Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-03 Bd Comm minutes mr MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission August 10, 2006 Iowa City Airport Terminal- 5:45 PM FINAL Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; John Staley; Janelle Rettig; Howard Horan, Greg Farris Members Absent: Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Brian Riley; John Yeomans; Rick Mascari; John Ockenfels; Harry Wolf DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5 :45 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JULY 13 AND JULY 27, 2006, MEETINGS: Hartwig asked if the members had any corrections or changes to the July 13 minutes. Staley noted that on page 3 - the discussion where Rick was speaking - he feels that perhaps they should elaborate on some ofthe points that came out, such as the discussion of the crown on the runway, if the runway gets cut down and it's only 50 feet wide, or you're landing on a strip on the eastern side of the crown and how water could collect there, creating a dangerous situation. Also, he noted David's comments about the ASOS relocation being added. Rettig noted that where it states, "Rettig moved to accept the MOA," that it does not define what MOA is - Memorandum of Agreement. Hartwig noted that they could make this more explicit. Tharp noted, in the July 27 minutes, that the Resolution numbers, labeled as 15 and 16, should be 16 and 17. Staley moved to accept the minutes of the July 13 meeting and the July 27 meeting as amended above; seconded by Horan. Rettig noted that she is abstaining from a vote on the July 27 minutes as she was not present; Farris noted the same. Motion carried 3-0 (Rettig and Farris abstaining). PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Brian Riley with Hertz stated that they are interested in adding signage at the Airport entrance and noted that he wanted to let the Commission know of their interest. Horan began a discussion about what type of signage would be acceptable to him. Riley noted that they want any type of sign, just something to show that they are located here. Hartwig noted that Tharp had checked with the City on what type of signage would be allowed. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. Open Records Policy - Consider a resolution delegating responsibility to particular persons holding specified positions to implement the Airport Commission August 10,2006 Page 2 of7 requirements of Chapter 22, Iowa's Public Records Statute. - Dulek noted that about a year ago the City adopted an "Open Records Policy" in part because various departments within the City were charging various prices - this policy created a uniform fee for copy costs, etc. In the case of the Airport, the Operations Specialist is the "custodian" of the Airport's records. Rettig noted that she believes strongly in the State's "open records" law and she is glad to see this on record. Horan noted that he has been paying more attention to this law with the increase in email especially. Ockenfels says he appreciated being able to get a draft copy ofthe Airport Commission minutes before the meeting at which they are approved, as the time frame is rather drawn out before the minutes are posted on the City web site. Rettig moved to adopt Resolution No. A06-18, delegating responsibility to the "custodian" to implement the requirements of Chapter 22, Iowa's Public Records Statute; seconded by Farris. Approval of adopting Resolution No. A06-18 carried 5-0. B. Farmers National Agreement - Hartwig asked Tharp to give members a quick rundown on this matter. Tharp stated that the agreement is a yearly contract that renews automatically, that does provide a timeframe for the Commission to terminate the contract, if they so desire. Tharp noted that the contract was signed in January 2006 and that he is recommending a continuation of this agreement. John Yeomans talked to the Commission about the Airport land not being developed, now that the Wal-Mart deal has expired, being put back into crop production until such time as another development is planned. He also stated that all of Johnson County is in the process of being remapped. Horan stated that he is fine with leasing the ground for crops, and asked if they could craft an agreement that states something to the effect that if the land is sold off, the Airport will not face any penalties for selling the land while in production. Yeomans stated that he does not see a problem with this, and that they can work together on this type of agreement. Dulek noted that the current agreement does not include the land being discussed, and that the agreement would have to be amended at the next meeting, if they decide to go ahead with this. Currently, the gentleman who mows this land harvests the hay that it produces as payment. Rettig asked for clarification of the agreement with Farmers National and how much the Airport is paid. Yeomans explained how the Airport gets payments from the crops once they are sold, dependent on the yields each year. Horan suggested they form a subcommittee to further explore this issue, and Rettig stated she would work with him on this. C. FAA/IDOT Projects - Earth Tech - David Hughes a. Runway 7/25 - Hartwig noted that Hughes was not able to attend this evening's meeting. 2 Airport Commission August 10, 2006 Page 3 of7 i. Consider Resolution accepting Willow Creek Box Culvert as complete. - Hartwig noted that this project has been completed satisfactorily. Rettig moved to adopt Resolution No. A06-19, accepting Willow Creek Box Culvert as complete; seconded by Staley. Approval of adopting Resolution No. A06-19 carried 5- O. Hartwig read to the members the information that Hughes had given him on various projects. "With respect to 7/25, the contractor has started earth work on this project and a Notice to Proceed was issued effective July 31 st on what is to be a 90- calendar day project. As of August 9th the clearing of shrubs was 90% complete. The contractor anticipates beginning construction of fill for runway late this week or next, depending on weather conditions. There was a meeting this morning to discuss the schedule." The discussion continued on where the construction is currently on the Mormon Trek extension. b. Taxi-lane North Tee's and Parking Lot Rehab - Hartwig noted that this project would be under a State grant that they have. August 29th is going to be the start date for this, and Hartwig noted that they would need to communicate with the tenants what this will involve. The contractor has 21 days to complete this project, but Hartwig noted that he hoped it would not take the entire time. Hartwig asked that the members review the draft letter that Tharp created regarding this, and to let Tharp know of any changes, additions, etc., before he mails this letter to tenants. Hartwig gave a brief description of this project. (TAPE ENDS) Discussion continued on some of the problems that could be encountered during this work. Hartwig noted that there are some vehicles being left at the Airport for long periods of time and stated that Tharp has checked into this issue. He noted that Item G would address this issue. Hartwig added that the funds they have available, after the above project is complete, may be able to also cover some patch work around the service area, which led Horan to ask if they have any funds available now to cover the gas pump area and laying new asphalt in that area. Discussion continued with the members asking for clarification on this project and what type of funding would be left from the State grant, and what type of projects could be covered with this funding. Rettig stated that she would not be in favor of putting asphalt down that they would then dig up in six months. She would prefer that they put the extra asphalt in areas where it would be more long-term. Hartwig stated that he would ask Hughes to give them a better understanding of what they may be looking at once this project is complete. 3 Airport Commission August 10,2006 Page 4 of? D. Iowa Department of Transportation Grants a. Update - Hartwig gave the members a brief rundown ofthe projects that these grants will cover and what the matching amounts will be. Hartwig asked the members for a motion to accept these grants. Rettig asked for some clarification on the specifics ofthese State grants, noting that it mentions "for aviation use" in the wording. 1. Consider Resolution Accepting Grant 9I07010W300 for Hangar A Rehabilitation - Staley moved to adopt Resolution No. A06-20, accepting Grant 9I070IOW300 for Hangar A Rehabilitation; seconded by Rettig. Approval of adopting Resolution No. A06-20 carried 5-0. 2. Consider Resolution Accepting Grant 9I07010WlOO for South Taxiway/Taxi lane Rehabilitation - Rettig moved to adopt Resolution No. A06-21, accepting Grant 9I070IOWI00 for South Taxiway/Taxi lane Rehabilitation; seconded by Horan. Approval of adopting Resolution No. A06-21 carried 5-0. E. South Aviation Development - Horan stated that they had a good meeting with Karin Franklin. He noted that it would be difficult to bring aviation- related businesses in, due to the restraints ofthe Airport in terms of size and location. Rettig stated that she mentioned to Karin Franklin and Wendy Ford a hangar concept in Mason City that is a condo for corporate entities, and that this may be a possibility for the south area of the Airport. She noted that Franklin stated that Ford would be out to the Airport to meet with the Commission to further discuss this development area. Discussion continued on possible ideas for this area and the City's desire to work with the Airport to do this. F. Aviation Commerce Park - Harry Wolf spoke with the members about this property, noting that they are back to "square one" now that the Wal-Mart offer has been withdrawn. He noted that some of the issues they are dealing with are that the property has been rezoned to CC-2, Community Commercial Zone, and is no longer CI-l, Intensive Commercial Zone, noting that the zoning is now inconsistent with the original language. He noted that there is also a preliminary plat that has been approved and they are deciding whether they need to re-subdivide this land or not. He stated that until they decide these issues, the pricing will be on hold. Rettig asked about the lawsuits that had been brought about due to the Wal-Mart offer and Dulek stated that the appeals have been dismissed now. Discussion continued on the difference in the two zonings and which would be better to keep on this parcel of land. Rettig stated that she feels they should keep the newest zoning designation for now. Wolf fielded questions from the members regarding the Wal-Mart offer and the situation as it now stands. (TAPE ENDS) The flood plain issue was 4 Airport Commission August 10, 2006 Page 5 of7 also discussed at some length, with members questioning if this will be an issue for a new buyer. Wolf stated to the members that he would be back at the next meeting with hopefully more news for them. G. Parking Policy - Hartwig noted that this issue needs to be discussed and that some type of policy should be created. He stated that Jet Air should also be a part of this discussion, in case there are any long-term vehicles parked at the Airport, everyone would know whom the vehicle belongs to, etc. Rettig stated that she feels they should have some type of policy with a nominal fee, just so everyone is aware of who is parked at the Airport long-term, especially if after seven to fourteen days. Hartwig noted that there have been University students parking at the Airport for two to three weeks at a time, as they know they won't get towed, as they would downtown. Discussion continued about some of the various parking problems throughout the Airport and the need to follow through on a policy. Tharp will put together a rough draft of a parking policy for the Commission members to review. H. Purchasing Authority a. Consider a Resolution authorizing the Airport Operations Specialist and Commission Chairperson to execute contracts for public improvements, for purchase of goods, and for professional services not to exceed a specified dollar amount - Tharp spoke about this issue, stating that like last month's issue with chairs, he is asking for some level of authority to make purchases, to help process some of the requests he has. Dulek spoke to this issue briefly. Tharp answered members' questions regarding a dollar amount for this authorization. After a brief discussion, members opted to delete the "execute contracts for public improvements" wording. Rettig moved to adopt Resolution No. A06-JK,-Smhorizing the Airport Operations Specialist and Commission Chairperson, for purchase of goods and for professional services not to exceed $2,000; sec~led by Horan. Approval of adopting Resolution No. A06-V' carried 5-0. IIlK II/tl~ I. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Hartwig mentioned that he attended the last City Council meeting and gave them an update on the Airport happenings. He stated that they need to continue to attend these meetings and keep the Council updated. Rettig noted that the Sertoma Fly-In is in a couple weeks and she asked if the Airport grounds could get some quick clean-up. Hartwig noted that this is a good idea and a discussion ensued on various items of concern. She also thanked the Committee for the new garbage cans, stating that it looks much nicer. In regards to the budget, Rettig questioned a Jet Air entry of 7/24 for $1500.00, stating that last year she noted an entry that was similar, but that it is not on the current budget. Tharp noted that a check request would have been made that date. Rettig also noted some other line items that have changed. Hartwig suggested they set up a meeting with Deb 5 Airport Commission August 10,2006 Page 5 00 also discussed at some length, with members questioning if this will be an issue for a new buyer. Wolf stated to the members that he would be back at the next meeting with hopefully more news for them. G. Parking Policy - Hartwig noted that this issue needs to be discussed and that some type of policy should be created. He stated that Jet ir should also be a art of this discussion, in case there are any long-term v icles parked at the A ort, everyone would know whom the vehicle belo s to, etc. Rettig stat that she feels they should have some type of po cy with a nominal fee, just so veryone is aware of who is parked at the Ai ort long-term, especially if after s en to fourteen days. Hartwig noted that ere have been University students ping at the Airport for two to three w ks at a time, as they know they won't g towed, as they would downtown. iscussion continued about some ofthe v . us parking problems througho t the Airport and the need to follow through 0 a policy. Tharp will put to ther a rough draft of a parking policy for the Com ission members to revie H. Purchasing Authority a. Consider a Resol . on authorizing e Airport Operations Specialist and Commission C irperson to ecute contracts for public improvements, for pu hase of ods, and for professional services not to exceed a specified do ar am unt - Tharp spoke about this issue, stating that like last mont's i ue with chairs, he is asking for some level of authority to make p chases, to help process some of the requests he has. Dulek spo e 0 this issue briefly. Tharp answered members' questions regar ng ollar amount for this authorization. After a brief discussion, ember pted to delete the "execute contracts for public imp, ovements' wording. Rettig moved to adopt Resolution No. A06- , authorizin the Airport Operations Specialist and Com ission Chairpe on, for purchase of goods and for profession services not to ex ed $2,000; seconded by Horan. Approva of adopting Resolutio No. A06-21 carried 5-0. I. Airport "Operations'" Strategic Plan-Implement ion; Budget; and Airport Managemen - Hartwig mentioned that he at nded the last City Council meeting and ave them an update on the Airpo appenings. He stated that they nee to continue to attend these meetings d keep the Council updated. ettig noted that the Sertoma Fly-In is in couple weeks and she asked ift Airport grounds could get some quick cle -up. Hartwig noted that this is good idea and a discussion ensued on various items of concern. She al 0 thanked the Committee for the new garbage cans, stating that it looks m h nicer. In regards to the budget, Rettig questioned a Jet Air entry of 7/24 r $1500.00, stating that last year she noted an entry that was similar, but t at it is not on the current budget. Tharp noted that a check request wou have been made that date. Rettig also noted some other line items that h ve changed. Hartwig suggested they set up a meeting with Deb 5 Airport Commission August 10,2006 Page 6 of7 at the City to help explain this. Tharp stated that he would look into this, to see if the report parameters need adjusting. The discussion turned to which hangars are still being paid on. Tharp will check into this for specific amounts and will put in the Members' next packet. J. Subcommittees' Reports - Farris noted that he and Tharp met to discuss a better way to communicate, and one idea is a newsletter. He stated that Tharp has started the "Beacon" to communicate with tenants. The City web site was also discussed, with Farris stating that they need to update some information here, and he also noted that the City has an "E-services" mechanism that they could use to alert people to Airport news. (TAPE ENDS) The discussion turned to getting a camera for the Airport to take pictures for this newsletter. Rettig stated that she is curious about the viewing area and what can they do. Hartwig noted that once the pavement work is done, the fencing will go up - yet this season. Tharp stated that it should be done within a month after the pavement is complete. Farris talked about some ideas he heard about in Oshkosh regarding this. Hartwig noted that Dan Clay had been working on this proj ect prior to his move, and that perhaps someone else could take over what Clay had been working on. Rettig noted that there are some grants available that might be of help to them in this viewing area. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Hartwig noted that there will be a safety meeting later in the month. He also noted that in regards to the budget, they will have to start on next year's budget before long. Horan stated that after the meeting with Karin Franklin, he spent time with the people relocating the ASOS. He stated that he also sent an email to the Friends of Iowa City Airport, inviting them to begin discussion regarding the United Hangar, as it is going to come down. Horan stated that he would like to celebrate the building and invited others' ideas on how to do this. He asked what could be done with the cement slab once the building is tom down. Rettig mentioned an article that she wanted to share with members, where Atlanta just opened a new runway, and they had a 5K run on the new runway, where everyone got to run on the runway to celebrate. Farris brought up the issue of green space and the viewing area, noting that he has some contacts with the Master Gardeners to get their ideas on how they could enhance this area. STAFF REPORT: Tharp noted the Hertz sign issue, stating that he has been working on this. Rettig noted her concerns about the size of the sign, stating that if other commercial ventures wanted to do this, they would definitely need a sign policy. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: September 14, 2006 @ 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Chairperson Date 6 Airport Commission August 10,2006 Page 7 of7 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meetin!! Date) TERM 1/12 2/9 3/9 4/13 5/1 5/11 5/31 6/8 6/16 6/23 6/27 7/13 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1/08 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- -- --- Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X .X X X X X X X OlE X X Greg Farris 3/1/07 0 X X X X X X X X X OlE OlE John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X X OlE X X OlE X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 --- -- X X X X X X X X X X 7/27 8/10 ............. Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X Greg Farris 3/1/07 OlE X John Staley 3/1/1 0 X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 OlE X KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = AbsentlExcnsed NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 7 n::- 4b 2 FINAUAPPROVE AUGUST 2006 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2006 G08/9- SENIOR CENTER Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 3:00 PM Members Present: David Gould, Jay Honohan, Jo Hensch, Sarah Maiers, and Nancy Wombacher Members Absent: Betty Kelly and Bob Engel Staff Present: Michelle Buhman and Linda Kopping Others Present: Lynn Campbell RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: To approve the June minutes with the following correction: Under COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS the second paragraph should read, Honohan volunteered to write the web article and report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council following the July Commission meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. MaierslWombacher. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Campbell expressed appreciation for the canvas bag that was given to those who attended the volunteer recognition event. She noted that many people have made positive comments about this year's gift. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS Honohan volunteered to write the web article and attend the City Council and Board of Supervisors meetings to report on this meeting. Maiers agreed to write the web article for the September meeting. DISCUSSION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CENTER ON AGING TO ESTABLISH AN OSHER LIFELONG LEARNING INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA - Kopping Commissioners discussed the proposed agreement with the University of Iowa's Center on Aging to establish an Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at the University of Iowa. Copies of the proposed agreement, which was prepared by the Center on Aging, was distributed in the Commission packet for this meeting. Commissioners felt the proposed agreement was lacking in the following areas: ;>> The intent of the agreement is not clearly stated; FINAUAPPROVED AUGUST 2006 ~ The responsibilities of each party are not identified; ~ The agreement lacks a budget; and ~ The responsibilities and composition of the steering committee and board need to be spelled out. Commissioners agreed that the proposed agreement needs to be revised. Minimally, it should include a representative from the Senior Center on the Steering Committee, offer a clear presentation of the responsibilities and obligations of each partner, and indicate that the Senior Center will continue to be a partner as long as there is an Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. Honohan and Kopping will work together with the Center on Aging to revise the agreement. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT Promotion Committee - Hensch The Promotion Committee has not met since the last Commission meeting. Nonetheless, plans from the previous meeting, which involved the creation of a Center drill team to march in area parades, are being pursued. Hensch reported that she had an application for a group to be in the homecoming parade and Wombacher and Kopping are pulling together a group of volunteers to perform. Community Re/ations and Outreach Meeting - Wombacher The Committee and a group of approximately ten Senior Center volunteers met on August 14, 2006. The focus of the meeting was to create a Senior Center Speaker's Bureau. The group brainstormed on who would be speakers, the kind of programs the group would offer, and how speakers would be trained. OPERATIONAL REVIEW-Kopping Staff reports were reviewed and discussed. Kopping is working on the Senior Center Commission's Annual Report. A draft of the report will be distributed in the September Commission packet. The Commission reviewed the programs scheduled to celebrate the Senior Center's 25th Anniversary in September. Amy Correia, Coordinator of Social Services of Johnson County, requested that Kopping prepare quarterly reports for the Johnson County Board of Supervisors identifying how the $75,000 grant is a benefit to the Senior Center and its programming. Specifically how it benefits seniors in the county. The reports are due at the end of October, end of January, end of April and the end of July. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Gould reported that he visited the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Maiers/Hensch. 2 FINAUAPPROVED AUGUST 2006 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2006 Name Term 1/24 2/21 3/21 4/18 5/23 6/20 8/15 9/19 Exoires Bob Enqel 12/31/08 X X X X X OlE OlE OlE David Gould 12/31/08 X X X X X X X OlE Jo Hensch 12/31/06 X X X X X X X X Jav Honohan 12/31/07 X X X X X X X X Betty Kelly 12/31/07 X OlE X X X X OlE OlE Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X X X X X OlE X X Nancy Wombacher 12/31/06 OlE OlE X X X X X X Key: X= 0= O/E= NM= Present Absent Absent/Excused No meeting Not a member 3 r:=r MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 9, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL.IOWA CITY, CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Wright STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek, Drew Westberg (planning intern) OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Danielson, Tracy McWane, Lorena Lovetinsky CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:02. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 12. 2006 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Alexander moved to accept the July 12, 2006minutes as submitted. Wood seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC06-00018 Discussion of an application submitted by Tracy and Scott McWane for a special exception to allow a non-conforming roof-top sign to be reinstalled on property located in the Community Commercial (CC2) zone at 526 S. Riverside Drive. Westberg said the non-conforming roof-top sign for the Dairy Queen store located at 526 South Riverside Drive was destroyed by the April 13 tornado. The sign was non-conforming in that the Zoning Code does not permit roof-top signs because they are considered to be less safe. Westberg stated that the owners, Tracy and Scott McWane, have rebuilt the Dairy Queen store and wish to re-install a replica of the original sign on the building. City staff worked with the McWanes to try to find a way to allow a reproduction of the sign to be installed on the property in compliance with current sign regulations. However, a solution could not be found that would allow the large Dairy Queen sign and its two freestanding neon cone signs originally located on the property. Westberg said the CC-2 zone. freestanding signs on lots with 160-300 feet of frontage to 2 signs. The Dairy Queen property is approximately 185 feet and therefore subject to the constraint. There are also provisions in the Zoning Code that allow alterations to existing nonconforming signs if they are located on properties designated as Historic Landmarks, properties registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on properties located in a Historic or Conservation District. In this case the Dairy Queen sign was completely destroyed, and neither the building nor its location fall into any of the historic categories. Westberg said City Staff has proposed an amendment to the Zoning Code to provide for a special exception to permit the repair or reconstruction of non-conforming signs that have been damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if those signs are determined to be of significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic value to the community. Because this amendment is still under review by the City Council, the granting of a special exception would be subject to the amendment's adoption by City Council. Westberg said the original sign was created for McWane's Dairy Queen sometime in the1950s at a different location. When the business relocated to its current site in 1961, the McWane's brought the sign from the previous building with them. The sign was designed specifically for the McWane store, and no other Dairy Queen has ever displayed one like it. Because the franchise store is locally owned, the Dairy Queen Corporation has allowed the McWane's to continue to display their unique sign. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August g, 2006 Page 2 of7 Westberg noted that while the original sign was never recovered after the storm, the applicants are working with a sign manufacturer in Waterloo to fabricate a replica of the original sign based on historic photographs of the store. Though it will be built of contemporary materials, the reconstructed sign is intended to be otherwise identical in appearance to the original sign. He said the sign will be reconstructed in a manner that will not be hazardous. The applicant has proposed mounting the sign on the roof and affixing it to reinforced beams. Staff recommends that the sign be displayed over the canopy roof, as it was before the tornado, subject to the approval of the Building Official to assure that the sign is not hazardous. If the roof mounting is determined to be insufficient, from a safety standard, the Building Official may require that the sign be affixed to external poles. Westberg noted that because the building is set back nearly 60 feet from Riverside Drive there are no issues with the Intersection Visibility Standards. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Westberg said that requiring the sign to be affixed in a manner approved by the Building Official should make it safer. The sign will be on top of the store building, which is set back approximately 60 feet from the street, so there will be no glare, and it will not violate the Intersection Visibility Standards in the code. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Westberg said the previous sign was displayed atop the building for more than 45 years without complaint from area businesses or residences. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Westberg said the adjacent properties are zoned CC-2, which allows for similar commercial uses. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Westberg said the property is accessed directly from Riverside Drive. All the required utilities and services are provided. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Westberg said there are two existing curb cuts serving the Dairy Queen property. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Westberg said the applicants were not required to make any updates to their parking lot as part of the building permit process for restoring the store structure because they were not expanding the use or structure. However, the applicants have recently repaved the entire parking area, including the southern third of the lot, which was previously gravel. The Code states that "any portion of a nonconforming parking area that is reconstructed or expanded, must be brought into conformance with all applicable construction, design, location, and screening and landscaping requirements." While the applicants will be required by the Building Official to bring their parking area into compliance with the current standards in the code regardless of the approval of this special exception, Staff recommends that this special exception be subject to the applicants providing the Building Official with a site plan for the parking area demonstrating all required elements for parking and screening in compliance with the Code. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Pian encourages the preservation of Iowa City's cultural heritage. Replacement of the Dairy Queen sign will help to preserve a property that is seen by many in the community as an icon of recent history. Staff recommends that EXC06-00018, a special exception to permit the reconstruction of a non- conforming sign, be approved subject to the Building Official's determination of a safe and secure mounting and subject to the submission to the Building Official of a site plan showing all required elements for bringing the parking area into conformance with the design and landscape screening requirements in the Code. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 9, 2006 Page 3 of7 Public Hearino Ooened Mark Danielson, Leff Law Firm, Iowa City, said they are thankful for the staff's efforts in helping them find a solution for the reconstruction of the sign. He added he would be available to answer any questions from the Board. No questions were asked. Tracv McWane, 60 Regal Lane, said their sign was unique in the world. She noted the sign was custom made. She said they found out from the University of Iowa, library that the store with its sign was on the front cover of American Photo magazine. She said the sign means a lot to her and everyone else. She said she works at the store and sees many parents coming with their kids, now students at the same university as their parents, sharing how they used to eat ice-cream under the neon sign. She said the sign was very special and many people in the community feel the same way. Public Hearino Ciosed MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC06-00018, a special exception to permit the reconstruction of a non- conforming sign, be approved subject to the Building Official's determination of a safe and secure mounting and subject to the submission to the Building Official of a site plan showing all required elements for bring the parking area into conformance with the design and landscape screening requirements in the Code. Wood seconded the motion. Aiexander would vote in favor. She said she loves these types of signs which add interest to the city's landscape. She said that it is perfectly clear that the sign is part of the property's historic identity; it is unique, designed specifically for the store. She noted that the replacement would use only safe materials and with the provision that the building official is going to insure the sign will be safely mounted it should not be a hazardous structure. She said the sign should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Alexander said the sign does not violate intersection visibility standards. It should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The sign would not impede the normal and orderiy development in the area. She noted that utilities and services are already in place, the ingress and egress have been addressed, and it will conform to all applicable standards and regulations of the zone in which is located. Wood would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. He added that he really appreciates the service brought to the city by the Dairy Queen. Shelangouski would vote in favor for the reasons aiready stated. Leigh would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. The motion passed 3:O-(Wright Absent) EXC06-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by Lorena Lovetinsky for a special exception to reduce the required front yard adjacent to Village Road to allow a six foot high fence for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1208 Tyler Court. Shelangouski refused herself because she lives in the neighborhood of the property. Westberg said the subject property is a double fronting lot with two street frontages, one on Tyler Court and one on Village Road. The Village Road frontage contains a fence that exceeds the 4-foot height limitation for fences located in the front setback area. The existence of this illegal fence came to the attention of the building official in January 2006, when a nearby property, a triple fronting lot that also fronts Village Road, was cited for establishing an illegal fence (a fence higher than 4 feet) in the front setback. The owner of that fence, inquired as to why a similar fence was allowed on another lot along Village Road. Upon further investigation, the building official discovered the illegal fence at 1208 Tyler Court and a citation was issued. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 9, 2006 Page 4 of 7 Westberg stated that the applicant's fence is located approximately 4-5 feet from the public right-of-way and the applicant is requesting a reduction of the front setback area along Village Road from 15 feet to 4 feet to allow the established fence to remain. Westberg said that a special exception may be granted to reduce the setback if the applicant demonstrates that the general approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied: 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question; 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements; 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts the public right of way or permanent open space. However, Westberg noted the applicant has failed to demonstrate the above criteria. He said the situation is not peculiar to the property. Double fronting lots, while somewhat unusual in much of Iowa City, are common to the Village Green subdivision in which this property is located. Most of the lots fronting onto Village Road are double-fronting or corner lots with the Village Road frontage being the secondary frontage. In staffs view, there is no practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement. All other fences along Village Road are in compliance with these standards, including a fence on a triple fronting lot on the opposite side of Village Road from the applicant's property.. In staffs view the location of the 6-foot fence within the front setback is contrary to at least one aspect of the setback regulation. The location of the fence does not reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City's neighborhoods nor in its immediate neighborhood. As previously stated, other fences along Village Road are in compliance with the height and location standards in the Code. Westberg said the Code restricts the height of fences along street frontages for both aesthetic and safety purposes. While the applicant's fence is attractive and partially screened from view by vegetation, this addresses only the aesthetic aspects of the fence regulation. The second purpose, public safety, is intended to preserve the safety of public streets by creating a relationship between residential properties and the street to allow some degree of sight that is not possible when a street is walled off by privacy fences. The permitted 4-foot fence allows a degree of privacy as well as safety for the private property owner without compromising the safety for pedestrians and others who use the public right-of-way. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. In Staffs view, the proposed exception is detrimental to the public safety and comfort and general welfare. While a single fence may not undermine the public safety, permitting an exception for a 6-foot fence within the front setback in a subdivision where double fronting lots, like the applicant's, are the norm, establishes an example for other property owners to follow. As stated earlier, at least one property owner has already followed that example and was later required to reduce the height of their fence to 4 feet. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In staffs view, the proposed exception is primarily injurious to the public right-of-way. While this may not be immediately injurious to private property value, it does diminish the appearance of the larger neighborhood and the public value for a safe and aesthetically appealing streetscape for the reasons stated above. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 9, 2006 Page 5 of7 located. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will set an example for the surrounding double and triple fronting lots, which may lead other property owners to believe that such a fence is legal. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The subject property is in compliance with all other setback regulations of the zone. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Double-fronting lots are discouraged during the platting process for new subdivisions, and, when double-fronting lots are the only option, they are required to have landscape screening in lieu of fences. Staff recommends that EXC06-00016, an application to reduce the required front setback from 15 feet to 4 feet in order to maintain a 6-foot high fence be denied. Public Hearina Opened Lorena Lovetinskv, 1208 Tyler Court, said there has been a 6-foot fence on the property for 23 years. She said she has just replaced the existing 6 foot fence, not buiit a new one. She added that there have been no compiains from the neighbors in regard to the fence. Lovetinsky said the fence is not located in the front yard, but in her back yard. She added that her front yard is wide open for anyone to look at it if wanted, but she wishes privacy in her backyard. She said that she should be afforded the privacy of her backyard. Liegh asked if the property owner could use landscaping in combination with a shorter fence to provide a degree of privacy in the backyard. She noted that she does not understand how the 6 foot fence represents a safety issue to pedestrians. Miklo said the tall fence provides a hiding place for people who could possibly accost someone on the street. In addition, he said that several police departments country wide recommend against privacy fences because they block views into a property and make it easier for someone to break into a house. He clarified that it is a visibility issue in terms of pedestrians' safety. Lovetinsky replied that if privacy fences present visibility issues she should be required to take her lilac shrubs too. Miklo clarified that the Code allows shrubs because they allow a degree of visibility that the fence does not allow. Lovetinsky said she just wants privacy in her backyard. She noted the 6 foot fence was already installed when they moved in. Answering a question posted by Alexander,Holececk said that if the previous fence was legally non- conforming it could be maintained, but not be repiaced with a non-conforming fence. Lovetinsky said she would not have replaced the fence if she knew that it would not be grandfathered in. Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Wood moved that EXC06-00016, an application to reduce the required front setback from 15 feet to 4 feet in order to maintain a 6.foot high fence be approved. Alexander seconded the motion. Wood said that he went through a similar situation with his property. He said, the regulations are in place for a purpose even when they don't seem to apply directly and I don't see enough here to feel that they can be ignored or overturned. He said the fence is immediately visible when turning onto Village Road and that safety was a concern. Alexander said, the situation is not peculiar and does not place a practical difficulty. There are other lots like this that are complying with the Code and we run a real problem when exceptions are made on things like this because then its very difficult to tell other people they can't do the same thing. She said doing that would put the City in that difficult position. She said the specific standards are not met. The notion behind this is that it can be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property and it could impair property values because of the difference in appearance as this particular property isn't going to be the same as Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 9, 2006 Page 6 of 7 the others around it. She said that it also does set an example for surrounding double and triple fronting lots which could lead other owners to venture into the same problem and end up in the same situation. She said, for those reasons she was going to have to vote against this. Leigh said, this isn't peculiar only to the Village Green area. She said the area between Bloomington Street and Rochester Street, between Davenport Street and Bloomington Street have this same situation. People in this area would love to be able to fence their backyards but they can't and to make this exception for you is unfair in not making an exception for other people. Motion denied 0:3. OTHER Alexander asked for an update in the case of the columbarium. Holececk said there was no appeal to the Board's approval of the columbarium. Holececk stated that the prior case is pending but could be considered mute since the Board had granted the special exception under the new zoning ordinance. Holececk said that the Shelter House appeal was fully briefed and is pending before the Iowa Supreme Court. She noted she believes the case was screened by the court but yet not assigned. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:55 P.M. sJpcdlminutesfboalOS.09-06. doc Board of Adjustment I Attendance Record 2006 I I I Term i Name Expires 01111 02/08 03/08 04/13 05/10 06/14 07/12 08/09 I i Karen Leil!h 01/01107 X X OlE X X X X X I Carol Alexander 01101108 X X X X X X X X I I Michael Wril!ht 01101109 X X X X X X X OlE I 01/01/10 OlE Ned Wood X X X X X X X M. Shelanl!ouski 01101111 X X X X X OlE X X I Key: X = Present o = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting I I City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission August 9, 2006 Recreation Center Meeting Room B G[ FINAL I CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Klink, Ryan O'Leary, Jerry Raaz, Phil Reisetter, John Watson, MEMBERS ABSENT: Margie Loomer, Matt Pacha, John Westefeld STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved bv Pacha, seconded bv Raaz. to approve the Julv 19. 2006 minutes as written, Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. DISCUSSION OF PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN: Trueblood updated Commission of master plan progress. He has collected information from consultants and other communities, and is in the process of reviewing. Trueblood will report again at a later meeting, but indicated he should be able to have a "request for proposals" completed at least by the October meeting. CONSIDER RESTROOM AND SHELTER DESIGNS FOR THE RIVERSIDE FESTIVAL STAGE AREA: Trueblood reviewed preliminary design plans with the Commission. "Low-lights" are proposed for the new walkway to be constructed between the theatre and the main parking lot. The restroom/shelter proposals included placing restroom and shelter on opposite sides of the stage and a plan where both are put on the same side. Trueblood also reviewed a plan for constructing round buildings for the shelter and restroom, and indicated it is likely to be more expensive, but cost estimates have not been received as yet. He presented this plan to the CIP committee who liked the round design. The Commission discussed and overall consensus is that they prefer the round design as well, however, would be happy with square design if round design is too costly. At this point Raaz asked if electrical will be part of the design, and if vending machines might be possible. Trueblood indicated that electrical will be included, but didn't know at this time if Parks and Recreation Commission August 9, 2006 Page 2 of 5 vending machines would be a good fit in this particular location. They will keep it in mind as the plans progress. Watson asked if security is a concern regarding restroom and shelter at the stage area. Trueblood reported that the shelter is open, as are most of the shelters in the park; however, restrooms are locked nightly at the parks closing. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO SAND LAKE RECREATION AREA: Trueblood expressed his concern regarding the cost estimate for this project which came in at more than $5.7 million. He will be meeting again with the designers to look closely at the plan to determine where costs can be cut, i.e. 4 restrooms would not be necessary. The City may also look at the possibility of building this project in phases. DISCUSS ANNUAL PARKS TOUR: The annual parks tour is scheduled for Wednesday, September 13. The Commission will meet in Room B at 4:00 p.m. for a brief time and then depart on the tour. An invitation will go out to the City Council as well as Public Art members. Potential sites for the tour as follows: . "Birds in Flight" sculpture located at South Sycamore Greenway . "Just for Kicks" sculpture at the Kicker's Soccer complex . Wetherby Public Art . Willow Creek Public Art . Peninsula Park (dog park and disc golf) . Brookland Park . City Park (Riverside Festival Stage, Angel Statue, Boys Baseball Building, Bocce Courts, Horseshoe Courts) . Sand Lake . Waterworks Prairie Park . Playgrounds at North Market Square and Oakgrove Park . Grant Wood Gymnasium Trueblood encouraged Commission to contact him with any other parks/facilities they may wish to visit. Discussion ensued regarding Elks Club request for City to plant trees outside of the Elks Club fence on the hole near the Peninsula Park land to help "screen" Elks Club golfers from the dog park and disc golf area. Trueblood indicated he and Robinson were scheduled to meet about this the next morning. Reisetter indicated that perhaps the Elks Club should be required to share in the cost of this project. Raaz suggested asking the Elks Club about placing a connector trail near the river from the park to Taft Speedway. Parks and Recreation Commission August 9, 2006 Page 3 of 5 CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO PURSUE A POLICY TO PROHIBIT OR DISOURAGE SMOKING IN PARKS: Reisetter commented that the State would probably not allow this type of legislation by the City. Gustaveson commented that there are several cities that have banned smoking in outside areas, but admitted they are still considered controversial policies. Reisetter suggested perhaps setting aside smoking areas. Trueblood noted that we currently have a no smoking policy at some outdoor facilities, including the swimming pools and Riverside Festival Stage. Currently there are signs discouraging smoking at the Kickers complex and at Napoleon Park. Overall consensus of the Commission was to discuss further the possibility of placing signs discouraging smoking, but would not elect to try to ban smoking at this time. COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Reisetter was contacted by a neighbor regarding his concern about the City "unnecessarily" removing trees. He asked if there are written standards in place. Robinson stated that the Iowa City Forestry Department does not have written standards, however, there are national written standards which are followed by the City; he distributed copies to the Commission for their review. Robinson also reported that the specific tree in question did indeed, based on these national standards, and his inspection, need to come down. He described the tree as having two leads, one being completely dead and the other having much dead material. He also stated that as a courtesy, the City always contacts adjacent homeowners when a tree in the right-of-way needs to be removed. In this particular case, the adjacent homeowner was pleased to see it go. The individual who registered the complaint was not the adjacent homeowner, and does not live on the same block. Raaz commended the Recreation Division for the "Family Fun Night" programs they are offering at the parks this summer. Moran noted that the department has received a number of positive comments about this program. Klink shared photos of her recent trip to Austria. She had photos of an island that had been placed in a lake. She also had pictures of a climbing wall that had been placed on a river walk. Klink also noted that a number of buildings on their trip used solar power for energy. She stated that she wished she had thought of this before plans were in place for the roof replacement of the Recreation Center. CHAIRS REPORT: Gustaveson reported that he played his first game of bocce recently and has since signed up to play in a fall league. He encouraged other Commission members to try the bocce courts. He also mentioned that he was recently at the dog park and that is being very well used. He did express his concern about parking once the disc golf course opens. Gustaveson mentioned that there are still letters being sent to the Press Citizen regarding the Angel of Hope Statue - both positive and negative. One couple had mentioned to him how they love the location. They stated that while they were there they could see and hear the kids on the amusement rides, but it was still far enough away so provides solitude. Parks and Recreation Commission August 9, 2006 Page 4 of5 DIRECTORS REPORT: Riverside Festival Stage Art Proposal: Ron Clark from Riverside Theatre had forwarded to Trueblood information he received for a sculpture of William Shakespeare that could possibly be considered for placement near the Riverside Festival Stage. Trueblood presented photos of the Shakespeare sculpture to the Commission. While the Commission liked the sculpture very much, the price is considered to be extreme ($49,000). Commission felt that if Riverside wanted to do some fundraising towards the sculpture, perhaps they could further discuss being a part of this project. Citv Park Centennial Celebration performance of the "State Fair." Trueblood noted that the production ofthe play "State Fair" was well attended having distributed 1,520 tickets for the four performances. This play was offered to the public at no fee as part of the City Park Centennial Celebration. It was performed by the Iowa City Community Theater. Dog Park Pond: Trueblood stated that the City is still working on the pond at the dog park. They hope to fill the pond later this week or early next week. Disc Golf Course Update: Robinson updated the commission on progress at the disc golf course. He stated that all of the tee-pads are in place and that the posts were delivered today and will be installed soon by the disc golf volunteers. Recreation Center Window Replacement Proiect: Moran updated the Commission on the Recreation Center window project. The project is to start on September 18, which is later than the original schedule, due to manufacturing problems. They will begin on the west side of the building first. Moran will get a detailed schedule next week. At this time the projected start date for work on the south side is October 4. Proposed Boathouse: The Terrell Mill boathouse project plans are moving forward. The university has been considering prospective architectural firms, and has narrowed the list to four possibilities. Moved bv Raaz. seconded bv Reisetter to adiourn at 6:35 p.m. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission August 9. 2006 Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5110 6/7 7/19 8/9 9/13 10111 1118 12/13 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 X X X X X OlE DIE X Judith Klink 111/07 DIE X X DIE X X X X Margaret Loomer 111/08 X X X X X X X DIE Ryan O'Leary 111/10 X X X X X X X X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X X DIE DIE X X DIE Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X X X X X X X X Phil Reisetter 111/09 DIE X DIE X X X DIE X John 111/07 Watson X DIE X X X X X X John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X X X X DIE DIE - KEY: X= Present 0= Absent DIE = AbsentlExcused NM= No meeting LQ= No meeting due to lack of quorum --- - Not a Member MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 C1[ APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Willis, Ron , Mike Spear, Robert Hegeman, Sarah Jewell, Nancy Hitchon, Chester Schulte, Mark Sandler RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), SUB06-00014, a final plat for Windsor Ridge Part Twenty B, a 2-lot residential planned development on approximately 2.7-acres of land located south of Lower West Branch Road and north of York Place, subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to consideration by City Council. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZOINNG/DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZOS-00019/SUBOS-00029, discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development LLP for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1), Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone and Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-S) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residen- tial (OPDS) and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Parts 3-8, a 154-lot, 82.30-acre residential subdivision located north of Rohret Road and west of Phoenix Drive. Terdalkar said the applicant was requesting 44.29-acres currently zoned RR-1 and 18.S8-acres currently zoned ID-RS be rezoned to Low Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-5); approval for a 154-lot, 82.3- acre residential subdivision with four out-lots and that the entire subdivision be rezoned to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-S) zone to allow modification of the wetlands and the required buffers. When reviewing this application, Staff had considered the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and of the Southwest District Plan, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and land uses, compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision regulations, traffic implications, street design, infrastructure improvements and access to/from the subdivision. The site contained sensitive areas including a drainage way, wetlands associated with the drainage way and regulated slopes. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) allows reasonable development of the property provided measures are taken to protect the natural resources from destruction, provision of an ecologically sound transition between the development and the protected sensitive areas, and urban design that would preserve the open spaces and minimize the disturbance of sensitive areas. The SAO encouraged avoiding wetlands, minimizing the impact on the wetlands and considering alternative design for development activity. The SAO required a 100-foot natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland. The applicant had requested modifications of SAO regulated wetlands including wetland buffer averaging; elimination of the wetlands within the proposed Lakeshore Drive right-of-way and in lots 30-32, and the narrowing of the 1 DO-foot wetland buffer to 2S-feet located to the east of lots 3-8. Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 2 of9 Staff felt the applicant's request for the elimination of wetlands in order to install essential infrastructure and the wetlands along the south-east boundary would be reasonable and permitted provided that all the other requirements listed in the SAD were fulfilled. Staff did not feel that the applicant's request for buffer averaging met Code requirements. The Code provided for buffer averaging where it was deemed that an increased buffer would provide additional protection to the wetlands or other sensitive areas of high value or high diversity by reducing the buffer for an area where a reduced buffer may be sufficient. Staff felt that the applicant's proposal did not demonstrate why there was an additional need for any portion of the wetland to be increased/reduced or the buffer averaged. It appeared that in the areas in Outlot D, the areas proposed for increased buffer depths was excess land that was not otherwise developable. Staff had consulted with Liz Maas, a wetland specialist who concurred with Staffs assessment that there were no sensitive features on the western portion of Outlot D which needed additional protection, that the added buffer areas in Outlot D would not have been developable anyway due to difficult topography and that all portions of the wetlands within and adjacent to the drainage way needed equal protection to ensure the health of the wetiand. Additional deficiencies included not providing a buffer around newly created wetlands, no information had been provided regarding the degree of disturbance to the regulated slopes located on the site and construction limit lines had not been delineated on the drawings submitted to Staff. Concerns had been raised by adjoining property owners on the east regarding providing a transition between the existing lower density residential development and the proposed RS-5 density development. Maintaining the full wetland buffer would help provide such a transition and fulfill the Southwest District Plan goal of providing a transition. In addition the district plan proposed iarge RS-5 