Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-25 Bd Comm. minutes6 Yob SSS GuY i�.yat 11� MINUTES Subject to Approval URBAN ENVIRONMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1984 - 4:00 PM, CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Barker, Brinton, Jordan, Strait, VanderUoude MEMBERS ABSENT: Amert, Jakobsen, Koch, Lorenzen, McGuire STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Milkman, Johnston CALL TO ORDER: Co -Chairperson Strait called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. REVIEW REVISIONS OF "SCOPE OF CONCERNS" AND URBAN ENVIRONMENT AREA DESIGNATION PROCEDURE: - Strait suggested changing the word "built" to "constructed" in paragraph two, line one, on page one. Strait also felt the parentheses should be removed and commas used instead in paragraph two, line four, on page two. Franklin said the first paragraph on page two was added to deal with environ- mental hazards. She also said the policy statement under "environmentally sensitive areas" on page three was expanded to include hazardous sites identified by state or federal agencies. Strait felt the parentheses should be replaced with a dash in paragraph two, line three, on page three. He also felt the word town should be changed to city in paragraph two, line two, an page four. Franklin said that she will have the legal review on the designation of areas before the next meeting. Franklin explained that another committee could be set up to exclusively designate areas and that this committee would not have any Councilmembers on it since the Committee would be advisory to the City Council. It was felt the committee should have a membership of nine. Jordan asked if an area designated was along the river, 'would the Riverfront Commission be contacted in same way. He expressed concern that any existing Board or Commission not be bypassed. Franklin cautioned against making the process too cumbersome, yet acknowl- edged the need to not bypass anyone. Everyone felt the process should be as expedient and thorough as possible. Franklin said that she has contacted the Planners Advisory Service and will be putting the information together as it is received. DISCUSSION OF INVENTORY LIST: Strait asked if anything in the river needs to be protected, for example, fossils. X779 Urban Environment Ad .c Committee August 28, 1984 Page 2 Franklin explained that the jurisdiction of the river is different. The state of Iowa has jurisdiction from the center of the stream to the high water mark. Property owners have rights up to the high water mark and the federal government has jurisdiction over the river because of the dam. Brinton said you can't always count on the state or federal government as there is overlapping jurisdiction between them. He said that he is concerned with the water quality. Jordan asked who controls the size of the motorboats on the river. Does Iowa City have any jurisdiction? Franklin stated that the Riverfront Commission was currently dealing with that issue. Franklin advised the Committee to keep in mind what designates an area as "special" and be able to defend why controls are needed, or the whole conceppt could fail. Any areas that there are strong feelings about should be included but the areas that the group feels would be "nice" to preserve should be saved for a later time. Milkman stated she was concerned with all the areas included under Entrance- ways. The Committee felt that Sand Road, Local Road/Rochester Avenue, Mormon Trek Boulevard, and American Legion. Road were of lesser importance and could be included some time in the future. Milkman asked why railroad embankments were included under Buffers and Open Space. Barker said this was included to preserve a buffer between the railroad and residential uses. It was noted that these areas could be designated but that legally nothing may be able to be done and the only thing that could be done would be to suggest preservation of the wooded areas to the railroad company. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of a public meeting — tentative date 9/19. Strait asked the best way to get the information out. Franklin said a press release would be sent out which would attempt to provoke interest. She also said there would be public announcements on cable and the radio stations. She noted that the newspaper would not do more than one story before an event. Franklin asked if September 19 was appropriate for everyone. She thought the meeting should be in the evening, and could take place in Room A in the Library as that room is more conducive to discussion than the Council Chambers. Franklin cautioned against talking about specific sites and suggested discussing what the Committee wduld be doing and why. Baker suggested using the Cliff Apartments as an example and stating what this Committee would have done differently. /7 79 Urban Environment Ad . c Committee August 28, 1984 Page 3 The Committee will meet again on September 11 to discuss the format for the public meeting. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AUGUST B. 