HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-2023 HPC agenda packet (REVISED 09_12_2023)
Thursday
September 14, 2023
5:30 p.m.
Revised
Emma J. Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, September 14, 2023
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
*REVISED*
Agenda
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificate of Appropriateness
1. HPC23-0049: 813 Rundell Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (roof alteration at screened
porch)
2. HPC23-0050: 320 East College Street – Local Historic Landmark (signage)
E) Request Comment on a Proposal at 431 South Summit Street
F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review
1. HPC23-0043: 518 South Lucas Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (concrete site
stair replacement)
2. HPC23-0047: 314 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Conservation District (concrete site stair
replacement)
Minor Review –Staff review
1. HPC23-0037: 738 Rundell Street - Longfellow Historic District (deteriorated window and door
replacement)
2. HPC23-0041: 521 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (vinyl siding
removal and historic siding and trim repair)
3. HPC23-0044: 707 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (overhead door replacement)
4. HPC23-0046: 1328 Muscatine Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement)
G) Consideration of Minutes for August 10, 2023
H) Commission Discussion
1. Planning and Zoning items
2. HP Awards- update and assign presenters.
I) Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow,
Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Staff Report August 31, 2023
Historic Review for HPC23-0049: 813 Rundell Street
General Information:
Owner: Dan Olson and Ron McClellan, dan@macolson.com
Contact Person: John Martinek, Modern Roots Design Build,
jnmartinek@yahoo.com
District: Dearborn Street Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: Alter roof slope on historic screened porch, raising eave to match
house and replacing screens and battens.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
Property History:
This hipped-roof Ranch house, built ca. 1950-55, has a front facing gable over the north
half of the house. The large projecting gable covers a recessed front entry on the north
and has a California window facing the street. The house is clad in brick with lap siding
in the gable, a wood frieze board encircling the house at the eave, and a large
rectangular chimney in the front corner of the gable projection. Most of the windows are
two over two double-hung windows with a horizontal division. A pair of multi-lite
casements is on the back. The house has a historic screened porch on the back with a
flat roof. There is a matching one-car garage along the alley.
Detailed Project Description:
The project will replace the existing roof with rear-facing gable roof that matches the
gable on the front of the house with lap siding in the gable. The project will use asphalt
shingles matching the shingles on the house. Painted wood fascia, soffits, and siding
will be used. Screens and exterior battens on the porch will be repaired or replaced. A
new custom wood screen door will be installed.
Guidelines:
Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends:
• Preserving historic trim such as crown molding, skirt, and frieze boards.
• Preserving the original roof pitches and spans.
There is an exception in this section, available to all properties:
• Roof Pitch- Minor change to the roof pitch to address drainage concerns. On a
case-by-case basis, the Commission may consider allowing minor changes to
the roof pitch if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need. Work
should be done to ensure other significant architectural features such as trim and
brackets are not altered.
Analysis:
In Staff’s opinion, the existing roof on the historic screened porch (built with the house)
is contributing to the deterioration of the porch and surrounding materials. This project
modifies the roof on the screened porch to allow for better drainage and protection of
the porch structure below. The current roof is a flat roof. The eave condition on the
porch steps down slightly from the eave condition on the main roof. The new roof would
match the front gable and also raise the eave on the screened porch to match the eave
condition on the house. Deteriorated wood and screens on the porch will also be
replaced. Staff recommends the use of the roof pitch exception to approve the
modification of this roof.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 813
Rundell, as presented in the application and through the use of an exception to the
guidelines.
813 Rundell Street- front (east)
813 Rundell Street – front entry detail
813 Rundell Street- front detail
813 Rundell Street- rear (west)
813 Rundell Street- screened porch detail (south)
813 Rundell Street – Screened porch detail (NW corner)
Staff Report September 7, 2023
Historic Review for HPC23-0050: 320 East College Street
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: Trinity Episcopal Church, trinityic@trinityic.org
Contact Person: John Loomis, johnloomis64@gmail.com
District: Iowa City Downtown Historic District (NR only)
Classification: Local Historic Landmark
Project Scope: Installation of new monument sign
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.14 Wood
10.0 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Property History:
Trinity Episcopal Church was built in 1871 in a Gothic Revival style. The plans are
attributed to Richard Upjohn, a 19th century New York architect known for his Gothic
Revival church designs. This style is commonly known as carpenter, cottage or pseudo-
perpendicular. Trefoil ornamentation in relief appears n the façade, and three lancet
arch windows pierce the wall over the front door. There are also four lancet arch
windows along the sides of the church, indicating the bays. Five dormer windows echo
the bays, and the battens terminate in a repetition of the lancet points under the eaves.
The first four bays of the building are the nave, the fifth is the choir, while a projection to
the north furnishes the space for the chancel and a stained-glass window. A parish hall
was added in an L extending west from the north end of the church. In 1971 an addition
was made to the parish hall. A southern wing encloses the courtyard.
The Commission has approved several projects for Trinity beginning in 1997 that have
included signs, roof shingle replacement and a major alteration project that replaced the
stone foundation, reusing some of it as a veneer, the addition of a stair tower and a
chimney and shed-roof structure removal.
Detailed Project Description:
This project will remove the existing monument sign and install a new one on the
southeast corner of the property. The new sign will be mounted on treated wood posts
that will be painted. The sign will have a steel frame, be constructed of HDU, which is
high density Urethane, and be painted with gold leaf accents.
Guidelines:
Section 4.14 Wood recommends:
• Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the
appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be
durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Section 4.14 disallows:
• Substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance,
function, and paintability of the original wood.
Section 10 Secretary of the Interior’s Standard 9 reads:
• New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
Section 10 Secretary of the Interior’s Standard 10 reads:
• New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of
the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Analysis:
In Staff’s opinion, the design and location for the new sign are appropriate for the
church, as follows:
• The location is the same or similar to other signs that have been on the property,
• The design includes references to the historic church and historic signage,
• The location follows the current city sign code.
The material from which the sign board will be constructed is not a wood substitute
material that has been approved by the Commission. Information about high density
urethane has been included in the agenda packet. It has become a standard product
used in the signage industry because of its hardness, ability to be worked similar to
wood, and its weather resistance. In addition, it can be painted like wood. For these
reasons, staff recommends that the Commission approve the use of HDU for this sign
and potentially additional monument signs in the future. Staff also recommends
approval of this project for Trinity Church.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 320 East
College Street as presented in the application.
Trinity Episcopal Church, 2022 image (Google)
Trinity Episcopal Church, 2022 image (Google)
Trinity existing sign (also presumed to be a modern sign)
Photo of a Church Sign
This photo of a church sign being installed is included in this application to provide a good example
of the appearance of the sign proposed by Trinity Church. This sign was installed in 2009 in Washington DC
on Massachusetts Ave in an historic district downtown. The church is about six blocks from the
headquarters of the National Historic Preservation Association. The church is a significant example of gothic
church design, and the sign was not considered an impediment to the historic character of the church. In
fact, it was greeted with enthusiastic approval by all who saw it. The sign is made of the HDU material that is
proposed for Trinity’s sign in Iowa City. It was approved by the historic commission of DC. The color of
Trinity’s sign will be red.
If there are questions, please contact John Loomis at johnloomis64@gmail.com or 319-631-1424.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Memorandum
Date: September 12, 2023
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: HPC23-0048: 431 South Summit Street
Property owner, David Villanueva, has submitted a historic review application for a rear addition to the
house at 431 South Summit Street. During the review of the project, it was noted that the addition did
not comply with a specific guideline related to setback limitations on Summit Street in addition to
needing design revisions. Since this setback limitation impacts the entire project, the applicant would
like the Commission to provide feedback regarding this guideline prior to completing any design
revision. For that reason, staff will present this aspect of the project to the Commission so that the
Commission may provide comments on whether or not they feel an exception to the guidelines is
appropriate for this project for it to proceed with the larger footprint.
Project Proposal
The proposed project will add a one-story addition to the back of the house which would include a
kitchen and open porch for a newly configured rear entry. The submittal included interior photos,
information about the neighborhood rear years, an applicant statement, and project drawings. The
application materials are included as an attachment. Since the applicant is only requesting comment
on the setback-related guideline, only the site plan drawing is attached. Further design review and
approval would occur at a future meeting.
