Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-03 Bd Comm minutes4b(1) FINAL MINUTES City of Iowa City Animal Care Task Force April 24, 2008 - 6:00 P.M. Room E ICPL Call to Order: Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Old Business: Meeting called to order at 6:10 p.m. Pat Farrant, Teresa Kopel, Paula Kelly, Jane McCune, Lisa Drahozal Pooley Misha Goodman George Hospodarsky, Tyson Braun 1. March 6`h 2008 minutes approved as submitted. 2. Contracts for service Coralville will accept the proposal that George Hospodarsky and Misha Goodman put together based on percentage of use. Johnson County still needs to accept the proposed changes. North Liberty, Oxford and Solon have already agreed. Finalization of contracts needs to be prior to July 1, 2008. 3. Spay/Neuter summit update Pat Farrant handed out a copy of action items from the summit. Holly Hotchkiss is resigning from FACF effective May 31, 2008, which raised the question of who will facilitate the next summit. Paula Kelly suggested that the people who agreed to action items be contacted to check on progress and that a progress report be relayed to attendees of the summit. Lisa Drahozal Pooley agreed to contact Holly and make this request. 4. City Carton pilot project update ]t was agreed that neighboring businesses to the site should be contacted to make sure they were in agreement with the pilot project and that a proposal be written to the city. I'at Farrant will write a draft proposal and send by email to Task Force members for review. 5. Fees, ordinance, permits -plan for recommendations to IC City Council Misha Goodman reiterated Sue Dulek's advice that permit fees need to reflect administrative costs involved. Therefore, based on the pet store permit process, the Task Force determined with Misha Goodman that the amount to be charged for a pet store permit would be as follows: $300.00 fora "major" pet store permit. A major pet store can be defined as a pet store that sells dogs or cats; $100.00 fora "minor" pet store permit. A minor pet store can be defined as a pet store that does not sell dogs or cats. Misha Goodman will email drafts of ordinances to Task Force members in preparation for a vote at the next meeting. The Task Force hopes to send recommendations for these ordinances to the IC City Council by the end of this fiscal year. Misha Goodman also expressed concern that some veterinary clinics are adopting out animals without following up on whether the animals are spayed/neutered, which is not in accordance with Iowa state laws. Lisa Drahozal Pooley will scan and send by email the fees sheet that was discussed at an earlier meeting. New Business: 1. Regionalizing: Reaching out to the County and Coralville Misha Goodman will confirm with Sue Dulek the status of the Animal Care Task Force in light of the new contracts. 2. Review originally assigned duties and establish priorities for systematically addressing them Postponed until next meeting 3. Puppy mills 4. Mobile adoptions 5. Set agenda and time/date for the next meeting fhe next meeting will be Wednesday, May 14`~ 2008, 5:45 p.m. Room E ICPL. Note the change in time. Recommendations to City Council: Task Force Member Comment: Staff Comment: Citizen Comment: 7:53 p.m. meeting adjourned. 4b(2) FINAL MINUTES City of Iowa City Animal Care Task Force March 6th, 2008 - 5:30 P.M. Room B ICPL Call to Order: Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Old Business: Meeting called to order at 5:44 p.m. Pat Farrant, "Teresa Kopel, Paula Kelly, Lisa Drahozal Pooley, Jane McCune Misha Goodman George Hospodarsky 1. Feb 21st 2008 minutes approved as submitted. 2. Coralville contracts discussion continued Misha has presented to Chief Barry Bedford a new option in which Coralville will pay a percentage for the use of the animal shelter facility and services. Bedford will share this option with the Coralville City Council. The Animal Care Task Force would like to formally thank George Hospodarsky for his tremendous work in compiling statistics and preparing reports. George's help was vital in coming up with an option for the Coralville contract. 3. Revisit fees/ordinances/permits -postponed 4. Spay/Neuter summit Pat Farrant will attend and report back to the Task Force. New Business: 1. Misha Goodman reported that Spay Day was a great success, with over 50 animals spayed/neutered. Drs. Jen Doll and Mark Dennis participated. 2. A feral cat pilot program was discussed. 3. Misha Goodman reported that it appeared approval would be given to the Animal Center and the Johnson County Humane Society to use the old bus depot as a satellite mobile adoption center. 4. The IC Animal Center, JCHS, Washington County, Tipton and Safe Haven will all work out a rotation for showing animals available for adoption at the new Petco in Coralville. 5. The microchip clinic sponsored by Iowa State Bank and the Friends of the Animal Center Foundation will be held on April 26. 6. Center staff member Andrea Kilkenny will hold the annual Bully Workshop on May 31". 7. Misha Goodman reported on a cat hoarding situation in Iowa City, noting that they are looking for a home for four elderly cats. Recommendations to City Council: Task Force Member Comment: Staff Comment: Citizen Comment: 7:06 p.m. meeting adjourned. os-os-os ' 4b 3 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Viktor Tichy, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Baldridge, Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Bennett, Andrew Skola, Mary Beth Slonneger, Rick Woodard CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ELECTION OF CHAIR: Bunting Eubanks stated that she would be willing to be chair if someone else would be willing to be vice chair. Downing volunteered to be vice chair. MOTION: Swaim nominated Bunting Eubanks to be chair of the Commission and Downing to be vice chair. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MOTION: Ponto moved to change the agenda to consider a certificate of appropriateness for 1132 Burlington Street at this time. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1132 Burlington Street. Kuecker said that the applicant for 1132 Burlington Street would like to remove the stairway in the rear of the property and add a new deck there. She said that the property is located in the College Hill Conservation District on the north side of Burlington Street. Kuecker stated that a small carport was added to one side of the property in the early 80s. Kuecker said that the stairs to be removed are in bad shape and need at least repair, if not replacement. She said the applicant wants to put in a deck to cover most of the concrete pad. Kuecker said the deck would be 22 feet by 20 feet with afour-foot wide stair. Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for the construction of a deck to the rear of the building, as long as it would not be seen from the street. She said that this deck would not be seen from the street, as the adjacent properties are quite close in proximity. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of this application, provided that the handrails, instead of being contemporary stock deck handrails, are something closer to what would be historically present on the house, with the spindles tied into the top and bottom rails and some kind of slant on the top and bottom rails to prevent standing water. Skola, the applicant, said that he agrees with Kuecker that the spindles she has proposed will look better and said he would not have a problem doing that type of railing. Downing suggested that Skola look at the neighboring houses for design ideas, as some of those porches are original. Ponto said that it looks like the deck is not inset and is flush with the side walls. Skola said that is what he plans. Ponto said the guidelines recommend that they be inset, partly so that they can't be seen from the street. He said that in this situation, it would be very difricult to see from the street anyway. Historic Preservation Commission May 8, 2008 Page 2 Kuecker said that the other reason staff didn't point that out is because the carport was constructed there, so it is technically set in twelve feet from the edge of the carport. Ponto asked if there would be any type of skirting. Skola said that he plans to have lattice underneath. Kuecker said that the guidelines don't specifically mention lattice for decks. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1132 Burlington Street, as proposed, with the inclusion of the staff recommendation for the 4:10 balustrades and handrails. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MOTION: Baker moved to change the agenda to consider a certifcate of appropriateness for 441 South Governor Street at this time. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 441 South Governor Street. Kuecker said the applicant for 441 South Governor is requesting approval to remove, repair, and replace the wood siding. She said this property is on the west side of Governor Street in the Governor-Lucas Conservation District. Kuecker said the aluminum siding, which was damaged in the tornado, has been removed. She said the applicant would like to remove the wood siding and replace it with fiber cement board siding. Kuecker said the original wood siding, window trim, band boards, corner boards, fascia and drip edge would be replaced with cement board. She stated that wood would be used to replace the window sills, soffits, crown molding, the shingle style siding, and the piano key trim. Kuecker said the siding is currently coated in lead-based paint, which is also a concern. Kuecker stated that the guidelines recommend that wood siding be repaired, rather than replaced. She said that in this situation, the wood siding may be in a condition that would warrant replacement. Kuecker said staff is somewhat concerned about there being a good replacement for the shingle-style siding and being able to find a close match. She said, however, that since it is going to be replaced with wood instead of the fiber cement board, it would probably be easier to match. Woodard, one of the owners, said he would try to replace as much trim as he can with wood. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of this with the following conditions: that fiber cement board be used for the siding, window trim, band boards, corner boards, fascia, and drip edge; with wood to be used for the window sills, soffits, crown moldings, and piano key trim; that if possible, the shingle-style siding be repaired and reused, otherwise that if an exact replacement can be found, then wood siding shall be used; and that all other siding trim and other details be recreated to match the original. Regarding cement board siding, Downing said that sometimes the profile is much taller than the cedar or redwood that is available. He suggested working with the contractor in trying to match the materials. Downing said that the Hardi-brand of fiber cement board makes a product with fake wood grain. He suggested avoiding that, saying that the fake wood grain looks like vinyl. Miklo said that if this property were a key structure or landmark in a historic district, staff would use a little more caution about recommending replacement of the original siding. He said that it is a wonderful house but would not be eligible for the National Register on its own but only as part of a district. Miklo said staff was therefore comfortable in recommending this. Bunting Eubanks recommended salvaging everything possible, because the wood is beautiful, especially the scallops. Toomey suggested trying to keep the front and keeping the cement board to the back. He said this would also save money on the project. Toomey added that there are some cedar shingles available at the Salvage Barn. Swaim said this is a big job and commended the owners for doing this project. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 441 South Governor Street subject to staff's recommendations: the use of fiber cement board for siding, window trim, band boards, corner boards, fascia, and the drip edge; the use of wood for windowsills, soffits, crown molding, and piano key trim; that the shingle-style siding be repaired and reused, if possible, and if this siding is too deteriorated to be repaired, that wood shall be Historic Preservation Commission May 8, 2008 Page 3 used for replacement; that all siding, trim and other details match the original siding, trim, and details in profile and appearance; and that the fiber cement board not have the fake grain. Baker seconded the motion. Toomey said he didn't think the Commission should allow the fiber cement board to be used for anything other than the siding -not drip cap, not soffits, and not fascia; because everything else is available in wood. Woodard said that he was okay with that. Toomey said that one can get cedar, and if thicker wood is needed for the corner pieces, decking can be used. Downing said that the cement board siding manufacturers produce specific trim for windows and corners that matches the thickness and profile of the cement board siding to give the same visual result. He said that if one uses cedar, there will be a knot every twelve inches. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Swaim amended the motion to require that the siding, trim, band boards, corner boards, and fascia can either be fiber cement board or wood at the option of the applicant. Baker seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION: Isaac A Wetherbv House 611 North Governor Street. Kuecker referred to the historic nomination and showed where the house now sits. She stated that the house has been nominated for the National Register under Criteria B, and staff concurs with that recommendation. Kuecker said Criteria B refers to the property being associated with the life of a person significant in the past. She said that the movement of the house has been addressed in the application. Bunting Eubanks said that the moving of the house is addressed on the site inventory form. Toomey said that the National Parks Service Internet site discusses the moving of a building and states, "...has to be in its original location. He said there is some allowing for the movement, but it was pretty strict in its wording. Toomey said the Commission has encountered three different situations involving National Register Properties. He said that the first was the church, and the Commission was overruled in that case. Toomey said the second was the brick house at the corner of Kirkwood and Keokuk Streets, and that is a total disaster. He said the workers are mortaring the bricks together with Portland cement, which is directly against the restoration. Toomey said he is adamant that somehow that gets reground out and the proper mortar is used, because otherwise it will break off the fronts of the bricks within four or five years, because the Portland cement is harder than those bricks. Miklo said those are valid concerns but we should continue to discuss the agenda item. Toomey said he doesn't want to move too fast on these historic sites after seeing what happened in the past. He added that when he went to the government website and read it, he did not think that this house would qualify. Miklo said that generally, the guidelines discourage moving a building from its historic site. He said that in this particular case, the choice was between the loss of the building or moving it. Miklo said that Marlys Svendsen pointed out when she did the first Preservation Plan that there is a history of moving buildings in Iowa City and that we have several important buildings because they were moved. Miklo said that Svendsen advocated that the State Historic Preservation Office look at moving buildings in Iowa City differently than in other communities. He said that the Wetherby House is sort of a unique situation, and the applicant will have to make the case to the State that the house is worthy of National Register listing, despite the move. Swaim said that the new location on Governor Street places the house in pretty much the same neighborhood as before. She said that the move was necessary to save the building, and she feels that the location is very appropriate for the building. Toomey said the requirements in the criteria include that the building be in its original location. Miklo stated that exceptions are made in some cases. Historic Preservation Commission May 8, 2008 Page 4 Swaim said that she did not see the move as a condition that would make the Commission stop the process. Toomey said that he did not either. He said that the Commission has been shot down before however, and if the Commission puts this forward, a very well-thought out argument should be included. Bennett said that the State Historic Preservation Office has given some indications that it would consider this house as qualifying despite the move, partly because it is the only extant building remaining that is associated with Wetherby's life. She said another qualifier is that when the building is moved to a new location, it cannot disturb an existing historic site, which was avoided in this case. Slonneger agreed that there are exceptions to requiring the building to be at its original location. Bennett said that there is an opportunity to respond to what the State Review Committee Ends and to finalize the paperwork one more time. She said that the State has been in touch with the national office on this issue, and it appears that the National Register listing will proceed. Bunting Eubanks said that the Commission appreciates the work of the citizens of Iowa City in taking a hand and doing a project as big as moving a building and trying to preserve it. She added that because this is nominated under Criteria B, the nomination is not about the house itself as much as the person. Toomey said the historic significance of the person needs to be emphasized, and not the fact that the house was moved because the other option was losing it. Bunting Eubanks said that there is a whole line of history that has come out involving a material history, which considers the importance of looking at people's lives and interpreting what life was like at a certain period. She said it does not just involve famous people. Swaim said there is an aspect in the narrative about Wetherby's national significance and where he fits into the context of early portraiture. MOTION: Swaim moved that the Commission find that the nomination of the Wetherby House meets the criteria for the National Register under Criteria B and recommends that the nomination proceed to the State committee. Ponto seconded the motion. Ponto pointed out that the application clearly contains the information that the house was moved from its original location. He said the second paragraph discussing the house's signifcance also points out that the house has been moved. Bunting Eubanks pointed out that item eight on the very first form needs to indicate that the house was moved, although she agreed that is indicated elsewhere. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 CONSENT AGENDA 825 S. 7'" Avenue and 747 Rundell Street. Kuecker said that both of these items are addressed in the staff report. She added that both applications meet the guidelines in every way, and staff recommends approval of both. MOTION: Toomey moved to approve certificates of appropriateness for projects at 825 South 7`" Avenue and 747 Rundell Street, as long as they follow the guidelines as discussed by City staff. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 347 S. Governor Street. Kuecker said that the application for this property is to replace the basement windows with glass block. She stated that the current basement windows need replacement. Kuecker said some have already been replaced with glass block, which is not permitted in the guidelines, and the owner did not seek a certificate of appropriateness for the work. Kuecker said staff does not recommend approval but would recommend approval of replacing the windows with a more appropriate window such as a fixed pane or awning-style window of some sort. Bunting Eubanks asked what happens if the Commission doesn't approve the glass block. Kuecker said the owner would have to take them out and put in what the Commission approves: Historic Preservation Commission May 8, 2008 Page 5 Downing asked if three have not been replaced and lwo have. Kuecker said that is true for what can be seen from the street. She said that the backyard is fenced in, and she doesn't know what has been done there. Miklo said that if someone has already done a project, the Commission should not automatically approve it because it's too late nor should it be denied as a punishment for doing something without a permit. He said the Commission members should be neutral in that regard. They should look to the guidelines as to what should be approved. Kuecker said the guidelines state that the use of modern types of windows, which glass block is, is not permitted in historic and conservation districts. Bunting Eubanks said that if something is allowed that is not permitted by the guidelines, even if already completed, it gives the impression that one can get away with it. Swaim agreed that otherwise people might read this as a loophole. She said that the solution is to get the word out there that designated neighborhoods have to go through this process. Miklo said that staff sends an annual letter to affected property owners. He said that this particular owner owns several other properties in historic and conservation districts so would have had the benefit of that letter in the past, even if this was a recently acquired property. Baker said this is disallowed, the Commission has denied it before, and there are appropriate alternatives. Downing stated that the alternatives are actually probably cheaper. Baker said she did not see any rationale for approving this. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the glass block windows at 347 South Governor Street. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-8. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for replacement of the basement windows at 347 South Governor Street with appropriate windows, such as awning or fixed pane windows appropriate for a basement, subject to staff approval. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 13 2008 AND APRIL 10 2008: MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2008 and April 10, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission meetings, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. OTHER Bunting Eubanks said that everyone is very busy, but if everyone can do something small for the next year, that will push the Commission forward. She thanked Baker and Trimble for their work on the grant. Bunting Eubanks said she feels that could be considered their service for the Commission for the year unless others disagree. She said that way there is not a huge burden on any one person's shoulders, and the Commission can push forward modestly. Bunting Eubanks referred to the list of goals prepared for the next year based on the Historic Preservation Plan. Miklo said that will be sent to the City Council for approval. Bunting Eubanks asked those who had not selected a project to select a goal and consider working on it over the next year. Kuecker said that there is a historic preservation commission training session for CLGs in Mount Vernon on May 31st. She asked anyone interested in attending to let her know and referred to the agenda. Kuecker said there is no registration fee, and Miklo said the City would reimburse travel costs to anyone who attends. Historic Preservation Commission May 8, 2008 Page 6 Kuecker said that there is a day-long (mentoring program?) in Dubuque on June 14'" that will encompass preservation issues. She said there is a $75 registration fee, and Miklo said the City would pay for gas and the fee. Kuecker asked anyone interested to let her know. Kuecker said there were three applications submitted this week that could be considered at an additional May meeting on the 22n°. Miklo said it has been the Commission's custom to have a second monthly meeting during construction season when warranted. The consensus of the Commission was to hold a meeting on May 22nd at 6 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Pctllmi ns/hpd2008I5-8-o8. tloc C O •N N •E .o E o ~ U y c O ao d R C O ~ N d ~ N C ~ ~ a~ U Q O N 2 °0 N Q X X X O X X X X X a X O ~ p X X X 0 ~ X X ~ X ~ X X X ~ X X X X ~ N X W O X X X X w O W_ 0 W 0 X X X X ~ X X X ~ X x ~ F N CC ~ 4 W ~ rn N M m 0 rn N M W 0 m N M 0 rn N M ~- ~ rn N M O~ O rn N M O rn N M M O rn N M ~- H rn N M O~ O rn N t") O rn N M W O rn N lvJ m E z d T V •c B m" ~ x m C N ~ y m ~ C '~ 3 o° ~ C A a w' V ~ = ~ f o c a° E n ai T u ~ d E G ~ d a E t~- d p ~v 3 N Vl J U X W C C ~ ~ N ~ d ~ Q d Q II u u W YXOO o- 4b 4 MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Andy Douglas, Charles Drum, Holly Hart, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman Members Absent: Steve Crane, Marcy DeFrance, Michael Shaw Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Jeff Vanatter Others Present: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): Recommend to the City Council the changes, as presented, to the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program (TARP). The program would be offered city-wide under [he name General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program (GRIP). Approved 6-0. Recommend to the City Council the FY09 Annual Action Plan as presented. Approved 6-0. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 27, 2008 MINUTES: Hightshoe noted that she needs to add Linda Severson's name to the minutes. Hart noted that there were a couple of places where she was quoted where the wording did not seem right. Under "public services," on page 3, where it says: "Hart noted that she gave a similar amount to everybody, but that she did notice that some members have done the opposite by giving nothing Co some applicants. She stated that she wanted to spread it out in order to give everyone something." She would like this changed to show that she is "open to allocating funds where they would do the most good." Another one is about the Extend the Dream allocation, on page 4: "...Hart stated that she questions if some of these applicants couldn't seek funds from other sources, noting that an applicant such as Extend the Dream Foundation -Operations..." -she stated that she was referring to the critical need for mental health services. Drum moved to accept the March 27, 2008 minutes as amended; seconded by Richman. Motion carried 6-0. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2005 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe noted that the City is going through a new process for minute takers. She reminded members that when a motion is made, the names should be stated out loud as the meetings are being recorded and this will help the minute takers in transcribing from the audio recording. Douglas spoke about the advocacy group for community development (FAIR) and stated that there are a couple of projects in the works. One was a survey looking to find out what the housing needs are. This survey was conducted at places like the Free Lunch program, Salvation Army, Pheasant Ridge, and Forest View mobile home park. He also noted that Karen Kubby, a Member of FAIR, has been meeting with housing developers and others from non-profit housing groups to discuss housing issues. He stated that they have come up with a number of policy suggestions, and he invited Kubby to come to next month's meeting to speak about these issues. TARGETED AREA REHABILITATION PROGRAM (TARP) -PROGRAM CHANGE: Hightshoe noted that the Commission needs to make a recommendation to Council on the proposed changes to the TARP program. She stated that Jeff Vanatter of the Housing Rehabilitation division is present to talk to members about the proposed changes. Vanatter stated that the program began in 2001, when it was realized that some people did not meet the Federal guidelines or were just slightly over income guidelines, and this program was started to help that population. He also stated a part of the original intent was to improve homes and neighborhoods and increase the tax base. Hightshoe added that TARP is for owner-occupied rehabilitation and does not receive HOME or CDBG funds. She stated that it is separate funding, and households up to 110% of area median income are eligible for this program. Vanatter shared a housing survey that was done last summer by housing staff, and he shared some of the information. He stated that there seemed to be a pretty strong need for housing repairs throughout the city, and he said that only a couple of blocks did not fall under the 110% of area median income. He stated that they would like to open the program on a city-wide basis. In the original neighborhoods, they have offered the program since 2001. Many have utilized the program; however eligible referrals are fewer in these neighborhoods as they can't use bond money for commercial or rental properties and some homeowners do not have enough equity in their homes for another project. Members asked questions of Vanatter regarding TARP, and he clarified the program's requirements. Anthony asked how much money was available for this program last year, and Vanatter stated that it was $200,000. He added that previously the funding was part of the annual budget, and that it was approved as part of the overall budget. However, he added that this year they were told they will need to go through the City Council in order to get this recognized as a "program" from here on out. Vanatter stated that he is not sure HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL if they will get more than the $200,000, but that this amount is what has been budgeted thus far. Hightshoe noted that they do have carry-over funds in this account. Vanatter stated that currently they have a little over $300,000 from previous carry-overs, and should have the budgeted $200,000 in July. The discussion continued, with Vanatter explaining in more detail how TARP works. Members asked if there had been any loan defaults to date, and Vanatter stated that there had not been. He explained what the pre-qualifying process entails, and how some don't make it past this point. With no credit or poor credit, and little equity, he stated that there have been few who have made it through the process in the past few years. Anthony asked about targeted areas, and Vanatter pointed this out on the map. T'he discussion turned to the areas being targeted, and it was noted that these are older areas of town and areas with high student populations. Vanatter noted that this brings down the income figures quite a bit. Hightshoe and Vanatter talked briefly about the increase in rehab in the area south of Highway 6 and in other portions of town. Anthony asked what types of projects are most common. Vanatter stated that on almost every house they do it would be windows, furnace/HVAC, plumbing, and electrical. Hightshoe added that in certain areas of town concrete, for sidewalks and driveways, would be a common problem. Vanatter stated that the largest projects are repairs and maintenance. McMurray asked if people can reapply, such as if they did their roof and now need to do something else. Vanatter stated that it would depend on the person's equity on the home. They like to see around 5% equity. Richman asked about making maintenance and repairs the priority and Vanatter stated that i[ pretty much is this way. He stated that they go over code issues and point out what is most important to get done, before they consider the person's "wish list" of things to do. Vanatter also explained the difference in federally funded programs of this nature, and what they can and cannot do for homeowners. Richman moved to recommend to the City Council the changes, as presented, to the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program (TARP). The program would be offered city-wide under the name General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program (GRIP); seconded by Drum. Motion carried 6-0. Hightshoe added that the Commission will be reviewing changes or policy proposals by the Public 1-lousing Authority and the Community Development Division before they go to Council for consideration as it is one of the duties of the commission. The by-laws that state the duties of HCDC were enclosed in this month's packet. REVIEW THE FY09 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN: Hightshoe noted that members received the entire action plan via email, only the summary was enclosed in the packet. For the public it is also available online and at the Library and Planning Department. Hart requested a copy, one was provided. She stated that this document identifies the FY09 CDBG/HOME budget and also encompasses HUD's requirements as it relates to the Annual Action Plan and the activities to be undertaken in FY09. There are new sections such as goals for the program in terms of number of persons services, facilities assisted, housing created, etc. Staff took the amount of money estimated for FY09 and FY 10 and based on project averages for prior HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL projects, estimated the number of persons served, facilities assisted, etc. She said when 2008 is done, the members will then see the `goal' and the `actual.' She added that when they start on the next CITY STEPS plan for 2011 through 2015, it will be very outcome driven. Hightshoe pointed out that more has been allocated in "housing" than they planned, and more is in "rental" than was anticipated. In "housing counseling," she stated that they have not received any applications, and most housing providers state that this need is already being met. Hightshoe added that when they complete the annual review of CITY STEPS, we should review this. Anthony stated that there is a big demand right now for foreclosure type counseling, and he questioned if this would cover that type of counseling. Hightshoe stated that she would have to look at the definitions in CITY STEPS to see if it would. Anthony asked what happens if targets are not met, and Hightshoe stated that they would have to discuss and provide reasons to HUD in our CAPER why targets were not met. She stated HUD would review the reasons and evaluate our performance and if anything needed to be done, the City would receive some type of direction or requirement. Hightshoe stated that the rest of the document explains where the money comes from, lays out the budget and describes the activities to be undertaken. The last few pages are certifications required by HUD. She added that members received a copy of this budget, as well. She briefly went over the HUD-required documents and the certifications that the City has to sign. Members continued the discussion, asking for clarifications from Hightshoe on the allocation process. Richman brought up possibly using some of the economic development dollars, such as working with the Chamber to bring in more attractive jobs, as an example. Hightshoe noted that the Iowa City Area Development Group and the Chamber, as well as Wendy Ford, who is the City Economic Development Coordinator work on issues such as this, and that they use different incentives, such as tax increment financing. A member asked the question if an HCDC Member could possibly serve on the Economic Development Committee. Hightshoe stated it has been discussed previously at HCDC. As the Economic Development Committee consists of 3 Council members, it is not likely that an HCDC member would have a vote; however the HCDC member could attend, provide input and report back to HCDC. When discussed before no HCDC member volunteered to attend the meetings. Drum moved to recommend to the City Council the FY09 Annual Action Plan as presented; seconded by Douglas. Motion carried 6-0. REVIEW OF THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY FY2008 ANNUAL PLAN: Hightshoe stated that according to the by-laws, Che Commission is responsible for reviewing policies and programs of the Public Housing Authority, Community Development Division, and making recommendations regarding the same to the Council. Basically, anything that is going to be going to Council for approval will first go through HCDC for their recommendation. Anthony asked if this includes the recent housing market analysis, and Hightshoe stated yes as it relates to actions Chat will be proposed by either of these two divisions. She added that next year, this plan, for example, will go HOUSING ANU COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL t7, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL through the Commission before the Council sees it. fhe plan has already been approved by Council. Hightshoe further clarified the reporting requirements and the various federal divisions they have to report to. Members continued to discuss the various funding available, and Richman stated that in regards to the Housing Authority, he wonders if there would be a benefit to increasing the dialog between the Commission and the Housing Authority. He noted the issue that came up in the allocation process last month, where the HA said they would take responsibility for all of the down payment assistance programs. He stated that this caught everyone by surprise, and he wonders if increased dialog wouldn't be helpful. Anthony stated that he agrees, but asked if they could hold up on this discussion until Item 12 of the agenda, review of the allocation process. He agreed that it is important. He added that they could discuss other shortcomings of the allocation process as well. Anthony stated that he has a couple of questions regarding the Housing Authority and that he thought Steve would be present this evening. Hightshoe noted that he is out of town for the week, but she added that she can email him the questions and then respond to members. Anthony said that he has two or three questions, pertaining to pages 18 and 19 of the HA report. First, he said he would like a clarification on the fifth bullet item on page 18. He added that the next bullet point is excellent and that Housing Authorities that have lobbied for this should be commended. On the second bullet from the bottom, Anthony asked where the money is going to come from, and if this money will compete with money for rental housing or Section 8 voucher programs, adding that there is a very limited supply of rental housing nationally. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CELEBRATION: Hightshoe noted that typically every summer they have a celebration where they have all of the non-profits come in and the Mayor presents them with their checks. She added that the celebration typically highlights prior and current projects and staff also submits press releases. She added that in the past they have had interns working in the department and they typically have planned this event. However, in the past few years the funds have not been available for an intern in this department. Hightshoe asked if the Commission feels this celebration is still pertinent, or if they should downsize the celebration. She stated that if they would like to proceed as they have in the past, a committee needs to be formed that will discuss the date for this celebration and plan it. Drum stated that this has always been a nice event, and he asked what kind of money it takes to do this. Hightshoe noted that it is more the amount of stafftime that is needed, as they are short on staff in the department, as well. Anthony stated that it is a very good event to have, and that perhaps another department has an intern they could use. He believes it shows the good work that the City does in this area. Richman asked if the event could accomplish something more, something it isn't currently doing, what that would be. McMurray noted that she believes that last year the presentation about the issues was very good, and that this helped clarify things for her. Drum added that this time is also recognition for those agencies that receive funding, and he asked if the members couldn't help more in planning this celebration. Richman stated that he would be in favor of perhaps publicizing the event better. He noted that they have had new HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL applicants the last few years, and [hat the more agencies involved the better. Anthony noted that the last few years, both Hightshoe and Long have gone on local radio programs to highlight the event, and that Chis helps to get the word out too. Hightshoe stated that it sounds like there is interest, and therefore, they need to form a subcommittee for this summer's celebration. McMurray, Drum and Anthony volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Discussion continued, with members suggesting that the various neighborhood associations receive word of this celebration as well. DISCUSSION OF FY08 PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT PERFORMED PER THE UNSUCCESSFUL OR DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY: Hightshoe explained the policy. Each year CDBG recipients are required to spend at least 50% of their award by March 15`h of each year, and if they don't spend any money, they are asked to explain why there has been a delay. She further explained this process, and stated that there are several projects that have not spent 50% of their award. They are: Goodwill, Free Medical Clinic, Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, Wetherby Splash Pad, Blooming Garden, and the Housing Fellowship Rental. She briefly explained the status of each. Goodwill recently put their project out to bid and a pre-construction meeting will be held May 9. She noted that they were coordinating with the Cedar Rapids location, and the project will be completed this construction season. Free Medical Clinic completed their bathroom project, and the accessibility projects will start with better weather. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County is a HUD-based project and they encountered difficulties entering a leasehold mortgage due to some extra requirements. She noted that they are in the processing of working out the final details of the bid to submit to area contractors and plan rooms. The project will also be completed in the current construction season. The Wetherby Splash Pad was allocated $30,000 in CDBG funds. Parks and Rec. allocated $100,000 and they received approximately $35,000 in open space funding and additional donations from the community. They have approximately $180,000. They continue to fundraise in hopes of purchasing the desired size of splash pad and not have to scale the project down. The project will now be able to move forward once final plans are approved. Blooming Garden has selected the lot and is working on the design. An agreement for funds will be entered soon. As the funds are for homebuyer assistance, funds would not get spent until the units are built. Members agreed that all the projects are making satisfactory progress. Further updates will be provided by staff if a project stops proceeding or becomes delayed further. DISCUSSION OF THE HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS: Anthony suggested they have this as an agenda item for several meetings, as they will have a lot to discuss. This way they can prepare their recommendations for Council. Anthony continued, stating that he believes this market analysis is a good document and that it is much better than the one done in 1997. He said that one advantage is that it separates out family housing needs from student housing needs, which he believes is a good idea. It helps to identify the needs of families in both ownership and rental housing. He further addressed the information in the market analysis, pointing out the various numbers generated. Hightshoe noted that the Housing Trust Fund hired a facilitator to continue discussions and actions to increase affordable housing and JCCOG is sponsoring a committee of staff and elected officials from the cities in the study to HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL develop actions for their own communities to increase affordable housing and meet the goals stated in the plan. Anthony then discussed several points -one being the standard definition of "affordable housing." He added that the consultant used the standard 30% of area median income on this item for rental housing, but that they used a 50% of area median income standard for ownership housing. He stated that this is not right, that he believes the consultants should be using standard, acceptable definitions. Anthony continued with his concerns, adding that there is an internal inconsistency in this evaluation. He stated that he has asked for documentation on why it was done this way, however, he has not received anything to date. Anthony stated that he believes they should focus more on rentals and owners that are cost burdened more than 50%, but that the study should be free of these policy biases. He stated they should have what the federally accepted standards are for defining unaffordable homes. The other problem with this study, according to Anthony, was that the consultants found that 31% of the workforce in Johnson County lives outside of the county and commutes to Johnson County. He added that this is about 15,700 people who commute. Anthony added that a big chunk of these people probably have made Che choice to not live within the county, but that he believes a large chunk is living outside of the county because they cannot afford to live here. He stated that this number is not even part of the analysis, which concerns him. Richman stated that he flagged the 50% figure, as well, and that he has never seen that number used before either. The discussion continued on this, with Anthony stating that for consistency they should have used 30/30 or 50/50. Anthony stated that the data that was captured in the study is more the retirees on fixed income whose property taxes have gone up, not families who are spehding more than 50% of their income on housing. Anthony suggested they ask the consultants to provide more information on their findings. Drum asked how seriously the 50% damages the usability of this study, and how hard would it be to go back. Anthony responded that the consultants did present 30% numbers in January, so it should not be a problem to get this information. He suggested that the City request this information. Drum added that it is not clear to him how the numbers work in the plan, and he questioned how systemic of a problem it would be. Hightshoe responded to questions from members regarding the Steering Committee decisions. Anthony voiced his concerns further, with everyone referring to the market analysis information. Anthony added that the recommendations that have been made by the consultants are very generic, in his opinion. He stated that the City would probably be best served if there were some dates attached to these recommendations, and he gave several examples. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION'S ROLE IN ADVOCATING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS -HOUSING, JOBS & SERVICES: Anthony noted that they have already addressed this in tonight's discussions, to some degree. He added that the fact that this is now part of the by-laws, it reinforces the need for the Commission to be more engaged in this area. He stated that for the past ten to HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17,2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL twelve years, the Commission has spent mosC of their time on allocations, which was not the intended purpose. He stated that he believes they will be doing this moving forward. REVIEW OF THE FY09 ALLOCATION PROCESS: Richman stated that he believes Chere are several issues regarding housing applications to discuss. He questions if they shouldn't coordinate with the Housing Authority. Anthony agreed that they should have better coordination in this area. Hightshoe stated she would like some direction/discussion regarding submitting documents after the application has been turned in. Due to the amount of information submitted after they apply for funds, not all commission members are aware or are reviewing the same information. This needs to be addressed before the next allocation cycle. Members briefly touched on some of the issues they faced during the allocation process. Members responded to Hightshoe concerning the amount of paper and information they received in this process, and if they need all of it. Hightshoe also noted that perhaps they need to change the Q&A session that they have for the allocation process, perhaps splitting it up into two meetings -one for housing and one non-housing. Anthony added that he was contacted by several applicants, after the allocation process, who suggested they make the process like a public hearing. Hightshoe stated that in her opinion they already have a very open process. She addressed her concerns with Anthony's suggestions. She relayed some of the complaints that she received from applicants. Drum noted that he would like to see a closer relationship with the review sheet (ranking sheet) and the staff report, as far as a breakdown of information. He believes this would make the process go smoother. Hightshoe noted that applicants always question the ranking, and members agreed that they like the ranking, as it brings things into perspective for them. The discussion continued, with members stating their likes and dislikes of the allocation process. Anthony stated that staff did a fantastic job in providing staff comments, and he asked if staff would be comfortable in making recommendations, or sharing [heir recommendations with the Commission. Hightshoe noted that some Commissions have wanted this, and others don't, so it depends on the consensus of the Commission. Hightshoe stated that she would check on this to see if staff can do this. McMurray added that aper-unit cost on the housing section would be helpful, as well. She added that having the information upon the screen while they are doing the allocation process would also be helpful. Members continued to discuss what other items would be helpful for them during the allocations. Richman stated that he would like to see a more standardized comparison in the housing allocations, and gave a couple examples of sources. He stated that he would be glad to work on coming up with something like this. He also would like to see further discussion on whether or not they pay enough attention to affordability issues, and notjust money issues. McMurray asked about the down- payment assistance programs and how this is now aten-year affordability period. Hightshoe responded to questions on this, and further explained some of the issues involved. Members spoke briefly about their concern that some of the budget statements from applicants were too brief. Hightshoe asked if the members want to form a subcommittee to address these issues, and members stated they would like to do this. Anthony asked Richman if he would be part of this committee, to which he agreed. Drum and Crane will also be on this committee. IIOUSINC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL In final discussion, a member asked Hightshoe about the Housing Authority changing their strategy at the end of the allocation process, and if this broke any rules. Hightshoe stated that she addressed this with legal, and basically, taking this issue to the commission after submitting the application was not the recommended course of action. The commission can only review the application as submitted and presented. Substantial changes to an application or "combining" projects can be done, but only at the Council level. If this happens in the future, the applicant would be encouraged to contact Council directly with their request as the commission must evaluate the application as submitted. Richman spoke about tax credit projects, stating that they are very complex situations, but he questioned if there isn't something they can do to move projects along faster. Hightshoe briefly addressed his concerns, stating how they could possibly change allocation dates. This led to a brief discussion on "home banking" and if something like that would work here. Hightshoe explained the various regulations that the City must adhere [o with the various federal funds. ADJOURNMF,NT: McMurray moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM.; seconded by Douglas. Motion carried 6-0. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May I5, 2008, at 6:30 P.M. at City Hall. C O N N .~ O U ., t m 'o ~ `o a~ o m m~ a~i ~ o ~ C N Y_ C ~ y C~ Q C 0 U a'S Qi c .y 7 O 2 X ~ ~ X X X X X ~ N X X X X X X X X X M ~' + X X X ~ X X X X X t 1 ~ X X X X ~ O X X W O X N N 0. C X X X X X X X X X N Q N ~ p X X X X X ~ X ~, ~ oo o o~ 0 o~ 0 oo 0 o ~ o oo o o h a. o ~ ~ v X E"',~ O o~ O o, O rn O a. O ~ O ~ O ~ O o: o o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ L LL L ~ x r, V E T O ~ V ~ ~" ~ p Q e ~' ~ n d U Q G ?