Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-08 OrdinanceItem Number: 7.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org January 8, 2019 Motion setting a public hearing for January 22, 2019 on an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.56 acres of property located at 416 Reno Street from Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -8) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD). (REZ18-00021) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report r ��,.,_.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY ]MEMORANDUM Date: December 14, 2018 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Designation of 416 Reno Street as a Historic Landmark (REZ18-00021) Background: In 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission, began a study of Historic Properties that had been identified as possibly eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places but were not yet protected by zoning designations. The house at 416 Reno Street was identified as one of these key historic properties. Designation for this property was not pursued along with the recent group of Local Landmarks because the property had been entrusted to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The National Trust, in conjunction with owner Carl Klaus, has subsequently initiated the National Register Nomination process and the Local Landmark designation process prior to formally transferring ownership of the property to the National Trust. They will sell the property once these processes are complete and the revenue will support their continued work in Historic Preservation. The enclosed National Register Nomination provides a discussion of the building's history and architecture. 416 Reno Street is a two-story brick house, built in 1898 in the Queen Anne Style. The house was owned by Albert Borts whose father was David Borts, a prominent Iowa City builder responsible for several Iowa City university and public buildings, including the Old Science Building (now known as Calvin Hall). David Borts may have been the builder of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Review: The Historic Preservation Commission met December 13, 2018 and conducted a public hearing at which they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of 416 Reno Street. The Commission determined that the property meets the requirements for a landmark and voted to recommend approval of the designation of 416 Reno Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The building is significant both because of its architecture and historic integrity and for its association with prominent figures in Iowa City's history. Landmark designation for 416 Reno Street, a property in a Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS -8) zone, will require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions (Section 14-213-8 of the zoning code) that allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements to help support the continued use of historic buildings. Landmark designation will also make it possible for financial incentives such as tax credits and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Fund to be available. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Landmark Designation is a zoning overlay and therefore requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. The Commission's role is to review the proposed designation based on its relation to the Comprehensive Plan and proposed public improvements and plans for renewal of the area involved. There are two specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this proposal: 1). the Central District Plan and 2). the Historic Preservation Plan. December 14, 2018 Page 2 The subject property is located within Subarea B of the Central District. The Central District Plan encourages the maintenance, rehabilitation, and continued investment in older housing stock. Ongoing support of neighborhood association activities, historic preservation, and partnerships with local schools will help keep these neighborhoods healthy (Central District Plan pg 16-17). The designation of 416 Reno Street as a local historic landmark would contribute to this goal, along with the broader Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving historic resources and reinvesting in older neighborhoods (Central District Plan pg 2). The Historic Preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan contains two specific goals relating to this proposal: Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City's Past. Under this goal the Commission is charged with continuing to research and evaluate properties and to pursue local landmark designation when appropriate. The original determination of eligibility for landmark overlay zoning for the property at 416 Reno Street is a direct result of the Historic Preservation Commission working toward Goal 1. Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic health and stability. In the Goosetown neighborhood the goal was to implement a Conservation District that was completed in 2014 and did not include the local neighborhood in which 416 Reno Street is located. Objective 3 of the Other Planning Districts section, when appropriate, the HPC should encourage owners to complete National Register of Historic Places Nomination and local landmark designation, provides direction for properties such as this, on the border of a planning district and outside local historic district or conservation district designation. The designation of 416 Reno accomplishes this objective by providing protection for important outlying historic resources. The landmark designation sought by the applicant conforms with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan — providing incentives to maintain and improve older housing stock and identifying historic resources that are not currently protected by landmark designation. The preservation of 416 Reno Street would not be in conflict with future redevelopment in the area but would actively promote the preservation of historic resources and neighborhood continuity. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00021, an application to designate 416 Reno Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) to RS -8 with a Historic Preservation Overlay (RS-8/OHP). Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Historic Preservation Commission Memo, 12/13/2018, including the Site Inventory Form Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY a177 , -kit' , r i FAIRCHILD ST Ir AM CEDAR ST C ' U) r .,IZt 1A +q s�17-„o E DAVENPORT SWrk T b AfA qS, �. An application submitted by the National Trust for Historic Preservation for the rezoning of approximatelye a 24,480 square feet located at 416 Reno Street from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) to w ~ q Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) with e BLOOMINGTON ST a Historic District Overlay OHD). CITY OF IOWA CITY RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 �a! RS8 iL I RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 k P1 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8RS8 RS8 RS8 RS5 RS5 RS5 P1 RS8 RS8 ii fi FAIRCHILD STI RS8 �+x.�.°. In i RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 `" I RS8 RS5 CEDAR ST Via. U) F .._ — .._ M, w O RS8 RS5 f RS5 _ RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 F Z RS8 RS8 U RS8 � RS8 ! F . RS5 ¢ RS5 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8' RS8 RS8 RS8 t;= RS5 RS5 a RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS8 RS8 M z E DAVENPORT ST 3 RS8 RS8' RS8 R 8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 - RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS8,', ` RS8 RS8 RS8 RS5 RS8 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS5 RS5 RS5RS5 RS5 w `� RS8 RS8 RS5 mmmL n application submitted by the National Trust for r F_ ----- RS8 RS8 _ RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 toric Preservation for the rezoning of approximately y Rss Rs5 Rs54,480 square feet located at 416 Reno Street from RS5 RS5 RS8 RS8 RS8 RS5 RS5 RS5 ` y Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) toMedium ,;.. 1��_RS5 Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) with E BLOOMIN6TON ST - -- �- RS5 RS5 � RsS� a Historic District Overlay (OHD). - �� ; RS5 RS8 PRA. RS5 RS5 oeF RS5- X25.5--4�-:"` qk Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 Memorandum Date: December 3, 2018 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 416 Reno Street — Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House — Local Landmark Designation The applicant, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in conjunction with property owner Carl Klaus, has requested that the property at 416 Reno Street be designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements and for State Tax Credit funding of rehabilitation work. In addition, the house is being Nominated for Listing in the National Register for Historic Places. As described in the attached National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, the Albert J. and Alice E. Borts house was built in 1898 in the Queen Anne Style exhibiting free classic detailing along with patterned masonry found in one of the earliest Queen Anne substyles. The Borts family included David Borts, prominent Iowa City mason and Albert's father. Documentation shows that David Borts built the house. In addition, the Borts family influence on Nineteenth Century brick architecture in Iowa City and in this near northeast neighborhood is extensive. The Borts house is Nominated for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, Design/Construction. The house exhibits a high level of historic architectural integrity. The Commission should determine if the property meets criterion a. and b. and at least one of the criteria c., d., e., or f. for local designation listed below: a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture; b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship; c. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; e. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Iowa City ll 1111 VAV� w Historic Preservation Commission s City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 f. Has yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history. The house at 416 Reno Street is located on the eastern edge of the Goosetown Neighborhood in Iowa City and is part a neighborhood with high historic integrity. With its high individual integrity and as a somewhat rare example of Iowa City masonry construction in the Queen Anne Style, this house meets criteria A and B for local landmark designation. The house is significant and individually eligible for the National Register for its architecture and therefore meets local designation criterion E. In addition, at the local level the house can be considered associated with the lives of the Borts family who were involved extensively in the development of the neighborhood surrounding the house and through David Borts in the construction of other significant buildings in Iowa City. Locally, the house also meets criterion D in this association with the Borts family. Based on the information provided in the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, staff finds that the property meets criteria a, b, d, and e and therefore qualifies as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the designation of 416 Reno Street (Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, d, and e. NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Pro historic name Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House other names/site number Klaus, Carl H. and Kate F., House Name of Multiple Property Listing N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) 2. Location street & number 416 Reno Street city or town Iowa state Iowa county 103 3. State/Federal Agency Certification zip code 52245 ❑ not for publication ❑ vicinity As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets —does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: _ national _ statewide X local Applicable National Register Criteria: _ A _ B X C _ D Signature of certifying official/Title: Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Date State Historical Society of Iowa State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official Date Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register _ determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register _ removed from the National Register other (explain:) Signature of the Keeper Date of Action Sections 1 — 4 page 1 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J., and Alice E., House Johnson County, Iowa Name of Property County and State 5. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) (Check only one box.) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) Contributing Noncontributing x private x building(s) 1 buildings public - Local district site public - State site 1 structure public - Federal structure object object 1 1 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register: N/A 6. Function or Use Historic Functions Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) (Enter categories from instructions.) DOMESTIC/single dwelli DOMESTIC/single dwelling DOMESTIC/secondary structure 7. Description Architectural Classification Materials (Enter categories from instructions.) (Enter categories from instructions.) LATE VICTORIAN/Queen Anne Section 7 page 2 foundation: STONE/Limestone walls: BRICK roof: ASPHALT other: United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State Narrative Description Summary Paragraph (Briefly describe the current, general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) SUMMARY PARAGRAPH The two-story brick Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House (Borts House), built in 1898 in the Queen Anne style (free classic and patterned masonry substyles), is located in northeastern Iowa City, in Johnson County, Iowa, on portions of lots 7 and 8 of Frederick Irish's 1862 extension of William Wood's 1855 addition to the original town. The lot is slightly elevated on a rise above the sidewalk and Reno Street, a rise that gently continues to slope upward from the house to the end of the long narrow parcel on the east. An asphalt driveway cuts deeply through the earthen bank in front and leads to a graveled parking area behind and off the north side of the house. There is no garage, but a modern open-air gazebo sits beyond the gravel, and a slightly sunken concrete and stone patio is adjacent to the house's east rear wall. Two large garden areas are found in the backyard. Out front, along Reno Street, a windrow of century -old Norway spruce shades this west -facing house. Additional deciduous and evergreen bushes fill the corners of the property's front yard, making good photographic views somewhat difficult. To the south along Reno Street are nineteenth-century frame residences; to the immediate north are two Civil War -era brick houses and beyond those a small neighborhood park. Across the street are smaller, nineteenth century wood -frame houses. Borts House was built with two types of red brick, one common, one decorative, and a blue -gray limestone stone foundation. Its wood trim is classical in form and found on all four elevations. The building's historic integrity is very good. Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable.) GENERALLY (shared features) Borts House (Fig. 1) has solid red -brick walls finished with wood trim painted a creamy yellow. Its foundation is of a bluish -gray limestone, cut in rusticated or chipped -face blocks. The blocks are laid in a regular pattern and bonded with decorative beaded pointing. The large blocks seen on the exterior change to smaller, rubblestone blocks to form the interior basement walls. The brick walls have an American or common bond pattern with thin joints of gray mortar except in the small single -story rear addition, which has running brick stretchers and slightly wider, gray mortar joints. Windows are tall and primarily one -over -one, double - hung sashes throughout and probably original. A shorter pair on the north wall are replacements to allow for a kitchen counter inside. Sills are painted wood; headers are either of soldier bricks or formed as a part of a beltcourse. The overall building form is shaped like a T, with the long upright running west/east (front to back), and the cross bar forming slightly protruding bays on the north and south sides. These side bays have open - pediment gable roofs, while the main roof is a steep pyramid pierced by another smaller front gable. All roof Figure 1 West front, facing southeast. All current photos by Jan Olive Full, May 2018. Section 7 page 3 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State surfaces are clad with dark red asphalt shingles. Atop the main roof, just behind the peak, is a brick crown chimney. WEST FRONT ELEVATION (faVade) The west front features a full width porch with a flat roof, and smooth Tuscan columns sitting on newer yellow limestone piers. The interstitial space between the stone piers is filled with a skirting of traditional (900 joints) wood lattice panels. The porch columns support a wide architrave (the first flat surface above the column capital in classical forms). Most of it is obscured by the rain gutter, but above the architrave is a molded cornice. Above the porch roof, trim on the main roof and side gables is similar. There are pediment returns on the front attic gable where these classical references are most exposed and apparent. Wide and steep wooden porch steps lead directly to the front door. A balustrade of turned balusters and newel posts with ball finials edge the porch and stairs. Next to the front door is a large window with a painted wood sill. The segmental -arch headers over these two openings are of rusticated soldier bricks, but their color is significantly darker than the brick walls. A belt course of these rusticated dark bricks is found at the header level of these openings. This feature is also found and more obvious on the south and north elevations as well. The east rear lacks this detail. Fenestration on the second story echoes the first in position and size. Above the door is a single second -story window about the width of the front door; above the wide porch window is an equally wide second -story window. At the gable, a band of the dark rusticated bricks runs between the cornice returns, perhaps to suggest a classical tympanum (or the triangular space created by a gable's two slopes plus its base). In the peak of the attic gable is a smaller window with a rounded header of the darker bricks. SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION (Figure 2) Rounding the corner from the west front, one encounters a side door in the protruding cross -gable bay, reached by similar steps and balustrade as on the front porch. This door leads into the dining room. The shed roof over the side door is tied into the building wall on one side and supported on the other side by a wooden truss bracket reminiscent of the Stick style (one of several modest details suggesting this style). Fenestration on this south side is vertically balanced but asymmetrically located. Windows have painted sills here too. The first -floor headers are formed as a part of the running beltcourse of rusticated dark bricks. The first floor also features a squared bay with a flat roof that further juts out from the two-story cross - gable bay (behind the evergreen bushes on the right in Figure 2). This small window bay is too shallow to have side windows, but there are paired windows on its wide south side. There also is a large basement window with a segmental -arched header, ample in size because of the slightly raised foundation. The same classical details of pediment returns, architrave, and cornice molding are found on this side as well. Figure 2 West front and south side, facing northeast. May 2018 Section 7 page 4 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State EAST REAR ELEVATION The wall of this elevation (Figs. 3-5) extends down from the sloped common roofline of the cross gables. The wall lacks the beltcourse seen on other walls and the ground -floor window header is segmental -arched and formed by two courses of common bricks. The roof here sports a large wood -frame gable (added in 1975) with pediment returns and clad in fishscale shingles. The attic study inside is lit by a three-part, Palladian inspired, window. The ground floor features a c. 1910, 6' by 7' brick addition (probably veneered) on the north corner and an open shed -roofed porch supported by a turned upright post on one end and tied into the addition on the other. The addition contains a small bathroom and was likely added when the outdoor privy was abandoned (date and location unknown). On the second floor above the porch is a small wood -frame screened sitting porch with a shed roof also. This sitting porch only extends across part of the rear wall and has dimensions of 6' by 10'. The sitting porch has half -walls made of vertical boards, divided decoratively by applied narrow trim pieces that cross at the center. This stickwork treatment is another modest suggestive of the Shingle style. The ground floor entrance door leading into the kitchen is centered on the porch, there is a single window to the left (south) of the porch, and smaller double windows on the small brick addition. The second floor sitting porch is accessed through the northeast corner bedroom. There is no indication the sitting porch is anything but original, but if it is not, it is a very early addition to the house. In the back yard just east of the patio, the classically -inspired gazebo—the noncontributing structure in this nomination—was constructed in 1988. The gazebo is 10' by 15' and sits on a concrete pad. Smooth columns support a pyramidal roof. Lattice screens are located between the columns on each side. The columns were salvaged from the wrap-around porch of a nearby house being demolished. They are of dense solid hardwood. Figure 3 View of the south side and the east rear walls. Note the patio and the basement storm door near the south corner of this east elevation, both from the 1970s (see Alterations section). May 2018 Section 7 page 5 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State NORTH SIDE ELEVATION Figure 4 Another view of the east rear wall, with the open- air modern gazebo at the right edge in the photograph. May 2018 Figure S The classically -inspired gazebo was constructed in 1988. May 2018 The gentle slope of the lot from east down to the west (left to right in Fig. 6), and the resulting decreasing exposure of the stone foundation, is easiest seen on this side. The north wall has the other large open -gable projecting bay. Unlike the south side bay however, this one has double windows. A single second -floor window is toward the front corner (or at least slightly west of the elevation's center axis), and the gable peak window is identical to the south and west sides. The prominent dark brick beltcourse seen on Figure 6 The north side looking south. Note the ground level double window is a reduced replacement. See Figure 7 for a detail view of the juncture of the house and the small addition. May 2018 the fagade and south side is present here also, as is the beltcourse that stretches between the gable's pediment returns Section 7 page 6 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State LANDSCAPE (backyard) Figure 7 The northeast corner of the house is seen here, with the small east side brick addition to the left. The dark vertical that separates the addition from the house is a tar -like sealant. The foundation appears to be a different stone or masonry type than the body of the house. The bricks have a smoother more finished surface over the earlier red clay bricks of the main house. The latter bricks show press marks. This small addition, c. 1910, houses an interior bathroom and has only a crawlspace underneath. May 2018 The concrete and stone patio and retaining walls (197 1) are shown in Figure 8, with the gazebo and large garden area beyond. Near the farthest property line to the east is another smaller garden area. It is thought a privy, cistern, and unknown number of outbuildings were once in the yard. The cistern was where the patio is now (filled in), and a small outbuilding formerly occupied the gazebo site. No archaeology has been undertaken or is currently contemplated at this private residence. Figure 8 View of the backyard patio, gazebo, and fenced garden area (between gazebo and the flowering redbud tree), looking north, northeast. May 2018 Section 7 page 7 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State INTERIOR FEATURES At the ground floor level, one passes through the front entrance into the living room, with the staircase to the second floor on the left. (The basement stairs are accessed through a door under this staircase and lead to three basement rooms, one of which is the laundry room.) An open double doorway at the southeast corner of the living room leads into the dining room with its southside projecting bay. A smaller pass doorway next to the staircase leads from the living room directly into the kitchen with its small bathroom off the northeast corner of the house. Upstairs on the second floor, the gateleg staircase empties onto a small irregular central hallway with the three bedrooms, a larger bathroom, and the stairway door to the attic radiating off from it. The east sitting porch is reached by going through the northeast corner bedroom. Refer to the floor plans on pages 35- 36. Woodwork throughout appears to be yellow pine and fir, except the newer oak floor in the attic study. Floorboards are narrow on the first floor and wider on the second. Trim includes cornice molding across the tops of windows and doorways, molded door casings that terminate in tall base blocks, wide molded baseboards, and corner guards on the walls to protect the plaster. Door knobs, face plates, and hinges are quite ornate with raised decorative patterns that include acanthus leaves, a feather -like motif, and beaded borders. The gateleg staircase is paneled on the first floor and has thin balusters and robust but simple newels. All of this original woodwork and hardware were likely ordered from a millwork catalogue such as the M.A. Disbrow Co., which had warehouses or shops in both nearby Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Lyons, Iowa on the Mississippi. Multiple coats of paint on all the moldings and trim were removed in the 1970s. A bulky, square masonry mass separates the front parlor or living room from the dining room on the ground floor and originally may have been an open fireplace. This stacked masonry feature is in more or less the center of the house and found on all floors, from basement to the narrower chimney stack exposed in the attic that extends through the roof to form the crown chimney. Evidence of round stovepipe openings can be seen on this mass suggesting the house was heated originally by coal stoves. At some point, a boiler and radiators replaced this heating system. Shortly after they moved to this house in 1970, the owners removed a non-loadbearing wall that separated the front parlor/living room from the staircase to the second floor, eliminating the narrow hallway it created in the process. They also renovated the kitchen and bathrooms, and added the rear attic dormer on the east roof slope. Other than these specified changes, the interior and its floor plan are largely original (refer to sketch floor plans on pages 35-36). NEIGHBORHOOD The Borts house is in an old and historic neighborhood near the eastern edge of "Goosetown" an enclave of Bohemian immigrants and Bohemian -Americans with settlements that extend from northern Iowa City north through small towns like Solon and Ely, to the southern area of Cedar Rapids, some 25 miles to the north. In 1994, a group of local Iowa City citizens worked with the state's Department of Natural Resources to document the heritage trees in Goosetown. The following is the description, written for a walking tour pamphlet, issued as apart of the project: Section 7 page 8 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State In about 1855. Bohemians, ancestors of today's Czechs and Slovaks, as well as some Gerrnaris, began settling what was to become Goosetown, a semi -autonomous, spread -out ethnic village within the city limits, just east across Dodge from St. Wenceslaus Church. Farmers, artisans, and shopkeepers, early Goosetowners cieare� the land of native trees for planting orchards, windbreaks., grape arbors, vegetable gardens, and flower beds to surrpound their clustered cottage homes. Daily, their children drove the geese out from their backyard poultry coops to graze in what is now North Market Square Park, then a patch of prairie. Seasonally, Goosetowners headed east to the Irish. Estate farms to buy orchard fruits, eggs, butter, and milk, and to forage the woods for mushrooms, hickory nuts, hazelnuts, walnuts, black cherries, wild plums, gooseberries, raspberries, kindling, wildflowers, and curative roots. Figure 9 From A Tree Walk in Goosetown " (1994), available online from the Iowa City Public Library. Heritage trees along Reno Street, including those found in the front yard of the Borts House at 416 Reno (Item 12), are described as follows. The Norway spruce windbreak row is extant and impressive in its height and girth. The spindle trees were not observed in May 2018. 12 416 Reno Street: 1 Two European spindle trees (wonymus europaeus), c. 1960. 11 This slow-growing hardwood was brought over from Europe by early settlers to use in making needed implements like «_ spindles. These two were found growing wild in a ditch in � ` • southeast Johnson County. 1 ._ _. Windbreak of Norway spruce (Picea abiesj c. 1895 ' • 41 r Rena Street: Remainder of century -old windbreak � S T Ftp ,.; Fuca i 0 T!�uj — M — — Despite the Goosetown location, the families that figure prominently in the Borts House's background were transplants from Ohio and farther east. They were not members of the ethnic enclave, but Yankees who arrived shortly before the Bohemians when this area was more rural. Two Reno Street houses just north of the Borts House are Civil War -era brick gable -end dwellings that are vernacular but influenced by the Greek Revival style. The current city -owned neighborhood park once was the site of a third similar wood -frame Civil War -era house. The extant brick residences are set well back from Reno Street, with large front yards and they also once had agricultural outbuildings behind (see Section 8 Figs. 26-27). Section 7 page 9 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State Borts House, then, sits within a historic neighborhood and a documented heritage botanical landscape. These three brick homes in a row are prominent outliers, though, in an old residential part of Iowa City largely dominated by snug, wood -frame Bohemian Goosetown cottages from the mid- to late -nineteenth century. The historic integrity of eastern Goosetown, and Reno Street in particular, is striking. ALTERATIONS TO BORTS HOUSE There is some replacement of the original thin gray mortar with newer white mortar. This is most evident on the east rear and north side elevations. The surface area affected by these mortar repairs is roughly estimated to be about 15% of the total surface area of all sides. The small ground -floor brick addition at the north corner of the east rear wall is a very early addition, perhaps within a decade or two of the original construction. The north side wall has had a large window opening bricked up to shorten it and the windows replaced by smaller paired double-hungs. This was done in the 1970s. Unfortunately, the brick used to fill in under the new windows is a poor match for the original and made more prominent by the white mortar used. Thankfully, this alteration is not visible to the public except those who come up the driveway. The limestone piers supporting the front porch appear to be replacements for the originals and the storm door on the rear elevation is newer. Perhaps the most significant alteration to the exterior is the addition of a new frame dormer on the east rear roof slope of the house, constructed as a part of the conversion of the attic space into a study. This is well done and not visible from the street. Interior alterations include the renovation of the kitchen and bathrooms, removal of the non -load bearing wall, and conversion of the attic into a finished study or office, a project that also added the rear wooden dormer. All these changes were completed in the 1970s. ARCHAEOLOGY It is thought a privy, cistern, and unknown number of outbuildings were once in the yard. No archaeology has been undertaken or is currently contemplated at this private residence. At the far east end of the present lot line, probably on another's property was a large and elaborate horse barn according to the long-time owner of the subject house. It was torn down many years ago. INTEGRITY Borts House has very good historic integrity. Comments on specific integrity aspects are as follows: (1) location: the building is in its original location; (2) design: the exterior is largely unchanged except for the northside window replacement and the rear roof wood -frame gable addition. The interior largely maintains its original floor plan with one wall removed and minor changes to the basement and attic staircases; (3) setting: the immediate surrounding residential neighborhood is remarkably intact; (4) materials: the great majority of the exterior materials are original or are near to the original construction date of 1898; Section 7 page 10 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State (5) workmanship: the workmanship employed in the building is best reflected in the skills needed to lay the brick and stone walls, including the decorative brick beltcourses; (6) feeling: the overall plan, vertical massing, molding and details, and aesthetics of the building suggests the Queen Anne style in the free classic and patterned masonry substyles; (7) association: the building's residential function directly relates to its architectural significance. Section 7 page 11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria Areas of Significance (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for (Enter categories from instructions.) National Register listing.) ARCHITECTURE ❑ A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. ❑ B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. F C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. ❑ D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.) Property is: A Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. B removed from its original location. C a birthplace or grave. D a cemetery. E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. F a commemorative property. G less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years. Period of Significance 1898 Significant Dates 1898 Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.) Cultural Affiliation (if applicable) Architect/Builder Borts, David L. Section 8 page 12 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State Statement of Significance Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations). Constructed in 1898, the Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House (Borts House) is locally significant under Criterion C as a Queen Anne residence with decorative details suggesting both the free classic and patterned masonry subtypes of the style. The variety of masonry materials used in the building, from common red brick, to rusticated dark -red brick, to the bluish -gray stone of the foundation, is unusual for a Queen Anne in this eastern Iowa town and reflects the design choices of a master builder. The home was constructed by David Borts, Albert's father and a noted nineteenth century builder in Iowa City. A skilled mason and contractor who completed his buildings largely in red brick and limestone, his many projects included residences, at least one church, and numerous large university buildings on the campus of the State University of Iowa (now University of Iowa).' Unfortunately, the body of this builder's work in Iowa City has diminished over the years as his larger masonry buildings have been demolished. Campus buildings in particular were replaced in the twentieth century by light -gray Beaux Arts buildings as the university's design program changed. The period of significance is the year in which the building was constructed. Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.) (Iowa SHPO Additional Instructions: For properties not nominated under Criterion D, include a statement about whether any archaeological remains within or beyond the footprint of the property were assessed as part of this nomination under the subheading Archaeological Assessment.) QUEEN ANNE ARCHITECTURE IN THE UNITED STATES & ITS ANTECEDENTS The Queen Anne style has its origins in England and emerged in the 1860s as younger architects began to reject Gothic architecture, both "muscular Gothic in particular, and the idea that everything should be Gothic in general."2 These younger English architects, Philip Webb and Richard Norman Shaw perhaps best known among them, traveled in a wider circle of designers like William Morris and Pre-Raphaelite artists like Dante Gabriel Rossetti. The young architects looked at their own English vernacular architecture, the cottages of the countryside and the older neighborhoods of London, and began to revive the "tile -hanging, weather -boarding, and half-timbering" elements of "homelier brick architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."3 After years of "scouring the Continent with their sketch books [studying Classical and Renaissance buildings], they realized there was a whole forgotten world at their doorsteps waiting to be rediscovered. ,4 There is no thorough inventory of David Borts' work. Edna Alice Borts, identified her grandfather as the builder of her family home. Ms. Borts was Albert and Alice's daughter, born in 1900 and nearly 103 when she died in 2003. In between she had a long professional career as a nurse. Edna Alice Borts to Kate and Carl Klaus, c. 1970; "Obituary of Edna Borts," accessed at https:Hgayandciha.com/tribute/details/561/Edna-Borts/obituary.html on 6/6/2018. 2 Mark Girouard, Sweetness and Light: The `Queen Anne' Movement 1860-1900 (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1977; reprinted Yale University Press, 1984), 12. Reprint used. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., 12-13. Sections 8 — 11 page 13 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property According to one British architectural historian, "the early and mid - seventeenth century had supplied [these architects] with gables, whether straight or Flemish, brick pilasters, brick pediments, ribbed chimney -stacks, and prominent plaster covers; from the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries came sash windows, and wrought -iron railings; the architects had mixed them all together, made the roofs and chimney -stacks especially prominent, been asymmetric when they felt like it, paired or elongated their sash windows, and thrown in the occasional sunflower to add an aesthetic flavoring."5 Decorative—some would say busy—brickwork was Figure 11 Red House, London, by J.J. Stevenson, 1871-73. Credit: Girouard, Plate 30, page 40. common, including walls that alternated courses of dark bricks and light stone to achieve horizontal stripes (Fig. 10). Johnson, Iowa County and State Figure 10 Old Scotland Yard, Westminster, London, UK, by Richard Norman Shaw, 1887-90. Credit: Pinterest on 5/30/2018 By the mid -1870s, the public had adopted Richard Norman Shaw's use of the term "Queen Anne" for the exuberant office buildings, country homes, churches, and London terrace houses designed by this group of architects.6 One especially influential terrace house, designed by J.J. Stevenson, exemplifies the eclectic and wildly ornate creations that came to be called Queen Anne in England (Fig. 11). Speculative British builders soon adapted the style to urban townhouses and the style became popular and nearly ubiquitous in some developing neighborhoods and garden suburbs (Fig. 12). 5 Ibid., 38. 6 Shaw's terminology supposedly referenced the Renaissance style of architecture popular during the English Queen Anne's reign (1702-1714). However, this is a misnomer since the nineteenth-century style as it emerged is closer to the medieval forms of 300 years earlier, during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. University of the West of England, "Domestic Architecture 1700-1960," accessed at fet.uwe.ac.uk on 5/30/2018; also, Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, accessed at www.phmc.state.pa.us on 5/30/2018. Sections 8 — 11 page 14 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State Figure 12 Circa 1890 semi-detached builder townhouses. Note the contrasting masonry, tall window bays, and multi pane sash windows. Credit: University of the West of England on 5/30/2018 What prompted the Queen Anne's spread to the United States is open for discussion. Architectural historians generally credit H.H. Richardson's 1874 Watts -Sherman house in Newport, Rhode Island as the very first American Queen Anne example, but Great Britain's Queen Anne exhibition buildings constructed for the 1876 Philadelphia Exposition likely caused it to spread beyond the Newport summer "cottages" of Richardson's wealthy clients. 7 Pattern books and the country's first architectural magazine, The American Architect and Building News, further popularized it and made the style accessible to builders and architectural plan publishers like George F. Barber.8 Social historians argue that the Queen Anne form accommodated a growing middle class and the developing culture of consumption of the last third of the nineteenth century.9 The Queen Anne home, they theorized, represented an "artistic" expression of domestic life acceptable and encouraged as part of the new concept of a "women's sphere."10 The style remained popular in this country throughout the 1880s into the first decade of the twentieth century. It was the "dominant style of domestic building" nationwide until 1900, thereafter dwindling in new construction starts as simpler lines and less decoration became popular." Executed primarily in wood -frame, except in the urban Northeast where Norman Shaw's preference for masonry remained strong, Queen Anne houses may be categorized into four principal subtypes of form and four principal subtypes of decoration. 12 By frequency of form, over half the Queen Anne houses (including Borts House) have a steep hipped roof, with cross gables. This roof form is "among the most distinctive Queen Anne characteristics and occurs in examples ranging from modest cottages to high -style landmarks." 13 Lesser numbers of form variants were built with cross -gables Mary Mix Foley, The American House (New York: Harper & Row, 1980), 176; Virginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), 268; John C. Poppeliers, etal, What Style is it? A Guide to American Architecture (Washington, DC: Preservation Press, 1983), 59. S McAlester and McAlester, 268. 9 Clifford Edward Clark, Jr., The American Family Home, 1800-1960 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 104. 10 Clark, Jr., 104; Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1981), chapter 6. 11 McAlester and McAlester, 266. 12 According to the typology argued in McAlester and McAlester's Field Guide to American Houses at 263-264. 13 Ibid., 263. Sections 8 — 11 page 15 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State without the hipped central roof and simple front -facing gables (20% each); the remaining 10% were attached townhouses or row houses. Decorative detailing subtypes fall into both quantitative and chronological orders, with the leader in both being the "spindlework" subtype of the 1880s. About 50% of Queen Annes fall into this category. Earlier and rarer are the "half-timbered" and "patterned masonry" subtypes of the 1870s (about 5% each), followed lastly in time by the "free classic" subtype of the 1890s with about 35%.14 The half-timbered and patterned masonry American subtypes, as the earliest and rarest, are "most closely related to th[e] work of Shaw and his colleagues in England." 15 The Borts House in Iowa City exhibits details of both the free classic and patterned masonry subtypes. The free classic details may simply be a function of its later construction period, however the patterned masonry details — the bands of rusticated dark red brick that contrast with the pale red brick walls and the unusual blue -gray stone foundation — may well reflect the Borts family background as masonry professionals. While Albert Borts spent his long career as a mail carrier, in his young adult years Albert worked for his father, David Borts, the successful building contractor known for his many large brick university and commercial buildings in town. QUEEN ANNE HOUSES IN IOWA CITY If Borts House is characterized as a hipped roof subtype with free classic and patterned masonry details, where does it fit within the local context of the popular Queen Anne style in Iowa City? The town's population grew by a healthy 14% during the 1890s, the decade in which Borts House was constructed. Iowa City saw even more robust growth of 26% between 1900 and 1910. In other words, Borts House was constructed during a period of significant town growth. 16 This growth corresponds directly to the years Queen Anne residences were most popular nationwide. Therefore, a large number of Iowa City's Queen Anne houses were most likely built in town between 1890 and 1910. While no study exists of all Iowa City Queen Anne residences, there are several sources that may give a less speculative, more quantitative answer to the question of how Borts House fits the local context. These data sources are far from perfect but can suggest the overall trend and the strength of the Queen Anne's presence in this town. The earliest resource, Edwin Charles Ellis's M.A. thesis from 1947, titled "Certain Stylistic Trends in Architecture in Iowa City," offers some good, clear black -and -white photographs of local houses (many nonextant) but is organized in a haphazard way and largely simply describes features without much analysis. Also, many of the photos show houses too distant from the camera to be of use or just capture architectural details instead of the entire building. This leaves the Ellis thesis of minimal value for the purpose of analyzing local Queen Anne buildings. Margaret Keyes' book, Nineteenth Century Home Architecture of Iowa City,1 � contains over 100 images of local houses, a handful of which are Queen Anne, although the author uses an alternative name for the style (Neo -Jacobean). Laurence Lafore's 1975 book on Iowa City architecture, American Classic, 18 is not limited to domestic architecture and contains streetscape views as well as single - 14 Ibid., 264, 268. 15 Ibid., 268. 16 Iowa Data Center, U.S. Decennial Census. Retrieved on 5/23/2018 through links at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lowa_City#cite_note- DecennialCensus-18. 11 University of Iowa Press, 1966; reissued and expanded, 1993. Both editions used. Dr. Keyes' original research for this book is at the State Historical Society of Iowa — Iowa City. 18 Iowa State Historical Department/Division of the State Historical Society [of Iowa], 1975. Sections 8 — 11 page 16 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State building "portraits." Keyes and Lafore's publications add several wood -frame and brick examples to a much larger database kept by the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office. 19 THE NUMBERS The state's database contains 4,302 Iowa City buildings, 102 of which are classified as Queen Anne, and date between 1875 and 1908. Of these, 85% fall between 1890 and 1908.20 Addresses of these buildings were checked against the city assessor's online photos and construction dates. There were 76 verified Queen Annes. The rest were incapable of verification because they were either nonextant, incorrectly identified as Queen Annes, or had incomplete addresses. Of the 76, only 5 were brick; the other 71 houses – or 93% – were wood - frame buildings. The Keyes and Lafore studies added 10 more frame houses, and 1 additional brick house to the state's group. Combined, these three sources total 87 Queen Anne residences recorded in town, with only 6 or 7% brick and 93% wood -frame. This nomination's author lives in Iowa City and knows its architecture well. There are actually many more vernacular Queen Anne houses in town, however the conclusion drawn from the available sampling— that the vast majority are of wood -frame construction—does appear correct. The Borts House, then, is a Queen Anne -styled house with the most common form, but the least common construction material and decoration, both nationwide and locally. THE COMPARABLES: THE OTHER BRICK QUEEN ANNES The earliest of Iowa City's brick Queen Annes is found on the north side of town, at 800 N. Van Buren St. Historically known as the Vogt House (and informally as the Kurt Vonnegut house for its famous renter who taught at the university's writers workshop), the house (Fig. 13) was listed in the National Register in 1978. Built in 1882 or 1889, depending on the source, the brick and stone house is an amalgam of gables, rooflets, and dormers, with an overall hipped roof. A fanciful porch wraps across the fagade and around to the west side. At the turn Figure 13 Vogt House, 1882 or 1889, Jacob Hotz, builder. Photo from the Iowa City Assessor, c. 2000 of the porch is a circular sitting area topped with a steep, conical roof clad in standing -seam metal. Spindlework and lattice panels further decorate the porch, which is entered through an arch in front of the main door. 19 The information entered into this database arrives in the form of inventory forms submitted for a variety of reasons, by authors with training that ranges from none to highly experienced. The database is extensive, but the site forms are not corrected by the SHPO professionals before being entered into the database. Therefore, one must use the database with caution and understand its limitations. 20 Borts House was misidentified in 2000 as a Foursquare and therefore is not included in the database as a Queen Anne. Sections 8 — 11 page 17 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Second in construction, at 1893, is the cross -gable brick and stone house at 1029 N. Dodge (Fig. 14), also in the northern part of the city. This house lacks a hipped roof but does include an unusual gambrel roof with a high break point. Its decorative details include both applied trim from the spindlework substyle, and free classic details as seen in the oculus gable window, the round -arched windows with their prominent keystones, and the porticos and smooth columns of the double -sided front porch. This building was evaluated in 2000 as a part of a road improvement project and determined eligible for the National Register under Criterion C.21 Also constructed in 1893, the brick Queen Anne at 530 S. Clinton (Figs. 15-16) just south of downtown, Johnson, Iowa County and State Figure 14 Built the same year as a nearby church in 1893. Photo from the Iowa City Assessor, 2018 has long been zoned for apartments and is in the middle of a residential neighborhood under transition. Redevelopment in the form of high-rise apartments is taking place uncomfortably near this corner building. This house has the familiar hipped roof and cross gables, and ornate brick and stone work. Figure 15-16 530S. Clinton as it was in 1947 (left), and today (right). Changes include removal of the porch, a large new northside dormer not visible here, and attic windows that have been replaced. Photo sources: left, Keyes, 105; right, Google on 6/6/2018 The fourth brick Queen Anne (Fig. 17) sits in the Summit Street Historic District in the historic east -central part of the city. It also has two construction dates, 1890 according to the local assessor, and 1900 according to the state's architectural database. The building's cleaner lines and lack of decoration suggest this house was built 21 Rebecca Conard, "Iowa City North Dodge Street: Intensive Level Historical and Architectural Survey and Evaluation" (Iowa City: Tallgrass Historians LC, 2000), 26. Sections 8 — 11 page 18 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State following and not before the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, an important event that helped popularize the Colonial Revival style for domestic architecture and accelerate the decline of the fussier Queen Anne in the Midwest and beyond. The building has a hipped roof and cross gables with another front -facing gable projecting from the fagade. The two-story window bay telescoping from the northside gable is a holdover from earlier Queen Anne years, while the pent roofs of the gable peaks and the squared columns and simple balusters of the front porch reflect the growing desire for a simplified aesthetic. Figure 17 710 S. Summit was listed in the Summit Street Historic District (NRNP, 1973) as contributing for its architecture. Photo: Iowa City Assessor, 2018 The fifth brick Queen Anne, at 1003 E. Washington (Fig. 18), a couple blocks north of the Summit Street Historic District, has a similar profile and footprint as the Summit Street house, a hipped roof with front and west gables, and it too shows the simplified free classic details seen in the squared porch columns. Its gable peaks are frame also, but they lack pent roofs. Additionally, it has only a west side projecting bay with the eastside distinguished only by a large hipped roof dormer. The assessor's date of 1900 appears more accurate than the state's database date of 1895, though either could be correct. The house is a rental conversion and has some exterior alterations. The attic windows are newer and the gables appear to be clad in a replacement siding. It has been evaluated as not eligible for the National Register. Figure 181003 E. Washington is within a neighborhood that provides many rental apartments for university students. Source: Google on 6/4/2018 The final brick Queen Anne (Figs. 19-20) is located at 114 N. Gilbert in the near northside of the city in a neighborhood that boasts some of the city's oldest buildings, as well as newer apartment buildings and commercial buildings from the early- to mid -201' century. Built in 1900 (not the assessor's obviously incorrect Sections 8 — 11 page 19 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State date of 1850), this Queen Anne has been evaluated and is listed in the state's database as eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for its architectural significance. Figures 19-20 114 N. Gilbert. Clearly a free classic variation of the Queen Anne style, this house is now a student rental and has some minor alterations, especially to side windows. References to classical architecture include dentils and pediment returns in the gables, the round -arched gable window, and the front porch's smooth columns. May 2018 Borts House's footprint, roof form, fenestration arrangement, and decorative detailing most closely resembles the fifth Queen Anne above in Figures 19-20. However, the details of the decorations are different. While 114 N. Gilbert's classical elements are stronger, Borts House has the additional decorative masonry, including the rusticated dark red horizontal bands and its unusual foundation limestone. The Borts House limestone is bluish -gray and may have been selected for its color rather than its weathering capability (which is poor). The common foundation stone seen in Iowa City's nineteenth century homes is a pale -yellow limestone taken from different strata (layer) of local quarries. Ryan J. Clark, a geologist from the Iowa Geological Survey (housed on the university's campus) recently inspected the Borts House foundation stone. Based on his familiarity with local quarries and Samuel Calvin's 1897 Geology ofJohnson County, Clark believes the stone came from "the old [Euclid] Sanders Quarry, located along Dubuque Street immediately south of the Mayflower dorm" along the east bank of the Iowa River (Fig. 21-22).22 This is in the northwest corner of Iowa City and a few blocks west of the Borts building site in 1898.23 At the time of Calvin's report, published just a year prior to construction of Borts House, the lower 16' of this quarry would have been "fresh" rock in Clark's opinion, showing abundant fossils and not altered or concealed by the weathering process, a description that matches the Borts House stone. Sanders' quarry was the nearest location for this bluish -gray colored stone. Further, though perhaps not quite a "smoking gun," Calvin's report also states, "This quarry has been worked for some years by Mr. Gilbert Irish. ,24 Gilbert Irish was the son of 22 Ryan J. Clark, email to author, 6/6/2018 and site visit 6/5/2018. 23 The source of the two types of bricks for Borts House is less clear, but because of its northside proximity to the building site, the common bricks likely came from Christian Gaulocher & Son's brickyard at the corner of Dodge and Brown streets, a site now dedicated as the city's Happy Hollow park. The brickmaker commenced operations at that location in 1865 (Charles Ray Aurner, Leading Events in Johnson County Iowa History, vol. 2 [Cedar Rapids: Western Historical Press, 1913], 133-135). The rusticated dark -red bricks look intriguingly similar to the bricks used in the local Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railroad depot, which opened in 1898, same year Borts House was built (perhaps leftovers purchased by builder Borts from the railroad company?). 24 Calvin, 66. Sections 8 — 11 page 20 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State Frederick Irish and in whose family home and acreage David Borts lived at the time (see pages 24-25). Therefore, the Borts House foundation stone may have been a choice based more on convenience and familiarity with "Gil" Irish, rather than the color. Either alternative seems plausible. In any event, the colorful stone is distinctive. There would have been several routes to haul the stone to Reno Street, but all of them required the horse team to climb the hill up and out of the Iowa River valley. Fla i *&*&on tii4ury. rh" r SO dd T*MU a...; The yaar . r t bo Vl a<ukkg as "M IMr k*, -Ma tva! "ba Figure 21 This image of the Euclid Sanders quarry on Dubuque Street is taken from Calvin, 65. Figure 22 Dubuque Street and the quarry as it appears today. Dubuque Street is undergoing reconstruction in this photo, a project necessitated by severe flooding in 2008. Source: Google on 6/7/2018 BORTS FAMILY HISTORY Because the overwhelming majority of vernacular Queen Anne residences in Iowa City are constructed of wood frame materials, Borts House (Figs. 23-24), as well as the other four houses with intact historic integrity, Sections 8 — 11 page 21 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State represent an unusual local choice of materials in which to execute this very popular and widespread late - nineteenth and early -twentieth century architectural style. The family's background in masonry may have had something to do with it. Figure 23-24 Borts House and detail of upper fagade. May 2018 When Albert and Alice Borts built their brick house in northeast Iowa City in 1898—still the semi -rural fringe of town—they seemingly were simply continuing a long family tradition that favored masonry construction. Starting as a youth of 16 and for the next 12 years, Albert worked as a brick layer for his father, David Borts. Albert's younger brother, Charles, also became a brick layer and stayed with the craft throughout his adult life.25 At age 28, however, Albert married Alice Evelyn Smith from Cincinnati, Ohio, and embarked on a decades -long career as a mail carrier for the federal government, a job that lasted until his retirement in 1930.26 The brothers' parents, Mary Kimball27 Borts and David Borts lived in this northeast area of town, moving in 1888 into a big house with a large acreage just east of the end of Davenport Street, known as the Irish - Hamilton -Kimball house. This property remained in the Borts family for the next 56 years though there is some indication the couple also lived for a few years in the painted brick house at 502 Reno and the red brick at 432 Reno. 28 21 Federal census, 1930. At various times, Charles rented both Civil War -era houses next door to his brother and sister-in-law's. See Figures 26-27 below. Iowa Site Inventory form for 502 Reno (SHPO record 52-02523), reciting what looks like city directory entries. 26 Iowa City Press -Citizen, 2/10/1937. 27 Mary's maiden name is taken from Charles Ray Aurner, Leading Events in Johnson county History, vol. 2 (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Western Historical Press, 1913), 101. This was written after Mary's death in 1898 but while David was still alive (he died in 1922). She is also listed as Mary Kimball Borts in "U.S. Find a Grave Index, 1600s -Current" (Ancestry.com). Unfortunately, both Borts and Kimball have been misspelling in various ways in the historical record. These are the most common spellings; however, the variations make drawing some conclusions tenuous. 26 Irving Weber, Irving Weber's Iowa City, "Chronology," vol. 7 (1992): 218; Iowa Site Inventory form for 502 Reno (SHPO records); Iowa City Press -Citizen, 4/25/1922. Sections 8 — 11 page 22 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State David Borts, a Pennsylvania transplant, arrived in Iowa City in 1855 making him one of the early settlers in the growing community, though not nearly as early as his wife. Mary Kimball, also from Pennsylvania, grew up in town having arrived in 1839 at age four. 29 A skilled mason, David Borts became a highly successful contractor responsible for many of the larger red brick university buildings. One of his earliest known projects was the 1864 red -brick Italianate residence on a farm just south of Iowa City (the house was enlarged in the 1880s by Jacob Hotz as its owner became more prosperous). Known as the McCollister farmstead, the house was listed in the National Register in 1976, along with its barn, which was torn down within the last decade. An example of Borts' work still standing on campus is Calvin Hall, also known as the Old Science building (Fig, 25). Constructed in 1885 of red brick and limestone near the center of campus, in 1905 Calvin Hall was moved 105 feet across the street with "1000 screw jacks and an army of horses" all the while still holding classes in it. 30 Another known campus building by David Borts, a man hyperbolically claimed to have "built more buildings in Iowa City than any other man,"31 is the university's Hall of Chemistry and Pharmacy constructed in 1895. This brick building was as large if not larger than Calvin Hall. It stood nearby on a corner lot closer to the shops of downtown Iowa City until 1977 when it was demolished.32 The nonextant English Lutheran Church (1894) at the corner of Market and Dubuque streets was another brick and stone building by Figure 25 Calvin Hall, 1885, David Borts builder. Credit: University of Borts, who was a member of the church. This Iowa, e. 2000 building was significantly damaged by a fire in 1962 and subsequently replaced by the congregation, which also changed the name to Gloria Dei Lutheran Church.33 While no concrete evidence linking them has surfaced, the two mid -nineteenth century brick houses just north of Albert and Alice's also may have been constructed by David Borts. The likelihood exists if for no other reason than the presumed slim number of trained masons in the young town. There are also property records that indicate Mary Borts, David's wife, owned land in this immediate area, however the land transfer records have not been searched to see if she owned these precise lots. These nearly identical buildings are two stories tall, have gable ends, and Greek Revival styling (Figs. 26-27; see also Fig. 28 for a similar earlier house nearby, Frederick Irish's second home). 29 [Compilation of] Proceedings of the Johnson County Old Settlers Association, 1866-1916, "Proceedings of the Johnson County Old Setters Association From 1866 to 1899," 58. 31 University of Iowa, "Calvin Hall/Campus Maps and Tours," accessed at https:Hmaps.uiowa.edu/calh on 6/4/2018. 31 Aurner (1913), 100. 32 Iowa City Press -Citizen, 3/21/1987. 33 Aurner (1913), 101; Iowa City Press -Citizen, 5/23/1980. Sections 8 — 11 page 23 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Figure 27 Also dating to the same period Reno Street was once number 500 Reno bi block were removed. Note the differences page 38, describes this house as being one Figure 28 Frederick and Elizabeth Irish house, 1849, 1415 E. Davenport, parents of the same Gilbert Irish who worked the Sanders quarry. The similarity of this house to those in Figs. 26-27 suggest the Reno Street houses could be as much as a decade earlier than 1860. This was Irish's second house, built after selling his nearby 1839 cabin. Taken from Jan R. Nash [now Full], `Rose Hill", National Register nomination, 1991. The original photo, c. 1890, is by Bertha Shambaugh, collection of the State Historical Society -Iowa City. OMB No. 1024-0018 Johnson, Iowa County and State Figure 26 502 Reno Street likely dates to around 1860 or a bit earlier and is nearly identical to its next-door neighbor at 432 Reno Street. This one has been painted a light brown and has visible additions on either end. Currently, it is used as a day care center. May 2018 plc., `�.�5� •ic,..�; �.z� a., w�'ucr�cyt�y.. w.«� The connections of the Borts family with various properties in this northeast section of town contain some nagging coincidences primarily related to misspelled surnames (see footnote 27); however, it is clear that Mary Kimball Borts and David Borts acquired a large parcel of land with a substantial house off the east end of Davenport Street in 1888.34 The house had been built in 1860 by William Hamilton who wrapped it around a 34 Weber (1992), 218. Sections 8 — 11 page 24 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State settlement cabin constructed by Frederick Irish 1839. Five years later, Hamilton sold the house and land to Dr. George E. Kimba1135 who developed it into the "Rose Hill Nursery .,,36 The Irish/Hamilton/Kimball land was held in Mary Borts' name, and she had already acquired, in 1886, the lots along Reno Street on which Albert and Alice Borts' brick house would be built later, making her one of the important landowners in this corner of the town.37 While the tangle of Borts and Irish and Kimball family names on property records is confusing and not to be fully unraveled here, it is clear these families had much to do with the development of the northeast sector of town, as well as Iowa City generally. David Borts' inventory of brick and stone buildings such as 416 Reno Street remains a testament to this builder's legacy in Iowa City. 9. Major Bibliographical References 31 Iowa City Press -Citizen, 5/5/1930. 