Guidelines
Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends:
• Unique setback guidelines exist for Summit Street, located within the Summit Street
Historic District and the Longfellow Neighborhood. On this street the rear wall of the
primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This
restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Refer to 8.0 Neighborhood
District Guidelines.
Section 8.1 Neighborhood District Guidelines- Longfellow Neighborhood states:
• On Summit Street only: the rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper
than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear
yards.
Review of Neighborhood existing conditions
Staff reviewed the currents distance of the rear wall of the house from the front street for the 43
houses in the 300-700 block of Summit Street. Of those houses, 15 extend further than 125 feet from
Summit Street. Of those fifteen, six of them are historic houses or historic additions in place before
1942. Another four of them are additions constructed in the 1950s to 1970s. Two additions, those at
405 S Summit and 412 S Summit were approved by the Commission when they were reviewing the
projects against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards because local design review guidelines did
not exist. Three of the additions were approved by the Commission. The addition at 330 S Summit
was approved in 2008 and is the greatest intrusion into the setback within the area. This project was
impacted by the location of the historic porte cochere which limited the location of an addition to the
back of the house. The owner was adding a first-floor bedroom to age in place. The Commission
evaluated the setback requirement and determined that the lot was the largest in the area and that the
lot would still have twice as much open space as nearby lots. They approved the project with an
exception to the guidelines. The project at 409 S Summit only enclosed the first-floor area below a
historic sleeping porch from 1926. The addition at 519 S Summit removed a 6-foot-deep existing
addition and replaced it with a 12-foot-deep addition. The staff report noted that the addition would
only extend 4.5’ into the setback. A table of existing setbacks is below.
Address Setback Date occurred Notes
304 S Summit 141’ Before 1920 Historic addition
314 S Summit 135’ Before 1920 Historic addition
325 S Summit 125’ Before 1920
330 S Summit 156’ 2008 Appr. per exception- largest lot w/2x open space
331 S Summit 125’ ca. 1895
404 S Summit 126’ 1868
405 S Summit 133’ 1986 Approved before guidelines. Replacing existing
406 S Summit 125’ 1998
409 S Summit 130’ 1926 and 2009 Enclosed 1st floor beneath historic sleeping porch
411 S Summit 126’ After 1974 Roof canopy extends 6 feet further
412 S Summit 135’ 1994 Approved before guidelines. Only location for add.
415 S Summit 130’ 1920-26 Historic rear porch
416 S Summit 111’ 1915
419 S Summit 145’ Before 1920 Historic summer kitchen
424 S Summit 125’ 1900
428 S Summit 132’ 1950 Mid-century addition
430 S Summit 126’ 2023
431 S Summit 124’ 1930s
435-7 S Summit 124’ 1925
447 S Summit 137’ 1975 Former garage replaced with add. Before HPC
508 S Summit 126’ 2021
512 S Summit 118’ 1924
513 S Summit 123’ 1883
519 S Summit 131’ 2006 approved extending 4.5’ replace old add. w/ new
526 S Summit 122’ 1963
530 S Summit 132’ 1942 1-story garage attached to house w/ roof canopy
533 S Summit 90’ 1878
536 S Summit 109’ 1999
540 S Summit 89’ 1939
602 S Summit 125’ 1988
603 S Summit 105’ 1898
609 S Summit 120’ 1976
620 S Summit 120’ 1950
621 S Summit 114’ 1862
624 S Summit 143’ 1890 Historic house sits noticeably further back on lot
705 S Summit 122’ 1997
709 S Summit 124’ 2001
710 S Summit 123’ 1900
715 S Summit 116’ 1900
718 S Summit 120’ 1991
725 S Summit 126’ 2015
730 S Summit 130’ 1972 Garage attached to house before HPC
733 S Summit 105’ 1984
Staff Comment
Unlike other sections of the guidelines, the Neighborhood District Guidelines are not written as
recommendations. Even so, this section provides direction for exceptions to the guidelines. No
documented exceptions exist but the Commission may apply exceptions per section 3.2 Exceptions to
the Iowa City Guidelines. Since the guidelines are not silent or unclear on the setback limitation and
there are no documented exceptions, the Commission may evaluate if this is an Uncommon Situation.
The exception for Uncommon Situations reads as follows:
• During the course of historic review, it may be revealed that elements of the application warrant
special consideration. When this occurs, alternative design solutions to the Iowa City Guidelines
or the Neighborhood District Guidelines may be considered by the Historic Preservation
Commission. The intent in considering alternative designs is to allow architectural flexibility in
exceptional circumstances such as non-compliant structures, irregular lots, and projects which
satisfy the intent of the guidelines as interpreted by the Commission. The Commission may find
guidance in section 3.3 Additional Historic Preservation Guidelines. Alternatively, the
Commission may advise the applicant regarding appropriate solutions or accept the applicants’
proposal with or without amendments. 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.
The existing rear wall of the house at 431 S Summit Street is 124 feet from Summit Street. The
proposed addition is 13’-4” deep. The rear wall would extend past the setback limitation by just over
12 feet. In Staff’s opinion, this is not an uncommon situation because it could be possible to add an
addition to the south side of the dining room, adding a space roughly 8 feet by 15 feet to the plan (see
image below). While the dining room would not be retained in place as the applicant wishes but could
be moved south, so that the additional space could be added to the kitchen. For this reason, staff
recommends not approving an exception to the setback limitation for this project.
Red box representing the dining room space is added in the area of staff’s recommended proposal
431 South Summit Application Materials
Application Statement:
The current layout of the home has a very small kitchen that doubles as an entrance to the basement and
a rear exit to the home. This kitchen functionally scales at 7'-9"x7'-0”. The homeowners would like to
expand the kitchen while preserving the historic character of the original dining room, requiring an
expansion into the rear of the lot. This setback would be in line with current setbacks of homes in the
Summit St historic district. Additionally, a large rear yard would be preserved in keeping with the nature of
the Summit St setback rule.
The materials would be as follows: double hung wood windows, concrete foundation not visible from
street elevation, and engineered wood siding vs fiber cement siding made to appear like wood.
Exterior Photo Included in Application:
Rear yard of house looking south
Interior Photos Included in Application:
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in dining room. Looking West along south wall of house
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in dining room. Looking West
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in dining room. Looking Southwest across dining room
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in dining room. Looking south from door to kitchen
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in dining room. Looking east toward the front of the house
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in kitchen. Looking West.
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in kitchen. Looking West.
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in kitchen. Looking East.
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in kitchen. Looking East.
431 South Summit Application Materials
Interior photo in kitchen. Looking West.
70.2'
71.7'
70.3'
70.2'
56.5'
79.4'
77.8'
62.6'
77.8'
71.7'
58'
47.3'
73.3'
71.7'
83.9'
91.6'
62.6'
91.6'
39.7'
48.9'
67.2'
74.8'
Johnson County
Johnson County GIS
Web Printing
Printed: 8/20/2023
The information presented
herein is intended to be an
accurate representation of
existing records. Johnson
County assumes no liability
for errors or omissions.
Users relying on this
information do so at their
own risk.
.0 0.01 0.03
mi
1 inch = 147 feetSummit St Rear
54.6'
79.4'
Johnson County
Johnson County GIS
Web Printing
Printed: 8/20/2023
The information presented
herein is intended to be an
accurate representation of
existing records. Johnson
County assumes no liability
for errors or omissions.
Users relying on this
information do so at their
own risk.
.0 0 0
mi
1 inch = 18 feetRear Yard
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2023 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Deanna Thomann, Noah Stork, Jordan Sellergren, Andrew Lewis, Nicole
Villanueva, Margaret Beck, Frank Wagner, Christina Welu-Reynolds
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Cecile Kuenzli, Donald McFarlane, Lena Michalek, Kevin Boyd, Karen
Kubby, Regina Bailey, Ginny Blair
CALL TO ORDER:
Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Cecile Kuenzli is a past member of the Historic Preservation Commission and in light of some recent
events she recalls some words that Marla Svenson, who was hired multiple times by the City to survey
neighborhoods for a possible designation as historic districts, said. She said that historic preservation
begins with the zoning. To that end, Kuenzli is wondering if the Commission was consulted about the
proposed citywide amendments to the zoning code or if they have examined the memorandum that the
City sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission about proposed changes. Have they considered
what effect these changes might have on historic districts and neighborhoods; would they stabilize
neighborhoods or destabilize them? Is weakening design standards a good idea or not? Kuenzli
shared with the Commission copies of the proposed changes in case members of the Commission
hadn’t seen it. She believes there's a meeting on September 5 to discuss these with Council.
