Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-15 Bd Comm minutes5b 1 MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007 MEETING ROOM A, ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER Members Present: Emily Carter-Walsh, Mark Seabold, DaLayne Williamson, Patrick Carney, Terry Trueblood, Rick Fosse Members Absent: Emily Martin Staff Present: Marcia Klingaman, Jeff Davidson Public Present: Drew Bullman, Kelly Schaffner CALL TO ORDER Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6. 2007 MEETING MOTION: Trueblood moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections; Carney seconded. The motion passed 8:0. REVIEW OF PROPOSAL BY BAO PRAM -REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIT GALLERIES DOWNTOWN Bao Pham submitted a letter addressing the issues brought up in the Request for Proposals letter of September 20, 2007. Included in this packet was an example of an image fused to brushed satin aluminum. Marcia presented the electronic version of the proposal. Carter-Walsh noted that "Bubbles" is atwo-dimensional graphic on sheet aluminum. Seabold remembered that this piece was considered to be too sparse to fill the pool wall. He noted that covering more of the wall was one of the requests made of the artists. It was agreed that the color of the piece was appropriate and that this is a piece that can be enjoyed without glasses, which is important for swimmers. Trueblood questioned if the electronic representation was proportional to what would actually be mounted to the wall. Bao's letter indicates that a total of nine panels would be mounted, which is not consistent with the electronic representation. The electronic image shows panels that are divided. It is unclear if each division represents an individual panel. The committee would like the artist to define what he considers a panel as well as confirmation of total square footage of the piece. The committee questioned whether additional panels would provide adequate ventilation for the heating component behind the pool wall. Marcia indicated that she was under that impression as all of the artists had been notified of that requirement. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes November 1, 2007 Page 2 Carter-Walsh asked how the piece would be mounted. Seabold indicated that a common mounting style is a channel mounted to the wall with the aluminum pieces hanging from that channel. This mounting would make it easier to take them off than if they were bolted individually to the wall. Trueblood asked the committee if anyone has seen the artwork by Bao Pham that is on display at Clapp Recital Hall. No one has seen it. Seabold commented that he had hoped the submittal would be more refined at this point as they were offered a chance to revise as well as an honorarium. Unfortunately, the proposal has not been updated. The committee also noted that they would like to see the artist present the proposal in person. At this point the artist didn't indicate whether or not he would be coming for the December meeting. The artist is represented by Chait Galleries, who will also be fabricating the entire piece as well as installing it. Bao Pham is just the photographer. Fosse noted that he had missed a couple of the previous meetings and wanted clarification about where the artist was in the process. Seabold indicated that Bao Pham had been short-listed to present their proposal in a more complete form. Marcia clarified that the original request was to respond to the artist's qualifications. Subsequent requests asked more specifically for a proposal. They had submitted what they thought was more of a proposal during the first round and the committee decided to include them. They decided not to expand on their proposal any further. Carter-Walsh noted that from a maintenance standpoint the proposal looked pretty good. Trueblood noted that he was concerned about comments in the letter regarding sunlight. The pool wall. receives a significant amount of sunlight from the southern exposure. Seabold would also like to be sure that the piece would be able to withstand high humidity. The committee would like to know more about the sunlight, the definition of a panel, and total square footage of the piece. Marcia will request that the artist provide this information for the next meeting. UPDATE REGARDING IOWA SCULPTOR'S SHOWCASE AND PENINSULA PARK SCULPTOR'S SHOWCASE There were no responses for either showcase. Marcia has spoken to Marc Neucollins about his piece, "Blade", on the Peninsula Showcase and he is happy to keep it there until he sells it or until a replacement has been found. Marc is also now interested in submitting a proposal for the downtown showcase now that he is no longer a student. Marcia plans to send out the calls soon. Brandy has been updating the artist database. The committee has decided that this will be the last chance in terms of temporary displays. If it is not successful they will evaluate whether or not they should continue to do temporary or place permanent pieces on showcase. Carter-Walsh noted that the temporary displays are particularly nice for out-of-town visitors. She asked what had become of Gene's piece. Marcia indicated that the artist noticed that it had been tampered with and has decided to pull it before football season. ALAN WEINSTEIN'S UNOFFICIAL POOL WALL PROPOSAL Alan submitted an example of his piece on poster board measuring 10-ft long. He did not get chosen for the short list; however, he decided to take on this proposal as a personal challenge. Alan said to Marcia that this piece took him into a whole new realm and he felt compelled to present this piece. There are two different variations: one more Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes November 1, 2007 Page 3 complex and one simpler. The final product will be weather-proof industrial plastic. The final color can be whatever the committee wants it to be. Alan has not been notified about the heating tubes issue. The piece doesn't look as though it would negatively affect the ventilation. The committee was impressed with the interpretation and the look of the piece. Alan has not offered any indication of cost at this time. POETRY IN PUBLIC Poetry in Public is sponsored by the Public Art Committee; it is in the sixth year. This year we are hoping to add another component - a local artist to teach some classes at the recreation center. Right now they are in negotiation with Dave Maurice, Dr. ABC. He has submitted poetry in the past and has also taught classes. Promotion will be done for him as well as the project in general. The project started as a way to get poetry into the public. The general public is solicited for participation (adults and children). The poems are displayed in the kiosks, at the two recreation centers, as well as in the busses. We work with the school district to get the kids involved. Language Arts teachers have been very supportive. The submission deadline is February 1St WASHINGTON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Washington Hills Neighborhood Association submitted a draft proposal for a neighborhood art project. They may present this to the Public Art Committee in January. The idea is to work with first and second grade students at the neighborhood schools to come up with sketches that could be constructed into play structures. Marcia did explain to the neighborhood that play structures will require oversight by the city in terms of safety requirements and liability. There are no cost estimates or budget at this time. Terry asked if there were plans to incorporate these structures into an existing neighborhood park. Marcia indicated that Pheasant Hill is the only park within that neighborhood. SAND LAKE PARK CONCEPT PLAN Terry Trueblood provided an update on Sand Lake Park. A concept plan has been developed with cost estimates. A grant was prepared and ready to go out for a Community Tourism Grant; however, one of the board members of Vision Iowa indicated that an unlisted requirement to the grant is to first obtain cash contributions from the County and the private sector. They also like to see a public art element incorporated into these grant applications. A public art element may be requested on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Division at a future time. SCHEDULE FOR DECEMBER MEETING December 6th meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. to allow enough time for the artist's personal presentations. If the committee decides to make a decision at that meeting, they'll need time for discussion. A 5:00 p.m. ending time is more practical than 4:30 p.m. Fosse noted that he would have to leave at 4:00 p.m. due to a prior obligation. The meeting will be held in Meeting Room A at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes November 1, 2007 Page 4 None. ADJOURNMENT Fosse moved to adjourn; Carter-Walsh seconded. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 pm. Next meeting December 6, 2007. Minutes submitted by Brandy Howe N c_ m a~ .~ E 0 U O fn .~ Q ~r Qo N ~- w ~ U E 'r' ~ N N 3 O cv ~za ~. e ~~ O L V U ~~ '~ v O ~ ~ N '~ C~ Q ~ C L ~ ~.+ V Q~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o x x x x ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O i '~ X ~ i x N ~ i Q ~ oo O~ 00 O O~ `N k 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ --~ 0 ~ --~ 0 ~ -, 0 ~ -.. W O r O , O . O . O .S: O ~ ~ti ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ L 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ V ... ~ ~.,, ,~ z w A w ~ a a H '~ U k W ~ ~+ ~" N ~ ~ ~ add II ~ W .fir ~ ~ 0 .ti O O .~ a~ F- "C) C L ~. L 0 01-15-08 5b 2 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 14, 2007 - 5:00 PM EMMA J HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY/CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:05 PM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Edgar Thornton, Michele Payne MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Wood (recused) STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Norm Cate, Scott Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Younkers, Rob Phipps, James Estin, Bu Wilson, Meg Baron, John Morrison, Esther Baker, Jim Walters, Brian Mitchell RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (becomes effective only after separate Council action): NOTE: Carol Alexander noted that Ned Wood had recused himself from consideration of the item on tonight's agenda, due to a conflict of interest. She then read the Board of Adjustment's standard opening statement. CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2007 MINUTES: Alexander asked if there were any changes or additions to the above-named minutes. Hearing none, she asked for a motion to approve. MOTION: Thornton moved to approve the October 10, 2007 minutes as presented. Wright seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4:0. APPEAL: APL07-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Leighton House for an appeal on a decision made by the building official not to renew a rental permit for property a,t 923 East College Street. Walz began with a correction, stating that on the memo she issued to the Board Members it stated to "Joint Staff," when it was meant to be addressed to the "Board of Adjustment." Walz then began the Staff Report, stating that this property, in its current Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 2 configuration, is allowed by right thirteen roomers. In September 1997, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to this property, subject to a number of conditions in the plan. One of the main issues was that the Leighton House would provide resident management for the rooming house. Walz noted that the Board Members have a copy of the Leighton House Business Plan, which lays out what the owners were to provide and that the findings of the board that approved the variance had cited the upscale, controlled business operation as being in the public interest. In April 2006, a new concept for this property was discussed with City staff. Walz stated that this proposal was for housing the men's track team and that resident management would be provided by a fellow member of the track team. The Members also have a copy of this proposal, according to Walz. Staff at that time noted that this proposal would not meet standards set by the Leighton House Business Plan, but that a variance could be applied for. Walz stated that the rental permit expired on August 31, 2006, and was being reviewed by the Housing Inspection Department when an inspector visited the property. Walz stated that at that time, an anonymous neighbor notified the building official of an article in the Daily Iowan that basically suggested that the Leighton House was not being operated under the terms of the variance-that there was no professional management service, nor meal service, being provided. The rental permit was held due to this. In October 2006, a variance was applied for by the Leighton House, asking for up to twenty roomers. This was ultimately denied. However, prior to this, staff was taken on a tour of this property, and staff observed during that tour that there was evidence that the residents in the house were not complying with the Leighton House Plan, nor did the applicants for the variance or the residents give any indication that the residents were living in accordance with the terms of variance. The Housing Inspector then notified the owner that the house was considered to be over-occupied. On November 8, Walz stated that a letter was sent to the owner about this. Walz noted that during the hearing for the October 2006 variance, applicants and residents of this property, both verbally and in writing, defined their living arrangement as "an intentional community" that was "without supervision" and "transportation, off- site parking, meal plans" -conditions of 1997 plan, were not in place. Walz provided copies of those letters, and also portions of the transcript from this meeting, for the Board of Adjustment Members' review. Walz then noted that in considering the appeal, the Members need to look at: Did the Building Official make an error in his determination not to renew the building permit; and was his decision based on sufficient and substantial evidence. Walz indicated that the board should consider the information that formed the basis of the building official's decision. Norm Cate, Senior Housing Inspector, addressed the Members, reviewing the information that Walz had presented, citing the specific Codes involved in this case, and explaining how he arrived at his decision to deny the permit. The rental permit expired in August 2006 and inspection took place in September for continuation of the rental permit. Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 3 The housing inspector found a few building items that needed improvement. A re- inspection in October showed that all items with regard to the building itself had been addressed. In the interim an article that appeared in the Daily Iowan was given to him, which suggested that the Leighton House Plan was not being adhered to. The article suggested that there was no on-site management, meal plan, or housekeeping services provided. These did not match with the conditions of the business plan. Cate stated that he took the article under advisement and talked to zoning officials regarding the issue and at a joint staff meeting reviewed with staff what they had seen on their visit. Cate stated that it was clear that the property was not operating according to the conditions of the plan. He sent a letter to the owners indicating that the property was considered over- occupied because the Leighton House plan was not being adhered to and gave them until the end of the semester to reduce occupancy to 13 residents-the number allowed by right. Cate reiterated that the article and staff observations formed the basis of his opinion and that there was no other enforcement avenue but to deny renewal of the permit. Cate read from the housing code (chapter 17-5-19X-1) indicating that any property that is over occupied is in violation of the housing code and that the rental permit states that property must be in compliance with that section of the housing code. The permit has not been renewed. The property continues to be rented and occupied but the permit has not been renewed. In response to a question from Alexander, Walz indicated that the conditions of the variance were somewhat unusual and were not things that would be easily observed from the outside. Wright noted that this is an unusual situation, and asked questions of Cate regarding his determination. Cate indicated that he had not contacted the property owner in advance of denying the permit to see if professional management was provided but had relied on information from staff provided at a staff meeting. Walz stated that the variance was officially applied for on October 12, and that the planning staff review was happening simultaneously with the rental permit review-the BOA considered the application in November. Thornton asked Cate whether he had interviewed residents of the property. Cate explained the inspection process that would have taken place on this property. Thornton asked for more clarification on the inspection and the ensuing tour that staff took at 923 East College Street, and whether or not Cate was actually part of the on-site inspection. Cate responded that he was not, that he reviewed the information from his inspector, the Daily Iowan and staff. Cate did not verify the issue with tenants or ownership. Board members continued to ask relevant questions of Cate and Walz, in order to determine their standing on this matter. Cate indicated that it would not be normal part of the inspection process to seek out the residents or the owner for additional information prior to reaching his decision. Cate stated that he had relied on his inspector's observation, the observation of staff who visited the property and the newspaper article. Cate confirmed that the on-site inspection happened first and the evidence suggesting non-compliance happened later. Walz further explained what took place during the staff tour, stating that it was obvious that the residents were living in accordance with the Iowa Men's Track House plan and Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 4 that the residents made not attempt during discussions with staff to suggest that they were living according to the Leighton House plan. Everything the residents presented to staff indicated that they were not living according to the Leighton House Plan but rather according to the Track House Plan. Thornton asked whether the Track House Plan offered to have meal service. Walz responded that it did not. Thornton asked whether it was normal for the inspection staff to use the media as evidence. Cate responded that they would use any kind information but would corroborate it with other evidence or information. Wright asked whether the residents had offered information about their cooking arrangements. Walz responded that the residents indicated that they would occasionally cook or eat together as a group. Alexander asked if the applicant wished to address the Board. Joe Younker, as Counsel for Leighton House, spoke to the Members, along with Rob Phipps of Leighton House. Younker stated that this appeal really deals with a narrow issue-whether HIS has a proper reason to withhold the permit. First of all, Younker stated that the Housing Inspector (Anderson) initially found the property to be in compliance with the housing code. He further stated that the reason for withholding the rental permit appears to be based on a zoning issue. The applicant has sought an explanation from HIS for 6 months. Younker stated that the Housing Inspection Services (H1S) does not have the authority to determine whether or not the property is in compliance with the terms of the 1997 variance, that this is a zoning matter and, therefore, not under HIS authority. He stated that before such a determination may be made, Leighton House must be offered a due process opportunity to show that they are in compliance with the conditions of the variance. Younker stated that the Leighton House is requesting the Board to take one of two actions -either order HIS to issue the rental permit for the property; or, if the Board will not order the permit to be issued, that the Board schedule an evidentiary hearing before the Board to determine whether or not Leighton House operated the property pursuant to the terms of the 1997 variance. He further stated that before such a hearing take place, Leighton House requests that the Board require staff to provide Leighton House with specific notice of any alleged violations. Younker noted that he outlined Leighton House's position in a brief that was distributed to Board Members and staff previously and that federal and state laws require that Leighton House be provided with due process. Younker then proceeded to give the Board a brief history of the property at 923 East College Street. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance in 1997 to Leighton House, and denied two variances, requested in 2005 and 2006. He stated that today's hearing is in regards to the 1997 variance. This variance allows the property to be used as a rooming house for up to thirty roomers, subject to three conditions. Younker added that only one of these issues is relevant to this matter, and that is the issue of resident management of the rooming house consistent with the principles outlined in the business plan for Lieghton House LC date July 1997. Younker stated that this variance established a use right, as long as the property is being operated with those principles. Regarding the rental permit, Younker stated that the City issued a rental permit allowing up to thirty roomers on December 21, 2004, and that permit expired the end of August Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 5 2006. The City Inspector Art Anderson inspected the property in 2006 and stated that the permit would be mailed shortly, as everything passed inspection. The rental permit was not received after several weeks, and after a subsequent phone call, Leighton House was told they would be receiving said permit. Throughout September and October 2006, Younker stated that Anderson continued to state that the permit would be issued. In late October or early November, HIS told Leighton House that a rental permit would not be issued. Younker then pointed out Mr. Cate's letters from this time, stating that they do not provide any explanation, analysis, or argument to support these assertions that 923 East College Street did not pass its inspection. As 2007 began, Mr. Younker stated that Leighton House did not receive any further information from HIS, and subsequently as Counsel, he followed up with a letter in April of 2007. A response did not arrive until May 2007 from HIS. Mr. Cate alleged in this May letter that Leighton House had failed to comply with the 1997 variance in the following ways: failing to have professional on- site, adult management; full on-site meal plan; and transportation and shuttle service, and reserved off-street parking. He said that Cate had indicated that the zoning official made the interpretation but did not identify the zoning official that made the determination. Younker stated that Leighton House maintains that it is in fact consistent with the principles set forth in its 1997 Business Plan and is entitled to a permit for up to 30 residents. He stated again that HIS does not have the authority to interpret the zoning code. Younker continued, summarizing the information presented to the Board, stating that if there is a concern that the property is not in compliance, then federal and state law require that Leighton House be provided with a notice and a hearing, before any such determination can be made. It is unfair and illegal, Younker continued, to determine that the occupancy granted under the 1997 variance no longer applies, without first providing Leighton House with due process protections. Younker stated that the determination by HIS is invalid for three reasons: HIS lacks the authority to make such a determination; the determination was made without adequate due process protections; and the City, in claiming that Leighton House is not in compliance with the variance conditions, bears the burden of establishment of non-compliance. Leighton House does not have the burden of establishing that they are in fact in compliance. Regarding the authority issue, Younker stated that the Board of Adjustment needs to make this decision, that HIS does not have the authority to determine compliance with the zoning ordinance, and therefore, Mr. Cate's determination is invalid. HIS does not have the right to revoke the variance. He stated that the rental permit itself states that it is not a determination of compliance with the zoning code. Any determination of non- compliance must be made by the Board of Adjustment. He stated that HIS never identified the zoning official or the process by which the determination was made. He reiterated what Cate had stated in his letters, stating that he does not provide any information in these letters as to what the issues are, nor did they provide Leighton House a chance to address these issues. Again, Younker stated that Leighton House should receive due process protection. Younker briefly discussed the state provisions of due process requirements for bodies such as the Board of Adjustment. Leighton House was never given an opportunity to address any concerns before the rental permit, was denied Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 6 by HIS. He stated that Iowa law requires an evidentiary hearing before such a determination can be made. Zoning boards of adjustment function as reviewing boards and make administrative adjudications. A decision that the variance no longer applies because of non-compliance with the variance is a revocation of the variance and triggers due process protections. Younker referred to Iowa Administrative Procedures Act for appropriate due process procedures and particularly revocation of licenses with notice of revocation or allegations of non-compliance and an opportunity for a hearing to determine non-compliance. Younker continued, stating the HIS reports refer to the Daily Iowan article, but that Mr. Cate's letters do not. He stated that the determination should be made on something more than an article in a local newspaper. Younker referred to the timeline again of when the rental permit expired in 2006. He stated that he wanted to further review the October 2006 timeframe. Mr. Cate's initial letters made no reference to specific issues of non- compliance-those did not come forth until six months later when the specifics were spelled out by Mr. Cate. Younker stated that the staff report seemed to indicate that the Leighton House was provided due process based on the staff tour of the property in October 2006. This visit was centered on whether or not to issue the 2006 variance that Leighton House had requested -not to address the re-issuance of a rental permit. Younker further stated that even if this visit was a "fact-finding" one regarding issuance of the rental permit, staff did not ask any questions pertinent to this, nor did they give Leighton House a chance to address these allegations. Younker returned to requesting the Board to authorize issuance of the rental permit for Leighton House, or, again, in the event they do not do this, to schedule an evidentiary hearing, require staff to provide Leighton House with specific allegations of noncompliance, and then allow Leighton House to address these issues of alleged noncompliance. Thornton asked Younker how many residents were living at the subject property during either the inspection or the staff visit. Younker noted there have been between eighteen and nineteen residents consistently living here since fall 2006. Alexander asked Younker under what conditions is the City able to make a determination that a property is not complying with the conditions of a variance. Younker stated that after an evidentiary hearing, if the City feels that Leighton House is not complying with a certain principle in its Business Plan, then Leighton House should be provided with notice of that fact, and a hearing should be scheduled so Leighton House can demonstrate compliance. Wright then asked if the determining factor here is the lack of compliance with the Business Plan as opposed to just over-occupancy. Younker stated that there are two levels -one being that HIS determined this and that it is outside of its authority, and that before this determination can even be made, that Leighton House needs to be provided with a notice of hearing to address such allegations. Wright then asked if the key to the argument is the existence of this variance, to which Younker replied that the fact that HIS does