+ 5 u ~C' u V V d V C L R ~ y ~ G ,R ~ V z L ti v~ RS ~ ~ U x a ra` ~ ~ .. U bA 9 k •~ W y rV y ti y ~ ttl N a¢¢zz ii ii a ~~ u T [y] ~XOOZ, 4b 5 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Tim Weitzel, Robert Brooks, Elizabeth Koppes, Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Hendrickson, Ron Amelon, Harold Partt, Stepheny Gahn, Caroline Mast, Renee Goetts, Anna Olson, Sue Hettmansperger, Chris Anderson, Doris, Eikey, Aaron Olson, Caroline Massegene, Josh Gahn, Chris Luzzie, Elizabeth Goetzman, Jim Woodin, Nancy LeaVesseur ,Shannon Bartholomew, Jay LeaVesseur, Heather Woodin, Charlotte Bailey, Tori Jones, Lee Mickey. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 amending the Land Use Map to change the land use designation from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420'" Street, east of Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive. Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 REZ08-00003, an application to rezone from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 REZ08-00001, an application to rezone from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48 acres of property located south of Olive Court and Learner Court and east of Marietta Avenue. Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 SUB08-00001, and application submitted for a preliminary plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 VAC08-00002, an application submitted to vacate Northtowne Parkway located east of Northgate Drive and to relocate the street to the north. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Freerks announced that item G. "Discussion of amendments to Title 15, Land Subdivisions' would be deferred until next formal meeting, to take place on May 15, 2008. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: A public hearing was held to for an amendment to the Land Use Map to change the land use designation from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420'" Street, east of Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive. Howard reminded members that at the last meeting it was noted that in order to rezone this property from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2), a comprehensive plan amendment is needed. Howard referred to a map that showed what the zone looked like presently, and what it would look like if the amendment was passed. Howard stated that when considering whether or not to amend Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 2 the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council should determine what circumstances have changed, and/or additional information or factors that come to light, such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Howard stated that there were a number of things that had changed in this situation that may make a change to the Comprehensive Plan warranted, such as the establishment of a Fareway grocery store and a convenience store on these properties, leaving only about six smaller intensive commercial lots in the that area. Given the size and proximity to the grocery store, Howard stated that those remaining lots may be more conducive to community commercial/retail commercial use. Howard pointed out that given that only six lots are remaining, this may be a good idea. According to Howard, the Comprehensive Plan calls for retail nodes at the intersections of arterial streets, and that would be the case here. Howard points out that as the city grows to the south and the east, there may be more residential areas that these commercial nodes could serve. Howard stated that this is also a high industrial employment area and that those commercial nodes may serve those employees. Given all those factors, staff recommended this change. There were no questions for staff from the Commission, and the public hearing was opened for anyone wishing to speak. No one spoke, and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to recommend the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Koppel seconded the motion. Eastham noted that although this change at the intersection may be warranted, in the future it may be better to be diligent in making sure that the city does not wind up with strip development along Scott Boulevard, and that if there is more commercial development along that area it would be better if it were more of a planned development style similar to Olde Towne Village. Freerks stated that there was a good chunk of commercial in that area and that she would be in favor of the change as well. The motion carried in a 5-0 vote. REZONING ITEM REZ08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. The 45-day limitation period is May, 22, 2008. Freerks asked if staff had comments. Howard stated that she had nothing to add beyond last meeting's discussions on the matter. The panel had no additional questions for staff. The public hearing was opened. No one came forward, and the hearing was closed. Brooks made a motion to approve an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. Eastham seconded. The motion carried 5-0. REZ08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48 acres of property located south of Olive Court and Learner Court and east of Marietta Avenue. The 45- day limitation period is May 25, 2008. Freerks asked if there were comments from staff on this issue. Howard noted that there had been correspondence on this issue which she had handed out to members. Howard stated that a few things had been resolved since the last meeting. At the last meeting, several neighbors mentioned an issue regarding drainage, standing water, and a resulting mosquito problem with the western portion of the property. The applicant has offered to try to resolve that issue. The problem is that there is a poorly functioning storm water system. There are two pipes that outlet draining down from Marietta, and then from the west, draining into a ravine which is plugged up and leaving un-drained Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 3 standing water. There is also a small dam in the area which is keeping the water from flowing. Howard stated that the applicant's engineer could provide more detailed information on the subject, but that staff feels that this would be a good change and would add value to the property, as well as resolving some issues for the neighborhood. Howard noted that the final geo-technical report from Terra-Con has been received and that it indicates that, based on soil borings taken from the site, the stability of the slopes is adequate for the project. Terra-Con noted that a more detailed structural analysis should be done prior to the construction of the retaining walls and the buildings, which staff also noted on their previous report. Preliminary side and rear elevation drawings of the proposed dwelling have been received. There have also been notes added to the plan regarding tree preservation and having an on-site meeting prior to grading regarding designation of which trees will be preserved and ensuring that erosion control measures are in place. The note that staff mentioned has also been added to the plan regarding variation in design for adjacent buildings. Howard noted that the City does require a construction site run-off permit, and finalized grading and construction plans will be more detailed, including that structural analysis for the buildings and the retaining walls. The tree-protection plan should be received in the final plan stage of this project. These will be done at the time of final administrative review prior to the issuance of building permits Howard stated that given that these issues have been resolved to the extent possible at this preliminary plan stage, staff is now recommending approval of REZ08-00001 and SU608-00002. Freerks asked if there were questions for staff. Eastham asked if the area which has the problem with stagnant water was actually west of the applicant's property, and if the retention dam blamed as the source of the problem was actually on the applicant's property or on someone else's. Howard replied that the dam is on the applicant's property; however the storm water pipes that are out- letting are on a different property. There are two ends of pipes that dump water onto that property and onto the applicant's dam. Howard stated that the applicant's engineer could answer those questions in more detail. Miklo pointed out that the City's engineer feels that the best solution would be to hook into the pipe and then pipe the water out of the area; a plan which is likely to require an easement from the adjoining property owner. The applicant will seek that easement as the preferred solution; however, if that is not possible there may be other solutions. Freerks asked if there were any other questions for staff, and when there were none. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was invited to speak first and address the drainage issues. Jeff Hendrickson, the developer and applicant, stated that what appears to have happened is that approximately a ten acre run-off from the west and south of University Heights all drains into that area. Hendrickson stated that while he is unaware of whether or not the dam was intentional and functional, his engineer, Ron Amelon would know. Hendrickson stated that what they would like to do is to hook up to the existing outlet on the neighbor's property, and run it into their new storm sewer system all the way down to their retention facility. His understanding is that this would totally dry up that area, and eliminate the problems. Eastham stated that solving the drainage issues in this way was a laudable thing to do, but asked if Hendrickson was then accepting any kind of liability for run-off and drainage issues. Hendrickson said that Ron was better equipped to answer that, but that he would probably say yes, because he didn't think there would be any further drainage issues if their plan was enacted. Ron Amelon with MMS Consultants stated that he and people from the City's Planning and Engineering departments went up and walked the site on the west of the property which has the drainage issues. Amelon said presently there is a 21 inch standard storm sewer that comes down from University Heights to the west, and then another 12 inch storm sewer that comes from Marietta and the south down to the Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 4 ravine. Both of these pipes outlet discharge there. About 100 feet east of the proposed development property, the previous property owner had created a dam across the ravine, for the assumed purpose of driving cars back and forth during tailgating season. They put in a 15-inch corrugated metal type culvert to go underneath across the embankmenUdam that they had built. There is enough debris, plant material, and litter down in that area to appear that the opening of the culvert has been plugged, causing water to back up. Amelon stated that if the debris was removed, it looked like it would still be a wet area. As a result of discussions with the City Engineer, they both felt it would be best to connect the storm sewer into the storm sewer from University Heights. That way, the flow is intercepted and conveyed in a pipe down to their basin, leaving less water discharged onto the ground. Where the dam was built, an intake box with openings that are 15 inches high 3 feet wide will be installed on either side of it. This way, any surface run-off that the storm sewer doesn't collect, will be collected in the box and then conveyed through the storm sewer. Amelon stated that the result will be to completely drain the area so that there will no longer be standing water. Eastham, wanting to make sure he understood correctly, asked if the dam that was not working very well was located on the applicant's property. Amelon affirmed that it was. Eastham asked if in Amelon's opinion that dam is causing water to back up to the west. Amelon stated that it was. Eastham asked if for Amelon's solution to function properly he needed to connect to the storm water system. Amelon said that he felt it would be better to connect to it because you keep the water in a pipe and lessen the chance for erosion and increase chances for establishing vegetation. Eastham asked Amelon if he would then remove the dam. Amelon stated that he would recreate the berm at a lower height in order to maintain the integrity of the existing slopes. This way if the capacity of the storm sewers is exceeded, the water will no longer back up into the neighboring property, and will not lead to erodible conditions. Eastham asked what would happen if they were unable to obtain the easement needed to connect to the storm sewers. Amelon stated that if that was the case, they would just put a dead end section on their property and then put some rip-rap and rock between the two pipes to try to keep it from eroding and to try to stabilize that section on their property. Eastham asked if they would then still lower the berm. Amelon stated that they would continue with the berm revisions as planned. Freerks asked if the slopes in question were steep, critical or protected slopes, and how that would affect the percentages discussed in the last meeting. Amelon stated that he believed they were steep slopes up to critical slopes, but that he believed it was a very small percentage, less than 1/100'" of an acre. Harold Pratt, 5'" Avenue, said that the ravine to the south and west of his residence has three springs that sometimes run full throttle. He said that this is what is causing the