Donald McFarlane lives on Summit Street and two months from today, September the 9th, will be the
50th anniversary of the designation of Summit Street Historic Area. He thinks Summit Street was the
first historic area designated in Iowa City, quite possibly one of the first in Iowa. McFarlane stated he
lives in a house that they raised their family in and he is very concerned about this document from
planning and zoning. He noted it's been a very large amount of work and has been very well done and
it's obviously been thought through very intensively. However, there are things missing from the
document. The first is any evidence that reducing design standards actually increases the number of
affordable housing, particularly in RS-5 levels, which is what Summit Street is. McFarlane stated RS-5
levels in Iowa City really can't be affordable, unless they become almost slums, the calculation is just
not possible. The second absence in the report is the absence of the family house, there's almost no
mention of family. For him, families owning and living in houses is the stabilizing force and is often the
driving engine that makes Iowa City a great place to live long term. Families working hard to raise their
families, that's where he wants to live. The third thing which is missing is historic preservation, it's only
mentioned a couple of times, and sometimes it's mentioned rather oddly for commercial housing.
Commercial housing generally is going to be one story of commercial space shops and then
apartments above that, and for some reason they mentioned historic preservation for that. There is no
mention about historic preservation with the other zoning changes, which he finds very concerning.
Historic preservation is really a trust because nobody can guarantee the future or that their house will
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 2 of 9
be more historic, more valuable and more wonderful in 50 years than it was when this was passed. But
there is a belief by this Commission and a belief by the homeowner of stability and enhancing beauty of
neighborhoods, but it's not very carefully written in stone. Iowa City, for instance, could with a simple
motion abolish the Planning and Zoning Commission, there is no general prohibition of that or it could
certainly appoint its own members to be on the commission. Many town planners, including he
suspects some people in Iowa City, regard historic preservation as inhibiting the natural growth of the
City because it makes it hard to maintain and look after old buildings. They may also have a different
agenda than that. So he is very concerned about this, maybe his concerns are overstated, but he urges
all of them to very carefully to read that document and make marginal notes. He would really advise
them to put this on the agenda to discuss the deficiencies in the report, or at least work through their
networks to try to get historic preservation into the center and percolating throughout the planning and
zoning document.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC23-0036: 738 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (changes to previously approved front
window configuration):
Bristow began the staff report showing a map of the Longfellow Historic District and where this house is
located. She stated this project first came to the Commission in December 2021 as a project to remove
the attached garage, create a living space out of that and add a garage in the back by the alley. Per the
zoning code, once there's no longer a garage there they must remove the driveway and the required
parking per zoning means the garage is built on the alley. Bristow showed one of the project drawings
that was submitted and then a photo-shopped image of removing the garage from the building. The
approval involved creating a foundation area because the opening went all the way down to grade and
originally involved adding to windows. The windows were approved to be aligned with the other
residential living space windows on the house per guidelines. At one point during the project, Bristow
stated the owners called her out to look at the project and instead of what had been approved, they had
installed a header all the way across the entire wall. Because of that header, they would not be able to
put the windows at the height that was approved. Because of the fact that this changed the
configuration of the windows staff asked the owner to hire an architect to show that it was required to
have a header of this size in the wall with separate window size openings. The owners did hire an
architect who did provide documentation of the need. Bristow included the calculation showing that a
nine foot opening does require a double 2 by 12 for a header and the documentation also talked about
how by keeping this configuration of headers the windows would drop to a position which would align
with the existing window around the garage. Therefore, currently the project is to approve the header
and because of the fact that it won't align with the windows on the front of the house, it would need to
be approved by exception to the guidelines. The project is removing the garage condition so the
windows on the front should not align with the garage window around the side.
Lena Michalek (Horizon Architecture) is the architectural designer with the company that had written the
recommendation for this header. She has a master's degree from the University of Kansas and a
certificate in historic preservation. She stated she is newer to Iowa City and not quite 100% familiar with
the guidelines but can help answer any questions the Commission might have.
Wagner asked what's going on above the second-floor framing and is there actually space up above
that. Michalek stated there is some space up above that with a drop ceiling and she believes there's a
bedroom in that upper area up above the garage.
Thomann asked about the original structure of the house itself and was the garage was built on at
some point. Bristow stated the garage was built with the house at the same time and the window
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 3 of 9
location on the garage is original to the home.
Michalek stated the massing of the house, the main part of the house is front and center, but the
garage, which was original to the house, is completely stepped back and the floor of the garage is
stepped down and the floor of the bedroom is also stepped down. Therefore, the massing of the original
garage is step back from the house so they believe that dropping the windows to match the original
windows on the garage would fit with the overall massing of the original design. Also the existing
header there, that 2 by 6 header, could be removed it's not there structurally anymore but then there
would be a 5 inch difference if they were to align the windows to the bottom of the 2 by 12 header
versus aligning it to the bottom of the 2 by 6 header.
MOTION: Beck moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 738 Rundell
Street, as presented in the staff report through the use of an exception to the guidelines for
structural requirements. Villanueva second.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent).
HPC23-0040: 533 South Summit Street- (roof and columns for a side porch):
Bristow noted this house is in the Summit Street Historic District on the corner of Bowery and Summit.
The house has aluminum siding and an existing front porch. The proposal is to add to the stoop and
create a porch out of it, which was always the plan. That would involve adding a small roof and columns
to match the front porch. She noted the typical front porch is eight feet deep and this will be only four
feet deep, the roof will be at the same pitch as the front porch but it won't extend as tall on the wall
because it's a shorter porch. Bristow showed sketches of the proposal and noted the columns and the
frieze board will match the front porch, and they propose to put a metal roof on it too.
MOTION: Welu-Renyolds moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
533 South Summit Street, as presented in the application with the following conditions that the
porch roof slope matches the front porch, and the column locations match the historic porch.
Thomann second.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner recused, Brown absent).
Public Hearing – Discuss landmark designation for 715 North Dodge Street
Bristow stated this property is the original Emma Goldman Clinic and the proposal is to designate this a
local landmark property. The house is a bungalow with Craftsman influences, it's possible that it was a
catalog home, it is located on the corner of the alley between Brown Street and Ronald's on North
Dodge Street. It is located firmly in the middle of the Brown Street Historic District and is considered a
key property. Within classifications, key properties are either very important to the community or they
could be considered individually eligible for the National Register and also a local landmark
designation. For this property, nothing will change about how the property is regulated, a key property
is treated the same as a local landmark within the regulations, the designation is more about telling the
story of Iowa City. Bristow showed some more images of the structure and noted it is very intact and
has architectural integrity.
Bristow next read through a document former Commission member Kevin Boyd wrote, he had been
working with the Emma Goldman Clinic regarding their anniversary. The Emma Goldman Clinic was
founded in 1973 by a group of 10 local college age feminist women who decided in the wake of the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 4 of 9
January 1973 Landmark US Supreme Court Case Roe vs. Wade to promote to provide health care
services differently to women. These Founders created a clinic focused on feminist health care - health
care for and by women, delivering health care as a woman would have to receive it. It was a pioneering
and radical approach to health care at the time. The Emma Goldman Clinic opened at 715 North Dodge
on September 1, 1973, less than eight months after the Supreme Court decision. It was the first
feminist health care clinic in the Midwest and just the fourth in the country - the other three were in
California.
The house itself was a symbol of health care done differently, a place that removed the power dynamic
of traditional male-dominated health care. The Founders knew they needed a place to house the new
approach to health care, so they pooled their resources to purchase the property and fund the startup
costs. Roxie Tullis, one of the founders, used the death benefit of her husband, who died in the
Vietnam War. Others got small loans from family and friends. One of the parents paid the women to
paint their house rather than give them a loan. The property at 715 North Dodge was selected out of
necessity and opportunity. The Collective needed a property that was zoned commercial, close to
campus, and affordable.