not have the authority to make this determination ,and the fact that the variance is in place grants a use right- before it can be removed from Leighton House, Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 7 they must receive due process. Wright stated that HIS makes zoning determinations every day. Younker said that HIS does not make determinations with regard to variances. Payne stated that almost every resident of Leighton House was present at the variance meeting last November, telling the City how they lived, and that it did not comply with the terms of the variance in question. Younker maintained that the variance hearing was not to determine whether the business was being run according to the terms of the variance, and the evidence presented by the then applicant did not address those concerns. He indicated that Leighton House should be able to show compliance with any violations. Payne reiterated that the residents had explained their living arrangements. Younker stated that the condition associated with the variance is consistent with the 1997 business plan. He asked in what way the evidence collected at that hearing shows that business is not in accord with the principles of the variance. Also, that the evidence was presented in a different context. The discussion turned to the variances applied for in 2005 and 2006 that were not approved. Wright stated that the board had decided twice that the business was not operating in compliance with the variance. Younker disagreed saying that the earlier hearings were to determine whether a new variance should be granted. He stated that the $usiness Plan did not change, due to the fact that the variance was not granted. In response to a question from Alexander, Younker stated that the variance applied for in 2006 was for a different use-the applicants had asked for 20 roomers with no conditions attached. Their business model was different. That is a separate issue from whether the current owner is in compliance with the plan. Younker insisted that these were discreet and separate issues. Payne reiterated Younker's request for Leighton House, to which he replied that there are some overlapping issues, but that specific allegations of noncompliance need to be addressed by Leighton House before any determinations are made. Alexander stated that she has questions of staff next. She asked Walz to explain how such determinations are made. Walz stated that Cate would be better able to respond to such questions, due to his experience. She reiterated that it is the opinion of staff that this is the due process, that the permit was withheld and not renewed, and the opportunity for due process is a 90-day period during which an appeal can be filed. She stated that they used the May 2007 letter as the start of the 90-day period for appeal. Walz also stated that she wanted to add some clarification to the staff visit in 2006 -stating that staff was invited by the applicants and residents to this visit. They were asked to observe that the interior of the building was in good condition, and worthy of contributing toward the variance they were applying for at that time. However, Walz added that staff was also present to observe how the residents were living, because the applicants had presented to staff that they needed the variance in order to continue living in the way they were at that time. She stated that the Board's decision, at that time (2006), was not about whether or not Leighton House was operating according to the variance, but whether or not to grant a variance for twenty roomers. However, the residents and applicants presented their living Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 8 situation as the way the house would operate under a new variance as requested by the Hudsons. Alexander then asked Scott Peterson to remind everyone what their purview is in an appeal, as the Board hears very few of them. Peterson stated that the City's ordinance is consistent with the State's, in that basically the Board is put into the position of the administrative official. They can either uphold the position, grant the appeal, or find a common middle ground. Payne asked if the Building Inspector has the right to determine if someone is following a variance. Cate responded that the housing officials are the enforcement tool for the code, including on issues related to variances. He explained what the inspectors look for and what the HIS department can include in its determinations, citing various City codes. He stated that occupancy is an issue that HIS enforces. Petersen explained that the board of adjustment is the board that hears cases in which someone is appealing a zoning determination made by staff. It was also reiterated that the May 23, 2007 letter set out the 90-day appeal period, and that this hearing is in reference to the appeal. Payne noted that Cate's letter does not cite occupancy, just the variance issues. Cate responded, explaining how his two letters covered all issues, including occupancy. Wright asked Peterson about the due process issue, and whether or not this hearing is that due process established in the code, to which Peterson stated it is. This led to questioning of when the variance would be considered expired. He stated that the variance continues so long as the conditions are met and now is the time for Leighton House to make their case on whether or not they are in substantial compliance with the variance. If they are not in substantial compliance then the variance is not valid. Alexander asked if anyone else wanted to speak to the Board. Younker then addressed the Board, stating that he disagrees with Peterson regarding whether or not HIS has authority to make this type of zoning determination, and that this is distinct from a normal occupancy issue. They are appealing the refusal to issue the permit. They have had no notice as to why they were determined to be in non- compliance. HIS is taking away a right. He reiterated that they are in front of the Board asking for them to allow the rental permit to be issued, and that this is not a building code issue. He again stated that the City needs to satisfy the burden of proof, not Leighton House, for this so-stated noncompliance. Alexander asked if Younker didn't consider the various letters to the Board from residents has as evidence. Younker continued, restating his argument for Leighton House that the letters were evidence in a separate hearing on a different issue. He stated that a variance does not just disappear the moment non- compliance occurs, it must move through a process. Board Members asked for more clarification on what their determination needs to include, and Peterson gave further detail of such determinations from state law describing the Board's authority in an appeal. Alexander noted that they could vote to uphold the original decision, or they could grant the permit, or the board could vote to not uphold the decision but then make the decision based on their own interpretation. Peterson responded to the affirmative. Payne clarified that it was the opinion of staff that the Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 9 present hearing was the applicants due process and their opportunity to show that the business is operating according to the principles of the business plan. Discussion continued with Petersen advising the board on the specifics of what they need to decide, what evidence can be used and the various options available to them. It was reiterated that tonight is Leighton House's due process, and also the time for HIS to present their evidence. Some of the various correspondence was briefly touched upon, showing the timeframe for when Leighton House first received correspondence, to the current time and tonight's hearing. The evidence is all of this correspondence and materials that have been presented to the Board, which is for them to review and make their decision. This is what Walz presented to the Board at the beginning of the evening. Alexander asked whether the applicant wanted to address the issues raised in the May 3~d letter. Younker brought up again that the burden of proof is on the City, and that this evidence from the 2006 variance is not necessarily pertinent to this issue. Payne asked whether the residents of the house are currently living in the same manner that they claimed to be living a year ago. Younker responded that he did not know but that Mr. Phipps could respond. He stated again that the burden was on the city to set forth allegations of non- compliance. The burden is not on Leighton House to establish compliance. Walz again gave further detail on the letter from Ms. Franklin regarding Iowa Track House. She explained that the idea for the track house was presented to staff by an individual before the variance was ever applied for and that staff had indicated that the track house plan did not meet the standard of the 2006 conditions. Staff had advised that individual that a variance would be needed in order for the track house to be allowed more than 13 roomers. The Hudson's applied for a variance later in the fall to allow something similar, if not identical, to the conditions set forth in the track house plan. Walz explained the earlier variances that were requested in 2005 and 2006, trying to clarify for the Board the lengthy time period being discussed, and also the change in people over the years. Alexander asked what documents were received by the applicant. Walz confirmed that the two letters from Norm Cate were the only documents sent to the applicant. Alexander read the issues of non-compliance summarized in the HiS letter of May 2007. Younker stated that the issue has to do with the phrase "consistent with the principles in the 1997 plan." He asked how they are inconsistent. The Board again reviewed the specifics of this case, and Younker noted that the noncompliance has to do with the Business Plan, not the variance.. He stated that Davis Linden is in fact the on-site manager of Leighton House, and that this part of the variance did not mean that the original requestors had to remain as the managers. Members asked specific questions of Younker about this on-site manager, and whether or not the original concept was still being followed. He stated that this is why an evidentiary hearing is needed, for Leighton House to address specific issues of noncompliance. Younker then explained exactly what "evidentiary hearing" means for his client, giving them a chance to respond to allegations. As Mr. Linden is the on-site manager, and compensation is Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 10 paid to him, the Leighton House believes it is meeting this part of the variance and their Business Plan, which is what they are following. Younker read from the business plan that language used in the plan that referred to on-site adult manager. Alexander referred to the plan and the background and skills of the proposed managers. Payne asked whether the on-site manager was a student and whether he had skills similar to what the proposed managers would provide. Younker explained that he is a student. Alexander asked for an explanation of evidentiary hearing. Younker explained the applicant would need notice of the non-compliant aspects and why they are interpreted to be non-compliant. The applicant is struggling with the City's definition of "consistent with the principles "put forward in the Leighton House Plan and then have an opportunity to show compliance. Payne referred to the term professional. Younker responded that professional is not part of the business plan language. Thornton asked that Younker review the evidence again, the various letters between Leighton House and HIS, and to show the Board where he feels due process was not given. Younker explained how in these letters, specifics were not addressed by Mr. Cate, until the May 2007 letter after the decision had been made. Due process should take place prior to the decision. A review of the Leighton House Business Plan began next, with Younker pointing out the specific issues in question. As for dining services, he reviewed what the Business Plan states and how the need of a professional cook was not needed, that the residents have different schedules and so a meal plan is not practical. The residents prepare food in the kitchen. As for parking, Younker stated there are two spots in the Chauncey Swan ramp available to residents, and transportation is offered to that ramp, if needed. The business plan anticipates that students may not need cars and the current situation finds that most residents do not use cars. He again asked how the Leighton House is not in compliance with their Business Plan, which is what the variance was based on in 1997. The discussion turned to Younker stating that, again, the City needs to present specific evidence of noncompliance on each of these issues, as stated above, in accordance with their Business Plan. Thornton stated that he feels they need more specific information as to exactly how this determination was made. Alexander noted that they have others present who would like to speak, and she asked that everyone be given a chance to speak this evening. Jim Estin of 1039 East College spoke to the Board asking them to uphold the HIS determination, until such time as the owners come into compliance. He noted the thirteen occupants level, and stated that as neighbors, they have been asked repeatedly to appear before the Board about the issue of higher occupancy, and that this is inconsistent with zoning and the area, with increased parking problems being created, among other things. He also noted that if you walk in this neighborhood in the evenings, you can see the increased volume in vehicles parked on the street. He noted that when he invested in property in 2005, he was under the belief that this neighborhood was geared toward renovating single-family properties and that he expected the zoning regulations to keep Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 11 these investments strong. He feels that the owners of 923 East College Street are noncompliant, and until they come under compliance, they should not receive a rental permit. Meg Baron of 1 I S South Summit stated that every year they come before the Board and review this property, and that they would like to see their neighborhood remain a comfortable one, where residents can walk around and feel safe. Jim Walters of 1033 East Washington next spoke to the Board. He stated that they like their mixed neighborhood of students and single-family homes, and that he lives next door to the property in question. He states that the big issue in the neighborhood is parking, that what goes on inside is not their concern, as long as they are not disturbing the neighborhood. He reiterated that parking is extremely tight in this neighborhood, and that having company is often difficult with parking blocks away. He stated that if Leighton House is only providing two off-street parking spaces, then having thirty residents would definitely put them under noncompliance. Bu Wilson spoke next, stating that she has also sent correspondence regarding this matter. She asked for some clarification from Peterson, and then stated that her impression as a resident of this neighborhood, and in talking with other residents, is that Leighton House is wanting the City to tell them exactly what they're not doing right as they are not doing anything. She further reviewed the evidence presented, reading directly from various aspects of the variance and subsequent Business Plan. She stated that the variance for the thirty occupancy rate being granted was based on the list of professional positions and education components that were to go along with that occupancy rate - i.e. the safety issue, food, transportation, management, etc. She further stated that the Leighton House has consistently treated the neighborhood with contempt. She then read from a prepared statement. Esther Baker addressed the Board next. She brought up the issue of the Leighton House Business Plan, and how things change and how can the compliance stay within the rules, if things are always changing. The idea that constant, adult supervision of the tenants would be provided, and that by having a student provide that supervision, Ms. Baker stated, does not meet this stipulation. She noted that during the summer a swimming pool was set up on the front lawn, as an example, with no fencing around it. She stated that she also submitted a letter to this issue. Brian Mitchell addressed the Board. He stated that he worked on renovating Leighton House with his father, and stated that the neighbors of this property don't understand what this property used to be, prior to their extensive renovation. He stated that by performing this renovation, it has increased the value of this neighborhood. He feels Leighton House is performing a good service to the community. John Morrison spoke next, stating that he has lived in this area since 76. He agreed that this property was at one time in extremely poor condition. He also reiterated the parking problems that have been ongoing in this neighborhood. Payne then asked Mr.Younker about the concrete "basketball" area of this property and if it had not been removed. He stated that this is where they park the motorcycles and Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 12 mopeds. Rob Phipps, one of the owners of Leighton House spoke next. He stated that the basketball hoop was to be removed, not the concrete slab. He said they talked to the City about using this as a patio, and they were told that if they landscaped around it, it could be a patio area. He stated that they did do this. Walz stated that this occurred before she was part of this situation. Payne again stated that she thought this was actually a condition of the variance. John Morrison returned to state that the motorcycles are also ridden on the sidewalk, and he stated that landscaping isn't motorcycles. Phipps returned to the microphone to state that in regard to parking, only a few of the Leighton House residents have vehicles, and that just because there are cars on this corner, they are not necessarily from those at Leighton House. He stated there are other rental properties in the area where these vehicles could be from. He stated that there are two spots on the property, and then the two spots at Chauncey Swan, totaling four available spots for residents. Members asked questions of Walz about the other properties in this neighborhood, and how many are rental versus single-family. Walz stated that there were other multi-family buildings in the immediate vicinity. Alexander then asked if there were any other comments before she closed the public hearing. Hearing none, she closed the hearing. The Board then entered into discussion, with Thornton stating that he has some concerns about the issue of the inspection process, that he would like to hear more from City staff at how they arrived at their decisions, and that he feels he does not have enough information at the current time. He would like to hear more from HIS especially, and that he feels they should review further and reconvene to make an adequate decision. Wright asked about deferment, and if they would have to open the public hearing again in order to do that. Peterson responded to such legal questions, stating that they could reopen at the next meeting and continue with the hearing. Discussion continued, with Thornton stating his concerns further. He again stated that he would like for Mr. Cate to provide more information, as well as the Leighton House owners. Alexander stated that if they were to reopen the hearing, she would want to hear further from Leighton House. She noted what the 1997 Board of Adjustment was granting, and in keeping with that Business Plan as was stated at that time. Payne stated that if the Board feels they do not have enough information to render a decision, then they need to defer. Wright stated that he feels he has enough information to go forward. Alexander then stated that their concern as a Board is to give the citizens every opportunity to present their side. MOTION: Thornton made the motion to table this matter until the December 12, 2007, meeting to allow the applicant and the Inspection Services enough time to provide information, based upon the Business Plan, and also based upon the information provided in the May 23, 2007, letter, as well as from the HIS in order to provide information on their findings, and how they arrived at their determination to deny the renewal of the permit. No second was heard for this motion. Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 13 The discussion then turned to the various aspects of voting on a motion, and affirmative voting and what it is that upholds this decision, or grants the permit. MOTION: Wright moved to uphold Appeal 07-00002 and to issue the rental permit; seconded by Payne. Wright started the conversation, saying that he is having difficulty with the logic that was presented by the appellants. He spoke of the May 23, 2007 letter that states that the permit is denied due to "not operating under the condition of the 1997 variance". The rental permit occupancy limit is based on compliance with the conditions of the variance agreement. Failure to meet this was based on lack of professional on-site, adult management. Wright noted that just paying someone to live at Leighton House does not fit the "professional on-site management" that was described in the business plan. He noted that the plan describes the manager's background and ability to provide academic support. The current manager is a student and there is no evidence of academic support being provided, nor on-site food preparation, as was in the 1997 variance conditions. Wright stated that there were possibly two off-street parking spaces on site and two provided in the ramp. There has not been an effort to provide adequate parking for the current number of residents nor the 30 potential residents. There are other issues that had not been addressed: housekeeping and complaints about noise. He stated that he does not see any reason to not uphold the decision of the Building Official and to deny the appeal, based on the evidence presented to them this evening. The issues that have been raised, he stated, have been technicalities. Wright indicated that this hearing is an evidentiary hearing and that it provides due process. Payne stated that she agrees with Wright's statements, and she briefly addressed her concerns with the issues that have been raised. May 23 letter used the word "professional" stands in place of the experience of the proposed managers. Payne stated that the building official has the same responsibilities as the board and that he did have the right to consider the terms of the variance as part of his job. Should his interpretation be questioned, the Board decides whether there has been an error. She stated what her interpretations are of the case. The current situation is not in the spirit of the plan. She noted that both sides need to remember to watch what they ask for in cases like this. Thornton stated that he does not have the same background knowledge of this case, and that his concern was that both parties had an opportunity to speak to the case. He stated that he believes the case could have progressed in a more timely manner, and that some more facts would be helpful, but that in looking at the Business Plan, it's obvious that the current situation does not meet the spirit of the plan. He also reviewed the "professional staff' issue, and that he agrees the current setup is not in the original spirit. As for the on-site meals, he stated that it appears this is also not happening, and he agreed with the other members of the board on the parking issues. He stated that as the applicants are not operating in the spirit of the continual plan, he would have to agree with those before him. Board of Adjustment November 14, 2007 Page 14 Alexander stated that she would make this a unanimous decision with her vote. She reviewed the past correspondence and findings on this case briefly. In reviewing the business plan and findings of the 1997 BOA that referred to upscale, controlled business operation, she said that all of the details contributed to an overall tone of what the business was supposed to be and that was what led to that prior decision. Without all the pieces that the business loses its meaning. The Building Inspector made his decision based on the conditions of the business plan. The motion was declared denied 4:0. OTHER: None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Alexander stated that she spoke with Holecek on Thursday, and there still is no decision on the Shelter House issue. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Wright moved to adjourn, seconded by Payne. Alexander adjourned the meeting at 7:30 PM. Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2007 NAME TERM EXP. 1/10 3/28 4/11 4/28 5/9 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X O/E X X NM X X NM X X Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X X X X NM X X NM X X Ned Wood O1/O1/10 X X X X X NM O/E X NM O/E O/E Michelle Payne O1/O1/11 X X X X X NM X X NM O/E X Edgar Thornton 01/01/12 X X X X X NM O/E X NM X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member 5b 3 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Roger Anderson, Mary Bennett, Mike Haverkamp, Mike McLaughlin, Marybeth Slonneger CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION: Recommend Approval of 935E Market Street as a Historic Landmark. Terdalkar said a landmark designation can be based on any historical, architectural or archeological significance. He said the Commission can also consider significant historical events or personalities related to the property. Terdalkar said there have been some developments since the previous meeting on October 24`h. He said the applicant and Friends of Historic Preservation have been working with the property owner to find a solution. Terdalkar said the goal of the landmark designation is to secure the property so that the house can be moved to a location where it can be restored. He said the State Historical Society has been approached regarding the eligibility of the Wetherby House. He said in their preliminary review they have determined that the property is eligible based on the fact that it is associated with Isaac Wetherby and it is the only known extant building with a connection to Wetherby. Terdalkar said the State Historical Society also believes that the house may still retain its eligibility after it is moved to an appropriate location. He said the applicant and owner are suggesting that the application be deferred. He said there has been a private agreement between Friends of Historic Preservation and the owner to delay the demolition. Weitzel asked what the private agreement is. Terdalkar said the agreement is to wait until November 15`h to allow a decision regarding the move, if the application for landmark designation is deferred. He said the owner is willing to work with Friends of Historic Preservation. Weitzel asked if the agreement is conditional based on the Commission's deferral tonight. Terdalkar said that is how the owner of the property has approached staff. Weitzel asked if after the Commission voted on the issue Planning and Zoning would have one or two public hearings. Terdalkar said one hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Weitzel asked if there would be two or three hearings at City Council. Howard said City Council could hold one meeting, but would have to vote on the application three times. Weitzel asked if there was any legal way to fast track the application. Terdalkar said there would be some flexibility in arranging the public meetings and there could be some expedited action. Howard said that because the property can be designated a landmark after it is moved, the long process could take place after it is moved. Historic Preservation Commission November 1, 2007 Page 2 Weitzel asked if the Commission would have to open the public hearing if they decided not to defer at this point. Terdalkar said the Commission could get some input from the applicant and the owner, and then proceed with further discussion. Weitzel said it would be helpful for the owner and applicant to restate their agreement for the record. Weitzel said he would like to read the guidelines for landmark status. He said historic landmarks are buildings that are individually significant for their architectural and/or cultural merits. Like historic districts, theses properties are typically listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or are eligible for listing on the National Register. He added that the State Historical Society and architectural historians that the Wetherby House is eligible. Weitzel said landmarks are properties that are individually significant because of their architectural quality, integrity and historical or cultural significance. Weitzel said the Commission isn't here for debate, but instead for fact finding. Swaim asked how deferring the application works on behalf of the owner and applicant. Terdalkar said the owner is willing to work with the applicant and Friends of Historic Preservation on moving the property. He said there is a 60-day moratorium period if a public hearing is set by the City Council and the owner would like the City to not set a public hearing. Swaim asked if nothing could be done to the house during the 60-day moratorium period, including moving it. Terdalkar said nothing could be done during that 60-day period unless an official action after a public hearing has taken place. Weitzel opened the public hearing. Mike Haverkamp introduced himself as the President of Friends for Historic Preservation. He said Friends has been talking to Mike McLaughlin, the owner of 935 E. Market Street, about the possibility of moving the Wetherby House. Haverkamp said there is a possibility of moving the house to Reno Street Park. He said that the Parks and Recreation Department and City Council said there need to be support from the Goosetown Neighborhood. He added that a long term plan needs to be developed for the maintenance of the property. Haverkamp said Friends has been looking at the possibility of getting HRDP grants and local donations to move the house. He said Friends came to an agreement with McLaughlin to hold off on the demolition until November 15t'' to give Friends enough time to have a rational idea on what it would take the save the house. Haverkamp said he thinks Friends and the owner have come to a voluntary agreement and recommends deferral of the application. McLaughlin said he is the owner of 935 E. Market Street. He said he has been approached by Marybeth Slonneger and Haverkamp regarding the preservation of the Wetherby House. He said hat he must demolish or remove the two structures on the property before obtaining a plat survey to split the existing lot down the middle. He said his plan is to construct two separate structures on each of the two lots. McLaughlin said there is a garage on the property, but there has only been interest in the preserving the house. He said it has been worked out over the phone that he would give the house to Friends of Historic Preservation and they would be responsibly for the structure. He added that the where the property could be moved still needs to be ironed out. McLaughlin said he has talked to the City Attorney's about what will happen to his demolition permit with all of the various scenarios. He said if there would be a recommendation from this commission or the public to the City Council for a public hearing, then the demolition permit would be stayed. McLaughlin said he draws the line at the point of a public hearing and does not want to lose his demolition permit. He said he is willing to deal with this issue privately with Friends of Historic Preservation. He added that his contractor has no problem waiting until November 15tH for a decision, and might be flexible beyond that. McLaughlin said that losing his demolition permit would cause a considerable financial burden. Historic Preservation Commission November 1, 2007 Page 3 McLaughlin said the request for deferral is preferred because it will allow for a deal to work out privately and avoid time constraints. Weitzel said the Commission's intent is never to cause unnecessary delays or expense to a property owner. Marybeth Slonneger, the applicant, said Carl Klaus and herself are the co-representatives of the Goosetown Neighborhood Association. She said Klaus cannot attend the meeting tonight, but strongly recommends the Reno Street Park as a location for the Wetherby House. Slonneger said a vacant lot left by a demolished house was given to the Reno Street Park by the City and still has water and gas lines. She added that those water and gas lines could be used to hook up to the house. Slonneger said Heritage Trees and other local organizations have shown interest in donating money to restore the house. Slonneger said a lot available on Prairie du Chien Road and Hickory Hill Park are other options for the location of the Wetherby House. She said Hickory Hill Park would provide less protection to the house than Reno Street Park. Weitzel asked if a vote has been made by the Goosetown Neighborhood Association. Slonneger said she was supposed to receive a-mails from the other representatives. Weitzel said that it sounds like there needs to be more time for the association to make a decision. Slonneger said she sent out the notices about moving the house to Reno Street Park the previous night, so no one was prepared. Roger Anderson said that his property is adjacent to the Reno Street Park and does not support moving the Wetherby House to the park. He said the property should be left where it is. He added that he objects to losing the park. Anderson said the homes on the south side of the park are setback quite a distance from other homes in the city, so the further the house is set back, the less park space there will be left available. Mary Bennett, an employee of the State Historical Society, said she would like to see the discussion on the Wetherby House done a public manner. She said that two weeks isn't enough time to make sure the evaluations are done properly. She added that if private discussions continue, the threat of a demolition is held over our heads of those trying to save the property. Bennett said the economic pressures and the private negotiations have not exposed all of the angles that can be taken. Bennett said she would like to see the property preserved at the current location. Weitrel closed the public hearing. Weitzel said the Commission can now discuss and entertain motions. He added the main concern is to determine if the Wetherby House is eligible for landmark designation. Ponto said this is a bad situation because ideally the whole process for designating a landmark should have started a long time ago. He said the cost of moving it may meet or exceed the amount the property could be sold at. He added that at this point, private discussions would be in the best interest of the public. Ponto said he would support deferral of the application. Michaud asked if a representative from Parks and Recreation would be there during private discussions. Haverkamp said Friends has talked to Parks and Recreation and will be giving a presentation to them at their next meeting on November 15`h. He added that Parks and Recreation would be willing to schedule an earlier meeting, if needed. Swaim said it sounds like if something is going to be worked out, it is going to happen in the next two weeks. Historic Preservation Commission November 1, 2007 Page 4 Toomey asked if approval by Parks and Recreation and the house needs to be moved in two weeks. McLaughlin said he would be willing to give Friends until 6 p.m. on the 15"' of November to have the structure moved. He added that there may be some flexibility beyond that. McLaughlin said his contractor that will head up the demolition is willing to be flexible about the date. Toomey said that if the house is moved to a city-owned park, it becomes city property. Weitzel said it depends on what kind of agreements are made. Weitzel asked what an adequate time frame would be to receive grants for the property. Bennett said 30 days. Michaud asked what the time frame is on the demolition permit. McLaughlin said 60 days. He added that he is trying to complete his project in July 2008 and cannot wait a few months to start the project. He said he does not want to continue to monitor a request for a public hearing with the City Council. McLaughlin said a public hearing would be giving up too much of control of the project. Michaud asked Slonneger if Plum Grove was an option. Slonneger said Plum Grove is not an option. She said the Butler property and Wetherby Park are other options. She added that Parks and Recreation did not recommend Wetherby Park due to the high rate of vandalism. Michaud asked if Slonneger is looking at creating a trust fund for the house. Slonneger said that is the goal, but will not set that up personally. She said an endowment fund would likely be set up by Friends. Slonneger said Friends has also considered having alive-in caretaker. Michaud asked if the Wetherby House could be moved to a different location on the lot while the foundation is being built for the duplexes. Terdalkar said that may not be allowed because a lot must be clear to have it split and to get a building permit for future buildings as the owner is proposing. Weitzel asked how long those processes typically take. Terdalkar said staff has not received any plans and cannot give a definite time frame. He added that Housing & Inspection Services might have more information. Howard said the design review process generally takes longer than a week, and depending on complexity of the project it may take longer. Weitzel said he asked about the building permit and design review process to find out if there are other time restrictions outside of landmark designation. Weitzel asked McLaughlin how long it would take to demolish the building. McLaughlin said it would take less than a day. Howard said Council needs 24 hours notice before setting a public hearing. She recommended that the applicant and the owner talk to the Council and let them know that a private agreement is going forward. McLaughlin said regardless of what they would say to Council, they could decide otherwise and set the public hearing. Howard said the Council has to motion to set a public hearing, so it is up to the discretion of the City Council to set a public hearing. Weitzel said a request for a public hearing doesn't necessarily mean the demolition permit will be lost. McLaughlin said there is always a chance that they could vote in the affirmative and that would jeopardize the permit. Toomey asked what effect the Commission would have from voting tonight. He also asked if voting to designate the Wetherby House as a historic landmark would prevent the demolition from happening in two weeks. McLaughlin said that recommendation to the City Council would then have to vote on setting a public hearing. Howard said what the Commission has in front of them is a request from the applicant to defer to allow private negotiations to continue. Historic Preservation Commission November 1, 2007 Page 5 Slonneger asked if the Wetherby House could be moved to some location as a holding place. Weitzel said since the Historical Society of Iowa said that its eligibility does not suffer from the location of the building, so a deferral is in order. MOTION: Ponto made a motion to defer the application. Michaud seconded the motion. Brennan said he will be voting to defer. He said the current plan is to demolish the structure. He said deferring the application will allow time to move the building. Brennan said a vote tonight would put more pressure on McLaughlin to exercise his right of demolition or risk losing his permit. He said the better decision is to defer. Swaim said she will be voting to defer. She hopes that the extra time will give the applicant more time to work on moving the building. She said that she hopes the owner will be flexible about the moving date. Weitzel said the applicant should make all due haste to move the building and worry about the rest later. Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Doug Ongie. s/pcd/mi ns/hpG2007/11-0 t -07.doc c 0 .N .~ E 0 U c 0 d N L 0. V O N 0 m m~ V ~ ~o ~ N d w+ Q o x x ~ ~ x x x x x x o x o ~ x ; x x x x x x o x x , x ; „ x x x x x x x x ; , x x x x x x , °-' x x w o x x w 0 x x x , N x x i i i W ~ O x x x x W ~ O x ~ `~ X O w O X X X X X X <o N m X W O ~ ~ ~ W 0 W 0 X X X X X M i X X ; ` ; , `-" O X W O X X X X n , , x W 0 ~ ~ w O X X W O X X X a v X X X ~ X X X X X , X X O O X X X ~ X ~ M O o r X X X ~ X W O X X X X X ~ y ~m rn o o o ~ o o ~ n o o o rn o n o rn o o r- rn o oo o F W rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N M M M M M M M M M M M C7 T m ~ iC ~ ~ y ~ •= ~ i0 € c 7 ~ ° E d a y E ~ ~ c~a z ~ m ~ m ~ c~ o o ~ c7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 a 3 ~n ~ r•- o r- °' 3 a ~ L ~ ~ 7 ~ a1 X C W ;_, N ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ ~ N~QZz a Q II II II >+ II II W_ ~ i YXOOZ i Sb 4 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Bennett, Jackie Blank, Carl Klaus, Mike Haverkamp, Ken Slonneger, Marybeth Slonneger CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION: Setting a Public Hearing to Designate 935E Market Street as a Historic Landmark. Terdalkar said that tonight's special meeting is intended to evaluate preliminary eligibility of the house at 935 E. Market Street and to consider setting a public hearing to designate the property as a local historic landmark. He said at least seven days notice is required prior to a public hearing for considering landmark designations. Terdalkar said November 151 is the earliest day the Commission could hold a public meeting on the issue. He said that depending on the discussion and public input during the public hearing, the Commission could request the City Council to set a public hearing on November 5. Weitzel said the Commission has the letter that was sent to City Council and photos that accompany it. He said 935 E. Market Street is the Isaac Wetherby House and a demolition permit was taken out by the land owner. He said the land owner does not plan on saving the building, but is negotiating with Friends of Historic Preservation. Weitzel added that the waiting period for demolition has expired. Weitzel said the Commission hearing is necessary to for the application for a Historic Landmark to be considered by the Council. He said nothing can be done about staying the demolition until the item reaches City Council. Weitzel said that the Commission is determining tonight whether or not the Wetherby House should be granted a public hearing to be considered a registered historic landmark. Marybeth Slonneger, the applicant, said that she was accompanied by Carl Klaus, a retired professor and a co-representative in the Goosetown Neighborhood, Jackie Blank, Ken Slonneger, and Mike Haverkamp, President of Friends of Historic Preservation. She added that Mary Bennett from the State Historical Society of Iowa might be joining the meeting later. Marybeth Slonneger said the Wetherby House was sold on October 18, 1858 by Patrick Doyle and his wife Ann. She said Wetherby painted about 1,000 oil paintings and his works are displayed in museums in Boston, Des Moines, Davenport, and Iowa City. She said Wetherby was also a photographer and purchased a camera within two years of the camera becoming available. She said the State Historical Society has 1,450 glass plate negatives of his work. Slonneger said he took the first pictures of the Old Capitol dating back to 1854 when it was still the state capitol. She said the 935 E. Market Street house is the only house left in the United States with a direct connection to Wetherby. She said he lived there from the 1860 to around the 1900s. Historic Preservation Commission October 24, 2007 Page 2 Weitzel said tonight the Commission is only establishing merit to hear the significance of the property at a public hearing. Bennett said the Wetherby house qualifies for National Register status. She added that the property would continue to be eligible even if it is moved. Weitzel asked if it based on criterion B, significant persons. Bennett said it does meet criterion B because it is the only property left that is associated with Wetherby. Weitzel said that criterion B allows a property to become a landmark based on the person that lived there, not the historical architecture. Bennett reiterated the State Historical Society has found that the house qualifies on a preliminary basis. Weitzel said there has been no formal survey done on this house. Downing asked how long it has been known that 935 E. Market Street was Wetherby's property. Bennett said the State Historical Society has had records since the 1970s. Downing asked if the owner of the house has ever been approached about preservation or registry status. Slonneger said she approached the former owner of the house and didn't feel that she wanted to sell the house at the point. She said that she missed her chance to purchase it. Slonneger said the current owner bought the property on October 4'h, 2007. Downing asked what the current owner intends to do with the property at 935 E. Market. Slonneger said the property will be a four unit duplex as a rental property. Downing said it is zoned for single family in an RNS-12 zone. Michaud asked if it was currently a duplex. Weitzel said it is not a duplex. Terdalkar said duplex structures are allowed in RNS-12 zones. Michaud asked if the Commission should talk about what has been changed on the house. Weitzel said the Commission should determine if a property deserves a public hearing. Michaud asked if the front door has been relocated. Slonneger said pictures suggest that the entry was moved to the side of the house. Weitzel said there has been a lot of community support for moving the house. He said date needs to be determined when to move it. MOTION: Swaim moved to set a public hearing to establish 935 E. Market as a local landmark. Downing seconded the motion. Ponto said he thinks the house is potentially eligible and would like to have a public hearing. Baker said there is no reason not to have a hearing. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar suggested that the date for the public hearing should be part of the motion. MOTION: Swaim moved to amend the motion to have the hearing on November 15S at 6:00 p.m. Downing seconded the motion. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. Minutes submitted by Doug Ongie s/pcd/mi n s/h pc/2007/10-24-07. doc C O .y .~ 0 U c 0 R d N L Q. V .O i+ L 0 m m ~`' V O =o ~ N C ~+ ~.+ Q 2 o X ~ ~ X ~ ~ X X X X X X o X X X ~ X X X ~ X X X X ~ ; ~ ~ X X X ~ X X °' x x W 0 x x w 0 x x x . x x ~ w 0 x x x x w O x ~ N X O ~ W O X X X X X X co ~ ~ p X W O i i i W 0 W 0 X X X X X c '"' i X X ~ w O X W O X X X X n ~ ~ X 0 O X X p X X X X X ~ X ~ X X X X X ey O x x ~ O O X X X ~ X ~ o c• x X X ~ ~ X w O X X X X X ti £ d O 0 a0 0 r 0 O ~ 0 O 0 6~ 0 r 0 O 0 O O O a0 O F W ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N m N ~ N M M M M M M M M M M M M T N L c ~ N ~ _ ~ R ~ o ~ ~ o ' E .-oa E ~ d = t + Z m m U O t7 ~ ~ a ~ H F ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ W ;_, N C ~ C C N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~QZZ d Q II II II ~' II II W ~ ~ YXOOZ FINAL /APPROVED 5b(5) POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -October 16, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Engel, Loren Horton, Donald King MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Roth STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle, Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD; public, Caroline Dieterle and Dean Abel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE Roth and Engel were appointed to the nominating committee at the September 11th meeting. Engel reported that the committee had met and would like to nominate Michael Larson for Chair and Elizabeth Engel for Vice-Chair. CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING Motion by Horton, seconded by King to prescribe the method of voting by a voice vote and use majority vote for the basis for decision. Motion carried, 4/0. Roth absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON Motion by Horton, seconded by King to close nominations. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Nomination of Michael Larson for office of Chairperson as selected by the nominating committee. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. NOMINATIONS-FOR OFFICE OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON Motion by Engel, seconded by Horton to close nominations. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Nomination of Elizabeth Engel for office of Vice-Chairperson as selected by the nominating committee. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by King to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 09/11/07 • ICPD General Order 05-01 (Persons With Mental Illness) • ICPD General Order 07-02 (Detainee Processing) • ICPD SOG #01-15 (Criminal Investigations) • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (Quarter 3) - IAIR/PCRB, 2007 PCRB October 16, 2007 Page 2 Engel had questions regarding General Order 05-01 (Persons with Mental Illness) page 3, item B regarding the directive "should" in the first paragraph and "always do so" in B(1 ). Widmer explained that "should" means the officer has the option on calls if they are familiar with the individual and there's no danger to call off the backup, but when an individual is taken into custody it is always with a backup. Larson wanted to know in regards to the same general order on the last page regarding training, what kind of training is provided. Widmer stated in the past various methods of training have been provided from Alzheimer's Association to agencies that work with mental illnesses come in and give in service training at the yearly MATS training. Officers have also been sent for specialized training for 2-3 days for special populations. Horton asked if this general order pertained to only those 18 and over rather than juveniles. Widmer said that they do not differentiate between the two when an officer recognizes a mental illness. It is also made sure that officers have the training to tell the difference between mental illness and intoxication or other things. Larson inquired about General Order 07-02 (Detainee Processing) on page 4, under Item B. (Emergnecy Alarms) what a DataMaster was. Widmer explained that the DataMaster is the device they have that is hard-wired into the State of Iowa where the intox machine is. With the possibility of radio frequencies interfering with the reading, the policy is that radios are shut off and a fixed alarm button is used in the detention rooms if assistance is needed. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Abel wanted to know when the Board asks questions referring to a general order, who answers those questions. Widmer explained that he discusses questions that come up with the Chief. The Chief is required to sign off on all the general orders. Widmer explained the re-evaluation dates and the color codes associated with the general orders. Abel confirmed that the general orders were available on-line. Widmer directed him how to get to them. Abel complimented the Board, the City, and the Police Department for having an open policy on making information available to those who want to search it out. BOARD INFORMATION Horton and Engel both informed the Board that they had been contacted by a DI reporter who had questions regarding the annual report. Dieterle stated she was the archivist for the DI and that the story had been published and she could drop a copy off in the Clerk's office for the Board. STAFF INFORMATION Pugh received a phone call on September 17th from Ken Hawes who is the Chairperson for the Johnson County Republican party and he wanted to understand the ramifications of the proposed ballot language to the Board. PCRB October 16, 2007 Page 3 Tuttle asked Board members to review the contact list that was in the packet and inform her of changes and reminded them that information given to her was public. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • November 13, 2007, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Room (CANCELLED) • December 11, 2007, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Room • January 8, 2008, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Room • February 12, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Horton announced he would not be available for the December meeting and Engel stated she would not be in town for the February meeting. Motion by Horton, seconded by Engel to cancel the November 13 meeting due to lack of Board business. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King and seconded by Engel. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Meeting adjourned at 5:53 P.M. ~°o~c u n ii ii ii zz~~b o c ~c~, ~ ~ ~~ c -~ a. d r~ G~ xr ~r~ ~~ ~ fD o ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o z ~ a ~ ~ ~ v a ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ `~ ~ - o ~ ~ .r ~ ~ vc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 0 o b ~ .~ ~ x ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ N >C yC ~C ki 1~ N ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ W i 0 W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i A 0 ~ ~ ~ J i ~ a ~ a ~ a N l h yC >'C >'C X ~ t o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A i ~ yC ?C ~ ~C ~C ~ ~+ o y M"3 d ~ ~ l l TQ d o ~ ~ ~ ...i I~ O b r F^ l 1 ^~ l l ICI H C Youth Advisory Commission November 6, 2007 Lobby Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Bleam, Green, Keranen, Nelson, Segar, Weeks Members Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Karr Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 5:33PM Approve Minutes: Motioned by Segar, seconded by Keranen. Approved 6-0. Report from Website Subcommittee: No update. FINAL 5b 6 Report from Grant Proerammin~ Subcommittee: Keranen reported that she announced the Youth Empowerment Grant at the Student Citizenship Awards ceremony held during the Council meeting on November 5. She also reported that she would be posting Facebook ads shortly. The timing for the ads was discussed. It was agreed that the holiday season was not a good time to promote the grant due to the hectic nature, so another major advertising push would begin after the holidays in 2008. Green reported that she had given flyers to student group leaders at Regina High School. Nelson reported that he emailed information about the Youth Empowerment Grant to leaders of University of Iowa student groups that were interested in community service. Public Discussion: None. Vacancies: Applications are being accepted for two positions for ages 18 to 21. One of the 18 through 21 positions is immediately open, while the remaining open on January 1, 2008. Funding Request for Fiscal Year 2009: The fiscal year 2009 budget discussion from October 22, 2007 was reviewed. The following funds were decided upon to be requested: • Summer of the Arts Global Village: $500 • Website and Advertising: $500 • Youth Empowerment Grant: $2000 Keranen and Nelson agreed to produce a document to be included with the budget request form describing the rationale behind the budgeted amounts requested. Meeting Schedule: The next meeting is set for December 3 at 7:OOPM. Adjournment: Adjourned at 5:52PM. Motioned by Segar, seconded by Bleam. Approved 6-0. Minutes prepared by Nelson. Z O N O Q 2 H O O wti ~ w N ~ U ~ c ~ } ~ W H H Q X X X X X X N c X X 0 X X X ~- N X ; X X O ~ X X Q1 N N O p X X X ~ X N X X X X O ~ X ti X X ~ X X 0 X ti M X X X X 0 X N X X 0 X 0 ~ X r N X O X ~ X O X ; M N X X X X ~ X X N ~ _ , X X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a _ _ w X M M M c~ (~ c\ c~ M I- w N N N N N N N N L w O Y ~ = N , Q y 0 O O N O 7 ~ O T ~ R O ~ ~ N~ <4 N C C Z L ~ as ~ s d C QY in N ~ o ~ m ~ cis ~z =C7 m N i O d V ~ ~ x ~ ~ w .~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ca ~ rn a`aaZZ° II II II II II X O W ~ O z w Y 01-15-OS 5b 7 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION November 14, 2007 FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: David Bourgeois, Craig Gustaveson, Margie Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, John Watson MEMBERS ABSENT: Phil Reisetter, John Westefeld STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS PRESENT: Roger Anderson, Mary Bennett, Helen Burford, Abby Harvey, Ann Haugland, Bob Hibbs, Margaret Hibbs, Del Holland, Kathy Janz, Carl Klaus, Marybeth Slonneger, Linda Stipe, Florence Stockman, Megan Threlkeld, Jim Wells RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by O'Leary, that based on comments/concerns from the Reno Street Park neighborhood that the Commission does not support the request to relocate the Isaac Wetherby House currently at 935 Market Street to Reno Street Park either on a temporary or permanent basis. Unanimous. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by O'Leary, to move the Isaac Wetherby House, currently at 935 Market Street, to upper City Park with the condition that a written agreement be entered into stating that funding will be in place for relocation, restoration and ongoing maintenance, and other stipulations to be determined by Parks and Recreation Staff. Unanimous. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to approve the capital improvement priorities presented by staff with the exception of moving item #11, North Market Square Re-Development to position #8 on the list while moving the rest of the priorities down the list by 1. Unanimous. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Gustaveson to approve the minutes from our regular Commission meeting of October 10, 2007 as well as the minuets from the special meeting of November 7.2007. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSION No public discussion. Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 2 of 9 CONSIDER RENO STREET PARK OR ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR WETHERBY COTTAGE: There were 15 guests in attendance, most of them from the Goosetown/Reno Street Park neighborhood. Several of them spoke to the issue, some in favor of the house being moved to the park, and others opposed to such a move. Pacha asked that one representative speak to the Commission and public present giving a summary and update on the progress of the Wetherby Cottage. Marybeth Slonneger, on behalf of the Committee to Save the Wetherby Cottage, addressed the Commission. She discussed some of the other possible locations and the reasons that these areas would not be feasible for the placement of this house. Locations included North Market Square. It was determined that there was not enough room in this park for the house and there are too many trees that would be affected by the move. Happy Hallow was determined not a feasible choice due to the ball diamonds and a major sewer line in the park. Hickory Hill is surrounded by modern homes so this house would not fit into this neighborhood. Therefore, the committee comes before the Commission asking for their approval to move this house into Reno Street Park. Robinson talked with the house moving contractor with whom the committee had been working, and met at the site with Slonneger and Klaus. It was determined that if the house were to be moved to Reno Street Park it would be best located in the back of the park. Pacha reviewed the special meeting of November 7, 2007 with the public present, explaining that it was Commission's desire to hear from the neighbors in the area of Reno Street Park. At this point he asked members of the audience to speak to the Commission. Kathy Janz expressed her appreciation to the Wetherby Cottage Committee and other groups involved, and applauded the efforts to save the house. However, she also stated at this point she does not have an opinion about the Reno Street location as sufficient details were not provided in the mailing that was sent to the neighborhood. Her concerns include traffic issues, what will be done to deter vandalism, etc. Pacha reported that to date there are not a lot of details available. There is still a need to discuss and finalize a maintenance agreement, funds to do so, etc. Slonneger noted that it is the agreement of Friends of Historic Preservation to take care of the renovation of this house and that the Johnson County Historical Society is investigating options for continued maintenance and operation of the house for public use. Carl Klaus suggested that it would not be the neighborhood's responsibility to care for the house, reiterating Slonneger's statement that the Johnson County Historical Society would be taking care of this. He also stated that while he feels this house would be an attractive enhancement to Reno Street Park, he does ask that if it is placed in this park that it not impede on the play area or Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 3 of 9 other social areas of the park. He also feels that rather than a concrete trail to the house, it would be better to have a path constructed on the south side of the house. Bob Hibbs spoke to the Commission stating that he lives approximately one block away from the park. He understands that the Commission has a difficult task ahead of them. He feels that the house deserves to be saved and renovated; however, he does not view Reno Street Park as a permanent location. He recommends that the house be moved to this park, but only on a temporary basis, then move it to a permanent location within three to five years. Pacha stated that the Commission is not inclined to consider a temporary location for the house, as this could be wrought with issues, and it would have to be moved twice. Linda Stipe spoke of her concern with traffic problems, however, feels that the placement of this house in Reno Street Park would fit in with the neighborhood, and feels that it just further highlights the fact that Iowa City is a great place to live. She does have concerns about the width of Reno Street and how that will affect the move of this house into the park. Florence Stockman, who is an owner of a few properties in this neighborhood, was present on behalf of her tenants. Overall they feel that this park is too small to accommodate the house. They are also concerned about traffic. They also asked if the Commission has considered Wetherby Park. Pacha reported that Wetherby Park is on the list of possible locations. Roger Anderson asked if all of the land within the park is dedicated parkland. Trueblood stated that it is. Anderson said that he would like to see it stay that way. He asked what the plan was for a budget for continued care of this house. He asked why not buy the property where it is currently sitting. Slonneger reported that this is not an option as Mr. McLaughlin is planning to build two duplexes on the property. Mary Bennett from the State Historical Society stated that the City Planning Department has been aware of the historic value of this house for several years. She feels that Isaac Wetherby is an important figure of Iowa City and should be considered as much so as Grant Wood. She thanked the Commission for their consideration. Anderson asked if the City had property available that they would be willing to give the Mr. McLaughlin in trade for the property that the house is currently on. Staff is aware of none. Pacha asked that discussion be restricted to the Commission at this time. Gustaveson stated that he sees this as a no-win situation. He feels that it is not the charge of the Commission to make such a decision as far as what becomes of the house, stating that it is the mission of the Parks and Recreation Commission to preserve parks. He is not in favor of using a large portion of a small park for this purpose. He did express his appreciation for all of the work this committee has done in such a short time period. Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 4 of 9 Bourgeois expressed his desire to find some way to save the house. However, he also feels that it is important that the City be free of any maintenance or liability on the house, and that money needs to be present to take care of these needs. Pacha again stated that moving the house on a temporary basis is not financially feasible as it would cost twice to move it and it would not be a good idea to renovate a house and then move it again. He feels that it would be better placed on some county land but not in a city park. O'Leary is proud of the group for their efforts. He would like to further investigate the availability of vacant lots. He feels it is difficult to ignore the concerns mentioned by both neighbors and the Commission. He also feels that there are a lot of conditions that need to be ironed out before approving such a move. Raaz noted that he has worked for a house mover in the past and that homes are never the same after being moved, agreeing with Pacha that a temporary move is not a wise choice. He asked Committee and staff if anyone has asked Mr. McLaughlin what his price would be to sell the house and property as it sits. Slonneger answered that he owns four lots and his desire is to build multiple duplexes; that this is his livelihood and would not be willing to sell. Loomer asked what damage would there be to the trees if this house is moved. Robinson reported that there may be one elm tree to be removed but otherwise no other trees would be affected by the move. He also stated that the difference between the street and park height is 32", making it necessary to cut the slope and that this is usually done by cutting down the soil. Watson asked for more discussion on how the house will be used. Slonneger reported that it is the intent of the Johnson County Historical Society to provide living history type activities dating to the time period of the house. Bennett stated that the hope is also to use it as a learning lab, i.e., the renovation process would provide a learning opportunity. She also reminded everyone present that while all of the details are not available yet, it is the Committee's desire to save the house from destruction at this point. Pacha asked Commission that in order to consider Reno Street Park if there was more information needed. O'Leary indicated that alternative locations need to be considered. Slonneger reported that they were notified on October 10 of this impending demolition of the house. At that time she began contacting real estate agencies and Bob Miklo with the Iowa City Planning Department. They noted that there are two vacant properties in Iowa City -- one on Hotz Avenue in which the .owner never responded to calls, and another property on Prairie Du Chien Road, and it was determined that this house would not fit in well with the other homes in the neighborhood. There was some discussion about contacting the Hayek family regarding the possibility of them selling their property adjacent to Happy Hollow Park to the City. Trueblood will follow up with them. Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 5 of 9 Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by O'Leary, that based on comments/concerns from the _Reno Street Park neighborhood that the Commission does not support the request to relocate the Isaac Wetherby House, currently at 935 Market Street, to Reno Street Park either on a temporary or permanent basis. Unanimous. At this time there was further discussion about other possible locations, including Wetherby Park, Hickory Hill Park, Happy Hollow Park, Oak Grove Park, Upper City Park, and private lots including property adjacent to Happy Hollow Park, and the possibility of purchasing the house and lot where it currently sits. Both Commission and staff indicated their preference that the house be saved on private property, but also realize the urgency of the situation, which is why they are willing to consider a park location for the house. Upon staff's recommendation they considered and discussed the possibility of recommending that the house to be moved to Upper City Park, and to have it located in place of one of the existing log cabins (the smaller one of the two). This particular log cabin is in very poor shape, and either needs to be demolished and rebuilt or demolished and removed. Of the various park locations considered, this is the one staff would prefer. After considerable discussion, the Commission determined they could support this location, but they need assurances that the City will bear no financial burden relative to moving, restoring, maintaining or operating the Wetherby House, and that the house will not sit in a park for a lengthy period of time before restoration is completed. Their conditions for supporting the City Park location include, but may not be limited to, the following: • A written agreement must be entered into between the City and the appropriate organization(s). • This agreement must include an appropriate timeline for restoration. • The Committee to Save the Wetherby Cottage and their supporters must ensure that all necessary funding is in place to cover the costs of the relocation, the restoration and ongoing maintenance. • The Committee or a supporting organization must assume responsibility for, and costs associated with, operating and/or programming the house. • The City will be allowed to sponsor programs, events or meetings in the house, on a space available basis, at no charge. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by O'Leary, to support moving the Isaac Wetherby House, currently at 935 Market Street, to upper City Park with the condition that a written agreement be entered into stating that funding will be in place for relocation, restoration and on~oin~ maintenance, and other stipulations to be determined by Parks and Recreation Staff. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 6 of 9 CONSIDER PRIORITIES FOR PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Trueblood presented the Commission with last year's priority list of the Parks and Recreation Department Capital Improvement Pro~eCts, including a brief status report, aS follows: 1. Iowa River Trail Bridge -Rocky Shore to Peninsula Park - $1,300,000 Currently shown in FYI I -requested for FY08, but council moved it back. 2. Mercer Pool Roof Repairs - $425,000 In progress 3. Mercer Park Ball Diamond Upgrades - $100,000 In progress 4. Sand Lake Recreation Area Development -- $5,000,000+ Multi year budget (FY07-FYIl). Current cost estimate is $6,100, 000 which includes $350, 000 for new land acquisition, but does not include the initial $1, 000, 000 paid for the original land acquisition. 5. Willow Creek Trail West - $1,400,000 Currently on the unfunded list Revised cost estimate is $2, 500, 000 6. Napoleon Park Restroom/Concession Building - $225,000 In progress 7. Soccer Park Improvements - $250,000 Currently shown as budgeted in FY09 8. Peninsula Park Development - $250,000 Currently shown as budgeted in FYIO 9. Sand Prairie Enhancement & Preservation - $250,000 Currently on unfunded list, but we do have $38, 000 REAP Grant to get started on tree removal. 10. City Park Sidewalk Replacement & Trail Lighting - $260,000 Currently on unfunded list; new cost estimate is X300,000 Following is a list of proposed capital improvement priorities for FY09 and beyond for the Commissions' consideration: 1. Replace Recreation Center roof ($330,000) 2. Rocky Shore/Peninsula Pedestrian Bridge ($1,300,000) 3. Sand Lake Recreation Area Development ($6,100,000) Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 7 of 9 4. Willow Creek trail, West -under Highway 218 ($2,500,000) 5. Wetherby Park Splash Pad ($200,000) 6. Recreation Center Improvements ($225,000) 7. Soccer Park Improvements ($650,000) 8. Sand Prairie Development ($258,000) 9. Peninsula Park Development ($300,000) 10. City Park Trail Lighting ($200,000) 11. North Market Square Re-Development ($280,000) 12. Napoleon Softball Field Renovation ($180,000) 13. Waterworks Park Hospice Memorial ($115,000) 14. Hickory Hill Park Bridge ($50,000) 15. Frauenholtz-Miller Park Development ($280,000) Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to approve the capital improvement priorities as submitted with the exception of moving item #11, North Market Square Re- Development, to position #8 on the list and move the rest of the priorities down the list by 1. Unanimous. Trueblood briefly discussed preliminary fees and charges with Commission noting that pool fees will be increasing. He asked Moran to discuss how the minimum wage increase affects the budget. Moran reported that this increase will affect wages across the board and this will make it necessary to increase the wage portion of the budget by approximately $50,000 for the year. COMMISSION TIME: O'Leary noted as a point of discussion that certain items that serve the larger population need to be moved to the top of the priority list. Raaz asked if there was any more development with the Elks club. Trueblood understood that they were to provide a list to the Commission members. Raaz indicated that he thought the Elks Club might be waiting on some information from the department. Trueblood will follow up. Bourgeois noted that he would like to follow-up with those who purchased golf passes to get their thoughts on the program. Tammy Neumann will provide Bourgeois with a roster. Watson reported that the Wetherby House has provided an excellent history lesson to all involved and can provide an opportunity to continue this in the future. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha thanked everyone for their time and patience on the Wetherby House project. Pacha reported that Veridian Credit Union has donated $2000 toward the Parks and Recreation Foundation. A thank you letter will go out to them soon. Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 8 of 9 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood noted that there is a special meeting of the Council scheduled for Thursday, November 15 at 5:30 to discuss the Wetherby House. Trueblood reported that the survey component of the master plan is completed, but it has been decided, in discussions with Leisure Vision, that it would be best to wait until after the holidays to mail it. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Raaz, seconded by Gustaveson to adiourn the meeting at 7:10 q.m. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission November 14, 2007 Page 9 of 9 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2007 NAME EXPIRES ~ ~ ~ N M o ~ ~ ~ ~ \ r` ~ ~ O~ o c r` o ~+ ~ David Bour eois 1/1/11 X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E X X X X Craig Gustaveson 1/1/11 X O/E O/E O/E X X X X X X X X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X X O/E O/E X X X X X O/E X X Ryan O'Lear 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X X X X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X X X X X X X X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 O/E X X X X X X O/E O/E X X O/E John Watson 1/1/11 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X X X X X John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E KEY: X = 0= O/E _ NM = LQ = Present Absent Absent/Excused No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member 5b 8 MINUTES FINAL Iowa City Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 5:45 PM Members Present: Howard Horan, Chair; Randy Hartwig; Janelle Rettig; John Staley Members Absent: Greg Farris Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Jim Meade, Terry Edmonds, Jay Honeck, David Hughes, Herrel Timmons, John Yoemans, Joe Merschman, Turk Regennitter, Skip Long, Peggy Slaughter DETERMINE QUORUM: The meeting was called to order at 5:47 P.M. by Horan. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 11, 2007 MEETING: Horan asked Members if they had any changes, corrections for the minutes. Rettig moved to accept the October 11, 2007 minutes as submitted; seconded by Staley. Motion carried 4-0, Farris Absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park -Peggy Slaughter addressed the Members, stating that she cannot give any names, but that there is a lot of activity currently. She noted that there is a Letter of Intent on Lot 6, and that she has met with the City regarding this. She stated that the interested party is still asking for incentives. She further stated that Harry Wolfe is working with this party to try and get a formal agreement going. Slaughter then noted that they also had a meeting regarding Lots 17, 16, 15, and 14, in which a couple businesses would possibly be building together. She gave the Members a brief overview of the two meetings concerning these four lots. Slaughter continued, stating that the group interested in Lots 1 through 4 that requested a meeting with the City some time ago has been somewhat in limbo as the lead person just gave Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page2of10 birth; however, they are planning to start meeting again regarding these lots. Slaughter noted that she has two builders that have asked for follow-up information, and also a local contractor has been in touch, looking for ten acres. Rettig asked for some clarification on the outlots, to which Dulek responded, stating that the Commission could decide to lease them for something such as leased storage space. Slaughter then asked the Commission if they knew when the south lots would be available, as she wants to keep the party that is seeking ten acres interested in the Airport Commerce Park. Horan stated that it could be around eighteen months to two years before a decision is reached on the south lots, and Rettig followed up that she is not interested in the south lots being developed yet either. The discussion turned to Yeomans, the farm manager for the Airport land, stating that currently they lease this land to Williams as long as they mow and hay it. He asked the Commission if they would like to permanently terminate agricultural activities on this land and have the City maintain it instead, which he further noted would eliminate any agricultural leases. Rettig noted that they do this at their own risk, and if land sells, that ends the agreement anyway. She further stated that it saves the Airport from having to mow. Members noted that after the first of the year they should have a better idea on where the development is headed. Slaughter then wrapped up her presentation, stating that the amount of development in the area is a good sign. b. Farmers National Company - Merschman Seeds -Yeomans noted that they were still awaiting Joe Merschman 's arrival. Members decided to go on to Item c. Hangar #56 -Terry Edmonds -Hartwig excused himself due to conflict of interest. Edmonds addressed the Members, stating that he and Tharp have discussed the options available for the extra space in Hangar 56. He noted that they were not able to come up with anything very practical, but that they did discover that Jet Air would like to sublease the hangar during the winter months. Edmonds stated that this works for him as he does not fly much during the winter. The Members then discussed the proposal in front of them. Horan stated that it sounded like a good arrangement, as did Rettig. Rettig asked for some clarification of the agreement that they were presented with, and Tharp responded. Staley moved to approve the proposal as outlined by Terry Edmonds; seconded by Rettig. Motion carried 3-0; Hartwig recused himself due to conflict of interest, Farris Absent. d. National Guard - i. Consider a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing fora 5-Year Lease with the Army Reserve -Tharp noted, first of all, that there is a typo - it should be the Army Reserve, not the National Guard. He stated that this lease is up, and the Army Reserves would like to 2 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page 3 of 10 sign another five-year lease. Tharp stated that he gave them a price that included a CIP inflator and they tentatively accepted this, pending the public hearing. Hartwig moved to consider Resolution A07-30, setting a public hearing for December 13, 2007, regarding a 5-year lease with the Army Reserves; seconded by Staley. Motion carried 4-0, Farris Absent. b. Farmers National Company - Merschman Seeds -Yeomans addressed the Members, stating that he needs to get some agreement on leasing the remaining farm ground at the Airport. He noted that at the last meeting they had an in-depth presentation from Merschman's about creating a test plot site and he reiterated how interested Merschman Seeds is in the Airport's farm ground. He asked if Members had any questions, to which Horan asked what would need to happen after two or three seasons that would make him feel this was not a good idea. Merschman noted that they already do this type of activity and that moving it to the Airport makes it a unique location. He also noted that moving it to Iowa City is also a plus for them. Regennitter joined Merschman in explaining to the Members why they would like to use the farm ground at the Airport, and how they can work together. The conversation continued, with Hartwig noting that his big concern is that they don't yet know what they want to do in the south area, and he also noted the wildlife mitigation issues for the Airport. Basically, he stated, if they could afford to not have agricultural products on the field, they probably would not, just from the standpoint of trying to alleviate wildlife hazards from the runways. Staley asked if they would be content with a shorter lease, such as a 3- or 5-year lease. Merschman stated that they could work with that, that ashort-term lease gives them the opportunity to see if it will work for them, as well. Rettig asked for some clarification on this agricultural proposal. She asked if the seed was genetically modified, to which Merschman responded that 80 to 85% of all seed are modified now in the U.S. Rettig stated that there are political ramifications locally to allow something like this to occur on public land at the Airport. She noted that she is not comfortable taking on this type of situation. Merschman explained that in order to do what they want to do, they need the hard surface/pavement. Staley noted that this project would not be a change in what is already being done with the farm ground. Yeomans noted that he is trying to get more money for the Airport, with fewer acres, by proposing this project. Regennitter addressed the genetically modified seed issue somewhat, noting that most all of the seeds are modified in this day and age. Rettig noted again that this is a political issue in Iowa City, and that she does not 3 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page 4 of 10 care to get involved in something like this. She noted that she is also concerned about safety issues with something like this going on at the Airport, with so many people coming and going. Hartwig asked what the timeline is to get back with Merschman, and they noted that the sooner the better, so they could arrange things on their end, as well. Horan then asked for some clarification on the genetically modified seeds, to which Merschman and Regennitter responded briefly. They noted that European companies are already using these seeds aggressively. Merschman then talked to the Members about the "gene shuffling" process and the tolerance that is produced. Rettig noted, again, that they are an Airport - not a farm. She noted that people are against these modified foods, and she feels that this could be a liability for the Airport. She noted that she was a little taken off guard last month when this was brought up, and that she is not comfortable with the whole issue. Staley noted that he feels differently -that he feels this is a great thing, and that it fits with one of the missions of the University. He asked what kind of terms they would be looking at if they did go ahead with something like this. Yeomans noted that the total for this year will be a little more than $16,000, and that the proposal he has discussed with Regennitter was for $25,000. Dulek noted that as far as terms, if they want three or more years, they would need to stop discussion and have a public hearing on it. If they can come to an agreement tonight on terms, it would have to be for under three years. Merschman noted that they would help fund the entryway that they would need to add. Timmons stated that he was the Airport Manager in Galesburg for 20-some years, and that a large part of their budget came from the farming operations. He noted that there is a research farm close to the Airport, and that Monsanto is one of their biggest customers because of this. He stated that he feels it would be prudent to look at using their assets (farm ground) as best they can. The conversation turned to Staley noting what they would be looking at in terms of revenue and economic impact for the area. It was noted that this would be around $80,000 the first year alone. Rettig turned the discussion to the usage at the south end of the Airport, and the various liability issues they could encounter. Merschman and Regennitter confirmed that they would also be very concerned about safety concerns and liability issues. Regennitter reiterated that they would only want to proceed if everyone is one the same page -that they would like to pursue along-term plan, but only if all concerns are taken care of. Tharp noted that he feels that until the study of the south area is completed, it maybe next year before they can address this with Regennitter and Merschman Seeds. Staley noted that he believes they should take advantage of whatever they can for this area, at least until they have firm decisions on what they want to do with the land. Horan said atwo-year proposal would be agreeable with him, to 4 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page 5 of 10 which Staley agreed. Horan suggested they put their proposal together and distribute it to the Members prior to next months' meeting. Yeomans asked if they could negotiate terms now, to which Rettig stated she would have to have the details first. Dulek noted that there are several issues, including the culvert, and they should come up with a proposal and offer a contract. Staley moved to consider a proposal from Merschman Seeds, and that the Commission meets as soon as this proposal is ready; seconded by Hartwig. Horan then suggested that as they are working on their proposal, that they contact any of the Members as needed, so they could get this process