back-up. He said the previous property owner had put the dam up there and backed everything up into people's yards. Stepheny Gahn, 52 Highland Drive, said that she was there to plead with commission members to take the time to put together an exploratory committee to find some funding source to purchase this land and keep it a green space. Caroline Mast, 111 Highland Drive, whose property goes into the ravine that connects to this area said she was very concerned about water runoff and how it might eventually back up to her property and that of her neighbors. Mast advised that the Natural Resource Commission Service out of Sigourney should be contacted to evaluate the project and the property, rather than relying on engineers that work for either the City or the developer. Mast said that someone who really is looking after the natural resources of our in-some-ways public land should evaluate this property as green space. She would appreciate the Commission taking this recommendation under consideration. Renee Goetts, 103 Highland Drive, one of the neighbors who lives on the ravine to the west of the proposed development, has been looking over the proposal and the minutes of the last meeting and has several concerns. While she wishes to be clear that she is not necessarily anti-development for that property, she believes the development proposal as placed before the committee is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, she objects to the developer's plans to be under construction for at least 48 months. Goetts said that if he follows the business model of his past developments, he will build a unit, sell it, and then use the capital to build the next unit. Four years of continuous development would unduly stress the residents of Marietta with heavy moving equipment, noise and traffic problems. Goetts stated that it could well take more than 48 months to complete construction because if continued construction is contingent on sale of existing units, the nationwide mortgage crisis could come into play. So-called "jumbo' loans, Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 5 mortgages exceeding $417,000, are increasingly difficult to get and it is exactly this price-range to which this development will be marketed. Goetts stated that residents would be looking at constant noise in the area for four years as well as environmental damage in the form of soil erosion and run-off. Secondly, Goetts said, the report states that 72% of the green space will remain intact. Goetts maintains that that is only true if you leave the ravine out of the equation, as the ravine as it stands right now is not easily developable. Goetts said that the current proposal does not include having someone come in to fll it and put in the appropriate drainage. The claim that 72% of the green space will be maintained, said Goetts, will require excessive clustering on the remaining area. The proposal argues that the density for this property is lower than surrounding areas. However, according to Goetts, if you leave the ravine out of the equation it is actually quite a bit higher. If 20% of the green space that is currently in that field is left after development, Goetts would be very surprised. Goetts said that there seems to be an indication of a dry- bottom retaining area that will be maintained in the ravine. Goetts said that if she was understanding it correctly, this would be another area of standing water similar to Melrose Lake. Goetts urged Amelon to correct her if she was wrong, but as she sees the current proposal there is no plan right now to install any kind of aeration system to reduce algae and disease-bearing mosquitoes. Goetts noted that reports of West Nile virus coming into the Midwest are heard each year. Finally, Goetts asked for an independent environmental impact analysis to be done by an engineering firm not hired by or beholden to Mr. Hendrickson's firm. Goetts asked the commission to consider asking that the proposal reduce the number of units, to reduce run-off, and require that the project start and finish in a much more timely fashion. Anna Olson, 79 Olive Court, at the last meeting heard and voiced numerous concerns regarding increased traffic resulting from the proposed development. Olson asked for follow-ups on traffc control measures that had been discussed, specifically afire-gate or a way to limit the loop from Olive Court onto Koser. Freerks asked if staff had looked into afire-gate. Howard replied that the Fire Department and Public Works Department would not recommend afire-gate because it is being proposed on a public street. Miklo added that if one recalled some of the numbers from the last meeting, even with this development, this will be a low volume street. Howard commented that the fire-gate that was mentioned at the last meeting was afre-gate on a private drive and a street between an apartment complex and aloes-density area. As a result, in that case it is a fire-gate only for fire access, whereas in this case it would be basically putting a gate across a public street. Freerks asked if there was a precedent for doing that. Howard responded that the one spot where the residents requested that was due to fear of the slope and serious speeding by teenagers up and down the hill. Miklo added that that was Lexington Street and that there were documented speed problems on that street. Howard pointed out that the City does have a traffic-calming program and that while staff does not believe that there will be a traffic problem, if in the future one arises, there are methods that can be put in place to calm traffic. Sue Hettmansperger, 114 Highland Drive, wanted to make sure that the commission had received an e- mail from her. Freerks confirmed that they did receive her a-mail. Hettmansperger said that the nature of the a-mail concurs with a previous speaker's concerns regarding excessive clustering. Hettmansperger stated that in order to be in keeping with the quality and character of the existing community, single family dwellings would be the preferred mode of development. Hettmansperger questions why single family home development wouldn't be the first option for development, although the most desirable outcome for the property in her opinion would be to maintain it as green space. Hettmansperger states that she is opposed to the project because she believes that it is high density clustering although the developers say otherwise. Chris Anderson, 22 Learner Court, responded to staff statements that traffic would not be a problem on the streets. Anderson maintains that the street will become a thoroughfare and a speed trap. Anderson said that she had heard comments on the speed of the individuals trying to get into the Neuzil property by people who were unaware of the proposed development, and that by opening up the street she guarantees that a problem will be created. She stated that while the current numbers do not back up her claim of a traffic problem, she has seen it first-hand, and it will be a problem in the future. She pointed out in the last meeting that Koser is used to bypass Melrose Avenue, and that if the streets are hooked up into a thoroughfare Koser will be used to by-pass traffic on Melrose even more frequently. She believes it is an area where people like to take shortcuts and that they will do so. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 6 Doris Eikey, 33 Highland Drive, stated that she completely agreed with everything that has already been said. She also believes that four years of construction sounds like a nightmare of pollution and noise to her. She stated that she is thinking of moving if the project is approved. She said that Mr. Hendrickson had stated that it may even take five years to complete when asked at a developers meeting that she had attended. Eikey pointed out that construction in particular usually takes more time than originally planned. Eikey is particularly upset because she does not believe that the condos in this project will sell in the current real estate market. She noted that in a meeting with Hendrickson, he stated that one of the prime markets for these high-end condos would be people looking for second homes. Eikey said that all of the pundits agree that in the current real estate market, second homes would be the first market to decline in sales. Eikey maintains that even if people can afford to buy second homes they will want to purchase them in scenic locations, not where they would be marooned in the middle of University Heights. Eikey does not believe they will sell and is afraid they will never actually be completed, that there will be empty structures in what is essentially a field. Empty structures, Eikey stated, are known to be crime magnets and to result in lowered property values for their neighbors. She does not know if it is something that can be taken into account, but she does not think that the development will be a success. Aaron Olson, 79 Olive Court, asked for forgiveness on his ignorance of the process, but wanted to know if the Commission's ultimate purpose was to act in the best public interest, and, if so, was curious to know in what way this project is in the public interest. He said that he had not heard from staff in making their recommendation to approve any rationale that defined how the public interest was served. Olson said that the best rationale he could come up with was that it would increase tax dollars to the City, which he acknowledged was in the public interest. He noted that the project certainly decreased green space, which is not in the public interest. He imagined that it would eliminate a tailgating issue which he believed was in the public interest, although he thinks there would certainly be alternative ways to do that. He said that he was hoping to hear some rationale from the people who matter, who will either approve or deny the project, why they think it would be in the public interest. Freerks stated that they would have discussion after the public hearing as generally they do not discuss at that point in the meeting. She pointed out however that the Planning & Zoning Commission is not a political entity like the City Council, and that they operate in a different fashion with codes and regulations and standards that apply the same to everyone. Olson asked if they had a mission that they work on or a common goal. Freerks asked if Greenwood- Hektoen wanted to clarify a little. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that the Commission certainly has its by- laws that it is governed by and advised Olson that the ordinances set forth the standards that the Commission takes under consideration when they're making their recommendation. Olson asked if she could provide a couple sentence summary of what those standards were. Greenwood-Hektoen referred him to the internet for the ordinances and advised him that the staff reports basically walk through the requirements step by step. Freerks stated that the Commission is governed by the Comprehensive Plan, a well-thought through document that has been developed over many years. Olson asked if acting in the public interest was a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo stated that the role of the Commission is to make a Comprehensive Plan and then to implement ordinances and regulations to enact it. Miklo said that the public interest is a big part of that. Part of every decision the Commission makes, is to look at the Comprehensive Plan, the environmental regulations to determine whether the proposal meets that plan. Miklo stated that the Commission cannot require someone to keep their property open as green space. As long as the property owner's plan is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations, Miklo said, it is very difficult for the City to deny a proposal. Miklo stated that in their last staff report they did go into some detail about how they believed this proposal to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that whether the Commission agrees or does not agree with that they will state before voting tonight how they believe it does or not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Olson asked if it was even difficult to deny a zoning change. Miklo responded that if a zoning change does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, it is possible to deny it. Miklo said that you cannot be arbitrary and capricious, and must have some pretty good reasons for denial. Freerks pointed out that the recommendation the Commission makes then goes to City Council. Olson concluded by saying that he was interested in hearing what would happen if the project did struggle. Caroline Massegene, University Heights, asked if the fact that this was an Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and the neighborhood that would be affected by the project is in University Heights had any impact on their decision, and whether they take into account the effect of a project on surrounding Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 7 communities. She pointed out that she had so far heard of a storm drain on just one end of the property, but that her ravine is further up, ahead of that storm drain. She believes that the project will affect the ravine further west than has been discussed, and wanted to know if this was being considered by the