The vernacular house, heavily influenced by the craftsman style, was built around 1920. By 1973 it
was being used as a rental property with three furnished apartments, one on each floor and a third in
the basement, and it was for sale. The owners also wanted to leave the furniture behind so not having
to furnish the clinic was a selling feature. The basement apartment continued to be rented and provided
additional income for the clinic in the early days. Once the property was acquired, the Founders went to
work to prepare for the clinic's opening. They were a collective, so each decision was made
collaboratively, all were equal in the decision making. One of the easier decisions was the namesake,
Emma Goldman, a feminist pioneer in women's health care, among other things. FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover called her the most dangerous woman in America. She spoke to the power dynamics the
Founders were trying to change.
By September 1, the clinic opened at 715 North Dodge Street six women had appointments for the first
day. They built a comprehensive women's clinic providing abortions, birth control consultation,
gynecological care, self-exam clinics, breast screenings, alternative counseling, positive pregnancy
groups, well-child clinics, and a 24-hour hotline. All patients had a patient advocate. The nature of the
property, a home in a neighborhood, was part of the point to provide an atmosphere that was
welcoming, familiar, and removed the power dynamic of a traditional medical office. The house also
emphasized that their services were routine health care procedures. One of the founders, Deborah
Nye, said in 1973, “We want the women to be in a comfortable, cheerful surroundings because it's not a
serious operation, it's a minor operation”. Press account described the waiting room that could be
anyone's living room highlighting the art, books, thriving plants, throw pillows on chairs, and classical
music playing in the background. The kitchen was converted to a laboratory but retained the cabinets
and countertops. Upstairs, exam rooms looked like bedrooms they once were with floral curtains and
hardwood floors and canvas director chairs.
The Emma Goldman Clinic was home to protests and even an attempted firebombing in the early
morning of June 13, 1978. Three Molotov cocktails from a gasoline-filled wine bottles were thrown at
the clinic, one landed on the roof and did minor damage, one rolled off and caused minor fire damage
in the yard, and a third didn't explode. No one was charged. A month later the community held a rally
supporting the Clinic. One of the many times the community rallied to support the Emma Goldman
Clinic. As the original Emma Goldman Clinic expanded it acquired the home just south of 715 North
Dodge Street. By 1985 they purchased and move to a former pediatrician’s clinic in North Dubuque
Street. Originally called the Emma Goldman Clinic for women, eventually the name changed to just the
Emma Goldman Clinic to be more reflective of the comprehensive services it provides.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 5 of 9
Eventually the house at 715 North Dodge was converted back to a single-family home. It looks much
like it did in 1973 with some modest changes, the commercial railings were removed, the front porch
opened and the synthetic siding removed. The original Emma Goldman Clinic for Women signage was
moved from 715 North Dodge but is on display at the current Emma Goldman Clinic. The 10 founders
include Ginny Blair, Robin Christiansen, Melissa Farley, Diane Greene Lent, Darca Nicholson, Deb
Nye, Patty Pressley, Carmen Salas, Roxy Tullis, and Barb Yates.
Bristow stated for landmark designation in Iowa City the Commission has to determine if the property
meets two general criteria A and B, that it is significant to American and/or Iowa City history,
architecture, archaeology or culture, and possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and
workmanship. It then needs to meet at least one of the other criteria (C-F). Staff recommends that it
would meet the criteria for architecture and because of its integrity. The main point of this landmark
designation though would be criteria C as it is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Sellergren opened the public hearing.
Kevin Boyd stated at his final meeting on this Commission, just two months ago, he talked about the
importance of telling a fuller history of Iowa City and making sure to preserve and share the City's
history that reflects the values in the community as it exists today, and has always existed. Boyd noted
they are at the critical 50-year mark, an important point in historic preservation from the 1970s in Iowa
City where activism and the struggle for social justice really settled here and many of the individuals
and groups contributed to the history. This is an opportunity to highlight that history and one of the work
plan goals is identifying opportunities to highlight Iowa City's history as a leader in social justice, racial
equality and human rights and preserve the stories and structures that helped define that history. This
nomination fits that objective. This project got started before he left the Commission and it's an
opportunity to add a unique Iowa City story. The story of these Founders, radical college-age feminist
badasses, who 50 years ago this month were preparing to open the Emma Goldman Clinic. When he
researched the history he was really in awe of the Founders and how much they were able to
accomplish in such a short period of time, and how they work together to do it, how really radical it was,
and also how relevant that fight and those works still feels today, 50 years later. The Founder story
along with the property at 715 North Dodge, which is a residential home, is so much part of Iowa City’s
history it deserves to be among the properties listed as Iowa City Landmarks. He urges the
Commission to support this landmark nomination and also wanted to thank the property owners
Jennifer and Benton for their open mindedness and support sharing their property’s history.
Karen Kubby stated besides being a community member who's interested in historic preservation, she
was the director at the Emma Goldman Clinic from 1999 to 2008. She remembers in the early 1980s,
being a young person trying to prevent fire-bombing by just being at the clinic all night, moving around a
lot, dancing and walking around and trying to stay up because at that point the anti-choice movement
didn't want to hurt people, so she was trying to protect the property. Kubby has a long history with the
Clinic and the Clinic is now the oldest reproductive healthcare nonprofit in the country that provides
abortion care, those California clinics that were nonprofits no longer exist. There's lots of reasons why
clinics close and throughout history the people who have worked at the Clinic and run the Clinic have
been really wonderfully stubborn and have fought violence and threats and changes in health care and
changes to the internal structure that were really hard for the Clinic. This is really a landmark for the
country, at some level since it’s the oldest clinic, and there'll be lots of activities for celebration come
early September. Kubby also hopes the Commission will approve this and also wanted to thank Kevin
Boyd, and this Commission, or the value of looking at not just the grandiose places, but those places
that are from a wide variety of the community.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 6 of 9
Regina Bailey is currently helping the Clinic work on their 50th anniversary celebration and can't tell
them how significant this nomination is to the Founders and the early staff as the early Collective
Member as they consider their 50th anniversary, she worked at the Clinic in the early 90s, and its
significance to this community. She grew up in Iowa City, its significance to this community merits this
designation. Additionally, if the reading of that history gives a little bit of curiosity about the Clinic she
invites them to an event at Film Scene on September 3 for a documentary called From One Place To
Another that was created in the early 90s talking about the founding of the Clinic. The event is at 3:30
on Sunday afternoon of Labor Day weekend and it's a great film which will give a sense of what it took
to create the Clinic and how this collective group of women could create it so quickly. By designating
this as a Landmark it's a reminder of the social justice history in this community and it's also a reminder
of the incredible things that small groups of people with great ideas can do in a short amount of time
and make a huge difference not only in the community, in the state, but in the country.
Kubby was remiss and wanted to let everyone know that one of the founding members is here in the
audience, Ginny Blair, who's been in this community this whole time and has worn many hats, but a
founding member of the Emma Goldman Clinic is a big one.
Sellergren closed the public hearing.
Thomann noted she learned so much and it's great to have this information and the house itself is
gorgeous but with the history, of course this makes sense.
MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the designation of 715 North Dodge Street, original Emma
Goldman clinic as an Iowa City historic landmark based on the following criteria for local
designation, criteria A, B, C and E. Welu-Renyolds second.
A vote was taken and the motion was approved on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review
HPC23-0038: 804 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (railing and stucco repair or
replacement):
Bristow stated this house has a screen in porch where they tried to work with the architecture and now
it has some porch repairs needed and some of the railing will be replaced and just some other basic
porch repairs. Some area of the stucco had been replaced with a fake stucco at one point in time, and
it's failing and the railing is a little wobbly as it is the original railing from 1966.
Minor Review -Staff review
HPC23-0027: 331 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (rear deck addition):
Bristow stated this was adding a deck on the back of the house.
HPC23-0034: 614 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement,
radon mitigation installation, chimney repair):
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 7 of 9
Bristow stated this is one of three 1840 sandstone houses in town. It needs a lot; it needs a new roof
and some tuckpointing of the chimney. They will install a RADON Mitigation.
HPC23- 0039: 420 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (front step replacement):
Bristow stated this house is just getting wood stairs instead of the cast precast concrete stairs.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 13, 2023:
MOTION: Beck moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's July
13, 2023, meeting, as written. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-
0 (Brown absent).
COMMISSION DISCUSSION :
Bristow stated the Historic Preservation Awards will be handed out on September 28 at the Highlander.
People have until August 24th to respond and at that point staff will start making the presentation and
asking for photos. This is the 40th annual ceremony and Friends at Historic Preservation and the City
are both paying for light refreshments and then they’ll have the presentation and then they'll have the
cash bar in the lounge open after that.