lots on the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision. Terdalkar said additional issues discussed at length in the Staff report included dedication of open space, infrastructure improvements including right-of-way dedication for the improvement of Rohret Road and Slothower Road, the restriction of any further development until those improvements had been made or planned for, the cost-sharing of said improvements, and stormwater management. Terdalkar said it was Staffs recommendation that the application be deferred to allow the applicant time to revise the design of the subdivision and to resolve the deficiencies/discrepancies. In the event that a revised plat which complied with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was not submitted, Staff recommended that the application be denied. Eastham asked Staff to further discuss their suggestions/concerns regarding the transitioning from the existing larger sized residential lots to the proposed RS-5 density development . Terdalkar said Staff felt that if the subdivision were to be redesigned, the possibility existed of relocating Lakeshore Drive to facilitate proper connections with Rohret Road and minimizing the impact to the wetlands. There was a distinction between two of the smaller wetlands versus the larger wetland; the larger wetland was associated with the stream corridor or drainage way. The SAD provided stricter requirements for such a wetland and did not allow for consideration of reducing the buffer which was being proposed by the applicant, or the removal and mitigation of the wetlands which was being proposed for certain areas. The SAD would allow for the consideration of mitigation in other areas provided that certain criteria were considered and/or met. Staff felt the applicant's request for mitigation in certain areas did meet the intent of the SAD and that it could be considered for those particular areas. . Staff didn't feel that it was absolutely necessary to move Lakeshore Drive, it was in a good position to line up with the existing road. Miklo said Staff was not suggesting that that area had to be radically redesigned. . Transition between existing and proposed developments. Miklo said Staff had had an in-depth discussion regarding that issue. When that area had been platted, it had been the City's policy that that area of the city would be very low density, the lots would be one-acre in size or greater. There had also been some sewer constraints which had resulted in the large lots. A later policy shift by City Council had provided for the possibility of sanitary sewer in that area and the possibility of more typical RS-5 development. The District plan specifically stated that there should be a transition and that the lots should be fairly large RS-5 lots. Staff felt that maintaining the entire buffer for the corridor and portion of the development would be the best way to provide some open space and transition for the lots to the east. Staff felt that some of the lots could be larger in size to help with the transition. Eastham asked if there would be any disadvantage if this development were to depend upon a lift station located within the development to serve the smaller area as opposed to a larger lift station that could serve more houses and possibly be more economical. Miklo said the concern about having a larger lift station was Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 3 of 9 to minimize the number of lift stations. The more lift stations, the increased possibility of having a problem with them and the more maintenance required by the City. The City encouraged larger and fewer lift stations. It was a fairly unique situation that this did not flow into a water shed normally served by the sewer plants. Eastham said he didn't see any connections for neighborhood trails nor plans for including a local trail access to the wetland area for the local neighborhood. Terdalkar said the adjacent land was currently owned by the County Poor Farm which would continue to be an open space. A dedication of approximately 4.5-acres of open space would connect to the existing open space and eventually connect to the sidewalk network in the neighborhood; there was no proposal to connect to the Hunter's Run trail nor to the existing developments to the east. An 8-foot sidewalk on the north side of the Rohret Road would be extended. Eastham asked if it was Staffs position that improvement of Rohret Road all the way down to the terminus would be enough arterial street to support the proposed subdivision. Terdalkar said two portions of the property would be developed at a later date. The new section of Lakeshore Drive would connect to the existing Lakeshore Drive, the lots along Lakeshore Drive would be developed. If the proposed development were to be approved by the Commission, Staff would recommend that a condition of a CZA require that the applicant improve the portion of Rohret Road that is adjacent to the proposed lots in the first phase of the development. Development of lots 78 to 154 should not occur until the improvement of the remainder of Rohret Road was in the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff would also recommend that the southern portion of Slothower Road be vacated to address the eleven double fronting lots along Prescott Lane. Public discussion was opened. Craio Willis, said the project team, which included himself; Mike Spear, Principle of S&J Development; Larry SchniUjer and Ron Amalon, MMS Consultants, disagreed with Staffs determination that buffer averaging was not appropriate in this particular situation. The development had originally been proposed and put forth approximately one year ago. Since that time there had been six iterations of the plan and two mitigations plans developed - the point being that they were willing to work with staff get it right. "To get it right not only for us, but for their neighbors, buyers and anyone else in the area." Willis said to the east of the proposed development were larger sized RR-1 lots, to the west was the County, to the north was the County Home Farm and Parts I and II of their development along with the semi-public recreation area. Willis said it was important what they called the "wetland", he would call it a swale. There was some debate as to what it [the wetland] really was and to the strict application of how the ordinances and federal regulations should apply to this area. Willis said the term, wetland, covered a large variety of things such as an open stream, a swamp with standing water or a number of things. This particular area was between plowed ground and farmland, it was covered over with dirt and did not display running water very much at all. It was covered with reed canary grass, a monoculture non-native invasive species. Willis distributed a package of documentation to the Commissioners. He said a lot of the regulation rising out of the ordinance was triggered by definition. Willis quoted from Exhibit One, Item XIV, 5-1-2b, "something is a river, stream or drainage way shown in blue in the most recent CGA quadrangle maps". He said the area in question was shown as a blue line on the most recent maps, but that was wrong in the applicant's team's contention. It was possible for the federal government to be wrong in assessing the area. Willis said Exhibit Two was a reaction by the Corps of Engineers to this area being treated as a blue line. He said the area was not a blue line, it did not have the characteristics. Willis quoted from the first page of the "Constance E-Mail" which he said suggested a case-by-case look at blue lines on a topographical map. Willis read the second paragraph of a message from Conroy of the US-CGS, but stated that he did not agree with the over-broadness of that message. In his memorandum, Conroy said "his problem was with the laws, not with the maps. If the people who passed the laws understood the limitations of maps and different revision procedures, perhaps they would not write laws that were so restrictive. It was time sensitive and might be not reflective of what it was." Willis read a portion of a message from Gene Walsh of the USGS, "While one drainage way was defined as a blue line stream on the topography map, it lacks the typical physical features of a stream channel, defined bed and bank, ordinary high water mark, shelving, sediment transport, etc to be classified as an intermittent stream. However the Corp will regulate as an emergent wetland." Willis said a similar opinion had been articulated by Professor Lon Drake who had made the same conclusion - what ever the USGS said about it, it was not really a stream. Willis said if it was not a stream, then was it a drainage way? Drainage way was not a defined term in the Zoning Ordinance. Willis said in his opinion, it was not; but Staff said that it was. He felt that in this situation Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 4 of 9 neither party should to try to define the undefined terms but look to what the purpose of the regulation was. Willis referred to Exhibit 4, an except from the Zoning Ordinance which listed what the goals of the regulations were. Improving water quality was one. Willis said he felt that the idea of the blue line and the enumeration in the Ordinance of river, stream or drainage way was to get at those areas which had open water. It was a very different water quality problem when there was open water for a significant amount of time. Drainage way would be interpreted as an area that ran water intermittently, which would be analogous to how the originally contrived blue line system of the federal government was - permanent and intermittent stream. Willis said his point and the argument was that clearly some of 'this' didn't squarely apply however they didn't want to make that argument or stand legally on that principle. The applicant contended that when looking at the equitable posture of the parties involved and at what was trying to be done, that should be taken into consideration. Willis said the buffer reduction as proposed made some sense. He referred to Exhibit 5, two important rules regarding the 100-foot buffer and buffer averaging. Item E-I was the 100-foot rule which referenced regulated wetland. Willis said they were not arguing that there was regulated wetland. The applicant was going to treat them as if they were regulated wetlands. Item #2, "Buffer Averaging may be permitted or required where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of the wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons." Willis said Staff had made the argument that the mitigation plan did not contain an argument. Willis said he wanted to make the argument why it was an important and considerable environmental interest to allow buffer averaging. The proposed area to the west would sometimes include open water. It currently did not now. Willis said the applicant's proposed improvement of a low grade wetland into a high grade wetland was environmental reason enough to allow the averaging. That was the justification. When the developed had completed the quality of wetland that they wanted to, it made sense to buffer it and to put the impact areas on that end of it. Willis said the Staff Report had said that Lot 29 did not display the minimum required 50-feet. There was an exhibit in the packet that showed that it did. If the issue needed to be addressed with reference to the new wetland they would address it. Ron Amalon, MMS Consultants, distributed a photo of the current wetland site with reed canary grass, a photo of an exiting mitigation site that they'd created in North Liberty which would be similar to what the applicant was proposing, and a colored drawing of the proposed mitigation plan. Amalon said the goal of the wetland mitigation plan was to improve the water quality and to provide a diverse wetland plant community. The existing plant community was reed canary grass, a non-native invasive species which The Corps of Engineers required to be removed from mitigation sites. The proposed plan had a plant community of over 20 species which was also expected to increase the wildlife