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Willis, Mitchell, Steinbrech and Alvarez MEMBERS ABSENT: Crum, Jennings, Martin and Hart STAFF PRESENT: Showalter, Howell, Harvey, and Bryant Robinson GUESTS PRESENT: Charles Ruppert, 1406 North Dubuque Road, Iowa City; Mr. and Mrs. Max Otto, 733 West Benton, Iowa City RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Moved by Alvarez, seconded by Mitchell, to recommend to the City Council that a primary recreational facility (an entire softball/soccer complex) be developed, as opposed to separate facilities in separate locations. Unanimous. Moved by Alvarez, seconded by Mitchell, that the Commission recommend to the City Council to not accept the gift of riverfront land at Sturgis Corner because it is not functional. Ayes: Riddle, Steinbrech, Mitchell and Alvarez. Nays: Willis. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Mitchell, seconded by Steinbrech, that the minutes of the July 11 meeting be approved as written. Unanimous. Riddle appointed Bill Steinbrech to the Swimming Pool Committee to replace Harry Dean. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Showalter updated the Commission on land acquisition for sports facilities. He has, at the suggestion of the County Board of Supervisors, investigated soccer sites as an alternative to the County Home property. These sites include corn fields at the northwest corner of the airport, and north of the fairgrounds (privately owned). He will be submitting a report of pros and cons to the County Board of Supervisors in September. He has met with the Committee appointed by the Board and they have concerns about the dollar value offered for the County Home farm land, but appear to want to reach an equitable solution by this fall. He prefers a multiple use site, including parking, restrooms and joint maintenance of the area. Willis asked if the soccer association has performed a long-term study (5 years) for soccer needs. Showalter answered that in 1977 there were 250 players and in 1982 there were 1,700. He feels that the number would increase dramatically if there were quality soccer fields for play. He will ask Iowa City Kickers for a projection of needs. Willis asked how the proposed County Home sports facility would accomodate soccer and softball programs. Showalter answered that he would use the existing soccer sites as neighborhood practice fields and the sports facility for league games. The softball complex could enable moving girls' softball from Napoleon to Mercer Park, with adults using the proposed softball complex. Mr. Showalter and the Commission discussed the proposed sports facility and park at the County Home property and unanimously agreed that it was the ideal location for the complex. /78a PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIu„ August 8, 1984 Page 2 Showalter stressed that the cost of development for soccer fields would be minimal, however, development for the softball facility, park area, and road reconstruction will be considerable and must be considered. It will, however, fall under the primary recreational facility category for partial federal funding (L.W.C.F.). Moved by Alvarez, seconded by Mitchell, to recommend to the City Council that a primary recreational facility (an entire softball/soccer complex) be developed, as opposed to separate facilities in separate locations. Unanimous. Showalter informed the Commission that the present plan for Miller Park is: beginning at Benton Street at the abandoned house, 310 feet east -west width, rectangular, going straight south to a point approximately 50 feet north of the London Sports Car Shop, with the south 50 feet being reserved for a right-of-way for a street access to the Ruppert property. He has estimated that Mr. Ruppert will need a 22 foot street through the middle of the property for access. There will be about 630 usable feet north and south from Benton to the road north of the London Sports Car Shop. Showalter referred to a memo from the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending the acquisition of park land in the undeveloped area of the land bounded by Harlocke Street to the west, Benton Street to the north, Miller Avenue to the east, and Highway 1 to the south. He feels that their intent is to have a park nearer Harlocke than the proposed Miller Park is. Steinbrech asked and Showalter answered that the residents want an open play area with a shaded area for picnic tables and play equipment. The minimum federal standard is 200 feet by 200 feet for an open play area. Riddle asked and Showalter answered that Ryerson Woods is being appraised at the request of the Iowa Law School Foundation, and he is assuming that it will be purchased this fall. Riddle said he feels a priority list should be established because of the limited park land acquisition funds. The Planning and Zoning memo was referred to Showalter for clarification for the September meeting. Mitchell reported on the 6:30 p.m. August 8th tour of Sturgis Corner. The 50 foot width of Sturgis Corner is partly under water and it would be difficult to maintain the area in regard to weed control. There is also no feasible way to develop the area. Willis stated