Avenue has been a long term eyesore, he has put over a million dollars in each of his buildings hopes Mr. King can clean up this building and resurrect it to something respectful he is totally in favor. Klinefelter noted that he had the opportunity to purchase the Ellis Avenue building in 2002 but because of the zoning ordinance at that time which would have allowed only six units in the building it would not have been cost effective. He feels the City is being very generous with this application and the level of occupancy that is being allowed, but if all feel that is reasonable he will respect that decision. He is very eager to see this property renovated and no longer be the eyesore of -the neighborhood. King responded noting that in terms of occupancy level the only number that is more is number of doors, 11. The occupancy will actually be less with only 14 bedrooms (+ one efficiency apartment) rather than the 16 bedrooms if they were to put 8-2 bedroom apartments in the building. He also noted that is fullest intention is to upgrade this property and make it more upscale. Baker closed the public hearing. Goeb agreed that the plans appear to be an upgrade to the property and a significant improvement. Baker said he walked through the property earlier today and there is a lot of room for improvement and thinks this project will be a good thing for the neighborhood. Goeb moved to approve EXC15-00009, an application submitted by Mitch King to allow a non -conforming rooming house to be converted to another non -conforming use of less intensity for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332 Ellis Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The occupancy of the building will be regulated as follows: the efficiency unit is liminted to an occupancy of one; 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units are limited to a maximum occupancy of two unrelated persons or a family as defined in the Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 5 of 15 zoning code; and the 3 bedroom unit is restricted to a maximum occupancy for a household as defined in the zoning code. 2. The converted use shall consist of 11 dwelling units: 1 efficiency, 7 one -bedroom units, 2 two-bedroom units, and 1 three-bedroom unit. 3. Substantial compliance with the floorplan submitted, with the adjustments to the first floor units to be approved by the Building Official. 4. Waterproofing and tile of the basement level to ensure a healthy living environment. 5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking areas as indicated by staff. 6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 7. Upon steps being taken to establish the conversion -issuance of a building permit and commencing of renovations -any right to re-establish a rooming house on the property shall be extinguished. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles noted it sounds like a good idea to try and renovate property that is in definite need of improvement. Goeb agreed and said the updated condition #1 is a good one and mindful. Chrischilles stated that regarding EXC15-00009 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff report of June 10, 2015 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker added that one of the compelling findings was the probable reduction in occupancy would be a benefit to the neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion approved 4-0. Baker declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00010: An application submitted by Chad Crigger to allow a reduction in the principal building setback for the installation of a 6 foot privacy fence in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 2525 Princeton Road. Walz began the staff report showing the location of the house which is entirely surrounded by RS -5 zone. The current allowable setback in RS -5 zones for fencing is 15 feet and on corner lots, as this one is, the setback is on both frontages to create uniformity. Due to setback averaging the front principal building setback along Mt. Vernon Drive is determined to be approximately 26 feet. This corner lot also has a swimming pool in the backyard which has been on the property since the 1970's and City code requires a fence of 4 feet in height around pools. The applicant has stated their insurance company is requiring a 6 foot fence and they could put that 6 foot fence along the required setback along Mt. Vernon Road and around the pool, but they would like to have an additional fence for a play area and would need like to Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 6 of 15 come into the principle setback area along Mt. Vernon Road to allow for more usable yard space within the fenced in area. Walz noted that fences can be issues and the City tries to strike a balance with resident's privacy and aesthetics of the neighborhood. City Staff look at the characteristics of particular neighborhoods in these situations. In terms of the specific criteria the first questions if the situation is peculiar to the property in question. The fact that this is a corner lot is not peculiar but the front principle setback is deeper than a standard lot, so that might be viewed as peculiar. The property does have a swimming pool which does set it apart from other properties in the immediate neighborhood. Staff looked at other properties in Iowa City on corner lots with swimming pools and found examples that provide the required front yard setback fencing of swimming pools. Overall a 26 foot setback is a peculiar situation. In terms of the practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements, if the owners want to provide fencing of the backyard for safety of the pool area they are allowed a 4 foot fence but are asking for a 6 foot one. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. Because this is for a fence and not a building, some of the privacy issues and opportunity for firefighting do not apply. Overall they are trying to balance the character of the neighborhood as it currently exists with what is the requirement is where Staff came with the 15 foot requirement as it seems reasonable and will preserve space along the frontage in keeping with the intent of the fence regulations. Finally Walz discussed the potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent possible, Staff is recommending to either keep an open pattern fence or if a solid fence is used to provide some landscaping to minimize the appearance of the fence. Staff recommends approval of a reduction in the front principal building setback requirement to 15 feet along the Mt. Vernon Drive Street right-of-way line, subject to the conditions listed below: • The shed currently located in the front setback must be relocated behind the front facade of the house. • The 6 -foot fence must either be an open pattern fence or, if the board believes a solid fence is appropriate, that the applicant be required to plant a mix of small trees and shrubs along the length of the fence. Goeb asked if this new fence would completely enclose the yard and Walz confirmed it would, leaving only the front yard facing Princeton Road open. Soglin asked about the 15 foot setback means 15feet from the sidewalk. Walz said that is what Staff is proposing, the applicant originally asked for 10 feet from the sidewalk, and the Board can consider that proposal. Chrischilles asked if the sidewalk then is the property line and Walz said typically the property line is about a foot into the sidewalk. Soglin stated the line of sight while driving along the street, from multiple directions, would not likely be a concern but it would matter with the type of fence or landscaping. Some landscaping might not be appropriate in that space and be a concern for the line of sight for backing out of the driveway. Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 7 of 15 Goeb asked about the City requirements and if there needed to be a separate fence around the pool even if there is a big privacy fence around the yard. Walz said the City just requires a 4 foot fence and that could be around the whole yard or just the pool itself. Baker questioned the need for the exception when the applicant could currently build a 6 foot fence from the corner of the house around the pool at this time. Walz confirmed they could do that, however they wish to extend the useable yard space within the fence for play area for the children. Chrischilles stated that the City requires fencing around the pool, as does the insurance company and Walz confirmed that was true, but the City requires by code a 4 foot fence and the insurance company is requiring a 6 foot fence. Baker asked the applicant to come forward and address the Board. Janet & Chad Crigaer (2525 Princeton Road) would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Chrischilles asked if their intention was to take out the chain-link fence and keep the wooden fence that is currently around the yard and extend the wooden fence to attach to the house and isolate the backyard with the fencing. But that the chain-link fence and the shed would be removed. Chad Crigger confirmed that was their intention although he would need a shed and is currently building a new one elsewhere on the property. Chrischilles asked if on the Mt. Vernon Street fencing their preference is a 6 foot fence, 15 feet in that they would have to put shrubbery in front of or move the fence back. Janet Crigger said they initially were asking for the setback to be 5 feet with a 4 foot fence which is allowable, but it was suggest to her to ask for 10 feet to show a level of compromise. She feels like she lost her compromise because she was asking for 5 feet and agreed to ask for 10 feet and now it's being proposed at 15 feet. They just want to maximize their yard space. Janet Crigger has talked to neighbors over a several block radius and all are agreeable to this fence and not concerned. In fact in good conscious a 6 foot fence is safer than a 4 foot fence which everyone agrees. Chrischilles asked for clarification from Walz stating here appears to be multiple options of what the Board can or cannot approve. Walz confirmed the Board just has to be able to provide the findings for whatever they choose to do. Chrischilles asked if the Board was able to ask the applicant what their preference would be. Dulek replied that the Board is able to ask the applicant their preferences. Walz clarified that as long as the Board can produce the findings of fact to meet the standards, they do not have to take the Staff recommendation, and they can take the applicant's preference or come up with a completely new recommendation. Chrischilles then asked the applicants if they would prefer a 15 foot setback as noted in the staff recommendation with a 6 foot fence that can be seen through on the Mt. Vernon Road frontage or would they prefer to have the 15 foot setback with a solid fence and screening of shrubbery in front of it. Janet Crigger questioned if the only options are a solid fence plus the expense of shrubbery or an open fence where everyone can see their children in their backyard pool. Chad Crigger said his preference would be the closed fence with the added shrubbery due to the traffic on Mt. Vernon Road with it being a bus route and lots of pedestrians, they need the privacy. He asked if they could have a 6 foot fence without shrubbery, or is the shrubbery required. Walz said the shrubbery is not required. Chad Crigger said that would be his preference, a fence without the shrubbery would be a cleaner look. Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 8 of 15 Goeb asked if the applicant's insurance company requires them to separately fence the pool area. Chad Crigger said their only requirement was for a 6 foot fence around the property. Baker noted that the applicants were contacted today by Staff regarding documentation showing the insurance company requirement. Chad Crigger said he confirmed with the insurance company and they stated that the underwriter asked if there was a 6 foot fence around the pool even though City code only requires a 4 foot fence. The underwriter did not say a 6 foot fence was required, but that is what they asked for. The Crigger's would like a 6 foot fence for safety and privacy reasons. Baker said that is not then a hardship for which this application is based on, if the 6 foot fence is not required by the insurance company. Baker asked what the loss of square footage of the yard space if the 6 foot fence was constructed abutting the house line, without the setback requirement exception. Janet Crigger said it was a loss of 700 feet of usable yard space if they were not able to fence in the yard at the 5 foot setback they originally wanted. Chad Crigger agreed that their yard space was large, but if they had to construct the fence abutting the house and basically cut the yard in half, because they would never use the space outside the fenced area, it is then just wasted space. Baker noted his concern would be the line of vision from the street and safety of pedestrians and drivers. Janet Crigger said that there should be no concern of line of vision at 10 feet because that is where the existing shed was built, and even if the fence was at 5 feet, the shrubbery that was removed was 2 feet from the sidewalk and wasn't an issue. The Criggers presented the Board with a petition from the neighbors in support of the fence. Walz noted that the homes are allowed to be built up to the 15 feet setback so that is not a vision sightline issue. Baker said his concern is from the Staff report on page 3 where it is noted "this particular neighborhood has developed with deeper than the standard setbacks, and few properties (even corner properties) have any fence. This proposal may be interpreted as counter to purpose "c" above which is "reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods". Walz said that in the Staff's view, that is the standard they were trying to achieve with the 15 foot setback, to say it is reasonable to reduce the setback to the standard. Janet Crigger asked Walz to pull up the photos she sent earlier today to show the Board examples of fulfilling this with a 4 foot fence. There was an example on Mt. Vernon Road of a 4 foot fence but then the bushes around the fence were well over 6 feet tall, but fulfilled City code. So having just a 6 foot fence would actually be shorter and less likely to obstruct views but needs exception to City code. Another example on Princeton Drive where there is a 4 foot fence only 3 feet from the sidewalk again with bushes completely walling off the yard. So in terms of the general feel of the neighborhood, those are examples of what the City allows but yet are larger than the structure the Criggers are requesting. Goeb pointed out the greenery, even if it's overgrown, is different than just having a stark fence. Janet Crigger agreed but also wants to live in an attractive neighborhood and would like to plant flowers and ornamental grasses along the fence, but not necessarily shrubs. Baker opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Baker closed the public hearing. Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 9 of 15 Baker noted he would be voting against this application, he appreciates all the applicants concerns but he thought the application was based on a requirement set by an insurance company but it is not. Additionally the applicants can install a 6 foot fence, just on a smaller portion of the lot, without affecting the setback. Or finally the applicants could install a 4 foot fence without worrying about the setback requirements. Therefore Baker does not see a compelling reason why this application should be granted when the counterintuitive argument is setback requirement, line of visibility, and it is not a requirement of insurance. He noted he understands the reasons why the Criggers wish to do this, but it is for personal reasons and not required. Baker just wanted to state his opinion up front because the other three members of the Board will have to be unanimous for this vote to pass. Chrischilles stated he would like the Board to look at the application in terms of what they would like to have if it were their personal property. If it was his property and he had a requirement to have some fencing around the pool and felt 6 feet is safer than the 4 feet required, and wanted to maximize the usable space in the yard this application makes complete sense and he understands why the Criggers are requesting this exception. The applicants are willing to comply and build a fence based on City recommendations, but the City should be considerate and allow them to maximize the use of the property. Dulek reminded the Board that a decision has to be based on the standards. So Baker will have to state what standard he feels is not being met to vote against this application. Chrischilles would have to state all the standards are met and then it would be just a question of what conditions the Board may set. Soglin said she feels she needs to read through the application again, especially now that the Board has been told the insurance requirement is not 6 feet. Soglin noted the applicant cites three reasons for the exception and one of them was the requirement for insurance to have a 6 foot fence, and now the Board is hearing that is more of a strong recommendation but not a requirement. However that could affect the applicant's insurance rates which could then translate into a hardship. They also cite privacy and safety of their children from the street and finally to maximize space for their children to play outside. She noted that it will be several hundred square feet of difference of usable space if the Board is to find support of this application. She also noted that yes there are other properties with foliage taller than the fence lines and close to the property lines, but that is not what is at question here, only this property and this exception is at question here. Soglin just feels more time to review this application is needed. Walz said the only place the insurance requirement was cited in the application was under item 2 and the standard discussing the practical difficulty. Chrischilles noted that it is a fact a 4 foot fence is required, that the applicant wants to go above and beyond that for safety reasons should be seen as a positive. Soglin stated she is also concerned about 70 feet of fence along Mt. Vernon Road and the aesthetic to the neighborhood. Baker said that brings him back to standard 3 and "reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods". For this length of property and that far away from the house is a substantial deviation. Soglin said that is why she was wondering if they had the setback at 20 feet instead of 15 feet Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 10 of 15 maybe that would be better. She also isn't interested in making a requirement about landscaping with the fence, the application is about the fence. Chrischilles asked how "see-through" the fence needs to be according to code. Walz said the code defines it as being 65% "see-through". The applicants would prefer a solid fence to match the rest of their fencing. Having a pool is an attraction and can see why they would not want passerby's to be able to see a pool in the backyard. Chrischilles does not understand if the only requirement is a 4 foot fence, and the applicants want to do more and put up a 6 foot fence, why the Board would deny that. Soglin said the issue is in the findings and the scale of the fence and that perhaps a 15 foot setback is not enough in this case and it should be more. The finding that states "scale and placement" not having a 70 foot fence closer to the sidewalk and street is the issue. In terms of safety she does agree a solid fence is understandable. Baker asked the applicants to come back up to address the Board to further clarify and answer some of the comments and questions of the Board. Chad Crigger noted that yes they can put the fence up at 25 feet (or abutting the house) and whether it is then built at 20 feet or 15 feet or whatever it is not going to change the view of property. Janet Crigger stated that Baker said the cornerstone of their application was that their insurance requirement was not met. That was her understanding when first speaking to the insurance company, she in no way meant to mislead anyone. When asking for further clarification that is was understood to be a strong recommendation. She just wanted to stress her concern is her children's safety. Baker stated his initial thought when reading the application was there were two issues. One was the going into the setback and the other was the height of the fence. Going into the setback with a 4 foot fence versus with a 6 foot fence. If the homeowner was required to do a 6 foot fence, then the height issue is eliminated, because 6 foot is the only option. But since 6 foot is not required, it is no longer a hardship requirement the homeowner must meet, it is just a preference, and understandable preference, but just a preference. So then the issue becomes 70 feet of fencing along that side of the street, so his question is if they can already do a 6 foot fence along the house there is no longer a finding for an intrusion into the setback. It is just a preference. Chad Crigger agreed, it is a preference. Their preference is to not build a fence in the middle of their yard that would essentially separate the yard. Chrischilles noted that the issue of the overall neighborhood is also satisfied with the petition form the neighbors showing support of the application. An email received by the Board earlier today by Curt Graf noted his support of the application. Janet Crigger wanted to address that they can have a fence now without an exception but the hardship they then face is the amount of useless space that is not able to be used by the family. They would not want their children playing on the outside of the fenced area, it is on a bus line and a fairly busy street. Soglin asked though how the Board can base a hardship on a preference. Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 11 of 15 Walz stated that if the Board's question is the practical difficulty of the additional setback required for this property that the standard requirement is 15 feet but along this frontage 26 feet is required due to existing development. Baker said the question is having the 6 foot fence and changing the setback calls into question all the standards when this is really a preference question, not a finding. For Baker the criteria in question is "reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods" maintaining that what the applicant can do with the property now is a substantial fenced in area but if they move that fence into the setback area they are violating the general building scale and placement of structures. What the applicant wants to do versus what they have to do are two different things. And what they have to do does not require an exception. Chrischilles noted that Baker is stating that a 6 foot fence in the setback is out of scale and will look bad. He also noted Soglin is saying the same thing, but if the fence was set back 20 feet maybe it would be okay. Soglin agreed with that statement and feels it will balance the scale compromise. Baker said his issue is there is no practical difficulty here in creating a fenced in area for the applicant. Their preference is a larger fenced in area, but that is a preference and not a practical difficulty. Soglin noted that on page 3, item 2 the practical difficulty could be for utmost privacy they want a 6 foot fence, for safety they want a 6 foot fence solid fence, and if they want that then the difficulty is they would have to put it along the house which is not a practical difficulty for any other lots along that street. Therefore the applicant may satisfy the criteria of practical difficulty. Dulek noted that Soglin and Chrischilles feel specific criteria 2 has been met. Goeb believes that if the City says a 4 foot fence is safe, and the insurance company states a 4 foot fence is safe, then why is it a safety issue that they need a 6 foot fence. Walz noted that the applicant is claiming that on a corner lot passersby's can see the pool area and is more visible than an interior lot with a pool would be. Goeb feels the applicant is more concerned that the people in the yard and pool are more visible than the actual pool. She also feels that because the applicants can put a 4 foot fence around the yard without coming before the Board renders the application moot. She understands the applicant's view regarding their personal preference for a 6 -foot fence for safety of their family and others, but it is not required by the insurance company or by the City. Chrischilles noted that at last month's meeting the Board did reduce a setback for a garage to be built on the side of a house and not in the rear yard because there was very little rear yard that was private from the street and putting the garage closer to the house would result in losing the private yard space closer to the house. So basically the Board allowed that applicant to maximize the size of the yard and have a garage by allowing the setback exception for the garage. Goeb noted that is not precedent setting; each application is distinct. Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 12 of 15 Baker said health, safety, and welfare are not the issues in this application. The health, safety and welfare can be accomplished with the 6 foot fence at the setback line of 26 feet. This application is a question of maximizing the use of the property, and is uncomfortable with that as a precedent. Chrischilles noted that if the application is not based on safety, can it be based on it does not harm. Soglin stated then they are back discussing if there is a practical difficulty. Baker stated it is a question of how much land does the City want to allow the homeowner to use to maximize the use of their property, there is no safety hazard. He understands the applicant's point of view, but cannot see a compelling reason to grant this exception on the basis of any of the findings. Soglin said to her there is a safety issue, that if children are playing in the fenced in yard area, they should have space that is far enough from the pool to not be a safety concern. Baker felt the conversation needs to move forward and Dulek stated that procedurally a motion should be made. Soglin asked if a motion were to be made, what would the distance of the setback be in the motion. Dulek said to make the motion and second for the approval and then discuss and see if the findings are met. Soglin moved to approve EXC15-00010 a reduction in the front principal building setback requirement to 15 feet along the Mt. Vernon Drive Street right-of-way line, subject to the conditions listed below: • The shed currently located in the front setback must be relocated behind the front facade of the house. • The 6 -foot fence must either be a solid fence. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Dulek reminded the Board to focus if the standards have been met. The two standards that have been discussed in debate are the practical difficulties (standard 2) and reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods (part of standard 3). So if a member of the Board is going to vote against this exception they need to state the finding for which they feel is not satisfied. Baker stated that the argument of a practical hardship has not been met because the yard can still be used, fenced in safely, the pool can be protected, there is not a requirement for a 6 foot fence and given again the general building scale and placement of structures is inconsistent and there is not a compelling argument beyond that. Chrischilles questioned the inconsistency of general building scale and placement of structures stating there are examples in Iowa City where structures are within 15 feet of the setback. Dulek noted that is not the legal standard, the applicant has the burden to show that is the case, and Baker is saying that the applicant has not carried its burden to show it reflects the general building scale and placement. The legal issue is whether the applicant has met the standard. Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 13 of 15 Chrischilles asked what the applicant would need to do in order to satisfy that burden and meet the standard. Baker said the height of the fence and the length of the fence are inconsistent and the location of where the fence should be placed. Chrischilles states he feels the exception would satisfy the standard because the general setback in RS -5 zones is 15 feet and the motion is for the setback to be at 15 feet. Soglin noted that this is a corner lot, which is not the same as general lots. Walz said a typical corner lot built today would have a 15 foot setback on both street frontages. Soglin then said that could be seen as a practical difficulty then because this lot was built on in a time where the setbacks were different than today. Baker said there is no practical difficulty in building a fence but the applicant is saying there is a practical difficulty for them in the amount of usable yard space they would lose if fence was built at the current setback. He noted that would be true everywhere, if one wanted to maximize the use of their property whether it was 15 feet or 26 feet. Chrischilles again stated that a setback was reduced as last month's meeting to maximize the yard space for the applicant. And also Walz said that if this lot was built in today's standards, the setbacks would be 15 feet. Baker says in the Staff report it states this application may be interpreted as counter to purpose C "reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods" which he believes means the Staff recognizes that there is no clear guideline here. Goeb stated she agrees that she does not believe there is a practical difficulty. Soglin also noted she is concerned about standard 3(c) reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods, and that it has not been met. Baker noted before a vote he wanted to thank the applicants for their time and patience as the Board reviewed and discussed the application. Chrischilles stated that regarding EXC15-00010 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff report of June 10, 2015 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker stated that regarding EXC15-00010 he does not find the findings have been satisfied specifically reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods has not been met and therefore opposed this application. Soglin also opposed EXC15-00010 based on concern about placement and scale. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 1-3 (Baker, Goeb and Soglin dissenting). Board of Adjustment June 10, 2015 Page 14 of 15 Baker declared the motion for the special exception denied, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: A request by Noah Kemp to extend the term of a special exception to allow a drive-through facility to be located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict (RFC -WR) zone at 708 South Riverside Drive. (Exception was approved in January, 2015.) Walz stated the letter from Mr. Kemp was in the Board's packet. They are still negotiating with Brueggers Bagels and therefore asking for an extension of the exception until April 2016. Staff recommends just a six month extension, all they need to do is get a site plan or building permit process to begin and then they have up to two years to complete the project before the exception expires. Therefore Staff feels six months is sufficient. The initial terms of the exception was six months during which time the applicant has to start the process of establishing the project for which the exception was granted. Soglin moved approval of a request by Noah Kemp to extend the term of a special exception to allow a drive-through facility to be located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict (RFC -WR) zone at 708 South Riverside Drive and extend that term by six months from the expiration of the original exception approval. Goeb seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: Goeb moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. r 0 N r 0 N LU Y X X X X X X X X X 0 °0- X X � X X X X X X X N X X X X T N x x x x x T T co LU uj X X x Q O O 0 x x x x x C" r- O(0 O 00 xd r N•— O O O O O N N N N N LV r r r H W Z W H U N Y Q Z JLU O m m x v vi v z W W m Z N J W w C7 z m 0 0 V Iv) LU Y MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2015 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Egenberger, Tom Egenberger, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1102 East College Street. Miklo said this property is in the College Hill Historic District and is located on the north side of the street about midway between Summit and Muscatine. He said it is a classic bungalow -style house, with two chimneys, one of them more prominent but both somewhat distinct. Miklo said the proposal is to remove one chimney and replace it with a metal chimney. He said the guidelines discuss chimneys pretty clearly in acknowledging that there are some cases where non -prominent chimneys could be removed. Miklo said the guidelines do not allow for new, modern metal chimneys on historic buildings. Miklo said there have been other situations where chimneys were rebuilt to match an historic chimney. He said that in a recent case on Grant Street, the owners used a thin, brick veneer instead of an actual brick. Miklo said that Jessica Bristow did a mockup showing what the proposed metal chimney might look like, why it is not appropriate in an historic district, and why the Commission has not approved these in the past. Miklo said the Commission has approved the complete removal of chimneys when they are no longer needed, because furnaces or other equipment are vented out the side of the house, but has not approved replacing them with metal chimneys. He said that staff would not recommend approval of this application to remove the chimney but would recommend approval of repairing the chimney or rebuilding it similarly to what was done on Grant Street with a veneer similar to the existing brick. Tom Egenberger said that this chimney was hit by lightning and has cracks in it. He said they discovered this after having a leak in the kitchen and tracing the leak back to the chimney. Tom HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 11, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Egenberger said they will have to do something with the chimney. He stated that the bricks are cracked in the chimney, so it's not a matter of just tuck pointing it. Egenberger said that as soon as the insurance company got involved, the price of this became astronomical, reaching about $8,000. He said if they put a metal, conventional chimney in, it would cost between $3,000 and $4,000. Egenberger said he did not want to pay the difference, and he did not think putting a fagade around it seems like a permanent solution and is afraid it might cause more problems than it actually fixes. Corcoran said the staff report says that the chimney cannot be demolished, because something is vented through it. Elizabeth Egenberger responded that the furnace is vented out this chimney. Swaim asked if there has been any indication that a chimney fagade has not held up in the past. Miklo said that he was not aware of any problems. He stated that if it is done properly and maintained, it should hold up. Miklo said that a lot of modern houses with fireplaces have more of a faux chimney, so there is precedent for doing it with a fagade. Miklo said that the ideal situation would be to rebuild the chimney in masonry. He said one could get the best match, the best look, and permanence. Miklo said the second choice would be to do a thin, brick chimney. Wagner said this is obviously not a high efficiency furnace. He asked if it is going up one of those green, enameled tiled ducts. Tom Egenberger said that it would be clay tile. Egenberger said he traced it back and found some rotten wood and replaced that, but it still leaked. He said then he had a contractor look at the chimney and was told that it had been hit by lightning. He said that a metal lining a possible replacement. Wagner asked why he couldn't do that and leave that chimney. He said there could possibly be a combination of tuck point, repairing it so the leaks are gone, and then, to keep water from coming in the top, put on a chimney cap. Elizabeth Egenberger said they talked to the contractor, and apparently that can't be done. She said the problem won't be solved with that type of procedure. Egenberger said they talked to one contractor and four or five chimney people. Miklo asked if their insurance covered lightning strikes. Elizabeth Egenberger said that it does, but the limit is $3,000. Tom Egenberger said they have had bids of $8,000. He said the insurance company gave them a check for $3,490. Trimble said she is aware of people who have double-checked with their insurance, and when the guidelines showed and the Commission ruled that the changes could not be made as described, insurance companies in some cases did pay the extra. Elizabeth Egenberger said the insurance company is assuming the Commission will deny this. She said that the $3,000 is paying for as much as the insurance company will pay for the brick work and everything else. Durham asked if it would be possible to reroute the flue so that it doesn't have to go up a chimney. Elizabeth Egenberger said she did not know but said the furnace is the original furnace. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 11, 2015 Page 3 of 8 Miklo said that, based on the guidelines, there are two alternatives: rebuilding the masonry chimney or building a chimney with thin bricks, which would most likely cost less than the bids received. Wagner said it seems that the source of where the water is coming from is either through the top or through the sides where the cracks are. He said that if it is coming through the sides, the water goes in there and then works its way down and into the walls. Wagner said if that were sealed, then it's only the top that remains the problem — where the water can get in, get along the brick, and then eventually work its way into the walls. He said that is what would call for a chimney cap, which he assumed would work to keep water and animals out. Wagner said that tuck pointing, if it's done right, could be done to grind out the mortar joints. He said he was not certain why that would not stop the problem. Wagner said that even if one did a thin, brick fagade attached to the front of the brick, there would still be the problem of the water going in the top if there was not a cap. Miklo clarified that the fagade would involve a process to remove the chimney from above the roofline, build a box, and then put the near brick on that. MOTION: Corcoran moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1102 East College Street, Iowa City, IA, as presented in the application. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion to deny carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Michaud, and Sandell absent). Miklo suggested the Commission consider a second motion to approve rebuilding the chimney or doing a veneer. Elizabeth Egenberger stated that when they were going to present the original motion for rebuilding the chimney, they talked with Bristow and discussed having the metal extend four inches above, having some kind of cap, and reproducing the trim at the top. She asked if that is what the discussion is referring to. Swaim confirmed. MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1102 East College Street, Iowa City, Iowa, with the condition that the applicants resolve this problem by either: 1) repairing the chimney 2) by rebuilding the chimney with either bricks or thin bricks to match the remaining chimney and/or 3) installing a metal chimney with. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Michaud, and Sandell absent). 1009 East College Street. Miklo stated that this property is located just east of Summit Street and is believed to be one of the first, if not the first, houses built east of Summit Street in this neighborhood. He said the house is Italianate in style with some Greek revival aspects. Miklo said the porch was at one time removed, and the building was covered in asbestos siding. He said that sometime after 1990, the siding was removed, the exterior of the house was restored, and the porch was rebuilt on the front of the house, and it wrapped around. Miklo stated that when the porch was rebuilt, it encroached on the window, which is causing problems with leakage and rot. He said the applicant therefore proposes shortening the window and putting in a new sash, double -hung window. Miklo said staff recommends one of two options, one of which would be to shorten the window so that it lines up with the bottom of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 11, 2015 Page 4 of 8 adjacent window, which is a later addition to the house. He added that the applicant alternatively thought he might be able to move the sill so that it would be longer than the adjacent window and somewhat in between the existing other windows on the house. Miklo showed the way the window has been patched in causing leaking into the roof and the sill, which is causing rot. He said there is obviously a problem. Miklo said one typically does not like to see the front fagade altered when it comes to windows, but there seems to be a reason to do it here. He said that short of rebuilding the porch roof, there does not seem to be a solution to this other than raising the windowsill. Miklo said staff recommends approval of decreasing the window height from the bottom - raising the bottom sill of the window. He suggested leaving it up to the applicant to determine where between the two red lines on the photograph that would occur. Wagner said that presumably all the trim and everything would stay the same. Miklo confirmed that the trim would be replicated. He added that there is a little detail that one doesn't see very often on the bottom. Miklo said that would all be replicated. MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for this project at 1009 East College Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: the divided light pattern and window trim detail match existing windows like window B in the photograph; all trim and siding shall be wood, cement board, or a wood substitute to be approved by staff; and the siding replacement portion of the application shall follow the previously distributed certificate of appropriateness. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore Michaud, and Sandell absent). 827 Rundell Street. Miklo said this property is on the west side of the street in the Dearborn Conservation District. He said this neighborhood was built as part of the Rundell Addition, associated with the streetcar line. Miklo said this is believed to be one of the earliest houses in the neighborhood. Miklo said there is some question as to whether this was built as a house or a cottage associated with the railroad or what its actual purpose was. He said it is very simple and is just one room in the interior, like a loft space. Miklo added that it has atypical Dutch lap siding. Miklo said there is some thought that there might have been a porch on the front of the house that was once removed, but there is currently no evidence of that. He said the applicant is proposing a small entry porch over the front door to protect the door from rain. Miklo said the roof would be very simple, would mimic the pitch of the main roof, and would have very simple craftsman-style brackets. He said staff finds that aspect of the application to meet the guidelines. Miklo said other aspects of the proposal include putting in a railing to match the existing railing on the side entry to the house, which would meet the guidelines. He said another part of the proposal is to replace the back basement door, which staff does not believe is original, with a new, very simple, smooth door. Miklo said that, since this is at the back of the house, staff finds this to be appropriate and recommends approval. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 827 Rundell Street, in Iowa City, as presented in the application. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Michaud, and Sandell absent). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 11, 2015 Page 5 of 8 Swaim asked that the applicant be reminded that any railings and such are to be painted, as stated in the guidelines. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 320 East College Street. Miklo said this application involved non -historic additions to Trinity Episcopal Church. He said this involves a modern addition that was done to complement the original. Miklo said there is a courtyard behind that, and then there is more modern construction. He said this is basically repairing roofs, with no material effect, so it was approved administratively. Minor Review — Preapproved Item — Staff Review. 1009 East College Street. Miklo said there were other aspects to the repair of this property, including damaged siding and trim materials that were approved administratively so that the owners could get started with the work. He said that the window project was just approved by the Commission. 625 South Governor Street. Miklo said there are two windows to be replaced at this property. He showed the street fagade, facing Governor Street. Miklo said there is one window on the south side that just needs to be repaired, and one window on the west side to be replaced with a casement window, a window that opens sideways, to allow egress. He said this was allowed as a minor review — when the appearance does not change, except for egress. 