Other announcements, the director of Corridor Can is setting up a community engagement festival
called Can-Con 2023, it will be held in the Ped Mall and the library on Sunday, August 27. They are
trying to increase engagement with City government so they sent this around hoping they might get
some interest from commissioners to potentially sit at a table as representatives of the commission
during the festival. If anyone is interested let Bristow know.
Bristow noted regarding the zoning proposal if the Commission wants to put it on the agenda please let
her know and they can put it on the next agenda. She knows a little bit about the zoning code changes.
One, there is a zoning code currently that a duplex can only be on a corner, the zoning code will
change so there can be a duplex in the middle of the block. The effort is to increase density of housing,
the lot would still need to meet all of the requirements that the zoning code has for a duplex. Bristow
stated there has been some concern based on the emails and calls that she’s gotten that this will
suddenly lead to demolitions in districts and people building duplexes and ignoring the guidelines.
Bristow stated they can regulate that within a historic district so there's still not really the possibility of
demoing something in the middle of a block to build a new building.
Sellergren asked if there might be the possibility of adding a door or something and converting
properties to duplexes. Bristow stated the guidelines are clear about not adding a second front door to
a house. The historic district preservation overlay still applies.
The other issue this has brought up Bristow explained is that currently if someone has an accessory
dwelling unit, like on the second floor of a garage or something like that, it is allowed only in certain
zoning areas, and they are increasing the areas where that can happen. It would be someone either
adding living space to an existing garage that is already big enough to do that or there could be
someone wanting to take down a garage to build a garage with an accessory dwelling unit. Again, it
would again fall under the Commission's purview for review of both the demolition and the new
construction. There is also some change to the height limitations she can’t remember the exact change
there but is sure that it was spawned by concerns about a new house going up adjacent to the
Northside Historic District recently. So it's up to the Commission whether or not they want to have
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 10, 2023
Page 8 of 9
further discussion. Otherwise, it is going to Council so it might be good to watch or attend the Council
meeting and speak up.
ADJOURNMENT:
Wagner moved to adjourn the meeting. Thomann seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0
(Brown absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
NAME
TERM
EXP. 8/11 9/8 10/13 11/10 1/12 2/9 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/24 X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X 0/E X X -- --
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/23 O/E X X X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E
LARSON,
KEVIN
6/30/24 O/E O/E O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 O/E X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X
VILLANUEVA,
NICOLE 6/30/25 X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X
WAGNER,
FRANK 6/30/23 X O/E X O/E X X X X X X O/E X
WELU-
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
6/30/25 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X
LEWIS,
ANDREW -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Memorandum
Date: September 7, 2023
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Planning and Zoning Items
During the August 10, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the Commission was
addressed by several members of the public who were concerned about several zoning code
amendments under review.
The Commission was interested in discussing these amendments. While review of the amendments is
not within the Commission’s purview, discussion could help eliminate confusion and dispel
misconceptions about the amendments. With this in mind, the August 16, 2023 Planning and Zoning
Commission memo related to the maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 zone is attached. In
addition, information that staff is using in an open house regarding accessory apartments (also known
as accessory dwelling units) (on September 13 and 14) is attached.
Urban Planning staff working on these amendments will not be available for the Commission meeting
(because of the accessory apartment open house at the same time). Any questions can be compiled
and answered by them following the meeting.
Date: August 16, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Request to reduce height requirements in RNS-12 zone (REZ23-0005)
Introduction
The Northside Neighborhood Association petitioned the City Council to consider reducing the
maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from
35 feet to 27 feet. The association’s petition can be found in Attachment 1. At its June 6, 2023,
work session, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change.
Background
History of the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) Zone
The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by
preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods.
Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi-
family uses. However, existing conforming multi-family uses retain their conforming status when
rezoned to RNS-12. The RNS-12 zone allows detached single-family dwellings and duplexes,
but does not allow detached zero lot line dwellings or attached single-family dwellings. The zone
does not allow new multi-family developments. The existing 35’ maximum height is consistent
with all single-family and multi-family residential zones in Iowa City.
The zone was originally created after a controversy in 1992 when a project proposed adding
more than one residential structure to a single lot in a Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
Zone (RM-12). Owners of nearby properties petitioned Council due to concerns that allowing
more than one residential structure per lot in RM-12 zones would be out of character with the
existing neighborhood. In response, City Council adopted what is now known as the
Neighborhood Residential Stabilization Zone (RNS-12)1 on March 30, 1993, and rezoned
several properties in the general vicinity of Johnson Street on the west, Clapp Street on the
east, Market Street on the north, and Jefferson Street on the south from RM-12 to RNS-12. See
Attachment 2.
In February of 1994, Council amended the RNS-12 zone to affirm the zone’s single-family
character and restrict the number of principal buildings permitted on a lot. It also further clarified
that the zone does not allow the construction of new multi-family structures.
Over time, Council continued to rezone several additional areas to RNS-12. While the
circumstances for rezoning each area were different, the overarching goals included conserving
each neighborhood’s single-family character and preventing new multi-family development.
A summary of the creation of the zone and the multiple amendments to the zoning map that
resulted in rezoning from a multi-family zone to RNS-12 are as follows:
1 This zone was originally named Neighborhood Residential Conservation Zone or RNC-12, but was
renamed RNS-12 in 2005.
August 11, 2023
Page 2
• March 30, 1993: initial adoption of the RNS-12 zone, which amended the zoning code to
create a new zoning designation focused on allowing single-family dwellings and not
allowing new multi-family dwellings
• March 30, 1993: properties along Johnson Street to the west, Clapp Street on the east,
Market Street on the north, and Jefferson Street on the south were rezoned from the
RM-12 zone to the RNS-12 zone
• June 21, 1994: properties along Church Street between Dubuque and N. Dodge Streets
were downzoned from RM-12 to RNS-12
• January 11, 1995: Fairchild and Davenport Streets, between N. Dubuque and N. Dodge
Streets, and the 200 block of Bloomington Street, excluding properties zoned RM-44
along Dubuque Street were downzoned to RNS-12
• May 16, 2000: properties along the 300-600 blocks of S. Governor and S. Lucas Streets,
and a portion of the 700-800 blocks and 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street were
downzoned to RNS-12
• November 21, 2000: properties in the vicinity of Iowa Avenue, Washington Street, South
Summit Street, Governor Street, Muscatine Avenue, and College Street were
downzoned to RNS-12.
The most recent change to the boundaries of the RNS-12 zoning district occurred on May 1,
2007. Property owners in and near the South Governor and Bowery Street areas petitioned
Council to rezone the neighboring area from RNS-12 to RS-8. The purpose was to preserve the
balance of rental and owner-occupied housing by ensuring that additional duplex conversions
would not take place. Council approved the rezoning. The boundaries for areas zoned RNS-12
have not changed since 2007.
Explanation of Building Height
While the application of the RNS-12 zone has expanded to various areas of the city through
multiple rezonings, the height limit in the zone has not changed since it was adopted. Maximum
height regulations help promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings,
provide light, air, and privacy, and discourage buildings that visually dominate other nearby
buildings.
The maximum height in the RNS-12 zone is 35 feet, as defined in the code as measured from
the average point of ground elevation 5 feet from the building (called “grade”) and the roofline,
which is the highest point of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the midpoint between
the eaves and ridge of a saddle, hip, gable, gambrel, or ogee roof. Certain items are exempted
from building height, such as chimneys, spires on institutional buildings, domes (and similar roof
protrusions) without habitable floor space, parapet walls up to 3 feet, television antennas, and
roof structures such as solar energy systems, stairways, ventilating fans, and similar equipment
required to maintain the building. Maximum height may be increased if all setbacks are
increased by an additional 2 feet for each foot of height above the height limit or through a Minor
Modification process where applicable approval criteria are met. Staff estimates that almost all
properties currently zoned RNS-12 conform with the current maximum height limit. Analysis
Extent of the RNS-12 Zone
Today, there are 500 properties city-wide zoned RNS-12. Of the 500 total city-wide properties
zoned RNS-12, 375 (75%) are also regulated by a Historic District Overlay (OHD) or a
Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone. These overlay zones preserve properties that have
been identified as important historic resources. The impact of the overlay zone regulations will
be discussed in the next section. Of the 500 properties city-wide, 313 are within the Northside
neighborhood. 266 (85%) of those within the Northside are also within a Historic or
Conservation Overlay zone. 125 (25%) of properties citywide are zoned RNS-12 and not
located within a OHD or OCD zone. 47 of these properties are located within the Northside
August 11, 2023
Page 3
neighborhood. In summary, there are few properties that are zoned RNS-12 and not located
within an OHD or OCD zone.