that the land could be accepted with the express condition that no maintenance would be performed, and it would be left in its natural state. Steinbrech asked liability consequences of land left in its natural state, and Showalter answered that the City is subject to liability and has natural land along the river banks at Mesquakie and Sturgis Ferry. Willis said the City can use the zoning ordinance to avoid liability by creating a zone without maintenance. Showalter said river bank erosion should be considered. Willis said the Stanley Plan recommends this area as a vegetative buffer, and he realizes there is no possibility of a trail being developed. His concern, however, is how to deal with gifts of land and what general principles should be applied. , /780 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMIS : ON August 8, 1984 Page 3 He feels that any land with a connection to recreation or conservation purposes should be accepted, and in this case, with the express condition that no maintenance would be performed. Moved by Alvarez, seconded by Mitchell, that the Commission recommend to the City Council to not accept the gift of riverfront land at Sturgis Corner because it is not functional. Ayes: Riddle, Steinbrech, Mitchell and Alvarez. Nays: Willis. Riddle asked the status of Mercer Park ball diamond reconstruction, and Showalter answered that diamonds one and two will be done this fall. The fencing will be done on one, two and three, but four won't be done until it is established whether adult or girls' softball will be played there. Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Mitchell, to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. &Atao,- Dee Harvey /780 MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Krause, Ruth Dawson, Oanel Trevor, Al Logan, John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Goldene Haendel, Janet Schlechte STAFF PRESENT: Kelley Vezina, David Malone, David Brown, Larry Kinney, Judy Hoard SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order, Logan made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 19, 1984, meeting. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JOHN ROLSTON - 402-04 MELROSE COURT: Present: None. APPEAL OF MARCIA PITKIN - 207 EAST FAIRCHILD: Present: None. APPEAL OF JIM MCFALL AND JACK SCHUBATT - 215-15 1/2 SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT: Present: None. Inspector Hoard as secretary informed Chairperson Krause that the first three appeal requests had not been filed within the ten day filing period. Krause - suggested that all three late appeals be acted on at the same time. Logan made a motion to grant appeal rights to all three properties and to hear them at the September Appeals Board meeting. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ROBERT HEARITY - 308 SOUTH GOVERNOR: Present: None. Inspector Malone stated to the Board that the violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowding. He explained that Mr. Hearity had spoken with him on the phone previous to the Appeals Board meeting stating that he was ill and would not be able to attend. Inspector Malone explained to the Board that there was no violation as the appeal request form stated that there were only four people residing at the property and the maximum number that could occupy the property was five people. Assistant City Attorney Brown recommended to the Board that they uphold the violation. Logan made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowding. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ROBERT HEARITY - 726 NORTH VAN BUREN- Present: None. /7V MINUTES HOUSING APPEh_., BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 PAGE 2 Inspector Malone stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection on June 11 and 19, 1984, at 726 North Van Buren. Inspector Malone told the Board that in his phone conversation with Mr. Hearity he had requested an addi- tional 30 day extension to correct the violations and thus no hearing would be necessary. Trevor inquired as to the time period that would be given if the violations were upheld. Inspector Hoard informed her that there would be 90 days from the date of the hearing to make corrections of the violations. Trevor stated that would be more time than the owner was now requesting. The violations were not presented individually to the Board as Trevor made a motion to uphold the three appealed violations which are: Chapter 17-5.E. lack of or improper location of required lavatory basin, no lavatory is observed for the basement bathroom; Chapter 17-5.M.(2) lack of required electrical light fixture or switched outlet, northeast and northwest bedroom lack a switched light or outlet; the third violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition, the west porch outside light cover is missing, the basement ceiling electri- cal wiring is in knob and tube which is observed to have many splices in it and the garage has a porcelain fixture with bare terminals and frayed knob and tube wiring including the wiring from the house to the garage. Logan seconded the motion. .The motion carried. APPEAL OF KATHERINE WALDEN, 1121 EAST BURLINGTON: Present: Katherine Walden. Inspector Hoard stated that she conducted a licensing inspection at 1121 East Burlington on May 14, 1984. She told the Board that this was an owner/occupied duplex with the owner occupying the first floor dwelling unit. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(b) lack of required guardrail, east and north side of porch lacks a guardrail. Inspector Hoard told the Board that the Housing Code requires that if a landing has a drop off of 30 inches or more a guardrail would be required and in this particular case, there was a drop off of 33 to 34 inches along the east side of the porch and 32 inches to under 30 inches on a portion of the north side of the porch that was in violation. Pictures were presented to the Boardmembers for their observation. Inspector Hoard was requested to draw a diagram of the violations for the Boardmembers to get a better perspective. Ms. Walden told the Board that the portion of the porch that was more than a 30 inches from the ground was not used by the tenant. She stated that for aesthetic reasons she preferred to leave the porch open without the guard- rails. Assistant City Attorney Brown stated that he felt the violation was properly cited by the inspector. Moore made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(b) as long as the property was owner -occupied. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MICHAEL GREGORY - 653 SOUTH GOVERNOR: Present: None. Inspector Hoard told the Board that she had conducted a licensing inspection at 653 South Governor on June 20, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, basement north and south room have a 6'9" ceiling height. Inspector Hoard told the Board /78/ MINUTES HOUSING APPEh-., BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 PAGE 3 that this was a flat ceiling in the basement. There was some discussion by the Boardmembers as to the reason why Mr. Gregory and several of the other appellants were not present for the hearing. Inspector Hoard stated that she was not sure why Mr. Gregory was not there but that when there was a ceiling height violation that was close to the 7' minimum requirement she explained to the property owner or manager that in the past a variance had been granted at that ceiling height but did encourage them to attend the meeting. Inspector Vezina also explained that he advised similarly in discussing violations of this nature with owners and managers. Assistant City Attorney Brown suggested that no assurances should be made by inspectors regarding the granting of variances but that reference could be made to past decisions of similar violations but the owner/managers needed to be made aware that each case was treated on an individual basis. Trevor made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JOSEPHINE RHODEN - 818 RIDER: Present: Jean McGovern. Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted a licensing inspection at 818 Rider on June 19, 1984. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.F. lack of privacy in toilet room/bathroom, first floor half bath no wall above doorway. Inspector Hoard read to the Boardmembers the section of the code that stated that privacy must be provided for bathrooms. She stated that there was no wall above the doorway into the bathroom and presented the Board with pictures of the violation. Ms. McGovern told the Board that she was the owner's sister and that the owner had fust recently had a stroke and wished her sister to represent her at the appeals hearing. Ms. McGovern explained to the Board that at one time the half bathroom had been a pantry and had been converted by her father several years ago as he did not wish to climb the steps to the second floor bathroom. She said that she felt that there were two options open to her: one being to remove the toilet and the second one being to construct a wall above the doorway and to change the doors and install a vent fan. Inspector Hoard stated that the door had not been cited as a violation, that it was the area above the doorway that was in violation. The Boardmembers suggested that a fan be installed in the area now open above the doorway. Inspector Hoard stated that the fan would have to vent directly to the outdoors but indeed that area could be used as a location for a vent fan. Moore made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.F. lack of privacy in toilet room/bathroom and Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of required/ adequate mechanical ventilation. First floor half bath lacks openable window or system of mechanical ventilation. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Hoard wished to know if the Boardmembers would be willing to change the process by which late appeals are handled. She said it would be far more convenient for the staff if those appeals that had appeal rights granted could be presented at the same meeting rather than schedule them for the following meeting. Chairperson Krause stated that the original intent in scheduling them at two different meetings was for punitive measures and that if in fact the inconvenience was principally for the staff persons then perhaps the policy should be changed. Assistant City Attorney Brown stated /%00/ MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 PAGE 4 that it would be punitive only if the appeal rights were not granted to the appellant. There was further discussion with Chairperson Krause stating that if appeal rights were granted the appeal would be heard at the same meeting and that if the appeal rights were not granted then the violation would stand as cited. APPEAL OF RICHARD ZIOCK - 223 SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT: Present: Richard Ziock. Inspector Vezina reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 223 South Riverside Court on April 5, 1984. He inquired from the Board if they would prefer him to go through each violation as each one had been appealed by Mr. Ziock. Chairperson Krause asked Mr. Ziock if he wished to appeal all of the violations. Mr. Ziock stated that he wished to discuss them and began his explanation as to why he was filing an appeal based on the fact that he had purchased the property for the sole purpose of demolishing it and constructing an apartment building in its place. He stated that the property had existed since 1947 and at this point he did not feel it was feasible economically to make repairs with the plan in mind of tearing down the building in the near future. He also stated that there had been no com- plaints from tenants or neighbors and that the property was set back by the railroad tracks and was visible only to those who drove back by it. Mr. Ziock went through a brief explanation regarding each of the appealed violations. He stated that he did not feel the garage needed to be painted at this time and even though the roof shingles were curled there was no leaking occurring. He stated that he would repair the leaking kitchen faucet and install a fire extinguisher and did not wish to continue the appeal of those two violations. The south bedroom did have one outlet present and he did not feel that there would be much gain by installing a second outlet in that room when it would only be used for not more than a year's time. Inspector Vezina presented each appealed violation. The first violation was Chapter 17-7.A.(5). interior partition wall, floor, ceiling and/or other interior surface not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary, bathroom window interior trim has peeling paint and bathroom wall tiles on north and south walls are deteriorated with tiles loose and missing. Inspec- tor Vezina stated that there was a possibility that the peeling paint may be of lead base origin and that if the wood surface was not treated the wood could rot. The wall tiles were written as a violation because water could get behind the tile and at some time cause damage to the walls. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.8. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair; garage roof, shingles are deteriorated, warped and curled and garage has peeling paint. Inspector Vezina presented the Board with pictures of these violations and stated that he was unable to determine if the shingles were water tight and based on the exterior appear- ance he felt a violation existed. The garage likewise was in violation because the -wood surfaces were not being protected. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements, paint on window trim, soffits of house and gutters 4s peeling. Inspector Vezina stated that those areas of the house %00/ MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 PAGE 5 were in need of paint. Mr. Ziock questioned the properness of citing the gutters under the code section dealing with exterior wood surfaces. Inspec- tor Vezina stated that he had made a mistake and had incorrectly cited them. They should in fact have been cited under rain water and drainage systems. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electri- cal outlet, south bedroom lacks one electrical outlet. Inspector Vezina stated that the Housing Code requires that two double -convenience outlets be provided for each habitable room. Mr. Ziock was asked by Trevor if he could provide a definite time frame as to when the property would be demolished. He stated that at this time it was not possible to do so because there were so many extraneous variables that had to be dealt with. She wanted to know if the property could be left unrented until it was torn down. Mr. Ziock stated that this would not be acceptable to him. Inspector Vezina suggested that a building inspector observe the condition of the garage and report back to him. He thought that he would know more definitely within the next year the time frame he would be working with as far as demolition of the property. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A(5) interior partition wall, floor, ceiling and/or other interior surface not protected such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.8. accessary structure not maintained in good state of repair and 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unpro- tected from the elements with one year to correct the violations. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Dawson made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JIM MURPHY - 532 NORTH DODGE: Present: None. Inspector Vezina stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 532 North Dodge on April 20, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, livingroom and southwest bedroom have 6'10" ceiling. Moore made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF LINDA HART - 1030 NORTH SUMMIT STREET: Present: None. Inspector Vezina stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 1030 North Summit Street on May 8, 1984. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.E. lack of or improper location of required lavatory basin, half bath of the kitchen lacks lavatory. Inspector Vezina stated that there was a toilet present in the room and there was a kitchen sink in the adjacent room. Assistant City Attorney Brown read to the Board the pertinent sections of the code which stated that a lavatory had to be provided for each toilet and must be distinct from the kitchen sink. Again, there was some discussion as to the fact that the owner of the property was not present for the appeal. Inspector Vezina stated that he had personally delivered the notice to the MINUTES HOUSING APPEALa BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 PAGE 6 owner and was uncertain as to why she was not present. Inspector Vezina was asked if it would be possible to install a lavatory in the bathroom. He stated that there was a small type of sink that could in fact be provided. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.E. lack of or improper location of required lavatory basin. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door or doorway. Second floor northwest bedroom has a 6'2" doorway height and second floor northeast bedroom has a 6'2-3/4" doorway height. Inspector Vezina stated to the Board that the Housing Code required a minimum .6'4" doorway height. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door or doorway. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access, access to northeast bedrooms and floor can be gained only by transgressing through bathroom or northwest bedroom. Inspector Vezina referred the Boardmembers to the diagram to the floor plan provided for them and stated that no other way existed to reach the northeast bedroom. Moore suggested that at one time the bathroom was most likely used as a bedroom. Logan made. a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause called the meeting adjourned. Minutes prepared for Chairperson Fred Krause by Judy Hoard. MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Amert; Eckholt, Haupert, Sinek, Summerwill, Wockenfuss MEMBERS ABSENT: Alexander, Lafore, Seiberling, Wegman GUESTS PRESENT: Richard Kruse, Joe McCormick, Margaret Nowysz STAFF PRESENT: Hauer, Johnston RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Design Review Committee recommends the approval of the design of the Rocky Rococo Pizza Parlor at 118 S. Dubuque and in particular, the awning intrusion into the City Plaza air space because it adds variety and interest to the downtown area. The Committee adds its recommendation is contingent upon: .1) some kind of acceptable pane -grid work in the windows; 2) the pane -grid work being painted; and 3) assurance that the doorway glass is level with the lower levels of the windows. REQUEST TO COUNCIL: 1. The Design Review Committee requests a work session with members of the City Council to discuss the minipark design and the design considerations in the marketing of a portion of the minipark. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairperson Summerwill called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1984 AND MAY 31, 1984: Haupert moved that the minutes of May 9, 1984 and May 31, 1984 be approved. Sinek seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0. REVIEW OF AWNING AND PROPOSED RENOVATION OF 118 S. DUBUQUE STREET: Hauer introduced Joe McCormick, representative of Rocky Rococo Pizza and Richard Kruse, architect with Rust & Kruse. McCormick showed the architect's design of the front exterior of the store and asked the Committee if they had any questions. Summerwill questioned what business had formerly occupied the space. Richard Kruse stated that the former Blackstone Beauty Salon was relocating to 17 S. Dubuque St. Kruse said that he had tried to design the front of the building to disguise the fact that the front of the building is not symmetrical. Wockenfuss stated the door to the second floor throws the symmetry off. He said that Baskin and Robbins has the same problem. McCormick said the colors used (green, light and dark buff, and burgundy) are the colors of the Rocky Rococo company. Everyone liked the company's choice of colors: 1;7.fz E McCormick said this business was primarily a fast-food, take-out type pizza parlor. They sell deep pan pizza by the slice. He stated there is also sit-down and delivery service. Sumnerwill asked if there was an awning. McCormick said there was a green awning with buff lettering reading "Rocky Rococo". Wockenfuss asked