509 South Lucas Street. Miklo said the Commission reviewed this building a couple of years ago, when the porch was rebuilt without a permit. He said the owners then put the porch back the way it was originally. Miklo said the owners had done some do-it-yourself window repair, using some epoxies and putty - materials that would typically not be used on a window. He said that the work did not last. Miklo said Iowa City Door and Window looked at this and said that the materials used ruined the muntin bars. He said staff therefore approved replacing the windows with like windows, in terms of wood windows with metal cladding. Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review. 712 Ronalds Street. Miklo said this is a non-contributing property, because there have been several additions over the years, including a porch. He said that the post and spindles are very thin, not something that would be seen on a historic house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 11, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Miklo said the property owner proposed replacing the posts or covering them with cedar or some other approved material to make them wider and then putting lap siding over the railing. He said that this is a pretty common design throughout Iowa City and is probably a little better than what is there now. Miklo said staff approved this administratively. He said that this was a non-contributing property in an historic district and therefore did not need to come before the Commission. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM: Miklo said the subcommittee has not had a meeting since the last Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Corcoran said she would send an e-mail to the subcommittee members to work out a time to meet. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 14,2015: Agran stated that comments attributed to him were actually made by Ackerson, and comments attributed by Ackerson were actually made by Agran and should therefore be corrected. MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the May 14, 2015 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Male seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Michaud, and Sandell absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Incentives for continued occupancy of historic buildings. Miklo said that Michaud had asked that this be on the agenda, and he suggested putting off discussion since she was not in attendance. 518 Bowery to receive Preservation At Its Best Award. Miklo said this property came before the Commission on three occasions. He said one was to designate it as an Iowa City landmark. Miklo said it then came for the repair work, which on the exterior mostly consisted of restoring the storefront windows. He said it then came before the Commission for review of the sign. Miklo said this property will be awarded a Best in Preservation in Iowa Award at the Preservation Summit in Winterset later in June. He stated that Bristow and Corcoran will be attending the summit to accept the award. Miklo said there were projects from all over the State, so it is impressive that this project is receiving the award for the Small Commercial category. He said that Swaim will be sending a memo to the City Council to bring this to its attention and to remind people of the positive things that preservation does for and in the community. Swaim asked if the City could send out a press release regarding this to the local and Cedar Rapids newspapers. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 11, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Miklo said that 610 Ronalds Street, for which the Commission denied a demolition permit at its last meeting, has been purchased by the neighboring property owners from the former applicant. He said that it will be coming before the Commission in some fashion in the future. Miklo added that the City Council will be considering the Commission's request to amend the building code to require building permits for roofs in historic districts and on landmarks, (not in conservation districts) and also for street -facing doors/front doors in historic districts and on landmarks. He said the City Council will be considering this on Tuesday. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O U) N 0 0 ce O O U U Z O w F- W o > U Z r N0 N WZ 12 W a � U Q O H N w Y x x X X x x X X <O X X x 0 X X p X X X O N X X x x X O X X X X X X X X x x X X X X x M N V- X X x x X x x X N co x X X X x X 0 X X X w N x x x w x X X x x X w o M x w O w O x X X X X X X X p X X x X x x X x X O x x x x x x x x x o x as x o x o w o o x x X X o a, Lua 0) 0)rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn W W N N N N N N N N N N N F— M coo M M M M M M M M M Q W Q Q Z W W o 0 Y p Q a W m J Q w Z a a w 0 (D z w o 0= z z° Z z a Q Q U 3 a x w Y MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2015 — 6:30 PM HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Michelle Bacon Curry, Dorothy Persson, Christine Ralston, Rachel Zimmerman Smith, Angel Taylor MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Chappell, Jim Jacobson, Bob Lamkins, STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Karen DeGroot, Becci Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback, Crissy Canganelli, Mark Sertterh By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of Amendment #2 to the Annual Action Plan with the following limitation: $93,750 HOME to The Housing Fellowship to acquire one property at 1896 N. Dubuque Road. Balance of $56,250 to be placed into a competitive application process. Zimmerman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON AMENDMENT #2 OF THE FY2015 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN: Hightshoe explained the need for Amendment #2 to the FY15 Annual Action Plan. For HOME, grantees have two years to commit HOME funds to eligible projects or the funds get returned to HUD and no longer available for local use. Last year $200,000 was allocated to the Housing Fellowship but they were unable to locate land for a LIHTC project. These funds need to be reallocated. Additionally any HOME program income the City receives is added to the HOME commitment calculation. Hightshoe mentioned that the City had all the HOME commitments in place this year, but then Regency Place, a LIHTC project on Scott Boulevard, recently changed ownership. The LLC stayed the same, but the ownership on top of the LLC changed and during that ownership change they paid off the City's loan early, an amount of $90,000. Then a few weeks ago, Extend the Dream Foundation sold their property and paid back their CDBG loan ($122,000) because they will no longer offer micro -enterprise services at that site. The CDGB funds are not within a time limit situation but there was $50,000 of HOME money from the three residential units on that property that was also repaid to the City at the closing. The City needs to commit over $200,000 to HOME projects by July 31 or the funds will be recaptured by HUD and not available for local use. T Due to time constraints, staff spoke to The Housing Fellowship (THF) to see if they could acquire up to two properties in areas with little affordable rental housing opportunities within approximately a month. . The Housing Fellowship identified 1896 North Dubuque Road and signed purchase agreement on that property to use for affordable rental housing. There was a Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2015 Page 2 of 6 second property on the west side, but that fell through just earlier today. Hightshoe said $93,000 of the $140,000 available could be committed to the 1896 North Dubuque Road project. Also Mayor