going. Rettig stated that she feels they should not proceed with this, and that she is unwilling to defend GMO. Regennitter stated that perhaps they should withdraw their proposal and find someone who wants to work with them. Horan and others called for a vote. Motion carried 3-1; Rettig in the negative, Farris Absent. Regennitter asked if they wanted to pursue this, and Yeomans stated that the lease is open and he won't be doing anything right away. Merschman noted that the local farmer is growing GMO seeds currently -that this is no different. Staley stated that he is glad to see these developments happening with farming. Hangar Expansion -Building H ii. Consider a Resolution Approving Engineering Services Contract for Expansion of Hangar and Office Space -Tharp noted that they had anticipated having an engineering agreement to approve, but that it is not ready. He further stated that they would need to defer this to next month's meeting. Staley moved to defer Item e, consider a resolution approving engineering services contract for expansion of hangar and office space to the December 13, 2007 meeting; seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 4-0, Farris Absent. f. FAA/IDOT Projects -Earth Tech -David Hughes iii. Runway 7/25 -Hughes noted that they have had a very busy month with construction. They are about 90% done with paving, with just a small piece between the old and new runways that they need to complete. They are about 80% done with grade on that end of the project, with paving most likely being done in the spring. He responded to Members' questions concerning this small portion. Hughes continued, stating that electricals are now in and they will be starting on runway closures next week on 7-25. This involves moving the runway lights. He then responded to Members' questions regarding how the electrical fixtures will be installed. Rettig then asked Hughes for clarification on the daytime closing of the runway. Hughes explained how this would work, and that it covers from 7:00 A.M. until approximately 4:30 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page6of10 or 5:00 P.M. This could take up to two weeks to complete this part of the project. Rettig then stated that for Tharp's monthly newsletter, she would like to see a "factoid" about how many loads of concrete it took to pave the runway. Hughes stated that he could get information like this for Rettig. iv. South Aviation Development Study -Hughes stated that they did get comments back finally on the Willow Creek study. They will now finalize their report on the south area of the Airport, and will get this information out as soon as they can. v. South Taxilane Rehab -Hughes stated that they are working on the drainage problem and met with Ron Knoche earlier today. vi. Jet A Fuel System / AvGas Upgrade -Hughes stated that the contractor has ordered his materials, and is awaiting those. He is also working with Jet Air on credit card information and that type of thing, before he can proceed. There is no definite delivery date on this. vii. Terminal Apron Rehab -Hughes said that as of today, this is 90+% complete. He said there's some cleanup to do and some seeding, and a small amount of paving yet to do. viii. Obstruction Mitigation - MidAmerican has agreed to this, and Hughes stated that they have been working with Dulek on finishing up the easement issues. Once this is completed, he stated that they would then move forward. Hartwig asked when they expect this to be completed, and Dulek responded. ix. United Hangar -Hughes stated that they are in the process of finalizing specs and hope to have something ready for review before Thanksgiving. Rettig asked if they would be recycling the steel when they bring this hangar down, and Hughes stated that it is entirely up to the contractor what he wants to do with it. Members asked miscellaneous questions of Hughes on some of the above projects, to which he responded. x. Runway 7-25 Overlay -Hughes noted that they have prepared this contract for the next phase of the project. He briefly explained what this contract entails. Hartwig asked when this has to be in to the FAA, and Tharp stated that they wanted something by mid- month, but after talking to the current Grant Administrator, he is now aware of where the Airport is with this and said it should not be a problem. Rettig asked for clarification on having the 7-25 runway project and the 12-30 crack sealing project being rolled into one. This was explained by Tharp and others, who stated that they are trying to get some pavement improvements done yet this winter. Tharp then explained to Members that they need to either approve this tonight, which he recommends, and let the Chair sign it when it is ready, or they will need to defer. 6 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page 7 of 10 i. Consider a Resolution Approving Engineering Services Contract for Runway 7-25 Overlay and 12-30 Crack Sealing Project -Staley moved to Consider Resolution A07-31, approving engineering services contract for Runway 7-25 Overlay and 12-30 Crack Sealing Project; seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 3-1; Rettig in the negative, Farris Absent. g. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Horan asked if members had any questions about these. Rettig asked about the $14100 deposit and Tharp responded that it was the receipt from the easement that Larson had been seeking. Rettig asked about the plans for that money, and related during budget discussions this money was going to be used to accelerate some driveway maintenance. Tharp confirmed that is still the plan. Rettig asked about the credit to the bike racks noting that the bike racks cost $900 instead of $2100. Tharp commented that he would have mentioned that at the last meeting, but didn't have that information. Rettig asked about $1300 that was in the Minor Office Equipment /Furniture line. Tharp responded that this was the conference room chairs and had not been coded correctly, and he would talk to accounting to fix it. Tharp commented that he and Horan had met with the City Manager and presented the FY2009. Tharp said that so far the budget is being presented as the airport request. Tharp stated they had also discussed the Capital Improvement projects with the department head's and city manager and that the proposed hangar they will be seeking funds from the state for is set to be included in the plans. xi. Consider a Resolution Authorizing the Operations Specialist and Chairperson to Make Purchases and Sign Contracts -Horan began the discussion by stating that he believes the existing Resolution A06-21 should remain in effect for now. Staley noted that the proposal seems realistic to him, that Tharp would have the same level of authorization as the A06-21 Resolution, as would the Chair, to make certain decisions on items. Horan and Rettig asked some procedural questions of Dulek, to which she responded. Rettig noted again that she does not see a need to change this right now, and that if there is an emergency, the Members should all be contacted. Tharp noted that he usually speaks to the Chair at least weekly, if not daily at times, so he feels the communication is there, and that by doing this it would make the daily operations easier for him. Members asked questions of Tharp, trying to get a better understanding of whether or not they need to consider this resolution. Members discussed the chances of getting the 3 members necessary for quorum together on short notice. Members felt that if 3 couldn't be there that a conference call could be made. Dulek stated that a member could participate by speaker phone but 7 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page8of10 the meeting cannot occur by conference call. Members asked Tharp if they could do that at the airport. Tharp responded that they would have to move to one of the offices for a speaker phone, but that they could do that from the airport. Hartwig moved to defer Item g, consider a resolution authorizing Operations Specialist and Chairperson to make purchases and sign contracts to the December 13, 2007 meeting; seconded by Staley. Motion carried 4-0, Farris Absent. h. FBO Staff Report -Timmons stated that they are busy getting ready for winter. Last week they purchased a snowplow truck, which will help to clean their area faster. They are now atwo-thirds Iowa, one-third Illinois company, having just taken over the Burlington Airport. He noted that on November 15 they are having an FAA safety seminar in the hangar. There could be upwards of 100 people. The FAA will be here to participate, and they usually get a good turnout. He invited everyone to attend, if they would like. Tharp noted that it runs from 7:00 to 9:00. He noted that they hired two more mechanics recently, and they now exceed a half million dollars a year on their payroll in Iowa City. They have two jets based here currently. Timmons noted, again, how important the farming was to the Airport in Galesburg, and how it could be of benefit here, as well. A brief discussion ensued about Jet Air doing so well, and Timmons stated that you have to be willing to be there all the time and you have to think positively. Rettig noted that she had asked Woolford about their sale of planes and how this affects the tax issue. Timmons stated that he has not figured it out yet, as Iowa has a different tax arrangement than Illinois. Rettig noted that she would like to have the information in order to show how this is contributing to the overall tax base for the economy. Timmons noted that they recently sold two airplanes to the State Police. He also noted that Jet Air is doing most of the major maintenance, and some of the routine maintenance, for the Civil Air Patrol for the entire Midwestern area. i. Subcommittees' Reports -Tharp noted that the viewing area has been started. They have six support beams up and are waiting for the rest of the structure to arrive. j. Commission Members' Reports -Horan stated that he has taken a lot of pictures of the construction. Rettig noted that JCCOG met to prioritize trails recently, and that she heard that they were told that no one would use a trail out by the Airport. She believes they need to continue pushing for a sidewalk by the Airport. Hartwig congratulated the new City Council Members who won in this week's election. He also noted that in regards to the booklet for hangars, Jan Nash sent him a letter in the summer about some thoughts on 8 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page9of10 this. He suggested they meet with her to see what she has in mind. Staley asked if anyone had seen the Corridor Business General, and he noted an editorial on making the corridor better. One issue was to change the name of the Eastern Iowa Airport, and another is to create a regional airport authority. k. Staff Report -Tharp noted that he has drafts of the Forecast Study, as requested at the last meeting. He also gave the Members a draft of the 2007 Annual Report, and asked to get feedback by the next meeting from Members, stating that he would like to get this in by the end of the year. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: December 13, 2007 at 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 8:51 P.M. Chairperson Date 9 Airport Commission November 8, 2007 Page 10 of 10 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2007 Meetin Date NAME TERM EXP. 1/11 2/8 3/8 3/28 4/12 5/10 5/15 6/7 6/8 6/28 7/9 7/19 Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X X O X X X X X Greg Farris 3/1/13 O/E X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X X X X X X O X O/E O/E X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E NAME TERM EXP. 8/1 8/9 8/13 9/5 9/13 9/24 10/11 11/8 12/13 Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X X X X Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X X X O/E John Staley 3/1/10 O/E X O/E O/E O/E O/E X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 10 FINAL/APPROVED September 2007 5b(9) MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 ASSEMBLY ROOM Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM Members Present: Robert Engel, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Sarah Maiers and Nancy Wombacher Members Absent: Chuck Felling and David Gould Staff Present: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping Others Present: Eve Casserly and Lynn Campbell RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None APPROVAL OF MINUTES-Honohan Motion: to be accepted as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Engel/Kelly. PUBLIC DISCUSSION-Honohan None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS-Honohan Kelly agreed to write the web article summarizing today's meeting for posting on the Center's website. Maiers will report on today's meeting to the City Council and Honohan will visit the Board of Supervisors. Maiers volunteered to write the web article summarizing the October 2007 meeting and Kelly volunteered to report on the October meeting to both the City Council and Board of Supervisors. EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION COMMITTEE REPORT-Maiers Maiers reviewed the committee's discussion of staff coverage during extended hours of operation noting that multiple solutions, including the use of existing staff, hiring temporary employees, securing volunteers, and eliminating extended hours of operation had been discussed. Maiers presented the recommendations of the committee noting that given current staffing and financial constraints they appeared to be the best options for insuring the safe and secure after hour use of the facility. FINAL/APPROVED September 2007 Motion: To adopt the following recommendations in order to provide staff coverage during extended hours of operation: 1. Eliminate all member access to the computer lab, exercise room and pool room on weekdays between 5 - 7 PM and on Sundays between 10:30 AM - 1:30 PM 2. Identify volunteers to staff the fitness room, computer lab and pool room on Saturdays between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. If possible, this could be extended to include Sundays as well. 3. Post signage in the fitness rooms to indicate that the person is using the equipment at ones own risk and ask all users to sign a release of liability. 4. Identify one person (instructor or participant) in each group that meets during extended hours who will assume responsibility for turning off lights, closing the room and responding to emergencies. The person will receive a brief orientation to familiarize him or her with safe areas of the building, fire exits and the location of first aid kits and emergency phones. This would apply to all after hour classes and programs as well as rentals. 5. Staff members will continue to attend the first session of each new evening and weekend Center sponsored and organized class to orient participants. 6. Special event programming (e.g. Gallery Walks, Skin Cancer Screening) will continue to be covered by staff. 7. The Maintenance Worker I (MWI) will do a minimum of one building walk-through each weekday between 8:30 and 9 PM. Because only one person fills this position, this would not be done when the MWI is sick or on vacation. 8. Continue to document after hour programming and building use and submit this information along with the new staff request for FY09. Maiers/Engel Discussion: Wombacher asked how staff would get participants to sign a release of liability specific to the exercise room. Buhman responded that the front desk staff is already asking members to sign a general release of liability form when they join the Center. An additional form specific to the fitness area could easily be included. Engel asked if the general release forms used now would be sufficient. A copy of the current release was distributed. There was general agreement that the form was not sufficient, even as a general release, and suggested it be reviewed by the City Legal Department. The suggestion to have volunteers to staff the pool room, exercise room and computer lab was discussed at length. Questions related to this recommendation included: Will the room remain closed if a volunteer does not show up to work? How will the door programming system accommodate something like this? Honohan expressed his concern that the Commission originally entered into this discussion with the idea to extend the current hours of operation and we are now recommending a curtailment. He would like to see a volunteer system in place if the right volunteers could be identified. Engel suggested that the Commission could accept the committee's recommendation to implement a volunteer staffing program with the addition of a sunset clause requiring that the program be evaluated for effectiveness three months after it is implemented. Engel asked if any of the funds currently allocated for temporary staff could be used to hire a temporary worker to staff the building after hours and on Saturdays. Kopping indicated that the funding available was calculated based upon the anticipated salaries of FINAL/APPROVED September 2007 the part-time temporary workers who staff SCTV. She said she would review the FY08 funding allocated for part-time temps and work study wages to see if it could be reallocated to accommodate this position. She will report her findings at the October Commission meeting. Kelly suggested the Center apply for a grant to fund the position. Move: To defer the motion until the October meeting. Engel/Kelly motion carried on a vote of 5-0. REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO UPGRADE EQUIPMENT IN THE COMPUTER LAB- Kopping Kopping reported that she has received numerous complaints from users of the computer lab regarding the computers and their functionality. She shared a letter from a group of regular computer lab users that expressed their frustration with the outdated computers and the inability to upgrade the systems any further. Kopping provided the Commission with a cost estimate for a comprehensive computer lab upgrade. The estimated cost for equipment and lab set-up is $13,797. Kopping indicated that the new computers would be Macs, but that a software program is now available that will allow the Macs to look and operate like PCs. This would allow us to offer classes in both formats. Casserly suggested the Center apply for a grant to fund Computer lab improvements. Kopping endorsed the suggestion and recommended that funds be made available through Senior Center Fund Inc only if grant support was not available. ADJOURN FOR A MEETING OF IOWA CITY SENIOR CENTER FUND, INC RECONVENE THE SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEETING OPERATIONS -Kopping The Commission reviewed the year end Gift Fund Report for FY07. The report shows an account balance of $15,196.09 with donations of $935 earmarked for the Scholarship Fund, $3,065 earmarked for the Senior Center Endowment Fund, and $350 earmarked for the Charitable Giving account, leaving $10,846.09 in non-designated donations. Motion: To transfer $15,196.09 from the Gift Fund to Senior Center Fund Inc. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Engel/Kelly Kopping reported that the showers that were included in the ADA bathroom upgrade project are incorporated with the construction of two additional rest rooms. Because the two additional restrooms are required, the total cost for the showers is a relatively small add on of approximately $6,000. The entire bathroom renovation project will be presented to the Council for final approval at the October 2 City Council Meeting. COMMISSION DISCUSSION-Honohan Honohan reported his visit to the City Council. Motion: To ask the City Attorney to review the current release of liability form. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Kelly/Engel. Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Kelly/Wombacher FINAL/APPROVED September 2007 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2007 Name Term Expires 1 / 16 2/20 3/ 19 4/ 17 6/ 19 7/ 17 8/21 9/21 Bob Engel 12/31/08 X X O/E X X X X X David Gould 12/31/08 X X X O/E O/E X X O/E Chuck Felling 12/31/09 N/A N/A X X X X X O/E Jay Honohan 12/31 /07 X X X X O/E X X X Be Kell 12/31/07 X X X X X X X X Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X X X X X X X X Nancy Wombacher 12/31/06 O/E O/E O/E X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a member Final Approved 5 b (10 October 2007 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 ASSEMBLY ROOM Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM Members Present: Robert Engel, Chuck Felling, David Gould, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Sarah Maiers and Nancy Wombacher Members Absent: None Staff Present: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping Others Present: Lynn Campbell RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-Honohan Motion: To accept the minutes as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Engel/Gould. PUBLIC DISCUSSION-Honohan Campbell reported that people who attended the Membership Appreciation Dinner enjoyed the event and music. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS-Honohan Maiers volunteered to write the web article summarizing this meeting and Kelly volunteered to report on this meeting to both the City Council and Board of Supervisors. Felling volunteered to write the web article for the November meeting. EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION COMMITTEE REPORT-Kopping Kopping reported that the FY08 Operational budget is 26% spent in the areas of work study and part-time temporary wages. Unless the number of work hours allocated in one or both of these areas is lowered to reduce current expenditures, funding is not available for additional evening and weekend staff in the current FY08 budget. The estimated cost of a part-time temporary employee to cover evening and weekend hours is $8,000. Liability issues for people using the building nights and weekends are a primary concern. Honohan suggested that staff investigate the possibility of starting a volunteer program to staff the building evenings and weekends. ,Commissioners agreed that unless written job descriptions were provided for clarity, it would be hard to evaluate the probability of success for a volunteer program. The idea of using student volunteers to staff the building was proposed. Gould discussed a partnership with the Interdepartmental Studies students; however, it was noted that these students would need supervision. Motion: To withdraw the motion from September meeting. "To adopt the following recommendations in order to provide staff coverage during extended hours of operation: Final Approved October 2007 1. Eliminate all member access to the computer lab, exercise room and pool room on weekdays between 5 - 7 PM and on Sundays between 10:30 AM - 1:30 PM 2. Identify volunteers to staff the fitness room, computer lab and pool room on Saturdays between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. If possible, this could be extended to include Sundays as well. 3. Post signage in the fitness rooms to indicate that the person is using the equipment at ones own risk and ask all users to sign a release of liability. 4. Identify one person (instructor or participant) in each group that meets during extended hours who will assume responsibility for turning off lights, closing the room and responding to emergencies. The person will receive a brief orientation to familiarize him or her with safe areas of the building, fire exits and the location of first aid kits and emergency phones. This would apply to all after hour classes and programs as well as rentals. 5. Staff members will continue to attend the first session of each new evening and weekend Center sponsored and organized class to orient participants. 6. Special event programming (e.g. Gallery Walks, Skin Cancer Screening) will continue to be covered by staff. 7. The Maintenance Worker I (MWI) will do a minimum of one building walk-through each weekday between 8:30 and 9 PM. Because only one person fills this position, this would not be done when the MWI is sick or on vacation. 8. Continue to document after hour programming and building use and submit this information along with the new staff request for FY09." Maiers/Engel" Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Maiers/Engel. Motion: To have Kopping draft a preliminary job description for volunteers who would provide staff coverage during extended hours of operation for review at the next meeting. Maiers/Wombacher Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. FY09 OPERATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS-KOPPING Kopping reported that the FY09 proposed budgets have been submitted. Capital improvement requests were kept at a minimum. They included replacement entrance and exit doors on Linn Street, redesign of the Linn Street building sign, and a designated computer for the HVAC and door program software. Kopping requested two part-time temporary staff, each working 9 hours a week, to cover the extended hours of operation. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW- Kopping The project for the ground floor rest room rebuild, ground floor shower installation and ADA upgrades to all public restrooms was approved by Council. Work started on Monday and was quickly stopped after discovering some issues that needed to be addressed prior to moving forward. Kumi Morris, City Architect, will be meeting with staff, participants and in-house agencies to discuss the project and let people know what to expect during construction. Kopping prepared and submitted a grant to the Community Foundation requesting funding to start a new volunteer program at the Center. This program has been successful in attracting younger, highly skilled volunteers in other parts of the country. Final Approved October 2007 Kopping reported that the cameras currently being used in Senior Center Television have been malfunctioning. Specifically, the sound input crackles when external microphones are connected to the cameras creating poor sound quality on SCTV productions. Motion: For the Commission to request $10,000 from Senior Center Fund Inc. to purchase two additional cameras. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Gould/Wombacher Motion: To accept the letter from Ms. Reese. Kelly/Gould Motion carried 7-0. (attached) COMMISSION DISCUSSION-Honohan Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Wombacher/Engel Final Approved October 2007 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2007 Name Term Ex Tres 1/16 2/20 3/19 4/17 6/19 7/17 8/21 9/21 10/16 Bob En el 12/31/08 X X O/E X X X X X X David Gould 12/31/08 X X X O/E O/E X X O/E X Chuck Fellin 12/31/09 N/A N/A X X X X X O/E X Jay Honohan 12/31/07 X X X X O/E X X X X Betty Kelly 12/31/07 X X X X X X X X X Sarah Maier 12/31/09 X X X X X X X X X Nanc Wombacher 12/31/09 O/E O/E O/E X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a member 5b 11 ~=~ ~~. ~ IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ~' MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Saul Mekies, Gary Hagen, Hans Hoerschelman, Brett Gordon, Margaret Wieting MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy OTHERS PRESENT: Lee Grassley, Tad Davis, Beth Fisher, Susan Rogusky, Craig O'Brien, Michael McBride, Laura Lowe RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Grassley reported that Mediacom is willing to participate in any debate with the Big Ten Network (BTN), however, the decision has not yet been made if Mediacom will cablecast the program on their state-wide Connections Channel as some Mediacom officials wish not to give BTN any exposure on their channel. Rogusky reported two Senior Center TV volunteers are working on a program interviewing World War II veterans as part of an archival project of Iowa Public Television. Lowe reported the Iowa City Community School District has submitted a proposal for funding a teacher advisor for a video club, a camera, and editing software to the Iowa City Community School District Foundation. Hagen asked about progress being made to get kids involved in producing programs for the channel. Lowe said the request to the foundation for $2000 for a faculty advisor is a first step but funds would not be available until Fall of 2008. Mekies said the schools needs to establish benchmarks to measure progress. Documenting what has been accomplished with the funding, particularly from the CTG, is needed. Shaffer reported he has been in discussions with Mediacom officials regarding providing access programming for distribution by Mediacom on their channel statewide. Shaffer said that he did contact BTN regarding a program that would feature Mediacom and BTN representatives about their current dispute. Shaffer forwarded a copy of the Sinclair Mediacom carriage issue debate taped by City Channel 4 as an example of the proposed program and awaits their response.Shaffer reported the result the FCC Second Report and Order on Franchising is not totally clear. The Order applies franchising rules applicable to new entrants to incumbent cable operators. The Order states a concern with abrogating existing contracts and indicates a process would be needed but provides little insight as to what that might be. There is some concern that if the Order were to be implemented in Iowa City there is the possibility that the funding for PATV and the pass-through fund could be in jeopardy. A coalition of organizations and municipalities are exploring the possibility of appeals and/or lawsuits to prevent implementation of the Order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hagen moved and Hoerschelman seconded a motion to approve the October 22, 2007 minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Mekies said that Shaffer was working to arrange a debate between representatives of the Big Ten Network and Mediacom to help inform viewers of the situation. The failure of the Big Ten Network to participate should not prevent the Commission from going forward and informing the public or coming to a recommendation. Hoerschelman commended Shaffer for assisting individuals in Washington, Iowa who are interested in making use of their public access channel. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE O'Brien reported that Kirkwood will be running a number of Christmas programs taped last year. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet. There were a total of 7 complaints. All complaints that could be resolved have been or are being worked on by Mediacom. MEDIACOM REPORT Grassley reported that Mediacom is willing to participate in any debate with the Big Ten Network (BTN), however, the decision has not yet been made if Mediacom will cablecast the program on their state-wide Connections Channel as some Mediacom officials wish not to give BTN any exposure on their channel. A decision should be made within a week. Grassley said the BTN wishes to be on the basic tier but may be open to an offer to be on the analog Family Package. The issue is basically about how much money the BTN is demanding. Hagen said the issue of carriage of the BTN on Mediacom is getting hotter as the basketball season gets underway and the situation is much like that of the NFL Network. Hagen asked how South Slope and other small Iowa cable companies are able to negotiate a deal. Grassley said that small systems have a smaller footprint that covers just Iowa while Mediacom is nationwide. Mediacom would have to carry and pay for the BTN across all their systems including those in which there would be little interest in the BTN. Grassley said negotiations are at an impasse. The BTN has not been responsive to Mediacom's most recent proposals. This may be because BTN is 49% owned by FOX who has guaranteed the Big Ten schools a certain level of funding regardless of carriage. Other major college conferences are also forming television networks. If cable companies were to permit carriage of many of the conference networks on analog tiers the costs for those tiers could be considerably higher. Cedar Falls recently added the BTN and announced rates would go up $4 in January. Hagen asked about the development of high definition television. Grassley said Mediacom will be offering as many HDTV signals as are available when the transition to digital is complete in Feb. 2009. It is anticipated that around 25 HD carriage agreements can be reached and placed on the system by the end of 2008. Mediacom expects to broadcast ESPN and ESPN2 in high definition on the Family Package in January. Consumers without HDTV televisions will see those channels as an analog transmission. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT McBride said he will have an annual report available for the next meeting. UI TV will be covering many of the commencement ceremonies. The installation of new UI President Sally Mason at Rancher Auditorium will also be covered. The Mexican foreign language programming has been dropped because it includes ads for alcohol. PATV REPORT Davis reported that Goding was unable to attend and he is representing PATV. Davis reported the next guidelines workshop will be Sunday, December 2 at 12. The next studio workshop will be Dec 2 from 2-4 and the next digital editing workshop will be Dec. 9 from 3-9. The next board meeting will be Dec. 13 at 7 p.m., which is a week early due to the holidays. PATV will be closed from December 24-January 1. Programming will cablecast but the office will be closed. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Rogusky reported that three new producers have joined SCTV. They have been interviewing presidential candidates but have not been able to reach most of the republican candidates. A program about the caucuses has been finished and is airing now. Two volunteers are working on a program interviewing World War II veterans as part of an archival project of Iowa Public Television. A program interviewing organizers of Project Holiday is also in the works. Holiday concerts from last year will be cablecast on the City Channel. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT Lowe reported 7 new programs were cablecast in October including three episodes of Education Exchange, 2 school board meetings, a DPO meeting, and a forum with City Council candidates. Four training videos not for cablecast were shot. Weber school's UN Day celebration was taped. The bids for the school equipment proposed to be funded by the Community Television Group (CTG) were distributed. The total is around $9,000. A proposal for funding a teacher advisor for a video club, a camera, and editing software has been submitted to the Iowa City Community School District Foundation. Proposals are considered in January and made available in April. About $45,000 in funds for improvements to the board room has been allocated by the district administration. Hagen asked about progress being made to get kids involved in producing programs for the channel. Lowe said the request to the foundation for $2000 for a faculty advisor is a first step but funds would not be available until Fall of 2008. Wieting said developing a strategy for student involvement should be a part of the channel's strategic plan and mission statement. Mekies said the schools need to establish benchmarks to measure progress. Documenting what has been accomplished with the funding, particularly from the CTG, is needed. The Commission needs to receive reports and monitor progress. If the Commission were to go before the City Council with a request to return the $100,000 taken from the cable TV franchise fees there will likely be questions regarding the need for these funds. One of the questions might be how the Commission is able to award grants to other organizations and access channels if the Cable Division needs funding returned. These kinds of questions make accounting for what was accomplished with those funds important. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported that December will be a slower month for the library channel. Six children's programs and one adult program are planned. CITY MEDIA UNIT REPORT Hardy reported that Katie Roche, producer for The Community Voice, has finished production and is now cablecasting a program on Art Pennington, one of the last black baseball players from Iowa who played in the Negro Baseball League. The Community Television Service remains busy. Two addresses by presidential candidates Biden and Edwards will taped at the Iowa Foreign Relations Council. Chris Dodd was taped earlier. A program titled Labor and the Global Economy will be sponsored by the University of Iowa Obberman Center for Advanced Studies and the Iowa City Human Right Commission. City Channel 4 will be taping the City Council budget meetings. CABLE ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer reported he has been in discussions with Mediacom officials regarding their carriage of Cable Division produced programming. This could involve Mediacom cablecasting such programming statewide. Mediacom has expressed interest in carrying such programming and is currently reviewing the Art Pennington Community Voice program. Shaffer noted the email in the meeting packet from Mediacom indicating the access channels would not need to purchase digital transmission equipment. Shaffer said he attended PATV's annual membership meeting and was impressed with the large turnout. Hoerschelman asked what the cost of the digital equipment might be given the cost will likely have to be borne at some point. Shaffer said estimates typically run between $15,000-$20,000. Grassley said they will be providing an analog signal unti12012. Mekies asked about Shaffer's efforts to get the BTIrT to participate in a taped debate. Shaffer said that he did contact BTN about a program featuring Mediacom and BTN representatives and has forwarded a copy of the Sinclair/Mediacom carriage issue debate taped by City Channel 4 as an example and awaits their response. Mekies suggested that if Shaffer doesn't get a response that he inform BTN officials that he inform them that the program could proceed without them. There are local experts who could provide insight and a good discussion. Shaffer said that if Mediacom will commit to carrying the program statewide the BTN would likely be more likely to participate. Grassley was noncommital and expressed Mediacom's reservations about distributing such a program. BIG TEN NETWORK Mekies said the Commission should decide if they wished to take a position on the impacts of carriage of the BTN on Mediacom's basic tier.. Mekies noted that carriage would likely involve a price increase for all consumers. Hagen said he doesn't think it is appropriate for the Commission to take a position on a dispute between different parties. Consumers have a choice in that they can subscribe to a satellite service. If the Commission were to take a position on this issue then they should also take a position on the carriage of the NFL Network and other disputes. Hoerschelman and Hagen said the Commission could facilitate a distribution of information but not take a position between parties. LEGISLATION AND.FCC UPDATE Shaffer reported the result the FCC Second Report and Order on Franchising is not totally clear. The Order applies franchising rules applicable to new entrants to incumbent cable operators. The Order states a concern with abrogating existing franchise agreements and indicates a process would be needed -but provides little insight as to what that might be. If the Order were to be implemented in Iowa City there is concem that the funding for PATV and the pass-through fund could be in jeopardy. A coalition of organizations and municipalities are exploring the possibility of appeals and/or lawsuits to prevent implementation before the Order goes into effect. Gordon said it is imperative to keep funding for PATV as it is the public's channel. CABLE TV DIVISION BUDGET Shaffer noted the proposed cable division budget is in the meeting packet and that it is very similar to past years. There is no room for growth. The budget assumes the City Council will again take $100,000 in franchise fees to subsidize the general fund. Mekies said that showing Council how the funds would be used if they were returned could be productive and asked Shaffer how these funds might be needed. Wieting asked if there might be areas for funding that would benefit all the access channels or if there was something such as hiring an expert in strategic planning which would have a common denominator for all channels. Shaffer said that specific justifications for funds is generally more effective with the City Council. Mekies asked about the impact of the recent Iowa court cases on franchise fees. Shaffer said that as of this time they will have no impact on Iowa City, but that could change. There is one lawsuit which would prohibit municipalities from collecting cable franchise fees and another lawsuit concerns the collection of cable franchise fees retroactively. The pretext for both suits is that cable franchise fees are an illegal tax. DECEMBER MEETING Hagen moved and Gordon seconded a motion to move the December 2007 meeting to Dec. 17. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Gordon moved and Hagen seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 7:34. Respectfully submitted, ~l ' - ~, Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator ~~i~~8_. 5b 12 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2007 - 7:30 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Terry Smith, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon MEMBERS EXCUSED: Beth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Doug Ongie OTHERS PRESENT: Jeanne Archie, Corey Proctor, Denise Wheatley RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Koppes absent), CZ07-00003, that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending that the application by Alliant Energy for a conditional use permit to allow an electrical utility substation, be approved subject to general compliance with the submitted plans. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Consider a motion setting a public hearing for December 6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the 2007 Historic Preservation Plan. Motion: Eastham made a motion to set a public hearing for December 6. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Koppes absent). CONDITIONAL USE ITEM: CZ07-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Alliant Energy to Johnson County for a conditional use permit for an electrical utility substation on a 3.18-acre property located in the fringe area at 4872 340`h Street NE. Miklo introduced Doug Ongie, an Urban and Regional Planning graduate student, who is working as an intern in the Planning Department. Ongie stated that the applicant, Alliant Energy, wishes to construct an electrical utility substation in the Rose Hollow Substation. He said the substation will include a 195 foot self-supporting tower and a 12 by 15 foot communications building. He said the proposed substation will be located on 340"' Street, which is northeast of Iowa City and outside of the Iowa City Growth Area. Ongie stated that the Johnson County Unified Ordinance allows public utility facilities to be approved in agricultural zones. He added that approved of public utility facilities are subject to any conditions to mitigate harmful effects and promote public health, safety, and general welfare. He stated that the Johnson County Unified Ordinance does not give specific requirements regarding utility substations. Ongie said that staff looked at the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance for guidance. He stated that when public utility substations are located in an Industrial Zone, the Iowa City requires a 200 foot buffer and include landscaping that meets the Planning and Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 2 S3 requirement. Ongie added that the S3 screening requirement is the highest screening requirement in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. Ongie stated that the property to the east of the proposed substation is 200 feet away, which meets the Iowa City buffer requirement. He stated that the landscaping would extend 100 feet to the east of the substation containing a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. He said the screening would mitigate the visual impact of the substation and the 8 foot security fence. Although neighboring properties will not be able to see the proposed substation from the north; west; or south, landscaping will be included around the entire substation. Ongie stated that visual impact of the communications tower will be difficult to avoid due to the height. He added that the City Ordinance requires towers in commercial zones to be camouflaged to reduce the visual impact. Ongie stated that Iowa City also looks at the safety of structures located near towers. The proposed tower will be in the northwest corner of the substation, which is 700 feet away from the nearest property to the east. He said staff does not believe there will be a safety hazard. Ongie stated that although the substation is close to Iowa City, the topography, street network, and I-80 isolate the substation from areas of growth. He said that the long-term plan for Oakdale Boulevard is to connect with Scott Boulevard about '/z mile to the west of the proposed substation. Ongie stated that the substation would be outside of the Iowa City watershed and any potential for growth would have very high infrastructure costs. Ongie stated that staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending the conditional use permit be approved subject to general compliance with the submitted plans. Eastham asked if there is more than one residence to the east. Ongie said there is only one residence east of the substation. Ongie said the substation will be located in a land depression, so the substation would be out of the view from any other neighboring properties. Eastham asked if it would be necessary to realign any of the existing high voltage transfer lines for the substation. Miklo said the applicant will be able to answer that question. Eastham asked if the substation would be lighted 24 hours a day. Ongie said the application did not specify the lighting. Miklo said the applicant should be able to answer his question. Eastham asked if there are provisions within the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance that would allow the Commission to suggest a lighting standard. Miklo said lighting is a concern, and if the substation is to be lit, then the Commission could recommend the lighting be downcast so it minimizes light pollution and glare for nearby property owners. Freerks asked how the tower would be lit. Smith said it would have to meet FAA requirements. Brooks asked how the tower height relates to the tower near Bristol Drive. Miklo said he isn't sure how tall that tower is, but the proposed tower would be equivalent to an 18 or 19 story building. Shannon said it would be at a comparable height. Public discussion was opened Denise Wheatley said she is representing the applicant and will answer any questions or concerns the Commission might have. She added that there are many subject matter experts from Alliant Energy are available, as well. Wheatley said as far as the substation being lit, there will be one security light and it will be downcast. Wheatley said because the tower is under 200 feet, it does not require additional lighting. Eastham asked if the security lighting will be maintained 24 hours a day. Corey Proctor, the substation team leader for Alliant Energy, said the security light comes on at dusk and turns off in the morning. Eastham asked if the light would be downcast. Proctor said Alliant Energy adheres to Dark-Sky recommendations, so all of the lights have the proper downcast shielding using a flat refractor. Eastham asked if there could be a conditional requirement that the substation would agree to meet Iowa City's light pollution standards. Miklo Planning and Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 3 said it sounds like the plan would currently meet the Iowa City requirements because the City Code is based on the Dark-Sky requirements. Freerks said it might be something to pass on to Council. Smith asked if there would be one light fixture. Proctor said there would be one security light and there would also be emergency lights for maintenance. Smith said there was a question by Eastham about transmission line modifications and asked if Proctor could address the issue. Proctor said because the substation will be placed in a land depression, two structures will have to be modified. He added that one pole will be removed and two poles will be added. Smith asked if the substation will be a single transformer installation. Proctor said it is currently designed to have a single transformer, but there will be room for a second transformer. Eastham asked if there is a rational for the height of the communications tower. Jeanne Archie, employee of Alliant Energy, said the reason for the height of the communications tower is because the microwave dishes must be in the line of sight of other communication towers. She said it is less than 200 feet, so no additional lighting will be necessary. Freerks asked if the amount of screening at the proposed substation is the typical for Alliant Energy substation. Wheatley said the high level of screening came from another conditional use permit request to Johnson County in 2002. She said the neighbors to the east were concerned about the visual impact of a substation. She added that the screening is above and beyond any screening Alliant Energy has done with a substation. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve CZ07-00003. Shannon seconded the motion. Freerks said an approval would be a recommendation for Council to forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment to allow the conditional use permit. Freerks said she is happy to hear lighting will be kept to a minimum. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Koppes absent). DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Miklo said every March the City Council prepares a budget for the following year that also includes a Capital Improvements Plan, which is a 5-year budget. He said typically the Commission has been concerned about street construction, water and sewer lines, park construction, and streetscape projects. Miklo added that these types of projects affect future growth, providing service to existing growth, or quality of life. He said staff is currently in the process of looking over the 5-year program and moving projects around on the priority list. He said the City Manager has asked that all departments give a top 10 to 12 list of projects that should be in the 5-year budget. Miklo said he would like to point out the Sycamore Street improvements. He said the street improvements would go from about Burns Avenue to the city limits. He said this is a priority of staff and is currently in the plan for 2009. He said this has been a priority in the past for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Eastham asked if the extension of Sycamore would intersect with the planned McCollister Boulevard. Miklo said it would intersect with Sycamore just south of the current city limits. He said the connection of McCollister Boulevard and Sycamore Street wouldn't happen for a number of years, and improvements of Sycamore Street to McCollister Boulevard would be a separate project. Eastham asked about the function of McCollister Boulevard. Miklo said McCollister would serve as a ring road around the entire city. Planning and Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 4 Eastham said if the Sycamore Street program would be approved; there would be no connection between Sycamore Street and McCollister Boulevard. Miklo said a major project like McCollister Boulevard must be done in pieces. Miklo said that the Sycamore Street improvements are necessary because of current development occurring around Sycamore Street. Miklo said some other projects under consideration are traffic safety issues on Mormon Trek Boulevard and Melrose Avenue, Burlington Street around the new university recreation center, and around the proposed Hieronymus Square. Brooks asked if there is a commitment by the University to help fund street improvements around the new university recreation center. Miklo said there are negotiations going on between the City and the University. Brooks asked if the Burlington Street improvements would be part of the next fiscal year. Miklo said fiscal year 2010 would be more likely because it would be around the time Hieronymus Square and the recreation center would be completed. Smith asked if there is a ranking for the 10 or 11 listed projects. Miklo said no, but the list does suggest which projects should be funded earlier in the 5-year Capital Improvements Program. He said the Sycamore Street improvements have been scheduled for fiscal year 2009, and there has been some question if the project could be bumped back for other improvement projects. He said staff has advised the City Manager that the timing of the project should stay where it is. Brooks added that development has been tied to the Sycamore Street improvements; he believes the project should be advanced. Eastham asked if there would be adequate funding for the Sycamore Street and Burlington Street improvements in the same fiscal year. Miklo said it depends how other projects get moved around. Miklo said that staff is looking for feedback from the Commission that is a general list of project priorities over the next 5 years. Brooks said he sees a large amount of pedestrian traffic along South Riverside Drive. He asked if there is a plan for some type of a pedestrian connection in that location. Miklo said there is not and believes the Commission should put it on their list if they think it is a priority. He added that a trail along Highway 1 should be added due to recent large scale developments like The Lodge. Smith asked about the proposed bridge over the railroad track on 15` Avenue. Miklo said that project is on the list and could possibly obtain federal funding. He added that if federal funding does not come through, then the project would have to be from the local level. Smith asked when the Commission's input would be needed. Miklo said the input could be taken at the next meeting and won't be submitted to Council until after January 1, 2008. Brooks said the University is looking at renovating buildings around the Linn Street Pedestrian Corridor. He said the University and the City need to continue talking to make sure there is a financial commitment by the University and that the project goes through. Miklo said staff has that as a priority because residents and business owners said that area could act as an economic development tool for that neighborhood. He added that it would link the area to downtown. Brooks asked Miklo to explain the property for Near Southside multi-use/commercial/workforce housing/parking facility. Miklo said that would be a parking ramp similar to the Court Street Transportation Center. He said that staff believes this project should proceed because of development interest in the area. Eastham asked if program includes a northeast fire station. Miklo said it is in and unfunded year. Freerks said it is not an issue of construction costs, but it more an issue of staffing. Brooks asked if there were any additional street improvement plans that could be listed. Miklo said staff has been looking at 420`h Street because the current Industrial Park has been mostly built out. He said there would need to be a sewer line, storm water management, and a greenbelt in the area north of 420'h Street to separate the industrial and residential uses. Freerks said that there was money put away for infill on sidewalks. She asked how that is done. Miklo said that is in the budget and done on an annual basis. He said sidewalk safety issues are taken care of first and Planning and Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 5 then the network is extended each year. Eastham asked if the Central Planning District was part of the sidewalk infill. Miklo said the Central Planning District is well served by sidewalks. Eastham said he thought that was an issue in the public input part of the Central Planning District. Miklo said there are a few spots on Rochester Avenue. Shannon asked about the status of Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. Miklo said it would be a collector street and would be built when the area is developed. Eastham suggested putting a Geographic Information System on the funding list. He said a GIS capability substantially increases a community's ability to do land use planning in a variety of ways. Smith asked if there could be a partnering opportunity between the City and the County for a GIS system. Miklo said there IS. Smith said each Commissioner should come back to the next meeting with a top 10 list and see how they match. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve the October 18, 2007 meeting minutes as typed. Smith seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Koppes absent). ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Koppes absent). Minutes submitted by Doug Ongie S:\PCD\Minutes\P&Z\2007\11-15-07.doc O .N .~ E U 'a ~ O C ~ c ~ N v o ~ C N rn~ c 'a - c ~~ d c; R Q a ~_ U 3 0 C7 Z_ H W W J Q O LL X X X p X X X o X X X X X X X of o r X X X X X X X 0 N x x x x x x x 01 x x x x x x o x o x x x x x x x x x o x x n X X X ~ X X X p X X X ~ x x x x o x x n X X X X X X X M ~ X X X X X X X w ~' ' X X X X X X X v a 0 X X X X X X ~ x x x x x x o M ~- ~ X X X X X X X M N X X X ~ ~ O X r ~ X X X X X X X N r X X X x X X X ~ ~ O ~ ~ .- 00 o N ~ 0 .