31 Keyes, 26-27. Nurseryman Kimball had a daughter also named Mary, born in Iowa City in 1859. This is a full generation after Mary Kimball Borts' birth, and two years after Mary Kimball married David Borts. While it seems unlikely, historic records lead to the conclusion (and confusion) that there were two Mary Kimballs in Iowa City living in almost the same location at the same time. 37 Abstract of Title for 416 Reno Street, entries 21 et seq. Sections 8 — 11 page 25 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) Johnson, Iowa County and State Aurner, Charles Ray. Leading Events in Johnson County Iowa History. Vol. 1. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Western Historical Press, 1912. . Leading Events in Johnson County Iowa History. Biographical Vol. 2. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Western Historical Press, 1913. Borts, Edna Alice, interview with Carl and Kate Klaus, c. 1970. [Edna was Albert and Alice's daughter and David Borts' granddaughter. Never married, she died at 102 in 2003.] Calvin, Samuel. Iowa Geological Survey Annual Report. Vol. VII. 1897. Clark, Jr., Clifford Edward. The American Family Home, 1800-1960. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986. Clark, Ryan J., P.G., Geologist. Iowa Geological Survey, Iowa City, IA. [Examined foundation stone and matched it to known historic local quarries, May 2018.] Conard, Rebecca. "Iowa City North Dodge Street: Intensive Level Historical and Architectural Survey and Evaluation." Iowa City: Tallgrass Historians LC, 2000. The Davenport Daily Times, 4/26/1922. DeWitt, Jack. "Vogt House." National Register of Historic Places registration form, 1978. Ellis, Edwin Charles "Certain Stylistic Trends in Architecture in Iowa City." M.A. thesis, University of Iowa, 1947. Foley, Mary Mix. The American House. New York: Harper & Row, 1980. Girouard, Mark. Sweetness and Light: The `Queen Anne' Movement 1860-1900. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1977; reprinted Yale University Press, 1984. Reprint used. Gowans, Alan. The Comfortable House, North American Suburban Architecture, 1890-1930. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986. Iowa City directories, various years. Iowa City, IA Assessor office. Iowa City Press -Citizen, 4/25/1922; 5/5/1930; 2/10/1937; 5/23/1980. Iowa Data Center, U.S. Decennial Census. Retrieved on 5/23/2018 through links at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_City,_Iowa#cite_note-DecennialCensus-18 Johnson County, IA Recorder office. Keyes, Margaret N. Nineteenth Century Home Architecture. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1966. Reprinted 1993. Both editions used. Klaus, Carl H. Collection. (Includes the property abstract and a survey form from a 1980s northside Iowa City survey). Lafore, Laurence. American Classic. Iowa City: Iowa State Historical Department/Division of the State Historical Society [of Iowa], 1975. McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986. Maps: Bird's Eye View of Iowa City, Johnson Co. Iowa, 1868. Huebinger Survey and Map Publishing Co., Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa, 1900. Sanborn Map Co., fire insurance map of Iowa City, 1933 updated to 1970. Thompson & Everts, Combination Atlas Map of Johnson County, Iowa, 1870. Plats of Additions to Iowa City, Johnson County Recorder's Office: William H. Woods and (wife) Roma Woods, "Woods Addition to Iowa City," 1855; [Frederick M.] "Irish's Extension of Woods Addition to Iowa City," 1862. [Filed by Gill. Irish on behalf of his father who was then blind.] Poppeliers, John C., etal. What Style is it? A Guide to American Architecture. Washington, DC: Preservation Press, 1983. Proceedings of the Johnson County Old Settlers Association (Compilation), 1866-1916. Collection of the State Historical Society of Iowa -Iowa City. Sections 8 - 11 page 26 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property Johnson, Iowa County and State Svendsen, Marlys A. "Goosetown Neighborhood Phase III Survey." Site Inventory Form #52-02520, 2000. U.S. federal census, 1850-1920; cemetery records, marriage records, for Borts family members. Accessed at Ancestry.com, various dates in May 2018. Weber, Irving. Articles first appearing in the Iowa City Press -Citizen and then reprinted in Irving Weber's Iowa City, volume and pages as noted: "Clues," Vol. 1 (1976): 106. "Chronology 2, Biographies (Shorter), 25 Pioneers," Vol. 2 (1979): 265. "Chronology," Vol. 7 (1992): 218. Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1981. Previous documentation on file (NPS): preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested previously listed in the National Register previously determined eligible by the National Register designated a National Historic Landmark recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # Primary location of additional data: X State Historic Preservation Office Other State Agency Federal Agency X Local Government University Other Name of repository: Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): 52-02520 Sections 8 — 11 page 27 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property less than 1 acre (Do not include previously listed resource acreage; enter "Less than one" if the acreage is .99 or less) Latitude/Longitude Coordinates Datum if other than WGS84: (enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1 41.666294 Latitude 2 Latitude -91.518090 Longitude Longitude 3 Latitude 4 Latitude Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) Longitude Longitude The north 30 feet of lot 7 and the south 60 feet of lot 8 in Irish's Extension to Woods' Addition to Iowa City. Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) This is the parcel historically associated with the Albert J. and Alice E. Borts house at 416 Reno Street, Iowa City, Iowa. 11. Form Prepared By name/title Jan Olive Full, PhD date June 2018 organization Tallgrass-Full LLC telephone 319.331.3454 street & number n/a email jofofic@gmail.com city or town Iowa City state IA zip code 52240 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: • GIS Location Map (Google Earth or BING) • Local Location Map • Site Plan • Floor Plans (As Applicable) Sections 8 — 11 page 28 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Name of Property OMB No. 1024-0018 Johnson, Iowa County and State • Photo Location Map (Include for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map and insert immediately after the photo log and before the list of figures). First Floor bath open porch Plan room ,ca Second Floor screened PI''art porch 1 u' kitchen dining room Q up j— bedroom bedroom ITT I rcrr d wa! I _ up � north �•x 'C? 11ving 100111 n, bedroom �!��;r• bath r ui_it^t open porch Sections 8 — 11 page 29 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State Photographs: Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 3000x2000 pixels, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn't need to be labeled on every photograph. Photo Log Name of Property: Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House City or Vicinity: Iowa City County: Johnson State: IA Photographer: Jan Olive Full Date Photographed: May 2018 Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: Photo 1 of 11: West fapade and north side, looking southeast Photo 2 of 11: West fapade and south side, looking northeast Photo 3 of 11: South side and east rear, looking northwest Photo 4 of 11: East rear with south corner of gazebo showing, looking west Photo 5 of 11: East rear and north side, looking southwest Photo 6 of 11: North side, looking south Photo 7 of 11: Backyard landscape view, with gazebo, looking northeast Photo 8 of 10: Interior staircase to second floor, from living room, looking north Photo 9 of 11: Interior double doorway, looking east from living room into dining room Photo 10 of 11: Interior second floor northeast bedroom door, looking from bedroom toward central hall to the southeast Photo 11 of 11: Landscape along Reno Street, looking southeast. Houses seen, left to right, are 502 Reno, 432 Reno, 416 Reno (Borts House.) The tall, thick windrow is to the right. Sections 8 — 11 page 30 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC. HISTORIC MAP ....__ E. CHURCH V^wP * /7t27 r�I //['O - ZZ /I' _ /130 zlt v 6 FP ! rs / 2R / iZ 3 5! S 1 4 �. Z -R Z$ 2 (vv ! e Faierx��o 1/GT6 !!1B !!�3 //31 1109 lll.9EF9�4[Ni4o, „wP f E. FAIRCHILD oar 6 DN. u!! rrlir gun W I* Z W U D �T[ D 1 i 10 9 8 % 2 CIV HL FR 6 f L-1 41.666341, -91.518163 T C L ILL a N^ no scale 416 Reno St. is at the bottom right corner and marked with an open arrow. Source: Sanborn fire insurance map, 1933 updated to 1970. Collection of City of Iowa City. Sections 8 — 11 page 31 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State MAPS Waterworks Prairie Park o 0 Hickory Hill Park H@n- Ho�— 11w, SE alf Course, The University of Iowa Iowa City University r, I A Heights 2t Y2 e -Wise Corn puter Help & Repair Iowa City Municipal north (D1 1 2000' 41.666341, Wd Go gle -91.516163 The location of 416 Reno St. is marked with a red star in the center of the map. Source: Google.com on 6/7/2018 Sections 8 — 11 page 32 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State MAPS continued 5.416 RENO 5T CHURCH ST 1129 g �e� Lf- j� °-iJ I� ti United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State SITE PLAN showing building outlines (detail of prior map). I I Soz 43z 431 F z r 14 6 419 LU 411? 410 0 40�5, 4051 4061226' 321 321 2 I o E DAVENPORT ST 41.666341, -91.518163 SITE PLAN with exterior photo locations (8 views) NA no scale Source: Iowa City Assessor Sections 8 — 11 page 34 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa FLOOR PLANS (sketched by author using assessor outline as base) cBasement crawl crawl space not Plan space verified,. -.,storm 'door exit storage I laundry room masonry 0 chimney base UP baffle north Q M— 22' Poured concrete Floors; rubble stone walls; fir floor joists running eastlwest First Floor bath open porch Plan room 10, kitchen Sections 8 — 11 page 35 dining room removed wall 6 living room 8 open porch north United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House Johnson, Iowa Name of Property County and State FLOOR PLANS continued Second Floor screened Plan porch ii 10, 4 up bedroo�o�m� bedroom n u do Cl bedroom. bath room north Attic Level 15' Sections 8 — 11 page 36 h _- - T � r r Y OL j - f- P Ap 3� q r r 1{ T ` �- Y x r T n' a 11 ram 14 '��i ` •• .....rum Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House — 416 Reno St., Iowa City, IA hoto #7 Photo #8 Borts, Albert J. and Alice E., House — 416 Reno St., Iowa City, IA Photo #9 Photo #10 a� �'�lf i� �� A.' � �,��d1 J`� ♦. F 'yyF.. � � rA�- i!��y�i k,} -: . a N�is��ar"f F 1`S _F1 `��� r 9. ;Nk�•+�*R�i]k'af f+�'�r` 'fglln��7 '4j P �.'a _. .w �' b � T ,N� �� w - J 4� %. � � ^ y�` t11 +v Tj P 2Fd�, 1 � �. � . - :r' •` '"�'- lo Nit r'�llt tifa , l e "� t tar`E i��S�'.;•: �:~ tv_ - ,, as �! All, l�r -. Item Number: 7.b. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org January 8, 2019 Motion setting a public hearing for January 22, 2019 on an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.73 acres of property located at 1818 N. Dubuque Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -5) to Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -5) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD). (REZ18-00023) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report HPC Memo (Attachment 3 of PZ Staff Report) HPC Memo Image 1 (Attachment 3 of PZ Staff Report) HPC Memo - Image 2 (Attachment 3 of PZ Staff Report) HPC Memo - Image 3 (Attachment 3 of PZ Staff Report) HPC Memo - Image 4 (Attachment 3 of PZ Staff Report) HPC Memo - Image 5 (Attachment 3 of PZ Staff Report) Correspondence from Neighbor r ��,.,_.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY ]MEMORANDUM Date: December 14, 2018 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Designation of 1818 Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark (REZ18-00023) Background: As part of the federally funded Iowa City Gateway -Dubuque Street Elevation project, this property was evaluated for its historic integrity and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The property was determined eligible and the Gateway project was developed to avoid compromising the historic integrity of both the house and the street -level garage. Recently the owner, Joe Coulter, has sought local landmark designation in his efforts to further preserve the property in the future. The enclosed Site Inventory Form provides a discussion of the building's history and architecture. 1818 Dubuque Street is a two-story house constructed of local field stone in the Arts and Crafts style. The picturesque setting and local, natural materials work together as hallmarks of this style. Historic Preservation Commission Review: The Historic Preservation Commission met December 13, 2018 and conducted a public hearing at which they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of 1818 Dubuque Street. The Commission determined that the property meets the requirements for a landmark and voted to recommend approval of the designation of 1818 Dubuque Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The building is significant because of its architecture and historic integrity. Landmark designation for 1818 Dubuque Street, a property in a Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone, will require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions (Section 14-213-8 of the zoning code) that allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements to help support the continued use of historic buildings. Landmark designation will also make it possible for financial incentives such as tax credits and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Fund to be available. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Landmark Designation is a zoning overlay and therefore requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. The Commission's role is to review the proposed designation based on its relation to the Comprehensive Plan and proposed public improvements and plans for renewal of the area involved. There are two specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan that appear to apply to this proposal: 1). the North District Plan and 2). the Historic Preservation Plan. The subject property is located within the area of steep wooded ravines in the North District where these environmental resources are prized for the ecological and aesthetic value (North District Plan pg 9). The North District Planning principles encourage retaining the single-family residential character of the neighborhoods (North District Plan pg 11) and the protection of sensitive environmental features (North District Plan pg 12). The designation of 1818 Dubuque Street as a historic landmark would preserve the property from future development which satisfies both principles. In addition, the designation will retain the residential, non-commercial character of the area that creates a pleasant gateway setting described in the Dubuque Street December 14, 2018 Page 2 discussion (pg 17). The Foster Road Extension area encourages the conservation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas and the single-family character of the area (North District Plan pg 30). The Historic Preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan contains two specific goals relating to this proposal. Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City's Past. Under this goal the Historic Preservation Commission is charged with continuing to research and evaluate properties and to pursue local landmark designation when appropriate. The study that determined the eligibility of the property at 1818 Dubuque Street for landmark overlay zoning is a result of the City working toward Goal 1. Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic health and stability. For areas outside the traditional neighborhoods, the Preservation Plan includes the Other Planning Districts section and Objective 3, which states, when appropriate, the HPC should encourage owners to complete National Register of Historic Places Nomination and local landmark designation. This Objective provides direction for properties such as this, in an outlying planning district and outside local historic district or conservation district designation. The designation of 1818 Dubuque Street accomplishes this objective by providing protection for important outlying historic resources. The landmark designation sought by the applicant conforms with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan — providing incentives to maintain and improve older housing stock and identifying historic resources that are not currently protected by landmark designation. Preservation of 1818 Dubuque Street would not be in conflict with future redevelopment in the area but would actively promote the preservation of historic resources and the conservation of environmentally sensitive areas. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00023, an application to designate 1818 Dubuque Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to RS -5 with a Historic Preservation Overlay (RS- 5/OHP). Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Historic Preservation Commission Memo, 12/13/2018, including the Site Inventory Form Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services qyY i'd's i RJJ s RM20 p RS12 RS5 f RS5: Gd RS5,., RS12 RS5c GQ RS5 RS12 Gm RS5 RS5 RS12 a !RS5 �G NA r Y � V RS5 �� RS5 RS5 RS12A,c y, U RS5 RS5 ,, RS5 O!!� QQ FOSTER RD RS5 RS5 000 y OAMBORNE C"? . _ k . . L 2 aa, RS8 RS5 An application submitted by Joe Dan Coulter for the rezoning of approximately 1.73 acres located at 1818 North Dubuque Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD). CITY OF IOWA CITY RS5 !� S5 RS5 RS5 RS5 2$12 ��5 RS5 Qi RS5 R/O RS5 OC RS5 d. cFRO RS5 ppm RS5 RS RS5" !y RS5 RS5- RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 #' P1 RS5 RS5 RS5 p RS5 „4 �, RS5 RS5 " RS5 RS5, RS5 RS5 RS5 `. RS5 H, RS5 RS5 RS5 " RS5, RS5 P1- RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 ;A RS5 P1 A, RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 �k WHITING AVE RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RM20 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 ' RS5 RS5 ° RS5 RS5 RS5 fr _ RS5 RS5 r ®, CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 3, 2018 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 1818 N. Dubuque Street — Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla Jacobsen House Applicant Joe Dan Coulter has requested that the property at 1818 N. Dubuque Street be designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements and for State Tax Credit funding of rehabilitation work. As part of the federally funded Iowa City Gateway -Dubuque Street Elevation Project, the property at 1818 N Dubuque Street was the subject of an Architectural and Historic Intensive Level Survey. The enclosed 2012 Iowa Site Inventory Form and letter from the Iowa Department of Transportation to State Historic Preservation Office Historian, Ralph Christian, discuss the history of the property and provide a statement of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Arts and Crafts influenced stone cottage built in 1929 was found to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic places under Criterion C, Design/Construction, and is locally significant. Both the interior and exterior of the house and garage have retained a high level of historic integrity. The Commission should determine if the property meets criterion a. and b. and at least one of the criteria c., d., e., or f. for local designation listed below: a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture; b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship; c. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; e. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; f. Has yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history. The house at 1818 N. Dubuque Street is located on a low bluff overlooking North Dubuque Street and a portion of the Iowa River to the southwest. The land was purchased from Maude H. Ball (the original developer of Ball's Addition), or from her husband George's Estate. As a remaining representative of the picturesque development of Iowa City's northern expansion along the Dubuque Street and the river, this house meets criterion A for local landmark designation. The exterior walls clad in stone gathered locally, the glazed tile roof, and garage nestled in the hill are all important elements of the original architecture that has been retained. December 12, 2018 Page 2 Even with the raising of Dubuque Street, the house and garage have retained their picturesque setting and hidden location, screened by trees and foliage from the road below. The house has been maintained by both the original and current owner so that it meets criterion B. The house was constructed in a "Craftsman" style of the Arts and Crafts movement in architecture. Hallmarks of this style are local, natural materials, the appearance of hand-crafted construction, and architectural elements of European or English cottages such as stone arches, half-timbering, and stone walls. The house exhibits the original details of the style in which it was created and has had very few changes. For this reason, it also meets criterion E for local landmark designation. Based on the information provided in the Site Inventory Form and from the owner, staff finds that the property meets criteria a, b, and a and therefore qualifies as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the designation of 1818 N. Dubuque Street (Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla Jacobsen House) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b and e. Site inventory Form State Inventory No. 52-05067 ® New ❑ Supplemental State Historical Society of Iowa ❑ Part of a district with known boundaries (enter inventory no.) (November 2005) Relationship: ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ELIGIBLE ❑ Contributes to a potential district with yet unknown boundaries National Register Status:(any that apply) ❑ Listed ❑ De -listed ❑ NHL ❑ DOE 9 -Digit SHPO Review & Compliance (R&C) Number A?_'7'3� 0 9 ❑ Non -Extant (enter year) 1. Name of Property historic name Jacobsen Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla, House other names/site number 2. Location street & number 1818 N. Dubuque St. city or town Iowa City ❑ vicinity, county Johnson Legal Description: (if Rural)Township Name Township No. Range No. Section Quarter of Quarter (If Urban) Subdivision Ball's Addition Block(s) Lot(s) 16 thru 22 3. State/Federal Agency Certification [Skip this Section] 4. National Park Service Certification [Skip this Section] 5. Classification Category of Property (Check only one box) Number of Resources within Property ® building(s) If Non -Eligible Property If Eligible Property, enter number of ❑ district Enter number of: Contributinq Noncontributing ❑ site _ buildings 2 _ buildings ❑ structure _ sites _ _ sites ❑ object _ structures _ _ structures objects _ _ objects Total 2 Total Name of related project report or multiple property study (Enter "NIA" if the property is not part of a multiple property examination). Title Historical Architectural Data Base Number Dubuque St./Park Rd. Bridge: Architectural/Historical Intensive Study 52-106 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions) 01A01 DOMESTIC/single dwelling/residence 0005 /DOMESTIC/secondary structure/garage Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions) 01A01 DOMESTIC/single dwelling/residence 0005 /DOMESTIC/secondary structure/garage 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions) Materials (Enter categories from instructions) 07E02 LATE 19TH & EARLY 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN foundation 10 CONCRETE MOVEMENTS/Craftsman walls (visible material) 04 STONE roof 16 CLAY TILE other Narrative Description (® SEE CONTINUATION SHEETS WHICH MUST BE COMPLETED) 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" representing your opinion of eligibility after applying relevant National Register criteria) ❑ Yes ® No ❑ More Research Recommended A Property is associated with significant events. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ More Research Recommended B Property is associated with the lives of significant persons. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ More Research Recommended C Property has distinctive architectural characteristics. 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ More Research Recommended D Property yields significant information in archaeology or history. County Johnson Address 1818 N. Dubuque St. Site Number 52-05067 City Iowa Cit v District Number Criteria Considerations ❑ A Owned by a religious institution or used ❑ E A reconstructed building, object, or structure. for religious purposes. ❑ F A commemorative property. ❑ B Removed from its original location. ❑ G Less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past ❑ C A birthplace or grave. 50 years. ❑ D A cemetery Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) Significant Dates Construction date 02 ARCHITECTURE 1929 ❑ check if circa or estimated date Other dates, including renovation Significant Person Architect/Builder (Complete if National Register Criterion B is marked above) Architect Builder Smith and Burger Narrative Statement of Significance (® SEE CONTINUATION SHEETS, WHICH MUST BE COMPLETED) 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography ® See continuation sheet for citations of the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form 10. Geographic Data UTM References (OPTIONAL_) Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 4 ❑ See continuation sheet for additional UTM references or comments 11. Form Prepared By name/title Jan Olive Full organization Tallgrass Historians L.C. date 4/12 street & number 2460 S. Riverside Dr. telephone 319-354-6722 city or town Iowa City state IA zip code 52246 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION (Submit the following items with the completed form) FOR ALL PROPERTIES 1. Map: showing the property's location in a town/city or township. 2. Site plan: showing position of buildings and structures on the site in relation to public road(s). 3. Photographs: representative black and white photos. If the photos are taken as part of a survey for which the Society is to be curator of the negatives or color slides, a photo/catalog sheet needs to be included with the negatives/slides and the following needs to be provided below on this particular inventory site: Roll/slide sheet # Frame/slot # Date Taken Roll/slide sheet # Frame/slot # Date Taken Roll/slide sheet # Frame/slot # Date Taken ❑ See continuation sheet or attached photo & slide catalog sheet for list of photo roll or slide entries. ® Photos/illustrations without negatives are also in this site inventory file. FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF PROPERTIES, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AS WELL 1. Farmstead & District: (List of structures and buildings, known or estimated year built, and contributing or noncontributing status) 2. Barn: a. A sketch of the frameltruss configuration in the form of drawing a typical middle bent of the barn. b. A photograph of the loft showing the frame configuration along one side. c. A sketch floor Dlan of the interior space arrangements along with the barn's exterior dimensions in feet. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Use Only Below This Line Concur with above survey opinion on National Register eligibility. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ More Research Recommended ❑ This is a locally designated property or part of a locally designated district. Comments: Evaluated by (name/title): WAA Date: JUL 2 5 2012 Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number 52-05067 Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number Continuation Sheet Page 1 Jacobsen, Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla. House Johnson Name of Property County 1818 N. Dubuque St. Iowa City Address City 7. Narrative: This fine house and associated 2 -car automobile garage is situated on an extremely challenging, if picturesque, lot. The dwelling is located on the edge of a low bluff overlooking N. Dubuque St. and the Iowa River beyond to the southwest. Its separate garage is built into the steep embankment, more or less directly under the house. A concrete staircase leads from the garage up to the residence and a hard -surfaced drive leads up the hill to the south. During the summer months, trees obscure much of the view of the house. This foliage, plus the elevated position, gives privacy to the house's residents despite the heavy flow of traffic on Dubuque St. below. The house is 2 to 2'h stories tall and has a basically rectangular footprint. The long sides face east and west, with gable ends to the north and south. The ridge line or long axis of the house, therefore, is roughly parallel to the street in front. The north end of the house is stepped down to a story -and -half in height. Cross gables of varying sizes project from the facade (west elevation) -- a small centrally positioned cross -gable bay denotes the entrance, while a larger cross -gable bay to the south end encloses larger room space. There are two smaller gabled roof dormers on either side of the entrance cross -gable. Two large single -story wings with gable roofs project from the rear (east elevation) of the house. The exterior walls of the house are clad in glacial cobblestones gathered from somewhere north of town. A bright green, glazed clay tile roof covers the entire structure and cross gables, and forms a pent roof at the south end wall. Gable peaks have a half-timber detail. Windows are of various sizes, but all have divided lights. Casement windows have their original "Pella Rollscreens" intact. Sills and headers both appear to be composed of or clad in stone also. Fenestration headers are flat except for the front door, which has a rounded opening at the top. The rounded stone header of the front doorway is repeated below in a niche detail on the face of the garage, to the north side of the garage doors. The garage structure is excavated into the bluff so that only the substantial -looking stone wall facade is visible. This stone wall is pierced by two single -stall openings covered by paneled overhead garage doors. These doors appear to be replacements. The property owner was interviewed by the present project archaeologists in October 2011 who also observed the interior of the home. Interior architectural details include: black walnut woodwork, hand - wrought stair rail, round -arched doors, and hammered metal chandeliers. The owner also has some original furniture, the plans for the house (no architect named), and correspondence with the original owners, Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla Jacobsen. Herman H. Jacobsen was a local dentist. This lot is part of the land owned in the 1920s by Maude H. (or M.) Ball and her husband, George W. Ball. The couple bought 20 acres in 1916 from the Englert family, land that came with the 1857 residence in which they lived (see 52-05068). They then bought an adjacent 22 acres from Elizabeth Grissell. According to local historian Irving Weber, Ball's Addition was platted from this 42 -acre parcel. George W. Ball, who died at age 42 on January 3, 1924, from complications of an automobile vs. streetcar accident, was an attorney, a World War I veteran bearing the rank of Colonel (and a later title of Brigadier General), and president of the local water company. He also served on many city commissions and commercial club committees. In 1922 and 1923, Ball was among the most vocal supporters for paving the stretch of N. Dubuque St. in front of his house. This was a stretch of the Red Ball highway route north of the park bridge (Park Road was then called Koontz Avenue). Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number 52-05067 Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number Continuation Sheet Page 2 Jacobsen, Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla, House Johnson Name of Property County 1818 N. Dubuque St. Iowa City Address City After her husband's death, Maude continued to develop land in northern Iowa City, and was likely the spouse that filed the plat for Ball's Addition (Iowa City Press -Citizen, 4/29/1925). She frequently petitioned the city council for land development reasons, such as extending the city's water mains north of Kimball Road and vacating a dangerous road in her addition in favor of a "level ... new one" (Iowa City Press -Citizen, 8/8/1925 and 7/16/1925, respectively). Maude Young Ball, a graduate of the university and alumnus of the Pi Beta Pi sorority, apparently easily transitioned from the traditional roles for the wife of a prominent business and civic leader to a successful developer and businessperson in her own right. Sometime prior to 1929, local dentist, Dr. Herman H. Jacobsen and his wife, Sylvilla, purchased the land for their cobblestone Craftsman house from Maude Ball (or George Ball's estate if it was held in his name). The year before the house and garage were built, the Jacobsens lived up the hill to the south at 717 Brown St. (Smith's Directory of Iowa City, 1928). Jacobsen was a graduate of the University of Iowa and had his office in the Paul Helen building downtown (Iowa Dental Bulletin, vol. 9, no. 4, Oct. 1923). The Daily Iowan, on 7/27/1929, ran an article about the construction of the house under the heading "Dr. Jacobsen Home Overlooks River; Will Be of Warwick Manor Type." 8. Statement of Sianificance The cobblestone house and garage were constructed within the Arts & Craft architectural movement, and generally in the "Craftsman" style, a substyle popularized in the United States by architects such as California's Greene & Greene firm. In addition to utilizing native materials (here regionally collected field stones and native black walnut lumber), the Jacobsen house displays these local materials in a manner that suggests "hand built" by "ancient" methods and individual craftsmen. This is seen in the exterior's faux -timbering in the gables and in the interior with the hammered metal chandeliers and hand -wrought stair rail. These details are hallmarks of the Arts & Craft Movement. The property's stylistic details, including its many gables, rounded front door, and stone walls, also owe much to the the revival styles popular after World War I, styles which suggest old English and French (or Continental) rural vernacular buildings. The house and its important associated garage are locally significant and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C. 9. Major Bibliographical References Field inspection/photograph, October 2011. Iowa City Assessor online property records. Interview Notes, Leah Rogers, of Joe Coulter, owner, 10/20/2011; telephone call, Jan Olive Full to Joe Coulter, 4/21/2012. Newspapers and journals as cited above and also see accompanying report. Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Iowa Site Inventory Form Continuation Sheet Pacie 3 Site Number 52-05067 Related District Number Jacobsen, Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla, House Johnson Name of Property County 1818 N. Dubuque St. Iowa City Address City 10. Additional Documents (City map and Sketch map) NT ►i V r c f -� Bjaysville Ln. Photo looking northeast by Peter Sidwell for Tallgrass Historians L.C., October 2011 Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number 52-05067 Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number Continuation Sheet Page 4 Jacobsen, Dr. H.H. and Sylvilla, House Johnson Name of Property County 1818 N. Dubuque St. Iowa City Address City 1710 1S FR EP 11, 17 [1201 CONC PATIO I 123 12 [2301 17 IS B A STN (MAIN) [2002) 47 40 IS STN EP 5 11 7 55 16 WD STP [991 s 11 Source: All images from the Iowa City Assessor website, 4/20/2012. JUL 1 8 2012 LCIowa Department of Transportation 00 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010 515-239-1035 FAX 515-239-1726 July 3`d, 2012 Ref. No HDP -3715(652)- -71-52 Johnson County Local Ralph Christian Review & Compliance Community Program Bureau State Historical Society of Iowa 600 East Locust St. R&C# 1407S2 07f- Des Moines, IA 50319 Dear Ralph: RE: Iowa City Gateway- Dubuque Street Elevation Project- City of Iowa City Architectural / Historic Intensive Level Survey (Revised) Enclosed for your review and comment is the Architectural / Historic Intensive Level Survey project corridor map for the above-mentioned federally funded project. The project proposes the elevation of North Dubuque Street and the reconstruction of the Park Road Bridge, along with other improvements to mitigate traffic impacts from future Iowa River flooding. The project corridor / area of impact for this proposed project measures approximately 4600 ft. along N. Dubuque Street and 2300 ft. along E. Park Road. The corridor with for this project is approximate 75 ft. (Which includes the current road / center -line) A total area of 51 acres was investigated for this project. This architectural / historic intensive survey for this project included an extensive archival search, along with a pedestrian survey of the project corridor. Site visits and property documentation where conducted for each property, along with digital photographic documentation. This architectural / historic survey examined 37 individual properties with the proposed project corridor. Of these properties, two historic districts were evaluated (and found eligible) and five structures / properties were investigated and found eligible. These districts and properties are as follows. The Hutchinson -Kuhl House (Property 52-02513) This house, located at 7 Park Road, represents a stone dwelling, locally significant under Criterion A as one of the oldest standing houses in Iowa City. This structure is also considered locally eligible under Criterion C as historic adaptation to the original structure. This property, however, will not be impacted by this project. The Engle rt -Ball -Pownall House (Property 52-05068) This house, located 1501 Ridge Road, represents a rare -surviving wood -frame residence from the 1850's reflecting the Greek Revival influence. This house acted once as a stagecoach stop and hostelry along the old road north of Iowa City. The Dr. H.H. & Sylviiia Jacobsen House (Property 52-05067) This house, located at 1818 N. Dubuque Street, represents a cobblestone home and garage constructed within the style of the Arts and Craft Movement, and generally in the "Craftsman" substyle. This house and its associated garage are locally significant and eligible under the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C. The Lagoon Shelter House (Property 52-05079) This structure, located at West Back of the Iowa River, in the vicinity of Hancher Auditorium is a WPA building is an excellent example of rustic architecture and unusual for its location on the university's campus. The building is eligible under Criterion A and C. It was also determined previously as a contributing resources to the "University of Iowa River Valley Historic District". This property, however, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The Hancher Pedestrian Bridge (Property 52-05078) This pedestrian bridge, over the Iowa River in the vicinity of Hancher Auditorium was previously determined to have exceptional significance to the U of Iowa's River Valley Historic District. This property, however, will not be impacted by the proposed project. Two potential historic districts were examined by this investigation: "Frat Row" Potential Historic District: This potential district includes eight buildings in the 700 and 800 blocks of N. Dubuque Street, and one building in the 1000 block. All of these buildings, are considered contributing resources to the potential historic district and most are also considered potentially individually eligible. • Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity — 702 N. Dubuque St. 5201533 • o Sigma Chi Fraternity — 703 N. Dubuque St. — 5201534 • o Phi Kappa Sigma Fraternity — 716 N. Dubuque St. — 5201537 • o Kappa Sigma House — 720 N. Dubuque St. — 5201538 • o Delta Tau Delta Fraternity — 730740750 N. Dubuque St. — 5201539 • o Phi Delta Theta Fraternity — 729 N. Dubuque St. — 5201540 nd • o Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (2 location) — 804 N. Dubuque St. — 5201541 rd • o Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (3 location) — 816 N. Dubuque St. — 5201542 • o Kappa Sigma Fraternity 1032 N. Dubuque St. — 5205074 Knollwood Lane Midcentury Modern Potential Historic District: Two of the five houses in this small midtwentieth century suburban development are within the survey area (1 Knollwood Lane — 5205063 and 2 Knollwood Lane — 5205062). Collectively, the five houses contribute to a potential Knollwood Lane Midcentury Modern Historic District. A more detailed survey of the district would be necessary to confirm the details of the three houses outside the study area, but there is excellent potential for a historic district based on the historical and architectural significance of these homes as they reflect midcentury contemporary design and suburban landscaping created by a specific group of mature professionals who associated for that specific purpose. A review of the proposed project area and corridor plans shows that the Brown Street Historic District, "Frat Row" Potential Historic District, the Dr. H.H. & Sylviiia Jacobsen House, and the Englert-Ball-Pownall House will have various impacts to their property grounds. Once finalized design plans are received showing what these impacts are, a letter of concurrence stating a finding of effect will be forwarded to your office for review. If you concur with the findings of this Architectural / Historical Intensive Level Survey, please sign the concurrence line below and return this letter. If you have any questions regarding this project or this report, please feel free to contact me. MJFD Enclosure cc: Dee Newell- OLE / NEPA Kent Ellis- District 6 Local Systems Engineer Sincerely Matthew J.F. Donovan, RPA Office of Location and Environment Matt. Donovan@dot.iowa.gov Concur SHPO Historian Date Detail of North End of West Elevation South Elevation y+,M� M1 21 n NiO.i. South Elevation North Elevation Detail of Patio on East Elevation Detail of East End of North Elevation Representative interior photographs from the Gazette The library; situated behind the living room, features its own fireplace and circle head French doors; at the home of Joe Coulter in Iowa City on Wednescay, June i, 2o16. (Liz Martini The Gazette) Joe Coulter had the chair and couch in the living room recovered after he purchased them at an auction of the home's original furnishings. The chandeliers and fireplace screen are also original to the house. The fireplace, like the exterior of the home, is made of split fie]dstone. Photographed at the home of Joe Coulter in Irnaa City on Wednesday, June 1, 2o16. (Liz Martin/The Gazette) From: Stefaniak, John E To: PlanninaZoninaPublic Subject: Joe Dan Coulter RS -5 CHD Application Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:59:46 AM Dear Commission Members, We are unable to attend the Planning & Zoning meeting on December 20 but would like the Commission to know that we wholeheartedly support Joe Dan Coulter's application to rezone his home at 1818 N. Dubuque street to RS -5 OHD. John and Mary Helen Stefaniak 1501 Ridge Road 319-331-8517 Item Number: 7.c. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 8, 2019 Motion setting a public hearing for January 22, 2019 on an ordinance to amend Title 14 of the Iowa City Code related to minor amendments to address inconsistencies (ZCA18-00004) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Demo 1� r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2018 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner Re: Amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to minor amendments to address inconsistences and clarify requirements (ZCA18-0004) Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is a living document that is subject to alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses many issues that have come to light with various aspects of code language and how the zoning code is applied. These amendments are all minor, and provide clarification to planners, building inspectors, commissioners, council members, and other government bodies and members of the public who depend on this document to make and understand important City-wide decisions. This clean up serves to eliminate inconsistences between sections adopted at different times and to clarify orphaned language throughout the zoning code. Background Staff has been keeping a list of minor amendments that need to be made to the zoning and subdivision codes. There have been multiple meetings between staff members in Neighborhood and Development Services, including: building inspectors, planners, and code enforcement staff. The purpose of these meetings was to clarify the changes that need to be made and why, resulting in a list of minor amendments. Proposed Amendments This ordinance addresses several code amendments with the reasoning for each amendment detailed below. Some explanations address the reasoning behind multiple amendments. 1) Amend 14 -3C -2A(4), Design Review Applicability — Sidewalk Cafes Summary of Change: The code currently subjects sidewalk cafes to the design review process, but also allows sidewalk cafes by -right in another section. The proposed amendment clarifies this inconsistency by removing the need for the design review process for sidewalk cafes as there are already design standards in a different section of the code. Justification: When sidewalk cafes were first allowed in Iowa City business owners were required to go through the design review process put in place by the City to ensure that cafes fit aesthetically and did not cause undue burden on pedestrians. Over time, the City has developed other guidelines and policies addressed in Resolution 16-328, the Sidewalk Cafe Policy (Attachment 2) and Title 10, Section 3-3 in the Municipal Code, which allows sidewalk cafes in the right-of-way in the Central Business and Riverfront Crossing zone districts and regulations for sidewalks cafes. Due to the adoption of the Sidewalk Cafe Policy and the regulations in Title 10, it is no longer necessary for December 12, 2018 Page 2 sidewalk cafes go through the design review. This amendment will remove this inconsistency in the code. Additionally, the City wants to encourage owners to apply for sidewalk cafes to help support businesses in central business zones and the Riverfront Crossings District. This supports the Comprehensive Plan goal to "Encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally -owned businesses and national businesses." 2) Amend 14 -4B -1A(15), Minor Modifications Summary of Change: The code currently has an inconsistency that states a minor modification is needed for a building expansion of less than 500 feet in a general education facility, but a different section allows such additions by -right. The proposed amendment addresses this inconsistency by removing the minor modification requirement. Justification: The zoning code currently outlines two processes to approve additions and accessory uses to educational facilities that are less than 500 square feet. One process requires a minor modification. The other process is more streamlined and requires review and approval by the building official. The current regulations create unnecessary confusion for educational facilities trying to make small improvements to their facility while also making the approval process more difficult. This also creates situations where educational facilities are unduly burdened by excessive applications and fees that merely slow down minor facility upgrades. The proposed amendment eliminates these burdens and allows educational facilities to build small accessory structures and add very small additions to their buildings without going through the minor modification process. 3) Amend 14 -4B -4B(22), Alcohol Oriented Sales in CI -1 Zones Summary of Change: The code currently does not allow for alcohol sales in Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zones unless it is through a convenience store associated with quick vehicle servicing (gas station). The proposed amendment removes that provision and allows alcohol sales as a permitted use in CI -1 zones, which are generally located along Highway 6 and Highway 1, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Justification: In 2013 Ordinance 13-4550 (Attachment 4) amended the zoning code to allow for more broad uses in CI -1 zones, similar to uses allowed in Community Commercial (CC -2) zones such as allowing restaurants and bars, medical and dental offices, sales -oriented retail, and more. The reasoning behind this Ordinance was to allow more flexibility in use types by allowing a variety of commercial uses in CI -1 zones. However, Ordinance 13-4550 did not address alcohol sales specifically as part of sales - oriented retail so alcohol sales remained a provisional use and allowed only in convenience stores associated with quick vehicle servicing. Recently, GoPuff, a delivery service business, located to a CI -1 zone. Upon a request for a liquor license, this issue was brought to staff's attention since GoPuff does not have an associated gas station, and therefore, is not able to sell alcohol under the current code. After reviewing the history of the 2013 ordinance amendment, staff determined that not allowing alcohol sales associated with other uses allowed in the CC -2 zone was an oversight. The proposed amendment serves to clarify the intention of Ordinance 13-4550 and allow alcohol sales in CI -1 zones without the quick vehicle servicing provision. December 12, 2018 Page 3 4) Amend 14-5A-4F(5D-4), Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements Summary of Change: The code currently allows developers who have gone through the approval process for reduced parking the option of paying the associated in -lieu fee all at one time or in three separate installments. The proposed amendment eliminates the option of three installments and requires the fee be paid up -front before the issuance of a building permit. Justification: The zoning code specifies minimum parking requirements based on land use and zone, but also provides a way for developers to get parking requirements reduced with City approval. This reduction is limited to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings parking district, and for those qualifying instances, developers are required to pay a fee based on the number of spaces not being provided on-site. The current code allows developers to either pay the fee all at once or make three annual payments. While this was intended to allow developers some flexibility, it has caused many issues for the City with enforcing the agreed upon schedule. Fee collection upfront fits the current process the City has in place, and the three annual payment schedule has caused inefficient use of staff time trying to ensure fees have been properly collected according to the agreed upon schedule. The proposed amendment eliminates the three - payment option and requires that developers pay the full fee for reduced parking requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) Amend 14 -5A -5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size Summary of Change: Currently, the zoning code outlines standards for drive widths for surface parking areas, but not for structured parking areas. The proposed amendment applies those drive width standards to all parking areas. Justification: The minimum drive width designated for surface area parking is eighteen feet for drives serving two-way traffic and 10 feet for drives serving one-way traffic. This distance was selected because it provides for safe ingress and egress. Though there is not a set drive width for structured parking areas, building and inspection services has been using this as the standard for both surface and structured parking areas. This amendment clarifies the minimum drive width requirement of 18 feet for two-way traffic and 10 feet for one-way traffic for both surface and structured parking. 6) Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions Summary of Change: The zoning code currently states that both "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns" are allowed in duplexes. The proposed amendment would clarify that "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns" are only allowed in single-family residences, not in duplexes. Justification: Currently, the definitions of "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" do not match with what is allowed in the Accessory Use section of the zoning code under Specific Approval Criteria laid out in 14-4C-2. The general definition of both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" currently include duplexes as well as single-family dwellings; however, the Specific Approval Criteria in section 14-4C-2D&E specify that both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" can only be located in owner occupied, detached, single-family homes. According to provision 14-113-1E under the Interpretation and Application of Provisions, "If the provisions of this title are inconsistent with one another of if they conflict with provisions found in other adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of the city, the provision that is more specific to the situation will control. When regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear which regulation to apply, the more restrictive provision will control". Since the regulations for both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and December 12, 2018 Page 4 Breakfast Inn" in the Accessory Use section of the code are both more specific and restrictive, the general definitions should not include duplexes and instead be restricted to owner occupied, detached, single-family homes. Additionally, this would be consistent with the City's current practice of not allowing Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns in duplexes. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. Attachments 1. Draft of Text Amendments 2. Resolution 16-328, the Sidewalk Cafe Policy 3. Ordinance 13-4550, allowing for expanded uses in Intensive Commercial Zones (CI -1) Approved by: aD METFe Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENTS Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2018 Amend 14 -3C -2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, as follows: Projects located in the following areas are subject to the design review process: 4 C`Irlew;;Ik C;;fec flecion re iie ni is re`vi aired for all sidewalk nafec Io` ;;UQd in Oho P61bliG right of w iursueo4 tG the orov060oo Of e 1 Q Ghapte- Q 0 Gernmernial Use RiQe;Aic'mi$", Of thiG`voce- 54. Central Planning District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction of two-family uses, multi -family uses, group living uses, and institutional/civic uses located on a property in the central planning district, are subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-213-6, "Multi -Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (See central planning district map located in section 14-213-6 of this title.) 95. PRM Zone: All exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction on properties located within the PRM zone are subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-213-6, "Multi - Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) .96. Towncrest Design Review District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction of buildings and structures, or alterations or additions to site development, such as parking areas, landscaping, screening, lighting, and access on property within the boundaries of the towncrest design review district, as illustrated on the map below, are subject to design review. However, on property zoned single-family residential, new construction, alterations, or additions to single-family uses, including alterations or additions to site development associated with said uses, are exempt from design review. (Ord. 11-4421, 2-1-2011; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) Amend 14 -4B -1A, Applicability, as follows The building official may grant the following minor modifications from the requirements of this title, provided the approval criteria are met. Any requests for modifications that exceed the limitations set forth below and all other requests for modifications of the requirements of this title require the filing of a special exception or variance application with the board of adjustment. 4815. Modifications to the multi -family site development standards contained in section 14-213-6 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that section. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. Such requests shall be reviewed and approved jointly by the design review committee, the director of planning and community development, and the building official. 416. Modifications to the site development standards contained in section 14-2C-6, 14- 2-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in section 14-2C-10 of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 06-4220, 7-18-2006) 4-817. Modifications to the site development standards contained in sections 14-2D-5, "Industrial And Research Zone Site Development Standards", and 14-2F-5, "Public Zone Site Development Standards", of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in those sections, respectively. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 09-4352, 7-6-2009) 4818. One additional garage entrance/exit to structured parking may be granted according to the provisions of subsection 14 -5A -5F7, "Garage Entrances/Exits", of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 07-4247, 1-9- 2007) 2819. Freestanding signs in the CB -2 zone, according to the approval criteria and specifications as stated in section 14-513-8, table 513-4 of this title. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3- 2008) 2420. Modifications or waivers of nonconforming development according to the provisions set forth in section 14-4E-8, "Regulation Of Nonconforming Development", of this chapter. (Ord. 10-4397, 7-12-2010) 221. A modification of the required driveway length in single-family zones according to the provisions set forth in subsection 14 -2A -6C4 of this title. (Ord. 11-4451, 10-18-2011) 2822. An entranceway/gate more than four feet (4') in height in residential zones, provided it is designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. An identification sign no more than twelve (12) square feet in area incorporated as an integral element of the entranceway/gate may be permitted as part of the requested minor modification. (Ord. 14-4595, 8-19-2014) 2423. Modification to reduce the open space requirement for single family and two family uses in certain qualifying situations and according to the specific approval criteria as specified in sections 14-2A-4 and 14-213-4 of this title. (Ord. 18-4744, 4-2-2018) Amend 14-413-413, Commercial Uses, as follows: 222-a. Delayed Deposit Service Uses In The CC -2 Zone: a. The use is licensed by the state of Iowa; and b. The use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any property containing any existing daycare use, educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private assembly use, or residential use; c. The proposed use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any other delayed deposit service use. (Ord. 12-4495, 9-18-2012; amd. Ord. 13-4550, 9- 17-2013) 232-4. Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses In The CB -2, CB -5, And CB -10 Zones: An alcohol sales oriented retail use must be separated by a minimum distance of one thousand feet (1,000') from any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. For example, in the case of an alcohol sales oriented retail use that is located on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by an alcohol sales oriented retail use to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. (Ord. 09-4341, 6-2-2009; amd. Ord. 11-4452, 10-18-2011; Ord. 12-4495, 9-18- 2012; Ord. 13-4550, 9-17-2013) Amend 14 -5A -4F -5D-4, Payment of Fee In Lieu Of Required Parking, as follows: (4) The city shall calculate and assess the entire fee upon issuance of a building permit. The fee payor shall pay the entire fee at - rip or to the issuance of the building permit_ nr may oleGt +„ pay the foo it throe (3) e911al a1,1,11a1 hi 101dinn Permit If the foo Peder elent9 to nasi the foo in throe (3) annual i Psta"AAepts the fee r\rn ier shell evenl l+e ars alrreemep+ v4i+h the ni+y hefere +he of the rem aininn in9tallment9 to he Paid- and al9n 9et9 fnr+h +h a+ 11nnn GG-.Rfirmeti G -R by the lewa Gity f1NaRGe depaFtmeRt that the fee payer hes fee halanne to the Inhn9nn GG 1nty a99e99nr a9 a lien 11nnn the premises fnr 4.4hv+h +he hi iild!Rg Permit 44a9 09 -39 -31 -led. Said lien 4.4ill not nreGI61de the nit y from n11r611iRg re GGVeFy of the fee by ether legal er eq litahle remedies Amend 14 -5A -5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size, as follows: C. Parking,. -A -Rd Stacking Space Size, And Drive Dimensions: 7. Drives: A drive providing access to any parking area, both structured or surface, with more than eighteen (18) spaces must be no less than eighteen feet (18') in width if designed for two-way traffic or ten feet (10') in width if designed for one-way traffic. Amend 14 -5A -5H(3), Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas, as follows: Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions, as follows BED AND BREAKFAST HOMESTAY: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family hex dwelling unit, in which no more than three (3) bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. BED AND BREAKFAST INN: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family hex dwelling unit with a maximum of five (5) bedrooms provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. caf6. The design of the canopy shall be approved by the City. The area underneath the canolz shall be under the control of the establishment and is subject to the annual fee. a gin 3. Additional restroom capacity may be required to comply with local building and housing codes. 4. Occupancy limits are determined as set forth in the City building code. 5. No additional parking is required for the operation of a sidewalk cafe. 6. Sidewalk cafes are subject to annual inspections and maybe inspected at any other time at the City's discretion. 7. The sidewalk caf6 owner is responsible for trash removal and shall maintain the area and surrounding five feet (5) in a clean and Jitter free manner during all hours of operation. 8. All sidewalk cafes must meet the accessibility standards of City, State, and federal law. EasemenLA_greement 1111 11 1111111111 1!1!111:1 111 11111 11111piIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111p 11 Pill 11 111111 3. The agreement shall include provisions for insurance, indemnification, fencing, maintenance, including vegetation and the subsurface if applicable, and any other reasonable #Tovision as determined by the City Manager, or designee. 5. Except for cafes located on the street, the agreement shall be issued from FebruarvIE through January 31. The initial agreement may be less than the one year, but shall expire January 31 , I N Fencino (For Cafes Not on the Street ®rt delineated by ropes or some other suitable method which shall be detectable by pedestrians who are visually impaired. 2. Fencing shall be constructed of a durable material, such as steel, aluminum, or wrought iron. Wood fencing shall not be allowed. The City shall approve the design. 3. If stored outdoors, tables, chairs, and other items shall be secured within the anchored fencing at the end of each day's operation so that they are unusable and shall not block or obstruct emergency exits. If anchored fencing is not used, tables, chairs and other items shall be removed at the end of the normal condition as a pedestrianway. a. The planters shall, at the cafe owners option, be either fastened to each other or rziT,*vzV lttc� lfiOFT tables, chairs, and other items. b. The planters shall not be less than twenty seven inches (27") or more than thirty six inches (36") in height excluding plantings. c. The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame. 7. Rotwithstanding any other provision herein, anchored fencing is prohibited on Washington Street from Clinton Street to Linn Street. However, all 4 (four) sides of the fence must be connected to one another to prevent movement of the fencing and said connection must be approved the City Engineer or designee. If non -anchored fencing proves to be unsuccessful in 2017 as solely determined by the City Manager, the City Manager may requirt anchored fencing beginning in 2018. I'M lff-11-3�T-YWVX-Rk�j VAIPW47TW7 1, encompassing, or relocation of a public amenity on the condition that th-* cafe owner pay all associated costs. 2. A sidewalk cafe may encompass trees, tree rings, light poles, water valves, manholes, and stormwater intakes but shall not interfere with their care, maintenance or operation. Access shall be available to the City for their care and maintenance. 4. The amenities used in the sidewalk cafe area shall be maintained in good condition. 5. Upon payment of the electricity fee, the caf6 owner may use the City's electrical outlet but only for lights. 1. A sidewalk cafe may encompass or utilize an elevated planter if the proposed cafe meets the following criteria, as determined solely by the City: a. It does not interfere with pedestrian movement. R . It does not adversely affect drainage. c. It does not adversely affect public or city utilities. d. It does not adversely affect trees, shrubs or other plantings. e. It enhances the appearance of the surrounding area, and if in City Plaza, it enhances the use of City Plaza. f. It does not interfere with the functionality of any other existing sidewalk cafe. g. It is not otherwise contrary to public interest. 2. If utilizing two planters, the area between the planters shall be included in the sidewalk cafe area but need not be delineated as such unless tables and chairs are present. 