Youth Employment Program, who was identified sites with accepted purchase offers, was listed as a CDBG project and now will receive HOME funds. Charms will receive the CDBG funds. That should take care of committing all the needed available HOME funds by the deadline. So therefore, amendment # 2 is that the Housing Fellowship is awarded $150,000 to purchase two properties, one already identified at 1896 North Dubuque Road property and then continue to look for a second property. Community Mental Health Center recently paid back $125,000 of CDBG funds they received in 2012 as they sold their building and relocating. Due to the CDBG rule for reversion of assets, if the property is sold before five years, the funds must be repaid as the site is no longer providing the required services. Therefore there is about $250,000 of CDBG funds that will need to be allocated. The application process for those funds will reopen soon and therefore there will be a mid -year funding round. Byler asked if the remaining HOME $47,000 could be put in the mid -year funding allocation, and the Commission just vote tonight to approve the Housing Fellowship to purchase the one identified unit. Persson asked if the whole amount could be put into the mid -year funding allocation, but Hightshoe said the majority has to be committed or returned to HUD. Zimmermann Smith questioned why only the Housing Fellowship was contacted regarding these additional funds. Hightshoe explained that due to time constraints, there was not enough time to have an open allocation round. An entity had about a month to find a property and staff needs about a month to go through the environmental review process and amendment process once a site had been identified and an accepted purchase offer obtained. THF is one of only two Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) in Iowa City. HACAP is the other CHDO, but typically relies on additional funding for support services for their transitional housing units. The City had no funds available for support services, so THF was a reasonable choice. CHDOs must verify their capacity to administer HOME funds annually and are a "preferred" entity under the HOME program. HOME rules require 15% of the annual entitlement award be awarded to eligible CHDOs. Thus due to tight time constraints and limited CHDOs in Iowa City, THF was contacted. Zimmermann Smith commented that perhaps the Commission should have been consulted and this not just been a City Staff decision. Byler also commented that perhaps notice could have been posted and shared with other organizations so that they might be able to apply for these funds. Hightshoe did note that staff looked at the City's highest needs, which is affordable rental housing and there was no time for an open round. Entities could not just apply for a project; they had to have an accepted purchase offer due to the tight time schedule. Persson noted a couple concerns. First she feels this group would not have been able to respond quickly and second there is no need to create a new non-profit if an existing non-profit can do the work. So when looking at who to allocate the money to, it needs to be given to an organization with a record of being able to put it to the best use. She acknowledges that City Staff acted the best they could with the time they had. Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Byler moved to approve Amendment #2 to the FYI Annual Action Plan with the following limitation: $93,750 HOME to The Housing Fellowship to acquire one property at 1896 N. Dubuque Road. Balance of $56,250 to be placed into a competitive application process. Taylor seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FY2017 AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATIONS: At the April meeting, you requested guidance on funding priorities for future Aid to Agencies applications and allocation of funds. Since then a committee comprised of five city staff drafted priorities based on projects that meet critical need (priories listed on June 16, 2015 memo). The priorities are based on project type, not organizations applying. One organization can have several projects of different priorities. The Commission may: 1) approve the priorities as presented, 2) approve revised priorities, or 3) not approve any priorities. If approved, the priorities would be provided to applicants of Aid to Agencies funding for the coming cycle that starts this summer. Byler noted he does like the idea of having priorities. Bacon Curry just commented on making sure certain demographics were given the same priority as others, especially those that have no other funding sources. Byler asked about homeless services. Hightshoe said there is not a specific category for homeless, the "other public services" category is used. Byler moved to approve the priorities as outlined by staff with the other public services limited to only homeless services. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. APPROVAL OF APRIL 16. 2015 MINUTES: Bacon Curry moved to approve the minutes of April 16, 2015. Byler seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW AND PROJECT UPDATE (PLAYGROUND) FROM ARC OF SOUTHEAST IOWA: Housing and Community Development Commission June 18, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Karen DeGroot, Executive Director of Johnson County Crisis Center updated the Commission on the project. The playground is not only used by the kids at ARC but also neighborhood kids. She also commented on the services ARC offers. Respite Care offers families relief from the daily care of their family member with a disability, Supported Community Living program allows individuals with disabilities to work toward specific goals with the help of skilled professionals, and the Summer Camps are at full capacity. ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW AND PROJECT UPDATE (RAPID REHOUSING) FROM SHELTER HOUSE: Crissy Canganelli, and Mark Sertterh updated the Commission on the Rapid Rehousing project. Sertterh said the project offers housing assistance to homeless by paying for rental deposits and six months' rent. Additionally they counsel the folks for the six months so that they can continue to be successful in the future. They have currently assisted six applicants. Canganelli added that this project has allowed their organization to make and maintain relationships with landlords and other agencies to continue to build on this program. She noted the sustainability of the housing is very important to this program and they work with the renters to make sure they can sustain a budget and continue to live in the apartment after the six months of assistance. Canganelli also shared some of the other project updates from Shelter House, she said they are right on target with number of people served and assisted. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: The Commission discussed a celebration or press release to recognize the landlords and other members of the community that help assist with agencies and their projects. ADJOURNMENT: Taylor moved to adjourn. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. z O N O U H z LU M O J w w }O F - z O U D z Q 0 z N O x D O U LU w w U z z w H F - Q x x o 0 o x x x x to LO 0 o x o x x x o x x VMI 4 x x x x x x x O x M LO c) X X X x X X X X X N U) r x x x x X o o X r N o x o X X x x X r r o X X X x x x x a. Cfl I- � r- (0 CD LO f- Un T- W o N o N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N N w F - rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn � w J J w U W Z Z Q �_ m F- w y U H d JO m N G z U z z Q z 2 z U Cm J w N m U z O N 0) O 1- J c O � WW w � Z m m Q � J a N �U U N