Figure 1 illustrates the boundary of the Northside neighborhood (in red), the location of
properties zoned RNS-12, and properties located within a OHD or OCD zone. Table 1 provides
a summary of this data. See also Attachment 3.
Figure 1: Map of properties zoned RNS-12
August 11, 2023
Page 4
Table 1: Summary of Parcels Zoned RNS-12
City-wide Number of Parcels % of Parcels
Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential Zone (RNS-12) 500 100%
RNS-12 with Historic or
Conservation District Overlay 375 75%
RNS-12 with No Historic or
Conservation District Overlay 125 25%
Northside Neighborhood Number of Parcels % of Parcels
Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential Zone (RNS-12) 313 100%
RNS-12 with Historic or
Conservation District Overlay 266 85%
RNS-12 with No Historic or
Conservation District Overlay 47 15%
Local Historic & Conservation Districts
All properties within an overlay zone OHD or OCD are subject to historic review for exterior
modifications that require a regulated permit (e.g. building permit). As a result, any new
construction or demolition must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC). Properties in these overlay zones are also subject to the guidelines
adopted in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook which are analyzed during historic
review. With regards to building height the maximum allowable height is 35’; however, the
Handbook includes specific guidelines related to building height and mass and notes that “new
structures must be one and a half or two stories in height” in the Northside neighborhood. Any
proposal for new construction within an OHD or OCD zone would be reviewed based on the
surrounding neighborhood context and the building mass and scale of adjacent buildings. With
regards to demolition, the Handbook only allows it where the building is structurally unsound
and irretrievable. For non-contributing and non-historic properties requesting demolition, the
Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the building.
Because most properties zoned RNS-12 are also zoned OHD or OCD, it adds a large degree of
protection from any future construction, demolition, or development changes in the future.
Field Work Review
To identify the potential impacts of the proposed amendment, staff estimated the building height
for all properties zoned RNS-12 using 2021 pictometry data from CONNECTExplorer. Staff
decided to utilize this after exploring other options. One such option including using lasers and
measuring distance and calculating height from the sidewalk; however, there were issues with
accuracy. Furthermore, based on our conversations with both City and County GIS
professionals they considered this tool to be the best option. It is important to note that without
engineered drawings or the use of professional survey equipment and access to each property,
it is not possible to ascertain actual building height from grade to roofline. Most buildings in this
area were built before current building permitting processes, so construction drawings are not
available. As such, this analysis only provides an idea of possible impacts; it should not be
interpreted as a definitive count of affected properties. To adjust for potential error in
measurement, staff categorized properties into groups with counts shown in Table 2.
This analysis suggests that approximately (1/5) one-fifth of buildings zoned RNS-12 may
become non-conforming if the height limit were reduced from 35 feet to 27 feet. Generally, these
are spread throughout the area zoned RNS-12. However, the impacts of the proposed
amendments could be lesser or greater depending on actual measurements.
August 11, 2023
Page 5
Table 2: Parcels by Building Height
Building Height Number of Parcels % of Parcels Category
>35’ 13 2.6% Non-conforming; would continue to be non-conforming
30-35’ 104 20.8% Conforming; may become non-conforming
25-29’ 122 24.4% Conforming; may be conforming or non-conforming
<25’ 259 51.8% Conforming; may continue to be conforming
Undetermined 2 0.4% Lack of data or challenging site characteristics
Total 500 100.0%
Source: CONNECTExplorer data collected by City staff
Buildings taller than the proposed 27-foot height limit would become non-conforming. Generally,
these may continue as they are so long as non-conformities are not increased or extended. In
addition, buildings may only be rebuilt to the same height as an existing structure where
damage to that building is less than 75% of its assessed value or it is a historic building. Other
more flexible non-conforming provisions generally apply to non-conforming single-family uses.
Single-family uses may be restored to the same degree of non-conforming or less if destroyed
or damaged by fire or a natural disaster.
As such, the proposed amendment would have two main impacts on those owning property that
may become non-conforming. The first is that future expansions must comply with the new
height limit, which may create situations where an addition cannot be the same height as the
original building. The second is that if something happens to a structure such that it is
destroyed, it may not be permitted to be rebuilt to its current dimension. This has implications for
owners in the area in the event of a disaster. It is also considered best practice to minimize the
number of non-conformities caused by changes to the zoning code.
Redevelopment Review
Staff also reviewed demolition permits in RNS-12 zoning districts to identify redevelopment
trends over time. Since 1992, the City had 17 residential demolitions in RNS-12 zones
(excluding the demolition of a single-family home for a school playground that should be zoned
P1). This averages approximately 1 demolition every 2 years over the past 31 years. Two of
these from the 1990s are for uses that are no longer allowed. A full list of the demolitions of
residential buildings can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Demolition of Residential Buildings in RNS-12 Zones, 1992-2003
August 11, 2023
Page 6
The characteristics of these demolitions are summarized below. In addition, Figure 2 shows
when demolitions occurred by year.
• 1 single-family demo to create vacant lot in 1992; remains undeveloped
• 1 single-family demo to build parking
• 1 duplex demo to build 4-plex (no longer allowed)
• 1 group living demo to build 6-plex (no longer allowed)
• 1 duplex demo to build a church
• 3 demos for buildings damaged in natural disasters; one single-family redeveloped as a
single-family, one single-family redeveloped as a duplex, and one multi-family
redeveloped as a duplex
• 4 single-family demos to build single-family (includes 319 N Van Buren)
• 4 single-family demos to build duplexes
• 1 duplex demo to build a duplex
Overall, it appears that development pressure in the RNS-12 zone has actually decreased over
time and redeveloping small single-family homes into large single-family homes is not common.
This may be due to the fact that 75% of properties zoned RNS-12 are also located within
Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions.
Affordability & Equity
Housing affordability is a common goal between both the Northside Neighborhood Association
and the City of Iowa City. According to the National Association of Counties Matchmaker Tool,
Johnson County is a high-cost county with a rapidly growing population. This is a common
indicator that housing supply is not sufficient to meet current housing demand. In addition, the
Matchmaker Tool notes that 31.6% of renters in Johnson County are severely cost-burdened,
spending half or more of their income on rent alone. Recommended policy solutions include
upzoning land to allow for high-density housing and low-cost housing types, flexibility in design
standards, establishing an affordable housing trust fund, and relaxing dimensional
requirements. This assessment of county-level metrics provides ample solutions to the high-cost
housing issue in Iowa City and Johnson County as a whole.
Regarding the proposed reduction in height, staff has not found adequate evidence to suggest
that a height limit restriction will increase housing affordability. Instead, staff presented and the
Commission recommended approval of several best practice zoning reform strategies on
August 2, 2023 to increase housing supply and improve housing options.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan includes a land use designation for
Single-Family Residential Stabilization. The description for this designation is as follows:
“Intended for older areas of the city where single family homes originally
predominated, but due to subsequent changes in zoning have experienced an
increase in housing density and some conversion to multi-family and group living uses
has occurred. The intent of this designation is to preserve the single-family residential
character that remains by preventing further densification and conversion of single
family residences to multi-family. Development Density: varies depending on mix of
single family and conforming and nonconforming multi-family and group living uses.”
This land use designation is applied to large areas of the Northside neighborhood, portions of E.
Market and E. Jefferson Streets, and areas of Lucas and S. Governor Streets south of
Burlington Street. These areas generally correspondence to the areas zoned RNS-12.
August 11, 2023
Page 7
As described in the adopted land use designation, the purpose of the designation is to “preserve
the single-family residential character” by “preventing further densification and conversion of
single-family residences to multi-family”. In summary, the goal of this land use category is to
maintain a single-family neighborhood and restrict the number of units by limiting other housing
types.
The land use designation does not speak to the scale of development, but rather housing types
and density. The scale of the development is regulated by height in the zoning code. There are
many statements within the comprehensive plan related to infill development and ensuring that
it is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum allowable
height in most residential zones is 35’, which implies it has already been determined that 35’ is a
height that ensures a complimentary scale.