- 00 O ~- ` . ~ ~n ~n .n u~ ~n ~n u~ ~ W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 y o E R y Y fA d Y aC+ C O ~ ° ~ ~ y ~ a o ~ ~ r r E E m w t~ Y a rn tn Z m U Q w ~ O H X X X X X o ~ p X X X X ~ X ~ n X X X X W 0 w 0 X °' x x x o o X o X X p X X X X 0 M X X X X X X X v ~ x o x x x x x N x x x o x x x N r X X X X X ~ X ~ O ~ OO N 0 00 ~ ~.~ ~ - .- ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~- ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ F-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N V1 Y_ C C O y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ m v W d ~ li 0 `1 t !a d ~ s N .~ E y z m U Q ui ~ O F= N U X W c ~ c ~ ~ ~ dQQ II II II T W YXOO 5b 13 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007 SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Alicia Trimble STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Hottie Allen, Helen Burford, Mary Bennett, Jeremy Patterson, Marybeth Slonneger, William Wang CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Terdalkar said that the Parks and Recreation Commission held a meeting at 5:00 to discuss a potential location for the Wetherby House to be moved to. He said that Mary Bennett gave a presentation to City Council at which the City Council directed the petitioner to provide additional information about the project: what steps are necessary to move the house, the restoration work needed, and what the City would be expected to contribute. Terdalkar said that a proposal will be submitted to the City Manager, who will eventually contact the City Council. He said that Friends of Historic Preservation is also working to come with the costs of moving the house and the future restoration. Terdalkar said that within a couple of days more should be known about the kinds of financial resources available and the actual costs. Weitzel said that apparently some of the Commission members have toured the house and found very little left intact of the original structure. Terdalkar said he was told that there is still some original fabric left of the building. He said that the original clapboard is still there. ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness. 829 Kirkwood Avenue. Terdalkar said that this is a local landmark property that was built in 1874. He said that the applicant requests replacement of the existing limestone foundation with a new concrete foundation and would also use limestone veneer outside by saving the existing stone. Terdalkar said the applicant would also like to replace most of the basement windows and install at least one egress window; depending on the layout of the basement, the applicant may need more than one egress window. Terdalkar said the applicant also proposes to repair the existing exterior brick walls. He said there is quite a bit of damage to be seen, especially the pointing where the mortar is loose. Terdalkar said it is more evident in the places where additions were put on the building. Terdalkar showed photographs of where there are joinery problems where additions were put on. He said there is also uneven settling of the different structures that has caused some damage. Terdalkar said that the effect of water has also caused problems. Terdalkar stated that staff is not comfortable at this point approving the replacement, as staff has not seen any report or structural review of the basement. He said that given the magnitude and significance of the structure, the Commission should have a preservation architect or engineer with experience in the preservation of brick buildings and masonry structures give an opinion. Terdalkar said that if there is enough evidence to support the application, the guidelines recommend that the appearance of the foundation as existing be matched with regard to material, size, color, composition, and joint profile. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 2 Regarding window replacement, Terdalkar said that he has not seen any information regarding materials or sizes. He said the applicant did identify the locations of the windows and openings that need to be replaced. Terdalkar said that where an egress window is installed, construction of the window well should be matched to the existing foundation, which is the historic foundation, not the one that is being replaced. He said staff recommends deferral of the application until receiving additional information about the foundation as well as a structural report. Patterson said he is a structural mover and would be doing the work on this project. He said that he has spent two years in New Orleans to move and save historical structures. Patterson said that Eric Hindrichson from Shive-Hattery visited the property and said that this needs to be done. Patterson said that Eric Hindrichson recommends new concrete footings and a reinforced foundation under the house to save the structure. Patterson presented a letter from Mr. Hindrichson to the Commission. Patterson said that he is not an engineer, but the engineer who looked at this recommends replacing the whole basement. Patterson said that radon is another issue for the owner, because this house has open, dirt floors. Patterson said he plans to bore cut every hole to save all of the bricks that can be saved, and beam it, and take pressure. He said that he will dig up the limestone foundation, core bore cut it, and then save it so it can be reused. Patterson said that he is required to pour two-foot footing for stability. He said that he will pour all clean rock underneath this and will have to lay atwelve-inch wall to hold the weight of the building. Patterson said that this structure probably weighs around 850 tons. Patterson said the problem is that this is an old foundation, although it was state of the art when it was built in the 1870s. He said there is no footing underneath the building, and there is a huge amount of moisture underneath the building. Patterson said that he specializes in historic structures. He said his company owns the second biggest unified jack machine in the world. Patterson said that it is pressure pointed so that one can control every tweak at every point. He said that he can fine tune everything. Patterson said that with this technology, he can pressure one corner that may only weigh five tons, while the next corner may weigh 40 tons. He said that after locking these pressures off and hitting a valve, they all go up at the same time. Downing asked if a radon test had ever been done in the house. Patterson said that he never did one, but he would be concerned about radon if he lived in this house. Brennan said the application mentions lowering the floor and asked if that is feasible. Patterson said that he does not have a choice but to lower the floor, because he can't get underneath and excavate without making it at least 8'/z to nine feet. He said that without doing this, one can't make it livable. Patterson said that there is no mortar left on the foundation; it has all deteriorated. He said there is no strength to it; it is dilapidated and gone. Patterson said that a basic wood frame house would settle with no problems. He said that with brick, any movement in stone or masonry structures is a terrible thing. Patterson said there is not forgiveness with brick, concrete and stone; they can't bow and deflect. Patterson said that Mr. Allen is his masonry contractor and has been in the masonry business for 40 years. He said that Allen will go in and relay and re-tuckpoint any bricks that have fallen out. Weitzel said that the letter from the Shive-Hattery consultant recommends that a footing be installed to stop the differential settling but makes no comment about the likelihood of collapse. Patterson said that he cannot predict when the building will collapse but said that he has never had a house collapse when he has moved it. Weitzel asked Patterson what would happen with the chimney after the move. Patterson responded that he uses a banding system to clamp the chimney and is able to save 99% of the chimneys that are there. He said the same functionality will be there after the move. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 3 Miklo said that staff had asked for some information about the structural stability of the building and had not received it before tonight's meeting. He suggested that if the Commission was inclined to approve this, it could be subject to evaluations and conversations with the engineer, given that the engineer's report was just received. Weitzel said that the Commission looks at this from both sides. He added that the Secretary of the Interior Standards say to do the least amount possible to get the building to be preserved. Miklo said that this sounds like a laudable project. He said there has been some neglect to the building in the past, and the present owner wants to invest in the building and stabilize and improve it. Miklo said staff does not necessarily object to the project but needs more information to form a recommendation. Brennan said that replacing the foundation is not prohibited or disallowed under the guidelines. He said that the exterior appearance can be restored more or less to what it is now or perhaps what it was when it was built, and that is the purview of the Commission -the exterior appearance, not whether the absolutely original foundation stays in place or not. Brennan said the main question is whether this can be done while preserving the exterior appearance, and it sounds like it can be. He said that what condition the foundation is in does not necessarily bear on whether the Commission should approve this or not. Miklo said he agreed that the real concern is that something be done that does not cause further structural problems. He said whether the basement is converted to livable space or not is not a major concern. Miklo said that the other issue concerns the window replacement, as the owner has still not submitted a brand name or materials. He said the Commission may want to defer that aspect until the information is available or until the applicant, chair and staff agree on a window that meets the guidelines. Patterson said that the foundation reconstruction process will take about 2'/z months. He said that a snow load causes more of a problem. Patterson emphasized that Wang, the owner, wants to do what is right for this structure, but this is a long process. He said that there is a lot of time to discuss the window plans. Downing asked who would design the foundation wall. Patterson said that Eric Hindrichson of Shive- Hattery and Allen would be working on the foundation wall. Downing asked how the reclaimed stone would be supported. Allen said that he'll come up with atwelve-inch block and catch the inside with an eight-inch block with afour-inch ledge to carry the stone. He said that where the stucco is, there should be enough stone to carry around, if the owner approves, to blend it in all around. Allen said he agrees with Patterson. He said the brick is cracking and moving, and the stairway is impassable. Allen said the house may last 20 years, but it is gradually setting. He said that it can be temporarily patched up, but that is not going to help it. Wang, the owner of the house, said he moved into the house six years ago. He said that the first thing he did was fix the roof. Regarding the basement, Wang said that there is one big area of the room that is wet every week. He said that it will be a major problem in another five to ten years, so he needs to do something now. Wang said that the best technology allows him to do this in one shot, with everything raised up and with everything joined tightly. Weitzel asked if the drainage will be taken care of at the same time the foundation is poured. Wang confirmed this. Weitzel said that he has read about this, and the segmental process has the problem of differential settlement as the load is put on the different sections. He said that in general, if the whole thing is lifted up at once, it's a better way to go. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 4 Patterson said that he has that house insured for $600,000. He said that he is not a gambler, and he never does something that he thinks is not going to be the right thing. Patterson said this technology is the best way to move this house. Regarding the windows, Wang said that he intends to use the same size, style, and color as that shown on the first floor, the double hung egress window. Weitzel said the Commission likes to see the window, at least the visible part of the window well portion, lined with the same material as the foundation, so in this case, either limestone or brick for the first 18 to 24 inches. Wang agreed and said he told the contractor this same thing. Allen said that wherever the windows would be longer than they are now, he would bring the rock up to match the rock that goes around. Allen asked what the Commission recommends for window wells. Weitzel replied that usually the Commission recommends poured concrete with lining of brick or stone, where it's adhered to the actual poured well. Allen said that he has used Anamosa stone, but it would look different than the other block. He said he could bring cement block up and then the last couple of feet put rock on it. Weitzel said that one could use the regular concrete and just face it with a veneer. He said then there is a superior structure for soil movement and there is still the look. Allen said he would bring it up to ground level so that there would be no water. Weitzel agreed it could be brought up the side and then over the top. Allen asked how much room is needed for access. Weitzel suggested contacting Housing Inspection Services for this information. Terdalkar replied that the size of the egress window should be 24 inches by 22 inches at least; that's the clear distance. He said that depending on the type of window, one would need a window well at least three feet wide to give enough room for someone to get out of the opening. Regarding the plans for the project, Terdalkar said there is a mention of reconfiguring the entryway. He said that plan also needs to be provided to staff for details. Allen said that Wang would like to have another entryway out to the south. Wang agreed that he would like to have a door on the back side of the house. Terdalkar asked if the plan also includes reconfiguring the existing door on the west side. Wang said there would be no change to that door. Allen said there would be two access doorways, plus an access window on the east side. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 829 Kirkwood Avenue for putting in a new foundation to be faced with reclaimed stone to get the current look, with the windows and the new door to meet the guidelines and be approved by staff and the chair. Swaim seconded the motion. Ponto said that a house of this weight not having regular footings is not good for long term stability, and he is in favor of putting in something solid. Weitzel said that when using the Secretary of the Interiors Standards, what the Commission looks at is to be as sensitive as possible, especially for landmarks, to the existing structure and to do the minimal necessary. He said that if this can be done it would be a good thing. Weitzel said he is not certain that this is absolutely necessary, since he is not an engineer, but at some point that is the landowner's prerogative to do this. He said the owner has undertaken a lot of roof work and did use cedar shingles when other types of shingles could have been applied, which is a sign of authenticity and commitment to this building. Ponto pointed out that the owner will save the existing stone and cut it to use it as a veneer to put on so it will look the same. Weitzel said that will save the appearance, but one will lose the historic nature of the basement, which is not necessarily anything the Commission can control. He said that he would actually like to have a little discretion for staff to consult with the engineer. Ponto said he could add that to the motion to give the option for staff to consult. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to add to the motion an option for staff consultation with the project engineer. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 5 Michaud said the Commission has not seen interior photographs to document water damage to the basement. Miklo said he did not believe that was necessary. He said that staff's concern about this was to consult with the engineer to make sure there is no further damage to the building. Patterson pointed out that the time frame for this project is limited. Miklo said staff could have a decision next week. Wang said that he and his family would be staying at a hotel until the project is completed. Downing pointed out the importance of keeping the building heated. Swaim said she appreciated staffs evaluation in not seeing any particular structural faults. She said that, however, if there is the technology and the kind of foundation that will help this house last another 100 years that will be an investment in the integrity of the building. Weitzel pointed out that this is limestone, and limestone with a lot of water ends up removing the limestone, ending up in decay. Swaim said that if the brick problems are related to the foundation, then that will only get worse if nothing is done. Wang said that he redid the kitchen two years ago. He said that in that time, the kitchen has already settled, as evidenced by the ever-increasing gap between the refrigerator and the ceiling. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1, with Toomey voting no. Wetherby House. Bennett, Slonneger, and Burford discussed the status of the Wetherby House and the options for saving it. Slonneger said that the Committee to Save Wetherby House (CSWH) has been formed to save the house, and $7,000 has been donated to that cause. She said that Jean Lloyd-Jones and Mike Wright are the two co-chairs of that committee. Slonneger stated that the committee would be sending a large, designated mailing regarding the house and would also be canvassing the neighborhood this weekend, hopefully with a brochure about the house. She said that CSWH would have articles coming out in Friday's paper about the house. Slonneger added that the Johnson County Historical Society is coming on board as a caretaker for future maintenance of the house. Burford said that Marlin Engels has been hired to document the house by compiling a complete historic and archaeological commentary. She added that on Friday at 12:30 p.m. at the house the asbestos siding will be removed to see if an original front door will be revealed. Burford said that the CSWH has discussed the viability of the house itself and has spoken with a house mover, engineers, and architects regarding what would need to be done to the house. She said that the committee has walked through the process regarding the building permit and the moving permit. Burford said that two recommended sites will be discussed further at the committee's meeting later in the evening. Bennett said the estimate for moving the house is approximately $30,000, and half of that could potentially come from an HRDP grant. She said that it might cost as much as $75,000 for restoration and long-term maintenance. Bennett said the CSWH is still looking for a location for the house and spoke to the Parks and Recreation Commission at its meeting earlier in the evening. She said those Commission members are adamant about having public input on the issue, especially from those neighbors who might be in the vicinity of the house. Bennett said that therefore in the next few days there will be a campaign to get some input from the Goosetown Neighborhood and from people who live near the Reno Street Park. Bennett said there will be a meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission at 6:00 p.m. next Wednesday to look for a resolution about the potential location of the house. She said that if it is defeated by the Parks and Recreation Commission, there is still the option of going to the City Council. Slonneger added that the two City Council members-elect, Hayek and Wright, are in support of saving the house. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 6 Weitzel said that because this item is not on the Commission's agenda, the Commission could pass a resolution of support but it might need to occur at a future meeting. Bennett asked if the Commission could provide a letter of support to show that another sector is in support of saving this truly significant house. Weitzel asked if the Commission could provide a letter of support without having this item on its agenda. Miklo said that this could be considered a public discussion item so that the Commission might be able to provide a letter of support, although he would confirm this with the City Attorney's Office. Ponto asked how this fits into the owner's timeline. Bennett said that one of the owner's conditions is that the committee have a solid plan in place and is showing progress. She added that the CSWH has concrete analysis by professionals, and the owner seems to have some leeway but not a lot. Weitzel said that one can see that there is public support for this, with the CSWH set up and donations already under way. He said that is a very positive sign and asked Commission members if there is consensus for a letter of support. Brennan asked if the letter would support the move or support a move to a particular location or something else. Weitzel said the Commission could discuss the terms of the letter. Brennan said he is hesitant about that, because the item is not on the agenda. He said that part of an open process is public notice and public meetings and discussions. Brennan noted that there was at last one person at the least meeting who was opposed to a move to the Reno Street Park. Weitzel said the support letter could omit a specific location and be a very general letter of support. Weitzel said there is some concern on the part of Commission members about the cost and amount of restoration that would need to take place. He said that if people are willing to undertake that, however, that is not the Commission's purview. Michaud asked who would own the structure. Bennett said that it would be owned by the City, and the Johnson County Historical Society would be responsible for its upkeep. She added that the Johnson County Historical Society has a good track record on managing properties in comparable situations. Weitzel said that in the past, the Commission has approved the concept of writing a letter, which was then written by the chair and staff and then circulated for approval. Bennett said she would like to at least have a letter of support in time for the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting next Wednesday. Weitzel said the Commission should be able to give verbal approval of the concept, without a specific location being specified. He said that as far as a letter being written, people seem to want to make it an agenda item in order to have a vote. Swaim said that she would be comfortable with whatever staff and the chair would pull together in a general letter of support. She said the letter could be a broad letter of support suggesting that all avenues be explored. Terdalkar said he would check with the City Attorney's Office regarding compiling a letter. The consensus of the Commission was for staff and the chair to draft a letter of support to be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office before being sent. Weitzel said that the CSWH has seen the Historic Preservation Commission's support and can therefore verbally report back that support to other commissions. Bennett, Slonegger, and Burford asked that the letter be addressed to the Committee to Save Wetherby House. OTHER Weitzel said that in December or early January, the Commission holds a work session to compile a work plan and submit it to City Council. He added that last year's work plan consisted mostly of updating the Preservation Plan. Weitzel said that one item of interest is the CLG grant from the State Historical Society, which should be announced around January 15`h. He suggested that a survey of the near south side to look for potentially eligible properties and potential districts be considered in the work plan. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 7 ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness 1012 East Washington Street. Terdalkar said that the owner of this property was served notice by the Housing Inspection Division to remedy a situation identified as potentially hazardous. He said that the structure seems to be an original structure and is shown on the 1920 Sanborn Map and listed as "two- story auto." Terdalkar showed photographs of the property and stated that it is certainly in a condition that requires immediate attention. He said there was some tornado damage to the property. Terdalkar said that one opinion was that the structure can be braced from inside and can be fixed; it is not gone beyond repair. He said that in recent years, the owner put a new foundation in this structure that could be reused, and there may be a need to repair one or two of the piers in the foundation. Swaim asked if the building was leaning in two directions, as it appeared in the photograph. Terdalkar said it is not leaning in two directions; it is leaning to the north only. Terdalkar said the criteria for outbuilding demolition are the condition of the structure, integrity of the structure, and architectural significance. He said that in terms of architectural integrity, this is probably one of the better structures that the Commission has reviewed so far. Terdalkar said that after the tornado, the owner approached the City and was advised to apply for grant money. He said this would probably have qualified for the HRDP grant because of age and significance. Terdalkar said the owner did not apply and has not addressed the issue since then. Weitzel said that after July 1, the money was no longer available as it was appropriated back by the State. Swaim asked if it is likely this building was originally a barn and then used for an auto in 1920 and after. Terdalkar said that he thought that was likely. Weitzel agreed that this could have been a horse barn. Swaim said that the fact that this was a barn makes it seem even more important. Terdalkar said that the building needs work to make it accessible and usable. Weitzel said the owner has been cited with a dangerous structure, so he needs to do something to remedy it. Terdalkar said that something needs to be done very quickly. Weitzel said that one of the remedies is to demolish the building, but the Commission has purview to evaluate the significance because it's in a historic district. Terdalkar said that the Housing Inspection Services' notice is to remedy the situation, so the options are to repair it to make it stable or demolish it. Downing said that either way, it's an expense to the owner. Baker asked if the owner has indicated any interest in restoring the building. Terdalkar said that the day he met with the owner, the owner was not interested in saving the building. He said the application does not contain much information, and the owner did not apply for an HRDP grant. Terdalkar said that he spoke with the building inspector, who felt that metal braces could be used to straighten and save the building. Terdalkar said that if the owner wants to make the building usable, he can still keep the building on the site. Weitzel said the Commission should discuss the significance of the building, because if the structure is not significant, there is no point in making the owner maintain it. Swaim said that the building seems to have significance. Weitzel said that there is a demolition by neglect ordinance that requires homeowners to keep their buildings in a state of repair. He said that if the Commission finds the building to be significant, the demolition option would be off the table. Weitzel said the owner would then be forced to repair the building or face fines. Ponto said that it should be relatively inexpensive to brace the building to stabilize it, although it would cost a lot more to restore the building. Miklo said that if the building is at least stabilized, a new owner in Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 8 the future might appreciate the building and restore it to use it for storage. He said that realistically, if the Commission doesn't allow demolition, the owner will probably do the minimum to stabilize the building, thereby potentially saving it for a future owner. MOTION: Swaim moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an outbuilding at 1012 East Washington Street. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Weitzel pointed out that the demolition was denied because of the historic significance and the venerable nature of the structure. Downing asked what recourse the owner would have regarding this decision. Weitzel said the Commission's decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT PRESERVATION PLAN: Public hearing open: Public hearing closed. Michaud asked about suggestions that vinyl windows be reevaluated. Weitzel said there are recommendations in the Preservation Plan update that the Commission retook at how windows are treated in conservation districts and that there be some leniency. Terdalkar said the packet includes a memorandum with two potential amendments to the plan. He said that one amendment would be to add a paragraph to objective nine, goal two, to consider a revision to the design guidelines to allow more flexibility in terms of materials. Terdalkar said another recommended addition to goal one would extend the period of survey as we move forward in terms of the buildings that meet the 50-year threshold. He said that as the threshold is moving, the Commission would also reevaluate its position in terms of what is significant and what should be surveyed. Weitzel said that he would also like to see the Commission adopt a standard procedure to evaluate previously unconsidered substitute materials so that the process is not always so ad hoc. He said the Commission should be proactive, not reactive, in adopting substitute materials. Weitzel suggested the Commission look to the Historic Trust Forum, preservation architects, etc. Terdalkar said there is a lot to look at in terms of revising the guidelines. He said that the process after the tornado recovery was helpful to get some of the projects moving faster, and that could be incorporated in the guidelines. Terdalkar said the Commission should look at revisions of the guidelines realistically, not just for materials or small changes. Miklo said the Preservation Plan refers to potential amendments to the guidelines in several places. Michaud stated that she is very concerned about environmental impact. She said that if there are green or recycled products, perhaps those could be used rather than less durable products such as wood. Swaim asked if the Commission wanted to be that specific. She said that until those materials are truly tested and there is some guidance from the Trust or the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission's job is to work with the historic guidelines. Weitzel said that the National Trust online forum has discussions about many topics, including substitute materials. He said that the National Trust really doesn't like vinyl, because it's not a renewable resource and doesn't last that long. Weitzel said that one of the greenest things an owner can do is to replace a window that is in place. He said there is a wealth of data on that. Miklo said that the draft Preservation Plan is being considered and adopted by the Commission, and the details will come in the guidelines. He said the plan would then be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and from that Commission to the City Council for approval. Weitzel said he feels the staff memorandum with the amendments should be adopted and included in the Preservation Plan. He said he felt that it covered most of Ponto's concerns, and Ponto agreed. Historic Preservation Commission November 7, 2007 Page 9 MOTION: Michaud moved to adopt the amendments to the Preservation Plan as proposed in staffs November 7`h memorandum. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6- 0, with Brennan not votinq on this motion because he was briefly out of the room. MOTION: Swaim moved to recommend the draft Preservation Plan, as amended at tonight's meeting, to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Minutes for October 11, 2007. Weitzel said that he had typographical corrections to submit. Baker said that on page one, in the second paragraph under Certificate of Appropriateness, the last sentence should read, "...sill of the windows will..." Brennan said that on page eight, in the second to last paragraph, "1920" should be changed to "1930." Weitzel said that on page five, in the second full paragraph, last sentence, "CRF 38" should be changed to "36 CFR Part 800." MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 11, 2007 meeting, as amended. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Discussion of a proposed telecommunication tower located on Hawk Ridge Drive. Terdalkar showed the location of a telecommunications tower to be located on Hawkridge Drive and Highway One. He said that the most notable historic structure nearby is at 747 Benton Street. Terdalkar said that the distance between the properties is fairly significance, and the topography is such that the house is not visible from the site. Terdalkar referred to a report from architectural historian Patricia Eckhart noting that the tower's construction will not have an adverse effect. He said that it will be a stealth tower in that it will be installed on a light pole. Terdalkar said that the light pole will be 50 feet in height. Miklo said there is a height limit of 35 feet for the lamp. Terdalkar said the owner has not yet applied for a special exception. Miklo said that staff would suggest through the special exception process that the light be mounted no higher than 35 feet. Terdalkar said that a letter to the State Historical Society and to the applicant would need to be drafted in order to state the Commission's opinion. The consensus of the Commission was to draft a letter stating that the Commission finds no adverse effect so long as the tower is a stealth tower and the light is mounted at 35 feet or less. Swaim stated that the awards program went quite well.and was handled very efficiently. She said that the remarks were good and to the point, and the focus was on the buildings rather than on people walking across a stage. Weitzel said that some Commission members' terms would expire next year. He said that officer elections would also need to be held early next year. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/mi ns/hpG2007/11-07-07. doc c 0 .N N .~ O U c O ~ ~ O ~ N N ~ ~ ~ O ~o~~ = Z d C O .N N ~~ 'a U ~ m c ~ o i. a~ i ~°o ~ N d ~ L .F a Q .O ~.. N_ X X X ; ; X X X ~ >G X O X ~ >C ~ ~ >C >C >C JC X X N ~ X ~ O X X X X X X X o X X >G ; ; >C X X ~ ?C >C , '" a >G >C ; ; ; ; X X' SG ~ >G X ~ ~ x x ~ ~ w o x x W o x x x , x x o x x x x o x ~' >C O ~ ; ~ w O ~C X >C >C >G X ~o ~ ~ ~ N o x O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 M v, X X ; 0 >C ~ X X X X v x 0 ~ p X >C Q >C X X ~ ~ N 7 X x ~ i ~ i i X 0 X x X X x ~ O X x O O x X X ~ X O , ~ o X x x ~ i x o X X x ', X x N ~ ;? v o oo 0 r 0 o - r 0 oo 0 rn 0 r 0 a~ 0 o - o~ o o0 0 n F.,, ~ rn N M rn N M ~ N M a N M o, N M o~ N M a~ N M a~ N M o~ N M o~ N M a~ N M o~ N M ~ ~ d Y C ~ ~ t C ; G C :a ~ U t ~ .~+ C ~ ~ ~ ~ E' ~ +N+ c C z a~ w` U C C7 ~ ~ a°O ~: E- E 3 L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ N C ~ ~ a0i ~ O O ~~¢zz y II II ~ ',~ i ~xooz ; FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -December 12, 2007 5b ,14 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Engel, Loren Horton, Donald King MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Roth STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle, Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (5:36 p.m.) STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD; and public, Caroline Dieterle and Dean Abel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Engel and seconded by Horton to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 10/16/07 • ICPD General Order 95-01 (Emergency Operation of Police Vehicles) • ICPD General Order 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits) • ICPD General Order 99-10 (Domestic Violence) • ICPD General Order 99-11 (Arrests) • ICPD General Order 99-12 (Field Interviews and "Pat-Down" Searches) • ICPD General Order 00-08 (Weapons) • ICPD General Order 07-03 (Fiscal Management) • ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 07-04 (Mobile Data System) • ICPD Department Memo 07-45 • ICPD Use of Force Report -August 2007 • ICPD Use of Force Report -September 2007 King had a question on General Order 95-01(Emergency Operation of Police Vehicles) and 99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits) regarding whether the Community Service vehicles were part of the Police Department. Widmer stated that they are part of the police department; however they do not use them to pursue. They technically could be, but they are operated by non-sworn persons. Generally the vehicles are used for traffic control, hauling barricades, etc. but they are equipped with emergency lights because of being used for traffic control. Community Service vehicles are authorized to use their lights to get to a location quickly, because they are considered an emergency vehicle. Also on General Order 99-10 (Domestic Violence) on page 14.10 (J -Officer Training), King was wondering how often officers have to go through training. Widmer explained that there are provisions to have a certain number of hours every three years. That training is generally taken care of through MATS (Multi Agency Training System) training. All law enforcement officials in Johnson County get together for a three day session and run the same training which lasts for 5 consecutive weeks in January. Widmer explained that they track the hours of training and always meet the minimum but generally go well above and beyond the required number of hours for training. Also anyone in a specialty position would receive additional training. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. PCRB December 12, 2007 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Changes necessary by 11/6 election -Pugh stated that the amendments to the Charter were passed at the November election. She also informed the Board that the City Council had passed the ordinance (07-4296) that amended the section of the City Code to make it consistent with the Home Rule Charter at their December 11th meeting. Pugh said she would be in contact with the City Attorneys office to make the necessary changes. The SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) will be the biggest change to see what process the Board will go through to exercise the subpoena power and then the additional changes regarding the community forums. Pugh will most likely come up with a draft of the SOP's and then have the Board review them and request any changes or make recommendations at that time. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Caroline Dieterle announced that she had submitted a letter to the City Council and copied the Board regarding the revisions and had not realized that they were already passed. In the letter she had suggested that if there was public concern regarding an issue, that there could be something in the ordinance that if 25 people signed a request asking for a public forum on the issue that the Board would be required to have one. Pugh suggested that if there,was a concern that public could come to a meeting and request a forum during public discussion time. Another point in the letter Dieterle said was that when the Police Department receives internal complaints that do not go through the PCRB that it would be beneficial to the Board if they received something showing those complaints. Pugh stated that the Board currently receives a report from the Police Department on a regular basis that shows the complaints filed internally with the department and also the complaints filed with the PCRB. The report is not in detail but does give a brief synopsis and the status of the complaint. Dieterle's final point in the letter was that it appeared that the PCRB was currently not given the identity of the complainant or the officers involved in an incident, which would limit their knowledge of repeated complaints against officers or by any one complainant. Her suggestion was to assign a code number to each officer and each complainant so that over time the Board would be able to track a pattern while the identities were still protected. Pugh explained that the Board does know the identity of the complainant, but not the officer. Widmer stated that the Police Department has a system where they assign a number to the officer that is given to the PCRB for complaints, but they also have an internal system called the Internal Warning System where they track anything from sick leave to complaints per officer looking for early warning signs. Abel wanted to know if the numbering system for the officers was consistent so that if an officer was named in a complaint and then named in another complaint, the Board would be able to track that one particular officer had been involved in two complaints. Pugh reminded Abel that the Board looks at each complaint independently, not taking anyone's history into account and that the Board does not have any disciplinary power over officers. The Board is responsible for reviewing the complaint, reviewing the Chief's report, and agreeing or disagreeing with the Chief's findings. Abel requested that it be verified that. the numbering system for the officers is consistent. Staff will follow up and verify procedure. PCRB December 12, 2007 Page 3 BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION Widmer reported back to the Board regarding his follow up with the directive "should" and "shall". Widmer found in the Rules and Regulations (section 10.42) for ICPD the definition of "shall/will" means that the action is mandatory. "Should" (section 100.44) is an advisory, not mandatory. Horton had an adjustment to the member phone list. Pugh and Larson also had updates. Pugh updated the Board that she had the opportunity to do a couple of newspaper interviews and one radio interview around the time of the election regarding the proposed changes to the Charter. Tuttle announced to the Board that Dieterle had dropped off an article that was previously mentioned at the 10/16 meeting and that it was available to them. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • January 8, 2008, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Room • February 12, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • March 11, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • April 8, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Horton announced that he will be late to the January 8th meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by King. Motion carried, 4/0, Roth absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:04 P.M. ~°ox zz~~ro 0 o a a ~ c~ c~ ~~ ~.~~ ~ ~ C~7 ~~ c ~s ~ or d r~ ~ xr r~~ ~~ ~ ' ' c ~' va c ~ ~ a, ~, °' `~ y o. ~ ~ 7~ ~ r° ~ ~ x - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ x o 0 0 0 o b ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O '-' ~ ~ ~ ~ k N ~ ~ ~y 7 ~ ~ y 7 W O ~ ~'C ~'C ~'C ~'C N ~ (17 N ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ W O W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C J ' 7 a a a ~ N ~C yC ?C ~'C t~ o ~ ~ y 7 yy a ~ 77 r~ ~ A i ~ ~'C ~'C O C~7 ~'C 'C i O ~ i H:. W O C7 ~ ~ i ~ N y M"j ~--\ -~y ~./ yy `~• ~ fQ d O ~ ~ ~ / O b r ~I I~ H Z C 0 5b 15 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION December 12, 2007 FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: David Bourgeois, Craig Gustaveson, Margie Loomer, Matt Pacha, Phil Reisetter, Jerry Raaz, John Watson, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan O'Leary STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS PRESENT: Dianna Harris RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Reisetter to extend the agreement as written through June 13, 2009 with DogPAC relative to operation of the Thornberry Off-Leash Dog Park, and continue the 90% /10% revenue sharing between DogPAC and the City. Unanimous. Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Reisetter, to recommend adoption of the Recreation Division fees and charges for FY09 and tentative proposals for FY10 and FY11 as presented. Unanimous. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, that the Commission support the initial concept to accept donated parkland property from George and Christiane Knorr located at Highway 218 and Dane Road pending final review of legal documents including the proposed stipulations. Unanimous OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Reisetter, seconded by Bourgeois to approve the November 14, 2007 minutes as written. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None CONSIDER RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH DOGPAC RELATIVE TO OPERATION OF THORNBERRY OFF-LEASH DOG PARK AND REVENUE SHARING: The current agreement expires December 31, 2007. Trueblood reviewed the agreement with Commission members. The agreement as written states that 90% of the revenue generated from the dog park fees goes to DogPAC. These fees are collected and provided to the City and deposited with the City Finance Department. On a quarterly basis, the City issues a check to DogPAC in an amount equal to 90% of the fees collected. This money is used by DogPAC to Parks and Recreation Commission December 12, 2007 Page 2 of 6 benefit the Thornberry Off-Leash Dog Park or development of other dog parks in the City. Raaz asked for the total dollar amount collected for the past year. Trueblood reported that the City has paid about $25,000 to DogPAC to date. Raaz requested that we require an annual audit from DogPAC to show that the money is being spent specifically for dog park purposes. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Reisetter to extend the agreement as written through June 13, 2009 with DogPAC relative to the operation of Thornberry Off-Leash Dog Park, and continue the 90% /10% revenue sharing between DogPAC and the City. Unanimous. Moved by Raaz, seconded by Bourgeois, to require DogPAC to provide the Commission with an annual financial report. Unanimous. DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A SMALL DOG PARK IN SCOTT PARK: Trueblood reported that DogPAC is in agreement with staff recommendation that a small dog park be established in Scott Park. The staff proposes that this be located in the southeast corner of the park as this area is adjacent to farm land and also a considerable distance from the nearest residential area. This would be an approximately three-acre fenced in area. Trueblood asked for discussion only tonight. This item will be placed on the January, 2008 meeting agenda, and this gives enough time to notify the neighborhood that this item will appear on the agenda. Westefeld discussed parking concerns for Scott Park, stating that there seems to be different levels of enforcement. Trueblood stated that there would be a need for increased signage. He will also check to see why there is no parking allowed on the dam area of Scott Boulevard, as there is sufficient space to do so. CONSIDER PROPOSED RECREATION DIVISION FEES AND CHARGES: Trueblood reviewed the proposed fees and charges for FY09 with the Commission. Of note are increased fees for field rentals, swimming classes due to Red Cross fee increases, potters studio cards, summer camp and adult cultural programs. Although there are not many increases, the department is still able to meet the 40% guideline. Pacha asked Tammy Neumann if there is an increase in Farmers Market Revenue. Neumann reported that due to the expanded size of the market on Saturdays, that yes, there is an increase in revenue for this program. Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Reisetter, to recommend adoption of the Recreation Division fees and charges for FY09 and tentative proposals for FY10 and FY11 as uresented. Unanimous. BUDGET UPDATES AND DISCUSSION: Trueblood presented items of interest included in the proposed operating budget to the Commission. He also reviewed the CIP project priorities that were adopted by the Commission at the November 14, 2007 meeting. He also reminded Commission that the funding years reflect tentative recommendations of the staff CIP Committee, noting that due to some funding Parks and Recreation Commission December 12, 2007 Page 3 of 6 constraints, they will likely change prior to being submitted to the City Council. Some discussion incurred regarding these projects. Trueblood mentioned one new project that may be added to this list in the amount of $75,000. This project includes replacement of the roof and rafters on the old park shop located in City Park, and rebuilding a retaining wall immediately south of the building. This shop is currently divided in two parts -one part being used for equipment storage, the other for public rental purposes. Raaz asked for an update on the Sand Lake Recreation Area Development project and also asked for explanation of the multi-year funding process. Trueblood explained that this project must be done in phases sue to funding constraints, and the fact that all the funding is not in place as yet. Reisetter asked about the Recreation Center Roof, thinking that this project had already been complete. Trueblood explained that it has not been done as the City was waiting for the insurance company to settle. Trueblood will present this priority list to City Council in January at a special work session. Trueblood asked Robinson and Moran to talk about their operating budgets for FY09. Robinson discussed the increase in temporary staff budget due to the increased need for summer/seasonal help. He further explained that when the Union changed the timeline for seasonal employees from nine to seven months it made it more difficult to hire staff. He also discussed the need for the CBD/Forestry division to hire contracted workers to help with the increase in work load, especially during the emergency weather situations that have occurred over the past year. Moran discussed the affect of the increase in minimum wage on his budget, explaining that it not only means an increase for those that are currently paid at that level, but it will mean an increase across the board. This will cost approximately $50,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year and $100,000 next fiscal year. Also affecting his budget are the costs for background checks which are required for both temporary employees and volunteers. He also noted that due to recent issues at the Recreation Center the department has added more cameras (nine total) to the Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center building and will be doing the same at the Mercer Park Aquatic Center/Scanlon Gymnasium in the near future. He also mentioned that the lifeguard chairs are due for replacement to meet necessary guidelines and that these will cost approximately $9,000. Westefeld asked what kind of issues are occurring at the Recreation Center. Moran reported that there has been an increase in the number of fights and thefts at both facilities. These cameras will record and allow backup and copying onto DVD's for the police department to review when necessary. Trueblood noted that the Library and Transit Departments are also having problems with some of the same individuals. CONSIDER RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED PARKLAND PROPERTY FROM GEORGE AND CHRISTIANE KNORR: Included in the Commission packets was a letter from George Knorr offering to donate 19.2 acres of land located between the new 218 Highway and Dane Road to the City with certain guidelines to be followed. In summary these guidelines include that the land should be kept by the City and made available to the people as a park and that it not be resold for profit or other reasons. Knorr would like to create a "life estate" that allows him to continue the care of the property as long as he is fit to do so. He is asking that the City maintain the prairie, shrubs, and trees and that the City will inform him about planned improvements such as trails etc. Also that Parks and Recreation Commission December 12, 2007 Page 4 of 6 the City advise or assist him in stewardship of the land; that certain tax consequences be explored separately, and that the park be named the "George and Christiane Knorr Park" or the "Knorr Prairie Park." Raaz asked if there is a park deficit in this area of town. Trueblood said it is not included on the N.O.S. district maps as it was only recently annexed. Raaz also asked about access to the park. Trueblood stated that access will be via Dane Road and that there could be a small parking area added. Raaz asked how binding these requirements are and if there is a possibility of a trail being placed here. Trueblood stated that the intent is that these guidelines would be followed forever and that yes, a trail can be added. This letter has been forwarded to the City Attorney's office to be used as a basis for a legal document. Acceptance of the property and stipulations will need to be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends acceptance. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, that the Commission support the initial concept to accept donated parkland property from George and Christiane Knorr located at Highway 218 and Dane Road pending final review of legal documents including the nronosed stipulations. Unanimous. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Moved by Raaz, seconded by Reisetter to re-elect Matt Pacha as Chair and John Westefeld as Vice-chair for 2008. Unanimous. MASTER PLAN UPDATE: Trueblood reported that Leisure Vision will be sending out a survey to approximately 2500 households after the first of the year. They hope to have results within six to eight weeks, with a minimum of 500 respondents. Trueblood will put together a proposed schedule of the remainder of the process and report back to the Commission in January. COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Gustaveson discussed the process that the Downtown Association has gone through over the past two years getting holiday lights and decorations placed downtown. He thanked the City staff and MidAmerican Energy for their help with this process. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha expressed his thanks to staff for the food provided at tonight's meeting and wished everyone a Merry Christmas. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Request for Cell Phone Tower Placement: Trueblood has recently been contacted by an Iowa Wireless representative to discuss the possibility of placing a "monopole" cell tower in Willow Creek Park. This representative says that he believes a 50-foot pole will be sufficient; however, the engineering work has not been done yet. Trueblood told him that he would discuss their Parks and Recreation Commission December 12, 2007 Page 5 of 6 proposal at this meeting to find out from Commissioners if they are willing to consider it. Raaz stated that he would like to keep the discussions at a minimum on this project as the recent request took a lot of time to resolve. Gustaveson suggested that there be a subcommittee created to discuss such issues. Trueblood reminded members that officially appointed subcommittees are required to follow open meetings laws. It was determined that a subcommittee will be appointed and meet and discuss this item and report back to the Commission. Elks Club Trail Status: Due to recent bad weather, the walk that was scheduled with engineers has been postponed. Trueblood will report at next meeting. Boathouse: Plans and specifications are 75% completed. He will be meeting with the University staff next week to discuss. Sand Lake Recreation Area Development: Trueblood reported that the City has purchased an additional 30 acres of land to add to this development. Senior Center: The Acting City Manager asked Trueblood and staff to again meet with the Director of the Senior Center and their staff to talk about the sharing of services between the two departments and to look at new endeavors that the two departments could work on jointly. He will keep the Commission apprised. Recreation Program Supervisor Position: Trueblood and Moran will be conducting interviews this week for the Program Supervisor opening due to Bill Blanchard's retirement. There is a retirement open-house scheduled for Bill on Friday, December 28 from 1-4 pm in the Social Hall of the Recreation Center. All Commissioners are invited. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Raaz to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Unanimous Parks and Recreation Commission December 12, 2007 Page 6 of 6 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2007 NAME TERM EXPIRES o ^" ~ N e ~ M o '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ^~ ~ [~ ao pp ~ ~ O~ ° o .r o ~ ~ N .. David Bour eois 1/1/11 X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E X X X X X Craig Gustaveson 1/1/11 X O/E O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X X O/E O/E X X X X X O/E X X X Ryan O'Lear 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X X X X O Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 O/E X X X X X X O/E O/E X X O/E X John Watson 1/ 1/ 11 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X KEY: X = 0= O/E _ NM = LQ = Present Absent Absent/Excused No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member