use of the area. To achieve the goal of improving the water quality there would be sediment traps and filter socks at the head of the storm sewers. Two rock check dams would be installed at the upstream end of the mitigation site to help slow the run off into the site and improve the water quality. A berm would be placed upstream of the main wetland area to maximize the retention time of the water as it flowed from one cell to another which would maximize the quality of the water which would enter the main mitigation cell. Amalon said the applicant felt buffer averaging was appropriate for this site; it would be consistent with the idea of providing a staged mitigation site to maximize the water quality entering the main cell. Buffer average- ing would allow for an increased buffer around the main cell while trying to achieve the highest water quality. Eastham asked if the applicant had actually considered a development design which would comply with Staffs recommendations. Amalon said they had looked at how many lots would be impacted to maintain a 100-foot wide corridor and felt that it was a significant impact so they'd tried to come up with a plan that met the requirements of the SAO which included the request for 50-foot buffer reduction in certain areas for buffer averaging. They felt that it suited the site because it would allow for a wider buffer around the higher quality portion of the wetland. Eastham asked what the applicant's proposed goal was. He said looking at the Staffs map(s), he counted a maximum of 12 lots that would be in the 100-foot buffer range, only Yo of the lot areas were in the range so why didn't the applicant take the buffer ranges proposed by the Staff and reconfigure the design to see how many lots they actually came up with. Amalon said they'd looked at a concept drawing and thought that they'd lose close to 12-lots which was a significant loss so they preferred to propose buffer averaging instead. Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 5 of9 Miklo said the Staff Report had suggested the possibility of clustering smaller lots or using attached units so that the required buffer could be maintained. Eastham said that was what he was suggesting, had the developer considered that option. Amalon deferred to Spear. Mike Soear, S&J Development, said the blue line had been discovered late in the process. Originally they'd had a concept plan which had shown basically what they currently were proposing. They had redesigned and lost some lots already to come up with the 50-foot buffer. Spear said he had a problem with a Zoning Ordinance which relied on maps where the field work had not been done in six decades; what was shown on the map as a stream corridor was not there. From the photograph it could be seen there was no stream corridor there. Spear invited the Commission to go to the property to see that there was no stream corridor there. Spear said a stream corridor was what required the additional buffer. The response received from the USGS indicated that they did not feel that it was appropriate that their maps be tied to a zoning ordinance. The maps were done from aerial photographs, there was no field work done. Spear said a representative from the Corps of Engineers had visited the site and had said there was no stream corridor there. Spear said he felt that what they were proposing even with the mitigation plan was 100% larger than what they should have to do. Buffer averaging was nothing new or unprecedented, it had recently been done for the new Mennards site. Miklo said with respect to the question of stream corridor and its relationship to wetlands - they were starting from the Ordinance's requirement of a 1 DO-foot buffer for wetlands, it is a requirement. Whether there was a stream corridor present or not the 1 DO-foot buffer was required. Because there was a stream corridor present, the City was not able to consider buffer reduction. The City was able to consider buffer reduction for the two fingers to the south which were not associated with the stream corridor. Staff acknowledged that it had not been a running stream in recent years, but it was clearly a drainage way which provided drainage for several acres. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the Wetlands Regulations regulated wetlands associated with a stream corridor including a drainage way, whether or not there was running water. There was a higher level of scrutiny given to a wetland associated with a stream corridor even if it was just a drainage way and there was not a running stream present. Miklo said the correspondence was from one person at the USGS, in whose opinion some localities over regulated based on the map. That was only one person's opinion at the USGS. Because the applicant would be using the wetland area for stormwater management, the wetland improvements being spoken of would have to occur regardless of whether or not the buffer was reduced. The City's consultant felt that if there was going to be a successful wetland on that site, the greater the buffer the better. Staffs recommendation was a deferral. The City's consultant would be able to attend the informal meeting to discuss the wetland issues. Brooks asked how a developer would know about the blue line. Miklo said it was shown on the USGS map. In the late 1990's when Staff had first received a concept plan for this property, it had been from a different consultant. Staff had advised them in writing that there was a blue line shown on the property and they would need to consult the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. In the interim, Spear had hired at least one other consultant; when he'd hired MMS Consultants they were the ones who'd discovered that there was not only a stream corridor but also a wetland. Mikio said there were also some neighborhood design issues that warranted the 1 DO-foot buffer which included the fact that the proposed development was directly to the west of some fairly large lots and that those neighbors had purchased their lots with an anticipation of an open space corridor separating the lots. Spear said he'd misspoken, the wetland had been discovered late in the process, not the blue line. Spear said he lived in the area and was trying to make everyone happy. From the meetings that he'd had with the neighbors they did not want clustered development or a medium density townhouse development. Eastham said that type of development was allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Spear said Staff had suggested that he try to get the USGS to change the map however the USGS wouldn't do that, they only reviewed the maps approximately every 10 years. He'd submitted a request but the USGS said that they didn't have the funding to do the field work so the likelihood of it changing was little. Spear Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 6 of 9 distributed photographs of a housing development including recreation area that he'd built giving a brief history of the developed neighborhood that he'd grown up in Davenport. Willis said if the applicant was turned down on their buffering they would become interested in the circumstances under which averaging had been aliowed and the principles that went with it. He said that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance had no part in it that aliowed consideration for either density buffers with adjacent areas or clustering options. It was an environmentai regulation. Robert Heoeman, said he lived upstream in the water shed area. A waterway was determined primarily by topography and annual rainfali, those didn't change over decades. The blue line determination could be calculated by knowing elevations and average annual rainfali, the drainage areas could be calculated that went through a system. Only average annual rainfall changed. Therefore, he didn't feel that consideration should be given to changing the blue line. Hegeman said he had two relevant issues which he wished to bring to the Commission's attention, both of which had been caused by S&J's predecessor and interest, Frank Eicher, who'd owned the whole property. Eicher had built a dam upstream which held approximately % an acre of water and held several acre-feet of water which drained through an 8-inch pipe into a cistern. The cistern went down to another 8-inch pipe which ran the entire traverse of S&J's land and dumped west of Slothower Road. Accordingly, looking at the surface it could be said there was no stream there, but underneath there was 8 inches of water moving through a pipe. Hegeman said all that was required for that to become surface water instead of sub terrain water was to put a plastic sheet over the cistern. It was a wetland area, so he would suggest adhering to the USGS map. Hegeman said the dam upstream was important. It was a fairly large wetland area, it had an established habitat as it had been there since the late 1970's. It was about 3-acre feet of water. Twice in the past 13- years it had overflowed through a causeway where the outflow was no longer controlied. The dam acted as a buffer, if there was a lot of rainfali the water in the pond rose and feli but at some point the capacity of the dam to buffer the lower system was exceeded. In 1993 it had virtualiy been a river. S&J's predecessor had built the dam, profited by the sale of it and now wanted to restrict the area downstream that was endangered by an earthen dam. It was a safety issue, much more than a wetland issue. An earthen dam was holding back at least 3-acre feet of water, which was approximately 8,000 cubic yards or 6,800 tons of water. Should it be breached by muskrats or some other creature, it would be a huge volume of water moving down through an area barely 100-feet wide. Hegeman encouraged the Commission not to decrease the wetland buffer for safety purposes. Sarah Jeweli, 53 Tuscon Place, said she and her husband had visited with the property owners in the neighborhood to get a general feeling from their neighbors. They had submitted a letter now signed by 23 property owners who were within 200 feet of the property. No one agreed with the proposed development. Their big concerns included the waterway, the layout of the streets, if Lakeshore Drive was developed before Slothower Road was developed Lakeshore would become a throughway in the neighborhood connecting to Melrose Avenue. Increased traffic would come from vehicles going to the landfili, West High School traffic, cut-through traffic to Coralville and farmers bringing their equipment through the middle of a residential development with sma Ii children. Jeweli said a neighborhood should be a destination point and not just a cut through to get from one place to another. Jeweli said she'd lived in her house for 5-years and there had been running water on their property in years past. She was concerned about the proposed buffering. At times they were unable to even get a mower through the rear of her property near the guliey. If additional houses were built, it would raise the water table and there would be more water which ran through the area. Jeweli said the developer may have had conversations with particular neighbors in the neighborhood but in general the homeowners were not in favor of the proposed development, they didn't know what the proposed plan was, they hadn't been consulted nor their opinion solicited. AIi the neighbors would very much appreciate the opportunity to be included as it was their homes. The neighbors would also like to see the park moved to a more central location so that everyone could enjoy it and not just the northern homes. Nancv Hitchon, Lot #8, said she lived on over a one-acre lot. Her expectation was that when she did have neighbors it was not going to be very high density. She would like to have it be more like RR-1, a lower density. Spears, was a neighbor of larger lots, not the high density that was being proposed. The Country Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 7 of9 Club Estates development was not something that all persons in the neighborhood who were affected were members of or participated in. Chester Schulte, 1812 