Conclusions
• 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation
District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to
historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic
Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are
already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of
scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS-12. Since
1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone. This is an average
of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number
of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones,
which restrict demolitions.
• Lowering the maximum allowable height will unnecessarily create non-conforming
situations.
• While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City
has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing
single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to
maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single-
family uses, and preventing the spread of multi-family conversions and redevelopment.
• The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the
development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay
areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and
requirements.
• Reducing the height limit is not a recommended best practice for improving housing
affordability, but rather increasing the diversity and density of housing would be the most
appropriate methods.
• The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus
serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family
neighborhood character.
For these reasons, Staff does not support the requested amendment to the zoning code.
August 11, 2023
Page 8
Next Steps
Staff sent letter to owners of properties zoned Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12)
notifying them of the petition from the neighborhood association. The letter was mailed on July
26, 2023.
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation
Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum
allowable building height from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet in the Neighborhood
Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. Attachments
1. Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to City Council
2. Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline
3. Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to
City Council
ATTACHMENT 2
Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline
RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline
Prepared by: Melanie Comer
Date Prepared: August 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Introduction
Background Why These Updates?
Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to
increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and
encourage housing affordability.
The proposed changes seek to:
1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types;
2. Modify design standards to reduce the cost of construction;
3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing,
including reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments;
4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing; and
5. Address fair housing concerns to help advance the City’s
equity and inclusion goals.
2023
Planning & Zoning Commission
• February: Introduced upcoming amendments
• July: Summarized the proposed amendments
• August: Provided comprehensive overview of the
proposed amendments
2016
• Recommended 15 action
steps, including changes
to zoning regulations
• The only action step not yet
completed consists of the
recommended changes to
zoning regulations
“Consider regulatory changes to City Code, including...more building
types by right as opposed to requiring a [Planned Unit Development]
process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.)”
Affordable Housing Action Plan
2019
• Lack of affordable rental
housing was identified as
a significant fair housing
issue
• The study recommended
improving housing choice
as a strategy to help further
fair housing
“…allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout
the community. Since most areas are zoned for low-density, single-
family homes, this will require exploring ways to increase the density
and types of housing allow[ed]…which also facilitates the creation of
housing units at different price points within neighborhoods.”
Fair Housing Choice Study
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY
2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Neighborhood & Development Services
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Adopted August 20, 2019
2022
• The update was created following
numerous public input sessions, in
addition to a survey, targeted stake-
holder meetings, and other events
• Reiterates the need to explore uses
allowed, including the possiblity of
allowing rental units to have ADUs
“Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit[s] in single family
zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and
zero-lot line structures.”
Affordable Housing Action Plan Update
FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan
“Advance prioritized recommendations in the
2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.”
• Prioritizes recommendations in the
updated Affordable Housing Action Plan
Planning Timeline
The proposed amendments are the
culmination of a series of efforts beginning
with the City’s 2016 Affordable Housing
Action Plan and continuing through several
subsequent planning processes.
Iowa City has a housing supply shortage. The City is looking at encouraging accessory apartments as one of several
ways to help meet the need for housing. However, current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction.
Consider:
• Iowa City anticipates a demand for over 4,600 additional
residences by 2030
• Only 61% of projected demand will be met based on recent
trends, which will lead to higher housing costs
• 55% of renters and 23% of homeowners are cost-burdened
(i.e. spend more than 30% of their income on housing)
• The City has allowed accessory apartments since 1987 but
averages fewer than 2 units permitted per year
• Only ~0.5% of eligible properties have an accessory apartment
Accessory Apartments Permitted, 1995 - 2023
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Accessory Apartments
What are they?
Accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs),
are small, self-contained dwellings units located on the same lot as a primary
home. ADUs come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. This
allows them to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban
subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban neighborhoods. Possible ADUs
arrangements include all of the following:
Why encourage ADUs?
Detached Unit Attached Unit Interior Upper Level Unit
Interior Lower Level Unit Garage ConversionAbove Garage Unit
GARAGE ADU
Can include converting all or part of an attached or detached garage
into a residence; may also include adding an ADU above a garage or
building a new unit for both people and cars, as in the example above.
To increase housing supply and
diversity throughout neighborhoods
To provide convenient living
arrangements for families, caretakers,
and/or older homeowners
To reduce negative historical impacts
created by exclusionsary zoning
To improve affordability for homeowners
by creating extra income
To provide opportunities for people
seeking a wider range of homes, prices,
rents, and locations
To create compact growth which
positively impacts the environment
To enhance job opportunities by
providing housing near transit and job
centers
To accommodate development in a cost-
effective way
LOWER LEVEL ADU
Can be created through the conversion of a home’s existing basement
(provided that height and safety conditions are met), during construction
of the house, or as part of a foundation replacement.
DETACHED ADU
A stand-alone home on the same lot as a larger primary dwelling.
Examples include backyard bungalows and converted outbuildings.
Currently, detached ADUs are not allowed in Iowa City but would be
under the proposed amendments.
(photo courtesty of Backyard ADUs via the American Planning Association)
A ccessory Apartments
go by many names,
including:
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
• Carriage or Coach Houses
• Basement Apartments
• Garage Apartments
• Granny Flats
• Guest House or Guest Cottage
• In-Law Suites/Apartments
• Multi-Generational Houses
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Current Standard
Must be accessory to detached single-family uses
Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20)
Owner must live on-site;
a rental permit is required
�������������������������
apartment
Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants
Size limited to the lesser of 650 square feet, 30% of the
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
Must be owner-occupied
50% of primary structure floor
area max. (if detached, greater
of 576 sq. ft. or 25% of rear yard)
Max. bedrooms based on sq. ft.
Must match primary structure
with regards to roof, materials,
color, and character; only one
entrance to a house with an
ADU may face a street
1 space required
Des Moines, Iowa
Comparable Communities
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
600 sq. ft. max. for lots up to
7,200 sq. ft.; 800 sq. ft. max. for
lots of 7,200 sq. ft. or more
2 occupants max.
No requirements
No requirements
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
1,000 sq. ft. max. but not to
exceed footprint of primary
structure
No requirements
2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1
attached & 1 detached; no other
requirements
1 space required
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
800 sq. ft. max. but not to
exceed 50% of the primary
structure floor area
No requirements
May be accessory to single-
family or duplex uses; can only
extend forward to the rear 25%
of the primary structure
No requirements
Durham, North Carolina
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
1,200 sq. ft. max.
2 occupants max.
2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1
attached & 1 detached; 2-story
ADUs shall limit access stairs,
decks, entries & windows to walls
facing primary structure or alley
1 space required if larger than
800 sq. ft. (may be on-street)
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
Must be owner-occupied
900 sq. ft. max.
2 bedrooms max.