3. With the consent of the adjacent property owner and first floor tenants, if any, the caf6 may extend beyond the building line extended if the distance between the planter and the building line extended is less than ten feet (10). The caf6 may extend beyond additional buildin;t lines extended with the consent of thosejcjrq�;� owners and first floor tenants_U-:uy 4. The cafe owner shall pay all costs associated with the cafe including, but not limited to, the cost to move water mini and water i -JALJH*-VA grolce * RHOVe 940 D1.91 -iV-8-t9tk!LJL 5. The City may require the caf6- owner to add plantings within the caf6i area at the caf& twirier's cost. 6. There are a limited number of planters, and cafes in planters will entail a substantial financial investment. In order to address these two opposing concerns, a priority system and lottery will be used. If a caf6 owner enters into an easement agreement with the City, said ca �%341§1904Ct 2XANV4��10 2 WO�(Wi -1 - --- - . caf6 seasons assuming that the City continues to authorize cafes in planters. CaM owners need to obtain the consent of adjacent property owner(s) and first floor tenant(s) only before 151 entering the easement agreement for the first of the three-year, priority period. The priority is to the individual business owner of said cafe and cannot be assigned or sold to another caf6 owner. Cafd owners with easement agreements for the 2012 caf`6 season will not be subject to the lottery until February 1, 2015. The lottery for planters will be conducted in the same manner as the lottery for cafes in the street. Platform For Cafes Not on the Street) 2. Sidewalk cafes may be located on a concrete platform in the right of way that is not a public sidewalk if the City Manager or designee approves the concrete design and if suitable access is provided for persons with disabilities. Fencing shall not be more than three feet (T) in height, measured from the plane on which the chair sits to the top of the railing, excluding finials. 1. An establishment cannot operate a caf6 in the street if there is sufficient room on the sidewalk for a cafd with an area of at least one -hundred twenty square feet (120 sq. ft.). 2. There shall be a minimum four foot (4) buffer on either end of the caf6 for safety reasons. These buffers shall be established and maintained by the City and may be used for moped parking and/or bicycle parking. The buffer is subject to the annual fee. As used in this policy, the term sidewalk caf6 area does not include the 4 -foot buffer. 3. The sidewalk caf& area may not include the portion of the parking space beyond the building line extended. The 4 -foot buffer may be located beyond the building line extended. 4. Cafes, including the 4 -foot buffer, in each block face cannot utilize more than thirty percent (30%) of the total parking spaces in that block face. 6. Cafes cannot be set up before April 1 and shall be removed no later than the Tuesday following the last University of Iowa home football game. Cafes may have to be removed temporarily at the caf6 owner's sole expense to accommodate an event on the street permitted by the City (e.g., criterium). 7. The portion of the caf6 located on the street shall be on a platform. The design features of the platform shall be submitted with the application. The platform shall not impede drainag(; in the street gutter. 8. The area for a sidewalk cafe shall be delineated by anchored fencing. Fencing shall be constructed of a durable material, such as steel, aluminum, or wrought iron. Wood fencing shall not be allowed. The City shall approve the design, 9. If stored outdoors, tables, chairs, and other items shall be secured within the anchored fencing at the end of each day's operation so that they are unusable. 10. Planters with flowers and/or other vegetation are allowed as an alternative to anchored fencing to delineate the sidewalk caf6. The design of the planters shall be approved by the City Manager, or designee, subject to the following limitations: a. The planters shall be fastened to the platform. b. The planters shall not be less than twenty seven inches (27") or more than thirty- six inches (36") in height excluding plantings. C. The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame. 11. The fee shall be a combination of the following four (4) fees: a) the annual square footage "right of way" fee for the portion of the caf6 located on the sidewalk; b) the annual square footage "platform" fee for portion of the caf& located on the street and any portion that is llt,e III! *w-r�+Ta si1er.-4 ", thm4aXy fte fte &aet, A-aek�ng.-;5-,tatt Tesgay-dl&as ,ei th&-en-r*Lx-'K-#f the parking space that the caf6 utilizes; and d) bollard fee. 12. There is no guarantee that the City will continue to authorize cafes in the street. The caf6 agreement will include a paragraph in substantial compliance with the following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cleare of any and all obstructions, and that the caf6 owner shall not be entitled to any compensation should the City elect to do so. The "30% limitation" limits the number of establishments that will be allowed to operate a caf6 on the street, and cafes on the street will entail a substantial financial investment. To address these opposing concerns, a priority system and a lottery will be used. The City will provide information on the lottery and the priority system on its website. 111 111,111111 IIII'll 11 Jill I III I III I 1 11 L I I I * February 1. In order to be eligible for the lottery, an application with a preliminary (n drawn by a professional) schematic diagram must be submitted by this dat Applications received after February 1 will be considered on a first come, first se basis and will be denied if there is no available space. * Februarythere are competing applications, staff will notify the applicants by th date whether they have been selected to enter into easement agreements. Compet i in t h applications mean when there are applications for more than 30% of the parking spac within a block face. The City will conduct a lottery to select applicants. 11 * March 15. The applicant must sign an easement agreement by this date, which dependent upon staff approval of its schematic diagram (drawn by a professional) a payment of all fees (except the parking space fee that will not be known until t 6 platform is installed). If an applicant does not meet the March 15 deadline, staff will notify the next applicant that it is eligible for a caf6 on the street. fS April 15. The next applicant must sign an easement agreement by this date. Note: If one of these dates falls on a weekend, the applicable deadline will be the following Monday. Priority. If a caM owner enters into an easement agreement with the City, said caf6 owner will have priority over subsequent applicants for a caf`6 within the same block face for the following two calendar years assuming that the City continues to authorize cafes in the street (see Paragraph 12 above). The priority is to the individual business owner of said cafe and cannot be assigned or sold to another caf6 owner. 1. The City Manager is authorized to approve any other provision or require any other restriction regarding the use of the public right of way by a sidewalk caf6 that is not inconsisten with this policy or the City Code. WIM 1. Annual fee for sidewalk cafes located directly on the public right-of-way: $5.00 per square foot. 2. Annual fee for sidewalk cafes located on a structure/platform (including cement platform) placed on the public right-of-way: $10.00 per square foot. 6 SIMMONS; I 111SO77-MMMOITM "- h 8. If the initial easement agreement is for less than one season, the fees listed in Paragraphs 1-4 above shall be prorated on a quarterly basis. 10. Bollard Fee: Actual cost of the bollards based on a five (5) year life cycle plus one (1) hour labor at the MWII pay grade to install, maintain, and remove the 4 -foot buffer. If the platform is removed temporarily during the year, the labor fee is assessed again when the platform is reinstalled. A minimum of two (2) bollards will be required, and the City shall ftetermine if additional bollards are needed. ill MIN Mill Mill I ! I ! 1 11 !11 1 FR 0 Section 10-3-3 of thq City Code A. Sidewalk cafes are permitted in the public right of way only in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 zones (the downtown and the commercial areas directly north and south of the downtown). B. No person shall operate a sidewalk caf& without executing an easemenj agreement. C. Each sidewalk caf6 applicant shall file an application for an easement agreement with the Public Works Department, on forms provided by the City. D, The City Manager, or designee, shall either grant or deny the application within thirty (30) days of the application being filed. If the application is granted, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to enter into a public right of way easement agreement. If the application is denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Council, and the appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile vendors in this chapter. The City retains the right to limit the number of sidewalk cafes. E. After execution of an easement agreement, the City Manager, or designee, shall been given and the time to cure the violation has expired. Grounds for termination of the easement agreement shall include, but not be limited to, repeated violations of the state and liquor control laws, violations of the easement agreement, and creating a safety hazard, health hazard and/or public nuisance under state or local law. Additionally, the City Manager, or designee, retains the right to terminate the easement agreement and direct removal of sidewalk cafe operations if there is a substantial and reasonable need for use of the public right of way for a valid public purpose. The cafe owner has the right to appeal a decision to terminate the agreement to the City Council. The appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile vendors in this chapter. F. The easement agreement, at a minimum, shall require the caf6 operator to provide a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the City, and shall agree to hold the City h2mr.44"T's 2.-J-U-Mle 2 XK2�Wky 2*;:05 or the location of the cafe on the public right of way including, but not limited to, all claims arising from occurrences or accidents within the sidewalk cafe area, including the walkway through a caf6. G. Sidewalk cafes shall operate only between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight. H. Food and beverages must be available for service to patrons in a sidewalk cafe during all hours of operation. Sidewalk cafes shall not operate when the restaurant kitchen is closed. 1. A sidewalk cafe serving alcoholic beverages shall have an employee monitoring the area at all times during the hours alcohol is consumed and shall dispense any alcoholic beverage under state and local law. J. Amplified sound equipment shall not be permitted. K. The operation of any sidewalk cafe shall be in conformity with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. ' ffi. All fees for the operation of a sidewalk caf6 shall be set by resolution. N. The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules not inconsistent with any ordinance or policy adopted by the City Council, A copy of the policy and rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available of the City website. N Prepared by: Karen Howard, Planning Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. 13-4550 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO BROADEN THE USES ALLOWED IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. WHEREAS, an ad hoc committee of private citizens was appointed by the City Manager to review the zoning regulations in several of the City's commercial zoning districts due to concerns expressed by some in the business community; and WHEREAS, said committee forwarded a summary of their conclusions and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission; WHEREAS, the Committee concluded that some of the distinctions between the land uses allowed in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone versus the broader commercial uses allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone may be unduly constraining the market; WHEREAS, a majority of the committee concluded that opening up the possibility of additional uses in the CI -1 Zone, such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail uses would not have a significant negative effect on CI -1 zoned properties and that it would be better to allow buyers to more freely choose a location for their business based on their own needs and assessment of the merits of any specific property; and WHEREAS, the committee acknowledged that allowing this broader range of uses in the CI -1 Zone would shift more of the responsibility to the property buyer to consider the possibility that quasi -industrial or intensive commercial uses, which are more likely to have outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other aspects that may result in noise, dust, odors, may also locate in the same zone; and WHEREAS, despite the greater possibility for incompatibilities between uses in the CI -1 Zone, the committee concluded that the benefits of providing for a more unconstrained market for commercial property outweighed these risks, and therefore recommended that the uses allowed in the CI -1 Zone be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses, and any associated accessory uses, such as drive-through facilities, with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 Zone: restaurants and bars; medical and dental offices; personal services; hotels and motels; religious and private group assembly; and sales -oriented retail uses -land WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the committee's recommended changes to the Zoning Code and recommended that these changes be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend 14-2C-2 Land Uses Allowed, Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, to indicate the following: o Designate Eating Establishments as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Drinking Establishments as "Provisional Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Medical/Dental Offices as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Personal Service -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Hospitality -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Sales -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Religious & Private Group Assembly Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone. B. Delete paragraph 14-413-413-11, Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Drinking Establishments and substitute in lieu thereof: Ordinance No. 13-4990 Page 2 11. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CIA, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within Section 14-2B-6 or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14-2C-11 a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. C. Delete the Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Sales -Oriented Retail in the CI -1 Zone contained in paragraph 14-413-46-18, and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly. D. Delete Table 4C-1 within subsection 14 -4C -2K, Accessory Uses and Buildings Specific Approval Criteria, and substitute in lieu thereof: Table 4C-1: Drive -Through Facilities Zone Drive-through facilities allowed Additional requirements' ID Zones None permitted Not applicable Residential Zones None Permitted Not applicable CO -1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions approval criteria listed below. CH -1 Permitted Drive through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from property lines and must be screened from view of any abutting Residential Zone to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). CN -1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions and pharmacies. approval criteria listed below. Maximum of 2 lanes allowed for a financial institution; Maximum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy CI -1, CC -2 and CB -2 Permitted by special exception Special exception required. See additional Zones approval criteria listed below. C13-5, CB -10 Zones None permitted Not applicable SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 17th day of September , 2013. Ordinance No. 13_4550 Page 3 ATTEST:"' CI CLERK Appr ved by City Attorney's Office /. , Ordinance No. 13-4550 Page 4 It was moved by Payne and seconded by Dickens that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 8/20/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 9/03/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 9/26/2013 Item Number: 7.d. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 8, 2019 Motion to set a public hearing for January 22, 2019 on an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Iowa City Code for the adoption of the 2018 edition of the International Building Code (IBC), the International Residential Code (IRC), and local amendments. Prepared By: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Reviewed By: Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector Sue Dulek, Asst. City Attorney Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: The Board of Appeals at its December 20, 2018 meeting recommended approval. Attachments: Memorandum from Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector to Board of Appeals Minutes from December 20, 2018 Board of Appeals meeting Executive Summary: State law requires a public hearing on the adoption of a model code. Staff is recommending adoption of the 2018 edition of International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (I RC) along with local amendments. A copy of the ordinance and the I BC and I RC are on file in the City Clerk's office. Background /Analysis: A description of the notable changes are set forth in a memorandum from Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector to the Board of Appeals dated December 14, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo BOA minutes 12.20.18 -preliminary Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY Date: December 14, 2018 To: Iowa City Board of Appeals MEMORANDUM From: Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector Re: Notable Changes Contained in the 2018 Edition of Building Codes. Following are significant changes made by local amendments and notable changes between the 2015 codes and the 2018 codes. Building Codes The majority of amendments to the building codes are for clarification of a code requirement, to reflect local practices that have evolved from previous building codes and their amendments and to remain consistent with the Fire Code as amended. Following are notable changes or proposed new amendments: Table R301.2(1): Modification to include Manual J criteria on design tables. Comment: Additional information is included on the table to aid the HVAC contractors in designing and sizing the mechanical equipment based on climatic and geographic design criteria based on local conditions. Section R302.5.1: Delete the requirement that requires house to garage doors to have self-closing devices. Comment: The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit someone from installing such device. Section R302.13: Delete the requirement to protect the underside of floor/ceiling assemblies in unfinished basements. Comment: This amendment eliminates the requirement to drywall the ceiling or sprinkle an unfinished basement ceiling. The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit someone from installing such protection. Section R312.2 (IRC) & 1015.8 (IBC): Delete the requirement to install guards on operable windows that are located less than 24" above the floor and more than 72" above the finish surface on the exterior of the building. Comment: The amendment eliminates the requirement to install guards on all operable windows that meet specified location criteria. The requirement is not consistent with other guard location criteria requirements and could conflict with emergency and escape window opening requirements. The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. This amendment does not prohibit the installation of fall protection devices on windows. Section R313: Delete the requirement to install a fire sprinkling system in one- and two-family dwelling and townhouses. Comment: This amendment eliminates the requirement for structures regulated by the IRC have an automatic fire suppression system installed. The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit the installation of a automatic fire suppression system. Section R314: Delete the requirement to interconnect smoke alarms when a home is being altered, repaired or an addition is added. Comment: This amendment eliminates the requirement for smoke alarms to be interconnected when a home is being altered, repaired or an addition is added. Previous codes have not required this extensive of an update and eliminating the requirement does not forgive the requirement to install battery operated smoke alarms when alterations, repairs or additions. The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit someone from installing such protection. Section R320.2: Maintain eight provisions to implement universal design features that provide accessibility, usability and visit -ability for all. Comment: The amendment applies only to new dwelling units and is not required for existing structures for repairs, alterations, change of occupancy or additions unless the square footage of the addition is more than 25% of the existing structure, then, the addition must comply. The minimum usability requirements are as follows: 1. Step -less Entrance: At least one entrance must be designed to provide a step -less entry. 2. Interior doors: At least one bedroom and one bathroom, if either are provided, and all other passage doorway header widths, on the level served by the designed step -less entrance, must be framed to accommodate a minimum 38" clear rough opening. The framing for the doorway width opening may be reduced to accommodate any door size. 3. Sanitation facilities: There must be at least one bathroom containing a water closet (toilet) and lavatory (sink) on the level of the dwelling to be accessed by the designed step -less entrance. The room shall have a minimum thirty inches (30") by forty-eight inches (48") clear floor space at the water closet and lavatory. 4. Wall Reinforcement: A bathroom must be provided with wood blocking installed within wall framing to support grab bars as needed. 5. Decks: All exterior decks and patios surfaces adjacent to the level served by the designed step -less entrance must be built within four inches (4") of the dwelling units finish floor level. 6. Switch and outlet re uirements: All wall switches, controlling light fixtures, tans, a temperature control devices and all receptacles shall be located in an area between fifteen (15) and forty-eight (48) inches above finished floor. 7. Electrical panel requirements- : Electrical panels on the level of the dwelling to a ---accessedy the designed step -less entrance shall be located so that the individual circuit breakers are located between 15" and 54 " above the floor. 8. Garages: Must be wired for power operated overhead doors Section R326: Delete Section R326 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs. Comment: This section was moved to the body of the code from the appendix in the previous code cycle. Deleting it results in no change of enforcement for pools, spas and hot tubs. They are still regulated by the electrical and zoning code. Section G2415.3: Eliminates the requirement prohibiting gas piping to not extend through any townhouse unit other than the unit served by such gas piping. Comment: Amendment is consistent with the mechanical and fuel gas code with regard to gas piping being installed through dwelling units. Zero lot -line units will still be required to have separate services but single structures that contain multiple units will be allowed to have the gas piping extend through other units. This is consistent with how gas pipe is installed now and in the past. Appendix J (IRC): Existing Buildings and Structures: (1 & 2 family residential) Comment: The purpose of these provisions is to encourage the continued use or reuse of legally existing buildings and structures. These provisions are intended to permit work in existing buildings that is consistent with the purpose of this code. Existing Building Code (multifamily and commercial) Section 102.6 in the International Building Code directs us to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) for existing structures. Comment: The IEBC allows and encourages the use and reuse of existing buildings while requiring reasonable upgrades and improvements for alterations, repairs, additions, occupancy change, historic and relocated buildings. Energy Code Adopt by reference the State Energy Code: Comment: The State of Iowa adopted the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Referencing the state energy code provides consistency for designers and builders. Tentative schedule for the state to adopt the 2018 IECC is mid 2019. Accessibility Code Adopted by reference the State Accessibility Code: Comment: The State of Iowa Accessibility Code is based on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. Adopting the state accessibility codes by reference provides consistency for designers and builders. Plumbing Code Adopt by reference the State Plumbing Code: Comment: Iowa Code Section 105.4 requires local jurisdictions to adopt the State Plumbing Code. The Iowa State Health Department, as administered by the Plumbing and Mechanical Systems Board, by law adopts the current edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) within six months of publication with a few amendments. Tentative schedule for the state to adopt the 2018 UPC is 1St quarter of 2019. Section 422.2.1 of the UPC: Amend to require single use restroom signage. Comment: This amendment will require single user restroom to have signage indicating usage by either sex. Mechanical Code Adopt by reference the State Mechanical Code: Comment: Iowa Code Section 105.4 requires local jurisdictions to adopt the State Mechanical Code. The Iowa State Department of Public Health, as administered by the Plumbing and Mechanical Systems Board, adopts the current edition of the International Mechanical Code within six months of publication with a few amendments. Tentative schedule for the state to adopt the 2018 UPC is 1St quarter of 2019. cc: Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services Danielle Sitzman, Coordinator, Development Services MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2018 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrea French, Andy Martin, Scott McDonough, Jim Walker MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Danielle Sitzman (Development Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshal), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist), Marnie Teagle (Code Enforcement Specialist, acting as minute -taker) OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended by a unanimous vote (4-0) to proceed with the adoption of the 2018 International Building Code with amendments, the 2018 International Residential Code with amendments, the adoption by reference of the State Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical codes and the 2018 International Fire Code with amendments. CALL TO ORDER: Tim Hennes called the meeting to order at 4:02 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: McDonough moved to elect Andrea French as chairperson of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: French was elected as chairperson of the BOA by a 4-0 unanimous vote. Martin moved to elect Scott McDonough as vice -chair of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: McDonough was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a 4-0 unanimous vote. Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of the 2018 International Building, Residential and Fire Codes. Hennes started the discussion by pointing out the memorandum in the meeting packet that delineates the most notable changes in the 2018 codes. He said he would briefly go through the notable changes and board members could ask questions as he went over them. Hennes highlighted a main change in section R314 of the 2018 code which states that remodels would be required to install interconnected smoke detectors in the entire house even in the rooms not affected by the remodel. This exception is the same as the 2015 code and would continue to make this not a requirement. Hennes explained that the reasons for this exception are that the wireless technology is not readily available and the costliness involved. McDonough asked about the first item on the memo, Table R301.2(1) regarding Manual J criteria for HVAC contractors and how it affects this location. Hennes explained that the IRC already has a table that gives design criteria to HVAC contractors for specific areas, similar to landscaping zones throughout the country. This table allows the constant numbers (some examples are average temperatures, snow loads 2 for specific locations) to be plugged into the computer software that HVAC contractors use to design heating and cooling systems. Hennes noted that the plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes are mandated by the State of Iowa. The State adopts the National Electrical Code which can be made more restrictive. The adoption of the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code and International Mechanical Code is currently in the works and will be finalized in the first quarter of 2019. Hennes discussed the amendment 422.2.1 of the UPC which was a request from a member of the public. This amendment will require single user restrooms to have signage indicating usage by either sex. Note, this is an item included in the 2018 UPC which will be adopted by the State. Hennes commented on the draft of the UPC regarding a requirement that all CSST gas piping have an arc fault protection, like a protective coating, which could eliminate the use of yellow CSST. The draft also proposes amending the single stack drainage system which is an engineered plumbing system with a bigger pipe allowing multiple fitting without separate venting. Hennes noted that he met with Homebuilders Association and they sent a letter of support agreeing with the amendments. Greer explained that the he would discuss a few of the items on the memorandum regarding the International Fire Code. Greer explained that for kitchen hood systems in restaurants, it is required to add rolling castor docks to fryers so that they can be placed in the appropriate location. This has been a local requirement for approximately a year and a half and is common practice along the corridor. This now is formalized by section 607.4. For code 901.6.02, Greer describes the use of "The Compliance Engine" which is a resource tool that fire company contractors use when inspecting fire alarms and sprinkler systems. If the report they generate shows a deficiency, the system automatically sends out a letter on Fire Department letterhead to the company. Greer advised the time saved using this tool equals one quarter to one half a person. Greer has used this system for about 2 years, North Liberty has used it for 5 years, Cedar Rapids for 2 years, and Coralville just started. Greer briefly described section 901.7 which details expectations for fire watch. For section 905.4 Greer explained that for standpipe systems this code cycle changed back from installation on intermediate landings to main floor landings. Greer explained that since Roger Jenson was Fire Marshal, installation was on intermediate landings. Fire personnel are trained for intermediate landings. For consistency, Greer has revised this section to continue to remain using intermediate landings. Hennes advised code cycles are every three years. When the 2015 codes were adopted, the prior code was the 2009 code as the 2012 code cycle was skipped because there were no significate changes. Hennes advised that numbering issues and other unintended issues result from skipping a code cycle. Greer advised that the Fire Department did adopt the 2012 code as accreditation requires the most current code. MOTION: McDonough moved that the adoption of the 2018 International Building Code with amendments, the 2018 International Residential Code with amendments, the adoption by reference of the State Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and the 2018 International Fire Code with amendments be recommended to City Council. Martin seconded. VOTE: The motion passed by a unanimous vote 4-0. OTHER DISCUSSION 3 Board members discussed the City's climate action committee as they look to learn more about energy usage. Hennes advised that tiny houses are now listed in the code's appendix and is a topic for possible future review. Solar readiness, solar permits and the initial costs of such projects are also issues of interest. Radon tests on new homes were discussed. Downtown construction projects were mentioned. Adjourned at 4:26 PM Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date Prepared by: Tim Hennes, Sr. Building Inspector, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Ordinance No. 18 - Ordinance amending Title 17, Chapter 1, Building Code, by adopting the International Building Code, 2018 edition, including Appendix K, and the International Residential Code, 2018 edition, including Appendix F and Appendix J, and providing for certain amendments thereof; adopting section 103.6(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa (the state electrical code) and section 105.4(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa (the state plumbing and mechanical codes); to provide for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the residents of Iowa City, Iowa. Whereas, the current building code is the 2015 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC), and the City should adopt the 2018 editions of those codes; Whereas, for purposes of uniformity throughout the State, the State Code has been amended to require all local jurisdictions to adopt the State Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; Whereas, the Fuel Gas Code is contained in the State Plumbing Code; Whereas, for uniformity in greater Johnson County area, the City should adopt the State Electrical Code; and Whereas, the purpose of this ordinance to provide for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the residents of Iowa City, Iowa. Now, therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. 1. Sections 17-1, 17-2, 17-3 and 17-4 of the Iowa City Code are hereby repealed and the following new Sections 17-1, 17-2, 17-3 and 17-4 are enacted in lieu thereof. 17-1-1: Codes adopted: Subject to the following amendments, the 2018 edition of the international building code (IBC) including Appendix K, electrical administrative process, and 2018 edition of the international residential code (IRC) including Appendix F, radon control methods, Appendix J, Existing Buildings and Structures, are adopted. Additionally, the City further adopts, Section 103.6(1)(a) of the Iowa Code (the Iowa State Electrical Code), Section 105.4(1)(a) of the Iowa Code (the Iowa State Mechanical Code), and Section 105.4(1)(a) of the Iowa Code (the Iowa State Plumbing Code). Collectively, they shall be known as the Iowa City building code or the building code. Interpretations of the building official may be guided by publications of the International Code Council, Inc., or the International Existing Building Code. 17-1-2: Interpretation of Building Code provisions: The provisions of this Code shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Iowa City. 17-1-3: Amendments to code: The following sections of the 2018 edition of the International Building Code and 2018 edition of the International Residential Code are amended as follows: Ordinance No. Page 2 Section 101.1 of both the IBC and IRC. Delete Section 101.1 of both the IBC and IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of Iowa City, hereinafter referred to as "this code." Section 105.2 of both the IBC and IRC. Delete Section 105.2 of both the IBC and IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 105.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A permit shall not be required for the following: Building 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 144 square feet provided the structure is not located in a flood hazard area. 2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks 4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III -A liquids. 5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1. 6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade and not over any basement or story below and which are not part of an accessible route. 7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work. 8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 9. Prefabricated swimming pools which are less than 24 inches deep, do not exceed 5,000 gallons and are installed entirely above ground. 10. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes and not including service systems. 11. Swings and other playground equipment. 12. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. 13. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (1753 mm) in height. 14. For structures regulated by the IRC the reapplication of shingles and roof sheathing provided: a. Less than 50% of the structural sheathing is replaced and other structural alterations are not required. b. The structure is not in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Note: Applying solid sheathing over space sheathing is not considered structural sheathing. 15. For structures regulated by the IRC reapplication of siding provided: The structure is not in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 16. For structures regulated by the IRC replacing windows provided: a. Replacement window(s) is in compliance with Appendix J. b. The structure is not in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 17. For structures regulated by the IRC replacing exterior doors, including garage doors, provided: a. Replacement door(s) is in compliance with Appendix J. b. They are not street facing doors i n a structure located in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or are not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Note: screen and storm doors do not require a permit regardless of the location. Electrical: 1 . Portable motors or other portable appliances energized by means of a cord or cable having an attachment plug end to be connected to an approved receptacle when that cord or cable is permitted 2 Ordinance No. Page 3 by this code. 2. Repair or replacement of fixed motors, transformers or fixed approved appliances of the same type and rating in the same location. 3. Temporary decorative lighting. 4. Repair or replacement of current -carrying parts of any switch, contactor, control device or contact device of the same type and/or rating. 5. Replacement of non -emergency over -current device of the required ampacity and interrupt rating in the same location. 6. Repair or replacement of electrodes or transformers of the same size and capacity for signs or gas tube systems. 7. Temporary wiring for experimental purposes in suitable experimental laboratories. 8. The wiring for temporary theater, motion picture or television stage sets. Gas: 1. Portable heating, cooking or clothes drying appliances. 2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. 3. Portable -fuel -cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid. Mechanical: 1. Portable heating appliances. 2. Portable ventilation appliances. 3. Portable cooling units. 4. Steam, hot- or chilled -water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code. 5. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. 6. Portable evaporative coolers. 7. Self-contained refrigeration systems containing 10 pounds (4.54 kg) or less of refrigerant or that are actuated by motors of 1 horsepower (746 W) or less. 8. Portable -fuel -cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not interconnected to a power grid. 9. The replacement of fixed appliances provided however that the replacement appliance is in the same location and has a rating equal to or less than the appliance being replaced, and it is not necessary to remove, replace, alter, or install any additional ductwork or piping. Plumbing: 1. The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe; provided, however, that if any concealed trap, drainpipe, water, soil, waste or vent pipe becomes defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with new material, such work shall be considered as new work and a permit shall be obtained and inspection made as provided in this code. 2. The clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures, and the removal and reinstallation of water closets, provided such repairs do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures. 3. The replacement or removal and reinstallation of any fixture or appliance, provided, however, that the fixture or appliance is installed at the same location and it is not necessary to remove, replace, alter, or install any piping. Exemption from the permit requirements of this Code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in violation of the provisions of the Code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Exemption from the permit requirements of this Code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in a manner in violation of the provisions of this Code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. 3 Ordinance No. Page 4 Section 105.5 of both the IBC and IRC. Modify Section 105.5 of both the IBC and IRC by adding a sentence to the end as follows: In no case shall the permit be effective unless the work covered by the permit has a documented inspection every 6 months minimum and is completed within 24 months of the date on which the original permit was issued. Section 105.8 of the IBC and R105.10 of the IRC. Add two new Sections 105.8 and 105.8.1 to the IBC and R105.10 and R105.10.1 to the IRC as follows: 105.8(IBC) R105.10(IRC) Demolition permits required. A demolition permit shall be required as follows: 1. For the removal of any building or structure. 2. For the removal of any portion of a building (i.e. porch, porch railing, decorative brackets and trim, dormers, chimneys, etc.) that is located within a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 105.8.1(IBC) and R105.10.1 Requirements. The applicant for any demolition permit shall state on the application the proposed disposal plans for all demolition materials. No demolition permit shall be issued until seven (7) working days after the date an application has been properly filed and said demolition permit shall not be effective until applicant has posted the premises to be demolished with a notice to be provided by the City and as directed by the City; provided, however, that accessory buildings as defined in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance and dangerous buildings shall be exempt from said notice and waiting requirement. Section 105.9 of the IBC and R105.11 of the IRC. Add two new Sections 105.9 to the IBC and R105.11 to the IRC as follows: 105.9 (IBC) and R105.11 (IRC) Permittee: 1. An electrical, plumbing or mechanical permit may be issued to any person holding a valid master license for the respective trade as described in Section 17-11-1 E of the Iowa City Code, or to any company who employs a duly licensed master in the respective trade on a full-time basis who supervises the work of the apprentice and orjourneymen during the company's normal business hours. 2. An electrical, plumbing or mechanical permit may be issued to the owner of an existing owner -occupied single-family dwelling, pursuant to a valid certificate of occupancy and used exclusively for residential purposes, to do any electrical work in connection with said dwelling and accessory buildings. The owner must personally purchase all material and perform all labor in connection with the permit. Applicants for a homeowner's electrical permit shall pass the designated exam before a permit may be issued. 3. The homeowner's test required in subsection 2 of this section may be waived if the applicant is a duly licensed electrician with a minimum of a journeyman status. Section 105.10 of the IBC and R105.12 of the IRC. Add two new Sections 105.10 to the IBC and R105.12 to the IRC as follows: 105.10 (IBC) and R105.12 (IRC) Insurance: Before any permit to perform electrical or plumbing work may be issued, the applicant shall have on file with the building official a copy of a certificate of insurance stating the liability amounts of no less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) property damage and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) bodily injury. The city shall be named as additional insured. The policy shall also provide for at least ten (10) days' notice by the insurer to the city of termination of the policy by the insured or insurer. Electrical permits issued under sections 105.9 (IBC) and R105.11 (ICR) 2 and 3 shall be exempted from this insurance requirement. Section R107.3 of the IRC and Section 108.3 of the IBC. Amend Section R107.3 of the IRC and Section 108.3 of the IBC as follows: R107.3 (IRC) 108.3 (IBC) Temporary Power: Replace the "NFPA 70" with "Iowa State Electrical Code.". 4 Ordinance No. Page 5 Section R108.2 of the IRC and Section 109.2 of the IBC. Delete Section R108.2 of the IRC and Section 109.2 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.2 (IRC) 109.2 (IBC) Permit Fees and Valuations. The fee for any permit shall be as set forth in the permit fee schedule as established by resolution of the City Council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this Code shall be made by the Building Official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, site grading, paving, landscaping, elevators, and other permanent equipment. The value to be used in computing the value of construction for reports shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, site grading, paving, landscaping, elevators, fire extinguisher systems and other permanent equipment. Section R108.3 of the IRC and Section 109.3 of the IBC. Delete Section R108.3 of the IRC and Section 109.3 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.3 (IRC) 109.3 (IBC) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted by Section 106 and the value of the proposed building or work exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), a plan review fee shall be paid before the permit may be issued. Should the project be abandoned and the permit not issued after the plan review has been started, the plan review fee shall still be due and payable. The plan review fee shall be as set forth by resolution of City Council. Plan review fees are separate fees from the permit fee specified in Section R108.2 and 109.2 and are in addition to permit fees. Section R108. 5 of the IRC and Section 109.6 of the IBC: Delete Section R108.5 in the IRC and Section 109.6 of the I BC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.5 (IRC) 109.6 IBC Refunds: The Building Official may authorize the refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The Building Official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application filed by the original permittee within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of fee payment. Section R108.6 of the IRC and Section 109.4 of the IBC. Delete Section 108.6 of the IRC and Section 109.4 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.6 (IRC) 109.4 (IBC) Work commencing before permit issuance: Any person who commences work on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a fee equal to the amount of the permit fee if a permit were issued. This fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is issued. The payment of such fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this Code or from any penalty prescribed by law. Only the Building Official may reduce this fee when it is demonstrated that an emergency existed that required the work to be done without a permit. Section R112 of the IRC and Section 113 of the IBC. Delete Section R112 of the IRC and Section 113 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section R112 of the IRC and Section 113 of the IBC Appeals: See Title 17 Chapter 12 Appeals in the City Code. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Authority Having Jurisdiction. The organization, office, or individual responsible for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Chief Electrical Inspector. A building inspector who either is the authority having jurisdiction or is designated by the authority having jurisdiction and is responsible for administering the requirements of this code. 5 Ordinance No. Page 6 Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Electrical Inspector. A building inspector authorized to perform electrical inspections. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Family: See Title 14 Chapter 9 Article A Zoning Definitions in the City Code. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Emergency Communications Center. Shall mean the Johnson County Emergency Communications Center. Section 202 of the IBC and IRC. Modify definitions as follows: Habitable space: Add a sentence to the end of the definition of habitable space or room to read as follows: Basement areas finished to a degree to encourage their use as anything other than storage or mechanical rooms shall be considered habitable space. Section R202 of the IRC. Delete definition of Accessory Structure and insert in lieu thereof the following: Accessory Structure. See Title 14 Chapter 9 Article A Zoning Definitions in the City Code. Table R301.2 (1) of the IRC Modify by inserting data in the table as follows: Ground Snow Wind Design Seismic Summer Subjectto Damage From Indoor Winter Ice -Barrier Flood Hazards Heating Cooling Correction Design Temperature Temperature Design Underlayment Air Freezing Mean Load Difference Category 41° -6° 89° Temp Required 75° 78° Cooling Wind Topographic Coincident Daily Winter Summer Temperature Velocity Velocity Wet Bulb Range Humidity Humidity Annual Difference Speed Cooling Frost line 14° 25° 10° 76° M Index 53 gr/Ib diff. effects, Temp Special wind FIRM (mph) Weathering depth Termite NFIP region, or Maps Wind-borne debris zone Moderate 25 115 No A Severe 42" Heavy -5°F Yes 5/22/1977 2/16/2007 2000 50°F MANUAL J DESIGN CRITERIA Elevation Latitude Winter Summer Altitude Indoor Design Heating Heating Cooling Correction Design Temperature Temperature Factor Temperature Cooling Difference 661' 41° -6° 89° N/A 72° 75° 78° Cooling Wind Wind Coincident Daily Winter Summer Temperature Velocity Velocity Wet Bulb Range Humidity Humidity Difference Heating Cooling 14° 25° 10° 76° M 39 gr/Ib diff. 53 gr/Ib diff. Section R302.5.1 of the IRC. Delete Section R302.5.1 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R302.5.1 Opening protection. Openings from a private garage directly into a room used for sleeping purposes shall not be permitted. Other openings between the garage and residence shall be equipped with solid wood doors not less than 1 3/8 inches (35 mm) in thickness, solid or honeycomb core steel doors not less than 1 3/8 inches (35 mm) thick, or 20 -minute fire -rated doors. Section R302.13 of the IRC. Delete Section R302.13 of the IRC entirely. Section R310.6 of the IRC. Delete Section R310.6 in the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R310.6 Alterations or repairs of basements in structures built after May 10, 1989. An emergency escape and rescue opening is not required where existing basements undergo alterations or repairs. Alterations or repairs in structures built prior to May 10, 1989 shall conform to Appendix J Section AJ 102.4 Replacement windows. Exception: New sleeping rooms created in an existing basement shall be provided with emergency escape and rescue openings in accordance with Section R310.1. 0 Ordinance No. Page 7 Section R312.2 of the IRC and 1015.8 of the IBC. Delete Section R312.2 of the IRC and 1015.8 of the I BC entirely. Section R313 of the IRC: Delete Section R313 of the IRC entirely. Section R314.4 of the IRC. Amend Section R314.4 in the IRC by adding an exception as follows: Exception: Interconnection of smoke alarms in existing areas shall not be required where alterations or repairs do not result in removal of interior wall or ceiling finishes exposing the structure, unless there is an attic, crawl space or basement available that could provide access for interconnection with removal the interior finish. Section R320.2 of the IRC. Add Section R320.2 in the IRC as follows: R320.2 Accessibility for projects other than those mentioned in Section R320.1. R 320.2.1 Scope. The provisions of this section are enacted to implement universal design features that provide accessibility, usability and visit -ability for all. R320.2.2 Definition. Public funds shall mean funding or assistance from the City of Iowa City or any agent thereof through any of the following means: 1. a building contract or similar contractual agreement involving a City -funded program or fund; 2. any real estate received by the owner through a subsidy, lease, or donation by the City or its agents; 3. preferential tax treatment, bond assistance, mortgage assistance, or similar financial advantages from the City or its agents; 4. disbursement of federal or state construction funds including a Community Development Block Grant; or 5. a City contract to provide funding or a financial benefit for housing. R320.2.3 Applicability. The amendment applies to new one- and two-family dwellings and is not required for new townhouses, accessory apartments or existing structures for repairs, alterations, change of occupancy or additions unless the square footage of the addition is more than 25% of the existing structure, then, the addition must comply. Exception: Applies to new townhouses constructed using public funds. The minimum usability requirements are as follows: 1. Step -less entrance: At least one building entrance must be designed, without encroaching into any required parking space, that complies with the Iowa City Building Code standard for an accessible entrance on an accessible route served by a ramp in accordance with section R311.8 or a no -step entrance. The accessible route must extend from a vehicular drop-off, or parking to a building entrance. The entry door must have a minimum net clear opening of thirty-two inches (32"). Exception: 1. If public funds are used the step -less entrance must be provided. 2. The building official may waive this requirement based upon the determination that strict compliance is financially or environmentally impractical. Split-level and townhouse style homes may be exempted. Note: Iowa City code only requires one parking space for single family dwellings. 2. Interior doors: At least one bedroom and one bathroom (if either are provided) and all other passage doorway header widths, on the level served by the designed step -less entrance, must be framed to accommodate a minimum 38" clear rough opening. The framing for the doorway width opening may be reduced to accommodate any door size Exception: 1.If public funds are used the minimum door clear opening shall be thirty-two inches (32") when the door is open ninety degrees (90), measured between the face of the door and the opposite stop. 2.Doors serving closets twenty-four inches (24") or less in depth need not be framed to 38" clear opening width. Note: A 34" door hung in the standard manner provides an acceptable 32" opening. 3. Sanitation facilities: There must be at least one bathroom containing a water closet (toilet) and lavatory (sink) on the level of the dwelling to be accessed by the designed step -less entrance. The room shall have a minimum thirty inches (30") by forty-eight inches (48") clear floor space at 7 Ordinance No. Page 8 the water closet and lavatory. The clear floor space can be shared by both fixtures. The clear floor space shall not be obstructed by a doorway swing. The plans must show a shower, bathtub or combination tub/shower can be provided within the room or an adjoining room without removing part of the concrete floor to provide necessary plumbing to the future plumbing fixture(s). Exception: 1.If public funds are used a shower, bathtub or combination tub/shower shall be provided within the room. 2. Doors may swing into the clear floor space provided at any fixture if sufficient maneuvering space is provided within the room for a person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid to enter and close the door, use the fixtures, reopen the door and exit. Maneuvering space may include any knee space or toe space available below bathroom fixtures. 3.The building official may waive this requirement based on the determination that strict compliance is financially impractical. 4. Wall reinforcement: A bathroom must be provided with wood blocking installed within wall framing to support grab bars as needed. The wood blocking, when measured to the center, will be located between thirty-three inches (33") and thirty-six inches (36") above the finished floor. The wood blocking must be located in all walls adjacent to and behind a toilet. Exception: Backing is not required behind pre -manufactured showers and bathtubs. 5. Decks: All exterior decks and patios surfaces adjacent to the level served by the designed step -less entrance must be built within four inches (4") of the dwellings finish floor level. Decks shall be a minimum 50% the size of a patio that is served by level served by the designed step -less entrance. 6. Switch and outlet requirements: All wall switches, controlling light fixtures, fans, all temperature control devices and all receptacles shall be located in an area between fifteen (15) and forty-eight (48) inches above finished floor. The height will be determined by measuring from the finished floor to the center of the device. When the control or receptacle placement is prohibited by the height of the window or design feature, alternative locations may be approved by the building official. 7. Electrical panel requirements: Electrical panels on the level of the dwelling to be accessed by the designed step -less entrance shall be located so that the individual circuit breakers are located between 15" and 54 " above the floor. 8. Garages: Must be wired for power operated overhead Section R322 of the IRC. Delete section R322 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R322. See Title 14 Chapter 5J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code. R322.1 Flood Resistive Materials. Building materials and installation methods used for flooring and interior and exterior walls and wall coverings below the elevation required in Title 14 Chapter 5J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code shall be flood damage -resistant materials that conform to the provisions of FEMA TB -2. Section R326 of the IRC. Delete Section R326 of the IRC entirely. Section R403.1.4.1 of the IRC. Modify by deleting all exceptions and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Exceptions: 1. One story detached accessory buildings of wood or steel frame construction not used for human occupancy and not exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet in floor area may be constructed using slab on grade construction as follows. The slab shall be three and one-half inches thick, poured monolithically with thickened perimeter footings extending twelve inches (12") below finish grade and be twelve inches (12") wide at the base. The top of the foundation shall not be less than six inches (6") above finish grade. Reinforcement of the slab, including the thickened portion, shall be minimum 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh, #4 deformed reinforcing bars at twenty-four inches (24") on center each way or fiber mesh reinforced concrete. 0 Ordinance No. Page 9 2. One-story wood or metal frame building not used for human occupancy and not over 200 square feet in floor area may be constructed with walls supported on a wood foundation plate or "skids" when approved by the building official. 3. Decks not supported by the structure need not be provided with footings that extend below the frost line. Section R404.1.1 of the IRC: Amend Section R404.1.1 of the IRC by adding an Exception after number 2 as follows - Exception: Foundation walls with unbalanced lateral forces created by finish grade, i.e. walkout basements which are exempt from the Iowa Architectural Act shall be designed by a licensed structural engineer or constructed in accordance with the Table R404.1.1(5) and diagram as follows: Table R401.1.1(5) CB = Corner Bars S =Span of Wall T = Thickness D = 4' Offset D S Provide corner bars to match CBT S" & 12" Foundation Walls Lhorizontal foundation wall reinforcing into wall 2' Frost Wall & Footing (Walkout) Notes: 1. Corner Bars are required In addition to horizontal reinforcing. 2. All Corner Bar reinforcing splices shall be lapped a minimum of 24". 3. If span (S) is greater than 16', the minimum dimension of (D) shall be 6•. 2" Minimum Inside Face of Wall to edge of reinforcing See Schedule for Horizontal Reinforcing #4 Reinforcing Vertical 30" O.C. Typical #4 Reinforcing Dow Section R404.1.3 of the IRC. Modify Section R404.1.3 by adding a second paragraph as follows: Wall thickness may be reduced to eight inches (8") if a minimum of three (3) one-half inch diameter deformed ASTM A615 grade 40 steel bars are placed horizontally at the center of the wall thickness with one bar located within 14" of the top, one bar within 14" of the bottom and one bar located within 14" of the mid -height of the wall provided the wall height does not exceed eight feet (8'). Section 423.4 of the IBC. Delete Section 423.4 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Group E occupancies. In areas where the shelter design wind speed for tornados is 250 MPH in accordance with Figure 304.2(1) of ICC 500, all new Group E occupancies shall have a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. The shelter shall be capable of housing the total occupant load of the Group E occupancy or as required by 661-301 of the Iowa State Building Code, whichever 0 IlFmml ®®® Frost Wall & Footing (Walkout) Notes: 1. Corner Bars are required In addition to horizontal reinforcing. 2. All Corner Bar reinforcing splices shall be lapped a minimum of 24". 3. If span (S) is greater than 16', the minimum dimension of (D) shall be 6•. 2" Minimum Inside Face of Wall to edge of reinforcing See Schedule for Horizontal Reinforcing #4 Reinforcing Vertical 30" O.C. Typical #4 Reinforcing Dow Section R404.1.3 of the IRC. Modify Section R404.1.3 by adding a second paragraph as follows: Wall thickness may be reduced to eight inches (8") if a minimum of three (3) one-half inch diameter deformed ASTM A615 grade 40 steel bars are placed horizontally at the center of the wall thickness with one bar located within 14" of the top, one bar within 14" of the bottom and one bar located within 14" of the mid -height of the wall provided the wall height does not exceed eight feet (8'). Section 423.4 of the IBC. Delete Section 423.4 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Group E occupancies. In areas where the shelter design wind speed for tornados is 250 MPH in accordance with Figure 304.2(1) of ICC 500, all new Group E occupancies shall have a storm shelter constructed in accordance with ICC 500. The shelter shall be capable of housing the total occupant load of the Group E occupancy or as required by 661-301 of the Iowa State Building Code, whichever 0 Ordinance No. Page 10 is more restrictive. Exceptions: 1. Group E day care facilities. 2. Group E occupancies accessory to places of religious worship. 3. Buildings meeting the requirements for shelter design in ICC 500. 4. Portable buildings. Section 502.1 of the IBC (F). Modify by inserting the following after the second sentence: From 100-199 feet from the street the number shall be a minimum of 6 inches high with a minimum stroke of 0.5 inches. From 200-299 feet from the street the numbers shall be a minimum 8 inches high with a minimum stroke of 0.5 inches. For each additional 100 feet from the street, the number shall increase by an additional 2 inches in height. Measurements to determine the minimum number size shall be measured from the approved address location to the center line of the street for which the premises is addressed. Section R807.1 of the IRC. Modify by adding a sentence at the end of the second paragraph as follows: The opening shall not be located in a closet, bathroom, mechanical room, laundry room, or similar room or location. Section 903.2.1.2 of the IBC (F). Modify section 903.2.1.2 by adding a second paragraph as follows: Group A-2 Occupancies that existed prior to August 1, 2007: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the A-2 occupancy with an occupancy load of 100 or more that have an ABDL and there is a change in business ownership, defined as the sale, transfer, or assignment of any legal or equitable ownership interest, except that the owner may show to the building official's satisfaction that said change in ownership is one of form and not substance. Section 903.2.1.8 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 903.2.1.8 as follows: Section 903.2.1.8. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings and portions thereof used as new Group B occupancies with an ABDL or existing group B occupancy with a new (not a renewal) ABDL located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge. The automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the floor area where the new Group B occupancy with an ABDL or where the group B occupancy with a new ABDL is located, and in all floors between the Group B occupancy and the level of exit discharge. Section 903.2.2 of the IBC (F). Delete Section 903.2.2 of the IBC and replace with: 903.2.2 Group B ambulatory health care facilities. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all fire areas containing a Group B ambulatory health care facility occupancy. Section 903.3.5.3 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 903.3.5.3 in the IBC to read as follows: 903.3.5.3 Water supply safety margin. Provide a minimum 10%, or 5 psi safety margin (whichever is greater) above static pressure in the fire protection system hydraulic calculations. Section 903.4.2 of the IBC (F). Delete Section 903.4.2 of the IBC and replace with: 903.4.2. Alarms. An approved weatherproof horn/strobe device shall be mounted directly above the fire department connection between seven (7) and ten (10) feet in height above grade. The water -flow alarm device shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Approved and supervised audible visual notification appliances shall be installed on each level of the interior of the building as required by the fire code official and NFPA 72. Section 903.6 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 903.6 to the IBC to read as follows: 10 Ordinance No. Page 11 903.6 Zones. Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and water flow device for each normally occupied floor Section 905.1.1 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 905.1.1 to the IBC to read as follows: 905.1.1 Delete all references to Class II standpipe systems and replace with Class III standpipe systems. Section 905.4 of the IBC (F). Amend section 905.4 by deleting #1 and replace with: 1. In every required interior exit stairway, a hose connection shall be provided for each story above and below grad plane. Hose connections shall be located at intermediate landings between stories, unless otherwise approved by; the fire code official. Exception: A single hose connection shall be permitted to be installed in the open corridor or open breezeway between open stairs that are not greater than 75 feet apart. Section 906.1 of the IBC (F). Delete the exceptions 1 and 2 without substitution. Section 906.3 of the IBC (F). Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The minimum rating of any required portable fire extinguisher for Class A, Class B, or Class C hazard shall be 2-10 B C Section 907.2 of the IBC (F). Delete the section and replace with: 907.2 Where required -new buildings and structures. An approved and addressable manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.23 and provide occupant notification in accordance with 907.5, unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code or fire code official. A minimum of one manual fire alarm box shall be provided in an approved location to initiate a fire alarm signal for fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or water -flow detection devices. Where other sections of this code allow elimination of fire alarm boxes due to sprinklers, a single fire alarm box shall be installed. EXCEPTION: 1. The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm systems dedicated to elevator recall control and supervisory service. 2. The manual fire alarm box is required for Group R-2 occupancies to provide a means for fire watch personnel to initiate an alarm during a sprinkler system impairment event. The manual fire alarm box shall not be located in an area that is accessible to the public. 3. Multi -tenant buildings required to have a manual/automatic fire alarm system shall install a minimum of one manual pull station per tenant space. Section 907.2.1 of the IBC (F). Delete the "exception" in Section 907.2.1 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following exceptions: EXCEPTION: 1) Except for Group A-2 occupancies with occupant loads of 200 or more, manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system and the alarm notification appliances will activate upon sprinkler water flow. 2) Group A-2. An automatic/manual fire alarm system shall be installed in Group A-2 occupancies with and occupant load of 200 or more. Activation of the fire alarm shall additionally cause: a. Illumination of the protected premises to not less than 10 foot-candles over the area of the room at a height of 30 inches above the floor; and b. All conflicting or confusing sounds and visual distraction to automatically stop. Section 907.2.3 of the IBC (F). Modify by adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph as follows: New and existing educational occupancies shall have a monitored fire alarm system. Section 907.2.3 of the IBC (F). Modify by adding a 5th exception as follows: 11 Ordinance No. Page 12 5. Day care occupancies classified as Group E Occupancy shall not require a monitored fire alarm system unless required elsewhere in the code. Section 907.2.10.2 of the IBC. Modify by adding a fourth location requirement as follows: 4. Supervised smoke alarms shall be installed in all common corridors and at the top and bottom of all stairway enclosures in Groups R-2, R-4 and 1-1 occupancies. In corridors, detectors shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of the end of the corridor and in such a way that one detector is located for each thirty (30) feet of corridor length or spaced as allowed by the code. Section 907.2.12.2 of the IBC. Delete without substitution. Section 907.4.2 of the IBC. Modify by adding a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Where, in the opinion of the code official, manual fire alarm boxes may be used to cause false fire alarms, the code official is authorized to modify the requirements for manual fire alarm boxes. Section 907.6.4 of the IBC (F). Modify by deleting the exception and inserting in lieu thereof the following exception: Exception: Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. Section 907.6.4.3 of the IBC (F). Add a section to read as follows: Section 907.6.4.3 Zone and address location labeling. Fire alarm and/or annunciator panels shall have all zones and address points plainly and permanently labeled as to their location on the outside of the panel or on an easily readable map of the building, if no display is present. Section 907.6.6 of the IBC (F). Modify Section 907.6.6 by adding two sentences to the end as follows: Each address point identification, shall have an alpha/numeric descriptor location. Alpha/numeric descriptor locations are required to be reported to the Emergency Communications Center upon activation of supervisory and/or alarm conditions as specified by the fire code official. Section 907.9 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 907.9 as follows: 907.9 Approved hold open devices. When installed in buildings that have a fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system, all approved hold open devices shall release upon activation of the fire alarm and/or sprinkler water -flow activation. Section 912.4.1 of the IBC (F). Delete Section 912.4.1 and replace with the following: Section 912.4.1 Locking fire department connection caps. Locking fire department connection caps approved by the fire department are required for all new construction that have a water-based fire protection system and existing structures that have a water-based fire protection system shall be required immediately after conducting the five-year obstruction and maintenance testing, or if one or more of the fire department caps are missing. Section 912.7 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 912.7 to the IBC to read as follows: 912.7 Size. Minimum fire department connection size shall be 2'/z' inch National Standard Thread. Section 912.8 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 912.8 to the IBC to read as follows: 912.8 Water supply. Fire department connections shall be located not more than 100 feet from a hydrant or as approved by the fire code official. Section 1011.3 of the IBC. Modify by adding a third exception as follows: Exception: 3. Stairs within individual dwelling units of residential Group R occupancies that existed prior to 8/28/02 (adoption of the 2000 IRC) are permitted a 78 -inch (6'-6") headroom clearance. 12 Ordinance No. Page 13 Section 1015.8 of the IBC. Delete Section 1015.8 of the IBC entirely. Section 1023.4 of the IBC. Modify Section 1023.4 by adding a fourth unnumbered paragraph as follows: Fire door assemblies that provide access to a non -pressurized interior exit of R-2 occupancies shall also be automatic closing by actuation of a smoke detector. Section 1029.2 of the IBC (F). Modify by adding a new exception as follows: EXCEPTION: 1)The main entrance/exit of A-2 occupancies shall be of a width that accommodates not less than two-thirds of the total occupant load. Section 1030.1 of the IBC. Modify by deleting the exceptions and inserting in lieu thereof the following: EXCEPTIONS: 1. The emergency escape and rescue opening is permitted to open onto a balcony within an atrium in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 provided the balcony provides access to an exit and the dwelling unit or sleeping room has a means of egress that is not open to the atrium. 2. Regardless of what Tables 1006.3.3(1) and 1006.3.3(2) allow, all group R-2 occupancies other than hotels and motels must be provided with emergency escape & rescue openings. 3. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public way. Section 1030.6 of the IBC. Add a new Section 1030.6 to the IBC to read as follows: Section 1030.6. Emergency escape windows under decks and porches. Emergency escape windows are allowed to be installed under decks and porches provided the location of the deck allows the emergency escape window to be fully opened and provides a path not less than 36 inches in height to a yard or court. Chapter 11 of the IRC. Delete Chapter 11 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 11 Energy Efficiency, Section N1101. Energy efficiency for the design and construction of building regulated by this code shall be as required by 661-303 of the Iowa State Administrative Code. Chapter 11 of the IBC. Delete Chapter 11 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 11 Accessibility, Section 1101. Buildings or portions of buildings shall be accessible to persons with disabilities as required by 661-302 of the Iowa State Administrative Code. Section 1208.2 of the IBC. Modify by adding a second unnumbered paragraph as follows: 1208.2 Attic spaces. The opening shall be located in a corridor, hallway, or other readily accessible location. The opening shall not be located in a closet, bathroom, mechanical room, laundry room, or similar room or location. Attics with a maximum vertical height of less than thirty inches need not be provided with access openings. Chapter 13 of the IBC. Delete Chapter 13 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 13 Energy Efficiency, Section 1301. Energy efficiency for the design and construction of building regulated by this code shall be as required by 661-303 of the Iowa State Administrative Code. Section 1402.6 and 1402.7 of the IBC. Delete Sections 1402.6 and 1402.7 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section 1402.6. See Title 14, Chapter 5, Article J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code. 13 Ordinance No. Page 14 Section 1612 of the IBC. Delete Section 1612 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section 1612. See Title 14, Chapter 5 Article J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code. Section G2406.2 (303.3) of the IRC. Prohibited locations of the IRC. Modify by deleting exceptions 3 and 4. Section G2415.3 (404.3) of the IRC. Prohibited locations of the IRC. Modify by deleting the last sentence. Part VII Plumbing, Chapters 25 through 33 inclusive of the IRC. Delete Part VII Plumbing Chapters 25 through 33 inclusive of the IRC and insert the following: Part VII Plumbing, Chapter 25 Section P2501 GENERAL P2501.1 Scope. Plumbing systems shall comply with the Iowa State Plumbing Code. Administrative Provisions. The Plumbing Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Chapter 27 of the IBC. Delete Section 2701 General of the IBC and insert the following: Section 2701 GENERAL Section 2701.1 Scope. Electrical systems shall comply with the Iowa State Electrical Code. Section 2701.2 Administrative Provisions. The Electrical Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended and Appendix K as amended. Chapter 28 of the IBC. Delete chapter 28 of the IBC and insert the following: Chapter 28 Mechanical Systems Section 2801.1 Scope. Mechanical systems shall comply the Iowa State Mechanical Code with the following amendments: Administrative Provisions. The Mechanical Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Commercial Kitchen Hood Exhaust Termination: In addition to the code requirements for commercial kitchen hood exhaust terminations locations, the following shall apply: For new construction, change in occupancy or change in use, that requires a new commercial kitchen hood or revisions to an existing commercial kitchen hood, the new or existing commercial kitchen hood exhaust duct shall terminate as follows: 1. Above the roof level without passing through an exterior wall; or 2. Through an alley facing exterior wall provided the termination is above the roof level; or 3. To an alley right of way per 3202.3.2 of the International Building Code. Chapter 29 of the IBC. Delete Chapter 29 of the IBC and insert the following Chapter 29 Plumbing Systems Section 2901.1 Scope. Plumbing systems shall comply with the Iowa State Plumbing Code. Administrative Provisions. The Plumbing Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Section 422.2.1 of the UPC. Delete Section 422.2.1 and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section 422.2.1 Single Use Toilet Facilities. Single use toilet facilities and family or assisted use toilet facilities shall be identified with signage indicating use by either sex. 14 Ordinance No. Page 15 Section 3002.4 of the IBC. Delete Section 3002.4 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 3002.4 Elevator car to accommodate ambulance stretcher. In buildings four or more stories above, or four or more stories below, grade plane, at least one elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 24 inches by 84 inches (610 mm by 2134 mm) with not less than 5 -inch (127 mm) radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall not be less than 3 inches (76 mm) high and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoistway door frame. Part VIII Electrical, Chapters 34 through 43 inclusive of the IRC. Delete Part VIII Electrical Chapters 34 through 43 inclusive of the IRC and insert the following: Part VIII Electrical, Chapter 34 Section E3401 GENERAL E3401.1 Applicability. Electrical systems shall comply with the Iowa State Electrical Code. Appendix K of the IBC. Section K103.2 of the IBC. Work exempt from permit. Delete Section K103.2 in the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section K103.2 Work exempt from permit. See section 105.2 in both the IRC and IBC. Section K106.5 of the IBC. Add a new Section K106. 5 as follows: Section K106. 5 Energy Connections; An electrical system or equipment regulated by this code for which a permit is required shall not be connected to a source of energy or power until approved by the building official. Section K106.6 of the IBC. Add a new Section K106. 6 as follows: Section K106. 6 Temporary Energy Connections. The building official may authorize the temporary connection of the electrical system or equipment to the source of energy or power for the purpose of testing the equipment, or for use under a temporary certificate of occupancy. Appendix J of the IRC. Section AJ102.4 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ 102.4 of the I RC and insert in lieu thereof the following: AJ102.4 Replacement windows and doors. Regardless of the category of work, where an existing window or door, including the sash and glazed portion, or safety glazing is replaced, the replacement window, door or safety glazing shall comply with the requirements of Sections AJ102.4.1 through AJ102.4.3, as applicable. Section AJ102.4.1 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ102.4.1 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: AJ102.4.1 Energy efficiency. Replacement windows or doors shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11. Section AJ102.4.4 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ102.4.4 of the IRC entirely. Section AJ501.7 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ501.7 and insert in lieu thereof the following: AJ501.7 Ceiling height. Habitable spaces created in existing basements or attics shall have ceiling heights of not less than 6 feet, 8 inches (2032 mm), except that the ceiling height at obstructions shall be not less than 6 feet 4 inches (1930 mm) from the basement or attic floor. Existing finished ceiling heights in nonhabitable spaces in basements or attics shall not be reduced. Section AJ501.8.1 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ501.8.1 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 15 Ordinance No. Page 16 AJ501.8.1 Stair width. Existing basement and attic stairs and handrails not otherwise being altered or modified shall be permitted to maintain their current clear width at, above and below existing handrails. Section AJ501.8.2 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ501.8.2 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: AJ501.8.2 Stair headroom. Headroom height on existing basement or attic stairs being altered or modified shall not be reduced below the existing stairway or attic finished headroom. Existing basement or attic stairs not otherwise being altered shall be permitted to maintain the current finished headroom. Section AJ501.8.3 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ501.8.3 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: AJ501.8.3 Stair landing. Landings serving existing basement or attic stairs being altered or modified shall not be reduced below the existing stairway landing depth and width. Existing basement or attic stairs not otherwise being altered shall be permitted to maintain the current landing depth and width. Section AJ601.4 of the IRC. Delete Section AJ601.4 of the I RC and insert in lieu thereof the following: AJ601.4 Ceiling height. Habitable spaces created in existing basements and attics shall have ceiling heights of not less than 6 feet, 8 inches (2032 mm), except that the ceiling height at obstructions shall be not less than 6 feet 4 inches (1930 mm) from the basement or attic floor. Existing finished ceiling heights in nonhabitable spaces in basements or attics shall not be reduced. 17-1-4: Penalties for violations: Violation of this chapter shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty as provided for in subsection 1-4-2D of the City Code. 4. Except as provided herein, any reference to the "Plumbing Code," the "Electrical Code," or the "Mechanical Code" is deleted and replaced with "Building Code." Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Passed and approved this Mayor Approved by City Attorney's Office It was moved by day of , 2019. Attest: and seconded by 16 City Clerk that the Ordinance Ordinance No. Page 17 as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration _ Vote for passage: Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton 17 Item Number: 7.e. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 8, 2019 Motion to set a public hearing for Jan. 22, 2019 on ordinance amending Title 7, Fire Prevention and Protection, by adopting the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code. Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: John Grier, Fire Chief Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Board of Appeals Attachments: Memorandum from Fire Marshal Ordinance Executive Summary: State law requires a public hearing on the adoption of a model code. Staff is recommending adoption of the 2018 edition of International Fire Code (I FC) along with local amendments. The Board of Appeals voted to recommend adoption at its Dec. 20 meeting. The notable changes are set forth in the attached memo from the Fire Marshal. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo BOA minutes 12.20.18 -preliminary ordinance r'i _-'WMffnq, CITY OF IOWA CITY Date: November 8, 2018 To: Board. of Appeals From: Brian Greer, Fire Marshal MEMORANDUM Re: Notable changes to the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code The fire department presents for your review, notable changes to the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC). 1049 NEW. SECTION. Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment- This allows the fire code official to accept a proposed a material, design, or method of construction if it complies with the intent of the provisions of this code. 105.6.30 NEW SECTION. Mobile food preparation vehicles — Requires a permit for mobile food preparation vehicles equipped with appliances that produce smoke of grease -laden vapors. 202 NEW DEFD TTIONS. General Definitions — New definitions to provide a more complete list of general definitions. 315.7 NEW SECTION. Outdoor pallet storage — Provides requirements for the outdoor storage of idle pallets. 319 NEW SECTION. Mobile Food Preparation Vehicles — The requirements in this section discuss requirements for exhaust hoods, fire protection, storage, and fuel systems associated with mobile food preparation vehicles. 404.2.3 REVISED SECTION. Lockdown plans — Provides additional guidance on procedures, methods, training, and drills associated with a code compliant lockdown plan. 510 REVISED SECTION. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage — Requirements for emergency responder radio coverage have been revised to address industry and equipment enhancements. 607. NEW EXCEPTIONS. Commercial Kitchen Hoods —New exceptions regarding whether a Type 1 hood is required. 2 Chap. 7 REVISED CHAPTER. Chapter 7- Fire and Smoke Protection Features — A large percentage of this chapter has been added or amended to include more detail related to this topic. 807.4 NEW SECTION. Artificial decorative vegetation — Establishes limitations on where and how much artificial decorative vegetation is allowed. 901.4.6 MODIFIED SECTION. Pump and riser room size — Additional sections provide requirements for access, door markings, environment, and lighting in these rooms. 901.6.2 NEW SECTION. Integrated testing — Establishes requirements for testing where multiple fire protection systems and life safety systems are integrated. 903.2.1 MODIFIED SECTION. Sprinklers in Group A Occupancies — This section clarifies the requirements for fire sprinkler protection in Group A occupancies. 903.2.3 MODIFIED SECTION. Sprinklers in Group E Occupancies — Establishes new threshold for installation of automatic sprinkler system in all Group E fire areas with an occupant load of greater than 300 persons. 903.3.1.2.3 NEW SECTION. Protection of Attics in Group R Occupancies — Sprinkler protection of mid -rise, multi -family buildings equipped with a NTPA 13R sprinkler system. 904.13 MODIFIED SECTION. Domestic Cooking in Institutional Occupancies — Establishes requirements for the protection of domestic cooking appliances in care facilities by an automatic fire -extinguishing system. 907.2.10 DELETED SECTION. Group R4 Fire Alarm System — Fire alarm systems are no longer required in Group R-4 occupancies. 910.5 MODIFIED SECTION. Maintenance of Smoke and Heat Removal Equipment — Maintenance and testing frequencies for smoke and heat vents and mechanical smoke removal are now specified in the code. 916 MODIFIED SECTION. Gas Detection Systems — Requirements for gas detection systems are clarified and consolidated in this section. 1006.3 MODIFIED SECTION. Exits on Adjacent Stories — Clarifies egress requirements when the occupants travel to an adjacent story to reach an exit. 1010.1.1 CLARIFICATION. Size of Doors — Requirements for the size of doors is revised to correlate with ICC Al 17.1. 1010.1.4.4 NEW SECTION. Locking Arrangements in Educational Occupancies — Provide guidance to allow enhanced security measures that still meet egress requirements for classrooms. 1010.3 NEW SECTION. Turnstiles — This section allows security turnstiles, or similar barriers, in the means of egress path. 1031.1 MODIFIED SECTION. Inspection and l esting of Emergency Egress Lighting Provides inspection and testing requirements for emergency egress lighting. Chap. 12 NEW SECTION. Energy Systems — This new chapter has been added to the IFC to address all configurations of energy systems which includes emergency power, standby power, stationary battery storage, and other methods of energy generation and storage. 2311.8 MODIFIED SECTION. Repair of Vehicles Fueled by Lighter -than -air Fuels — Updated requirements for repairing vehicles fueled by compressed or liquified gas to address current Technologies and processes. 2810 NEW SECTION. Outdoor Storage of Pallets at Pallet Manufacturing and Recycling Facilities — Provides criteria for outdoor pallet including height limits and separation to property lines. 3106 NEW SECTION. Outdoor Assembly Events — This section adds requirements specific to outdoor public gatherings and was prompted by several fatal events where structural failures have occurred. 3304.5 MODIFIED SECTION. Fire Watch During Construction and Demolition — Criteria for fire watch and clarification to the functions and duties of the fire watch personnel. Chap. 39 NEW SECTION. Processing and Extraction Facilities — This new chapter was added to specifically regulate the process of extracting oils from plant material. 5103 NEW SECTION. Aerosol Cooking Spray Products — Specifies fire protection requirements for aerosol. Other sections include. 5104,2.2, 5104.3.3, 5104.8, 5106.2.2. 5307.1 MODIFIED SECTION. Liquid Carbon Dioxide Systems for Beverage Dispensing — requirements for liquified CO2 in beverage dispensing applications has been correlated with requirements for gas detection systems. 5307.4 NEW SECTION. Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Systems — Enrichment systems with greater than 100 pounds of CO2 are now regulated by the IFC with facilities expanding due to the proliferation of indoor marijuana cultivation. 5707 NEW SECTION. Mobile Fueling Operations — Requirements applicable to on -demand mobile fueling, permits, and the explicit authority given to the fire code official to regulate these operations. Chap. N NEW SECTION. Indoor Trade Shows and Exhibitions — This new chapter provides specific regulations to address the hazards associated with large trade shows and exhibitions. MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2018 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrea French, Andy Martin, Scott McDonough, Jim Walker MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Danielle Sitzman (Development Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshal), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist), Marnie Teagle (Code Enforcement Specialist, acting as minute -taker) OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended by a unanimous vote (4-0) to proceed with the adoption of the 2018 International Building Code with amendments, the 2018 International Residential Code with amendments, the adoption by reference of the State Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical codes and the 2018 International Fire Code with amendments. CALL TO ORDER: Tim Hennes called the meeting to order at 4:02 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: McDonough moved to elect Andrea French as chairperson of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: French was elected as chairperson of the BOA by a 4-0 unanimous vote. Martin moved to elect Scott McDonough as vice -chair of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: McDonough was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a 4-0 unanimous vote. Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of the 2018 International Building, Residential and Fire Codes. Hennes started the discussion by pointing out the memorandum in the meeting packet that delineates the most notable changes in the 2018 codes. He said he would briefly go through the notable changes and board members could ask questions as he went over them. Hennes highlighted a main change in section R314 of the 2018 code which states that remodels would be required to install interconnected smoke detectors in the entire house even in the rooms not affected by the remodel. This exception is the same as the 2015 code and would continue to make this not a requirement. Hennes explained that the reasons for this exception are that the wireless technology is not readily available and the costliness involved. McDonough asked about the first item on the memo, Table R301.2(1) regarding Manual J criteria for HVAC contractors and how it affects this location. Hennes explained that the IRC already has a table that gives design criteria to HVAC contractors for specific areas, similar to landscaping zones throughout the country. This table allows the constant numbers (some examples are average temperatures, snow loads 2 for specific locations) to be plugged into the computer software that HVAC contractors use to design heating and cooling systems. Hennes noted that the plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes are mandated by the State of Iowa. The State adopts the National Electrical Code which can be made more restrictive. The adoption of the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code and International Mechanical Code is currently in the works and will be finalized in the first quarter of 2019. Hennes discussed the amendment 422.2.1 of the UPC which was a request from a member of the public. This amendment will require single user restrooms to have signage indicating usage by either sex. Note, this is an item included in the 2018 UPC which will be adopted by the State. Hennes commented on the draft of the UPC regarding a requirement that all CSST gas piping have an arc fault protection, like a protective coating, which could eliminate the use of yellow CSST. The draft also proposes amending the single stack drainage system which is an engineered plumbing system with a bigger pipe allowing multiple fitting without separate venting. Hennes noted that he met with Homebuilders Association and they sent a letter of support agreeing with the amendments. Greer explained that the he would discuss a few of the items on the memorandum regarding the International Fire Code. Greer explained that for kitchen hood systems in restaurants, it is required to add rolling castor docks to fryers so that they can be placed in the appropriate location. This has been a local requirement for approximately a year and a half and is common practice along the corridor. This now is formalized by section 607.4. For code 901.6.02, Greer describes the use of "The Compliance Engine" which is a resource tool that fire company contractors use when inspecting fire alarms and sprinkler systems. If the report they generate shows a deficiency, the system automatically sends out a letter on Fire Department letterhead to the company. Greer advised the time saved using this tool equals one quarter to one half a person. Greer has used this system for about 2 years, North Liberty has used it for 5 years, Cedar Rapids for 2 years, and Coralville just started. Greer briefly described section 901.7 which details expectations for fire watch. For section 905.4 Greer explained that for standpipe systems this code cycle changed back from installation on intermediate landings to main floor landings. Greer explained that since Roger Jenson was Fire Marshal, installation was on intermediate landings. Fire personnel are trained for intermediate landings. For consistency, Greer has revised this section to continue to remain using intermediate landings. Hennes advised code cycles are every three years. When the 2015 codes were adopted, the prior code was the 2009 code as the 2012 code cycle was skipped because there were no significate changes. Hennes advised that numbering issues and other unintended issues result from skipping a code cycle. Greer advised that the Fire Department did adopt the 2012 code as accreditation requires the most current code. MOTION: McDonough moved that the adoption of the 2018 International Building Code with amendments, the 2018 International Residential Code with amendments, the adoption by reference of the State Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and the 2018 International Fire Code with amendments be recommended to City Council. Martin seconded. VOTE: The motion passed by a unanimous vote 4-0. OTHER DISCUSSION 3 Board members discussed the City's climate action committee as they look to learn more about energy usage. Hennes advised that tiny houses are now listed in the code's appendix and is a topic for possible future review. Solar readiness, solar permits and the initial costs of such projects are also issues of interest. Radon tests on new homes were discussed. Downtown construction projects were mentioned. Adjourned at 4:26 PM Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date Prepared by: Brian Greer, Fire Marshal, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Ordinance No. 18 — Ordinance amending Title 7, Chapter 1, Fire Prevention and Protection, by adopting the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code to regulate and govern the safeguarding of life and property from fire, explosion, life safety risks, or health hazards. Now, therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment. 1. Section 1, entitled, "Fire Code Adopted," is hereby deleted and the following new Section 1 is inserted in lieu thereof: That a certain document, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, being marked and designated as the International Fire Code, 2018 edition, including errata and Appendix Chapters B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and N as published by the International Code Council, be and is hereby adopted as the Fire Code of the City of Iowa City, in the State of Iowa regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises as herein provided, providing for the issuance of permits and each, and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Fire Code on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this ordinance, with the additions, insertions, deletions and changes, prescribed in the following sections of this ordinance. 2. Section 2, entitled "Amendments to Fire Code," is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 2 is inserted in lieu thereof: That the following sections are hereby revised: Section 101.1 Insert: Iowa City, Iowa Section 102.1 Modify by adding a fifth applicability requirement to the end as follows: 5. All A-2 Occupancies that existed prior to August 1, 2007 with an occupant load of 100- 298 with an ABDL shall comply with Section 903.2.1.2, provided that there is a change in business ownership, defined as the sale, transfer, or assignment of any legal or equitable ownership interest, except that the owner may show to the building official's satisfaction that said change in ownership is one of form and not substance. Section 104.1.1 Add a new section to read as follows: The code official and members of the fire prevention bureau shall have the powers of a peace officer in performing their duties under this Code. Section 104.1.2 Add a new section to read as follows: The Fire Chief may appoint and designate such members of the Fire Department as fire/police investigators upon being certified by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy. Fire/police investigators shall have the powers of a peace officer in performing their duties under this Code, including full powers of arrest to Ordinance No. Page 2 effectuate their duties of enforcing city ordinances and state statutes. Notwithstanding his/her status as a peace officer, a fire/police investigator shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Iowa City Fire Department for all purposes and shall perform such functions as the Fire Chief shall assign. Section 104.12 Add a new section to read as follows: The code official is authorized to order an operation or use stopped, or the evacuation of any premises, building, or vehicle or portion thereof which has or is a fire, life safety or health hazard. Section 105.2 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Application for an operational permit shall be submitted with all required information not less than 14 days prior to the event requiring a permit. Section 105.4 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The fire code official at the official's sole discretion may send plans official shall designate the plans review agency the plan review directly to the outside agency until the review fees have been paid. to a qualified agency for review. The fire code The applicant shall pay all fees associated with A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued Section 105.6 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The fire code official at their discretion may send plans for operational permits requests to an outside agency for review. The fire code official shall designate the plans review agency. The applicant shall pay all fees associated with the plan review directly to the outside agency. The permit shall not be issued until the review fees have been paid. Section 109. Delete in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof: See Title 17, Chapter 12 of this Code. Section 110.4 Delete the section and replace with: Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction, as prescribed in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. Section 112.4 Delete the section and replace with: No person shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition Section 202 Add a new definition to read as follows: Code Official. The Chief Officer of the Fire Department, the Fire Marshal, or the Chief's authorized representative. Section 202 Add a new definition to read as follows: Crowd Management. Crowd management meshes the design features of a facility, the established operating features of that facility, and an understanding of the occupants' expected natural behavior in that facility for a specific type of event. Section 202 Add a new definition to read as follows: Emergency Communication Center. The Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center. Ordinance No. Page 3 Section 202 Add a sentence to the end of Fire Lane definition to read as follows: See City Code 9-4-13 for additional rules and regulations. Section 307 See also 6-6 of this Code. Section 307.1.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Hours of operation. A person shall not maintain any outdoor burning from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless permitted and approved by the fire code official. Section 401.9 Add a new section to read as follows: Building evacuation. Upon activation of the building fire alarm system or upon notification by other means of detecting and reporting unwanted fire, all building occupants shall promptly evacuate the building. Exception: When the emergency evacuation plan, as approved by the fire code official, does not require the immediate total evacuation of the building. Section 402.1 Add a new definition to read as follows: Crowd Management. Crowd management meshes the design features of a facility, the established operating features of that facility, and an understanding of the occupants' expected natural behavior in that facility for a specific type of event. Section 403.2.5 Add a new section to read as follows: A-2 Occupancy Crowd Managers. Group A-2 occupancies shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) trained crowd manager anytime occupancy reaches 50 or more. Where the occupant load exceeds 250, additional trained crowd managers shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) crowd manager for every 250 occupants. The crowd manager shall annually receive training approved by the fire code official in crowd management techniques. Section 405.2 Add to the end of the section as follows: Fire and evacuation drills in Group E occupancies shall be conducted in accordance with Section 100.31 of the Code of Iowa. Emergency evacuation/ fire drills shall be conducted at least four times a year. Not less than two drills shall be conducted between July 1 and December 31 each year and not less than two drills shall be conducted between January 1 and June 30 of each year. The Iowa City Fire Department shall conduct one of the two drills during July 1 and December 31 and one of the two drills during January 1 and June 30 of each year. Fire drills in Group R, Division 2, Fraternities and Sororities, shall be conducted once per academic semester. Section 405.2 Table Add footnote e. as follows: Group E occupancies, excluding Preschools and Daycares shall conduct fire and evacuation drills at least four times a year in accordance with Section100.31 of the Code of Iowa. Footnote shall be added to Group E occupancy frequency. Section 503.2.9 Add a new section to read as follows: Thickness. Fire apparatus access roads shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete conforming to the specifications of the Iowa Department of Transportation C-3 or M-3 mixes. The concrete access road shall be a minimum of 7 inches thick over compacted soil. Section 505.1 Delete the section and replace with: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic Ordinance No. Page 4 numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. From 100-199 ft from the street the number shall be a minimum of 6 inches high with a minimum stroke of 0.5 inches. From 200-299 ft from the street the number shall be a minimum of 8 inches high with a minimum stroke of 0.5 inches. For each additional 100 ft from the street, the number shall increase by an additional 2 inches in height. Measurements to determine the minimum number size shall be measured from the approved address location to the center line of the street for which the premises is addressed. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained. Section 506.1 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: An approved key box shall be installed in an approved location on all new construction. Exception: Group R-3 and unsecured R-2 occupancies. Section 507.3 Delete the section and replace with: Fire flow. Fire flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings shall be determined by "Appendix B" of this code. Section 507.5.1 Delete exceptions 1 & 2. Section 507.5.1.1 Delete the section and replace with: Hydrant for fire sprinkler and standpipe systems. A fire hydrant shall be located not more than 100 feet from a fire sprinkler or standpipe system connection on hard surface, easily accessible by fire apparatus and meeting the approval of the Code Official. Section 507.5.7 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire hydrant threads: All new hydrants within the limits of Iowa City installed after January 1, 2020 shall have National Standard Threads (NST) on the two and one-half (2 1/2) inch connections and the four and one-half (4 1/2) inch connection will have a Storz connection. Section 510.1 Delete exception 1. Section 604.9 Delete the section and replace with: Temporary wiring. Temporary wiring for electrical power and lighting installations is allowed for a period not to exceed 90 days for holiday decorative lighting, carnivals and similar purposes. Temporary wiring methods shall meet the applicable provisions of the Iowa City Electrical Code. Exception: Temporary wiring for electrical power and lighting installations is allowed during periods of construction, remodeling, repair or demolition of buildings, structures, equipment or similar activities. Temporary wiring methods shall meet the applicable provisions of the Iowa City Electrical Code. Section 604.10 Delete the section and replace with: Portable electric space heaters. Portable electric space heaters shall comply with Sections 604. 10.1 through 604.10.6. Section 604.10.6 Add a new section to read as follows: Fully enclosed. Portable, electric space heaters shall be fully enclosed space heaters that by design have no external surfaces that reach temperatures capable of igniting materials placed against the surface. Section 606.7 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The Fire Code Official may require an approved elevator key box in an approved location to secure required elevator keys. Ordinance No. Page 5 Section 607.4 Delete the last sentence and replace with: Movement of new and existing cooking appliances with caster(s) under a Type 1 hood shall be limited by an approved floor mounted restraining device and flexible gas connector installed in accordance with the connector and appliance manufacturer's instructions. Section 804.5 Add a new section to read as follows: Maintenance. The interior finish of buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the conditions of original approval. Any change to the interior finish that is regulated by the provisions of this code or the building code shall be made in accordance with all applicable requirements. Section 806.1 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Natural or resin - bearing cut trees and natural decorative vegetation used in buildings open to the general public shall be properly treated with an approved flame retardant. Section 807.5.2.1 Delete exception 2. Section 807.5.5.1 Delete exception 2. Section 901.2 (a) Add a new section to read as follows: Water based fire protection systems. Working plans submitted to the fire department for water based fire protection systems shall be stamped and approved by a qualified person to be in compliance with applicable NFPA standards and the Iowa City Fire Code. Any changes to the working plans shall be approved by a qualified person. A qualified person shall have a minimum National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies [NICET] Level III certification for Automatic Sprinkler System Layout OR be a licensed engineer with experience in life safety system design. Other qualifications may be approved by the code official. Section 901.2 (b) Add a new section to read as follows: Fire alarm systems. Working plans submitted to the fire department by a qualified person for fire alarm systems shall be stamped and approved by a qualified person to be in compliance with applicable NFPA standards and the Iowa City Fire Code. Any changes to the working plans shall be approved by a qualified person. A qualified person shall have a minimum National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies [NICET] Level III certification for Fire Alarm Systems OR be a licensed engineer with experience in life safety system design. Other qualifications may be approved by the code official. Section 901.6.3.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Inspection record submission. Contractors who perform installation, inspection, testing, and/or maintenance services on fire and life safety systems are required to electronically submit all installation and compliant & non- compliant inspection reports to the Fire Department via a method approved by the Fire Code Official within 30 calendar days of the installation/inspection date. Reports submitted after 30 calendar days may incur late fees. Section 901.7 Add a section to the end of the section to read as follows: A person assigned to fire watch must walk through the building at least once every 30 minutes checking for fire or smoke. A fire watch must be continued until the fire alarm system and/ or fire protection system has been restored to normal operating condition or the building has been evacuated. A competent adult familiar with the building must conduct the fire watch. If a fire is discovered, 911 shall be called immediately and the building evacuated. Ordinance No. Page 6 Section 903.2.1.2 Delete Section 903.2.1.2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section 903.2.1.2 A. New Group A-2 Occupancies. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for fire areas containing Group A-2 occupancies and intervening floors of the building where one of the following conditions exist: 1) The fire area exceeds 5,000 square feet; 2) The fire area has an occupant load of 100 or more; or 3) The fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge. B. Existing Group A-2 Occupancies that existed prior to August 1, 2007: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the A-2 occupancy with an occupant load of 100 or more that have an ABDL and there is a change in business ownership, defined as the sale, transfer, or assignment of any legal or equitable ownership interest, except that the owner may show to the building official's satisfaction that said change in ownership is one of form and not substance. Section 903.2.1.8 Add a new Section to read as follows: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings and portions thereof used as new Group B occupancies with an ABDL or existing group B occupancy with a new (not a renewal) ABDL located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge. The automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the floor area where the new Group B occupancy with an ABDL or where the group B occupancy with a new ABDL is located and in all floors between the Group B occupancy and the level of exit discharge. Section 903.2.2 Delete the section and replace with: Ambulatory care facilities. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all fire areas containing an ambulatory care facility and all floors between the ambulatory care facility and the level of exit discharge serving such a facility. Section 903.3.5.3 Add a new section to read as follows: Water supply safety margin. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be designed with a minimum of 10% or 5 psi safety margin (whichever is greater) above static pressure in the fire protection system hydraulic calculations. Section 903.4.2 Delete the section and replace with: Alarms. An approved weatherproof horn/strobe device shall be mounted directly above the fire department connection between seven (7) and ten (10) feet in height above grade. The water -flow alarm device shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Approved and supervised audible visual notification appliances shall be installed on each level of the interior of the building as required by the fire code official and NFPA 72. Section 903.7 Add a new section to read as follows: Zones. Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. The location of sprinkler control valves must be approved by the fire code official. Section 905.1.1 Add a new section to read as follows: delete all references to Class II standpipe systems and replace with Class III standpipe systems. Section 905.4 Requirement #1 Delete the section and replace with: In every required interior exit stairway, a hose connection shall be provided for each story above and below grade plane. Ordinance No. Page 7 Hose connections shall be located at intermediate landing between stories, unless otherwise approved by the fire code official. Section 906.1 Delete exceptions 1 & 2 without substitution. Section 906.3 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The minimum rating of any required portable fire extinguisher for Class A, Class B, or Class C hazard shall be 2-A, 10-B C. Section 907.1.4 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire alarm control panels and Fire alarm annunciator panels. Installation of fire alarm control panels and fire alarm annunciator panels shall be installed in accordance with section 907.1.4.1 through 907.1.4.5. Section 907.1.4.1 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire Alarm Panel Height: Installation of fire alarm panels shall not exceed 6 feet in height measured from the floor to the top of the panel. Exception: Panel height may be altered by the code official. Section 907.1.4.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Number of Fire Alarm Control Panels in Buildings: Only one listed fire alarm control panel shall be allowed per building and shall lock in the alarm until the system is reset and shall not be canceled by the operation of an audible – alarm silencing switch. This control panel shall only receive alarm signals from fire protection equipment. Section 907.1.4.3 Add a new section to read as follows: Combination Fire/Security Alarm System Panels. A listed combination fire/security alarm system panel that meets all the requirements of this code and amendments may be permitted by approval of the fire code official. The fire/security panel shall be capable of providing a signal that can differentiate between the fire and security alarm. Section 907.1.4.4 Add a new section to read as follows: Password/PIN Protection Prohibited: Fire alarm control panels and/or fire alarm annunciator panels that require a password/PIN to silence an alarm/supervisory/trouble signal and/or to reset an alarm/supervisory/trouble signal shall be prohibited. Section 907.1.4.5 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire Alarm Annunciator Panels: The fire code official can require the addition of fire alarm annunciator panels based on the size of building and access to the building. These panels shall meet the requirements of Sections 907.1.4 and 907.2. Section 907.2 Delete the section and replace with: Where required—new buildings and structures. An approved and addressable manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.23 and provide occupant notification in accordance with 907.5, unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code or the fire code official. A minimum of one manual fire alarm box shall be provided in an approved location to initiate a fire alarm signal for fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or water -flow detection devices. Where other sections of this code allow elimination of fire alarm boxes due to sprinklers, a single fire alarm box shall be installed. Exceptions: Ordinance No. Page 8 1. The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm systems dedicated to elevator recall control and supervisory service. 2. The manual fire alarm box is required for Group R-2 occupancies to provide a means for fire watch personnel to initiate an alarm during a sprinkler system impairment event. The manual fire alarm box shall not be located in an area that is accessible to the public. 3. Multi -tenant buildings required to have a manual/automatic fire alarm system shall install a minimum of one manual pull station per tenant space. Section 907.2.1 Delete the exception in Section 907.2.1 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following exceptions: Exceptions: 1. Except for Group A-2 occupancies with occupant loads of 200 or more, manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system and the alarm notification appliances will activate upon sprinkler water flow. 2. Group A-2. An automatic/manual fire alarm system shall be installed in Group A-2 occupancies with occupant loads of 200 or more. Activation of the fire alarm shall additionally cause: a. Illumination of the protected premises to not less than 10 foot-candles over the area of the room at a height of 30 inches above the floor; and b. All conflicting or confusing sounds and visual distraction to automatically stop. Section 907.2.3 Modify by adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph as follows: New and existing educational occupancies shall have a monitored fire alarm system. Section 907.2.3 Modify by adding a 5th exception as follows: 5. Day care occupancies classified as Group E Occupancy shall not require a monitored fire alarm system unless required elsewhere in the code. Section 907.2.9.1 Delete exception 2 without substitution. Section 907.2.10.2 Modify by adding a fourth location requirement as follows: 4. Supervised smoke alarms shall be installed in all common corridors and at the top and bottom of all stairway enclosures in Groups R-2, R-3, R-4, and 1-1 occupancies. In corridors, detectors shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of the end of the corridor and in such a way that one detector is located for each thirty (30) feet of corridor length or spaced as allowed by the code. Section 907.2.12.2 Delete the section without substitution. Section 907.4.2 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Where in the opinion of the code official manual fire alarm boxes may be used to cause false fire alarms, the code official is authorized to modify the requirements for manual fire alarm boxes. Section 907.6.4 Modify by deleting the exception and inserting in lieu thereof: Exception: Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. Section 907.6.4.3 Add a section to read as follows: Zone and address location labeling. Fire alarm and/or annunciator panels shall have all zones and address points plainly and Ordinance No. Page 9 permanently labeled as to their location on the outside of the panel or on an easily readable map of the building, if no display is present. Section 907.6.6 Add to the end of the section as follows: Each address point identification shall have an alpha/numeric descriptor location. Alpha/numeric descriptor locations are required to be reported to the Emergency Communications Center upon activation of alarm conditions as specified by the fire code official. Supervisory alarm conditions are required to be reported to the fire code official by an approved manner. Section 907.11 Add a new section to read as follows: Approved hold open devices. When installed in buildings that have a fire alarm system and/or sprinkler system, all approved hold open devices shall release upon activation of a fire alarm and/or sprinkler water -flow activation. Section 912.4.1 Delete the section and replace with: Locking fire department connection caps. Locking fire department connection caps approved by the fire department are required for all new construction that have a water-based fire protection system and existing structures that have a water-based fire protection system shall be required immediately after conducting the five-year obstruction and maintenance testing, or if one or more of the fire department caps are missing. Section 912.8 Add a section to read as follows: Size. Minimum fire department connection size shall be 2 %2" National Standard Thread. Section 1029.2 Add the following exception: Exception: The main entrance/exit of A-2 occupancies shall be of a width that accommodates not less than two-thirds of the total occupant load. Section 1030.1 Modify by deleting exceptions 1 and 3. Section 5003.5 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Signs shall also comply with the requirements of the Iowa Right to Know law. Section 5704.2.9 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: For aboveground storage tanks of 276 gallons capacity or more, the minimum distance between such aboveground tanks and any Residential Zone boundary must be at least 100 feet. If the aboveground tank is located in an approved vault, the minimum separation distance from a Residential Zone boundary may be reduced to no less than 50 feet. Section 5704.2.11.1 Add a #4 to the end of the section to read as follows: 4. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet shall be maintained between underground tanks and any Residential Zone boundary. Section 5704.2.13.2.4 Add a section to read as follows: Existing above -ground tank hazards. Existing above -ground tank installations, even if previously approved, that are determined to constitute a hazard by the fire code official, shall not be continued in service. Unsafe tanks shall be removed as required by the fire code official and in accordance with this code. That the geographic limits referred to in certain sections of the 2018 International Fire Code are hereby established as follows: Ordinance No. Page 10 Section 5704.2.9.6.1. The storage of Class I and Class II liquids in above -ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited in the entire City of Iowa City, Iowa. Exception: Zones 1 1&2, Cl 1 and/or as approved by the Fire Chief. Section 5706.2.4.4. The storage of Class I and Class II liquids in above -ground tanks is prohibited in the entire City of Iowa City, Iowa. Exception: Zones 1 1&2, Cl 1 and/or as approved by the Fire Chief. Section 6104.2. The storage of liquefied petroleum gas is prohibited in the entire City of Iowa City, Iowa. Exception: Zones 1 1&2, Cl 1 and/or as approved by the Fire Chief. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect after final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 12019. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office Item Number: 10.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org January 8, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for certain historic properties. (ZCA18- 00003) ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo to City Manager -Updated Receiving Area Maps Late Addition - Planning District Map Memo to City Manager PZ Staff Report HPC Minutes P&Z Minutes - Preliminary Ordinance Correspondence from Larry Baker 1 � 1 mg 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 4, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003) At the City Council's November 20, 2018 public hearing on the proposed transfer of development rights ordinance for historic properties, the Council requested revised maps showing the proposed eligible receiving sites. Attached are the updated maps that show the eligible receiving sites by planning district. Attachments: 1. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maps by Planning District N AM -ash WE Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 00.075 0.15 0.3 Miles Downtown Planning District CITY OF IOWA CITY I i I i I Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 17 -AL, -71 U) O O z~' z QJ „� < z Z � Z - � � "-W JEFFERSON ST E JEFFERSON ST W IOWAAVE -,. E IOWA AVE F- w 4 W WASHINGTON ST E WASHINGTON ST Aihlip A E COLLEGE ST { c,a• � a z "w • I w c =LINGTON ST E BURLINGTON ST W BUR z LU COURT ST E COURT ST m D �• • ` m z J ~ (7 W HARRISON ST w • • • • • OO 0] D W PRENTISS ST 1 � J H a N WE S 0O.2 0.4 0.8 Miles I i I i I }d� Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites North Planning District Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 S�. r �F i ...,v:. INTERSTATE 80 BRISTOL DR 0r HAYWOOD DRr STANNE'S DR C� Cz SER 1 o Jw o GAG C = Jm to �tAFTSPEEDPiAY t m O z w Y !I ��`� irr', ♦��d a VI � L e g e n }I� I. North District Boundary'` o Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites ` 4 N WE Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Miles North Corridor Planning District N f ♦"a 0,0 V. 10-.. � � '. q',�♦ Legend y 1F North Corridor District Boundary Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites A; Prepared By: Luke Foelsch . Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 .yr... ; N AM 41 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles Northeast Planning District CITY OF IOWA Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 vkw IJ 4� r.40 411 n I r, + w q u ... i� ! I' i� +yin �. °" •.` �r u = y r t" � ,rte f 1 !Northeast District Bo u Proposed Eligible Receiviri `Site N AM 41 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 Miles Northwest Planning District CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 t 444i I Ix v4 j t 1�Y?' , "a 1 I •c e t ` -• • • 1 - e t i t a r 3.. egen,f� z Y a: Northwest District Boundary f A , °,Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites - t y r rVY y Riverfront Crossings BoundarP j Ir _Mw_ -4 I[[�1 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003) Introduction At the City Council's work session on September 4, staff received direction on specific policy questions from the City Council on the development of a city-wide transfer of development right ordinance for historic preservation. Since then, staff drafted an ordinance and presented it to both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the draft transfer of development rights ordinance at its meeting on October 18, staff completed some additional research and analysis. In addition to providing a summary of the draft ordinance, this memo outlines the recent research and analysis, which includes the following: • An analysis of potential sending sites and the estimated density and height transfer potential. • An updated map identifying potential receiving sites and several associated maps to help visualize the maximum height, density, and number of dwelling units allowed by the current zone district. This memo also outlines some remaining staff concerns related to the efficacy of the proposed ordinance. Summary of Draft Ordinance A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below: Eligible Sending Sites At the City Council's work session, the Council recommended that eligible sending sites only include future Iowa City historic landmarks. Based on feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission, staff expanded this to include the five properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks in Summer 2018, as well as contributing properties in future Iowa City historic districts. The HPC expressed concern that applying this only to future local historic landmarks could act as a disincentive to the creation of local historic districts. In addition, the properties designated in Summer 2018 came before the City Council around the same time as the proposed local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, which resulted in the development of the draft ordinance. Therefore, the draft ordinance outlines the following requirements for sending sites: • Sending sites must be zoned single-family residential, multi -family residential, or commercial. November 15, 2018 Page 2 • Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district after January 1, 2018. In addition, the draft ordinance includes language that states all historic buildings on the sending site must be preserved against deterioration and kept free from structural defects. If rehabilitation is necessary due to poor condition, this provision allows the staff design review committee to not recommend the approval of a transfer. In addition, if a transfer is approved, the applicant must agree to ensure the property will be preserved against decay and deterioration. Eligible Receiving Sites For the receiving sites, the City Council recommended that staff explore including properties in Riverfront Crossings and those that allow multi -family development. The draft ordinance identifies the following sites as eligible receiving sites: • Properties zoned Riverfront Crossings. This does not include all properties within the Riverfront Crossings district, only those properties rezoned to an RFC -XX designation; • Properties zoned Multi -family; and • Properties zoned Commercial that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use.' Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic districts or conservation districts, or designated in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 1] Transfer of Development Rights The City Council instructed staff to create a more limited transfer formula than that which currently exists in Riverfront Crossings. Council requested that staff use other city's formulas as a guide. Based on this input, the draft ordinance provides the option to allow a transfer request for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. The draft also allows transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, with the following limitations: • Height bonuses are restricted to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed per the base zone districts, and • For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, height bonuses are limited to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. The draft ordinance does not place any restrictions on the increase in density transferred. Any projects that receive either a height bonus or a density bonus must still comply with the other requirements in the zoning code, such as setbacks, parking, landscaping, etc. The draft ordinance outlines the following transfer formulas: 1. Height Bonus Option: • The difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark or district designation and the existing height of the historic structure. • In cases where the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. ' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria and standards. November 15, 2018 Page 3 2. Density Bonus Option: • The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark or district designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. Transfer Review Process During the Council work session, the Council expressed an interest in having all transfer requests be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The draft ordinance creates a process where the staff design review committee reviews transfer requests and provides a recommendation to the City Council for review and approval. Additional Research & Analysis Proposed Sending Sites Using the eligibility criteria outlined in the draft ordinance, staff conducted an analysis to estimate the transfer potential of future sending sites. Table 1 outlines the estimated transfer potential of sites that may be eligible as sending sites in the future .2 The analysis includes the following potential sending sites: • The five properties locally landmarked in Summer 2018, The contributing properties in the proposed downtown historic district outlined in the recently completed downtown survey, and • Sites eligible as local historic landmarks identified by the Historic Preservation Commission. Other local historic landmarks and districts may be contemplated in the future, but are not included in this estimate. Table 1. Estimated Transfer Potential of Eligible Sending Sites Potential Sending Sites Dwelling Units Height (Feet) Locally Landmarked in 2018 13 95 Potential Downtown District n/a 5,995 Potential Local Landmarks 138 370 Total 151 6,460 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Staff also put together several maps of the proposed eligible receiving sites to help the City Council visualize the heights and densities allowed by the current zone districts. • Attachment 2 outlines the maximum heights already allowed per the base zone district. A majority of the proposed eligible receiving sites have a maximum height of 35 feet. The downtown core, outlined in red, has no maximum height. • Attachment 3 outlines the maximum density (dwelling units / acre) already allowed per the base zone district. Sites zoned Riverfront Crossings and sites within the downtown core have no maximum density requirement. The other multi -family sites range between 16 and 100 dwelling units per acre. 2 Staff utilized Assessor and rental permit data to determine the number of existing dwelling units and the maximum allowable density per the existing zone district to determine the number of dwelling units that could be transferred. Staff estimated the height of buildings using Assessor photos and Google street views to determine the number of stories. Staff converted stories to feet by assuming 1 story = 10 feet. November 15, 2018 Page 4 • Staff took the maximum density and converted that to dwelling units. Attachment 4 outlines the maximum number of dwelling units already allowed on eligible receiving sites. Attachment 5 outlines the proposed eligible receiving sites that are either vacant or underutilized. In conducting this analysis, staff utilized assessor data to identify the vacant sites. Underutilized sites include any site with an improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the buildings on the sites are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more likely to be redeveloped. The map shows there are several sites, identified in red, that have redevelopment potential. Based on the current zoning, approximately 2,369 dwelling units could theoretically be accommodated by the vacant and underutilized sites. This estimate does not include any potential density bonuses. In addition, it also does not include the dwelling unit capacity of sites that have no maximum density (i.e. Riverfront Crossings & Downtown). Issues and Constraints In a staff memo to the City Manager dated August 19, staff outlined several issues and constraints related to a potential city-wide TDR ordinance. Since that time staff has listened to concerns and input and developed a draft ordinance that may help to preserve some of the city's historic resources. However, these issues remain and are worth re -iterating. • Market Potential: There was no market study completed for this project, so it is unknown whether a demand for a TDR program exists. Furthermore, staff is concerned that the complicated nature of TDR may make it infeasible, and at the very least daunting, for an owner of a single local historic landmark. Lack of Certainty in the Process: The process outlined in the draft ordinance requires review and approval by the City Council. Although this provides oversight and may help to address some concerns regarding potential negative impacts to existing neighborhoods, the proposed process lacks certainty. It lacks certainty not only for the developer looking to utilize credits, but also for the property owner of the proposed local historic landmark. • Other Bonus Mechanisms: Some of the more effective TDR programs throughout the country provide few or no other alternatives to achieving additional development potential. The City's zoning code outlines several bonus provisions for public benefits. With other bonus provisions to choose from, the effectiveness of the proposed TDR ordinance may be reduced. Historic Preservation Commission Review Lastly, staff presented the draft TDR ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission on October 11. Based on some concerns raised, staff also provided an update to the HPC on November 8. Below is a list of comments received from the Commission on November 8: • Concern regarding the effectiveness of the ordinance due to the number of other bonuses allowed by the City's zoning code. • Concern that the height and density bonuses could negatively impact existing neighborhoods. One Commissioner suggested reducing the height bonus allowed next to existing single-family from two stories, as is suggested in the draft ordinance, to one story. • Concern that limited stakeholder outreach was conducted as part of this proposed amendment, particularly to properties adjacent to potential receiving sites. November 15, 2018 Page 5 Timeline On May 29, the City Council deferred the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street for eight months to give staff time to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. The 8 -month deferral expires at the end of January 2019. The table below outlines the project schedule. Date Task June — August 2018 Research and analysis September 4, 2018 Presentation to Council on research; recommendation from Council to proceed or not proceed on ordinance drafting September— October 2018 Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Preservation Commission Review & Discussion October 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Discussion November 20, 2018 City Council (Public Hearing & 1St reading of ordinance December 4, 2018 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance December 18, 2018 City Council meeting if needed January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street Attachments: 1. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map 2. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Height 3. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Density 4. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Allowable Dwelling Units 5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Vacant & Underutilized Sites M=■ CITY OF IOWA CITY \] 0 x�`stttttyt¢b I` .�A. �I NQ16 i mmuuuu�m F r1l CITY OF IOWA CITY Ir _Mw_ -4 I[[�1 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 18, 2018 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003) Introduction At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. Since that meeting, staff prepared two memos to the City Manager regarding a potential ordinance [Attachments 1 and 2] and the City Council discussed the establishment of a city-wide TDR ordinance for historic preservation at two work sessions and directed staff to move forward with its development for Council's consideration. [Attachment 3] At the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on October 18, staff will present a draft TDR ordinance [Attachment 4] for the Commission's review and recommendation. This memo provides a background on TDR programs, summarizes the existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings, and outlines the draft ordinance. The draft is based on a September 4 work session discussion with the City Council. Background & Overview of TDR Programs Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the underlying zoning designation. Generally, TDR programs have the following components: • Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be transferred to another site. • Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as a healthy market demand for growth. • Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are calculated. October 12, 2018 Page 2 • Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred). Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures: • Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as a historically significant building per a survey • Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term • Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District • The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer • City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights • No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014. Proposed City-wide TDR Ordinance for Historic Preservation Based on the direction provided by the City Council, staff has developed a draft ordinance to apply city-wide. A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below. Eligible Sending Sites Staff proposes that eligible sending sites include properties eligible for Iowa City historic landmark designation. More specifically, a sending site must be designated as an Iowa City historic landmark after the adoption of the proposed city-wide ordinance in order to be eligible for the transfer incentive. Furthermore, properties already within existing Iowa City historic districts and conservation districts are not eligible to obtain Iowa City landmark status and benefit from the TDR incentive. Eligible Receiving Sites The eligible receiving sites proposed include the properties zoned Riverfront Crossings and zone districts that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use'. This includes all multi -family residential zone districts and several commercial zone districts. Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, Iowa City historic districts, and designated in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 5] ' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria and standards. October 12, 2018 Page 3 Transfer of Development Rights Staff proposes to consider transfer requests for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes to allow transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, but restrict any height bonus to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. Staff does not recommend any restrictions on the increase in density transferred. Staff proposes to calculate these transfers as follows: (1) Height Bonus Option: • Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure. In cases where the transfer is less than 12 feet, staff suggests including a provision that 12 feet may be transferred even if the difference is less than 12 feet. In many instances historic properties are residentially zoned, which typically have a maximum of 35 feet. Since historic buildings typically have higher ceilings a two-story historic building may not result in much of a height transfer. Therefore, staff suggests allowing a transfer of 12 feet, which will allow a minimum of at least one story to be transferred. (1) Density Bonus Option: • Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. Transfer Review Process Staff proposes that any request for a transfer be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval. Historic Preservation Commission Review On October 11, staff presented the proposed ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission voted to move the proposed ordinance forward in the process; however, they did outline some concerns and suggestions. Below is a list of their comments and staff's feedback. 1. The Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks. In 2018, the City Council approved Iowa City landmark designation status for the following properties: • David Boarts (Sylvanus Johnson) House, 412 N. Dubuque Street • George and Hellen Hummer House, 504 E. Bloomington Street • Parrott House, 1029 N. Dodge Street • Albert Henry Byfield House, 715 Park Road • Anton Geiger House, 213 E. Market Street The Commission felt that these recent designations should receive the incentive due to their very recent designation. The Commission also expressed concern that the proposed ordinance could deter downtown property owners from supporting a downtown district. October 12, 2018 Page 4 The Commission suggested considering allowing future Iowa City commercial historic districts, and potentially, future districts, in general, to be eligible for the incentive. Staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to the properties designated in 2018. In addition, staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to properties within future Iowa City historic districts to help incentivize the creation of local historic districts. Based on a conversation with the Historic Preservation Planner, at present there are a limited number of areas in the city that would be eligible for a local historic district. Lastly, to ensure consistency between the city-wide ordinance and the existing Riverfront Crossing's ordinance, staff also recommends amending the TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings to include Iowa City historic districts. 2. The Commission expressed some concern over the receiving sites and the potential impact of additional height and density in existing residential neighborhoods. One Commissioner expressed concern regarding the process and lack of confidence in the design review committee. The proposed ordinance suggests capping height bonus transfers at 40 feet beyond the maximum height of the receiving site. In addition, any request will need to be reviewed by the design review committee and City Council. However, to address the Commission's concerns staff recommends incorporating the following provisions that protect existing single-family neighborhoods: For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, limit the height to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 3. Lastly, the Commission requested that staff explore other incentives, such as property tax reductions. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The draft ordinance supports the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal and Strategy: Goal: Continue to protect our community's historical, environmental, and aesthetic assets. Strategy: Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas and historic features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve as assets and/or amenities for adjacent development. The City's Historic Preservation Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft ordinance supports the following historic preservation goals: Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures. Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. October 12, 2018 Page 5 Attachments: 1. July 18, 2018 Memo to eoff Fruin, City Manager 2. August 29, 2018 Me to f Fruin, Cit Manager 3. Staff presentation to t n "Manager 4, 2018 4. Draft Ordinance 5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services r ��,.,_.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY ]MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 1. Date: July 18, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Update on Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation Introduction At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. This memo provides an overview of TDR, outlines the City's existing TDR policy in the Riverfront Crossings District, and highlights some issues that staff will need to further analyze before moving forward with a city-wide TDR ordinance. Background & Overview of TDR Programs Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the underlying zoning designation. Generally, TDR programs have the following components: • Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be transferred to another site. • Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as a healthy market demand for growth. • Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are calculated and consider the following: 1) is there a market for these transfers; 2) can the infrastructure in the receiving area handle the additional development; 3) does the comprehensive plan support the additional development in the receiving area. • Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred). October 12, 2018 Page 2 Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures: • Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as a historically significant building per a survey • Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term • Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District • The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer • City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights even when the resulting height bonus does not exceed two stories • No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014. Potential Receiving Areas for a City-wide Historic Preservation TDR Program At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council seemed interested in identifying potential receiving areas for a city-wide ordinance. The table below outlines some potential options for receiving areas, as well as some pros and cons. Potential Receiving Area Pros Cons Riverfront Crossings - Master Plan & form- - Current allowable based code densities and encourage higher intensities combined densities and with height bonus intensities provisions are - Current receiving area generous for the form -based code TDR program for historic preservation, public right-of-way, and open space transfers Downtown - Core of the city with - Receiving properties access to amenities, in the downtown may services, and be limited due to the transportation options results of the downtown historic building survey that is underway South Johnson Street and - Area already zoned - Smaller geographic South Van Buren Street for higher density area that may not be between Court Street & housing able to accommodate Railroad October 12, 2018 Page 3 Next Steps & Conclusion Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide ordinance. Specifically, staff will: - Conduct best practice research - Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs - Further analyze potential receiving areas - Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of potential transfers The proposed timeline for the project is as follows: Date - Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment of this area the demand of a city - wide ordinance Land designated for multi -unit - Areas are already - Potential concern development zoned for higher from neighboring not proceed on ordinance drafting density housing property owners October 11, 2018 - More scattered Discussion approach that would Planning & Zoning Commission Review & not concentrate November 1, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & transfers in one area Recommendation Any combination of the above City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance) December 4, 2019 areas ordinance) Next Steps & Conclusion Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide ordinance. Specifically, staff will: - Conduct best practice research - Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs - Further analyze potential receiving areas - Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of potential transfers The proposed timeline for the project is as follows: Date Task June — August 2018 Research and analysis September 4, 2018 Presentation to Council on research; recommendation from Council to proceed or not proceed on ordinance drafting September— October 2018 Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Preservation Commission Review & Discussion October 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Discussion November 1, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Recommendation November 20, 2018 City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance) December 4, 2019 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance) January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street 1� r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 2. Date: August 29, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Update on Research and Policy Questions regarding Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation Introduction At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation until the end of January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. At the August 7 work session, the City Council discussed the July 18 memo to the City Manager, which provided an overview of TDR, summarized the City's existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings, and outlined potential receiving areas. At the work session, the Mayor expressed interest in South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets from Court Street to the railroad tracks being a receiving area if an urban design plan existed for the area. This memo provides an update on staff's research and analysis and outlines specific policy questions for the City Council. In order to meet the January 2019 deadline, staff needs direction from the City Council on the following: the formula for calculating the transfer of development rights, the priority of preserving historic resources compared to bonus provisions currently offered for other public benefits, the process for the review and approval of development transfers, and areas to further pursue as receiving sites. In general, staff recommends a program that is fair, legally -sound, easy to administer, and simple to understand. Additionally, staff wants an effective program that preserves historic resources while not compromising the ability to achieve other important comprehensive plan goals. Overview of Research & Analysis Sending Areas Staff conducted an analysis of possible sending areas in order to estimate the potential for development transfers. Staff estimated the amount of development that could be transferred through a city-wide TDR program by applying the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula'. Furthermore, the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions require that prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as a local landmark. Therefore, in this analysis staff applied the transfer formula to existing landmarks (see Table 1). 'The formula for calculating the transfer in Riverfront Crossings is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer October 5, 2018 Page 2 IdWIV 1. 0U111111dFY Ur IfdllblUt rUtUlltldl UY LUUdl d11U 1MMnr-L1b1UU Ld11U111dfK5 Sending Sites I Development Transfer Potentia12 Local Landmarks Only 4,367,0683 Local Landmarks & National Register of 5,368,9974 Historic Places -Listed Landmarks) The analysis conducted only looks at existing local and national landmarks. There are several other buildings that are eligible for local landmark designation and the Historic Preservation Commission has been proactively identifying sites to locally landmark. The City is also in the midst of a survey of downtown historic properties. Several properties in the downtown are eligible for local landmark designation. As more properties are landmarked the transfer potential will continue to increase. Staff reviewed several other TDR programs. Of the programs reviewed, none applied only to future landmark designations. In other words, existing and future landmarks qualified as sending sites. However, some cities required rehabilitation of the historic structure prior to becoming eligible as a sending site. Receiving Areas The areas identified by staff as potential receiving areas include: • Riverfront Crossings, • Downtown, • South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the Railroad, and • Land Designated for Multi -Unit Development throughout the city. Using these areas, staff conducted an analysis to determine the amount of existing development potential (see Table 2). For the analysis, staff identified vacant and underutilized sites within the potential receiving areas. The following areas were removed from the analysis: land within the 500 -year and 100 -year floodplains, local historic landmarks, local historic districts, conservation districts, and publicly zoned land. In addition, several historic properties in the downtown were removed from the analysis. For a more detailed outlined of the methodology, please refer to Attachment 1. Table 2. Summary of Development Potential for Receiving Areas Potential Receiving Areas Development Potential Development Potential (square feet) (dwelling units) Riverfront Crossings 2,522,3135 - Downtown 242,4716 - South Johnson Street & South - - Van Buren Street between Court Street and the Railroad? Citywide Land Designated for 5,389,5258 845 Multi -unit Development Total 8,154,3099 84510 2 Staff used the square footage of the RISE, which is 363,268 sq ft (excluding the lower levels), as a gauge. 3 Approximately equivalent to 12 RISE buildings. 4 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings. 5 Approximately equivalent to 7 RISE buildings. 6 Approximately equivalent to 0.67 RISE buildings. None of the properties met staff's criteria for underutilized. 8 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings. 9 Approximately equivalent to 22 RISE buildings. 10 The residential portion of the RISE includes 332 dwelling units. October 5, 2018 Page 3 Accommodating the potential development transfers depends on a number of factors, including the eligible sending and eligible receiving sites. Another option to consider that could also help preserve historic structures is a parking reduction. Instead of transferring development rights, the receiving site could purchase the right to receive a parking reduction. Staff has not explored this thoroughly. More research is required to better understand the viability of this option. Other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs Staff also reviewed other local jurisdictions' TDR programs across the country that focus on preserving historic resources. For a more detailed overview of other programs, please refer to Attachment 2. Transfer Formulas There are different ways to approach calculating the transfer rights from a sending site to a receiving site. Several cities consider the existing development on the sending site. More specifically, these cities calculate the transfer by taking the maximum development potential of the sending site less the existing development on the sending site. To provide an incentive, many cities also allow development to exceed the maximum allowable density/intensity on the receiving site. Table 3 outlines some examples. Table 3. Example Transfer Formulas Local Jurisdiction Transfer Formula Chico, CA (Max density of the sending zone X Acreage of sending site) Less (Existing and proposed Number of dwelling units on the sending site) *Receiving site bonus above that allowed by comprehensive plan Minneapolis, MN (Max allowable floor area of the sending site) Less (Floor area of existing development on sending site) *Receiving site bonus of 30% above max allowable floor area Pittsburgh, PA (Max allowable development) Less (Existing amount of development) *Receiving site density bonus of between 20% and 200% Providence, RI (Max allowable height) Less (Height of historic landmark) *Receiving site bonus height of 1.6 times the max height or 300 ft, whichever is less. Vancouver, WA (Max allowable floor area of the sending site) Less (Existing floor area of the sending site) *Receiving site development must not pose hazard to low-flying aircraft. West Hollywood, CA Residential: (Max allowable dwelling units) Less (Existing number of dwelling units) Commercial: (Max allowable floor area) Less (Existing floor area) *Receiving site FAR bonus allowed through Planning Commission review and approval. West Palm Beach, FL (Lot area X Max allowable floors) Less (Floor area of existing structure) *Receiving site height bonus. Compared with these other local jurisdictions, the City's current transfer formula in Riverfront Crossings is very generous. Unlike the examples above, the formula in Riverfront Crossings does not take into consideration the existing development on the sending site. In establishing the October 5, 2018 Page 4 transfer formula for Riverfront Crossings, staff anticipated a significant amount of redevelopment pressure, and therefore, intentionally recommended a generous transfer formula in order to incentivize the preservation of historic resources. Approval Process for Transfers TDR programs also vary in how the sending and receiving of transfers are reviewed and approved. Many jurisdictions have a process that requires review by either the City Council or a board or commission. Table 4 provides some examples of how other local jurisdictions review and approve transfers. Table 4. Examples of TDR Processes Local Jurisdiction TDR Approval Process Chico, CA Non -administrative: City Council approval required Minneapolis, MN Administrative: Review and approval by Minneapolis, MN Planning Director Pittsburgh, PA Non -administrative: Historic Preservation Pittsburgh, PA Commission approval required Providence, RI Non -administrative: Downtown Design Review Committee approval required Vancouver, WA Non -administrative: City Council approval required West Hollywood, CA Non -administrative: Cultural Heritage Advisory Board reviews and approves rehabilitation plan West Palm Beach, FL Non -administrative: Downtown Advisory Committee review and approval required The City's existing TDR provisions require that the City Council review and approve any transfer of development rights request. Although several of the example jurisdictions above include the equivalent of the Historic Preservation Commission in the review, some also require review and approval by the City Council. Only one jurisdiction, Minneapolis, MN, reviews and approves transfers administratively. Administration & Tracking Staff also looked at how other local jurisdictions administer and track TDR programs. Table 5 outlines some examples from other jurisdictions. Table 5. Examples of TDR Administration &Trackin Local Jurisdiction Tracking Mechanism Chico, CA Documented in adoption of Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development or executed through a Development Agreement. Minneapolis, MN Recorded with the County as a conservation easement or similar restriction. Pittsburgh, PA Legal document signed by sending and receiving site property owners and approved by the City Attorney. Document outlines reduction in development rights on sending site and increase on the receiving site. Providence, RI Owners of sending and receiving sites execute a deed or other agreement to be recorded with the title to both sites. West Hollywood, CA City staff maintains a list of eligible sending sites to assist potential receiving site developers. October 5, 2018 Page 5 West Palm Beach, FL City staff maintains a registry of development rights available and transfers. Execution of City -approved restrictive covenant that outlines transfer. Covenant recorded against the sending and receiving sites and added to City registry. There are a variety of methods that other jurisdictions employ to administer and track TDR programs, some are more complex than others. The Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions do not outline a method for tracking transfers. Currently, planning staff maintains a spreadsheet of approved transfers and the applicable sending and receiving sites. More formal tracking mechanisms should be contemplated in a city-wide TDR program and developed in coordination with the City Attorney's Office. Receiving Areas Table 6 outlines other jurisdictions' receiving areas. Table 6. Receiving Areas Local Jurisdiction Receiving Areas Chico, CA Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed receiving site can accommodate the additional development. Minneapolis, MN Sites within the downtown that are not a designated historic structure or eligible for designation. Pittsburgh, PA Focused in the downtown. Providence, RI None specified, but program is focused in the downtown. Vancouver, WA Sites with the same zoning district as sending site. West Hollywood, CA Medium and high-density commercial zones. Do not allow transfers into residential zones. West Palm Beach, FL Specific sites identified in the downtown. Issues / Constraints Several cities across the country have adopted TDR programs to preserve historic resources and some are more effective than others. There are variety of factors that could impact the success of program, which are outlined below. Market Potential At this time staff does not have a market study that examines the market potential for a city-wide TDR program and completing a market analysis within the timeframe required is not feasible. Therefore, it is unclear whether a demand for such a program exists. Lack of Certainty in the Process Another factor that could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program is how transfers are reviewed and approved. Programs that allow by -right transfers that are reviewed and approved administratively provide more certainty for developers. Programs that require a discretionary, public process provide less certainty and more risk to developers. Other Bonus Mechanisms Some of the more effective TDR programs provide few or no other alternatives to achieving additional development potential. If other mechanisms exist to developers to achieve more development potential it could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program. Some examples that the City currently offers in Riverfront Crossings include bonuses for public art, Class A office space, affordable housing, and energy and environmental stewardship. October 5, 2018 Page 6 Policy Questions for Council The most fundamental question for City Council is whether they wish to continue to pursue a city- wide TDR program to preserve historic resources. If the City Council would like staff to continue to pursue a city-wide program, staff needs direction on the following policy questions: 1. Should eligible sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only future local historic landmarks? The City has 52 local historic landmarks and the Historic Preservation Commission is working to identify and designate more local landmarks. In addition, the downtown includes a number of properties that are eligible for local landmark designation. Some options include: a) Eligible sending sites include existing and future local historic landmarks • Pros: Fair Consistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions • Cons: i. Depending on the transfer formula and the identified receiving sites the city may not have enough capacity to receive all of the potential transfers. b) Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks • Pros: i. May be easier to accommodate the transfer potential Cons: i. Inconsistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions 2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula that is outlined in the Riverfront Crossings form based code or a new formula? The transfer formula adopted in Riverfront Crossings was intentionally generous to incentivize preservation in an area anticipated to be redeveloped. The formula does not take into consideration existing development on the sending site; and therefore, results in higher transfer potential. Using the same formula for a city-wide program provides consistency and clarity between the two programs. It would also make administration and tracking of the program easier. However, depending on the receiving sites identified there may be an issue with the capacity available for development on the receiving sites. Some options include: a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula. • Pros: i. More generous, could provide more of an incentive to developers ii. Consistency in administration, application, and simpler to understand • Cons: i. More generous, may not be able to accommodate the amount of potential transfers b) Establish a new transfer formula that considers the existing development on the sending site. • Pros: i. May be able to accommodate the potential transfers with a less generous formula • Cons: i. More complex and more difficult to administer October 5, 2018 Page 7 ii. May want to revisit the Riverfront Crossings transfer formula to ensure consistency, which would require more time 3. The City already gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with development projects. Should preservation of historic resources be treated in a similar manner or given a higher priority? Several other programs across the country provide an incentive to transfer development rights by allowing a density or intensity bonus on the receiving site. This comes in many forms: height increases, additional floor area, and additional dwelling units. The City's zoning ordinance currently includes several bonus provisions. In the central business district zones (i.e. CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10) bonuses are reviewed and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public benefits: • Masonry finish; • Provision of a theater; • Funds for street furniture, lighting, and landscaping within the public right-of-way; • Open space; • Adaptive reuse of certain historic properties; • Provision of off-street loading areas that meet specific requirements; and • Provision of class A office space." In the planned high density multi -family residential zone (PRM) bonuses are reviewed and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public benefits: • Materials, specifically masonry finish; • Open Space; • Rehabilitation of a historically significant building; • Assisted housing; • Streetscape amenities; • Landscaping; and • Installation of window units that have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater than the width. 12 In addition to the bonuses offered for transferring development rights, height bonuses may be requested in Riverfront Crossings for several public benefits. Requests to exceed the base height by two stories are reviewed and approved administratively. Requests to exceed the base height by more than two stories are reviewed and approved by the City Council. Bonuses are reviewed for the following public benefits: • Class A office space; • Public art; • Energy efficiency and environmental steward through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or a similar program; • Student housing; • Hotel space; • Workforce or affordable housing; and • Elder housing. 13 Some options include: a) Model a city-wide TDR program on the current bonus provisions offered in the central business district zones, planned high density multi -family residential zones, and Riverfront Crossings. 11 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2C-8. 12 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-213-7. 13 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2G-7. October 5, 2018 Page 8 Pros: i. Simpler and easier to administer Cons: i. Bonuses for multiple public benefits may dilute the effectiveness of preserving historic structures b) Allow transfers for historic properties to exceed the City's current bonus provisions (e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity). • Pros: i. Offering more of a bonus may be more of an incentive to preserve historic resources over bonuses offered for other public benefits • Cons: Community concerns with additional density/intensity and height An analysis of the potential impact of an additional bonus would take time to evaluate 4. What type of process should be established for the review and approval of sending and receiving transfer of development rights? The City's existing TDR provisions require review and approval by the City Council when a transfer of development rights is proposed. In staff's review of other TDR programs several require a non -administrative review and approval; however, some jurisdictions review and approve development transfers administratively in order to streamline the process and provide some certainty. Some options include: a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings review and approval procedure by City Council. • Pros: i. Simpler and consistent with current process Cons: i. Lack of certainty in the approval process b) Establish a new procedure that allows transfers up to a certain height or density/intensity to be reviewed and approved administratively. This could be similar the City's existing central business district bonus provisions or certain Riverfront Crossings' bonus provisions, which are reviewed and approved administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified threshold would be reviewed and approved by the City Council. • Pros: i. Streamlines the review and approval of transfers ii. Allows the City Council to review and approve larger transfers that would potentially have more of an impact • Cons: i. Not consistent with current process 5. What areas should a city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving areas? Staff has proposed a few options for potential receiving sites: • Riverfront Crossings, • Downtown, • South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the railroad tracks, and • Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development. Based on the analysis staff conducted there is limited development potential in the downtown due to the number of historic structures. There is also limited potential for October 5, 2018 Page 9 redevelopment along South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets since none of the sites in this area met the threshold needed to be identified as vacant or underutilized. Furthermore, the Mayor expressed interest in this area as a receiving site only if accompanied by an urban design plan. Staff could explore the development of an urban design plan for this area, but completing a plan by the January 2019 is not feasible. The most capacity exists on multi -unit zoned parcels city-wide. Riverfront Crossings also has capacity, if the area is rezoned to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. Some options include: a) Riverfront Crossings, and/or • Pros: i. Current receiving area ii. Master Plan and form -based code encourage higher densities/intensities • Cons: i. May not be able to accommodate the amount of transfer potential for a city-wide program b) Downtown, and/or • Pros: i. Core of the community with existing infrastructure ii. Commercial zoning allows for higher densities/intensities • Cons: i. Significant amount of historic buildings; and therefore, not able to accommodate much transfer potential c) South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the railroad tracks, and/or • Pros: i. Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment ii. Zoned for higher density housing • Cons: i. May require the development of an urban design plan, which would take time ii. May not be able to accommodate much transfer potential d) Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development, and/or • Pros: i. Provides the most capacity for transfers • Cons: i. Could potentially be more impactful and cause concern from neighbors ii. Areas with sensitive features (e.g. wetlands, slopes, woodlands) require a sensitive areas development plan which often leads to clustering. Transfers to these areas could result in even higher densities. e) Other sites or areas Next Steps & Conclusion In terms of next steps, staff will prepare a presentation for the September 4, 2018 City Council work session. In addition to the tasks outlined in the timeline below, staff will need to conduct some public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders. Date Task June —August 2018 1 Research and analysis October 5, 2018 Page 10 September 4, 2018 Presentation to Council on research; recommendation from Council to proceed or not proceed on ordinance drafting September— October 2018 Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Preservation Commission Review & Discussion October 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Discussion November 1, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Recommendation November 20, 2018 City Council (1St reading of ordinance) December 4, 2019 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street Attachments: 1. Methodology for vacant and underutilized sites 2. Overview of other local jurisdictions' TDR programs ATTACHMENT 1. Methodology for Vacant & Underutilized Sites Analysis Potential Receiving Areas: a. Riverfront Crossings' b. Downtown c. South Johnson & South Van Buren Streets between Court Street & the Railroad d. Land zoned for multi -unit development, including commercial zones that allow multi -family (city-wide) 2. Removed the following from the potential receiving areas: a. Land within the 100 & 500 -year floodplain b. Local Historic Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts c. Historic properties within the downtown d. Publicly zoned parcels and other parcels that do not allow multi -unit development 3. Vacant & underutilized sites analysis: a. Used Assessor data to identify vacant sites b. Underutilized sites include the following: i. Improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the buildings on the site are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more likely to be redeveloped c. Staff also referred to the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and the areas identified for potential redevelopment d. Additional sites were included based on staff's knowledge of potential future developments 4. Calculated development potential of vacant & underutilized sites: a. Commercially -zoned properties: Floor area ratio (FAR) i. FAR converted to square footage by multiplying the maximum height by the lot area b. Residentially -zoned properties: Density (dwelling units / acre) i. Density converted to maximum allowable dwelling units c. Applied 80% discount factor assuming that maximum allowable density/intensity will not be achieved 1 Staff assumed rezoning of all properties to Riverfront Crossings Eli ibili Mecbanics 6q $entlin ReceiNn Base Unit Glculation Metbotl Atlministration TrxkinRprowl Steps Notes econdRd in Me office of Me county Appl can[lb!o ssemdimg sM1el Mui be e ther res tlental send ng M d, etlf Tult fart ly 3d fferent kmn wfi M1 M1 p pert, slocated re bb f ear dreg 3 fd by p cel su to ble Nr d .uses development factors Property own b PPI.. f s pe M1 3 n property gM1, approved I:C YC9 nn9 bodY)��M1PJIIb P p. 486666 S 1&28 023 f: 9 properly P detlh dntal may be[rzn3erred Owedpment potental of the3temnus Me d—gna on as d gl ng 3 pdbR b, f useof Property d f ng dtes ry- d-M6N tlantalc Atlanta, GA tlesg td labl—. buld�le or ese_dhdel mponent represents at I— _df Ne p,, mu show Floor area rata total landmark­­gdeveopr ,t approval of tran3ers Appb-by Cty, Klfv[ hp I pmxmTy of one anotM1er ajdnt app can be sibmRted ppoprate for tlev and Nat Me —1-b of oN nanceslrwtleld�Tlll GOORANOECO PT18Z0 CR28GEGUR buldgdr-by lbe Atlente F63onc Pres bbn Omens flRure use of Ne property meths reqs asolR linetl in Ne code open space, and seableo pen space econdl by Bureau of Ranning Bureau of Ranning has asy3em for nM1 M1i onngsveronce, owners p' assignmenS and [ran3er ofdw dgM1[s ran3erw 'cruse adverse evronmental/economidmcial impact, peva perm[ atlmini3ers as rf a wed. — E_51&2862 —DER 5 oma Ily e'giblg in similahy applicant mu3 make ing Ne dlM1y f ppo ces Pp86666-CM1apter 1634 Ne ppl for TOR M1 ner(s) d f ren d—, f., (((#of OUlGross Acre) II wetl nsenting Rolletl dN PUOIOwelopmen[Pgreement Ooesnr appear to be a TOR bank entq same process they use for PUOs of f II g k a-, CA t M1 h--lfll-b TOR conservators program IRlinetl by the Gly M1 d f M1 rete g be E—ftblly the onusis on the applicant N do the legubrk of Dwelling Unit mne)'(sendng rtes erg]) (­­gand pbldde#of OU on sending ate) prod The TOR srecondl—, Ne specffc PUOIOevelopment Agreement specrfc Rd, and Development Agroerment htp— hco dau3 tldocu P governmen ment1te16u ptlaterptlf determining eligibility, Nen hty get,th passjudgment Eligibleff 1)Nehistd propertyis ., anurban M1isNdcdi3dq 2) the hisNdc property is a Property owner mu3 —L to the Planning OireRor indra0ng the b g Kure Istetl n the N IReg erof FSNrc Places Off De gfl f PI gd Ron appmves fore for send ng d g M1 g d M1 fd p gh o P p 1 3 II M1 p 1 II ryM1 Il comldepartment3sus Glias, TX rf etl Ne— End Locatetl n[M Cental Area G4 t.A­cts Floor Ara lad kb 1d g d M1 fFl d gsRes and amt to be Appf an[ f les fore vnth county deetl be 3 etl- M1 k.f t bletl e'opmentlOCR 26tlocu_nt _ H O and 3)the ffsNdcpropertyhasbeen 1(A)aM alb etl by g f senting sRg tansfe sone-reone n3ertetl; county deetl recoNer recoNs form recoNer prance wM1en ret g R e developerroquestsabulld ng 3pdflb IdinglOevelopmentProg,b-ppll neM1ab'ed the last 5 yrs and the perm[ for a project using dw rights, Ne a ,.nofwlin thbal e of Me reh.b exceetls 56% of Me pmpert,'s perehab ,alu econd. tran—,ng form is cM1ecketl and building pernft is issued n oerde,N the d gi bb for TOR, the psu tng use of the'N the reg ulatetl roperty [sending bt ]moa be Ina N "Offfloor be Appu cant sibmts 3[e plan for proposetl sending sde Indkafing amt - that.— be advance goals, obiect—e pot f the Redevelopment areasand M1dg M1t ¢e area and resdental unit can nfermang. at the rate of2666 square feet Appf irons b ed Cry.Loal Appl ca p etl ser remnng of aaomodatetl M1 d gste sretuned Pp.61666 s 4626 f: Delray BeacM1, CorpreM1en3ve PI M1 ugM1_ (a)Prese on fff ovetlaY inner fa retlevel opment OA,a of ff Fl Da' g eq e —.1 d dl g A f­ Plann ng Ag,ry d s appropr erten f d g drecev ng reque3 d Nevalue of the (ppl d g Co tyF 1.. Op sp e, M1 p Jll b ry tl- N/tl l y b d mtl tlevelopment regulators FL 3Tctures &sten (b)Ob ning & are a the developmen[proposetl farther[3[e mu3compyvnth the Un or FloorArea Unfts I'll off d f d 3tes and cer[f M1 Gry mreretld Ip gM1t Certfcate of Gve'op en[RIgM1t sssuetl. approvetl by G Z n g b ? s d Id CH4ZORE ART46SUOIRE d and for pubic fal -(c) Preservat on of de3gnatetl retlevelopmen[plan farther[area off y y p M1 appfcaton of theCer[f eta a—,ver Commson-G rtrf cafe approvetl by Attorney. Ory Att ey. mayalm neetl to be etl,f processed smcurremtiv):o 84626TROERI To date no TOR appl catonshavebeen sibm tted. as;(d)Myfime w avoluntary ac0on ubuM aide in fulfilling a poli"objeRive of the Gd,,hen3ve Plan" pro W, ehF ate whdh3 tesvalue of ttan3erretl dgM1[s, wM1icM1 can De mldttran3eretl to receiving ble Any land w dgnifrant aroM1aeolog al li3oral or "determined as capable of acceptng dw rightsbasetl onthe GnsM1y (u nits per AsmucM1 as the maxmum posble denary TOR CeI,fi— Resnds both sending d ­ng neously- GesnYappearre beer TOR bank en[M1y- Ce f ppl ns cviewetl by Pop-]5,666- sxtion 4 l of following link Largq FL onmental sgnffance OR ccoNingN aretlevelopmen[plan Comp Ran and the Ocve'opment Code Amount limM1etl by sRes acre)orintensM1y (FAR) n.nary of senting sRe Co providetl in applkato asdetermined by Cty The cer[fate gels recoNetl wRM1 the Gcunry-Planting Gommssan M1ttpslNwrv�Jaryo comldocumen[centerl Permi-2—DRanni nglPlanbinglCO appm— by R anning Cdmmdd.n m nicipal service capa,,q Gormison- CJPdo ptetl_26 _CDC-ptlf Retl p Ag­Gry Planning --llopment Ag" must C.1— M.her an app for TFAR II6 d thry Pop. 4 63 million A-le 4 5. httld llibnary am1e 1com/n gatevray dll IGalifomiallapLmunicipakodechapte,pl g d g Ihaptergenenalprovi hb Floo A Ra 3.1 - - Co IAOyG and Mayor nsfyes pp pp. City Plann ng g d gl 1e15tan3 dffloonar Los Ange'es, yp c Dl ,,tn the Cental B Os[rc[Retlwe'opment yp the Cental Bu3ness Os[rc[Retlwe'opment ped gars Basetl on floor arear 31 fit depend ng on [M1e Biba ea n wdcM1 the sR s II d d Ily d whether an applcatonfo TFAR (Tran3er of Floor Fletl vnth GTy Clerk Co IAOyGcuncl & e gM1 c[r2flernplates$fn�efaulLM1[m$86$vi 04 ProjeciAra Project Ara thesu the subarea n w1icM1 me srte is roared locatetl Ara Rlgddnd all sn—t,a Commis ublL, hea,ng proves[ron3er following public M1eadng- m-1 repattli s process- oireemr�ssues a reporcm amssbn re meridingapprovall approvalw oT condM1ion3 disapproval of req for Trani tl�mlegal ser ca$anc, day A4-5 "Oevelopersa,,uiretlN payer Public Ba'idtt Payment on V—ensin otherth fund pubis open space, affordable housing, cultumllpublic facLI,, hi3odc pmsemphd=rvation and public tansporta0on its' "R,ceving pane's must mea all three of Me Mlb gmt,da 1> Ded Tad nal ed bas f ba f a ry of me H d mu3 be , N gM1b°M1 dRedental or Md ed U R, d nt aV sedgy y gd Iing F e I d Plan, ng dep pp MR,f L dRak by M1 TOR, o, prepaty fee aryl TDR Own fq IAygadng Stemu3 b by t t yl d kl etl M1 Greenpdnt and reg etl Cn erc al on Future Land Use Map, a p g d M1 b d ry M1 Il be M1 f M1 I d,,- by M1 dg sad f L d R kR M1 Fl d g , a gseg corpH dap f d -1-a, app pant etl ff pp oMe planst d Re Pp.4000 A-1,111 : M1 p Jll b ry_ d_ omlgalmadmn Madimn, GN Landmark by Me M d H c 2) WIn M, "Ii gM1,r densry OensM1y 9 h ° f M1 Ing d,.,. F .,n d TDR M1 b TORS I p M1 by , 'ry Y OMa orb Bank Bemed eqable by Me Bank RoaN Nppt f p _ ­,ng own„ mu3 pplyd p M1etl k ppt for /,.­ code of ord es2n°d,ld FTII Presavat on Com _ (Mer port ons of Me W WasM1 ngMn r etl gd b d ry g s[e er_ Mayor and c bath recervng and senting ecoNetl yrand counclr pbl COOR—RD GH54PLDE_NRFIIITRDERI 5 °n R3orcal se'id g apply M Me TDR pregam a,wel) Gatevray, and 3)1, 2000 R of a nbgh-h- sM1 11 be talc —'ng atf Rs pe,aca Th, d ran rvng sRe at pubt m -ng ,nth Me Cou my Cour[ TORG ffi at�meetng_Up°n apprval,plandng 54TROERIPR r, w/in 1500R ofa n,,h b°rh°°d park and wlin 1500 R of an arterial sta3 or state M1i M1we '• aof aparcel —fact°nal acre�,vnll be oundetl downMMe 1,— ll4 acre" R Rk e,.,d. In Me TOR Regi3er_ dept record, Me tan,nt3er_ AdministativeJcve reviery of TDR Po p_ 415,000_ Sl,k,i llydesg,ed M, L M1 I allydesgnated or Igbl R 3mctures Do Y ally I,— an e I,,t M1 M1 [sa (M GFA I,—— by ,d,ng s f Appl cat°n f TDR b etl If abbb— ecoNetl M1 M1 G ry M1e form of ppl by PI n g 0 _ Oe fappeald H R _ Can tan—t. up M four dff g f d g Mlnn_ddl,, MN vnttin ` g ff d s,a,d,t„m sed by sR R sp f tltl nMwne GFA m) (GFN gtl p a=tl g )M1 g ppm e3consen att la, 3o a p bl M1 ry specfyng Dd—appear t,ea TOR bank,ntq Th, ce11—g-­d­ wfh Me G°unry_ M1 gM1 PBZ sM1 B Id g pe g edf g - L k - M1 p IIIb ry_ cotl _ M1 G y, Ha tag,Praservaton Commsoa d d M1 R ,n,g 0 or approves of[M1e tansfer M30h above lsmn m -mum allowable GFA tof floor ar�tansferetl and nvolvetl pane's untl senting stesR c3mcNre M1as been r,hab and appreved by=MI_IIT20Z000 HPC p°I sl descode of_ Nnances_nodetl CH540DOD1_N RFIIITRDERI 5492700E P R tw d 9 etl R gd H uric d d T five sped m Fl ra�allowetl by Mebaa= a of sending s[, record, an easement Mat perp lyp l d tld development M1 _tl P Y puaM1aa=or betl .d gM1 (f etl Cn ney f d g gM1 p ° g M1 M1 getl by Ownersof sending,be and rving v[es mu3 apply for tan-, fd IdgM1 M1 M1 pl gd p_R gd p_I, 1° M1 g f pp I_TDRs Pop 800000 NasM1ville, TN Landrk03r3 (Ila g tetl In 200] wRM1 Me Downtown Cn mmunily Ban Update) d M1dwnMwn as ery ng v[es FI°°rNr� mg Mefl°°rarea of Melandmark bu Id ng by CNoS on paf oras pr, -,eros orgright, an onlybe t °n donateiJ Planning dept retrive, app and appave, it a betl pl gap M1 approval Men remrdetl n Me off ce of Me register of deetls Ib_ trete, ng prepaty only ce Merig M1Lsarendt-I'wli0ng t sgn,d by owner of -—Ing v[b th. Is -ml ttetl to Me DI annInd de t M1ttpsllwm�nasM1vllegovlmclord ,antes perm 2003 200]Ib1200] 1358 M1[m — — — New Qleans, "place; buildingsor3mcNresln ( cennal eusn,s; o13de y (CRO)mne Mat are"" d g etl R d ks prepeh—n GR0.1, GR02or ceD2Rm ,,,b, preperties In CR09mne can receive acv gM1 3 ed from Me CROS p je dcM1 ncorp°rate dff be M1e maimum Floor ar alb ed by M1 g code, v hd't baso Nppl ns are approved ordedetl byM1 PI g G°mmssan followng pbl f Is[ran3a appfcan[s mu3 fie vnM M1Gyb°M an n—menti 3 d a,ofbothm,,ndln ana 9 ' g wbmtan ppl ti p Pp. 3910005ect°n 160 of /orme, d g n effe3. M1 p Jl Z g ICty LA g zetl ft gape R dy M1,tcapp—al,MnvaN TDR y eed by l0%M, FI°°rNr� de ry nd Meal flo°,are f M1 g If pprevetl recommend f MMe Qly Go I- ce of ra3r Sons on Me d g M1 M1 deeds of bath Me senting and re, kng gM1 M1 d g d d ry M1 g pl gl 1f comp,hensys - h, n the ownetl by by gbhn_M1 d ry dart °n to Me ei 3ng bu king to be prea=rvetl Cn and l may appreve, m°drfy, or deny_ s g M1 gM1 p bl M1 g f m g d tt,man,wo,l,an, la- Me GTy, State, or Fedeal Government densry nc,�a=s all°— nMe receiving sRe by baseline sing Plana ng G°mss°n and GTy G°unci m ng hm n, 20,20141 Located Incertaindi 1, Nota M1i3odc sRe Locatetl>=150R f a Application for"major NRR review of M1 (.,Msec— Pop_ 0],000_ Gly G°d, 3ataa'7M1, hty TM1ey desgnate certdn bu kings (H C eg ryl or 2). TOR ally nedpapem ( p MU or OPO,)_ OM1 pl e9 d gs[es F H Rehab m g _ Ib th 1° fl by 2500 `A fee 25%f lag bg F ons under the, Fl o,NaaBdn°, p S owns of appreved R3odc F.A.B. 3 [ t emrdedd sg ed by Me ttan,r„or Van f desgnedto p 1 p,.,- fletl Id gli 3orc reab pl perf nt of d,v tight, does notgoaant-th II 1° M f M1 wll be off Ig bile M1TOR,. Pal° A t., CA g . p, apps -d e R M1 d p k'g FI°°, Arm gb wflM1 vn M1 M1 g R d M1 p a en er no an b d ated pl-d-tve covenant and ”" mn ,nth Me I d a 3 ry M Me c ry pl ed be sf etl d r CM1 p 10.10 f II g l k: pp l M1sfd,fc d _ L and dfFl d ff f d B b al Mdlg M1 dl tat on Plans Mrthoa= FAR—I alba � - -FARI- _Nim 3pulates that, ,g h,prop1y,dIIb Nabbed Me am° o, are�M1tan3,redre ReM1 bPl euetl by HPC Gplf aid I I� ap I nd, pal td,dl ngs ILTOMI add tion 1fl,"4, apr H ata max of ID FAR unless mare ra3dctive FAR ads M, that m,;= e<I� 7R ho ur area must be fully pa,ketl. cord,g to appfcable 3antlartls. Up omtplet°n, PI U, "'d wes mi en demrmman°n of —Ing,Re', hams„ligibil Ty. cdde'lf3empIat,4fn default h -30W d=am l pal°arco_ca TM1ree sending areas (Sending Treasure HIII, Sending OM Town, and Senting H,..,,d 13); Planri,g Oreeo, determines Me number of "E., t— ed an3ared forma Sending s[, pmpertty owners an eq Oevelopmen[Gedt popCM1_15224 f Park ORy, UT d,sgnZ,t prese pe space res sens[ve vrenmainarea ands 3r sofae3M1Htl Nllp pe R Me TOR Re g dy neare elgbleM receve Tansfa OensM1y Allocaton rat°, vary d,pendng on senting a1TOC 1000 sa Rof bonus mmer calfl°°rar�or2000 sq Rof bonus development cr , allowed to a senting ate Sale'tansfe,ofc ftd cond,dbd b,tweenan3,re, and tansferee o, Me, t senting ,eaa=ment or deed re I tled A Deveopment QetC. I—, mus[ be recd Jbd In Me d erfromth Park Glyn gd 3o,_TM1°se c”" mayonly bemldl c.nveyetll _8300 M1 p lip kGcfty. d pakodeonl ne.com Ib° k'2type d antes#name-1S arch.1,aV M1istori cal Development—It' esde,tal floor area legal representatives, M be recorded by unry', pmperty record,—, credit, are anfaretl by Me owner to th �q Tan3er Of Ocvel°pmen[RgM1[s (TOR)_,an—_f D nb sgnificance Al l vacant lots l n Me Park GTy P3odc S— Inventory ab—Ild,ble Planning Di1—.,designee ran3enetllmld_ ,an3eree and Men mu3 be reiswetl In Me tan3,ree', nam,_ Pasadena, CA eWei CaR,kayS—c Gan b,anyw nM, Wei Bell al density can be cone— to ndn- de,alfloorareaand vicevasa Conus,., Formula_ One dwelling unItshall be equivalentto050 square—ofndn- restlential development and 850a1uare fee[ of,onrasdent al d,v,l°prren[sM1all be W M1 p pe written consent of senting and Ownerofsendingaterecord,awritten c v,nant documenting M,ttan3,,, approved by GlyNttomey_O T,an—ran be appm—by Me Z ggd oa,l°ng as Me Pop. "I,ta�ded to prepot, enhancement of the_ Cty'„ymbolic—,n gat,vray antlto facill[ate preservationofhl3 ,d 3ructures antl beovetl open bates” 1]300038_ Plan Gatevray Specffc Plan area cvntti Gatevray Specffc Plan area °sm epu d-d.p td ght,VunR_ Nnydeveopmdh[deLs tansferretl forma donor ate sM1all be detluctetl form Me additional densly oMavnse all Quad o n Me parte' by Mis SeRion_ owners 9 any preperty owner MnMear-rreytan3er_ and thec,,,nts record, of alltansfeany, Meche densry allocat°ns Many of all Me pmpeM1i Pin the -if plan area" g p je3 meets regulat°ns htp M1 .del, ry. tl _ mlalpaeden alcodescode of ord 2nodeld Tl T17ZONINGCODE ART3SPPLSTC H1]3 GASPPL_l 7.38 OOO -M EST L g't"—gnatetl L etl G5 & C6 d an be sd I. 1 1 ran3er a0o_'YM1e amount of development av 1" 3 s Med�fference between thg fd,,d.pn, nt., Me AI be pl dpgam for M1 bt d nance ofMe "" AI be pp ved by h Gry Pop_ 30Q000. Pagam L. only been used abou[3[mes M1 b f great nterest M poteri I tl pe because Me pace of dcomme s(wdcM1 can be d g etl cM1,,ty Me Co -flu gM1 f d g d sed g d h ax amount of Bevel p wti M1 ould be allowetlon that The GrysH R Co ppaves Me dd Gry sol app etur f 40y rs beyond Me Ser AI be leg,document H Rev G Ri pp -, ,hall pl dd d p has notg etl ugh d j rfy Me q f PRt3rurgM1, PN consent of Me property owner)or ly be 3 red to mdng g Floor Arm and g d h mn ng code_Ifsend -d, & f approvesaleg (document sgnetl by M1e getlby pall by t 'fn department bu,1 p g f M1 til dfor add Id Iopm capacry [andf not for paf[perf d rR ce axa g adj Bevel II h be partesconcemetl sfletl wRM1 Me Banda ,b"e ane , t h ff G g fhe basemdng allows Mll fsa Rof hlI ,d,.,, faclRes n twos ficd3rets laba'etl GS and GB_ Red I- gM1 an be t 3 etl from any older mdng p g n 2rc M1 II etlby M1 g d _If not b bed pa, appfcaton for occupancy penrr[ and all all etl ydepartments.nd,n nolo n appbp, d Meretluet on n develop lot H 5[ ­­­gAl, Faclry. for hatless Man 40 years f d p [vi M1 M1 neetl for d ry pp ov I _Co sequently G5 &C6di3riets adjacen[dev thandnc only an b— by 20%more Man densry allowetl by base ning_ gM1 ,,e,ng ng and thencr - M1 recery ng lot P ghd persh—Ifttle mhe TORONinance_ (smaIM—a0on) "Bu, d g 1 etl h N al Oowncry Deg R Co Rtee(DRC) Yee ow f ­,ng& Beery ng 1oL5 Reg f H R I., St fth he DowncRy 0 be 3oretl Off be h gM1 fl d k d h Ib d d a rea ed to erg d p e ble M1d h execute erg be recorded wRM1 Ad be by Me P p.100000 Ch p. 2] A 603 s G ff 11 k- Paviden c, RI wH M1 h ppf d sM1 all and etl eq retl by Me BUlding hegM1t m gM1 etl o g cu ghegM1 f rvng s[e -not ompat vn wtiM c atnga 24M1 petlf dlyd h re ter h le b h l _ f a ro that equals appavetl ryDeg R ew CommR[ee gl hplllb ry od_ I1p d r¢t p ""oo purpose s Me pr n fMe enorofMebuilding'tO d desgn revery mRtee ex eetll6 h maxh gM1tor300 R, w"cM1ever Bless permutes andh g rt ma nment ev a d-1 paposetl TmpavemenLs wRdn thedi3r ncluding TOR Beed ', 1n fn pt'P"n me glt- any cM1angesM plan mu3 be approved thb han—application at tapubfc near ng_ el deslcode of oN nance3lnode'd�T -- IICOOR_GH2]ZO ART60O01_8030EIN Gvic san OMgo TOR Rogram (a on -fit o" awnetl by me Sty) 'Po qualify. mu3 contain d g edh rcalremurces and Tran3er Is appmvetl by Civic san Diego sending site owners most en n to t aPp.141 11 on Hasnottenused san OMgq CA tel.— me block as y bje3 Alu3 be on Me mme block as Me FloorAr� deterMned by amt of development allouetl by Me sendng s[es,rex base FAR may al be P- d C - s OMg on pbft g tlbyM1 Cry of Dego tasketl — hentbd by remrdbd cer[frates of [ran3er GTy an acqure bank and hold Preservert on. Rea ton. and, Ma ntenance Agreement Mat s 2014 httplldd¢ degag I gs[e orbeM1 ofa dy, apprevetl by M1 ng c san —Ing deten"netl on acam bycam bass bamtl on o vnM perm tng econoMctlevelopment n ran3enetl Floorarea prorM tan3erMa comm 1sMem to rehab Me3mclRre codelkluni CodeGhapterl5ICM115A O8O isan03ptl VanlPre flo,,venryi ngMata ran3er of Floor area is neetletl M rehab and d—wa0on of andmark" neetletl reM1ab and premrvaton co3s nelud,,gootlsMaugM1outMecry c utling Me tlownMwn e rvng s[e P—l-t uctiftleLafe, Cs0 Presitlent appaves transfer f GO Men ILL I TOR Rogram m be—In GO Hill Rannetlu3 G3det; Mree types of eligible Pop_141 million TDRpavisions remo- fam ordinance in Golden Hill Planned Di3ri3 in 1909 I, cal properties"a property -problems densry all owetl by code usually wasn't desgnatetl as a bi3 ,,,al sRe by h H IGte Boad,a [ran3er difference between the floor area of Me l and mark and the floor area that would be m M1g h nth de- ry f the b g a ewRnnMe H 3orc Oar q or a 3ructure paper[eslo�tetl wRM1inS mba—s of the Aria FloorAr� pennRtetl under tnedensM1ylm� of Me and ng cod, than3erretl r g hts all owetla ran3ers reg3eral wRn Ranting Debt a pu,,h—of devel opme, M1Ls hadM reg ster all tan3ers vnM Me CRy Planting CNfPanri ng Oep[hasM approve ran3ers h fm wfi h gM1suere than-'. 