Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-21 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission February 19, 2015 4 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2015 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline, Minnetta Gardinier (left at 8:15pm), A. Jacob Odgaard (arrived 6:12 P.M.), Chris Ogren Members Absent: David Davis Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Eric Goers, Jeff Davidson Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Greg Broussard, Jeff Edberg RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Ogren called the meeting to order at 6:06 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ogren asked if everyone had had a chance to review the minutes. On page 4, she noted that it says, 'The debt is $600,000 pending the land sale.' In speaking to Tharp about this, Ogren noted that he has told her that after the land sale is complete, the debt will be wiped out. She would like this to be clearer in the minutes. Ogren moved to accept the minutes of the January 15, 2015, meeting as amended. Gardinier seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Davis and Odgaard absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Airport Strategic Plan — Tharp stated that he asked Jeff Davidson from the City to attend tonight's meeting. He explained to Members that after speaking with Davidson and Ogren, they are of the opinion that the Strategic Plan can be delayed until the Master Plan is nearly complete. This will help to alleviate any conflicts between the two plans. Davidson then gave Members some history of his involvement in helping the Airport develop these plans and what the process looked like as they worked through it. Davidson agreed that the Commission could wait until the Master Plan is almost complete before proceeding, noting that he is learning some things himself from the Master Plan process and believes it will be beneficial to the Strategic Plan process. Gardinier asked if this type of planning benefits from having different individuals doing it Airport Commission February 19, 2015 Page 2 each time, as a way of getting varying viewpoints, etc. Davidson responded that actually there is some benefit to having the continuity of the same individuals doing the plan, but that if the Commission felt another facilitator would be beneficial, he would take no offense to that. Members discussed this briefly, speaking to both sides of the argument. Continuing, Davidson noted that he is encouraged to see that Tharp will be giving an update to Members on how the existing Strategic Plan has progressed over the past five years. Davidson then asked if Members were in agreement to delay the Strategic Plan process until the Master Plan process is done. Members agreed with this idea wholeheartedly. (Odgaard arrived at this point in the meeting.) b. Airport Commerce Park — Jeff Edberg gave Members an update, stating that all of the remaining lots are under contract at this time. One is going to fall out though. There are two buyers among the four available lots. Lot #7 was under contract and was extended once, and once the construction detail stage was reached, too many problem arose. Therefore, the buyer is going to look elsewhere. Edberg stated that he now needs to prepare a cancellation on Lot #7. He stated that on the positive side, in just the last week, he has had two brokers contact him about available lots. Continuing, Edberg noted that the buyer of Lot #s 11, 12, and 13 has changed plans several times, but have in the past few weeks decided to go ahead with the purchase of the three lots. However, they now want someone else to buy the lots and to lease them back to them. Edberg responded to Members' questions regarding this sale, further explaining what the company would like to see happen. He added that he has found an investor willing to buy the lots, build the building needed, and then lease it back to the company. Edberg stated that he feels pretty confident that this sale will continue as planned. A brief discussion ensued regarding land uses at the Airport, with Edberg noting that if they were to build something like a five -acre building, they could probably get it filled fairly quickly, especially if it were for an aviation -related business. C. Airport Master Plan — Greg Broussard addressed Members next. He reminded everyone of the public open house on March 5. He also noted that there will be a survey crew at the Airport next week, finishing their work, and then Quantum will be able to complete their section, as well. This report will then be forwarded to the FAA, and will also be a part of the public hearing on March 5. Members spoke briefly to who might attend this public hearing. d. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM (David Hughes) — i. FY15 Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that they haven't done a whole lot here. They have started some initial paperwork and have been reviewing the mapping before they send out letters. ii. Runway 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes noted that they are coming up on a 30 -day release on retaining, so they will process the final paperwork to the FAA next week and get this project closed out. iii. Taxiway B lighting — Hughes stated that the final fixture has been installed and he is recommending acceptance on this project tonight. Tharp stated that this is a late handout for Members, but that Airport Commission February 19, 2015 Page 3 everything is done now and they do need to consider a resolution this evening. 1. Consider a resolution accepting work as complete — Gardinier moved to accept Resolution #A15-03, accepting the work as complete on this project. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Davis absent. iv. Fuel Tank Rehabilitation — Hughes stated that this project and the next one listed are both State -funded projects. He explained how they will be putting these out as competitive quotations to vendors they know that do this type of work — the same process that they have followed in the past. Hughes noted that a spec has been put together for the fuel tank project. Gardinier asked if they aren't already doing something here, and Hughes responded, further clarifying what the project entails and what they have done so far. Matt Wolford of Jet Air also spoke to this project, asking several questions of Hughes. Ogren asked about the timing of this project, and if there would be any reason to try to take action at the March meeting on this, so that they can move forward as soon as possible. Hughes agreed, stating that he will work on having proposals in prior to the next meeting. Gardinier asked about the exterior of these tanks, asking if they shouldn't repaint them periodically, to perhaps keep them from getting so bad again. Hughes stated that this is something they can address. V. North T -hangar Electrical Service & LED lighting — Continuing, Hughes noted that there have been concerns with the wiring in this area and that this project will replace the cabling that runs out to these hangars, as well as replace electrical panels as needed. This will also expand the light project, with seven new lights being added and improvements being made to some of the existing ones. Gardinier then spoke to how some of the newer lights are actually too bright. Hughes explained how the LED lights appear brighter than the older lights. e. Airport Operations — i. Strategic Plan- Implementation — 1. Review of Strategic Plan — Tharp noted that this was an accidental repeat from last month's agenda. iii. Budget — Tharp noted that they should plan to meet again sometime during late March, early April to walk through the final budget numbers. Ogren agreed that a short review would be a good idea. 1. Annual Report — Tharp stated that everyone received a copy of the Annual Report in their meeting packet. He noted that he added some additional pictures. He stated that if there are no other changes, they can submit this to the City Council. Tharp stated that typically the Chair presents this to the Council at one of their meetings, during the public comment period. iii. Management — f. FBO/Flight Training Reports — Airport Commission February 19, 2015 Page 4 L Jet Air — Matt Wolford of Jet Air spoke to Members next, sharing the monthly maintenance reports with them. He noted that snow has been a major factor. There has also been a nuisance problem with some birds. Gardinier asked why there has been a change in how the snow is plowed in certain areas, and Wolford responded, further explaining why the conditions have been such. Members spoke further to this issue, noting that with such heavy, wet snow it makes it difficult to get things cleared off effectively. Ogren asked to what extent the City can help them, and both Tharp and Wolford responded, noting that when they have needed help, the City has always responded to their needs, but that the Airport is basically responsible for their own facility and grounds. Wolford continued, stating that Members should stop in the pilot's lounge to see the new paint job and furniture. Ogren asked how the purchase of furniture works in conjunction with their budget. Wolford explained how the Airport and Jet Air worked together to complete the lounge and to replace Jet Air's power cart. Gardinier asked how the flight -training portion of Jet Air is doing, and Wolford noted that things are going quite well for them. g. Commission Members' Reports — None. h. Staff Report — Ogren asked about the progress on the windows and blinds. Tharp responded that they are waiting for warmer weather. Everything is ready to go — they just need warmer temperatures. Odgaard asked what the progress is on the fence locks. Tharp stated that he needs to follow up with the vendor on this. L Consider a motion to adjourn to Executive Session to evaluate the professional competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to individuals' reputations and those individuals requested a closed session — Ogren moved to enter to Executive Session. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Davis absent. Assouline moved to exit Executive Session. Seconded by Ogren. Motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and Davis Absent. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Before setting the next meeting, Tharp recapped what the Commission just went through. The decision was to allow Ogren to finish the evaluation and then turn it in. Goers stated that if the Commission decides to defer the matter of compensation that they have a formal motion to this effect. Assouline moved to defer decisions regarding the Airport Operations Specialist's compensation modifications to the March 19 meeting. Ogren seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Davis and Gardinier absent. Goers responded to Member questions regarding what they need to do in this matter. Airport Commission February 19, 2015 Page 5 Ogren asked that Tharp email the Commission Members regarding the March date to make sure they will have a full Commission. Goers noted that he will not be in attendance, but that Attorney Dulek will be. The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, March 19, 2015, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building, unless otherwise noted. ADJOURN: Odgaard made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M. Ogren seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Davis and Gardinier absent. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission February 19, 2015 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn 0) V co Cfl O N N NAME EXP. Cn w - co rn 0 Cn 0 0 4�6 4 Minnetta Gardinier 03/01/19 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X Jose Assouline 03/01/16 X X X X X O/E X X O/E X Chris Ogren 03/01/18 X X X X X X X X X X A. Jacob Odgaard 03/01/17 NM NM X X X X O/E X X X David Davis 03/01/17 NM NM NM O/E X X O/E X X O/E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time 4b(2) MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 11, 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: Bryan Svoboda, Thomas McInerney, JJ Deryke, Jeff Clark. Kirsten Frey CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 14, 2015 MEETING MINUTES: Soglin moved to approve the minutes. Chrischilles asked about the training that was conducted at the January meeting and that since he was absent, he asked that when staff makes their recommendations do they have any information that is not shared with the Board. Dulek explained that if this item was to be discussed again it would need to become an agenda item for an upcoming meeting or to speak with her or Walz after the meeting. Goeb seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda to allow a reduction in the front principal building setback along Hutchison Avenue for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 604 W. Park Rd. Walz summarized the information in the staff report, noting the unique situation along Hutchison Avenue and that the proposed new porch would be closer to conforming with the setback standard then the original porch. She reminded the Board of the purpose of the setback standards with regard to maintaining light, air, separation for fire protection and firefighting as well as privacy and to reflect the general placement and character within the neighborhood. She noted that she had been contacted by a neighboring property owner who wanted to be certain that the right-of-way was not being vacated. He had no concern with the setback but Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 2 of 11 wanted the street to remain a public right-of-way, which it is. Grenis questioned the staff recommendation that the porch to remain an open-air porch. Walz answered this was the usual requirement on such setback exceptions, because if it were to be enclosed, then in the future there may be the request to add yet another open -aired porch, decreasing the set -back even more. Soglin asked if the small right-of-way area is plowed by the City; Walz said she believed it is is maintained by the applicant. Chrischilles asked about the distance from the property line to the street, and Walz was difficult to tell, but believed it no was less than 5 feet. Grenis asked the applicant to come forward. Bryan Svoboda (526 West Park Road) mentioned that the porch has not been torn down yet. The stairs on the exiting porch actually extend over 3 feet onto City property and the proposed porch would be completely on his property with no stairs extending across the City property. Svoboda said that he has been plowing the right-of-way, which is the access to his property. He stated that the porch sits about 15-20 feet from the paved street, but sits about 2 feet from the property line. Grenis opened public hearing. No one came forward. Grenis closed the public hearing. Baker moved to adopt EXC15-00001, an application to allow reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS - 5) zone at 604 West Park Road from 15 feet to 3 feet 9 inches feet be approved subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and • The porch may not be enclosed in solid walls or windows. Goeb seconded the motion. Baker stated that regarding application EXC15-00001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 11 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this application. Grenis concurred. Goeb also concurred. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 3 of 11 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by King of Glory International Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a day care center and to reduce the required parking for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 2024 G St. Walz summarized the staff report for the Board, reviewing the site and its shared access and parking with the adjacent church, which is under the same ownership and direction. She reminded the Board that the daycare had opened just a year before with 16 children and the many improvements to the property required for the special exception had been made at that time. She reviewed the requirements for parking and explained that the church and daycare share the parking area, but operate during different hours and days of the week. For this reason, staff was recommending a reduction in the parking requirement. She explained the unusual situation as the church property was established on a parcel that fronts on three streets: G Street, Muscatine Avenue, and Third Avenue. The Multi -family site development standards require parking areas to be located behindthe building and to proviclesetback from the property line. The parking area does not meet this standard and the site is constrained such that there is limited space to provide both the required parking in addition to the required setbacks and screening. Staff believes that, while it may be desirable for the parking area to be brought closer into compliance with the code requirements for screening and setbacks, it is also desirable for the church, which has operated for decades, to maintain its limited off-street parking it has. Staff did not believe it was essential to modify the parking area, however the applicant has indicated that they would like the daycare to eventually expand to 50 children. While this expansion is not under consideration with this application, staff is cautious about whether that level of use would be appropriate on a site with these constraints. Walz stated that staff recommends approval of EXC15-00002, a special exception to allow the expansion of an existing daycare and a reduction in the required parking from 30 spaces to 20 on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • The size of the daycare may not exceed 33 children. To increase the number of children to more than 33 will require a new special exception. Baker shared concern about possible future development, as stated in the staff report "The applicant should be aware that any future expansion of the daycare may require the church to come closer to conformance to the parking area setback and landscape screening as any part of any future approval'. Baker stated the lot will not change, the parking availability will not change, so if the plans are to increase to 50 in the long range, the applicant would have to come back before the Board for special exception to set aside the required parking for 50 and what would be different at that point to require the additional screening that is not being required with this application. Walz explained the applicant is now doubling their occupancy and at this time staff is not concerned about allowing 50 children with the current conditions, they need to see how the site functions with 33 first. In terms of the screening, staff has not required that at this time Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 4 of 11 because in order to do this they would have to lose a parking space and it didn't seem necessary at this time. Baker asked what the additional parking required if there were 50 children at the daycare. Walz explained that the parking is based on the number of employees and the number of employees required at a daycare is based on the ages of the children at the daycare, so it's hard to estimate what that would be. Chrischilles asked what the screening would consist of if the Board were to require it. Walz replied it was meant to provide a couple of things, one is to provide a sense of separation between sidewalks and parking area, and to screen the sight of cars particularly when it is dark out and the glare of headlights onto other property. Baker asked if neighbors were notified and Walz confirmed that neighbors are notified and staff has not heard from any neighbors regarding this application prior to tonight's meeting. Goeb asked about the approval for the increase in the number of children in the daycare is a totally different application, something health and human services approve. Walz stated that is correct, they verify all the space requirements are met and any other safety issues. Additionally there is an element of the building code that is evaluated as well. Grenis asked about the outdoor playground area space requirements. Walz stated that with daycares not all the kids are outside at the same time so the space requirements are for the maximum number of children that would go outside at one time. Goeb asked how many parking spaces the church requires; Walz replied all 20 spaces are required for the church. Grenis asked the applicant to come forward. Thomas McInerney (1208 Marcy Street) represented the King of Glory International Church as the architect who drew up the plans. The project is requesting the increase of 33 due to the ability inside the daycare to accommodate the additional children. McInerney also mentioned that while they are not adding or renovating the building, they will be adding a ramp as a second egress for an additional entrance to the newly used portion of the building. Grenis opened public hearing. JJ Deryke (2101 Muscatine Ave) has owned his property since 1962 and lived there until 1976 and again since 1987 to the present. Deryke feels he's been a good neighbor to the church and the church has been a good neighbor to him. He stated he has a background in residential childcare and has a problem seeing 33 children in that facility, outdoors and indoors. He also questions the number of vehicles that will be coming and going from that property to service that many kids, as it is a residential neighborhood. The small daycare that has been there presently has been no problem, but he has a problem with the increase. Baker asked Deryke about his concern about the increase in children at the daycare, asking if it were a concern about space available for those children or if there was something about the building or parking. Deryke answered that he hadn't been in the building for years, it was built prior to the 1920's and feels it just wouldn't be enough space. Baker explained that the Board's position is regulated by the State, and that the State determines what is acceptable for space of the daycare and has stated this property meets the requirements. Deryke stated that his concern Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 5 of 11 is with that increase in children is the increase in traffic and cars coming and going. McInerney responded that space requirements for each child is 35 square feet and the building can more than accommodate that. Additionally the parking requirements for parking for a daycare of 33 children are about 10 spots at most depending on the mix of ages of the children in the daycare. He doesn't see how there will ever be an issue of traffic congestion, and it is a large parking lot for the daycare and just the right size for the church. Grenis asked about the outdoor play area and if all children go out at the same time, and McInerney replied that no they did not, the infants do not go outside and all the other children do not go out at the same time because they need a different level of supervision depending on the age group. Grenis asked what the maximum number of children that are outside at one time currently, McInerney did not have that information. He stated that the size of the fenced -in play area accommodates 17 children. Baker asked if the concern was increased child load, then there would be increased traffic, and has it been the operational history that the traffic for parents dropping off children all at the same time each day or is there variations. McInerney answered that every family has their own schedule and make accommodations. Not everybody goes to work at the same time, or leaves the center at the same time, generally there is a window of time, but the window is not always the same. Goeb asked for the hours of operation of the daycare. McInerney answered that it was 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. or a little later depending on the children enrolled. Grenis closed the public hearing. Goeb stated she has no problem with this particular application but is concerned with the lack of screenings and setbacks that would need to be required if they increase the center to 50 in the future. Baker moved to recommend approval of EXC15-00002, a special exception to allow the expansion of an existing daycare and a reduction in the required parking from 30 spaces to 20 on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • The size of the daycare may not exceed 33 children. To increase the number of children to more than 33 will require a new special exception. Soglin seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 11 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker concurred but stated that according to general standards number 2 "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." And wanted to acknowledge that there was concern expressed this evening and those concerns should be Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 6 of 11 entered into the consideration and if there is any future expansion those concerns will be much more apparent. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXCIS-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement for a building designated as a Historic Landmark located in the Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone at 912 -914 S. Dubuque St. Soglin stated she works for Johnson County in a building across the street from this location and was present at a meeting last fall that involved a discussion regarding residential parking in the area, but being present at the meeting does not affect her ability be impartial on the application presented this evening. Walz presented the staff report noting the historic aspect of the Tate Arms property and the importance of preserving a site that marked a period in our local history when the University would not house African American students. She explained the very detailed recommendations contained in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to accomplish the stated goal of preserving the few historic buildings that remain in the area. She reminded the Board that the previous month they had heard another case on the west side of the river and of the concessions the land owner granted in order to achieve the goals of the Riverfront Crossings plan with regard to pedestrian accommodations. She noted that the applicant had voluntarily sought Landmark designation for the property and had agreed to restore the building. In exchange the applicant would be able to transfer development potential to the adjacent site. The applicant had decided to transfer some, but not all, of that potential. In designing his development the applicant had made a number of accommodations to ensure the historic character and integrity of the Tate Arms property was preserved. She reviewed the requirements for parking and explained how this was addressed specifically in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. She noted that the applicant is providing a total of 20 bicycle parking spaces within a secure area in the ground floor of the building. The applicant has also indicated his willingness to provide exterior bike parking for the apartment. Walz stated that while often the Comprehensive Plan does not speak to the specifics of a special exception, in this case the Comprehensive Plan was quite explicit. She noted the various areas in the Historic Preservation Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the details of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan that put forward this very scenario. She states the staff recommends approval of EXC15-00003, a historic preservation special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements from 35 spaces to 28 spaces for residential uses to be established at 912 and 914 S. Dubuque Street, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the rehabilitation of property from the Historic Preservation Commission. Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 7 of 11 • In addition to the required parking on the interior of the apartment building, the applicant shall provide additional bike parking on the exterior of the apartment. Soglin asked about the additional bike parking, if bike parking was required at all, then the bullet should be worded as "in addition to the required bike parking..." Walz agreed that is how the second bullet should be worded. Chrischilles asked if there were a contingency assumed in this that the applicant will maintain ownership of both properties until they are both completed. Walz explained that the applicant cannot have the development potential unless both properties are brought to fruition. The applicant must complete the projects due to the agreement with regard to the Tate Arms. Chrischilles asserted that was his concern, that the applicant would build the new building and then not maintain the Tate Arms building or sell it off. Walz said the applicant would not get the occupancy permit for the new building if that was to happen. Goeb asked about the properties, its two addresses but it seems to be discussing three properties. Walz replied that the two most northern properties have been combined. Goeb then asked what happens in the future if one property is sold and not the other. Walz explained that since Tate Arms has landmark status the Historic Preservation Commission would have to approve if that property were to be removed, but if the owner wanted to divide ownership of the properties, a parking easement would have to be issued for the other property, since some of the parking for the new builling is on the Tate Arms site. This has been done in past cases. So it is conceivable that the two properties could eventually be under two different ownership. Grenis asked the applicant to come forward. Jeff Clark (414 East Market Street) is the applicant for this project and stated he has worked very close with City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission to create a project that is good for this area. He was not aware how significant the Tate Arms was at the time he purchased it, but once informed agreed it should be a landmark. In designating the Tate Arms a landmark, the number of units they were able to develop was reduced, they could have developed over 40 units, but by keeping the Tate Arms was reduced to 22. There are some difficulties in developing the site due to the preservation of the house but with the combined work of staff and the historic preservation folks it has turned out to be a very nice project. There is roughly about 40 feet between the Tate Arms project and the new building. Parking wise the lot can actually accommodate, if stacking parking is allowed, 39 vehicles, but it only legally counts 28 due to city code. Soglin asked if in the case of a 100 year flood, could folks get their cars out of the area reasonably. Clark replied that the base of that project is only 3'h feet below the 500 year flood, the base level will sit there pretty high. The parking garage is set above the 2008 flood levels. Goeb asked if there were to be some green space between the new building and the Tate Arms. Clark answered that there is roughly 1500 square feet of green space between the two buildings. Grenis opened public hearing. Kirsten Frey (920 South Dubuque Street) stated that she and her law partners work out of 920 South Dubuque Street have had a good neighbor relationship with the applicant. However, Frey wanted the Board to be aware of the concerns with regards to the law firm's parking lot. She Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 8 of 11 pointed out on the map the portion in the rear of the parking lot where all the attorneys and staff for the firm park, and that parking was required by the City in 1987 when the building was built, because the other parking area was not large enough to fulfill the staff and client parking needs. The concern is that visually the parking lot appears to belong to the applicant and not to the law firm, and they have previously dealt with people parking in that lot when the buildings to the west were commercial properties. The concern is with a residential property there will be even more problems and vehicles could be parked in that lot all day and night that should not be there. Frey is requesting that while it is true the Comprehensive Plan did recommend density bonuses and parking waivers for the preservation of historic properties, it did not identify it would be done necessarily at this location. There is concern regarding the way the properties are situated and lack of side -street parking in this area, which will make it even more likely for people short a parking spot to use one of the law firm's spots. Frey is asking the Board to consider the impact on her property and consider the imposing of a condition that the applicant take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve and protect the law firm's parking lot from the use of his tenants. That could include the use of signage or putting a prohibition in the lease. Baker asked if Frey had spoken to the applicant about these concerns. Frey replied that they have spoken and Mr. Clark has been receptive of their concerns and said he would instruct his tenants not to park in the law firm's lot, but was not inclined to put a requirement in his lease. He did say he has an ongoing relationship with a towing company and that they could peruse the parking lot periodically and tow people who did not belong in the parking lot. That is appreciated, however, the concern is that it requires the law firm to have permits in their vehicles for the use of their own lot. Additionally there is still the impact and disruption on their business if they need to notify the towing company and then have towing going on in the lot. Baker noted there is a comparable situation on Market Street between the law building there and the coffee shop and that parking lot has clear identified signage and perhaps that is what should happen in this situation too. Frey noted that area is more commercial and her concern is having her law office next to residential and vehicles being parked in her lot overnight or on weekends. Additionally this development is requiring an exception to lower the parking allotment and the burden will fall onto the neighbors. Soglin asked if there was signage on the lot now and Frey replied there is one sign that does state private parking. Chrischilles asked Frey what the ideal remedy of the parking situation would be for her and Frey responded she would like it written in the leases that they cannot park in the law firm lot. Chrischilles feels that would not stop people from parking there. Perhaps a fence between the properties is needed causing a barrier for the people parking in the lot to get to their apartment building. Or to ask the applicant to place a sign at each individual spot stating the spot is at the ownership of the law firm. Frey replied that specific signage has not been discussed between the law firm and the applicant, but when spoken in a general sense both parties understood some signage would be necessary. Frey also mentioned she did not want to encumber the liability of having others parking in her lot. Baker asked if signage would ease the liability. Frey said it would help but was not sure if signage is enough. Additionally they did not want to have to clean up after other in that parking area. Baker asked if the law firm would be willing to require permits for parking there. Frey said permitting the lot would be difficult because clients use those spaces as well. Soglin asked if there has been a situation where cars were parked there illegally in the past and what action did the law firm take and also if the law firm has thought about putting in a gate system to deter overnight parking and such. Frey said it has not been a problem in the past, but Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 9 of 11 there were not residential properties next door in the past. Dulek stated that for 15 years now the City has required that all leases have an addendum, an information disclosure and acknowledgement form, and it sets forth certain things. For example you have to identify specific inhabitable spaces and one of the things on the addendum is acknowledgement of allowed parking if any. So landlords are required to tell tenants where parking is allowed. Frey asked if that City form can be modified to specifically state where parking is not allowed. Dulek replied that City Code only states parking is not allowed on grass or a sidewalk, nothing else is specified. However the landlord can add additional language into their leases. Clark reiterated that the parking area he has could accommodate up to 39 vehicles and if there were to be violators parking over on the law firm's property if would likely be a guest or someone that didn't know any different. Clark stated he didn't have a problem placing a sign as the cars enter the lot stating that parking is only for the law offices. He doesn't feel he has a right to tow vehicles from someone else's property, which is the property owner's responsibility. Clark feels the lease provision enters into a legality issue and doesn't think that is a resolution to this issue. He feels signage will help, there are never guarantees that people will not park