Entries in a rear or side yard
shall be connected to a street by
a paved walkway or driveway;
must be above a garage in
certain zones
No requirements
Madison, Wisconsin
• Make it easier to build a diversity of
housing types, especially in lower density
neighborhoods
• Encouraging ADU development can increase
housing supply and improve housing choice
• ADUs should be allowed in all zones that allow
single-family residential uses
• ADUs should only require those conditions
needed to mitigate potential impacts on
neighboring properties
• Treat ADUs like other uses in the zone; this
may include removing requirements for owner
occupancy if not regulated by zoning
• Owner occupancy requirements may be
warranted where allowing short-term rentals
could lead to displacement
• Eliminating off-street parking requirements
reduces the cost and difficulty of building ADUs
• ADUs should be allowed administratively
(i.e. without discretionary appovals)
• Limit design requirements which increase the
cost of building ADUs
• Standards relating to neighborhood character
can be problematic (especially if not objective)
Best Practices
Sources:
Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State, Act
and Local Ordinance, American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP), 2020
Equity in Zoning Policy Guide, American
Planning Association, 2022
The ABCs of ADUs, AARP, 2021
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Analysis
N
Mo
r
mo
nTr e k B lvd
420th St
5th St
H o l i d a y R d
W Park Rd
C
a
m
p
Cardin alBl
v
d
S 1 stAve
SSc
o
t
t
B
l
v
d
1 s t A ve
Hi g hl an d A ve
N
1
stAve
Ri v er St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E J eff er s o n S t
L
o
w
er
M
u
sc
atin
e
Rd
Sunset
S
t
Kirkwood Ave
10t h St
W Benton St
S
7
t
h
A
v
e
E
P
ark Rd
N
Rive
rside
Dr
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
Mel r os e Ave
Ro c h es ter Av e
Sheridan Ave
Roh r et Rd
E Mar k et St
2n
d
S
t
Bowery St
S
Su
m
m
i
t
S
t
Friends h i p St
Church St
Hawkins D r
P
r
a
iri
e
D
u
C
h
i
e
n
R
d
22ndAve
K i m b all
R
d
1
2
t
h
A
v
e
McCollister
B
l
v
d
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
S
t
M
o
r
m
onTrek Blvd
Heartl
a
nd Dr
S
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
S
G
il
b
e
r
t
S
t
IWV Rd SW
N S c o tt Blvd
S
a
n
d
R
d
S
E
Herbert Hoover Hwy SE
D
ubuqueSt
N
E
Highw
ay
6
S
E
Hi g hway
1
S
W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
Interstate 80
Parcel Currently Allows
ADUs (if owner-occupied);
Would Allow ADUs Under
Proposed Changes
Regardless of Occupancy
Parcel Currently Does Not
Allow ADUs;
Would Allow ADUs Under
Proposed Changes
Where ADUs Are Allowed: Current & Proposed
City ParkCity Park
Rental: 101Rental: 101
Total: 544Total: 544
Percent: 19%Percent: 19%
Northside Northside
GoosetownGoosetown
Rental: 631Rental: 631
Total: 1,187Total: 1,187
Percent: 53%Percent: 53%
City HighCity High
Rental: 155Rental: 155
Total: 1,136Total: 1,136
Percent: 14%Percent: 14%
College GreenCollege Green
Rental: 213Rental: 213
Total: 375Total: 375
Percent: 57%Percent: 57%
RFC East & WestRFC East & West
Rental: 30Rental: 30
Total: 44Total: 44
Percent: 68%Percent: 68%
LongfellowLongfellow
Rental: 237Rental: 237
Total: 902Total: 902
Percent: 26%Percent: 26%
Mark TwainMark Twain
Rental: 323Rental: 323
Total: 1,135Total: 1,135
Percent: 28%Percent: 28%
Miller OrchardMiller Orchard
Rental: 81Rental: 81
Total: 307Total: 307
Percent: 26%Percent: 26%
Brookland Brookland
RooseveltRoosevelt
Rental: 172Rental: 172
Total: 292Total: 292
Percent: 59%Percent: 59%
Melrose Melrose
EmeraldEmerald
Rental: 39Rental: 39
Total: 227Total: 227
Percent: 17%Percent: 17%
Willow CreekWillow Creek
Rental: 166Rental: 166
Total: 787Total: 787
Percent: 21%Percent: 21%
BoweryBowery
Rental: 185Rental: 185
Total: 243Total: 243
Percent: 76%Percent: 76%
By the Numbers:
Source: City Assessor parcel data
downloaded June 14, 2023
Single-Family & Duplex Rental Units
additional properties may construct an ADU due to proposed changes
that expand where ADUs are allowed1,400
additional properties may construct an ADU due to proposed
changes that allow ADUs for properties that are not owner-occupied3,070
properties may currently construct an ADU9,950
52 ADUs have been permitted since 1995
Higher %of properties are expected to construct an ADU due to proposed
changes that reduce other barriers to construction
Take Away:
Single-family and duplex units
in select neighborhoods near
downtown tend to have higher
levels of rental occupancy.
University Impact Area
Source: Iowa City Rental Impact
Area Analysis, June 30, 2022
Name of Rental DistrictName of Rental District
Rental: Single-family & duplex units Rental: Single-family & duplex units
with a rental permitwith a rental permit
Total: All single-family & duplex unitsTotal: All single-family & duplex units
Percent: Percent of single-family & Percent: Percent of single-family &
duplex units with a rental permitduplex units with a rental permit
Rental Districts
Key for Text on Map
36%of single-family and duplex properties in Iowa City are rentals
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Excerpt from the Community Vision Statement:
“We will strive to preserve and build upon these aspects our community while supporting compatible
growth and investment that contributes to the overall sustainability of Iowa City by...Creating attractive
and affordable housing for all people – housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse
neighborhoods throughout our city”
Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in
Established Neighborhoods:
Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of
Iowa City’s historic and established neighborhoods helps
to preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City.
Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major
employers in the city preserves opportunities for people to
live close to work, school, and shopping; promotes walking
and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled.
Compatible Infill Development:
Quality infill development plays an important role in
neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating
existing structures or encouraging new development of
vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development
of infill sites should add to the diversity of housing options
without compromising neighborhood character.
Diversity of Housing Types:
A mix of housing types within a neighborhood provides
residential opportunities for a variety of people, including
singles, couples, families with children, and elderly
persons. Integrating diverse housing sizes and types
throughout the community increases the opportunity for
people to live in the same neighborhood throughout the
stages of life.
Affordable Housing:
By allowing for a mix of housing types, moderately priced
housing can be incorporated into a neighborhood, rather
than segregated in one or two areas of the community.
Townhouses and duplex units can be mixed with single-
family homes within a neighborhood.
Se
l
e
c
t
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
f
o
r
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
Su
s
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Next Steps
Important Dates
The public is encouraged to express their thoughts regarding the proposed
amendments to staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council.
To provide your input, you can do one (or more) of the following:
1. Provide comments in person at public meetings (noted above);
2. Fill out and return the survey on the proposed code changes (shown right); and/or
3. Submit written correspondence for consideration by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council (send to Kirk Lehmann at klehmann@iowa-city.org)
December 12, 2023:
Tentative City Council Meeting, Third Reading and Possible Adoption
October 4, 2023:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and Possible Recommendation
November 21, 2023:
Tentative City Council Meeting, Second Reading
November 6, 2023:
Tentative City Council Public Hearing and First Reading
We want to hear from you!
Survey
4uestions?
Contact Kirk Lehmann
Associate Planner
klehmann@iowa-city.org
319-356-5247
This brief survey allows you to share your thoughts
on the proposed changes. Results will be shared with
the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council.
The City of Iowa City invites you to attend an ACCESSORY APARTMENT OPEN HOUSE
The City of Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to
increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and encourage
housing affordability. As part of this effort, the City is proposing to
modify how it regulates accessory apartments, also known as
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), granny flats, mother-in-law
suites, guest houses, or carriage houses. The City is hosting two
Open Houses to provide opportunities for residents to learn more
about these proposed changes and to listen to your thoughts!
What are Accessory Apartments?
Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwelling units
located on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs can be attached
or detached and come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and
configurations. Images above and on the next page show some
examples of where accessory apartments may be located.
Event
Dates and
Times
____
September 13th
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Terry Trueblood
Park Lodge
579 McCollister Blvd.
Iowa City, IA 52240
____
September 14th
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Iowa City Public
Library – Meeting
Room A
123 S Linn St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
QUESTIONS?
PLEASE CONTACT:
Kirk Lehmann
Associate Planner
(319) 356-5247
klehmann@iowa-city.org
Why Accessory Apartments?
Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing
market in Iowa. Removing barriers to the
construction of ADUs can help increase our
housing supply while also providing older
homeowners, single parents, young home-
buyers, and renters additional opportunities to
access a wider range of homes, prices, and
rents throughout our neighborhoods.
Source: City of Des Moines Accessory Housing
Current Standards Proposed Standards
Owner is not required to live on-site;
a rental permit is required
Owner must live on-site;
a rental permit is required
Must be accessory to detached single-family use Must be accessory to single-family or duplex use
No off-street parking required
for accessory apartment
Requires 1 off-street parking space
for accessory apartment
Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants
Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft.
or 50% of the floor area of the main building
Size limited to the lesser of 650 Sq Ft.,
30% of the floor area if in the main building,
or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building
The square footage for an accessory apartment is
restricted by max. size limits
An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor
area of the main building by over 10%
Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must
appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance
locations are not dictated
Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must
appear to be a detached single-family home, so new
entrances must face side or rear lot line
Summary of Proposed Changes
Allows a standalone accessory apartment Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment
Allowed in any zone that allows residential uses
(includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU,
and some other commercial zones)
Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20)