3 ed'=sof po e,,ng desgnatetlniAdh_llyla"hft, pmt M exceetl Me base densty allowetl by Department erten h ad IiLIeincent eM buy add Ri anal densry-aum Mry could acM1ieve Me ahsgnif ant inamnrey appmvetl by Me HI3oM1e Ste code by 25% densry MeY wantetl ander the Ilmfts ImIdd- by the Board'; pm,,y owner atm must grana a facade easement to the G rod, w ,hundmg bdgth omomsvire--ntM additional development '.nd .,ks landmarks or d k oMerMan landmark building_ Me greater of Me follovnng 10x the floor area of Me landmark or Me diff b M1 g Fl r area of Me structure Application M e3ald- TDR—fits approved by d POD, property mu3 be ti d hated before N g P 261000 16]0040.1.1] f p b g u3ures nati 3odc tl M1 Fl aallowetlb mn ng tl k 3 Floor Me Plann Dept greglstry fTOR ed fVan4e,..e, ed teof TDR f 11 gl k s[Peter�urg FL d d ygovt ownetl Meror mu property -e 3be p p M1e tlownd—center tl d cal FloorAr� a - abM ar�sSx la tl k fterdetlu3ng any lot areao ccugetl by alandmark bu Mng ng (POD)appaves e 3abl sM1mentantl transfer of TOR ed Gry Atto vappaves ownerstl n h PI gDep_A ofran3er owner he ds tl notmvenanLs and ,A uer ed ad eretl uponapprovalhp111b by POD owner ofcreelMw"oZ is ry_ d_ M/ _p burglcode—de of d, nances ddeld premrvetl and ehadlMtetl In ac cordance vnMMesec of the bb d acts "Mr mcM1 sq ft of development—It n of covena 6antl re3dc0ons reaiii wfiM1 Men appavetl by Me gr y G Nttorne_ Muse MemMran3er de-ty"ntens (;owner of ry Rthan appy PHISTPECO CHI 6tADERE S18]0A PPR 16 ]0040PLZODE IB ]�04�1.1] errors sMndarasfn, Presava0on and Reh.biIita0hn tr ath-'p.,$50 mu3begivento Mealys M1i3oric preserva0on gant pager,,{ mnus any funtls went on requi re a0on or reh,b work" ecd nave mea 1 "ng s[emu3 ppava of a ste plan before ":ts are an3enetl _ TRDHx1H1 Designated historic landmarkin :thanA d Own f h h p perty d h ad p f H Any M1 h mme mdn9 a M1 h Sty Co h M1 P p 1]5000 S 20510.050: P Ove y 0 d g [vi 11 not Floorarea elbwebk h nd ng sRe Mnus Gry au 11 makes recoN of cov h d cp perty Ilb etl Covenantmu3 be appavetl by Gry h p JAwrv+ ry N n tlef Vancouver, WA d ny3 he Overtay O3d3 that s 13etl in Me hamrd toMwfly ng Floor Arm the actual floor area of h ting ste_ her of the hstoic property/send g l _ a h, d U rf h oven ant Coundl a IVf leSfl attacM1me'i sN h cM1ap —20.510_ptlf Very IRtIe specR c S tate or National Regi3ers of Hi3odc Races o,desgnatetl o n a cal regi3eris e1gible a caR add—the tan—orsmply Me preservation of Me 3mctuz inMnna0on isgiven_ Owners must pe00on M qualify Mei, land s th,hugM1 " r0R albca0on vadesdepending on sending fo,e.h sRe Pop_24,000 Pmgam th as sending condRional use permit pacers, unless Meste isvnmin Me ning_ nH acre ofmndIng land owners can receive 065 DUs in Me RA _e'l li n Me R -1,10U in he R-1 L, 20Us Ifnotm Me RAdi 1,Me B.aJof supervisors he ai— premnre environmental ,ace and hi3orically sgnrfican[stes Red IAg cultural mne In 5 h pe,mf hgher n h R2 R21 d100U heR31 PI gGom - dTownsdp Board Alen[ on of w"ere TORS are recd Netl does must appreve tan3er conerder ng Me Mtps/Aw ecoda',60com11306]0641hi Warrington, PA w h ould alRomatcally Stecan be d ry d I, office and Land Area add ti base II rings bonumsof l5%in the fsup I _ M1 pp Metran3ers by Me TDRReviery Board_ [,noappear nMe code_ recommendat ons of Me Platin ng ghIght.evelopdevelopetldeveloperde development qualrfy only add— rf R meets four mteda including ndu3ral uses ng tic vie RA or 10% in older districts and addit"nal are advsetl Department or Planting Com sson velopersdevelopment developed,development ency wfh Me Gomprd�ensive bonuses(, r rtes wh hi3od c or natural and the TDR Review Boards righ[,d-1.pment Plan and promotion of public welfare" ce sgnfiicance_ RA s_ mu3 be at lea. five acres M qualify-" dgM1t�,dove'opment�,develops,rigM1t,rigM1Ls Pop_3],000 "Avner of designated o—P, w equ�e I,— by thb Guttural Hertiage Nd—ly Board to ed for �ff I,— N p etl Grys CUINaIH -erg Nd ryBoaN Cl, allows developers to purcM1ase an opt on on TBRs M1 M1 be recorded to Rgh[s can be purchased by anyone d h be earmarketl fora rve full fundsfrom a ele of dev ngM1 If d g neetls reM1ab Ily Iy 25% fTBR propert es cont gGry yp pe etl Ili gh tyc --ll tl p tl h g b f approvesa rW dl Planfneetletl on ',,had prior adopto f g to project (anangetl p ng _Ctt al el p cetl _ g]5% pl etl West H011ywoQ GN desgnatedI d an wh cM1 have lessd M1Y hero Me -,,h ultural OensM1y tlwNlg f tlental culWal t. the max ces, s[he tlR—a, asendng beortpletetl before tan3 r_Gouncl has ¢tablhe y bet use wasconcerne H erg Nd ry Bo d pp ve s n ounf h r M1 b f h sendng Accord ng to allowetl by Memning code" er cann otbe tansfenetl r esdental tunes the al codspenbRtetl Floorarea and Me a3ual Floor aof Me desgnatetl building c ena upon wM1icM1 tan3ea sM1all be condM1ion. d—ld the develo m Ith, h udbnt gto use Me be program rf[heyhad to buy dgM1ts before Van 3erwas approvetl)_ reM1ab plan If Z­ t cl has ria Mat RfollowswM1en approving anter_ Bmart Preservaton, no tansfeahave http tlyet"1858150Fof M1ttpllgcodeuslcodesN.e_ M1ollywodNie _hp p-1— 4 19_58& h-11- &fra—ff Gould notfind a copy of the-cffro a mat appea,,n the Tansler of Beve'opment Rghts Program_ H13nde properties, landmarks (lot nal regi3er3aNs), Gemats. ��.n- tion d TBR registry mai ntai ned by city that records total—thf—a-lableon the Planning dire3ore3 e'gi urban ­­,all asdepi"d in the Cty's code. H13ndc sRes & Iandmarksmu3havecomplHed "mu3—plywRh the TBR map ran—able floor area is determined by a3te, and date & amount of any [ranter that occurs, city-approved re"t"`trvecovenant is ¢toted -of sending sRe, letter (w ¢timate of BRs available Pop.1B8,000 Sec. 94132 renovatio act to code and mu3 sM1ovnng where TBRcan be used multiplying lot area by allowable nu rrber of and recorded in public recoNs (iBR� sending)of availablilry may be issuetl a—al,ftymybe of B—Palm Beach�FL beiswetlna ce11-df t. —h an egM1t-, terF and 20. Floorarea Floors (and detluctng Me floorar�of [he Planning dire3ore3ablisM1es eligibility, Q4C appmves tansfer rein Rivecovenant), whicM1d¢mbes Me byplanningdeptupon req ,all tan 3eaaresibjstto approval of hUpslllibrary.nu-de.comlFlAves[ pal mbeacNcodeScode of oNinance5lno ccupancy_"As an addetl incentive forhi3odclandmarkdesignation, tory maximum;'asdepi3etl in the Cfty moi ng code exiting 3roclRre in Me case ofahi3odc landmark sending s<e) adju3etl BRs of sending and receving 3te� "bank entry"_ TBRs may beacquiretl forma Me Bowntown Ncton CommR[ce (Q4C), after whicM1 a"T ft of deld=PHIGOOR GHB4ZIXABERE AR Ted-111 WRRE BB 11DI FRE PR wRM1 hi3odc landmark 3atus eligible for addRional cM1y- wned TBRsin an aunt sending bbe and heldfor an untletenninetl amt of t me a ntl asiRable receiving ate is found an3erisigvetl (recoNetl in TBR r�i3ry) equivalent to the —s eating development cap.q" City of Iowa City City Council Work Session September 4, 2018 September 4 — Council Work Session Goals • Direction from Council on the following: • Eligible sending sites • Transferformula • Priority of preserving historic resources compared to other public benefits • Review and approval process for transfers • Eligible receiving sites Background • May 29: • Council considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street • Deferred to January 2019 and directed staffto explore the creation of a city-wide TDR program • August 7: • Council discussed initial memo on TDR at work session • September 4: • Direction from City Council on key policy questions Staff Goals of a Citywide TDR Program Fair Legally -sound Easy to administer Simple for developers and members of the public to understand • Effective program that preserves historic resources • Consistent with comprehensive plan Transfer of Development Rights TDR Example —Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St. Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St. • Incentivize protection of historic jY RFC Transfer Formula resources _p.. _.. • No. of stories allowed on sending • Property owners can sell/ site (4) transfer development rights X from historic resource (sending I Area of sending site (8,700 sq. ft.) site) ._ j • Development rights applied to another site where development Development Rights Available for can occur at a higher densityI Transfer (34,800 sq. ft.) (receiving site) Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft. TDR Example—Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St. ending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St. Receiving Site: 912 S. Dubuque St. _ �.{ tlY y 7,400 sq. ft. r b� Total De, Rights: 34,800 sq. ft. Dev. Rights Transferred: 7,400 sq. ft. Dev. Rights Remaining: 27,400 sq. ft. Summary of Existing Local Historic Landmarks Research & Analysis Sending Sites • Only analyzed existing local and national landmarks • Several other buildings eligible for local landmark designation • HPC proactively identifying sites to locally landmark • Used the RFC Transfer Formula: No. of stories X Area of sending site Development Transfer Potential Research & Analysis Receiving Sites • Identified vacant and underutilized sites • Removed sites within floodplains, sites with historic buildings, publicly zoned land RKeM.eSlee AYatyM ".w4IWt Geral"D Research & Analysis Other Local Jurisdictions' Program • Transfer Formulas: • Consider existing development on sending site • Typical formula = Max allowable density/intensity on sending site Less Existing density/intensity on sending site • Incorporate a receiving site bonus above that allows development beyond plan/zoning • In comparison, the RFC transfer does not consider existing development Research & Analysis Summary of Sending & Receiving Sites Analysis • Significant amount of transfer potential —will increase as more properties are locally landmarked • Depending on receiving sites identified it may be difficult to accommodate transfer potential Research & Analysis Other Local Jurisdictions' Program Approval Process for Transfers: • Many cities require some type of a non -administrative review • Some cities approve transfers administratively Research & Analysis Other Local Jurisdictions' Program • Administration & Tracking: • Variety of methods: • Documented through a PUD or Specific/MasterPlan • Executed through a development agreement • Recorded with the County as a conservation easement • Legal documents signed by property owners & City Attorney Tracking • City staff maintained registriesand databases of possible receiving sites, eligible sires, capacity of these sites Issues/Constraints • Market Potential: • No market study • Lack of Certainty in the Process: • Non -administrative review of transfer (e.g. P&Z, City Council, etc.) provides less certainty • Administrative review of transfer (i.e. staff -level) provides more certainty • Other Bonus Mechanisms: • City currently offers bonuses for other public benefits • Uncertain how a city-wide TDR policy would compare to other bonuses Research & Analysis Other Local urisdictions' Program —Approval Process • Receiving Areas: • Several programs focus receiving sites in the core of the community/downtown • Explicitly state that historic resources are not eligible as receiving sites • Place burden on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of a potential receiving site • Commercial zones only — no transfers allows to residential zones Policy Questions for City Council Option a. Eligible sending sites include existing 1. Should eligible & future local historic landmarks. sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only future local historic TDR p—mi— landmarks? Option b. Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks. Policy Questions for City Council Option a. Keep the existing RFC transfer formula. 2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula that is outlined in RFC or a new formula? Option b. Establish a new transfer formula that considers existing development. Policy Questions for City Council Policy Questions for City Council Option a. Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings 4. What type of review and approval procedure bythe City Council. process should be established for the review and approval of sending and Option b. Establish a new procedure that allows receiving transfer of transfer up to a certain level to be approved rights? administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified historic resources be threshold would be reviewed by city council. Policy Questions for City Council Policy Questions for City Council 5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving sites? Option b. Downtown and/or Option a. Model a city-wide TDR program on 3. The City already the current bonus provisions. gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with development projects. Should Option la. Allow transfer for historic properties preservation of to exceed the City's current bonus provisions (e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity? historic resources be treated in a similar manner or given higher priority? Policy Questions for City Council 5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving sites? Option b. Downtown and/or June -August 2818 Research antl a n.lys,s September4, 2018 Presentation to Council on msearch, mcommentlation from Council to pmreetl or not pmreetl on ooJm.nr. tlraging September-October2818 Omm.nce tlmfling; ifd.t.-,n.d by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Pmser bon Commission Review & Oisrussion October 18, 2018 Planning& Zoning Commission Review&Discussion Novemb.r20,2018 City Counril(1" modmgof.ohn.nr.) December4, 2018 City Council(2-&possible 3- reatling of.ohn.nr.) January 29,2019 Exp,ration of&month tleferral ofthe local la ntlmark d --nation f410 412 North Clinton Street 10/12/2018 M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti 5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or e_Othersites 7 a_ Existing&futum Local Lammancs 1. Eligible sentling sites? Fair& Consistent / May not have ad,quat, receiving site capacity b_ Only future Local Lantlmarks • Maybeeasiertoarrom motlate transfers/Inconsistent with current pmcess a. RFCiransfer formula • More generous&consistency in atlminisiration; easierto untlemtantl 2. Transferformula? May not have atlequ.toreceiving site ca parity b. New transfer formula • May be easier to accomm otlate transfers / More cum plex & d,M,, It to ad ,n,,t,r 3. Bonuses& Plenty of preserving a_ Current bonus pmvisions historic resources compamtl to other om Simpler&easier/May tliluteetfedioom- of preserving historic resources public ben b. Exceetl current bonus provisions More of an incentive / Com munity concems & unknown im pacts a. Existing RFCpmress(ie. app—i by City Council) 4. Review 8 approval pmcess for Simpler & consistent / Lack of certainty m app—, is tomsfem? b. New pmcess • Streamline the review& allow Council review for larger tmnsfers • Not consistent with current RFC pmcess a_ RFC M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti 5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or e_Othersites 7 IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Citywide Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection: E. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties. 2. Sending Sites Requirements: a. The sending site must have a base zoning designation of "Single -Family Residential' per 14-2A, "Multi -Family Residential' per 14-213, or "Commercial' per 14-2C, of this title. b. Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-313-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-313-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. 4. Eligible Receiving Sites: 1. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: a. Located within a Riverfront Crossing zone district and the sending site is located outside of the Riverfront Crossings district as identified in 14-2G-2 "Regulating Plan" of this title; or b. Located within a zone district that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 213-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. 2. Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic districts, and listed in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. 5. Transfer of Development Rights: a. Transfer requests shall either be for a height bonus or a density bonus using the following formulas: (1) Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure. In no case shall the transfer be less than 12 IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 feet even if the difference between the maximum allowable height and the existing height is less than 12 feet; or (2) Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. b. Transfers requests may exceed either the height or density on the receiving site with the following limitations: (1) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located outside of the Riverfront Crossings district shall exceed 40 feet above the maximum height allowed on the receiving site. (2) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located in the Riverfront Crossings district shall exceed the height bonus maximums outlined in 14 -2G -7G -1d of this title. (3) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located adjacent to an existing single-family home shall exceed two stories above the height of the existing single- family home. 6. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-813-3, of this title. b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-813-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: a. The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, b. The proposed receiving site, c. The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, d. A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and e. Any other information required per the application form. 7. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking: a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount that remains on the sending site. b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be notified of the sale. Amend 14-213-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection: D. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E. IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection: C. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E. Amend 14 -3C -2A, Applicability, adding a new paragraph 12, as follows: 12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14- 2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14- 2C11 "Special Provisions", of this title. Amend 14 -3C -3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows: 2. Level II Review: a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and structures: (1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I review. (2) Certain public-private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) (3) Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to subsection 14 -2G -7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014) (4) Transfer of development rights requested according to 14 -2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title. IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Amend 14 -3C -3B, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows: 10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in subsection C of this section. Amend 14 -2G -7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection as follows: 3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and corresponding height bonus provides an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties: a. Eligibility. The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the following criterion: (1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district; eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or listed as a historically signfcant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity. b. Requirements: (1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or Iowa City historic district, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval of this designation as a condition of the transfer of development rights, and (2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-3B-7, 'Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect" of this title. c. Transfer Of Development Rights: (1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the sending site maybe transferred to one or more eligible site(s) within the riverfront crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in size, then eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of floor area (20,000 x 4) maybe transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the 4 IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits established in this section. (2) The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 16 Boyd asked about the Commission about the motion in the staff report. He said he was inclined to support the motion as written. He felt given the constraints of the property and given there was already a garage there a new larger garage smaller in scale than the house could be approved. He asked if there was additional discussion. DeGraw said she was inclined to vote yes. She thought it looked a little contemporary but, it was within the guidelines, so she would vote yes. Builta said he was inclined to vote yes and added that this is an exception because there are constraints on what can be done. Boyd noted there were property limitations. This is a corner property. The garage is going to face a street. It does not have alley access. Bristow noted that the guidelines do include the possibility for exceptions. There is the possibility for an exception for unique site conditions and that is the specific exception that staff was considering for this particular project. Boyd asked if the Commission was ready for a vote. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 802 South Summit Street as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines allowing an attached garage due to the unique conditions present at the site and existing setback. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. Nays: Kuenzli and Pitzen. (Aaran. Burford. and Clore absent). REVIEW OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ZONING AMENDMENT Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services presented a proposed ordinance for a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. She said she would provide a background on how we got here and explain what Transfer of Development Rights are. She said she would explain the existing Transfer of Development Rights policy in our Riverfront Crossings District and then go over what we are proposing in the ordinance. She said since this ordinance was related to historic properties, they wanted to bring it to the Commission for input. Russett said this began on May 291h when the City Council discussed considering a local landmark designation at 410-412 North Clinton Street.That motion was deferred to January 2019 based on a recommendation from the property owner's attorney to put the vote on hold for that local landmark designation until the City had an opportunity to explore a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights program. Since then, Council has discussed a city-wide transfer program. Staff presented to them at a work session on September 41h and received some direction from the Council on how they would like to move forward. Russett explained Transfer of Development Rights. She said they are an incentive to protect historic resources which allows property owners to sell or transfer development rights from historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 16 resources, which are called the sending sites, to receiving sites, which are areas where the City wants to encourage higher density development. The development rights would be applied to another site. Russett said there are some key components to a Transfer of Development Rights program. There are the sending sites, which in this case would be historic resources. The receiving sites are areas where there could be additional development or additional density. There is the transfer calculation, that's used to figure how much density, or how much height, could be transferred from one site to another. There is also a review process and an administration procedure. Russett explained that the City does have an existing TDR program that applies to the Riverfront Crossings District. In Riverfront Crossings the City requires Iowa City landmark designation prior to requesting a Transfer of Development Rights. The receiving sites in this area are any site in Riverfront Crossings. The formula that's used to calculate the transfer potential is the lot area of the sending site x the maximum number of stories allowed on the sending site, the result is the square footage that a property owner could transfer to another site. Russett said for the Riverfront Crossings District, any request for a transfer must be reviewed and approved by City Council. She explained that while receiving sites can go above the base height in that zone, there is a max depending on which area of the district they are located in. Russett said one project has used this incentive since it was adopted into the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance, the Tate Arms Building at 914 South Dubuque. On this site the maximum number of stories is four and the area of the site is 8700 square feet, so the total development rights available for this site that could be transferred, were 34,800 square feet. The developer transferred at least 7400 square feet to the property to the north. The property to the north received an additional story, a height bonus, through this transfer. Tate Arms still has 27,400 square feet of transfer potential that could go to another site in Riverfront Crossings. Boyd asked if the owner of the Tate Arms Building had these rights, but didn't really want to develop something somewhere else, could sell those rights to another developer or must the owner of the landmark property use them. Russett said they could be sold on the private market. Shope asked if there was any restriction or requirement that those funds be used in any way to improve the historic property. If they transferred the development rights for money, would there be any requirement that the money be invested in the historic property from which the rights were sold. Russett said no. Shope asked if the Tate Arms allowance of four stories was based on current zoning for that property. Russett said it was based on the current zoning designation. Karr asked if the zoning was changed, would there then be additional rights that would be sold. Russett said staff is proposing no. Russett discussed direction received from Council regarding the proposed ordinance. She said Council asked that sending sites only include future local historic landmarks, so existing historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 7 of 16 landmarks would not be eligible for transfer rights. They requested that staff develop a new transfer formula and not use the one that's currently used in Riverfront Crossings. City Council wants to continue to review and approve any transfer requests. For receiving sites, they wanted it to include areas in Riverfront Crossings and sites throughout the City that allow multiunit development. As a summary of the proposed ordinance, Anne said staff is proposing that properties eligible for Iowa City landmark designation would be eligible, but it only applies to future landmarks. Properties that are already landmarked, if they are already in an historic district, or if they are already in a conservation district, would not be eligible for a transfer. City Council felt that it was important to only apply this to future landmarks since these other properties are already protected, and this incentive would only apply to future designations. Russet said that receiving sites could be areas that are zoned either Riverfront Crossings, multifamily residential, or commercial zones that allow multifamily. She displayed a map of the eligible receiving sites. Russett said staff is proposing that there are two options for what could be transferred. An owner could either transfer height or transfer density, not both. The transfer could exceed the maximum height on the receiving site, as well as the maximum density on the receiving site. For the height bonus, it could not exceed 40 feet above the maximum height that is allowed in that zone. There would not be restrictions on increases in density. Boyd asked how many stories 40 feet would be. Russett said four, maybe a little less. Russett said the calculation for the bonus potential for height would be the difference between the maximum allowable height on the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure, so the maximum allowable height minus the existing height would equal the amount that could transfer. Russet said the minimum transfer would be 12 feet. She explained that a 30 -foot existing historic structure with a maximum in the zoned district of 35 feet, would only have five feet to transfer. She said that since that is not much to transfer, the minimum would be 12 feet, or a story, that could transfer. Russett presented an example of density transfer the maximum allowable dwelling units of the sending site minus the existing number of dwelling units that are currently there provide the number of dwelling units that could potentially be transferred. This would be determined at the time the landmark designation occurs based on the base zone for the district at that time. Russett provided a density example using 412 North Clinton. The maximum allowable number of dwelling units on the site is 24. There are currently 18, so the potential transfer is six dwelling units. Russett explained how review of transfers would work. Staff is proposing that transfers would be reviewed by the staff design review committee based on the guidelines in the zoning code for any design review project. The design review committee would make a recommendation to City Council, who would be the ultimate decision maker on the transfer. A proposal that was very out of scale or that didn't fit within the existing context of the neighborhood, might not move successfully through the approval process. Russett discussed how TDRs are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 8 of 16 plan has policies that talk about protecting historical resources. With the historic preservation plan there are goals related to providing economic incentives to property owners to encourage them to preserve historic buildings. TDRs are a potential incentive for property owners to landmark their buildings. Boyd noted this is for future sites and confirmed that this is local landmarks only, not National Register listed sites, but local landmarks. Boyd stated that most of the properties where development rights being discussed here are either in commercial districts or high-density residential areas. He asked if a potential local landmark is zoned at the lowest density possible it wouldn't have much to transfer, correct? Russett said that if it's a large site, such as a farmstead that might be historic on a large parcel but with only one remaining building, the site could potentially be subdivided and there could be more dwelling units built. This could result in more potential to transfer. Kuenzli noticed among the receiving sites proposed were the South Johnson/South Van Buren Streets between Court and the railroad tracks. She said the stated goal of this is to preserve an historic structure somewhere, but to be able to increase either height or density within the receiving area. Johnson and Van Buren currently are mostly two or three-story structures. Kuenzli asked if this were to pass, could a developer could come in and build eight stories or 12 stories on those streets. Russett said theoretically yes, but with the process in place it would go through design review and City Council, who would look at consistency and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Russett added that in the proposed ordinance there would not be limitations on density, but there would be limitations on height, 40 feet above the maximum in the zoned district. 12 stories in that area would not be allowed based on the proposed TDR amendment. The maximum height in that area is 35 feet, so with TDRs a new development could still be much larger than what's there but there would be a process in place for review and approval to make sure the development was not out of scale for the area. Boyd clarified the receiving sites would be Riverfront Crossings and where there are existing multifamily units. Kuenzli said she was in favor of saving historic properties, but not if the cost is going to be the destruction of other neighborhoods. Builta pointed out if a house is preserved and they sell a floor or two somewhere, that's not going to destroy a neighborhood. Kuenzli said she is concerned that it is not going to be a floor or two judging from the discussion so far. Shope noted there are homes in residential areas that have large lots and questioned if this was based on lot size, not the existing structure size. Russett said the height was based on what's allowed in the zone compared to what the existing structure is. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 9 of 16 Shope provided an example. A house is one story tall and it's on a lot that is a little over half an acre. If you figured her allowance based on that half acre for four stories, the existing house hasn't used much of that. Russett clarified that if it's in a residential district the maximum height is probably 35 feet where the most she could transfer would probably be two stories. Shope asked again about the half -acre lot size. Russett said the transfer would just be two stories. For the height, it doesn't matter what the lot size is. Shope asked if it was based on the size of the current structure. Russett said the height of the current structure Karr said he understood it was limited and was concerned that existing homes that are already landmarked wouldn't be eligible, especially for the six or seven that were recently landmarked. Karr said he loved the fact that this is incentivizing preservation of individual landmarks, but he would be upset if he was one of the recent landmarks left out of this incentive. Karr wondered what happens when we look at the Downtown District. He said he felt this would have ramifications there. He noted if there were some building owners downtown who probably weren't excited about getting in the district, this would be a fantastic way to entice them. Boyd said those may not be individual landmarks. That may be a district. Karr and Boyd asked if it had to be individual properties. Russett said it must be local historic landmarks. Karr said he was asking about an entire district, such as the proposed Railroad Depot District on Clinton Street. Boyd said he thought the railroad qualified because it is currently in Riverfront Crossings. Russett clarified it is only for individual landmarks in Riverfront Crossings, as well. They need the landmark designation. Boyd asked if people could be incentivized individually to be a landmark if a Downtown District didn't happen. Karr thought that would give a landowner downtown a reason to fight the district and go on an individual landmark basis, because it'd be worth more money to them. Russett believed that may be true. Bristow asked if the downtown becomes a district, would it then be removed from the receiving sites. Russett said yes, Historic districts, conservation districts, and landmarks are not eligible as receiving sites. Bristow followed up on Karr's comments about the recent landmarks. She said that because this deferral and TDR development process came up when the five that achieved landmark status happened, she wondered if there would be any condition that included just those five because they were done at the same time when this process started. Russett said if the Commission wanted to recommend that, if they wanted to recommend changes to the proposed receiving areas, she could pass that along to the Council and the Planning Commission. Boyd said he was glad they were talking about this. He said he thought it was helpful because the Commission gets a lot of questions about the economic incentives that can be provided for landmarks. He said TDRs are being discussed because one particular property owner asked for it. Boyd asked if there were other incentives that could be considered. He said that there is an example in North Carolina where new local landmarks receive automatic property tax deduction. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 10 of 16 Boyd said there may be other incentives that help achieve some of the goals in the comprehensive plan. He said he felt we were doing this because one property owner asked and the focus had been narrowed very rapidly based on a very rapid timeline and a deadline that was set by the property owner and the City Council. Boyd said he wondered if the City could consider other potential incentives, regardless of what happens with the TDRs. He wondered if the Commission was supposed to bring those ideas or if Planning and Zoning Commission came with them. Russett said if the Commission had ideas for Planning and Zoning to investigate, staff could definitely do that. She wasn't sure if the property tax idea was something we could do here, but she knew other communities do it, so staff could look into that. Bristow clarified that the property owner for 410-412 didn't necessarily come up with the Transfer of Development Rights out of the blue. The Tate Arms project had been successful and the idea of protecting historic properties this way had been considered by the planning staff in the past. Staff had always thought about the possibility of adopting something like this to protect historic properties, partly because through research, we have learned that this is something that other communities, and there are some examples in the packet, have taken on to promote the preservation of their historic properties. The first few communities that came up with the process found there were some lessons to be quickly learned, and they had to tweak the way the process happened. She said there was a document put out by the National Park Service that she may have given the Commission earlier in the year. She said it goes talks about those lessons learned and how a community can make sure TDRs work as they are supposed to. Russett asked if they could have wording for the downtown stating that if there is a proposed district, those properties cannot individually landmark for the TDR bonus instead, to avoid a non - incentive for a potential historic district. Bristow wanted clarification on whether this incentive could be possible for a future Downtown District. Russett said that once an area has been selected for a district, if the group of property owners say no to the district, then they cannot individually landmark to get the TDR. An owner can agree to the district, but you cannot strategize to reject the district in order to go for the individual landmark and the incentive of the TDR. Russett said the reason they were not allowing future districts to be eligible is that there are certain properties in an historic district that might not be contributing or might not be as historically significant and wouldn't meet local landmark requirements, so it isn't fair to provide the incentive for the entire district. She said another option is that future districts could potentially be eligible to utilize the incentive. Boyd noted that all our current historic districts are largely non-commercial districts. He said he wondered if there could be a consideration about how we think about commercial districts, which was something that needed to be considered anyway. Expectations for a residential district are different than expectations for a commercial district. The buildings are used differently now than they were historically. In the residential districts those structures are largely being used as they were when they were built, for the most part. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 11 of 16 Boyd said if there is an effort to limit the scale of this proposal, commercial is one thing to think about. He said he thought high-density residential by itself, was the highest zoning piece. He thought that's largely where these properties probably are anyway, just given where our historic properties are. Boyd thought one item of consensus would be including anything that's been landmarked in 2018. Kuenzli asked about the receiving areas that allow multiunit development. Kuenzli thought that was a little vague. Boyd questioned if that was the red area on the map. Russett said yes it includes all multifamily residential zones and commercial zones that allow multifamily. Boyd said since those are the receiving sites, could those also be the categories that we use for landmarks or districts. Russett said that was a possibility and she liked the suggestion of commercial districts because residential districts, even though you could maybe get more units, have lower height limit. Commercial districts generally allow a lot more development potential, so it could be more of an incentive in a commercial district and a landmark designation could restrict the ability to develop that property to its maximum allowable density or height under the zone. She said to her, the commercial districts make sense because the base zoning designation probably allows a lot more height than is currently there. Boyd said he thought one other item for consensus was the idea of individual properties and potentially future commercial districts. Russett said we could bring this back to the Commission at the next meeting if they want to think about it more, but she needed to move it forward to Planning and Zoning next week. She asked for the Commission's feelings on if this was something they wanted the City Council to consider or if there was no interest in providing this type of incentive for historic properties. Boyd said he thought we should find incentives for landmark and district designations. He thought the City should consider it, and the Commission was one step in that consideration. He said Planning and Zoning will consider it, and ultimately City Council will consider it. He believed the Commission's job was to look at the impact on historic preservation. He said TDRs are a potential tool that helps incentivize historic preservation. He noted there were some things that needed to be worked out as a City, but he didn't believe the Commission was the one to work out all of those details. Russett restated what she'd heard from the Commission. She heard this should apply to landmarks that were designated in 2018, and maybe consider future commercial historic districts being eligible. She heard some concern about the receiving sites. She said if they wanted those changed, even if it was not a consensus, she would pass that information along. Boyd agreed there was some concern about the receiving sites, particularly those in residential areas. He didn't think there was a lot of concern when there was already a lot of density and a lot of other taller buildings. He said the Commission was open and interested in exploring what other incentives might be available outside of this particular program. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 12 of 16 DeGraw said there was a concern with the calculation with regard to lot size that used with Tate Arms, because at times that would create an overly generous handing out of TDR that couldn't be honored. Shope was concerned that this is currently restricted to future landmarks. He said he understood the rationale, which is that those existing landmarks are already protected, but historic landmarks also have higher costs of maintenance. He had a bit of an issue with precluding the benefits of this from those who already own those historic landmarks. Boyd wondered if there was a way for us to think about other incentives for existing landmarks. Shope noted this is the incentive that's before us right now. He asked for a clarification on the following: On page 3 of the October 11th memo it says eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as an historically significant building per a survey. He said he thought what was presented as eligible is an Iowa City landmark, and that's not the way he read this sentence. Russett said that portion of the October 11 memo was a summary of the current ordinance in Riverfront Crossings. She clarified that if the property is in Riverfront Crossings and is registered on the National Register, it is eligible, but is still required to get local landmark designation before receiving the incentive. Russett said she would pass these suggestions forward and incorporate some of them into the draft ordinance if there was consensus. Russett said if the Commission wants to, it could move this forward to Planning and Zoning with amendments. The Commission could move that it be deferred until the next meeting and we it could be brought back. Boyd asked if the Commission could move that they are generally in favor of this, but have a few concerns that have been identified. Russett said that was an option. Boyd asked if the Commission could still revisit the amendment at some point. Russett said it could be revisited at the next meeting on November 8th, which would be before the amendment goes to City Council for public hearing. Boyd said he'd like to move that the Commission is generally in favor of the TDR amendment to the zoning code and has made some suggestions. The Commission's role is to decide if this is a tool that historic preservation should use. Russett suggested moving the amendment forward and then, for a property owner that wasn't thinking about development but still wondered what was going on with the TDR, add the offer of a simple tax reduction. That would be appealing and save that person the burden of having to research how to capture this potential. Russet said she thought some property owners would do that. MOTION: Boyd moved that the Commission is generally in favor of incentives, including this amendment. The Commission has shared some specific concerns but are broadly in HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 13 of 16 favor of moving forward. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Agran, Burford, and Clore absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 1037 East Washington Street. This project will repair about five of their original windows and replace storms, which we don't need to review, but they put it on the application anyway. 722 East College Street. This project will replace the concrete steps that were an original part of the building. They have completely deteriorated. 900 North Johnson. This project is repairing siding that was deteriorated and repairing the rear deck. 430 Ronalds Street. Bristow said the owners of this property are repairing windows Minor Review — Staff Review. Bristow said the University Partnership property at the last minute had to replace the roof because it had failed suddenly. She said it was being replaced, but it would not be metal. It will be shingles. Boyd wondered if it was just staff review if they go from metal to shingles. Bristow said yes, that was something that changed at the beginning of the year. 927 South 7t" Avenue. Bristow said this property was part of a series of bungalows that could have been their own historic district at the end of 7t" Avenue, but they are a part of the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The siding on just the front and rear dormers was failing and so they are replacing the siding and trim. 412 S Summit Street. Bristow said this roof has been deteriorating for a long time and they are replacing it. The internal gutters will remain. 900 N Johnson. Bristow said they will be putting in a radon mitigation system in the area where all other utilities are located. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 9 of 15 Parsons stated he made the recommendation because while he believes the application probably does conform with the County, it does not comply with the current Fringe Area Agreement. Signs noted this may become a bigger issue as he is aware of two other large open green spaces nearby are destined for development so there is the potential of a rather large rural residential area here. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent). ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00003): Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties. Russett began by providing the Commission with background as to why staff is working on this ordinance, she will then talk about the existing transfer rights provisions which exist in Riverfront Crossings, and finally will get into the specifics of the amendment proposed tonight. At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. Council deferred action on the local landmark designation until January 2019 while staff reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. On August 7, 2018, Council discussed a city-wide TDR program at a work session and then on September 4, 2018, provided direction to staff on some key policy issues. Staff has been given a timeline by Council, in June and August staff conducted a lot of research analysis of TDR around the country, on September 4 they presented that research to Council and they directed staff to move forward with drafting an ordinance. Last week staff presented the draft to the Historic Preservation Commission and tonight are before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review and discussion of this ordinance. Staff would like to present a draft to City Council next month, the deadline for adoption of this ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the ordinance, is January 29, 2019, because that is when the expiration of the deferral for the local landmark designation on the North Clinton Street property happens. Russett provided some background as to why the City is perusing this ordinance. National Register Districts are an honorary designation, it does not provide any protection for listed resources, it does not limit a property owner from making modifications on a building or demolishing a building, but it does offer incentives. On the flip side Iowa City's local historic districts and local landmarks provide protection to historic resources and any changes to the exterior of those buildings need to either be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Planner or the Historic Preservation Commission. The idea behind the transfer of development rights ordinance is to provide an incentive to property owners to landmark their historic buildings. Transfer of development rights is meant to protect historic resources by giving property owners of those historic resources the ability to sell or transfer development rights to another property. The areas that may receive the transfer of development rights are in areas where the City wants to see more development. Russett acknowledged the goal is to preserve historic landmark designations and buildings, right now it is uncertain the effectiveness of an ordinance like this, there has been no market analysis to determine a market for these transfer rights, and if people will actually utilize it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 10 of 15 Russett noted key components of TDR programs are: • Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be transferred to another site. • Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as a healthy market demand for growth. • Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are calculated. • Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred). The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures: • Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as a historically significant building per a survey • Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term • Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District • The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer • City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights • No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict One example of a transfer of development rights was for the transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development rights remaining to transfer. Signs asked about the calculations of transfer rights being based on the square footage of the entire lot and why aren't they based on the allowable square footage of a building that could go on that lot. Russett stated when the formula was developed for Riverfront Crossings they intentionally made it very generous because they anticipated development and redevelopment in Riverfront Crossings and wanted it to be a higher amount that could be transferred. Russett noted the direction staff received on the city-wide ordinance is to have the sending sites Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 11 of 15 to only apply to future local landmarks, not to existing, staff is to develop a new transfer formula, however the current formula used in Riverfront Crossings would remain intact for that area only, Council will continue to have oversight on the program and will review and approve any transfer right requests, and in terms of the receiving sites Council directed staff to look at Riverfront Crossings and sites that allow multi -unit development throughout the community. Russett next gave an overview of the proposal for the City-wide ordinance. For the sending sites staff is recommending looking at future properties that are listed as Iowa City landmarks as well as contributing properties listed in future Iowa City local districts. Staff presented this proposal to the Historical Preservation Commission on October 11 and they expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks and if it is not provided to future districts it could be a disincentive for the creation of districts and people will just want to create landmarks. The Historic Preservation Commission also noted Council recently adopted several Iowa City landmark designations and requested those properties also be eligible for the incentive. Properties within existing historic districts would not be eligible and property within existing and future conservation districts would also not be eligible as sending sites. Russett noted in addition to this proposed ordinance, staff is recommending an amendment to the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer of development rights provisions to allow the transfer and incentive to also apply to districts and not just landmarks. In terms of receiving sites, staff is recommending any site zoned Riverfront Crossings, multi- family residential or any commercial zone that would allow multi -family be eligible as a receiving site. Russett showed a map indicating the potential receiving sites. Staff is recommending the transfer of development rights be one of two options, either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes to allow transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, but restrict any height bonus to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. If the receiving site is next to an existing single family home the height is limited to twenty feet above the height of that existing home. Staff is not recommending any restrictions on the density bonus. Hensch asked if for density someone could use every square inch of the parcel. Russett noted with density there would still be parking requirements, open space requirements, and all other regulations in the zoning ordinance. Russett noted the formula to be used to determine the potential transfer a sending site would have, staff is proposing the difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure. However they are noting that no transfer would be less than 12 feet, or one story. For example if there is an existing historic structure that is 30 feet and the maximum height on the sending site is 35 feet, the difference is only 5 feet but the transfer would be 12 feet as it is the allowable minimum. For the density bonus option staff is proposing the transfer be the difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. The maximum density should also be based on the on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation. In terms of the transfer process, any requests for a transfer of density or height from a sending site to a receiving site will be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 12 of 15 submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval. Russett noted the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as there are goals in the Comprehensive Plan to protect our community's historical, environmental, and aesthetic assets, there is also a Historical Preservation Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan which again has goals for the preservation of historic resources and also a specific goal to establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. Hensch thanked Russett for the thorough presentation and how helpful it was to explain the proposal. He noted he is not a big fan of the density bonus and feels there could be issues with that but likes that City Council has to approve all transfer requests. Martin acknowledged the process this has gone through and asked if the Historic Preservation Commission did approve the ordinance. Russett said the Historic Preservation Commission did have some concerns but recommended moving it forward, she will go back to the Historic Preservation Commission in November with an update and let them know the progress. Signs asked about the historic district piece, noting a few meetings ago when the Commission voted on a large group of properties on South Clinton Street (the Railroad District) that was to be made into a historic district, would those properties then qualify to have transfer rights. Russett noted they would if it was a contributing resource to the historic district. Hensch asked for clarification on how the transfer rights work within a district. Russett used the Railroad District as an example, any property within that district that is identified as a contributing resource, that site and that building, would be eligible for a transfer and the formula would be based on that specific property, not the district as a whole. Hensch asked who can take advantage of the transfer rights, only the owners of the property, or could they give that right to some developer in their name. Russett said the transfer rights could be sold to a developer. Dyer asked about demolition by neglect or any provisions that say the owner must upkeep the landmark property. Russett said they followed the language that was in the Riverfront Crossings Code that says the property is subject to the demolition by neglect ordinance and property needs to be maintained. If the property is deteriorating the owner would not need to make improvements to be eligible for the transfer rights. Townsend asked how they would keep track of these transfers. Russett said the City will maintain a database of eligible properties and transfer potential, where they are transferred to and what the receiving site is. Staff is also proposing as part of the application to apply for a transfer details on the application. They are also requesting that if there is a private sale on the open market that the City at least be notified the sale has happened. Martin asked what would happen if a private sale happens and the developer does not use the transfer rights for a while and in that time the City decides this ordinance is not appropriate and removes it from Code, what happens to the developer that is now the owner of a transfer they cannot use. Dulek acknowledged that is an issue that is potentially out there. She added with Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 13 of 15 regards to maintaining this database there will have to be the ability to keep track of the change of title for these rights. Hensch asked if this ordinance is in response to market demand. Russett said it was a request of the property owner's at 410 North Clinton when that property was going through the historic designation process, they requested for their local landmark designation be put on hold until this ordinance could be discussed and implemented. Hensch opened the public hearing Matthew Kulzak (222 N. Clinton St.) is an econ student at The University of Iowa and is taking a class on planning livable cities and that is why he attended today's meeting. In class they are discussing the development rights and transferring those and he feels from an economic perspective it is great because one issue that occurs with historic buildings is there is potential development in that area but it is unusable because it is historical and something that is valued by a city to maintain historic character. One issue that could arise is the building being neglected and the rights still sold, and that seems like a valid concern and not in the spirit of the program to benefit for the historic building but not maintain it. Andrew Hoffmann (718 Oakcrest Street) is a College of Law student at The University of Iowa in a property law class and commented on the density issue noting it was pretty limited in the way the presentation was shown because the density can only be transferred by the extent that the landmark has the capability to do that. Hoffmann feels it would be a pretty small transfer and not a big issue. Additionally the distance of transfer, the transfer could be sold and used anywhere in the City and there are no restrictions given in the presentation. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties. Parsons seconded the motion. Signs noted he likes this amendment in that it does address some of the concerns he expressed when the Commission was acting upon the historic properties at past meetings. There is potential for economic loss to a landowner when the City designates a landmark against the property owners will, and now there is a potential benefit and may mitigate any owner loss on the property. Townsend would like to see some requirement that the property had to be kept in good condition to be eligible to transfer development rights. Martin asked if a property sells their rights, then has the property demolished due to disrepair, what can be rebuilt in that location. Dyer recalls that when the Tate Arms transfer of development rights happened the property owner was required to upgrade and maintain the Take Arms building as well as be able to construct the new building. Russett agreed and noted there was a provision in the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance related to demolition by neglect. That provision will also be in this ordinance. Russett also noted there is a City ordinance that requires all buildings in the city to Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 14 of 15 be maintained. Signs is concerned about an indefinite time frame, but likes to idea of bringing the building up to standards at the time of development transfer. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 20, 2018. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted two things. First she introduced the new associate planner Ray Heitner. Second, staff received a letter from property owners in the Cardinal Pointe Subdivision that she emailed out to the Commission members, the letter expresses some concerns to a property that is for sale off Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Russett noted staff has not received an application for a rezoning on the property yet. Signs noted there has been a substantial change of membership on the Commission and in staff and he wonders if a work session is needed to talk through expectations going forward. Hensch noted it seems like staff reports are different now and perhaps stormwater can always be referenced even if just to say no report for that application. Signs agreed, that is an issue brought forth in many applications. Adjournment: Signs moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Defeated 1/8/19 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for Certain Historic Properties (ZCA18-00003) Whereas, the City of Iowa City aims to preserve historic resources through the creation of Iowa City historic landmarks and districts; and Whereas, the City is interested in ways to incentivize the designation of Iowa City historic landmarks and districts; and Whereas, one way to incentivize the preservation of historic resources is through the transfer of development rights; and Whereas, the City currently provides this incentive within the Riverfront Crossings districts; and Whereas, allowing the transfer of development rights city-wide for the preservation of historic resources may provide an incentive to property owners of historic buildings throughout the community; and Whereas, the proposed amendment allows for the transfer of development rights in the form of a height or density bonus from Iowa City historic landmarks and contributing structures within Iowa City historic districts to eligible receiving sites; and Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal and Strategy: Goal: Continue to protect our community's historical, environmental, and aesthetic assets. Strategy. Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas and historic features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve as assets and/or amenities for adjacent development; and Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Historic Preservation Plan goals: Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures. Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods; and Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission held a meeting on October 11, 2018 and voted to move the aforementioned zoning code amendment forward; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 18, 2018 and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. J s� Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section 1. Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by adding the following sections and underlined text, as follows: Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding a new subsection E. Transfer of Development Rights: E. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties. 2. Sending Sites Requirements: a. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A "Single -Family Residential", 14-26 "Multi -Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of this title. b. The sending site must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-313-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-313-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. 3. Receiving Sites Requirements: a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: (1) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this title; or (2) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 26-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. b. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is: (1) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, (2) Located within an Iowa City historic district, (3) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or (4) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Transfer of Development Rights: a. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one of the following formulas: (1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB -5 or CB -10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the CB -10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet shall equal 1 story in height; or (2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site b. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following limitations: (1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14- 28 "Multi -Family Residential' or 14-2C "Commercial", no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the receiving site base zone. (2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14- 2G -7G -1d of this title. (3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-8B-3, of this title. b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-8B-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: (1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, (2) The proposed receiving site, (3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, (4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and (5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and (6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer of development rights; and (7) Any other information required per the application form. 6. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking: a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount that remains on the sending site. b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be notified of the sale. Amend 14-26-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection D. Transfer of Development Rights: D. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties. 2. Sending Sites Requirements: d. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A "Single -Family Residential", 14-213 "Multi -Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of this title. e. The sending site must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-313-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. f. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-38-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. 3. Receiving Sites Requirements: a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: (3) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this title; or (4) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 213-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. c. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is: (5) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, (6) Located within an Iowa City historic district, (7) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or (8) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Transfer of Development Rights: c. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one of the following formulas: (1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB -5 or CB -10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the CB -10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet shall equal 1 story in height; or (2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site d. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following limitations: (1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14- 28 "Multi -Family Residential" or 14-2C "Commercial", no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the receiving site base zone. (2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14- 2G -7G-1 d of this title. (3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: c. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-813-3, of this title. d. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-86-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: (1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, (2) The proposed receiving site, (3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, (4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and (5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and (6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer of development rights; and (7) Any other information required per the application form. 6. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking: a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount that remains on the sending site. b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be notified of the sale. Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection D. Transfer of Development Rights: D. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties. 2. Sending Sites Requirements: g. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A "Single -Family Residential", 14-213 "Multi -Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of this title. h. The sending site must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-36-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. i. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-313-7, 'Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. 3. Receiving Sites Requirements: a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: (5) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this title; or (6) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. d. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is: (9) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, (10) Located within an Iowa City historic district, (11) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or (12) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Transfer of Development Rights: e. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one of the following formulas: (1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB -5 or CB -10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the CB -10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet shall equal 1 story in height; or (2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site f. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following limitations: (1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14- 2B "Multi -Family Residential" or 14-2C "Commercial', no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the receiving site base zone. (2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14- 2G -7G -1d of this title. (3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: e. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-8131-3, of this title. f. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-86-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: (1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, (2) The proposed receiving site, (3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, (4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and (5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and (6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer of development rights; and (7) Any other information required per the application form. 6. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking: a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount that remains on the sending site. b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be notified of the sale. Amend Table 26-2: Dimensional Requirements for Multi -Family Residential Zones, by amending the table, as follows: Table 28-2: Dimensional Requirements for Multi -Family Residential Zones I Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk Maximum Lot Coverage Total Maximum Minimum Area Minimum Minimum Total Front Number Of Open (Sq. ArealUnit Width Frontage Front Side Rear Height Building Building Setback Bedrooms Space12 Zone/Use Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Width Coverage Coverage Per Unit13 (Sq. Ft.) r RM- etached 5,0007 5,0007 557 407 155 5+2z See 358 203 50% 50% n/a 500 12 ingle-family note nd [detache 10 dero lot line ! Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 155 5+2z See[W58 203 50% 50% 300/unit note 10 Attached single- 3000 3000 [��F2O 155 0/10° 20 358T�7'77�r 150 family Multi -family 8,175 See table 40 20 10 20 358• 203 50% 50% 3 10/bed- 2B-3 of this [_�D i< room, but section no less than 401 I Group 8,175 See chaoter[�o 40 20 10 20 358 203 50% 50% See chapter 10/bed- liv ng 4. article 4, article room, but B of this B of this no less titre title than 400 Non- residential S,OOD 5,000 60 40 20 10 20 358 203 50% 50% Na n/a RM- Detached 5,00077557 407 155 5+2z 358 203 50% 50% Na 500 20 single-family and rete detached LI zero lot line r RNS- 20 Duplex3,600 1,800 45 35 155 5+2z note 35° 203 50% 300/unit 50% Attached 1,800 1,800 20/28° 20 155 0/10° 20507 50% 150 single family MuIU-family 5,000 See table 60 40 20 10 20 35° 203 50% 50% 3 2B-3 of thisu t Fne sect on0 Group 5,000 See hanter[�O 40 20 10 20 35° 203 50% 50% See chanter 10/bed- living 4 article 4. article room, but B of this B of this no less title title than 400 residents['5,000 n/a 60 40 20 10 20 35° 203 507 50% 7an/a etached 5,000 5,000 40�[25� 15° 5+2z See 35° 203 45% 50% n/a 500 ngle-family note [and 10etachro lot line Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 25 155 5+2z note 35° 20T�P�F`7` d 2,500 2,500 20/28° 20 15° 0/10°[��—rP�—[[-`[P`T 150 single- family MuIU-family 5,000 See table 40 25 20 10 20 35°• 203 45% 50% 3 10/bed- 2B-3 of this L< room, but section and no less note 9 than 400 Group living 5,000 See chanter 4. article B° of this 40 25 20 10 20 35° 203 45% 50% See chanter 4, article B 0f this 10Poed- room, but no less title UUe than 400 Non -tial 15,000 I Na I 40 I 25 120 I 10 120 358 203 I 45% I 50% I We I We residen r RM- Multi -family 5,000 See table None 35 20 10 20 358• 203 50% 50% 3 10/bed- 44 2B-3 of this room, but section no less than 400 I Group 5,000 Seechaoter None 35 20 10 20 358 203 50% 50% See chapter 10/bed- living 4 article 4, article room, but B of this B of this no less title title than 400 Nonresidential' 5,000 n/a one 35 20 10 20 358 203 50% 50% Na Na PRM Multi -family 5,000 None 35 20 10 10" 358 203 50% 50% 3 10/bed- FSeetable,, th ±< room, but no less than 400 I Group 5,000 See chapter None 35 20 10 10" 358 203 50% 50% See chapter 10/bed- living 4. article 4 article room, but B of this B of this no less title title than 400 Non- S,OOD Na None 35 residential' 20 10 10" 358 203 50% 50% n/a Na n/a = not applicable Notes: 1. Non-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side setback standards in chapter 4, article B of this title. 3. A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length. 4. See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4. article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 5. The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must be set back at least 25 feet. On all lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4. article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title. 6. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide. 7. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14-213-4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.) 8. Additional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to single family zones or single family uses. (See subsection 14-2134C, "Building Bulk 10 Standards", of this section.) 9. See the special provisions of this article regarding minimum lot area per unit requirements in the RNS-20 Zone. 10. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet, except in the Central Planning District and Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is dependent on the depth of the lot. For lots equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = lot depth less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision, garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a (non -habitable) breezeway (8 feet or narrower in width) will be considered detached accessory buildings and, therefore, are subject to the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than principal building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as detached accessory structurestbuildings. 11. May be reduced to 5 feet if rear lot line abuts an alley. 12. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14 -2B -4E of this section. 13. Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17. chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 11 Amend Table 213-3: Maximum Density Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings in Multi - Family Zone, by amending the table, as follows: Table 213-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi -Family Zone Zone RM -12 Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17. chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 2. Minimum lot area Der unit recuirements may ha redunerl fnr nrniaotc with a 12 RM - Ond RM -44 PRM Minimum lot area per unit (in square feet):–�—� — r r Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit 2,7252 1,8002 5002 4352 r— 2 -bedroom unit 2,7252 1,8002 1,0002 8752 3 -bedroom unit 2,7252 2,7002 1,5002 1,3152 Maximum number of bedrooms per multi -family dwelling unit F3 3 —�— 3 Minimum bedroom size' (square feet) 100 100 100 100 Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17. chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 2. Minimum lot area Der unit recuirements may ha redunerl fnr nrniaotc with a 12 Amend Table 2C -2(a): Dimensional Requirements for All Commercial Zones, Except the MU Zone, by amending the table, as follows: Table 2C -2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU Zones r— Maximum Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Setbacks Building Bulk i Total Fwelln Area MnimumMaximumMnimumSq.Width Frontage Front Side Rear Front Height HeightZone -- Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) FAR r CO -1 None See None None 10 01 01 None 258•iQ None for table 33 2C - 2(c) of this section r— CN-1 None See None None 5 01 01 See 22 or 352. 18 1 table subsection 14- 2C- 2C -7E of this 2(c) of article this section '--CH --1 [one n/a 100 one 10 01 01 None None None 1 CI -1 None n/a None None 10 0 0 -[-35-7N None 5 None 1 CC -2 None See None None 10 01 01 None 35 None 2 table 2C - 2(c) of this section r CB -2 None See None None 0 01 01 12 46, IQ None 27 table 2C - 2(c) of this section r CB -5 None See None None 0 or 01 01 12 75,12 25 35 table 10° 2C - 2(c) of this section 13 CB -10 None See None None 0 or 01 01 12 None 25 106 table 104 2C - 2(c) of this section n/a = Not applicable Notes: 1. A side setback or rear setback is not required where the side lot line or rear lot line abuts a nonresidential zone. However, where a side lot line or rear lot line abuts a residential zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting residential zone must be provided along the residential zone boundary. 2. Maximum height is 22 feet for one-story buildings, with the following exception: One-story buildings may exceed 22 feet in height if there are clerestory windows facing the street that give the appearance of second floor space. The maximum height for all other buildings is 35 feet. 3. Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots that abut or are across the street from a single-family residential zone, in which case the maximum FAR is 1. Hospitals are exempt from the FAR limit in the CO -1 Zone. 4. A front setback is not required, except for buildings that front on Burlington Street. Buildings must be set back at least 10 feet from the Burlington Street right-of-way. Building columns supporting upper stories may be located within this 10 foot setback, provided an adequate pedestrian passageway is maintained. 5. Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 5. 6. Maximum FAR is 10, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 15. 7. Maximum FAR is 2, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 3. 8. Additional height is allowed under certain circumstances. See subsection C1d(2) of this section. 9. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2C4E of this section. 10. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-7 14-2B-8 or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. 14 Amend Table 2C -2(b): Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), by amending the table, as follows: Table 2C -2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone (MU)' r -- Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk I Total Re Area Minimum Side ar Building Front Zone (Sq. Area/Unit Width Frontage Front (Ft.) (Ft.) Height [Total Coverag Setback Use Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) a Coverage MU Detached 3,00 3,000 30 20 5/156 5+22 20 35 50% 50% single- 0 family and detached zero lot line I ily 3,060 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+2z 20 355 50% 50% (duplex) 1060 1,800 20128 20 5/156 0/103 20 35 50% 50% single - family Multi- 5,00 See 45 20 5!156 5+2z 5+2 35$8 50% 50% family 0 table 2C- C- s 2(c)of 2(c) of this section I Group 5,00 See cha 45 20 5!156 5+2z 5+2 355 50% 50% living 0tp er 4. z article B of this title Nonreside Non �e n/a F None 20 5115 5+2 5+2 35 50% n/a nliall F ��� n/a = Not applicable Notes: 1. Nonresidential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories, plus 2 feet for each additional story. For detached zero lot line dwellings, see applicable setback regulations in chapter 4, article B of this title. 3. See applicable setback requirements in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 4. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide. 5. Maximum height is 35 feet. However, if any portion of a two-family use, multi -family use, group living use, or a nonresidential use is located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing single-family use or within 15 feet of a single-family zone boundary, then the portion of the building located within 15 feet of said property or boundary may not exceed 21/2 stories in height. 6. Minimum principal building setback is 5 feet. Maximum principal building setback is 15 feet. See 15 subsection 14 -2C -9D, "Maximum Setback", of this article. 7. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14 -2C -4E of this section. 8. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions°, of this title. Amend Table 2C -2(C): Maximum Density Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, by amending the table, as follows: Table 2C -2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Commercial Zones Zone I CO -1, CC -2, CN -1 And [CB-5And CB - Mu CB -2 10 Minimum lot area per unit (in F square feet): r— Efficienc or 1 -bedroom 2,725 435 There is no minimum lot area per unit y � unit standard. However, the number of 3 -bedroom units per lot r 2 -bedroom unit 2,7252 8752 may not exceed 30% of the total rnumber of units on the lot 3 -bedroom unit 2,7252 1,3152 Maximum number of 3� bedrooms per multi -family dwelling unit Minimum bedroom 100 100 100 size' (square feet) Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17. chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 2. Minimum lot area oer unit reauirements may be reduced for Droiects with an approved transfer of develooment riahts for increased densitv according to 14-2A-7. 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title Amend 14 -3C -2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, by adding a new paragraph 12, as follows: 12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14- 2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, or 14- 2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. 16 Amend 14 -3C -3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows: 2. Level II Review: a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and structures: (1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I review. (2) Certain public-private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) (3).Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to subsection 14 -2G -7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014) Provisions". of this title. b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title. Amend 14 -3C -3B, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows: 10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in subsection C of this section. Amend 14 -2G -7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection as follows: 3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and corresponding height bonus provides an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties: a. Eligibility: The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the following criterion: (1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or listed as a historically significant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity. b. Requirements: (1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval of this designation as a condition of the transfer of development rights; and (2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-36-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. c. Transfer Of Development Rights: (1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the 17 sending site may be transferred to one or more eligible site(s) within the riverfront crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in size, then eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of floor area (20,000 x 4) may be transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits established in this section. (2) The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2018. Appr ed by LYit Gt /d LlPiiw�nlo9�PJw/6�h.. City Attorney's Office w/ S� 18 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 01/08/2019 VoteforpaSsage: AYES: Thomas, Cole. NAYS: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Kellie Fruehling From: Anne Russett Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 11:54 AM To: Geoff Fruin; Kellie Fruehling Cc: Danielle Sitzman; Tracy Hightshoe Subject: FW: A comment about proposed Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance Please see the email below regarding the TDR ordinance. Kellie — Will you add this to Council correspondence? Thanks, Anne Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner City of Iowa City 319/ 356-5251 anne-russett(cDiowa-citv.org From: Larry Baker [mailto:icwriter@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 11:47 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: A comment about proposed Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance As we briefly discussed last night, I want to share a concern of mine about this proposed ordinance. Unfortunately, a long-standing commitment prevented me from attending the 10/18 PZ meeting at which this issue was discussed. Thus, I looked forward to reading the minutes of the meeting. In those minutes, I saw no discussion of the suitability of any particular "receiving" district. I have no problems with the overall ordinance, and I support the Commission's unanimous vote to forward it to the Council. However, I do wish to express my individual concern about the ordinance's applicability to the South Johnson Street area. It is my understanding that, if implemented, a developer could use his/her bonus in the South Johnson zone to exceed the current allowable height or density limits in that area. Density is already a major problem in that area. Allowing any increase over current limits, in my opinion, would be a serious mistake. I am less concerned about the height bonus, but I still see it as an issue that the Council should carefully consider before including the South Johnson area as a "receiving" zone. Increasing density or height in that area would put more (re)development pressure on properties to the east. My own preference would have been to remove the South Johnson Street area from the ordinance at the 10/18 meeting. That preference, however, would not have prevented me from supporting the overall ordinance, as did the other Commission members. It is a solid concept that is always open for improvement. I am requesting that you share this note with the City Manager and Council. It would also be appropriate to share it with other Commission members, but I will leave it to you to decide how that should be handled. Larry Baker Item Number: 10.b. + r tui�1r.� • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org January 8, 2019 Ordinance rezoning property located at 410-412 North Clinton Street from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 with a Historic District Overlay (RM-44/OHD). (REZ18-00007) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report HPC Staff Report PZ Minutes HPC Minutes Property Owners Request for Deferral & Signed Agreement Additional Correspondence Including Protest Petition Ordinance k-��=p CITY OF IOWA CITY irk �04 MEMORANDUM Date: March 9, 2018 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner and Sylvia Bochner, Planning intern Re: Designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street as a Historic Landmark (REZ18-00007) Background: In 2015 the applicant, the Historic Preservation Commission, began a study of Historic Properties that had been identified as possibly eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places but were not yet protected by zoning designations. The house at 412 North Clinton Street was identified as one of these key historic properties. The enclosed Iowa Site inventory Form and Information Sheet provide a discussion of the building's history and architecture. The property had the street address of 412 North Clinton Street until the rear addition was built and given the address 410 North Clinton. The entire property is included in the rezoning application and therefore both addresses are given. The two-story brick italianate- style house at 412 North Clinton Street was built in 1865 and isassociated with several prominent figures in Iowa City's history, including Dr. Milton B. Coch rave, a member of the corps of surgeons during the Civil War, and Samuel Sharpless, a director of the Johnson County Savings Bank. The building is currently used as multi -family housing. Historic Preservation Commission Review: The Historic Preservation Commission met December 14, 2017 and conducted a public hearing at which they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of 410-412 North Clinton Street. The Commission determined that the property meets the requirements for a landmark and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The building is significant for its architecture and association with prominent citizens of Iowa City. Landmark designation for 410-412 North Clinton Street, a property in a High Density Multifamily Residential (RM -44) zone, will require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Neither the garage nor the rear addition is contemporaneous with the historic house so they may be removed, rebuilt, and remodeled provided the design does not detract from the historic integrity of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions (Section 14-213-8 of the zoning code) that allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements to help support the continued use of historic buildings. Landmark designation will also make it possible for financial incentives such as tax credits and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Fund to be available. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Landmark Designation is a zoning overlay and therefore requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. The Commission's role is to review the proposed designation based on its relation to the Comprehensive Plan and proposed public improvements and plans for renewal of the area involved. There are two specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan that appear to apply to this proposal: 1). the Central District Plan and 2). the Historic Preservation Plan. The subject property is located within Subarea A of the Central District. The Central District Plan discusses challenges this area faces in terms of balancing the needs of different housing types and residents, including many student rentals. The plan encourages the provision of incentives to maintain, improve, and reinvest in older housing stock in the area, which can include incentives tied to historic preservation (Central District Plan pg 14). The designation of 410-412 March 8, 2018 Page 2 North Clinton Street as a historic landmark would contribute to this goal, along with the broader Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving historic resources and reinvesting in older neighborhoods (Central District Plan pg 2). Neighborhoods that are closest to the University benefit from a mixture of housing types including historic resources where a diversity of people can live and work or go to school in the vicinity. The Historic Preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan contains 3 specific goals relating to this proposal. Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City's Past. Under this goal the Commission is charged with continuing to research and evaluate properties and to pursue local landmark designation when appropriate. This proposal of landmark overlay zoning for the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street is a direct result of the Historic Preservation Commission working toward Goal 1. Goal T Establish and implement historic preservation objectives for the University of Iowa Campus and surrounding neighborhoods. Objective 7 of this Goal specifically supports efforts to preserve historic neighborhoods adjacent to the University Campus as the Campus expands, including avoiding negative impacts on individual historic resources. Local Landmark designation for 410-412 North Clinton Street promotes this objective by identifying this historic property as an area that is not appropriate for redevelopment. Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic development, historical roles and traditions, modem needs, and economic health and stability. in the Dubuque Street Corridor neighborhood, which includes this section of Clinton Street, Objective 2 provides more specific direction. Objective 2: Identify prospective sites for future redevelopment which will not adversely impact historic resources and include properties that are not individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Local Landmark designation for 410 -412 -North Clinton Street promotes this objective. The landmark designation sought by the Historic Preservation Commission conforms with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan — providing incentives to maintain and improve older housing stock, especially near the University Campus and identifying historic resources that are not currently protected by landmark designation. In staffs opinion, preservation of 410-412 North Clinton Street would not be in conflict with plans for redevelopment in the area but would actively promote a diversity of housing stock and the preservation of historic resources. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00007, an application to designate 410-412 North Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 with a Historic Preservation Overlay (RM-44/OHP). Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. information Sheet 3. Iowa Site InventoryForm 4. Correspondence Approved by: %Q L-1 Tracy Hight e, Di for Department Neighborhood and Development Services II. M, O � 1 ��� F ' � �� T� it •%BTI O C sem. CCU pd" U Z Ado, M, O � 1 ��� F ' � �� T� it •%BTI O C sem. CCU pd" Cochrane-5harpless-Dennis House 410-412 North Clinton x 412 North Clinton aStreet. - built in 1865, is a two-story brick Italianate with low -sloped side gabled roof. Unlike typical houses where the brackets are part of an elaborate cornice in this house, here the simple cornice is supported on paired brackets. The full -width front porch has paired columns and decorative brackets composed of carved curling tendrils similar to the cornice brackets. The symmetrical fagade includes a classically detailed center entry with narrow sidelights and transom with deeply recessed trim. Floor -to -ceiling 4 -over -6 double -hung windows are symmetrically placed on the first floor. The second -floor windows have heavy stone sills and lintels. The central window is 4 -over -6 like the first -floor windows, and the windows on each side are smaller 4 -over -4. The front fagade also has original shutters. Dr. Milton B. Cochrane settled in Iowa City in 1854. He was a surgeon in the 1st Iowa Cavalry and then promoted to the corps of surgeons of the United States Volunteer during the Civil War. He was a member of the State Historical Society from 1857 until his death in 1898. In 1859-1860 he was a member of the Iowa City School Board. After the war he was appointed the first Superintendent of the Soldiers' Orphans Home at Davenport until he resigned in 1867. In the early 1880s he was appointed surgeon of an. Indian Agency in Wisconsin. . Samuel Sharpless and his wife, Priscilla (Crain) Sharpless, owned this property from 1867 until at least 1915, when Priscilla died in the house. Sharpless was a director of the Johnson County Savings Bank, supervisor of various farming industries, and a member of the Iowa City Council. In 1917 Edwin E. Dennis and his wife, Anna (Tantlinger) Dennis, bought the house and passed it on to their daughter Gertrude Dennis in 1936. Gertrude taught music, was an active Presbyterian, and served as part of the local Art Circle. She owned the house until 1965. 412 North Clinton is significant for its architecture and association with prominent citizens of Iowa City. Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House 410-412 North Clinton as IOWA snic uivtN =Y FORK CONTINUATION SIMT Su52-01 a D 041 tvay ID Number Suea Address. 410-412 N. Ciimtcn St. RwaSa aty Came Jo n quaw Apl Da=iptkm: (IfR=21) S oft Roil/ Fri10 � __1 . 7 LoWdmg NSE - SbCW 3 briCk.aCIdition at rear -Ai F6;' �. 0 Property ChanK3erlrtk Form - Reridentiai CFN 259-1402 Stnvey TD Dumber 52-010-0041 8/23/89 Databaw 10 lamer .urea Afteft `pt= St. City low City tip LAO Dewriptiou: (If ) Townft R=V Qpgrjor of QMW. Locmiou IategriW: (ji ghW Site . Moved ..,_ 'Moved to tlVW Site, End Witd7 1 or Y IrM W1i Ground plan: a B*Iftg Siuge(a) &i W h Wift by N ik la aniw Amltiao=4 Styla/Stylissic Inoue es Key Stylistic Aftbules Coda. Late Vi,ct+oriana Ita7 iAriate13Q!�eted & t�elism! 42 .. tial Lien window ,. 412 410 410 Maftddw FoundEdw Sta ne Peened .concrete was gLigk Br •ck .30 Roof AppWat Number of Std 1 Rod Shape Gabler -.very low. RUM / Cable Builde(s) 2019 OWn ._ ArcWtraW Tktict M _f)TW al cantruction lieu s moi las: 9 unit apartment building �added t) rear an .199? Note double .end Sys, oriairAl ercterior shutters and original porch. Signdk= Inuxior Cotes: All ori fi; m 7 except~ for baths and kitchen COWMAN ftmri SurMw Conumn 412 is very old with Italianat+e detailings (bracJcets, 1aV windows, etc.) 410 is aparMw* building attached to rise. r of 412. Brick built for M. B. Cochran in. 1865 (fratt real estate apprai; nt records.) tsdn Sbor t SOI=: Steri Fire Insurance Maps t 1688, 1892, 1899, 1908, 1912, 1920„ 1926, 1933. Keyes pp 59-60 Infw=tion pr+ow,ided. -by present air f l eef_ Further StudylA*mndy I ] C=Wmuzion ShVA SurveyorQK Dow 19 5- a IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM EVALUATION SHEET ADDRESS: 410-412 North Clinton SURVEY ID # 5.2-01,0-D041 Iowa City, IA REVIEWED BY: Molly Myers Naumann, Consultant ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE & ASSOCIATED CONTEXTS: Dubuque/Linn Street Corridor: 1839-cA 946 APPLICABLE NRHP CWT£RIA: A —B _ C X^ NRHP ELICIBILITY: INDIVIDUAL YES. X NO - M .DATE: February 1996 CONSERVATION DISTRICT: CONTRIBUTING RX_ NON-CONTRIBUTING This two story brick residence from: 0865 is a ;goad example ttf Italianate residential design. The house is rectangular with a small two story wing to the .rear. It features a symmetrical three bay facade.: the entry having both transom and sidelights. On the first floor two narrow 'floor.-ten.gth Windows are paired on each side of the entrance. At the second floor level the windows appear as pairs; but without space between them. Both sills and lintels are of stone. Paired Italianate brackets are located at the cornice. The original end chmneys and exterior shutters are in place. The front porch extends across the entire, facade and features slender paired post's., square in shape with chamfered corners. Delicate scroll brackets -top each of the porch posts. The pitch of the tgable roof is unusually low,. one indication of a fairly early date. Although a multi -unit apartment building has been attached to this house at the rear, the integrity of the original structure remains quite high. It is considered to be individually eligible as a good example of its period and style, and is considered to a be a strong contributing structure in the Clinton Street Conservation District, HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Sc ASSOCIATED CONTEXTS: Dubuque/Linn Street Corridor, 1.$39-e.1946 APPLICABLE NRHP CRITERIA: A -X B C D NRHP ELIGIBILITY: INDIVIDUAL YES _X NO CONSERVATION DISTRICT; CONTRIBUTING_ X_ NO-N-CONTRI13UTINC The Cochrane -Dennis House from c.1865 illustrates the development .of the north part of Iowa City in the years following the removal of the state capital to Des. Moines,. The location of the State University of Iowa here in 1855, and the arrival of fhe railroad in 1856, ensured the continued growth of the former seat of state .government. The Cochrane -Dennis House and .the Dey House across (he street at 507 North Clinton appear to be the last remaining, examples of early residential design in this neighborhood. Both are good examples of the Italianate style and both have been well maintained. They demonstrate the use of mass-produced building materials that became available with the arrival of the railroad. The university was housed in the Old Capitol and two other buildingslocated on what is know known as the Pentacrest. The area to the north was a Magical location for both faculty and students to live. Clinton Street appears to have always been the western edge of the so-called North Side Neighborhood, and even from the. earliest days may have been considered to be separate. The Cochrane -Dennis House .is considered to be individually eligible and is also a solid contributing structure in the proposed conservation district. PREPARED BY: Molly Myers: Naumann, Consultant RHONE: (515): 682-.2743 ADDRESS: 167 W. Alta Vista, Ottumwa, IA 52501 DATE: February -1946 AFFILIATION: Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission ADDRESS., 401 E. Washington, Iowa City, fA 52240 PHONE: ( 319) 356-5243 RALPH L. NEuz1L, p3o-=1) DALE SANDERsoN JAY W. SIGAFOOSE AssociATE: CHRISTOPHER A. JoNEs March 7, 2018 Mum, SANDERSON & SIGAFOOSE, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 119 WRIGHT STREET PO BOR 1607 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1607 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 TELEPHONE: IOWA CITY: (319) 337-3167 OXFORD: (319) 9294175 FAX: (319) 356-6153 RE: March 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Historic Preservation Landmark Designation for 410-412 N. Clinton Street Dear Members of the Planning and zoning Commission: I am writing to you on behalf of Robert Crane, the owner of the property located at 410- 412 North Clinton Street in Iowa City which the Historic Preservation Commission has recommended to be designated as a historic landmark. This property is located across the street from the University of Iowa's Currier Residence Hall and is zoned RM -44 (High Density Multi - Residential). This property is not a single-family residence. Since purchasing the property in approximately 1981, Mr. Crane has rented the property and currently provides affordable; non- student housing only blocks away from Iowa City's downtown business district. The older home that faces the street is a rooming -style house with nine bedrooms that share bathrooms and kitchens. Attached to the rear of this older home is an apartment building that was constructed in 1965 with nine one -bedroom self-sufficient apartments. From the outside, these structures appear to be a single building. Each apartment has an external entryway. This letter is to urge you to reject the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation for the following reasons and recommend that the City Council reject this proposal. 1. The historic landmark designation will have an extreme and negative impact on the value ofMr. Crane's properly that is disproportionately greater than most residential properties designated as a historical landmark due to the location and .zoning of this property. The high-density zoning designation and unique location just steps from residence halls and classrooms of the University of Iowa and downtown employers distinguish this property from most historic landmarks. This property differs from other single-family homes in residential neighborhoods because it has significantly higher income potential than most other residential properties due to the high-density zoning in this location. Consequently, the restrictions from the historic landmark zoning will significantly reduce the property's value and burden Mr. Crane far more than other property owners who own older homes in Iowa City. The purposes of historic preservation in Iowa City include stabilizing and improving property values and strengthening the economy of the city.' h4r. Crane is a licensed real estate broker and appraiser with over 40 years of appraisal experience and believes the negative impact on his valuation will be significant and extreme. T11e significant decrease in value is an unfair burden for W Crane to bear without compensation from the City. Rather than preserving and improving W Crane's property value, this designation will lower his value and may reduce the values of adjoining properties. 2 The historic integrity of thisproperty was compromised long ago by the additional apartment building attached to the home. The building with the largest footprint on this lot is a three-story apartment building that sits aside and behind the brick house. This apartment building is attached to the older home, although it is not connected inside and they do not share any common space. This brick apartment building is believed to have been constructed in 1965 and shares none of the common architectural features of the house. The apartment building has no historical value. The 1965 addition changed the character of this property so that a majority of the construction on the property is clearly not historic. Imposing the historic landmark designation on the entire property will impose a zoning regime on a structure to which the landmark designation was not intended to apply and which clearly does not meet the statutory requirements for a historic property. Photos showing the apartment are attached to this letter. 3. The additional burdens imposed by the historic landmark zoning regime should not be applied to the apartment structure or to the unattached garage. There are three structums on Mr. Crane's Clinton Street property: the home, the apartment structure attached to the home, and a detached garage on the cast (rear) side of the lot. The Historic Preservation Committee has recommended designating the entire lot as a historic landmark, which would impose the historic preservation zoning requirements on all structures on the property, even though at least two of the three structures, including the largest structure on the property, clearly fail to meet the requirements of a historic structure. The historic preservation zoning regime includes a requirement to obtain a historic review to make changes to or make certain repairs to the exterior of all parts of the property. Designating the entire property as a historic landmark will mean that the garage and apartment building will also be designated as historic landmarks and that �&. Crane will be required to apply for a regulated permit and seek a historic review before he can make any changes or make certain repairs to the exterior of the building. The historic review process will impose significant logistical burdens on Mr. Crane that will increase the time and cost of repairs to building that are clearly not historic. 4. Yhe historic landmark designation will increase the cost of operating thisproperty and discourages th e City's goal ofpromodngprivate affordable housing. One of Iowa City's greatest current challenges is the rising cost of housing. The City has identified affordable housing as -a significant policy goal and obj cctive. 2 Mr. Crane has used this 1 Page 1, Iowa City Historic Preservatlon Handbook, Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, adopted September 7,2010. 2 Page 7, City of Iowa City, 2017-2017 Strategic Plan Summary, available at http.-IlWWW. WWW8.1owa- city. org1weblinkl0ledoo 767642IStrategicPlanSummaty-12-201 7-2.pdf 2 property to provide affordable housing to many low-income residents in a good location since he purchased the property in 1981. Currently there are nine units of housing in the rooming house that rent for $450.00/month per room. The one bedroom apartments in the 1965 addition are self- sufficient units and each rent for $560.00 per month. The rent for Mr. Crane's one -bedroom apartments are approximately 30% Iess than the $822/month average rent in Iowa City.3 The rooming house with shared facilities in the older home provides an alternative housing option with even lower rents. Most of the tenants on this property are not students. Mr. Crane has been helping Iowa City meet the objective of providing affordable housing since buying the property in 1981 in a neighborhood that has a convenient location near the downtown business district that has good access to public transportation. The historic landmark zoning regulations will impose additional burdens and costs on operating this property that will be passed to tenants, many of whom have very low incomes. These additional costs that will be passed to the tenants make the City's objective of having affordable housing more difficult to achieve. Mr. Crane is 78 years old and suffers from several health conditions, but he continues to actively manage the property. He is not a large corporate landlord. It is his hope that the commission will review this matter from his perspective and chose to recommend to the City Council to not designate this property as a historic landmark. Sincerely, /s/ Christopher A. Jones Attorney at Law a Cedar Rapids Gazette, May 1, 2016, lora City has higher share of renters paying 30% or more of Income to housing than other metros, available at: http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/businessfiowa-city-has-higher- share-of-renters-paying-30-percent-or-more-of-Income-to-housing than -other -metros -20160501 (the Gazette reports that Cook Appraisal determined the average cost of an apartment within one mile of the Pentacrest to be $822). . Asti. { 7 t - Ppt L. yf I J" -4X CITY OF IOWA CITY 469111 111- —SrLawt1 4% 0 75 A r%T Im am q 041 M E M N, U U Date: December 7, 2017 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 410 North Clinton Street A sub -committee of the Commission did a study and identified several of Iowa City's early brick houses as priorities for local landmark designation. The subcommittee requests that the property at 410 N. Clinton Street, the Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House, be designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The enclosed Iowa Site Inventory Form provides a discussion of the building's history and architecture and the enclosed summary sheet provides additional information obtained through staff and Commission research. Indications are that the building was built in 1865. Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements. The Commission should determine if the property meets at least one of the criteria for local designation listed below: a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture; b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship; c. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; e. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; f. Has yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history. Staff finds that 410 N. Clinton Street meets criteria a in that it is one of Iowa City's few remaining Civil War -era homes and criteria b in that it is an intact example of Italianate residential architecture in Iowa City that is not diminished by the addition because it is located behind the house. Staff finds that it meets criteria c in that it is located in an early residential area associated with the university and the western edge of the northside neighborhood in this early period. The house meets criteria d because of its association with active prominent members of the Iowa City community especially Cochrane and Sharpless. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the designation of 410 N. Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, c, and d. Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House 410 North Clinton 410 North Clinton Street, built in 1865, is a two-story brick Italianate with a low -sloped side gabled roof. Unlike typical Italianate houses where the brackets are part of an elaborate cornice in this house the simple cornice is supported on paired brackets. The full -width front porch has paired columns and decorative brackets composed of carved -curling tendrils similar to the cornice brackets. The symmetrical facade includes a classically detailed center entry with narrow sidelights and transom with deeply recessed trim. Floor -to -ceiling 4 -over -6 double hung windows are symmetrically placed on the first floor. The second floor windows have heavy stone sills and lintels. The central window is 4 -over -6 like the first floor windows and the windows on each side are smaller 4-over4. The front fagade also has original shutters. Dr. Milton B. Cochrane settled in Iowa City in 1854. He was a surgeon in the 1st Iowa Cavalry and then promoted to the corps of surgeons of the United States Volunteers during the Civil War. He was a member of the State Historical Society from 1857 until his death in 1898. In 1859-60 He was a member of the Iowa City School Board. After the war he was appointed the first Superintendent of the Soldiers' Orphans Home at Davenport until he resigned in 1867. In the early 1880s he was appointed surgeon of an Indian Agency in Wisconsin. Samuel Sharpless and his wife Priscilla Crain owned this property from 1867 until at least 1915 when Priscilla died in the home. Sharpless was a director of the Johnson County Savings Bank, supervisor of various farming industries and a member of the Iowa City Council. In 1917 Edwin E. Dennis and his wife Anna Tantlinger bought the house and passed it on to their daughter Gertrude Dennis in 1936. Gertrude taught music, was an active Presbyterian, and served as part of the local Art Circle. She owned the house until 1965. 412 North Clinton is significant for its architecture and association with prominent citizens of Iowa City. Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House 410 North Clinton IOVVAh Sr.rl; UMNTORY Survoy ID NuaAcr 52-0.1 Q -D 4A-1 Database ID Number. Nonalm 1. Historic Narne(s)- 2. Cope UM Nae(s) 3. Swet AAkws 410-41j,N. Clinton St. cit" _ ----� - ._ verity [ 5. County 6. Subdivision ci3,C xd 1. Plat i. B1ork(s) 8. Lags) 9. LIZ! D=Hptioa: (IfRurW) TowndW R=ga Section Qwuta of quaW of 10. Historic FunWou(s) SiMIS dwell' _ m 01 'A 11. Cumnt Function(s) - I fo. Mix Ogg 12. Qwwr Phone f A' S 91, 6dli��: �A.'IIAi Lille •al11 a' 1,114,114, =�R !s IiM": Ili♦i15 _�==.si.ilm !�ki! 5.11 , ' �,aa�ali,�li-:lI�I�.Lill. �lil� ilii � • . Lamdon ofNe , ZIP 52240 i ;rrr� ars Y a..::.J L f r our,,,..•• IOWA WE IMNTORY FORM CONTMATION SHUT Sumy m Numbsr 52-01 O -D 041. Databw IID Number Sueet Address 0 -412 N. Cli atcn St. Cit; lem Cit r.....» coudy Johnscm Lasa D=hpdw: OfRord) TownsWp Rara® SaAw r of Of Roll / Fm= 0 / 7 Lcokir- ME - € bA�: �� � M -i at rear Property Charaetcriatic Form - Residential CFe! 2554402 Survey IDNumber 52-010—DO41 8/2569 Database ED Number ,,,,rec:t Address 410-112 N. Cjj,ntM St. City. Icm City County agbw. on l 5! Description: (If Rural) Township Range Section Quarter of (p=er— of L"- tion Inte3iry: Original Site . Moved , Moved to Ori:hW Site Bndangorud? 11 or Y•_ If yes. why? Ground Plan: a. BmWiq S s) l w dition b. Width �� Elad �-�•, .----.-�.�. by ft1h.Q _ � Unjs Architectural Stylrlatylistic L-4uenc es Y4y Sty1istic Attributes Code Late Vi.-.tori.an: Italiana to Bracketed eaves, transon & sidelights 42 tall slender windows 412 410 412 Materials: Foundation Stowe Poured concrete 40 100 Vi wk Brick Brick _ _. - --- 30 30 Roof Vital t 50 60 Number of Stories 2 3 Roof Shape Gable - yga low pitch Z Gable 1 1 Builder(s) ur*wqxl ___- Architect(s) Gn]a' m ndgkW Construction Date 1865—_ Modification/Addition ation/Addition Dates: 9 unit aparbn-mt- 1ai.lding added to rear in 199? v.:)tQ double end chimneys, oricrinal exterior shutters and original porch. _ - CorttimIdw+Sheet i i Significant Interior Components: All original e:.c ept for baths and kitchen Continuation sheer f 1 Surveyor Com u mm ,112 is very old r;rith Italianate detailirrgs (brackets, long xrindo-�, eix. ) 410 is apartment building attached to rear of 412. Brick built for M. B. Cochran itt 1865 (from real estate apprai enrent records.) Sources: Sanborn Fire Insurance imps: 1888, 1892, 1899, 1906, 1912, 1920, 1926, 1933. Keyes Fp 59-60 information provided by presEmt owr rr Continuation Suet [ 1 Beds Further Study/Anomaly [ ] Surveyor , Moraski/&win ler Date 1995-96 C IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM EVALUATION SHEET ADDRESS: 410-412 North Clinton SURVEY ID # 52-010-DO41 Iowa City, IA REVIEWED BY: Molly Myers Naumann, Consultant DATE: February 1996 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE & ASSOCIATED CONTEXTS: Dubuque/Linn Street Corridor: 1839-c.1946 APPLICABLE NRHP CRITERIA: AB _ C NRHP ELIGIBILITY: INDIVIDUAL_ YES _X_ NO _ CONSERVATION DISTRICT: CONTRIBUTING X NON-CONTRIBUTING This two story brick residence from c.1865 is a good example of Italianate residential design. The house is rectangular with a small two story wing to the rear. It features a symmetrical three bay iacade, the entry having both transom and sidelights. On the first floor two narrow floor -length windows are paired on each side of the entrance. At the second floor level the windows appear as pairs, but without space between them. Both sills and lintels are of stone. Paired Italianate brackets are located at the cornice. The original end chmneys and exterior shutters are in place. The front porch extends across the: entire facade and features slender paired posts, square in shape with chamfered corners. Delicate scroll brackets top each of the porch posts. The pitch of the gable roof is unusually low, one indication of a fairly early date.. Although a multi -unit apartment building has been attached to this house at the rear, the integrity of the original structure remains quite high. It is considered to be individually eligible as a good example of its period and style, and is considered to a be a strong contributing structure in the Clinton Street Conservation District, HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE & ASSOCIATED CONTEXTS: Dubuque/Linn Street Corridor; 1839-c.1946 APPLICABLE NRHP CRITERIA: A X B C D NRHP ELIGIBILITY: INDIVIDUAL YES _X_ NO _ CONSERVATION DISTRICT: CONTRIBUTING X NON-CONTRIBUTING The Cochrane -Dennis House from c.1865 illustrates the development of the north part of Iowa City in the years following the removal of the state capital to Des Moines. The location of the State University of Iowa here in 1855, and the arrival of the railroad in 1856, ensured the continued growth of the former seat of state government. The Cochrane -Dennis House and the Dey House across the street at 507 North Clinton appear to be the last remaining examples of early residential design in this neighborhood. Both are good examples of the Italianate style and both have been well maintained. They demonstrate the use of mass-produced building materials that became available with the arrival of the railroad. The university was housed in the Old Capitol and two other buildings located on what is know known as the Pentacrest. The area to the north was a logical location for both faculty and students to five. Clinton Street appears to have always been the western edge of the so-called North Side Neighborhood, and even from the earliest days may have been considered to be separate. The Cochrane -Dennis House is considered to be individually eligible and is also a solid contributing structure in the proposed conservation district. PREPARED BY: Molly Myers Naumann, Consultant ADDRESS: 167 W. Alta Vista, Ottumwa, IA 52501 AFFILIATION: Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission ADDRESS: 401 E, Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 PHONE: (515) 682-2743 DATE: February 19tv6 PHONE: (319) 356-5243 .11o,V, I iw, S1 "LO Ln I 1 -In" i y & M 0 pi, P!'Aalon of P Frem w; �ac.tn law& st. e i 1151orical D wx vt-vi rot Z41 F. Mmukat St., C'it; ' 52240 Iderid-d"Cadon -aid - A 071 Site Ni" -17- -r 30-1418 -T, 7 -� 177;,77­,-'i District Nwme. g T�,-Crane Hnij i12._�or Tinton 4. LgrN &f -i i _aCk Loc4flan - ZmL­a AOOML� A verT-7. Acre SC we zer-*� Dj%, aw I :Tar". -— T6on rrkt­ t -o FORie 7. fWt'P,LA_0 A,&-qmW 23- George. Street 3. Uon Prident— __ De��Aotion 10. FbijeJe-i'em 701y dvMBiL, Ce1u1fiP64'.Zmfiy 4-�AiinL [I other t OVA.,? _. . __Arc;;j1r.n V3aiU-. unknow CI indt-striA 0 a,=-4kr Inztfitutiwal Q oducaSoriml EJ Im Ue Q ?grioultural E7 store OWMe [Jb>uarJate' ba1fzn C,-Jhfr%?as Osiucco 12. Sumclmd U-wjad frme -.,ilh interlocking jz_)tn,�� Elwoodframe withi'j.,,;v members 6;�,-Ilocn framm) LJ!,-on'fromp ❑ steel :1$mt v41,h crimz_ln vila"Ijs 0 eoin,%med coni Na 13. ri jrcOlert [I good a r.] Oetiia iorated 14. NotiL:s en ^ PteTIit-i ty, ul WRL4-is (with &Iis and ,;.rc1-%.r_t, If %viown).i,nd xr; wher i-.WoMQ ilwtucec a.' bufldin- and 0 R742ed and ;-Irco-ty?TP 0 b:� w. 0 otFar farm stwoe;es Ej camm4k' iFoun aoei three- r tory__bxa4u__bu i Id i ng br4r_�- 1f. J� IS4, b off4hij?. omk. ..r BlUtfAT P oo E] Y�:r_jf eo, -May? L"lopl-riland rjhidustrial (gresid--nidal Oother age i ri .. ilntricat sources of ;rein; mt.:ann for 4:;I sx. `:: mints) ?al. dschi[►a�t;rxai s;�nifhai,z (c M. KC ie strrtct.ur-Andividi;.1My ri=: _.JET; for Cie h1. •tlonal .: is ter i.'. Zuniributhi'- ❑ C. iN'cUrib}:rr�rrsirn II Well preserved gable sided brick house with low pitched roof. Features Italianate front porch and paired cornice brackets. '.•!indows on the first floor are full length, those on the second floor are paired beneath stone lintels and Sills.. The center window on the second floor is floor length as well. See continuation sheet. ifkl";ri�al F�I' Iftaat's Therms) c. ;Weu .I.-J'tareIrid,ead:tAh/ may tl;;r?l*v fortsp� t�la.-�sn l s�: S sr ,b. ContribudnZ structure f 0 w. Not eli,610a Intrusion Italiattate-Two -story side gable The Samuel Sharpl ess family awned the house as late as 1912, and he was noted for his local investment activities as well as for his having served as Director of the Johnson County Savings Bank for twenty five years. Gertrude F. Dennis owned the house from 1935 through the early 19501s at least. Zt. z-;,; c (for p:)mM and s€arorderl ;,or;seas, Vve completc- i'^cts of prrl:iicotion:-wtho., able, VOace of publ'rstinn, d --t„ dtc.): Vrepwed by. _ :tt .. ? s:�' '. _!fate Address _ . _ - -- — Telf.Vhons - tJ[���iixa:Inn_---�---�-�--�-.�_..._,.._ Far 111 on of Fia.staic Prpnor ration Use Only 1. 0;'-' c& Infcarm:;. ion 3c),urcas on flvis FroNrty 0 cove-'; C'�Cwrc: rile 0 Wl.adshield aumey ❑ Natioozil t%&--er ❑ Graats-to-,'ad: ❑ Determination of tlizibiiiq 2. Subject Traces a. b. .� C. -....._ ._._ d. e. ❑ Ravi vw and [;carspllancz Pfojert: ❑ Other--.-- L-3 ther_.._._ ❑ Other ... m� ❑ 3. Photo Images .S.d - a r o -(),I/ lavCCi a s te I 1V8 iI1.OI' Vr Site Number 30-1418 Divi s%, ki of i-: istoric ?r2s,!:r -aV o �I w -vat Stag 1i;storicai Dep-nmr-ot 26 7- Mnrkv: S'.' 1=00i city, Continuacifon Sheet item .-Mu barc(s) The Samuel Sharpless homestead, 412 N. Clinton Samuel Sharpless ( -1901) served for tt-ienty•five years as the director of JohAson County Savings Banc, and was a noted local capitalist. (Aurner, Histor o..,: Jbhnson County, Iowa (Cedar Rapids, Western Pub.Co., 1912 pp. 687-88 Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 2018 Page 17 of 23 REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00006): Discussion of an application submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission for a rezoning to designate the property located at 412 N Dubuque Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Miklo sated this property is also located in the Central Planning District. It is zoned High Density Multi Family and currently contains one dwelling. It was built shortly after the Civil War. The Central District Plan encourages the investment in older housing stock and the maintenance of a variety of housing. Designation of 412 N Dubuque Street would help achieve these goals as well as the goal to identify and protect historic properties. Therefore staff finds this in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. Freerks opened the public hearing. Ginalie Swaim (Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission) noted this is a more modest one-story brick cottage built in the 1860s which is associated with early brick makers and masons. The house is associated with Sylvanus Johnson, purportedly the first brick maker in town, David Boarts, a brick mason and eventually a prominent Iowa City builder. In preservation the small simple house can be as significant as a large elaborate house and this home represents the early brick cottages in Iowa City and there are very few remaining examples so that is why this should be landmarked. Freerks closed the public hearing. Parson moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00006 an application to designate the property located at 412 N Dubuque Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 with a Historic Preservation Overlay (RM-44/OHP). Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted there are three specific Comprehensive Plan goals related to this proposal (Goal 1, Goal 7 and Goal 10) and she believes this clearly meets those goals. Martin asked if this property becomes a historic landmark would the owners have to change the front door. Miklo said they would not have to change it but if they decided to do so the City would provide direction for a door more suitable. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00007): Discussion of an application submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission for a rezoning to designate the property located at 410-412 N Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Miklo stated this property is also located in the Central Planning District and is also zoned High Density Multi -Family Residential. It is currently used for multi -family dwelling units, the property also includes a non -historic addition in the back as well as a garage. Miklo explained that in a situation like this where there are non -historic elements of the property, the Historic Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 2018 Page 18 of 23 Preservation Guidelines provide a lot of flexibility on how those are treated. They can be removed or replaced. If replaced the goal would be any replacement to be compatible in design with the historic structure. The Central District Plan encourages the investment in older housing stock as well as the maintenance of a variety of housing and this particular building is a good example of that, it has multiple dwellings in the building and contributes to the variety of housing in the neighborhood. Designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street would help achieve that goal as well as the more general goal of identifying and preserving historic properties. Freerks opened the public hearing. Ginalie Swaim (Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission) noted this is one of the oldest brick houses discussed tonight in the Italianate style, it dates back to 1865 and has considerable historic integrity with the windows, doors and brackets in the porch. The second - floor windows have heavy stone sills and lintels and original shutters. Additionally this home is historic due to its association with prominent citizens, the first owner was Dr. Milton B. Cochrane, he served on the school board and went on to serve as a Civil War surgeon and then became the first Superintendent of the Soldiers' Orphans Home at Davenport. The next owners were Samuel Sharpless and his wife, Priscilla (Crain) Sharpless. Samuel Sharpless was a director of the Johnson County Savings Bank, supervisor of various farming industries, and a member of the Iowa City Council. Later the home was owned by the Dennis family, specifically Gertrude Dennis who was locally involved in arts and music. Swaim noted it is remarkable that a house dating back to the 1860s is still housing Iowa City residents all these years later. Miklo added that after some research there are fewer than two dozen buildings surviving from the Civil War in Iowa City. Christopher Jones (Attorney, Neuzil, Sanderson & Sigafoose) is representing owner of the property, Robert Crane, and wanted to state that he is not aware by law that the Planning & Zoning Commission is only to look at the Comprehensive Plan as that limits them to how they can vote only following the staff recommendation. That would appear as only a rubber stamp and he encourages them to think beyond what the staff recommends. He notes this property is particularly unique in that it is zoned as high-density residential property. Mr. Crane is opposing this landmark designation for various reasons. Mr. Crane is a licensed real estate broker and appraiser with over 40 years of appraisal experience and believes the negative impact on his valuation will be significant and extreme. The purposes of historic preservation in Iowa City include stabilizing and improving property values and strengthening the economy of the city. The significant decrease in value is an unfair burden for Mr. Crane to bear without compensation from the City. Rather than preserving and improving Mr. Crane's property value, this designation will lower his value and may reduce the values of adjoining properties. This property differs from other single-family homes in residential neighborhoods because it has significantly higher income potential than most other residential properties due to the high- density zoning in this location. Consequently, the restrictions from the historic landmark zoning will significantly reduce the property's value and burden Mr. Crane far more than other property owners who own older homes in Iowa City. Additionally this property has been significantly altered. The 1965 addition changed the character of this property so that a majority of the construction on the property is clearly not historic. This apartment building is nine units attached to the older home, although it is not connected inside and they do not share any common space. Mr. Crane has owned this property since 1981 and has been renting it out, to mostly low-income individuals, currently Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 2018 Page 19 of 23 there are nine units of housing in the rooming house that rent for $450.00 per month per room. The one -bedroom apartments in the 1965 addition are self-sufficient units and each rent for $560.00 per month. The rent for Mr. Crane's one -bedroom apartments are approximately 30% less than the $822 month average rent in Iowa City. Most of the tenants on this property are not students. Mr. Crane has been helping Iowa City meet the objective of providing affordable housing since buying the property in 1981 in a neighborhood that has a convenient location near the downtown business district that has good access to public transportation. The historic landmark zoning regulations will impose additional burdens and costs on operating this property that will be passed to tenants, many of whom have very low incomes. These additional costs that will be passed to the tenants make the City's objective of having affordable housing more difficult to achieve. Robert Crane (410-412 N. Clinton Street) stated he's owned this property since 1981 and has run it as a rooming house which has not been easy and is more difficult than apartments. He has kept it as a rooming house in favor of the lower income people, many of the people that live there are on assistance or help of some sort, and he works with that in his rents. He is very concerned about this restoration stamp being placed on the home and any repairs and updates will have to be kept at the 1865 style of the home will be very expensive. If that is to happen, the gross expenses will go up, the income will go down, and so the result will need to be higher rents. He is very concerned about the net income picture, he is also concerned about the diminishment of value. He is an appraiser, he started work in November 1964, and a diminishment in value means a loss in value. He has proof, one buyer that has been interested in the property for some number of years but has now said "if it gets a restoration stamp on it I am not interested". Crane questions what the Commission thinks it will cost him if this goes forward. He also notes that more importantly this is not a good fit, when the nine unit apartment was added in 1965 that destroyed the historic image of this building and it does not belong in a historic register. It is just not a good fit. He would appreciate the Commission's consideration to have this not move forward. Swaim countered that there is no restoration stamp, and that is not even a term they use in determining these landmarks. If Mr. Crane was going to do improvements to his property that required a building permit after the landmark status then the permit would have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission. If the improvements were on the 1965 addition the Historic Preservation Commission would not require that the addition look like it was part of the 1865 home. In terms of non -historic components on a historic building, the Historic Preservation Commission is generally quite flexible in allowing renovations. This house has maintained its 19 -century elements and would ask that those be retained, and kept in good repair, but they would not ask him to do anything. The procedure to get a design review is quite straightforward and streamlined, often approved by staff. In terms of the addition destroying the historical integrity of the house, from the back it does look strange, but it was put on without destroying the original integrity of the house. Miklo added that the City does not require someone to proactively restore a building, they will provide some incentives, but not demand that a building be restored. He also noted that one of the goals of the Central District Plan, is preservation of affordable housing stock and this house is unique with fairly small rooming units and one -bedroom units. If this house was to be removed and new construction was to be placed here, rent per bedroom would probably be considerably more. Signs noted that it is a pretty deep lot, could an owner demolish the modern addition and build anything new on the back half of the property. Miklo said that could be a possibility, the design of it would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to show it is compatible. Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 2018 Page 20 of 23 Jones addressed the concerns about being directed to restore the building and pointed to section 7.2 of the Historic Preservation handbook does make it very clear that the Historic Preservation Commission may file a petition with the City Building Office to require an investigation into any applicable building or structural problems due to neglect or deterioration. Therefore the Historic Preservation Commission can initiate proceedings to require repairs. The handbook goes on to say "failure to comply with the stated action may result in penalties and/or legal action" so to say the landmark designation does not require any additional repairs is false, because it does allow the Historic Preservation Commission to initiate proceedings it wouldn't otherwise be authorized to initiate. He understands any property not meeting Building Codes could cause City initiation, but with the addition of the landmark designation the Historic Preservation Commission can initiate proceedings it wouldn't otherwise be able. Miklo confirmed that what Jones stated was true, but it was also the same standards the Building Official apply during a routine rental inspection. Freerks asked if the Historic Preservation Commission had ever initiated a case such as that. Miklo would have to check records, he could not recall. He added as a rental property it is required to be maintained. Jones is strongly urging the Planning & Zoning Commission to reject this proposal, but if they do approve his client would like to pursue separating the back portion of the property perhaps with a survey and new legal description and have the zoning overlay end at the end of the older home. Hektoen noted that at the time of a redevelopment it could be addressed. Miklo added that the advantages to the property owner for having the whole property under the historic overlay zone is the allowance of developmental rights and other exceptions that come with a landmark designation overlay. Signs agreed and noted he was inquiring about that earlier to see if it was possible to demolish the addition part and perhaps redevelop it for more income possibilities. Signs asked if this item could be deferred so options could be researched for these people. He also stated that in the future when historical buildings are discussed they should have photos of the buildings from all angles. Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00007, an application to designate 410- 412 North Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 with a Historic Preservation Overlay (RM- 44/0HP). Martin seconded the motion. Signs noted he is more inclined to approve this as he learns there are options for the property owner that could be economically viable. Freerks agreed it was good to have the conversation about options as well as the benefits for the historical designation. She reiterated that no one wants to push undue burden on a homeowner and also would like the City to look into a way for some tax relief on these types of properties. Theobald said that she first noticed the historic and attractive qualities of this building several years ago and is glad to see that the City is being proactive regarding its preservation. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DECEMBER 14, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT PRELIMINARY Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Frank Wagner Jessica Bristow Anna Blaedel, Kate Corcoran, Jim Larew, David Rust, Jay Sigafoose, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Discussions for landmark designations of the following properties: Bristow said that seven different potential landmark properties will be discussed. She stated that, for six of them at least, this began as a process in which the Commission was interested in being proactive instead of reactive and looking at what properties are historic that are not currently located within historic districts or conservation districts or are not currently local landmarks. Bristow said that the site inventory forms and historic surveys that have been done for many properties in town were reviewed. She said there was then a kind of reconnaissance survey to look at the properties individually. Bristow said the result was a list of properties that staff and a subcommittee of the Commission then performed further research on. Bristow said that recently, the list was then pinpointed down to six properties that are all brick, residential structures in town that are representative of the history of brick structures that we have in Iowa City. She stated that each property will have its own separate public hearing, and then anyone who would like to speak will have the opportunity. Bristow said that the properties will need to meet certain criteria. She said that the criteria for local landmark designation in Iowa City are based on the National Register criteria. Bristow said that National Register criteria are probably more stringent than the local criteria. She said that, for instance, National Register criteria frequently involve interiors in a way that local landmarks do not. Bristow said that all six of these properties meet criteria A and B. She said that criterion A is: significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. Bristow HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 2 of 19 said that what is involved with most of these properties is architecture and culture. She said these properties have a specific style and history, and they speak to that. Bristow said that criterion B is: possessing an integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. She said that all of these properties are in their original locations, and they all have the hallmarks of the style that they were built in. Bristow said that any additions or changes do not tend to be something that disturbs that architectural character. Bristow added that each property also needs to meet one of the other criteria. She said that criterion C is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Bristow said that criterion D is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. She said that criterion E embodies the distinctive characteristics of a time period or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Bristow said that criterion F is: has yielded or may likely yield information important in pre-history or history. Bristow said that none of these properties meets criterion F. She said that is one of the criteria that is a little more difficult, locally, to achieve. Bristow said that, by local land-marking, the hope is to preserve the historic character of each of these properties. She said that there are incentives available for the homeowners along with that, primarily tax incentives. Bristow said that if the property is income-producing, there are both state and federal tax credits, and if the property is not income-producing, there are state tax credits available. She said that the City is going to work toward a tax-abatement program that would be through the County that the State has put forward as something that the counties are required to have available. Bristow stated that there are sometimes grants available. She said there is professional assistance for work that needs to be done. Bristow said there also some zoning incentives available if improvements are made to the property. Bristow showed a map produced in 2015 that shows where some of the surveys have been done. She said that some of the local landmarks have been added. Bristow showed the hatched area where a recent survey was completed and said that the boundaries are a little different than shown on the map. Bristow showed where the properties being discussed are starred on the map, specifically the six brick structures, with the North Dodge Street property being off the map. She added that the seventh property is actually a National Register property for which the owner would like to have a local landmark designation. 410 North Clinton Street. Bristow said that this property is the Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House. She said it was built in 1865. Bristow said the property of most interest is the front structure, an Italianate house numbered 412. She said that the apartment addition on the back is numbered 410. Bristow said that the entire property would be the local landmark designation, but the historic 412 is what this is really about. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 3 of 19 Bristow said this is an example of Italianate architecture. She said there are large windows on the first floor that go all the way to the porch floor. Bristow said similarly there is a larger central window over the main door. Bristow said that the roofline, as one can see from the side, is a very low gable. She said it has Italianate-style brackets that would typically be found on a really wide cornice but on this house are not. Bristow said they are just paired brackets, which makes this a little bit more unique. She said this house appears to have most of its original shutters. Bristow said this house is also associated with Cochrane, who was the original person who built the house and was involved with the Civil War. She said that the Sharpless family owned the house after Cochrane, and Mr. Sharpless was the director of the Johnson County Savings Bank and was also on the Iowa City City Council. Bristow said that the final owner who is listed here is Edwin Dennis. Bristow said that Dennis and his wife, Anna Tantzlinger, bought the house and left it to their daughter, Gertrude Dennis, who is known in town as part of a local arts circle, taught music, and was an active Presbyterian. Bristow said that Gertrude Dennis owned the house until 1965. Bristow said staff finds that not only does this house meet criteria A and B because of its examples of an Italianate structure, but it also meets criterion D because of its association with the Cochranes and the Sharplesses, who were integral people in early Iowa City history. She said that the fact that it really embodies this Italianate type of structure meets criterion E. Bristow showed an overall image of the site. She said that one of the things staff really likes about this is the fact that the addition is attached in a way that would be found acceptable now, if the property was a local landmark and this addition was put on. Bristow said the addition is attached in the back, it does not encroach upon the street view of the property, it's done in a brick material, and it is really sensitively done because of that. Swaim opened the public hearing for discussion on this property. Sigafoose said he represents the property owner, Robert Crane. Sigafoose said that Crane strongly opposes this designation. He said they do not concede that any of the criteria are satisfied in order to declare this an historic landmark; however, he said they have not had enough time to prepare. Sigafoose said that Crane has not had an opportunity to consult with an architect or with any advisors with knowledge in historic preservation. Sigafoose said they were not prepared to engage in or make any kind of statement or presentation regarding that criteria. Sigafoose said he wanted to discuss the economic impact on this piece of property. Sigafoose said that Crane is a certified real estate appraiser and has been in the appraisal business for about 45 years. Sigafoose said that Crane has been a real estate agent since 1965, a broker since 1970, manages properties for other individuals, and is an investor in rental properties. Sigafoose said the property owner is therefore an expert. He said it is fair enough to view his opinion as perhaps being biased, as the property owner. Sigafoose said that nonetheless, Crane does have some expertise and was able to provide Sigafoose information that he feels is dependable and relevant. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 4 of 19 Sigafoose said it is their feeling that this designation would have an extreme effect on the value of this property, probably much more extreme than any other properties on the agenda. He said that if one looks at each as a unique piece of property, it is the unique characteristics of this property that make this designation so critical to its standard. Sigafoose said that first of all, this property is zoned RM -44, high-density, multi -family residential, about as dense as one will see in Iowa City. He stated that its location is excellent from a standpoint of use - its highest and best use being high-density residential. Sigafoose said it is a large piece of property at 12,000 square feet. He said that if this property were parceled with the neighboring property, it would make a large, developable piece of property. Sigafoose said that due to the fact that this is not a single-family residence, this designation will have an immense impact on its value. He stated that a single-family residence or smaller piece of property, even if designated as an historic landmark, chances are its highest and best use is already being utilized. Sigafoose said that is not true for this piece of property. Sigafoose said he was not comfortable at this point giving specifics about the reduction in value, but Crane assures him that the reduction in value is a seven -figure number. Based on that, Sigafoose said that they therefore believe this designation would constitute a regulatory taking of the property, also known as inverse condemnation. Sigafoose said that if the State wants to build an interstate through one's farm or a street through one's back yard, the State has to pay for it if it is going to take one's property. He said that typically zoning, which this is a type of, does not constitute a taking. Sigafoose said however, that the law provides that when a zoning ordinance or other government limitation on a property is so severe that it crosses a certain line, that becomes a taking. He said that in that event, the property owner must be compensated. Sigafoose said that it will be Crane's position throughout these proceedings in front of the Historic Preservation Commission, on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council, and at the District Court level if necessary to be appealed, and then on, that this constitutes a regulatory taking. Sigafoose said that if the City wants to designate this as an historic landmark, it should probably buy it from him at fair market value or otherwise compensate him for it. Sigafoose asked Commission members to put themselves in Crane's shoes and look at this from his perspective. Sigafoose said he realizes it is the Commission's perspective to preserve history. He said we would all agree that preserving history is a noble cause and something that we should do, but he said he feels that we have to look at each property individually. Sigafoose said that when it comes to placing oneself in Crane's shoes, this is going to be a very, very expensive experience for him. He asked the Commission to consider that and balance the public's need for historic preservation against the personal property rights of Robert Crane. Sigafoose asked the Commission to look at this property based on its unique characteristics: its location, its size, its values, its highest and best use. He said that if Commission members step back and look at that, he is hoping they will reach the conclusion not to pass this on to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation for designation as an historic landmark. Sigafoose said that at the least, he would ask that this decision be postponed giving him an opportunity to do a little more research and make a more prepared proposal as to their position. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 5 of 19 Swaim stated that the process of landmark or district designations begins with the Historic Preservation Commission. She said the decision is based on whether the property meets criteria. Swaim said that if the Commission votes yes on a property, then that property goes on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which looks at it in terms of zoning, because a designation is a zoning overlay. She said there would also be a public hearing for each property at that point. Swaim said that if the Planning and Zoning Commission gives a yes recommendation, then it goes to the City Council, and there are opportunities for public input at that point as well. Corcoran said she served on the Historic Preservation Commission and was a member of the subcommittee whose members investigated properties a few years ago that the subcommittee members thought could be appropriate for possible designation as Iowa City landmarks. She said she was not speaking on behalf of this property in particular but for all of them that the Commission has decided to examine. Corcoran said she believes that all of these properties meet the Iowa City landmark ordinance criteria, because they are architecturally significant and they are associated with prominent citizens of Iowa City or with the development and growth of Iowa City. She thanked the Commission, as an Iowa City resident, for taking this up. Swaim closed the public hearing. Builta said that there are a lot of reasons, as outlined earlier, that perhaps this shouldn't be considered a landmark, for different personal reasons. He said however, that if one is just going off of the fact that the properties have to meet at least one of the criteria, none of the Commission members would disagree that it doesn't at least meet one of them. Bristow said the properties have to meet criteria A and B and one of the other criteria Karr asked what the downside is of tabling this and letting the owner prepare his case, since he has a financial stake in this. Agran said that every decision that the Commission makes at its meetings has a financial consequence for the parties involved. He said that based just on what was said earlier, they don't disagree that it does indeed meet these criteria so that he does not really see an advantage to that act of tabling this. Agran said that if the issues are greater than those criteria in this meeting, he sees no reason that this should be tabled, based on what the scope of the Commission's purpose is. Bristow said the Commission's scope would be to look at whether or not this meets the criteria, and that would be it. She added that the Planning and Zoning Commission will look at the zoning and whether it meets the Comprehensive Plan and other zoning code issues, and then the City Council will look at this in more detail than that. Bristow said she did not think there would necessarily be a reason to table this at this point. Swaim said she believes that this would not go to the Planning and Zoning Commission before January but would perhaps be heard there mid-January or later. She said that seems to be an adequate time to put an argument together. Sigafoose asked if he could respond, even though the public hearing was over. He said that for whatever it is worth, what Agran said is not what he said. Sigafoose said that when Agran said they don't disagree, they do disagree. Sigafoose said that perhaps he did not say it clearly, but he does disagree that this meets the criteria. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 6 of 19 Builta said it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees, it is up to the Commission to determine if these properties meet the requirements. Boyd said he views this as one step in a multi -step process. He said that this is on the Commission's agenda, and the Commission is asked to do this. Boyd said that the Planning and Zoning Commission will talk about its issues, and ultimately the City Council will have to consider all of the things when it makes its decision. He said that the Commission's job is to weigh this particular decision, and he believes he certainly has enough information to make that decision. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of 410/412 North Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, d, and e. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, DeGraw. and Waaner absent). 412 North Dubuque Street. Bristow said this property is historically known as the Sylvanus Johnson House. She said that Sylvanus Johnson was a famous brick maker and the first brick maker in the City. Bristow said that Johnson owned the property originally. Bristow stated that through research, staff believes the house was actually built by the next owner, David Boarts. She said that Boarts' wife, Mary Kimball, was the daughter of George Kimball, who was also a prominent Iowa City resident. Bristow said that David and Mary Boarts owned this house from the time it was built in about 1866 until about 1889. She added that as a brick mason, David Boarts not only built this house but also built Calvin Hall. Bristow said that this house is an example of a hall and parlor -type house. She said that it is also one of the few small brick cottages left in town. Bristow said that on the south side, the house has a projecting bay of brick. She said that all of the windows have a lintel of standing brick. Bristow said there is also on the back a small, one- story addition. She said that in the kind of L created by the additions, there was an open porch at one time that has been enclosed since then. Bristow said that most of the additions have been in place since about 1911, except for the enclosed, kind of clapboard structure that one can see on the back. She said that might have been put in between 1920 and 1933; it is an extension of the porch enclosure. Bristow said this is a very well-maintained and intact version of the small hall and parlor type of house. She said that is why staff feels this not only meets criteria A and B but also D, for being associated with Sylvanus Johnson, who owned the property, and then David Boarts, who was the brick mason who built it and Calvin Hall. Swaim opened the public hearing. Swaim closed the public hearing. Swaim said this house has always caught her attention on Dubuque Street. She stated that the other brick houses are rather grand compared to this one, but the little is just important as the big. Swaim said it has its own kind of story to tell. She said the fact that Boarts was a brick mason contributes to the story of all of the other brick houses as well. HOLLAND, MICHAEL, RAMER & SITTIG PLC Attorneys at Law 123 North Linn Street, Suite 300 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-354-0331 www.icialamWers.com C. Joseph Holland j"holland®icialaw.com Robert Michael rmichael®iciWaw.com May 23, 2018 Eleanor Dilkes City Attorney City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: 410-12 N. Clinton Street Dear Eleanor: 05-29-18 t 6d RECEIVED BY MAY 2 3 2018 c;Wfffi'E'rS OFFICE craiber�kdaiaw.com Erek Sittig esittigaicialaw.com As you know, my clients are the owners of 410-12 N. Clinton Street. They respectfully request that the City Council defer any further action regarding the rezoning of the property with a Historic Preservation Overlay until such time as the City has had an opportunity to review, and if it desires, enact an ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights of a property given a Historic Landmark Designation to an eligible site, similar to what has been allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District. It is my understanding that the Historic Preservation Commission may support this type of proposed ordinance, and the City staff would be open to this type of proposed ordinance as well. My clients purchased the property on Clinton Street based upon the ability to redevelop the property according to its zoning classification. The designation of the property as a historic landmark, which would include the newer, larger addition, will reduce my clients' ability to redevelop the property, and significantly reduce the value of the property from that which my clients paid just a few weeks ago. My clients' proposal is simply intended to maintain the status quo for a period of time for the City's consideration of the proposed ordinance. Of course, parties which are in favor of designating the Clinton Street property as a historic landmark are concerned about the expiration of the moratorium established by Section 14 -8D - 5(H) of the City Code. If Council action is deferred as requested, my clients agree that the moratorium would continue until the date of deferment of the matter, and my clients would not do anything to the property until that time except maintain it. Enclosed is an agreement I have drafted for our clients to execute if a deferment is granted. If you feel any changes need to be made prior to consideration by the Council, please let me know. If the City passes the proposed ordinance regarding the transfer of development rights, and it is consistent with my clients' expectations, then it is my anticipation that my clients would drop any resistance to designating the Clinton Street property as a historic landmark, since the transfer of development rights to other eligible sites would be allowed. If the deferment is not granted, then my clients are forced to make a decision at this time whether they feel the rezoning was appropriate, and whether an appeal is necessary. I would appreciate it if you would provide a copy of my letter and draft of the agreement to the Council for consideration at the Council meeting on May 29th. I would like to address the Council when this matter is discussed on the agenda. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Robe . Michael IIb�M)m imillivillikillil Doc K1nd: I0A6W02e: 7BN0b4ip0T006 TYPO' GEN Recorded: 00/12/2018at 10:30:00 AM Fee Ant: $27.00 Popo 1 of 5 Kim Paintir CountY Recorder lw5795 Pa467-471 I -)SSS AGREEMENT Recorder's Cover Sheet Preparer Information: Robert S. Michael, 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300, Iowa City, IA 52245, Phone: (319) 354-0331 Taxpayer Information: Big Ten Real Estate LLC, 414 E. Market St., Iowa City, IA 52245 Return Address: Robert S. Michael, 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300, Iowa City, IA 52245 Grantors: City Of Iowa City, Iowa Grantees: MMA LLC, Big Ten Real Estate LLC and 160-965 LLC AGRZEMENT WHEREAS, MMA LLC, Big Ten Real EsLat_e LLC, and 160-965 LLC ("Owners") are the owners of the property located at 410-12 N. Clinton Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and, WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is considering the passage of an ordinance rezoning the property with a Historic Preservation Overlay; and, WHEREAS, Owners have requested a deferment of the Council's ccnsideration of the rezoning until such time as the City has had an opportunity to consider the passage of an ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights from properties rezoned with a Historic Preservation Overlay, and, WHEREAS, any determent request would necessarily require an extension of the moratorium established by Section 14 -8D -5(H) of the Iowa City City Code until such time as the next consideration of the proposed rezoning, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN the City of Iowa City and Owners that in exchange for granting of the deferment of consideration of rezoning the property at 410-12 N. Clinton Street, legally described as the N1/2 of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 75 in Iowa City, Iowa, with a Historic Preservation Overlay, Owners agree that the moratorium established by Section 14 -SD -5(H) of the Iowa City City Code extends until the date this matter is deferred to by the Council, January 29 if there is a violation of said moratorium during the extension period the City of Iowa City shall have all enforcement rights available to it under the City Code for a violation of the moratorium established by Section 14 -SD -5(H) of the City Code. This Agreement is binding upon any successors and/or assigns of Owners. Th'_s agreement may be signed in several parts, and facsimile or electronic signatures have the same force and effect as originals. CITY: By. Jim Throgmorton, Mayor f/Apptoved by City Attorney ATTEST: Kellie Fruehlijfg, City Cle tj �qIESr�(fORPO k d• Jarffd Cruegi(r, Manager Ten Real Estate LLC Clark, Manager ft Clark, Manager 1 -965 LLC Jam m s Clark, Manager Lore to C. Clark, Manager STATE OF IOWA ) )ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument acknowledged before me this tX—fday of May, 2018, by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling, as the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. �991, F 4;0*e Notary Public infi6d for said State .LYY; •%%`. FEW- STATE OF IOWA ) )ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument acknowledged before me this_ day of May, 2018, by Jarred Cruger, Manager of4ZM LLCM JOSHUA L. WHETSTINE ' Commisslon Number 710650 Mycom issionex�pires ti low sis_on Notary �- blic in and For said State STAT OF IOWA )as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) ­ This instrument acknowledged before me this 1 day of May, 201 DL Bryan -Clark, Mana er of Big Ten Real Estate LLC. JOSHUA L. WHETSTINE COmmisslon Number 110550 M_ y ommluion Expires N^ M 2A Notary ubNic in anti foy' laid State STATE OF IOWA ) )ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument acknowledged before me this day of May, 2018, by Jeff Clark, Manager of Big Ten Real EstaLe_ LLC. JOSHUA L. WHETSTINE Commission Number 710650'' My Commlislon Expires Notary a lic in and for 641d State ..v STATE OF IOWA ) )ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument acknowledged before me this day of May, 2D18, by James A. Clark, Manager of 160-965 LLC. Q.. \ JOSHUA L. WHEISTINE ~ . Commisiion Number 710560 '`� •, My commi I res Notary Pubic in nd for said State El I STATE OF IOWA ) )as. JOHNSON COUNTY ) 4 This instrument acknowledged before me this day of May, 2D18, by Loretta C. Clark, Manager of,_16D796 LLC. JOSHUA L. WHETSTiNE tCommission Humber 710550 Notary Pub•' iC " My Cv Isslon x tree Y i acid for said State RALPH L. NEUZIL, (1930-2011) DALE SANDERSON JAY W. SIGAFOOSE ASSOCIATE: CHRISTOPHER A. JONES March 7, 2018 NEUZIL, SANDERSON & SIGAFOOSE9 P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 119 WRIGHT STREET PO Box 1607 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1607 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 TELEPHONE: Iowa CITY: (319) 337-3167 OxFoRD: (319) 828-4175 FAx: (319) 356-6153 RE: March 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Historic Preservation Landmark Designation for 410-412 N. Clinton Street Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: I am writing to you on behalf of Robert Crane, the owner of the property located at 410- 412 North Clinton Street in Iowa City which the Historic Preservation Commission has recommended to be designated as a historic landmark. This property is located across the street from the University of Iowa's Currier Residence Hall and is zoned RM -44 (High Density Multi - Residential). This property is not a single-family residence. Since purchasing the property in approximately 1981, Mr. Crane has rented the property and currently provides affordable, non- student housing only blocks away from Iowa City's downtown business district. The older home that faces the street is a rooming -style house with nine bedrooms that share bathrooms and kitchens. Attached to the rear of this older home is an apartment building that was constructed in 1965 with nine one -bedroom self-sufficient apartments. From the outside, these structures appear to be a single building. Each apartment has an external entryway. This letter is to urge you to reject the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation for the following reasons and recommend that the City Council reject this proposal. 1. The historic landmark designation will have an extreme and negative impact on the value of Mr. Crane's property that is disproportionately greater than most residential properties designated as a historical landmark due to the location and zoning of this property. The high-density zoning designation and unique location just steps from residence halls and classrooms of the University of Iowa and downtown employers distinguish this property from most historic landmarks. This property differs from other single-family homes in residential neighborhoods because it has significantly higher income potential than most other residential properties due to the high-density zoning in this location. Consequently, the restrictions from the historic landmark zoning will significantly reduce the property's value and burden Mr. Crane far more than other property owners who own older homes in Iowa City. The purposes of historic preservation in Iowa City include stabilizing and improving property values and strengthening the economy of the city.' Mr. Crane is a licensed real estate broker and appraiser with over 40 years of appraisal experience and believes the negative impact on his valuation will be significant and extreme. The significant decrease in value is an unfair burden for Mr. Crane to bear without compensation from the City. Rather than preserving and improving Mr. Crane's property value, this designation will lower his value and may reduce the values of adjoining properties. 2. The historic integrity of this property was compromised long ago by the additional apartment building attached to the home. The building with the largest footprint on this lot is a three-story apartment building that sits aside and behind the brick house. This apartment building is attached to the older home, although it is not connected inside and they do not share any common space. This brick apartment building is believed to have been constructed in 1965 and shares none of the common architectural features of the house. The apartment building has no historical value. The 1965 addition changed the character of this property so that a majority of the construction on the property is clearly not historic. Imposing the historic landmark designation on the entire property will impose a zoning regime on a structure to which the landmark designation was not intended to apply and which clearly does not meet the statutory requirements for a historic property. Photos showing the apartment are attached to this letter. 3. The additional burdens imposed by the historic landmark zoning regime should not be applied to the apartment structure or to the unattached garages There are three structures on Mr. Crane's Clinton Street property: the home, the apartment structure attached to the home, and a detached garage on the east (rear) side of the lot. The Historic Preservation Committee has recommended designating the entire lot as a historic landmark, which would impose the historic preservation zoning requirements on all structures on the property, even though at least two of the three structures, including the largest structure on the property, clearly fail to meet the requirements of a historic structure. The historic preservation zoning regime includes a requirement to obtain a historic review to make changes to or make certain repairs to the exterior of all parts of the property. Designating the entire property as a historic landmark will mean that the garage and apartment building will also be designated as historic landmarks and that Mr. Crane will be required to apply for a regulated permit and seek a historic review before he can make any changes or make certain repairs to the exterior of the building. The historic review process will impose significant logistical burdens on Mr. Crane that will increase the time and cost of repairs to building that are clearly not historic. 4. The historic landmark designation will increase the cost of operating this property and discourages the City's goal ofpromoting private affordable housing. One of Iowa City's greatest current challenges is the rising cost of housing. The City has identified affordable housing as a significant policy goal and objective.Z Mr. Crane has used this 1 Page 1, Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, adopted September 7, 2010. Z Page 7, City of Iowa City, 2017-2017 Strategic Plan Summary, available at http://www, wwwB.iowa- city. org/weblink/%doc/1767642/StroteglcPl an5ummary-12-2017-1. pdf property to provide affordable housing to many low-income residents in a good location since he purchased the property in 1981. Currently there are nine units of housing in the rooming house that rent for $450.00/month per room. The one -bedroom apartments in the 1965 addition are self- sufficient units and each rent for $560.00 per month. The rent for Mr. Crane's one -bedroom apartments are approximately 30% less than the $822/month average rent in Iowa City,3 The rooming house with shared facilities in the older home provides an alternative housing option with even lower rents. Most of the tenants on this property are not students. Mr. Crane has been helping Iowa City meet the objective of providing affordable housing since buying the property in 1981 in a neighborhood that has a convenient location near the downtown business district that has good access to public transportation. The historic landmark zoning regulations will impose additional burdens and costs on operating this property that will be passed to tenants, many of whom have very low incomes. These additional costs that will be passed to the tenants make the City's objective of having affordable housing more difficult to achieve. Mr. Crane is 78 years old and suffers from several health conditions, but he continues to actively manage the property. He is not a large corporate landlord. It is his hope that the commission will review this matter from his perspective and chose to recommend to the City Council to not designate this property as a historic landmark. Sincerely, /s/ Christopher A. Jones Attorney at Law 3 Cedar Rapids Gazette, May 1, 2016, Iowa City has higher share of renters paying 30% or more of income to housing than other metros, available at: http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/iowa-city-has-higher- share-of-renters-paying-30-percent-or-more-of-income-to-housing-than-other-metros-20160501 (the Gazette reports that Cook Appraisal determined the average cost of an apartment within one mile of the Pentacrest to be $822). 11 1! # mm._ I •� i • C.R.B. Certified Residential Broker steal eystate Q'Connolor.4 G.R.i. Graduate Realtors Institute A.R.A. Accredited Rural Appraiser • M.S.A. Master Senior Appraiser January 2018 Dear Planning and Zoning Committee Member: Sales • Residential Apnisals Farm Management - Farm Sales My name is.Robert Crane and I own 410-412 N. Clinton Street, which has a lot of 12,000 square feet with three buildings on it. The Historic Preservation Commission has chosen this site to designate as a historic property. This nomination will come before your committee either March 1 or March 15, 2018. My wife and I purchased this property in 1981. My wife purchased the first half and two years later I purchased the second half. Since we purchased 412 N. Clinton it has been operating as a rooming house, which was its prior use. The 410 building is attached to the 412 building and contains nine one -bedroom apartments. And, behind the buildings there is a garage and parking lot. I am strongly opposed to having the historic preservation designation and have several concern's about this type of designation. These include: 1. This property clearly sits in a rental income neighborhood and has been used as a rental income producing property for decades. The 412 house was converted into a rooming house and the attached apartment building was all done prior to my purchase of the property. I purchased it as an income-producing property, as an investment. 2. The immediate and drastic diminution of value (drop in value), 3. Diminishing the net income due to the requirements of such status. 4. The costly repairs demanded by the historic commission will reduce cash flow from the project, for anybody. An owner would not have a say as to how to handle repairs to the property. 5. My emphasis is, and always has been, to offer affordable housing to those who need it to survive in a respectable fashion and hdme life setting. If historic designation is placed on this property then the costs to maintain the property escalate, which in turn will - drastically increase rents. Please consider the value of what I do here. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 354-4100 fax (319) 358-2134 Planning Page 2 January & Zoning 2018 6. The historic beauty of 412 was destroyed when the 410 apartment building was attached to the rear of the 412 building in the 1960s Thus. I feel these buildings do not qualify for such a designation.. This is not a good fit. 7 I have had active inquiries from possible buyers of the property and was in discussions when somebody at the Cedar Rapids Gazette called about a rumor that the property was being sold. Why be concerned with a historic preservation designation when one knows that in the long—term the University of Iowa, who is backed - by the Board of Regents and State of Iowa, will ultimately be the owner of the property due to its location. 8. I am 78 years old and worked a long time, have cancer, a heart condition, and Type. Il diabetes and I do not want to relish or tolerate the rest of my years in conflict with the demands on a property that I own. This action violates ones rights in owning rea estate and may venture further than that Inhttp://www. practical farmers.org/ Constitutional Law. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Robert C. Crane Owner, Crane on Clinton LLC From: Kevin Boyd <kevinmboyd@gmaii.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:16 AM To: PlanningZoningPublic Subject: Iowa City Historic Landmarks Commissioners, I'm writing to urge your support to designate all the properties as local landmarks. I grew up in Iowa City and moved back 3 years ago. Iowa City has always been home to me. The distance has allowed me to more greatly appreciate the value our shared history and the buildings, big and small, that tell part of the story of who we are as a community. Not every building contributes to our shared story, but these structures certainly do. I hope you recognize their value as part of our comprehensive plan. I do want to comment specifically about 410-412 N Clinton St, the oldest property. This property is already used, in a historically sensitive way, at a higher density than the single family home it once was. The apartment addition addition to the back was added in a way that was very sensitive to the original property and stands as a model to preserve and adapt as it is today. I wish 1 could be at the meeting to share my comments directly, but I am out of town on business. Thank you, Kevin Boyd 622 N Van Buren St. Iowa City, IA From: Dan Cummins <cummins4dp@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:50 AM To: PlanningZoning Public Subject: Designation of Historic Homes as Iowa City Landmarks Dear Members of Planning and Zoning Commission, I want to express my support for designating the properties noted below as Iowa City Historic Landmarks. Each of these properties captures a piece of the unique history of Iowa City, both architecturally, and through the stories that they tell. Visitors to Iowa City often comment that these type of properties are what make our town unique and comparable to other bigger cities in the US and in Europe that value historic structures. People that have relocated to our community often note that, unlike others towns, our leaders have had the courage to preserve the past. Please vote to designate these properties as Iowa City Landmarks. • 1029 N. Dodge St • 504 E. Bloomington St • 213 E. Market St • 319 E. Bloomington St. • 412 N. Dubuque St • 410-412 N. Clinton St • 715 West Park Road Thank you, Dan Cummins 12 Bella Vista Place HOLLAND, MICHAEL, RAIBER & SITTIG PLC C. Joseph Holland ihollandQicialaw com Robert Michael rmichael@icialaw.com HAND DELIVERED City of Iowa City c/o City Clerk 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Clerk: Attorneys at Law 123 North Linn Street, Suite 300 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-354-0331 www.icialawyers com May 1, 2018 RE: 410 - 412 North Clinton Street Crystal Raiber craiber@icialaw.com Erek Sittig esittiQQicialaw com I represent 160-965 LLC, MMA LLC, and Big Ten Real Estate LLC, all who use the address of 414 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA 52245. These entities are now the owners of the property at 410 - 412 North Clinton Street. Please see a copy of the recorded warranty deed included with this letter. Enclosed please find the original executed Protests of Rezoning executed by the three owners of the property. Please copy me with any correspondence sent to my clients. If you need anything further, please let me know. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert S. Micha 1 RSM:dml Enc. E5 ,<r rn N co w m 0 WARRANTY DEED (CORPORATE/BUSINESS ENTITY GRANTOR) THE IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Official Form No. 335 Recorder's Cover Sheet 1111111111�11III (IIII IIIiI VIII VIII IIIIIlIIII lllll VIII IIII VIII IIII! IIII IIII Doc ID: 027016120002 Type: GEN Kind: WARRANTY DEED Recorded: 05/01/2018 at 12:31:14 PM Fee Amt: $1,936.20 Page i of 2 Revenue Tax: $1,919.20 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter Countv Recorder BK5779PG167-168 Preparer Information: (Name, address and phone number) Jay W. Sigafoose, 119 Wright Street, PO Box 1607, Iowa City, IA 52244, (319) 337-3167 Taxpayer Information: (Name and complete address) Big Ten Real Estate LLC, 414 East Market Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 Return Document To: (Name and complete address) Robert Michael, 122 North Linn Street, Suite 300, Iowa City, [A 52245 Grantors: Crane on Clinton, L.L.C. Legal description: Grantees: MMA LLC Big Ten Real Estate LLC 160-965 LLC Document or instrument number of previously recorded documents: O The Iowa State Bar Association 2018 rOWADOCSO co ^i ria La ti IA t= _� _A ' WARRANTY DEED (CORPORATE/BUSINESS ENTITY GRANTOR) For the consideration of One ($1 00) valuable consideration,Dollar(s) and other a(n) limited liabilit com an Crane on Clinton, L.L.C. the laws of organized and existing under 6.67% inte Iowa does hereby Convey to MMA LLC an undivided rest• Bi Ten Real Estate LLC an undivided 87.2% interest- and 160-965 LLC an undivided 6.13% interest; as tenants in common �t r utt; ,_Vowing described real estate in Johnson County, Iowa: The N 1/2 of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 75 to Iowa City, Iowa. Subject to easements, agreements, covenants, zoning, and restrictions of record. _ FR r y� co 3- .= C-) The grantor hereby covenants with grantees, and successors in interest, tha it h(Ws the real estate by title in fee simple; that it has good and lawful authority to sell and convey the real estate; that the real estate is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except as may be above stated; and it covenants to Warrant and Defend the real estate against the lawful claims of all persons, except as may be above stated. Words and phrases herein, including acknowledgment hereof, shall be construed as in the singular or plural number, according to the context. Dated on Crane on Clinton L.L.C. a(n) limited liability company By � Robert C. Crane, Manager By STATE OF IOWA ,COUNTY OF JOHNSON This record was acknowledged before me on �,/ Z�/ �.=�, � , by Robert C. Crane as Manager of Crane on Clinton, L.L.C. (9 The Iowa State Bar Association 2018 Iowa Docs® 5 of No -0. a -3z, warranty Deed - Corporation/9usiness Entity Grantor Revised April 2016 PROTEST OF REZONING r � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA �– 1 CITYQFIOR CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 410-412 North Clinton Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 410-412 North Clinton Street 1'r0perty Owner(s): -965 LLC BY: James Clark AA( By: Loretta Clark MIVIDUAL PROPERTY OFVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on individual property owner(s)). and Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa o UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOT-iNSON COUNTY) ss: __ (Date) by (name(s) of I his instrument was acknowledged before me on f _ (Date) by dames Clark and Loretta Clark (nanie(s) of person(s)) as _ Managers _ 160-965 LLC _ — (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . JOSHUA L. WHETSTINE �'� Commission Number 710850 My commission Expires rows ---_ ------ Notary Pu is an for the St a Iowa C 4 ems, ai& Subd Folder --rq XUR < �. CA PCU - Council - Media File "" 1 013 t., . M C4 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITYOFIOI12 CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 410412 North Clinton Street ii s protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the - ;orable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the „du of Iowa. operty Address: 1410412 North Clinton Street -operty O wner(s): MMA LLC rred Cru r VLDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): S FATE OF IOWA ) II-INSON COUNTY) ss: "I'his instrument was acknowledged before me on individual property owner(s)). and Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ". 11 I10RIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): I ATE OF IOWA ) 11INSON COUNTY) ss: (Date) by (name(s) of J,S jn trujnent was acknowledged before me on 5 �^ _ (Date) by Jarred Cruger 11 } of person(s)) as_ Manager_ (type of authority, such as offiaar trustee) of _KVIA.LLL (name of property owner), EJOSHUA L. WHETSTINE Commission Number 710850 My Commission Expires ___ � 'L�_�__ Notary Pub 'c Ind o e State wa -<r-- rr•I -v w Cn ..:cl folder PCD- Council Media File 0212013 PROT'ES'T' OF REZONING I'O: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I ' IOWA CITY, IOWA �— C1TY©FIOFf.t CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 410-412 North Clinton Street his protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the :vocable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the ode of Iowa. Operty Address: _ 410-412 North Clinton Street =ape ty Owner(s): Big Ten Real Estate LLC Jeff Clark C. Br an Clark s NBIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) _ _ )I-1NSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 'THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) )UNSON COUNTY) ss: (Date) by (name(s) of 1! us instrument was acknowledged before me on _ _ ��� — , (jute) by Jeff Clark and Bryan Clark :me(s) of person(s)) asManagers _ _ (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Rig -Te Real Estate LLC (name of property owner) . JOSHUA L. WHETSTINE o Commission Number 710850 � _ My Commislioon� Expires C ,owe ___ 1-_� 1 4_____ Notary Pu is in and for he State o wa :<ril ti;ilu! bolder' W 02/2013 A PCD - Council - Media File r -n Defeated 1/8/19 (Supermajority of Council needed) Ip,b Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (REZ1B-00007) Ordinance No. Ordinance rezoning property located at 410-412 North Clinton Street from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 with a Historic District Overlay (RM -44 / OHD). (REZ18-00007) Whereas, the applicant, the Historic Preservation Commission, has requested a rezoning of property located at 410 North Clinton Street from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to High Density Multi -Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (RM -44 / OHD); and Whereas, this structure was originally constructed in 1865 and is associated with several prominent figures from Iowa City's history; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of historic buildings in the neighborhoods surrounding the University of Iowa campus; and Whereas, Goal 1 of the Historic Preservation component of the Comprehensive Plan calls for identification of resources significant to Iowa City's past with the objective of designating individual buildings as landmarks; and Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed Historic Landmark designation, has found that it meets the criteria for landmark designation in its significance to Iowa City history, integrity of location and design, and has recommended approval; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed Historic Landmark designation rezoning, has found that it meets the Comprehensive Plan goals of providing incentives to maintain and improve older housing stock, especially near the University Campus and identifying historic resources that are not currently protected by landmark designation; Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Historic Landmark Approval. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of High Density Multi -Family (RM -44) zone to High Density Multi - Family with a Historic District Overlay (RM -44 / OHD) zone: Iowa City Original Town, North Half of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 75 Section II. Zoning Map. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. Section III. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. Section IV. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section V. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 120. Ordinance No. Page 2 Mayor Approved/by: ® II -'I City Clerk City Attorney's Office q /)/ 1/0 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration 05/15/2018 Vote for passage: AYES: Salih, Botchway, Cole. NAYS: Mims. Botchway Cole Mims Salih Taylor Thomas Throgmorton Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton, ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 01/08/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: Salih, Mims. ABSENT: None. Date published that the to.b by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (REZ18-00007) Ordinance No. Ordina ce rezoning property located at 410-412 North Clinton Street from High Ikensity Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 With,a Historic Prese ation Overlay (RM -44 / OHP). (REZ18-00007) 7 Whereas, the apple nt, the Historic Preservation Commission, has requested rezoning of property located at 410 rth Clinton Street from High Density Multi -Family Resi tial (RM -44) to High Density Multi -Family sidential with a Historic Preservation Overlay (R 4 /OHP); and Whereas, this structure as originally constructed in 1865 and is ociated with several prominent figures from Iowa C 's history; and Whereas, the Comprehend a Plan encourages the preservatio of historic buildings in the neighborhoods surrounding the U 'versity of Iowa campus; and Whereas, Goal 1 of the Historl Preservation component the Comprehensive Plan calls for identification of resources signifl ant to Iowa City's pa with the objective of designating individual buildings as landmarks; and Whereas, the Historic Preservatio Landmark designation, has found that I significance to Iowa City history, integrity of and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Landmark designation rezoning, has four providing incentives to maintain and impr Campus and identifying historic res rc designation; ;ommisslo has reviewed the proposed Historic meets t criteria for landmark designation in its kcatiopeland design, and has recommended approval; mission has reviewed the proposed Historic it meets the Comprehensive Plan goals of Ide housing stock, especially near the University that re not currently protected by landmark Now, therefore, be it ordained byye City Council of the 0 current zoning designation Family with a Historic Prese North Approval. Property descril High Density Multi -Family on Overlay (RM -44 / OHP) Lots 5 and 6, Block 75, Original of Iowa City, Iowa: �d below is hereby reclassified from its ISM -44) zone to High Density Multi - Iowa City, Iowa Section II. Zonin Map. The Building Inspector is hereby auth rizet the zoning map of he City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to thi an passage, approva and publication of this ordinance by law. Section III. ertification And Recording. Upon passage and appr City Clerk is h9deby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ord same, at the ffice of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at as provided v law. and directed to change mclment upon the final of the Ordinance, the nce and to record the owner's expense, all Sectio IV. Re eater. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict this Ordi ance are hereby repealed. Se Ion V. SeveratEly. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance be in lid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of whoJ or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti Section VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final p publication, as provided bylaw. Passed and approved this day of , 20_. the provisions of be adjudged to Drdinance as a and 10-b Late Handouts Distributed HOLLAND, MICHAEL, RAIBER & SITTIG PLC Attorneys at Law 123 North Linn Street, Suite 300 / Iowa City, Iowa 52245 (Date) 319-354-0331 www.icialawyers.com C. Joseph Holland Crystal Raiber iholland@icialaw.com craiber@icialaw.com Robert Michael rmichael@icialaw.com January 8, 2019 VIA EMAIL rockne-cole@iowa-city. org Rockne Cole susan-mims@iowa-city.org Susan Mims mazahir-salih®iowa-city.org Mazahir Salih pauline-taylor@iowa-city. or g Pauline Taylor bruce-teague®iowa-ci , .org Bruce Teague .john-thomas®iowa-city.org John Thomas .jim-throgmorton®iowa-city. org Jim Throgmorton Dear Council Members: Erek Sittig esittie@@icialaw.com N 0 Our firm represents the owners of the property located at 410-412 N. Clinton Street in Iowa City. I apologize for the lateness of this letter. It was my understanding that our agreement with the City deferred this matter until January 29'. I was out of the country for almost two weeks and returned Sunday night. - C p i m =a M J Our firm represents the owners of the property located at 410-412 N. Clinton Street in Iowa City. I apologize for the lateness of this letter. It was my understanding that our agreement with the City deferred this matter until January 29'. I was out of the country for almost two weeks and returned Sunday night. Page 2 of 3 While I was away, I received emails from the City Attorney's office and the City Planning office informing me that the Council would consider the rezoning of the property at 410-412 N. Clinton Street with a historic preservation overlay at tonight's meeting. The property is zoned RM -44, High Density Multi -Family Residential. It is located across the street from University of Iowa residence halls and near the campus. The attorney for the previous owner, as well as myself, have previously submitted written and oral information to the Council, and request that you consider all of the information we provided to the Council, and Planning and Zoning and Historic Preservation Commissions. My clients have filed a protest of the proposed rezoning, and a super majority vote of 6 members is required to approve of the measure. I would like to again stress to you some of the points previously submitted for your consideration. The property does not satisfy the requirements to be rezoned with a historic preservation overlay. The property is not associated with the lives of significant persons or events that have made significant contributions to history. The building does not satisfy the criteria to be designated as a historic structure. The whole building must be considered, not just one part. Parts are not eligible independent of the existing building. More than one-half of the principal structure are apartments built in the 1960s, and there is a detached garage of no historical significance. The rezoning of the property with a historic preservation overlay against the will of my clients will have an extreme negative impact on the property. My client estimates that the devaluation may be close to one-half million dollars. This site as currently zoned will allow 27 separate one bedroom units. It is currently being used as 9 one bedroom apartments, and 9 bedrooms within the older portion of the structure, sharing common areas. The rezoning of the property with a historic preservation overlay, without the owners' consent, is the taking of property without just compensation. If yoq,6hoose to force the designation onto my clients' property, they must protect their rights and property, and challenge the designation by exercising all appeals and r0'qpedief1 available to them. - The impact of the rezoning of the property with a historic `pres vad overlay is disproportionately greater on my clients when you consider the juopert� itself, the location of the property and the zoning of the property, as com$ared to owners of other older homes. It is unfair to impose the burdens and restrictions of Page 3 of 3 this historic preservation overlay on this entire property, the bulk of which is clearly composed of property which fails to meet the requirements of a historic structure. Rezoning the property with a historic designation overlay violates a stated purpose of the Iowa City Zoning Code and the Historic Overlay District, which is to protect and improve property values, not diminish them. The rezoning of the property with the historic preservation overlay will also increase the costs of operating the property, which discourages the City's goal of promoting affordable housing, as costs of the property must be passed on to the tenant. My clients respectfully request that you deny the request to rezone the property with a historic preservation overlay. Let me know if you need me to provide you with any further information. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ( i Robert S. Michael RSM:ses Original hand delivered to City Clerk, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 cc: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Item 10.b.: Rezoning Historic Landmark Designation 410-412 N. Clinton Street REZ18-00007 Ordinance rezoning property located at 410-412 N. Clinton Street from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to RM -44 with a Historic District Overlay (RM-44/OHD). (Second Consideration) Background 410-412 N. Clinton & TDR Ordinance December 14, 2017: Historic Preservation Commission considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, recommended approval March 15, 2018: Planning and Zoning Commission considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, recommended approval April 17, 2018: Council considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, offered consult with HPC and PZ May 10, 2018: Joint consult session held May 15, 2018: Council considered first reading of local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, pass May 29, 2018: Council considered second reading of local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street Deferred to January 29, 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR program August 2018 -January 2019: Development and review of TDR ordinance I LOT LINE A0 FT FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS- AND 7 FT SIDE SETBACKS II LINE IS NEW BUILDIN MAXIMUM FODTPRINT 410-412 Clinton Street Full Site New Development Building Footprint in yellow 50% site coverage- 3 story building 18,000 sf occupied space LOT LINE 20 FT FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS AND 7 FT SIDE SETBACKS LINE IS NEW BUILDING MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT ^ 8 410-412 Clinton Street New Development Behind Historic House Building Footprint in yellow 50% site coverage- Historic House and new 3 story building Total 15,572 sf occupied space 120 0 Historic Preservation &Planning Commission Recommendation The Historic Preservation Commission and Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of application REZ18-00007, a rezoning to designate 410-412 N. Clinton Street as a Historic Landmark.