Rohret Court SW, said he opposed the rezoning of Country Club Estates having lived in his home for over 23 years. The rezoning would impact the tranquil neighborhood, safety, traffic, wildlife, aesthetics and the continuation of the present environment. Land valuations, crime, vandalism were all arguable concerns. The developer would reap economic gain from the rezoning, maximize his profits, impact lives and then leave. Schulte said he would be left to live with the change starting with the view outside of his kitchen window. The development of the land seemed inevitable; the small lot size and density of homes was what he most strongly objected to. When the subdivision was built, the headlights of all the vehicles exiting the development would flash across his picture window. He'd prefer to see fewer houses buiit for less impact. Eastham said the previous speaker had mentioned the possibility of increased vandalism and crime for the area. As a Planning and Zoning Commission member, it was his perspective and he assumed that everyone who would move into a new development would be as good a citizen as he was, no matter what the development was. Everyone in the audience had the right to express their opinions but some of the opinions would have less value to him than others. Mark Sandler, 41 Tucson Place, said he and his wife were both opposed to the rezoning for reasons that had already been mentioned. He said the applicant had invited the Commissioner's to go out and take a look at the property, but he would encourage them to wait until it rained to do so. He'd lived there almost 15 years, he could remember times when the neighborhood kids had tubed down the area and had actually been able to swim at the bottom of the hill on a couple of occasions. Sarah Jewell, said the existing County Club Estates subdivision were beautiful homes, many of them with 3- car garages. She'd envisioned that type of development would potentially continue with connecting trail ways, tennis courts, etc. What was actually being proposed were lot sizes so small that it was not consistent with what had originally been proposed or what was there now. That was also a concern to the existing home- owners. She was in favor of clustering to try to make it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and to not make it look like cookie cutter club crackers. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Plahutnick made a motion to defer REZ05-00019/SUB05-00029, an application for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1), Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone and Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residen- tial (OPD5) and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Parts 3-8, a 154-lot, 82.30-acre residential subdivision located north of Rohret Road and west of Phoenix Drive. Smith seconded. Eastham requested Staff to provide information and their opinion regarding 1) how this area was similar or not similar to other streams that were dry part of the time and 2) the criteria used to determine when buffer averaging would be allowed. Brooks requested input from Public Engineering/City Engineer regarding the issues that had been raised about the dam, what the implications were to the area with a private dam of that size upstream, what control and mechanisms were there to ensure that the structure was and remained safe for any development that took place downstream. Plahutnik asked for information regarding the disposition of the 8-inch pipe full of running water at the wetlands and surface water. Freerks said there was a notation regarding long term maintenance of the stonmwater basin which needed to be addressed, now was a good time to further discuss those issues. Freerks requested that the applicant provide their information to Staff for distribution to the Commission in a more timeiy manner rather than bombard them with it during the meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2006 Page 8 of9 Smith requested that the applicant's development team provide a clarification via correspondence regarding the issue of stream corridor. The applicant's lawyer had argued that it was not a stream area by definition, yet the drawings provided by the applicant's engineer designated the area as "inside the stream corridor and outside the stream corridor". The motion to defer passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent). Development Item: SUB06-00014, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development Inc. for a finai plat for Windsor Ridge Part Twenty B, a 2-lot residential planned development on approximately 2.7-acres of land located south of Lower West Branch Road and north of York Place. Terdalkar said the final plat was in compliance. Staff recommended approval of SUB06-00014 subject to Staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to consideration by City Council. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Eastham made a motion to approve SUB06-00014 subject to Staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to consideration by Council. Smith seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14. ZONING CODE: Brooks said the Commission was in agreement regarding deferring this item because there had been no informal work session in which to discuss the proposed revisions. Dan Smith, the only member of the public present, agreed. Brooks request a deferral of the item to allow discussion of proposed amendments at the next informal meeting. Motion to defer by Smith. Eastham seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent.) CONSIDERATION OF 8/17/06 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Eastham seconded. Motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent). OTHER: Miklo said in follow up to the Stonebridge Estates item which had been voted on by the Commission at the previous meeting, some lots had not met the required 60-foot lot width. Staff and the developer had agreed to borrow area from some of the larger corner lots and 8-feet from the open space to make up the deficit. The plat that would be sent to City Council for their consideration would be slightly different that the plat previously approved by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn. Koppes seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent). The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2006 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/5 1/19 2/2 2/16 3/2 4/6 4/20 5/18 6/1 6/15 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 9/7 B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X DIE X X X X X C. Eastham 05/11 - X X X X X X X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X DIE X X X DIE X X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 DIE X X X X X X X X X DIE X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 X DIE X X X X X X X X DIE DIE X X X D.Shannon 05/08 X X X DIE X X DIE X X X X X X DIE 0 T. Smith 05/06 X X DIE X X X X X X DIE DIE X X X X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Exoires 2/13 2/27 4/17 5/15 7/17 7/31 8/14 B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X C. Eastham 05/11 -- --- -- X X X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X E. Koooes 05/07 X X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 X X X X DIE DIE DIE D.Shannon 05/08 DIE 0 DIE X X X DIE T. Smith 05/06 X X X DIE X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent DIE = Absent/Excused MINUTES lOW A CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TUESDAY, August 22, 2006 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL FINAL c;: Members Present: Lisa Beckma~ Beverly Witwer, Sara Baird, Kate Karacay, Paul Retish, Scott King, Sehee Foss, Geoff Wilming. Members Absent: Martha Lubaroff. Staff Present: Stefanic Bowers, Theresa Seeberger. Call to Order Beckmann called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Consideration of the Minutes of the Julv 25. 2006 Meeting MOTION: Retish moved to accept the minutes as submitted, and King seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 8-0. Recommendations to Council There was no discussion. Introduction of new Human RilZhts Investillator Theresa Seebereer Bowers introduced Connnissioners to Seeberger. Annual Reoort Commissioners approved the Annual Report for fiscal year 2006. Inclusive Communities Commissioners were excited about the prospect ofIowa City joining the National League of Cities in the partnership for working towards inclusive communities. Conunissioners would like more information concerning the partnership and also a list of areas where Iowa City is doing well and areas Iowa City could improve on. l~ne Community-One Book Bowers updated Commissioners on upcoming dates for COlfll1lunity events involving Tortilla Curtain. Dates include Iowa Memorial Union Thursday, September 21 at 7:30 p.m and Friday, September 22 from 10-11 a.m at the Java House. Friend of Civil Rights Baird explained her desire for the Commission to co-sponsor this forum The forum is being organized to learn about the gubernatorial candidates' views on a range of diversity issues. The forum will not be endorsing any candidate. Beckmann moved to co-sponsor the forum and Baird seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 8-0. United Nations The Commission by a vote of7-0 decided not to contribute to the Funding the Future Campaign 2006 Fundraiser of the Iowa United Nations Association. Karacay did not participate or vote in this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Young Leadershio Summit on Western-Muslims World Relations. King and Foss agreed to forward to Retish names of University ofIowa students who would be great candidates to attend this conference being held in mid- September. Human Rights BreakIast Beckmann, Lubaroff, Wilming and Karacay will meet Friday, September 1" to choose winners for the 23" Annual Breakfast and -!"0 'Ward the winners names to Bowers. Commissioners asked Bowers to arrange for one of them to appear on the Dottie Ray Show. Baird will do an interview for Ken to advertise the Breakfast. In addition, Bowers will advertise for upcoming Commission events on the back of the BreakIast program. Handouts for International Non-Native Soeakers King will make needed corrections to the current handout and forward the corrected copy to Bowers to send along with a letter to Dr. Lane Plugge and Marian Coleman seeking their approval before the handouts are translated. The Commission also decided to get the handouts translated in Spanish, Korean, Arabic, Chinese, French and Russian. MagnetslCalendars ~owers said the magnets are on order and will be sent out upon arrival. " Relational Ae:e:ression Witwer will contact Blair Wagner and Jane Balvanz concerning how they want to advertise this event and also to get an overview of the presentation. Witwer will contact Bowers after she has spoken to Wagner and Balvaoz. Read Cases Commissioners read two cases. Renorts of Commissioners Witwer reported on the success of the Broadway Neighborhood Center Block Party earlier in the month. Karacay reminded Commissioners to support Eat Out to Wipe out Hunger. King discussed a two day racism training workshop he will be attending as part of his Church and said his appearance on KCRG-9 discussing Gay Marriage went extremely well. Status of Cases Bowers updated Commissioners on the status of cases. Adiournment There being no further business before the Commission, Relish moved to adjourn. Baird seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.rn. 2 Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meetin Date TERM NAME EXP. 1/24 2/28 3/28 4/25 5/23 6/27 7/25 8/22 9/26 10/24 11/28 12/26 Lisa Beckmann 1/1/07 X X X X NMN X X X Q Paul Relish 1/1/07 OlE X X OlE NMN X X X Q GeoffWilming 1/1/07 X X X X NMN OlE OlE X Q . Sara Baird 1/1/08 X X X X NMN X X X Q Bev Witwer 1/1/08 X X X X NMN X X X Q Scott King 111108 X X X X NMN OlE X X Q Martha 1/1/09 X X X X NMN OlE OlE OlE Lubaroff Q Sehee Foss 1/1/09 X X X OlE NMN OlE OlE X Q Kate Karacay 1/1/09 X X X OlE NMN X X X Q " f-.. KEY: x = Present o = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum 3