Commission. Freerks stated that the Commission did indeed look at the whole area under consideration and did not want to create massive issues for someone on the other side of the property line. To avoid that, engineers and others are hired to look at these projects in detail, and to assure the Commission that those issues do not hurt nearby property owners. Massengene asked if they considered even up to a block and half away from the proposed project. Her concern was that she bought her property knowing that it was somewhat of a watershed for University Heights and building with that much cement in a development that has drainage in a ravine makes it difficult for her to believe that it won't back up. Josh Gahn, 62 Highland Drive, stated that his wife and he were in the military for ten years and that they chose 62 Highland Drive, their dream home, over any other place in the world. He pleaded with the Commission to put as much passion and time into this decision as they all have, and to make the right decision for all of the citizens of Iowa City and University Heights. Chris Luzzie, 338 Koser Avenue, wanted to support what other folks had said but also wanted to point out. what can happen to a community and a neighborhood when it is overrun by traffic. Luzzie stated that as someone who lives there she knows what traffic is like during rush hour and on game days, and traffic can get very bad and very heavy. She does not want to see the community destroyed, as she believes that this is an older area of the community that should be maintained. However, she fears that the development is too much for the area. She thinks the development will cause more traffic problems on Melrose, and she asked the commission to take these concerns into consideration in making their decision. Elizabeth Goetzman, 107 Highland Drive, invited the commission members to come take a look at the ravine at the last meeting, and she noted that none of the commission members had been out there. She reiterated that invitation and said that members would be surprised at how steep and full of water the ravine is. She included her phone number and a-mail so that members could contact her to come and take a look for themselves. Eastham and Weitzel stated that they had been out to look at the ravine. Goetzman asked if they had walked the length of it. Weitzel stated that he did not as he did not have permission to be on the property, but he did see that it was a very steep ravine. Goetzman asked if he walked the applicant's property or did he actually go into the ravine. Weitzel replied that he remained on the street. Goetzman invited him to bring his boots and walk the ravine with her sometime. Freerks stated that the Commission should not meet with the applicant or others outside of the public meeting. All discussion should be in a public forum Freerks asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Miklo noted that there was a question about storm water and what the City's engineers look at, and he wanted to point out that they do not limit it to the city boundary. They look at the storm water ordinance in the context of the drainage shed. In terms of this development, Miklo said, they did review the plans and proposals that were put together by the applicant's consulting engineer and confirmed that they do meet City standards for storm water management. Eastham inquired if that included capacity issues and Miklo confirmed that it did. Howard wanted to clear up any misconception that there would be awet-bottom basin, as it should be a dry bottom basin and there should not be a lake. Freerks closed the public hearing. And asked if anyone wished to make a motion so that the commission could have discussion. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002. Freerks clarified for Koppes that final construction plans as well as tree-protection plans will be included in the final stages of planning. Brooks noted that the agenda listed only REZ08-00001, not SU608-00002. He asked for clarification on whether or not the subdivision could be discussed since it was not actually listed. Miklo stated that that was an error on staff's part and that to be on the safe side, the subdivision should be put on the next meeting's agenda. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 8 Eastham amended his motion to include only approval of REZ08-00001. Brooks seconded, and Commission discussion was opened. Brooks stated that he very much sympathized with the residents and that he had lived in two homes in Iowa City that faced similar dilemmas. Although he would like to see green and open spaces, when someone owns a piece of property they have the right to develop it in accordance with the codes and the laws that Council has approved. He stated that in this case the developer has met very well what is permitted by the zoning. Although with any expansion and in-fll development there are things that will potentially not go smoothly, the Commission cannot control the length of time a developer takes to construct something. Brooks said he knows what it is like to live with traffic down your street when an area is being developed and that is part of living in a city. Brooks thinks it is a very good development, and while he would like to see as much open space in a community as possible, short of University Heights buying the property he does not foresee that happening. He stated his support for the development as a good addition to our community. Eastham stated his support for the motion. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Scenario Map adopted in 2002 denote that this area is suitable for single-family and duplex residential housing. The housing goal for the Southwest District says that single-family residential and duplex homes in this area are appropriate to meet the needs of a variety of household including, elderly populations. As a result, Eastham stated, the Comprehensive Plan does support the proposed use of this area. Eastham said he feels it also meets the zoning code, the proposal meets the OPD, and the density of 3.8 units per acre is actually lower than the required 4.9 units per acre. The building size and design is appropriate to the zoning codes. The homes are slightly larger than the surrounding buildings. Normally that's a big factor in preserving property values. Eastham further stated that there are restrictions that the developer has agreed to for this property that will produce a variable design on all the buildings, and that in terms of open space he has done about all he can do. He noted that there will be a trail crossing this property to make it available to the surrounding neighborhoods even though it is a private area. Eastham stated that, again, the developer has gone further than required to address drainage issues. In terms of traffic, Eastham says that having lived in that area it is unlikely in his view that the development will generate any cut-through traffic because of the proximity of the traffic signals and the angle of the turn. The 48-month building period is not covered by any regulation that would allow the commission to regulate construction periods. Eastham stated that for all of these reasons, he is supporting this development. Koppes said that Eastham stated it very well and that while she would like to leave it as open space she did not see how they could as a Commission. Therefore, she too is supporting the development. Weitzel said that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest District Plan and the Zoning Code and sees that all the criteria are met for approval. Concerning environmental resources, Weitzel notes that the applicant has had a consultant fle a report regarding wildlife species in the area, and that while it is a diverse area, the species and habitats are not rare or critical. Weitzel believes the species will continue to inhabit the area because the back of the property will remain a kind of green area. Weitzel stated that there is similar construction going on near his street and that there has been ongoing construction noise for many years. However, he agrees with Brooks that this is a part of living in a developing town. Weitzel acknowledges that traffic will increase a little but notes that the staff report indicates that it will not be inordinate, and that it certainly will be within the criteria specified. He said that he too will be voting for the measure. Freerks stated her agreement with the comments that had been made. She acknowledges the passion that the neighbors have for this piece of land, and notes that people have had the same passion for the property in the past. In years past this property was zoned at a much higher density that would have been much more problematic. Freerks said that the community has come forward and tried to make changes and compromises in this area before, and she believes that this development is a compromise of sorts. She believes the developer has gone beyond what he needed to do to satisfy regulations to create something that will hopefully be a positive part of the community. She stated her support for the project. Freerks stated that there was a motion and a second for this reading, and a vote was taken. The motion carried 5-0. Freerks advised audience members that if they would like to talk about this matter further they Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 9 could still contact City Council through meeting attendance and written correspondence to discuss the issue. Freerks and Miklo conferred regarding the subdivision issue, SUBOS-00002, and the fact that the commission was not voting on it tonight would not affect when the rezoning issue went to Council. Miklo stated that both the rezoning and the subdivision would go to Council together. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SU606-00003/REZO6-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive and Shannon Drive. The 45-day limitation is May 25, 2008. Miklo presented a map of the entire Galway Hills development area, including the proposed development to be subdivided into parts 10 & 11. Miklo stated that the Galway Hills development began in the 1990s with the subdivision of Galway Hills Part 1. At the time of the rezoning process the Planning and Zoning Commission insisted on two things. One requirement was to develop a concept plan for the entire property so that it could be planned how Galway Hills would fit into the context of the development around West High. The other requirement was that 6 acres of open space along the south of the development be dedicated to the City to allow for the continuation of the W Ilow Creek Trail. Miklo said that the original concept plan included a series of collector streets such as Galway Drive and Dublin Drive to disperse traffic from the neighborhood to Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, and that the streets were designed to be circuitous and inconvenient for cut-through traffic. The street design is crucial to allow efficient delivery of City services such as: trash and recyclable collection, police and fire protection, school and city bus service. Miklo said that it was very likely that a bus route would be established to provide bus service to the neighborhood. An additional way in and out of the development, as well as the nearby Walden Woods development, would be beneficial for delivering police and fre services. Similar concept plans appear in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Southwest District Plan. Miklo said that the proposed subdivision, Galway Hills Parts 10 and 11 are true to this plan. Dublin and Tipperary Drive would connect as shown in all of the concept plans to provide street circulation in the area. Shannon Drive was built by the developer of Walden Woods subdivision across Willow Creek at the expense of that property owner to make this connection possible. The subdivision includes 51 residential lots, as noted in the staff reports, this area is zoned RS5, Low- Density Single-Family. The subdivision also includes four out-lots. Out-lots C and D will be combined with an existing storm water facility to provide storm water facilities for this neighborhood. Out-lots A and B will be dedicated to the City for Willow Creek trail and open space. These out-lots will fulfill the applicant's requirement to provide six acres of open space. Miklo stated that the Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11 preliminary plat complied with the Comprehensive Plan, and also complies with zoning codes and subdivision regulations. As a result, staff recommended that it be approved. Miklo asked if there were any questions. Koppes noted that the agenda indicated a need to rezone this property and asked if this was actually the case. Miklo said that when the subdivision was first submitted in 2006, there was some thought given that there may need to be a sensitive areas overlay. As it turns out, the sensitive areas are pretty much in the out-lots and will not be disturbed. Therefore, the sensitive areas overlay is unnecessary and rezoning is not required. Brooks noted that there had been a church built in the Galway Hills Development that was not part of the original plan and wondered if traffic from the church had been taken into consideration. Miklo replied that there are two developments that differ from the original