where they are not supposed to. Clark has agreed that he is willing to pay in whole for a sign, to be placed on the law firm's property, stating that parking was for the law offices only. Grenis asked if Clark had other properties around town with a similar situation and Clark replied that yes they do with properties in the downtown area, as parking downtown is always an issue. Signage does help. Grenis closed the public hearing Soglin asked if the information disclosure and acknowledgement form could be changed to say parking is not allowed in unauthorized areas. That updated form could be helpful in this situation and in future ones. Dulek stated the form only states where parking is allowed, the landlord could hand write on the form that no parking is allowed in the lot to the east. Soglin thought that might be useful. Soglin also noted she is uncomfortable requiring the applicant to provide signage for another property that does not belong to him. Chrischilles commented that the combination of adding a sentence to the information disclosure and acknowledgement form plus Mr. Clark's willingness to pay for a sign erected at the entrance of the law firm's parking lot is a reasonable solution. Baker suggested adding a third condition to the staff recommendation that states provision of signage at the entrance of the adjacent property to discourage tenant parking. He is unsure about adding the lease language to the conditions. Grenis questioned if the City could require that extra sentence to be added just one landlord's information disclosure and acknowledgement form. Dulek replied that Mr. Clark can handwrite the added language to his forms and it is a feasible requirement the Board can impose. Goeb stated her opinion is the law office has a valid concern, people park wherever they can find parking. Signs may deter some people, but it is likely that visitors will ignore the signage, not the residents. Having the language in the information disclosure and acknowledgement form as well as the provision for signage is probably the best solutions for this situation. Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 10 of 11 Soglin moved to approve of EXC15-00003, a historic preservation special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements from 35 spaces to 28 spaces for residential uses to be established at 912 and 914 S. Dubuque Street, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the rehabilitation of property from the Historic Preservation Commission. • In addition to the required bike parking on the interior of the apartment building, the applicant shall provide additional bike parking on the exterior of the apartment. • With the permission of the adjacent property owner, provision of signage at the entrance to the adjacent property to discourage tenant parking. To add to the information addendum regarding no parking "on the lot east of the alley." Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00003 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 11 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker added that regarding general standards 1, 2, and 3 there has been public input that raises questions about the effect of the development parking and that the Board has amended the recommendation accordingly to begin to ameliorate some of those concerns. The staff report in general is acceptable, however certain conditions needed to be acknowledged. Soglin added that the concerns about parking are more of an inconvenience than anything severe or injurious. Grenis concurred. Baker acknowledged and thanked Mr. Clark, stating that he had jumped through a lot of hoops. He wished other developers would follow his example. He understood the concerns of the adjacent property owner, but felt her concerns were addressed by the conditions the board attached. This is a development that required many accomodations by the applicant and that the applicant should be applauded for his efforts. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn, Goeb seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote. Z w 2 H N 0 a LL O O m D O U w w w U Z Q Z w F - Q O r 0 N d' r O N rl x x x x x N q* W x X x x O\ rl N X X X X X r r O X X X O O X X X X X O d' X X X X X W) °) 'v X X X X X N X X X X X M co X x x x X r --LO (DOD w x o 0 0 0 0 N N N N N LU F- LU Z W () Lu V Y a Z JLU J m m V 2 � �_ U Z W W m Z y J z m C9 0 v v) W Y FINAL/APPROVED CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — March 10, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: Mazahir Salih STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. Minutes of the meeting on 02/10/15 ICPD Department Memo #15-08 (January 2015 Use of Force Review) ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2015 Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent. 4b(3) OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — The Board reviewed the draft forms that were included in the meeting packet. Jensen stated that she would like to start the forum off by doing a general review process and would be willing to put something together. Tuttle stated that the educational video was still being tweeked and that there would hopefully be more information on the status for the April meeting. Jensen also suggested doing a short "what's new this year" for the forum, and also accept correspondence. NEW BUSINESS Responsibilities of Board Members — Jensen wanted to review and remind Board members that attendance is very important and if you're unable to make a meeting that every effort should be made to contact staff during business hours or call her cell if it's after five o'clock. That way if there are quorum issues, other Board members can be contacted. She also emphasized making sure that all materials are being reviewed prior to the meeting such as complaints, reports from the police department and audio/videos. Legal Counsel had touched on confidentiality at the February meeting as a reminder to members. Jensen also stressed that as a member of the Board it is a shared responsibility, and not just one or two members, to take turns on writing the draft of the public report that the Board reviews and sends to City Council, and if a member states that they will write a draft, they need to follow through, especially with the deadlines the Board has to complete the review process. CPRB March 10, 2015 Page 2 Video Review Process — In September of 2014, the Board came up with a process to review audio/video for complaints if they were longer than 30 minutes. Members could make an appointment with staff during business hours or if they needed to review after business hours or on the weekend, they could contact the police department to set up a time. Shorter audio/video would be reviewed during executive session at a meeting. Jensen wanted to see how the Board thought that process was working but also wanted them to think about whether that same process will continue to work with the impending body cameras and the increase of video that will be made available. Board members agreed that the current process in place seems to be working. The Board will continue to evaluate the process as necessary. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Captain Hart stated that he attended some training a few weeks prior called White Priviledge, which had an outstanding speaker, Dr. Eddie Moore Jr. Hart thanked Porter for helping coordinate bringing him into the community. The City sent several staff persons there from different departments to take part in his training and it was very well received. Hart informed the Board that they are bringing Dr. Moore back for a law enforcement conference in May. BOARD INFORMATION Porter and Martinez mentioned receiving an invitation from the NAACP for a "Know Your Rights on Campus" presentation being held on Thursday, March 12th at 8:30 PM at the Iowa Memorial Union. The Black Student Union and a couple of law students would be speaking and they asked for some representation from the CPRB. The description of the process for filing a complaint, what would benefit a complaint, and what would make the process more successful than others were a few things they asked to be touched on. Porter said she would stop by the office and pick up informational materials for handouts and information on the upcoming Community Forum. Treloar asked Captain Hart to forward a thank you from him and one of his clients to Officer Schwindt for going above and beyond to help him out. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board that the City's Equity Director will be doing a presentation to all boards and commissions on Increasing Diversity on City Boards and Commissions. Tuttle will check her availability to come to the April meeting and schedule as soon as possible. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. CPRB March 10, 2015 Page 3 Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 6:03 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:05 P.M. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Treloar to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14-11 to 8-8-7 (B)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 7, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to April 7tn) • April 28, 2015, 6:00 PM, , IC Library, Room A, Community Forum • May 12, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • June 9, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Jensen stated she would be unavailable for the April 14th meeting. After discussion the Board agreed to move the April 14th meeting to April 7th Motion by Jensen, seconded by Treloar to move up the April 14th meeting to Tuesday, April 7th Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent. Treloar stated he would not be available for the May 12th meeting. The Board will look at dates for May at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Martinez. Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:09 P.M. CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD (Formerly Police Citizens Review Board) ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2014-2015 (Meeting Date) KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member TERM 5/5 5/13 5/19 6/11 8/26 9/15 10/13 11/10 11/25 12/3 12/8 12/29 2/10 3/10 NAME EXP. Melissa 9/1/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Jensen Donald9/1/15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- King Joseph 9/1/17 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X Treloar Royceann 9/1/16 O X X X X O X O O X X X O X Porter Mazahir 9/1/17 X X X O/E O X X X X X X O/E X O/E Salih Maxime 9/1/15 --- --- --- --- X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Tremblay Fidencio 9/1/15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X X X O/E X X Martinez KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 04-21-15 4b(4) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2015 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM: Swaim stated that the subcommittee, along with Miklo and Trimble, met this past week. She said that Corcoran is the chairperson of that committee. Corcoran said the subcommittee met on March 9 for about an hour and one-half and fully discussed the topics assigned, mainly identifying individual properties that could be worthy of landmark status. She said the subcommittee looked at the map that Miklo provided and decided that the subcommittee needed to look at the survey forms. Corcoran said that she and Trimble plan to look at the survey forms in the next ten days. Regarding the map, Miklo said the areas in the salmon color have all been surveyed, so there is documentation on almost every building over 50 years old in those areas. He said that the cross -hatched area south of Burlington Street is currently under study as part of the mitigation for the University removing Sabin School. Miklo said there is a windshield survey of the area south of Burlington and west of Lucas Street. He said it's an area that has been almost entirely redeveloped with twelve-plexes and student housing, so it is not of great concern. Miklo stated that the other salmon areas that are slightly lighter and have a boundary around them are already in conservation or historic districts and are therefore protected. Miklo said that leaves the brighter salmon color to designate areas that have been surveyed, but there are buildings out there, such as the Unitarian Church and the Saxony -Gilmore Building at 109 Market Street, that need to be discussed to identify properties that are individually eligible to get on a list and prioritize for consideration. Regarding the Melrose Neighborhood and Manville Heights, Miklo said there are very good studies that show areas that qualify as historic districts. In fact, parts of the Melrose Neighborhood are a National Register Historic District. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Corcoran said that she and Trimble will be reviewing the survey forms for areas outside the black lines to look for properties for the subcommittee to review. Regarding Miklo's comments about Manville Heights and the Melrose Avenue neighborhood, Corcoran said that since studies have already been done, the subcommittee decided to check with neighborhood leaders to get a feeling for neighborhood opinions before proceeding. Corcoran said the last thing the subcommittee was asked to look at was a strategy for dealing with mid-century modern buildings. She said the subcommittee needs to discuss that further, because no studies have been done. Corcoran said the subcommittee would be meeting again on March 24 at 4 p.m. She said the subcommittee would provide the Commission with a full report of its findings and a recommendation at the Commission's April meeting. Corcoran asked subcommittee members if they had any comments. Swaim said the subcommittee talked specifically about the Unitarian Church because it is in this area, and sort of strategized on how to consider that. She said she drafted a letter for the consideration of the Commission. Swaim said that if the Commission approves the letter, she would ask that the Commission authorize her to send it at the appropriate time. Corcoran said the subcommittee members felt it was better to be proactive and wanted to see if the full Commission would favor something like this. Swaim asked Commission members to take a few minutes to read the letter. Durham asked if, at the very end of the letter, there is a particular action, such as a deadline or behavior, that the Commission can script for the City Council to look at to know what it will do and when. He said that in a persuasive outline, that would be the last step. Durham said it may be as simple as stating, "We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience," or it may be a calendar driven event for which the City Council would review the letter and then respond in writing. Miklo said that may be difficult in terms of asking the City Council to respond in writing. Durham said that, in a more generic sense, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) wants to ask the City Council to do something that can be observed so that HPC will know that the City Council has processed this and is responding. Swaim said that the building in question is owned by the Unitarian Universalist Church, which has voted to find a new location and put the building and lot, or just the lot if the building is demolished, up for sale. Miklo said the fifth paragraph of the letter describes what the HPC is asking. In terms of asking for a response from the City Council, Miklo said the City Council is not going to be able to reply without having a vote. Clore suggested including a statement that the Commission would be glad to assist in this. Swaim said she agrees with Durham in that the Commission would like some type of acknowledgement that the City Council has received the letter and likes Clore's idea of asking if there is a way the Commission can be involved. Swaim said that in terms of the HPC mandate, the Commission is certainly an advocate for preservation. Ackerson said he did not think the Commission should push the City Council to formally acknowledge or acquiesce to the Commission's suggestions. He said that after the problems with the cottages, the City Council is being put on notice with a letter like this that there is HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 7 another potential minefield ahead, and here are things that should be considered in preparation for the application for a demolition permit, should that occur. Durham asked what the Commission can look forward to that would let the Commission understand that the City Council has added this recommendation as information pertinent to the process in which it is engaging. He asked how the Commission will know if it has made an impression. Swaim said there is not any formal process yet. Miklo said the letter would become part of the public record. Michaud said the Unitarian Church is voting at its 7 p.m. meeting on the intent to apply for a demolition permit. She said there appear to be a lot of obstacles to the plan that the Unitarian Church has worked on for so long so that the church is looking around for other properties or locations to build. Miklo confirmed that an approved demolition permit would be valid for six months. Michaud said it can be renewed every six months. She said that a placard would have to be posted for seven business days on the building regarding a demolition permit. Michaud asked Miklo if anyone would have grounds to challenge the application. Miklo said this is not a landmark building, so he did not think anyone would have grounds to challenge this. Swaim said that if there is public dissention, the City needs to hear from the community in terms of what the feeling is about the building. Trimble said that when the subcommittee met, it was noted that Mayor Hayek had pointed out that the incentives are critical — that these incentives are given so that the developers choose to do the right thing. Trimble said that one of the things that needs to be clearer if the City is following its own policy is that if the Unitarian Church is to be preserved, at least the historic original part, then the church should be given the incentives offered by the City, such as a density bonus, etc., but should not get any incentives at all if they demolish the church. Trimble said it is the church's right to demolish the building, but the City should not play a part in that. She said that, for instance, the church should not get a bonus density if that happens, and the City should not make the church a deal on the adjoining parking lot. Trimble said that is really key for the City to make historic preservation work. Trimble said she has contacted the church, which told her it would be sending a letter out to membership regarding any demolition before it happened so that she would be aware of it and would know what is going on. Corcoran asked Miklo if there are any special requirements to get a demolition permit. Miklo said there is a fee and also the seven-day waiting period before acting on the permit. He said there is not specific test unless the property is designated. Swaim asked if there are any requirements to renew a permit. Miklo did not know, but said it is pretty rare to renew, because once a permit is granted it is usually acted on within the six-month period. Michaud said the church has to have a destination. She said if they build from scratch, it will take two years from the time the land is purchased. Michaud said that in this case, the church might just renew the demolition permit periodically, but that gives the Commission some time. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 7 She said the only thing that would be fast would be if they found an existing church or a building to repurpose. Miklo said if the building is demolished there would be nothing left with which to bargain with the City in terms of a developer using part of the City's parking space and such. He said that what the letter would do is send the message the current building has value in the scheme of a larger project. Swaim said the Commission doesn't want to appear to be doing this at the eleventh hour again and wants to be proactive concerning preservation issues. She said the letter is to show concern and explore the options and to show the City Council the opportunity for it to work on this with the owner and potential seller. Trimble said this could be a great deal for the City too. She said the City needs space, and if there is more exploration on the part of the people who are interested, this can be a win-win situation for everyone involved. Trimble said she believes there is a way to at least save the original portion of the church, and historic incentives are a great method for that. Michaud discussed the size of the church building. Trimble said the whole property has just over 8,000 square feet and is therefore a very small lot. Miklo said this is zoned CB -5, which requires parking for any new structure that includes residential units on that site and that would make it difficult to redevelop the site without the City's cooperation. He added that the current building is grandfathered in regarding parking requirements. Michaud said she is supportive of sending this letter. Ackerson said he thinks it is well-written and strikes the tone that the Commission wants. Swaim said there has been a suggestion for the second line in the fifth paragraph to read, "The Commission strongly urges the City to convey to the society and to developers that preserving the building could hold potential economic benefits in the form of bonus incentives for both seller and buyer." Swaim said she hopes this initiates a City and a public conversation about this. She said that in terms of what can be done, she would like to see the Commission get on record that this is a concern and look for a win-win solution to this. Trimble said that one of the important things that Friends of Historic Preservation can do for whomever the developer would be, if the building is going to be saved, would be to write for the developer a complete application for a local landmark. She said she has the information, and Friends would do whatever needs to be done to make this a landmark, including all the paperwork and help with tax credits if that's needed. Swaim said the Commission needs to track whether a demolition permit is applied for and/or received. Michaud said she can pass along the results of the vote. Corcoran said she likes Swaim's comments regarding the goal being to start a conversation about this. She referred to the last paragraph of the letter about it being critical to find a win-win solution. Corcoran said it behooves the Commission to be explicit about what it hopes will happen. She asked if the Commission would want to say something like, "We're raising this matter now in hopes that there will be an open, public dialogue that will lead to such a solution; HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 5 of 7 therefore this Commission calls upon the City to work with the Unitarian Universal Society and members of the community to explore ways to save this historic building..." Miklo said the players here are really the City, the church, and an unknown developer. Swaim said she would incorporate the wording into the letter. MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Historic Preservation Commission authorize the Chair to submit the discussed letter to the City Council at an appropriate time. Male Durham seconded the motion. Swaim said she would like to list the names of the individual Commission members on the letter. She said she would also contact Agran for permission to add his name. The consensus of the Commission was to add the individual member names. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0_(Agran absent). Michaud said she called Jean Walker about making the Melrose Neighborhood a district. Michaud said that Walker said she was done working on it, after having championing it for so many years and getting it on the National Register. Michaud said that Manville Heights has seen a lot of teardowns, so it might be worth revisiting. She said she would prefer to stick with those issues rather than considering 1950s buildings. Michaud said these are more valuable areas, and she doesn't want to see big mcmansions ruining the character here. She said there were three waves of development for Manville Heights, and the fourth wave should not necessarily take place in 2015 or later. Corcoran said the subcommittee agreed with that sentiment, because the studies of Melrose and Manville Heights are available. She said the subcommittee members wanted to talk to those in the neighborhoods and assess the residents' feelings. Corcoran stated that the subcommittee members agreed that, rather than cherry picking individual properties within those areas that might be worthy of landmark status, it would be much better to get some kind of district. Swaim said she inferred from the subcommittee discussion that the mid-century modern buildings would not be the highest priority of the work plan but would perhaps give a chance to get it started so that houses of that age stay on the radar. Trimble said one of the other things that was mentioned was that when a lot of these surveys were done, there were houses that would now be historic in the historic districts that were not counted as historic in the surveys. She said at that point they were not 50 years old, but now some of them actually could be contributing properties in the districts. Trimble said that might start coming up more frequently now, although they will have to come before the Commission anyway if they are in a district. Swaim said she did not see a need for a motion at this time but expected there will be a report at the next meeting that the Commission could vote on adopting. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Miklo said there was one certificate for 115 South Summit that involved a soffit repair proposal that was done correctly, an application to replace bead board soffit with a similar plywood material that will have the same appearance once painted. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 12 2015: MOTION: Sandell moved to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2015 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as written. Durham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Agran absent). HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION. Miklo said the City recently hired Jessica Bristow as a historic preservation specialist. He said Bristow will be helping him review projects. Miklo said she would start next week and would come to a few meetings this spring. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte z 0 CO) CO) O U O Z V uiO F- W o > Z V g W O N N Z W W a F - v a O F- U) M- X X X x X x X X X x M N X X X X x X X X N Go X X X x X x O X X X O N X X X X X X X x X w O O M r r xO LU O X X x X x x X x p r X X X X x x x X X O O X X X X X X X x X 0 X rn X ww X w w O X X X X w O O O coN X X x x X O O O X X X c D x x x x x x x x x 0 0 X 0 x X X 0 X X X X x x x i x x x x i x o M M �' X x X i x X 0 X i X X Np M M X x X I X X X X i X X N W W N N N N N N N N N N N H Cl) M M M M M M Cl) M M M W a W a a z w z J z Y 0 = N Y W 0 m Q O � O a z LU o w a" a? J d Z 0 z( w w a z Q w w o �_ a s Y 0° L E w N M .0 o a¢¢z XOD MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2015 — 5:30 PM — WORK SESSION E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Freerks called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District). Yapp explained that this district is generally north of Jefferson Street, between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street, and showed the area on a map. Staff is proposing to add the blocks (bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District) to the Central District Plan. The area is made up largely of institutional buildings (churches and The University of Iowa) and multi -family mixed use buildings. A question arose during Commission discussion regarding the definition of Mixed Use. In the context of the Central District Plan, Mixed Use is defined as: low to medium density residential uses including single family, duplexes, townhouses, and multi -family; and small scale commercial uses, offices, personal services, and other uses that serve residents and visitors to the area. Buildings can be mixed-use or single- use buildings. An area may be primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily residential depending on the market. Development is intended to be pedestrian -oriented with buildings oriented to the street ... With regards to historic property, the Central District Plan Map does not specifically identify Historic properties, but the plan does contain polices for the preservation of historic properties. These policies are a based on the adopted and periodically updated Historic Preservation Plan, which is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan. A goal of the Preservation Plan is to identify historic properties. Staff conducted research of the area, searching for identification of historic properties: Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the historic and architectural values of individual buildings, were reviewed for each property in the N. North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. Historic properties at 30 N. Clinton, 130 Jefferson Street and 115 N. Dubuque Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 2 of 9 Street are included in the Jefferson Street Historic District and are therefore already protected by the Historic Preservation Commission. The only other property that is identified as being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is the Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 E. Market Street. A copy of that Iowa Site Inventory Form is available upon request. Although four other properties in the district have some historic merit, the forms indicate that they are not individually significant enough to be listed on the National Register and there is not a sufficient grouping to form a historic district. Eastham questioned the exact area of the district, as it appears to be different on various maps and asked for clarification on which map represented what the staff was recommending. Yapp clarified that there were some discrepancies on how the "gap" areas were identified on the Comprehensive Plan maps and the actual Central District map. Eastham also asked about the historic preservation review and if the Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the two areas. Miklo answered that they had not had it as an agenda item, but they are aware of the areas. Eastham asked then for confirmation that staff is recommending that the Commission act on these two amendments to the Comprehensive Plan before the Historic Preservation Commission makes any decisions on the historic designation of the buildings in these areas. Miklo stated that there are already historic designated houses in the Central District so those will remain regardless of this decision, and also that Commission can make recommendations to Council at any time for historic designations. Eastham noted that he was uncomfortable with making a decision about the amendment before the Historical Preservation Commission discussed the areas, and Freerks agreed it seemed as if they were moving too fast and perhaps not with all the necessary information needed. Hektoen stated it was precedent that P&Z has made recommendations and then HPC has made designations after. Freerks just noted that the P&Z Commission is trying to be more careful about changing overlays and moving areas around without having all concerns addressed. Eastham again stated he felt P&Z could defer these amendments until after the HPC had an opportunity to discuss the areas. Miklo feels that is not necessary because the Central District has policies regarding historic buildings already those will cover any new areas added into the Central District. Eastham said that if staff already conducted historical research of the areas, as stated in the staff memo, then that shows some concern. Hektoen clarified what Miklo was saying that this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan does not change any kind of analysis with regards to their historic value or if they should be preserved or designated doesn't have an implication on this. Miklo stated that as with the Downtown District Plan, where the historic buildings are identified on the map, they have done the same with this Central District by identifying the one property that is already identified as historic on the map. Freerks stated that there has been lots of conversation and input from the community requesting clarification regarding timelines of changes and to look at historic possibilities before changes happen and therefore need to look at situations where there may be historic structures and not make changes without having given time to HPC to review as well. Although the two Commissions are separate and their decisions do not have to have a direct impact on the other, Freerks believes decisions should be conscious of each other. Miklo said he feels the amendment document does take the historic properties and the possible historic properties into consideration. Eastham stated he feels the HPC should still issue an opinion of the areas, and the possible historic buildings in the area, before decisions on changes to the district are made. Thomas stated he felt that any area that falls into the University Impact zone is an area that falls into pressures where time may be a Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 3 of 9 factor. Additionally due to the recent conversations regarding the South Dubuque Street area, it seems like this is an opportunity now to address the historic preservation aspects to avoid having to deal with it in the future, when it might be too late. Hektoen asked what the Commission is asking staff for with regards to this amendment. Eastham answered that if in the future a rezoning application comes forward, the Commission is required to look to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, and if the rezoning were to affect a historic property, the Commission would like that noted in the Comprehensive Plan if that property is designated as historic. Freerks and Eastham both noted that they would like to see the HPC give an opinion on the property at 109 E. Market Street. Miklo stated it is clearly eligible for historic designation as indicated in the Iowa Site Inventory Form. Freerks asked Miklo for confirmation that making this amendment does nothing more to increase development in this area, and he confirmed that was correct. Hektoen stated the amendment actually brings this area into the goals and policies of the area, which includes protection of historic preservation. Yapp also stated the specific goals that staff are recommending in the amendment would be added to the Central District Plan: A. Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors without overly discouraging redevelopment. B. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Stand Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned I reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design. Yapp asked if it would be helpful to forward the sections of the Historic Preservation Plan to the Commission, and Freerks agreed it would, the more information the Commission can have the better informed their decisions can be. Thomas said he would be interested in the Historic Preservation Commission's thoughts regarding the sequencing, if there was anything more they could identify or make reference to as amendments if this area goes into the Central District Plan. Thomas also raised a general concern regarding reviewing the multi -family design standards and his assumption is that housing will go towards student housing given the location. He asked if the City has had any conversations with the University with respect to developing design standards with that in mind, knowing there will be a very specific user here. Yapp said there have been general conversations with University staff regarding general design standards. Thomas asked for more specific standards, knowing these buildings will be housing students the lifestyles of the tenants will be different. Yapp said they have discussed with the University a concept of a living learning community for students in a building that might be privately owned but to be designed to function as a living learning community. Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 4 of 9 Thomas stated his other concern was regarding the transportation goal which he supports. However, we may want to add an additional goal: improving Dubuque Street's east -west pedestrian connectivity between the North Clinton/Dubuque St. District and the Northside neighborhood. Eastham asked about the design standards that could be included in the code, if provisions specifically for student housing can be added. Miklo stated that the area already has planned designed standards to reflect green space and parking issues, but the staff's intent, assuming the proposed goal is adopted, is to follow up with more specific recommendations on additional design standards. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Martin stated she sits on the Board of Directors of The United Action for Youth that is housed on Iowa Avenue and questioned if she could participate in the conversation. Hektoen stated Martin can participate as long as she feels she can be impartial. Martin stated she can be impartial, but just wanted it stated for the record. Yapp began by showing a map of the area to help explain that staff is proposing to take the Civic District and put the three municipal blocks south of Iowa Avenue and west of Van Buren Street and make those part of the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. And then the areas north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street become part of the Central Planning District and identify those as mixed-use. Currently this area is part of the old Downtown Planning District from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. For the area proposed as the Central Planning District, those areas are currently used as mixed-use areas and are currently zoned CB -2 and CB -5 which is central business support zones. Mixed- use allows for commercial, residential, and office land use on those properties, and that is how they are used now. The three municipal blocks proposed to be added to the Downtown District, the rationale behind that recommendation is the intensity of the uses on those blocks is primarily municipal functions, City Hall, Police Station, Fire Station, Recreation Building, Chauncey Swan parking facility, Chauncey Swan Park. These are sites that hold many different events and functions including Farmer's Market, athletic events at the rec center, meetings in City Hall, so it seems more appropriate as a downtown type designation. Those municipal blocks also front onto Gilbert Street, a four -lane arterial street, to the south end which is Burlington Street, also Highway 1. Given the input staff received from the Commission at the last meeting, staff wanted to articulate more clearly what is recommended for building heights similar to how the Downtown District and Riverfront Crossings Plan identifies building height scenarios in that plan, staff has done the same for these blocks. The Downtown District Plan recommends taller buildings on corners with shorter buildings along the block face, so this plan show taller buildings on corners of College Street and Gilbert Street and also the corners of Burlington Street and Gilbert Street to be 7-15 stories which is consistent with the Downtown District and River Crossings Plan. Staff recognizes the need for the height transition and show the east side of the municipal blocks as 4-6 stories. Translating that to future zoning, that could be either a CB -5 zone or a CB -10 zone with a height limit which can be done through a conditional zoning agreement. Miklo pointed out the north area, along the Iowa Avenue frontage, noting that importance of the Iowa Avenue corridor as it is the view path of the Old Capital, and staff recommends 2-4 stories height limits for buildings that front onto Iowa Avenue. Staff has identified the Unitarian Church property as a key historic building, and again the Riverfront Crossings Plan does identify key historic buildings in that plan, the Unitarian Church property is clearly eligible for historic designation, so it is appropriate to show that on Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 5 of 9 the map. Yapp pointed out the two asterisks on the map, staff looked at the policies in the Riverfront Crossings Plan, which includes policies for preservation of historic property and as incentives would offer density bonuses and parking reductions. One way the City could potentially participate in that would be to allow a more significant structure on the Iowa Avenue frontage, which is now a surface parking lot, in exchange for preservation of the church property. Yapp handed the Commission a memo prior to the meeting starting with a revision to provide more detail about the historic policies. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan contains polices which are intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. The plan states that incentives and policy options that encourage preservation should be implemented. The current zoning code allows for a density bonus for adaptive reuse of historic structures, and Yapp pointed out the church property is currently zoned CB -5. The CB -5 and CB -2 zones allows for additional square footage in buildings developed in the vacant portions of the property. Yapp pointed out that in this particular case the vacant portions of this block face are owned by the City as parking. The current zoning however does not allow for this bonus in the CB -10 zone nor does it allow for the type of historic preservation density transfer to a separate development project which is part of the form -based code in the Riverfront Crossings Zone. It would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to amend the zoning code for the central business zones to allow for this type of transfer of development rights for historic buildings similar to the Riverfront Crossings Zones. Given that the City controls the surface parking lots in the Civic Districts, the City may have a role in providing locations for this transfer. Yapp next showed the Commission a building height transition map, a corrected map was handed out prior to the start of this evenings meetings because on the map included in the packet the Unitarian Church property was identified as a 2-5 story in potential height and that was based on the current zoning, but after reviewing that property, staff realized as part of their Comprehensive Plan amendment they propose a 2-4 story height limit, again with a possibility of going taller if the church is preserved. Regarding more specifically historic properties in the Civic District, staff reviewed the Iowa Site Inventory Forms, and based on the available forms only the Unitarian Church at 10 South Gilbert Street is clearly identified as being eligible for the national registry. The properties at 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue may be eligible based on architectural elements, those are the United Action for Youth properties. For properties that do not have Site Inventory Forms, 505 Iowa Avenue has potential for National Registry eligibility. The other properties in this district, in Staffs opinion, have been altered to such an extent they do not meet the criteria for eligibility. Miklo added that a professional architectural historian prepared the reports, so it was not just staff opinion. Miklo added that everything except the south side of the 500 block of Iowa Avenue has a Site Inventory. Martin asked about the United Action for Youth buildings, stating that they have been extensively remodeled, but because the fronts have retained the original architecture they may still be eligible. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Freerks stated that making a change in this area may have an impact on the future of the area in a way that the other comprehensive plan amendment may not. She questioned about the properties along College Street, there are blocks that have a certain distinction and with the current zoning in that area Freerks needs clarification how this amendment works with regards to transition from the mixed-use properties to the historic properties or the homes in that area. Homes are setback further from the street than any of the commercial properties. Yapp replied that he had not reviewed all the setbacks for that area, and would need time to review. Freerks Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 6 of 9 believes that the setbacks are as important as the height limitations and perhaps the Commission needs to look at the zoning in these areas to help with the transitions in these areas. Thomas added that especially in the area where they are discussing central business zones abutting residential zones there needs to be a side yard transitional edge. Eastham agrees that the "feel" of walking down College, Washington, or Iowa there is a distinct difference once east of Gilbert Street. Thomas asked for confirmation on his understanding of the history of discussions of planning in the Downtown District, his recollection is that densities higher than CB -5, meaning CB -10, east of Gilbert Street were first introduced in the College/Gilbert RFP and this discussion today is a follow up to that. Yapp confirmed that is generally correct, in the past the City and the public have always seen those three municipal blocks as City Campus, then after the City went through a facilities study and realized it did not need all that property to be part of the City Campus, and introduced allowing mixed-use development on those three blocks. After that discussion, then there was the issuance of the RFP for the College/Gilbert property. Thomas stated he could not discover any discussions regarding buildings east of Gilbert being larger than 6 stories and asked if staff recall of any such discussions. Yapp could not recall any specific discussions. Yapp added that the three blocks west of Van Buren Street, the City blocks, they are already part of the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Parking District and that was a zoning code change implemented after the Riverfront Crossings Plan was adopted and that parking district does allow for a reduction in required parking for things like historic preservation of buildings and for properties that meet other public goals. Swygard asked Yapp what some of those other public goals might be. Yapp replied an example would be affordable housing and economic development. In this context historic preservation and affordable housing are the two main allowances for a reduction in required parking. Eastham asked with regards to historic preservation, the Riverfront Crossings Plan states "protecting historic character and key historic structures" is an overriding goal to consider. Eastham feels the phrase historic character is not the same as a specific building. Eastham also pointed out on the map, the two blocks between College/Burlington and Gilbert/Van Buren there are two parts identified for higher building heights and those do appear as corner areas of the blocks but the one on the south side of College and Gilbert seems to be larger than just the corner but seems to be more of a quarter of the block and questioned why that area was larger than just the corner. Yapp answered that since it's directly adjacent to the Chauncey Swan parking ramp is one factor and it is also adjacent to Chauncey Swan Park, a designated open space. Eastham also pointed out in the Staff memo, there was rationale for providing more density in this part of the Civic District and a need for more Class A office space in the Downtown District but there is not much analysis as to what the yield is for the additional Class A office space. Miklo replied that much of the "older" downtown has older buildings and in those buildings they are not designed for Class A office space. The Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan suggests is for preservation for much of the older downtown as opposed to redevelopment to provide for that Class A office space. In the Riverfront Crossings form -based code there are provisions for height bonuses if a developer creates Class A office space but that does not apply to downtown Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 7 of 9 yet. Hektoen stated that in the CB -10 zoning there is a provision for height bonuses for Class A office space. Thomas said we had a proposed building height plan in the Comprehensive Plan for Downtown/Riverfront Crossings He put a fair amount of stake in that plan in terms of what it meant for future development From what he has seen thus far, however, the plan's principles aren't necessarily reflected in the proposed development projects south of Burlington. 