if the same colors would be used on the inside of the build- ing. McCormick replied affirmatively. McCormick said he plans to open on November 12, 1984. Amert said she liked the window pane treatment because it offset the non - symmetry. McCormick replied the paning of the windows was not for certain. The reasons he gave were cost, time, and that the grill work doesn't really add that much. Everyone strongly disagreed and felt the pane work was a very nice, sensitive treatment of the windows and made the building 'special". Summerwill asked if the windows were not paned, whether it was possible to see a table -counter from the City Plaza as you can at the Airliner. McCormick stated the removable panes would be broken in a year's time and made keeping the windows clean a problem. Amert stated the panes screen the parlor both inside and out which was desirable. McCormick wants visibility onto the Plaza. Eckholt stated this design, as presented, is a very nice design with an excellent color scheme. He said without the panes, it is not the same. He said he feels the owners don't want to use panes because the panes are a pain. Summerwill questioned Kruse if it was as good a design with just plain glass and no panes. Kruse said he feels the design is successful either way but that the pane grids do add more in an aesthetic sense. Summerwill asked if the glass was thermal and if it was tinted or clear. McCormick said it was clear thermal glass. Kruse stated that clear glass was a better choice because the building is shaded already by the number of trees on the Plaza. Haupert said he would like to see panes or grids in the windows. He suggested making a wooden grid work and suspending it from hooks from the interior to present a paned appearance. Amert stated the pane -grill work is a good investment and does not have to be costly. She said the pane -grill work compliments the older architecture. Summerwill stated she liked Haupert's idea. Nowysz asked Kruse if he had looked at Frederick Kent's collection to see what the original building looked like. Kruse stated all he was able to find was a picture of an upper cornice. Nowysz asked if they had thought of using the Historic Preservation Committee library or staff as a resource. Kruse said they had not. Nowysz said the pubs in England were attractive because of their pane -grill work and treatment of awnings. She stated she felt the Whiteway renovation was unsuccessful because of the treatment of their windows. She stated she would hate to see this happen with this building. She suggested that they obtain a copy of the "How To Book" and check the craft people listed who work with wood. 3 Eckholt said there could be a possibility of having panes painted. He cited Vito's and The Kitchen front window designs as examples of the work John Downer of The Sign Shop does and he stated he is impressed with his work. Amert felt the painting treatment for the windows was a good idea. Nowysz suggested the Committee could wait for the pane -grill work to be installed at 'a later time such as after the parlor opens. Eckholt said he felt it would never happen if the Committee chooses to wait. Summerwill asked McCormick if he was going to manage the business and live in Iowa City. McCormick said he has a manager already and that he will continue to live in Madison, Wisconsin. Haupert moved the approval of the design of the Rocky Rococa Pizza Parlor at 118 S. Dubuque and in particular, the awning intrusion into the City Plaza air space because it adds variety and interest to the downtown, contingent upon: 1) some kind of acceptable pane -grid work in the windows; 2the pane -grid work being painted; 3) assurance that the doorway glass is Lvel with the lower level's of the windows' glass. Wockenfuss seconded. The motion passed unanimously (6/0). Everyone thanked McCormick and Kruse for presenting the design. REVIEW OF REMAINING URBAN RENEWAL PARCELS FOR DESIGN REVIEW: Hauer asked the Committee to refer to the September 12 memo they received in their packets regarding information on the remaining urban renewal parcels. Hauer stated the marketing documents for the "buffalo corner" of the minipark would be presented to the Committee for their comments within the next month. When asked why the City was selling this land, she said that Art Small, as a potential owner of the adjacent Paul -Helen Building, has asked the City to consider selling the 700 square foot space. She noted there is no guarantee the City would award the parcel to him. Haupert said he would like to see Jim Maynard's drawing for the minipark reconstruction again. He suggested having a joint work session with the Council to discuss the design work and felt it could be very productive. The Committee unanimously agreed with Haupert's suggestion. OTHER BUSINESS: Hauer requested ideas the Committee would have for Community Development Block Grant money requests and asked the Committee to get in touch with her if they had any suggestions. Hauer said the next meeting will be on October 3 or October 10. The meeting ended by general consensus at 6:25 PH. Minutes submitted by Jean Johnston. 1712