'Where the rubber meets the road" is the regulating plan which in Riverfront Crossings are the base heights and bonus heights In the Downtown the regulating plan is the zoning code. The proposed building heights diagram doesn't have regulating power. It's a suggestion and isn't necessarily adhered to There is no guarantee that what you see will be implemented Yapp pointed out that all the properties currently zoned public will have to be rezoned to be developed and at that time the Commission and the Council can impose height limitations or other limitations or setback discussions at the time they are actually zoned and what is embodied in the zoning for the area is what regulates the area. Hektoen pointed out the Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide the rezoning process not define it. Eastham asked a question about the height limitations, Yapp explained that east of Van Buren Street the height limitations are based on the existing zoning. The height limitations can be changed if the zoning is changed. Miklo stated the height legends on the maps gives guidance to the Commission and Council for future decisions of the areas. Freerks reiterated that her concern is not only height limitations, but also setback requirements and transitions from commercial to residential areas. Yapp agreed to provide the Commission with the setbacks for the areas before Thursday's meeting. Yapp explained that there is a provision in the zoning code for setback averaging and he will look at that and see how it might function in this area. Freerks also suggested perhaps dividing the Civic District amendment into two separate items due to the areas that are more residential and have possible historic properties and how the transition from the areas is maintained. The Commission agreed they would like Staff to prepare the area as two separate items for a motion for Thursday's meeting. Yapp recapped what the Commission is requesting for Thursday's meeting; pertinent policies from the historic preservation plan and how they would affect these two areas, provide the existing setbacks and building placements in the different zones in this area and how those relate to each other, they will provide language of how a comprehensive plan functions, what it covers, how it relates to a zoning code, and finally dividing the agenda up into potentially three different motions. Freerks reminded that at Thursday's meeting they will hold public hearing on these agenda items. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 8 of 9 Martin moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. Motion carried. Z O CO) �O OU U W Lo ZW N U OZ:� NON od Z W Z~ ZQ Z J a 0 z H w W J a O U. O Z p w w Q O U. Z NxXxxxxx X X X X X X X 0o NxXxxxxx T" TDxxxxxx �xx0xxxx N NXXXXXXX oxxxxxxx WaUnLn0Un0U.)0 �X0000000 oxxxxxxLL, Z - w QZWQO= w J Lu D w �XXXxxxx JxZ0 U n w UQYZaQQ J NXXXXXX0 w� 0 m 0� N X X X x X X X zoWw2wP �XXXXxOX �Xxxxxxx ti CD --XXOXXXX �Xxxxxxx LO Xxxxxxx xxxxxxx �WcocoaotiLnaoU') wd��U-)LnLOU.)►n �X00000oo W w Z wJO Z w a 0 J 2 z0CL x U Q= V=w�pmQ J Q XX a W LL 2( O Z p w w Q O U. Z NxXxxxxx °r°Xxxxxxx 0) NxXxxxxx N NXXXXXXX �wcoc�oot��nao�n WaUnLn0Un0U.)0 �X0000000 W Z - w QZWQO= w J Lu D JxZ0 U n UQYZaQQ J wX w� 0 m 0� Q Wo zoWw2wP Qc O 5 � '�� C: c c CU (D a) (D N N O O aaQZ� n u n n u XOw1 " ; 0 U-1 Y 4b(6) Approved Minutes February 19, 2014 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION February 19, 2015 ROOM 202, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Chuck Felling, Kathy Mitchell, Mark Holbrook, Margaret Reese, Cheryl Clamon, Jack Hobbs Members Absent: Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman, Craig Buhman Others Present: Andy Davis RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 22, 2015 MEETING: Felling noted a spelling correction of Eric Goers name on page 2. Motion: To accept the minutes from the January 22, 2015 meeting as amended. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Mitchell/Reese APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 13, 2015 MEETING: Felling noted a word change on page 4 from "owes" to "owns". Motion: To accept the minutes from the February 13, 2015 meeting as amended. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Mitchell/Reese PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will attend a City Council meeting in March. Approved Minutes February 19, 2014 STEERING COUNCIL REPORT: Mitchell reported that the Steering Council met on February 12th. The membership committee reported that the group of the month would highlight Kristy Cameron's classes. A newcomer's breakfast will be held on February 23rd Kromray added that the Annual Meeting will be held on April 23�d and that all Commissioners are invited. Mitchell continued that the Outreach Committee has had or will have a number of presentations including ones at the Coralville Rec Center pot luck, a meeting with sorority house mothers, a bereavement group at Lensing Funeral Home, and a retiree conference. The Program Committee discussed evaluation forms for classes. There will be a meeting for instructors to meet other instructors on February 27tH NEW HORIZONS BAND UPDATE: Honohan reported that the joint meeting with the Friends of the New Horizons Band, Steering Council and Senior Center Commission on the 13th was well attended. Honohan stated there were many questions and concerns raised and he hopes the meeting cleared up the majority of these concerns. All parties agreed that Honohan could use the independent contractor agreement signed by the Friends of the Iowa City New Horizons Band (FNHB) as a framework and flush out issues discussed during the meeting to prepare a revised agreement for consideration. Since the meeting he has been working with Kopping, Eric Goers and Geoff Fruin to draft the revised agreement and hopes to have a copy to Jean Hill of the FNHB within a day or two. Honohan asked for a volunteer to work with him and Kopping when negotiating the contract with the FNHB. Kathy Mitchell volunteered. Kopping noted at the meeting on the 13th there seemed to be a belief that no tax dollars had been spent the NHB. She stated while funds to buy music and equipment were paid with band participation fees, there are many additional costs associated with any program. These costs include such things as staff time for programming, accounting support, and space usage. This fact does not seem to be completely understood and she would like to convey the information in a way that did not appear to be defensive. She said there have been many negative things said about the Senior Center and staff regarding the issues with the NHB. Further, it seems that there is a perception that the Senior Center has been actively working against the NHB. She hopes that all of these things can be clarified and resolved. Felling identified a couple of things that struck him as important during the 13th meeting. He said the music librarians were concerned about the music and who 2 Approved Minutes February 19, 2014 would take care of it. Felling noted that they could still continue to be volunteers in this capacity. The other item that stuck out to him was when a band member mentioned that he was concerned that if another group was allowed to use band equipment and the possibility that it could become damaged. Felling noted that the Senior Center has been a good custodian of the band equipment for 20 years and does not see why that would change in the future. Holbrook stated he was surprised by the urgency with which the concern over music not being available was. He said it seemed unlikely that two groups would need music at the exact same time and that steps could be taken to ensure this was not an issue. Further if another senior center group needed to use the music and as long as it was returned in good condition, he did not understand why this would be an issue. Mitchell noted that she was surprised by this as well. She noted that she was part of a different performance group at the Senior Center and that she has always been impressed with Michelle's ability to coordinate all of the various equipment and space needs that occur at the Senior Center and she does not see why the coordination of the music would be different. Kopping noted that she hopes that everyone can move forward on this issue and get back to a place where there is a positive working relationship again. STATUS OF SENIOR CENTER ALCOHOL POLICY: Honohan noted that the alcohol committee has not had a chance to meet. He is hoping that they will be able to meet sometime in the coming month. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Kopping reported that she has been asked by Geoff Fruin to come up with a plan for addressing each of the each of the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee. Kopping noted that she has been looking into fundraising. She recently met with a financial consultant, Linda Wastyn about developing a strategic plan for fundraising. Wastyn submitted a formal proposal for $8000. The proposal includes a series of focus groups with members, non-members and city leaders, and creating a closed ended survey that would be distributed on the website and via paper copies. The information gained would provide the foundation for a fundraising plan and marketing goals. She would then work with staff and anyone hired to work on implementing the fundraising and marketing plan. Kopping reviewed Wastyn's credentials and also noted that she will be contacting her references. Kopping reported that she also will be attending local fundraisings seminars and has been participating in webinars to increase her knowledge in the area of fundraising. She said that in the near future she would be asking for a committee 3 Approved Minutes February 19, 2014 to help work on the other areas of the Ad Hoc recommendations. Holbrook noted that he would be willing to be on this committee. Honohan wanted clarification that the $8000 would be only for fundraising and marketing plan and that implementation would be separate. Kopping confirmed that is true. He questioned if that was good use of the money. Reese noted fundraising and marketing are part of an overall plan for resource development. She said that there is a lot of work that goes into this and that $8000 is extremely reasonable for doing all the work necessary to develop a plan of this nature. The Commission discussed the importance of growing the Friends of the Center's endowment because of its annual contribution to the operational budget as well as receiving donations directly to the operational budget. Kopping indicated that she would like Friends of the Center to pay an appropriate proportion of the fee for the consultant given the fact that the strategic plan would include both the operational budget and endowment. Honohan indicated he would call a meeting of Friends of the Center to discuss this. Motion: To approve the proposal of Wastyn and Associates. Hobbs/Holbrook 7/0. Kopping inquired about the spring class registration. Kromray answered that it began the day before and registration had been busy. Holbrook asked how the online registration was going. Kromray answered that it was going well but that the hardest part was when a member logged on for the first time. Honohan asked if there were instructions on how to do this. Kromray answered that yes, there are instructions on the Senior Center website homepage. She stated that if any member has any issues with logging in or using the registration site that they can contact her directly for assistance. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Motion: To elect the following officers: Chair: Jay Honohan. Felling/Clamon 7/0. Vice Chair: Mark Holbrook. Mitchell/Reese 7/0. Secretary: Kathy Mitchell. Holbrook/Reese. 7/0. Mitchell agreed to continue being the Steering Council liaison. Honohan reported that the City Council had approved the Ad Hoc Committee report. He said that overall the report and its reception was favorable to the Senior Center. The one issue that was highlighted was the need for the Senior Center to continue raising non -tax funds. 4 Approved Minutes February 19, 2014 ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Holbrook/Reese Approved Minutes February 19, 2014 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year2015 Name Term Expires 2/20 3/3 3/20 5/15 6/19 7/17 10/23 1 11/20 12/18 1/22/15 2/13/15 2/19 Cheryll Clamon 12/31/18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E X Chuck Felling 12/31/15 X X X X X X X X NM X X X Rose Hanson 12/31/14 X X X X X X X X NM -- -- -- Jack Hobbs 12/31/16 O/E X X X X X X X NM O/E X X Mark Holbrook 12/31/18 X O/E X X X X X X NM X X X Jay Honohan 12/31/16 X X X X X X X X NM X X X Kathy Mitchell 12/31/15 X X X X X X X X NM X X X Margaret Reese 12/31/15 X X X X O/E X X X NM X O/E X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM= No meeting -- = Not a member