concept plan. One is the Melrose Meadows development, an 80-unit elderly housing complex. The other is the church. At the time of these changes, each project had a traffic assessment done and were found not to unduly burden the traffic in the area. Miklo said that the nice thing about the church is that the traffic is generally concentrated on one day a week. Transportation planners did look at some traffic counts for Dublin Drive and found that it had about 600 traffic trips a day. It is designed as a collector street and as such is not considered over burdened Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 10 until it reaches over 2,500 trips per day. Even with traffic patterns projected out to include the new developments, transportation planners predict it will remain under 2,500 trips per day. Koppes asked if the Parks and Recreation Division has agreed to take on the proposed green space, to which Miklo responded that they had agreed to this in 1990 with the original rezoning. Eastham inquired as to whether the plan allows for the W Ilow Creek Trail to continue, and Miklo said that it did. The current temporary trail iri place will be rebuilt to be a permanent trail and will continue beyond beneath the interstate to the County Farm property. Freerks opened the public hearing Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants announced that he was there on behalf of the developer, and while he had nothing to add directly, he was available to answer any questions. Jim Woodin, 3468 Killarney Road, of the Galway Hills Homeowners Association Board expressed the concern that the projected traffic flow would be an additional 300 cars making two trips per day. Woodin said that attempting to turn out onto Melrose Avenue between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. was impossible with traffic in its current state. An additional 300 cars will only cause more back-up and more stress at that particular point. Another concern with the layout is with Shannon Drive continuing through a city park. Woodin said that he is not concerned about the additional houses and is supportive of building on the lots; however, he is concerned about the usability of a park with a road in the middle of it, and about the increased traffic. Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, expressed concern with a road being built in the middle of a park, and that this road would become a through street drawing drivers from the Weber School area. She was concerned that as the many children in the area grow and move on to Northwest Junior High and West High, the traffic through the Galway Hills neighborhood will increase dramatically. The idea of a thoroughfare in the middle of her subdivision with all of the young children who live there is very upsetting to her. She is collecting signatures and believes the current plan to be a horrible one. She realizes that the plan was made a long time ago, but thinks that things have changed so much that this plan no longer makes sense. She urged the Commission to look at the traffic that would be coming from the Weber area and warns against the increased traffic city bus routes would bring. Shannon Bartholomew, 329 Dublin Drive, stated that it was impossible to turn left onto Melrose from Dublin due to current traffic patterns. As a member of the church in question, she says that it does generate more traffic than once a week. She has serious concerns about the massive amounts of traffic that would be coming through the subdivision, as well as the city buses that are planned to come through, and believes that something else should be worked out. Jay LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, in canvassing neighbors in the subdivision to gather signatures for their petition, he and his wife encountered only 3 out of 64 people who believed that this was a good plan. LeaVesseur said that the developer intends to come and asked for a special exception to add a very large daycare to the development in the area just below the church. Freerks clarified that any matters concerning a daycare would go through Board of Adjustments. LeaVessuer stated that he believed the current plan created a Mormon Trek bypass, increasing traffic in their neighborhood dramatically. LeaVessuer said that he had spoken at a previous commission meeting of Prime Ventures and their lack of landscaping and green space in development. LeaVessuer challenged the commission to look at the overwhelming lack of green space in the plan. The main out-lot #2 is just a storm retention pond, unusable and full of weeds. The only usable green space is the chunk where the road will connect with Shannon. Out-lot #3 is swamp land. The only green space to which neighbors have access is the bike trail. LeaVessuer stated that the current plan as written changes the usage of the neighborhood, taking the last vestiges of green space and putting a heavily traveled road through it. As an example of the traffic problems already in existence, LeaVessuer offered that if he left his home to go to his downtown employment at 6:55, he could be there by 7:00 a.m.; however, if he left at 7:00 a.m., he would not get to work until after 8:00 a.m. He thinks there has been a gross underestimation of the amount of traffic. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 11 Freerks asked staff if there was a deficiency of public space in this area. Miklo replied that there is not, in fact, the standard calculation for green space for this subdivision would be approximately half of what they are actually getting. Heather Woodin, 3465 Killarney Road, said that the thing she had not heard mentioned yet was that Galway Hills serves as overflow parking for West High students, especially in the winter. She asked if Dublin would be extended to have parking on both sides. Miklo replied that it will have parking on at least one side. Charlotte Bailey, 6 Kearney Court, wanted to clarify that she believes there may be a problem with the process. She does not like not being able to be supportive of something and doesn't like it that her neighborhood isn't involved in a collaborative way with staff and the developer. She expressed disappointment with the fact that when she was elected to her homeowners' association she came down to the City and met with Planning and Zoning and let them know that the neighborhood would like to be involved and informed on the front end of any discussion about roads, parks, and the things that make a neighborhood a neighborhood. Bailey said that she believes that every process is uniquely designed to get precisely the outcome that it gets, and the current process is getting people who are at the meeting feeling frustrated. Bailey said that when she has spoken with the developer regarding concerns of having a road through the middle of the park, he has expressed that he does not wish to have the road there, but that that is where the City will require him to have it. She said that the developer expressed frustration that the City was going to make him do things a certain way regardless of how he or the neighbors would prefer it to be. She understands that there is a certain aspect of that that is unavoidable in planning and zoning developments. However, it is frustrating to her that when she did talk to city staff, to Parks and Recreation, and went information gathering, the city departments also expressed a willingness to vary from the original plan. Bailey said that she also contacted John Yapp, JCCOG Transportation Planner, regarding the traffic flow issues. Bailey wonders if the traffic study done in August 2007 was done when West High was in session, as that may have affected the count. Bailey also wondered if the traffc study took into account peak times during the day, as that would be relevant to her neighborhood's situation. Bailey feels that the volume of traffic added at peak times by a potential daycare is also relevant. When the plan for this through street was made 18 years ago, Melrose Meadows, the church and the daycare were not there and so could not be taken into account. The traffic calming brochure she read indicates that collector streets are eligible for traffic calming if they are utilized by 1,000 cars per day. If any street has more than 3,000 vehicles per day, it is not eligible for traffic calming. Bailey said that the 2,500 figure cited earlier is when Iowa City considers a collector street to be overburdened. Miklo clarified that at 1,000 vehicles per day a street may be eligible for traffic calming if it reaches a certain speed. At 3,000 vehicles per day it would be considered an arterial street and therefore is ineligible for traffic calming. Bailey said that if you use 2,500 as your guideline for beginning traffic calming and 3,000 as your guideline for ineligibility for traffc calming, you are cutting it very close. Bailey said that her point was that there are some really good ideas in the traffic calming handout, and that maybe if the Parks Department could give some insight on a better park design and traffic folks could let them know the best way to control traffic on the front end, then we would have a different, better process. In that case, they are asking their questions of the right people rather than of a commission whose mandate is mostly dictated by the zoning codes and the Comprehensive Plan. Tori Jones (no address given), said that she did not yet live in Galway Hills but that they were under contract to buy a home there. She really loves the neighborhood and its quiet feel. When she has spoken with the developer he has expressed that he would prefer not to have the road through the park. She also expressed concern over traffic congestion. Nancy LeaVesseur pointed out that when the new school is built on Camp Cardinal their students will no longer be going to Weber, so the through street to Weber would not be advantageous to their neighborhood. She reiterated her concern with following a plan made so long ago when things have changed so much. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 12 Lee Mickey, 448 Galway, said that he had made several observations throughout the course of the evening's meeting, one of which was that he did not believe that half the panel was even listening to the people who had spoken. He said that this was a time to do business and exchange points of view and he felt as though people were not being heard. He said that another concern he had was that the traffc estimate was done in 2000, and that was too old to be a reliable piece of information. He said that building more homes on the west side and then bussing kids over to the east side to go to school made about as much sense as an 8 year old traffic estimate. He said that he has seen no provision in Iowa City for developers to build parks or play areas and he wonders why. Miklo clarified that the traffic estimates were from 2007. Freerks assured Mickey that she does listen very carefully. He replied that he believed that she did. Charlotte Bailey brought up the impact on property values in a high traffic area, and wondered if their property values were damaged as a result of increased traffic would there be recourse through the City. Bailey asked if the only way to go back and do the process right, with collaboration between neighborhood, developer and the City, was to go back and have the developer resubmit his application. She asked if doing it differently has to start with the developer. Freerks explained that the Commission had to make some progress by the limitation date because every developer has the right to progress within that time period. Freerks stated that in this case, the commission must make a recommendation one way or the other by May 25, 2008, or they can ask the developer if he wants to defer it. After a recommendation is made, it goes to City Council. Bailey noted that it sounded like the different groups at the meeting tonight seemed like they were making pleas to the Commission but were making them too little too late, and wondered when the appropriate time to speak up actually was. Freerks advised people to familiarize themselves with the Comprehensive Plan and to really have an idea of what the vision for it was for their area. Bailey responded that the process was done long ago, and that they were not necessarily the people who wanted to stop the road, they were the people who wanted to calm the road before anything bad happened. Miklo clarified that the Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002. The connection between Walden Woods and Galway Hills was laid out in 1990, looking long-term. This is a common dilemma, Miklo said, but if the city is going to grow there must be connecting roads. Everyone would rather not have busy streets in their neighborhoods but the traffic is being generated from these neighborhoods, so the City has to be able to fnd a way to direct. it. Miklo said that staff believed that the Galway Hills plan has traffic calming built into it by making sure there were turns and curves. Miklo would argue that since 1990, staff, the City, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the growth of the city, the need to provide public services and access to these neighborhoods and built that into the plan. Shannon Bartholomew returned to the podium to say that when the traffic was analyzed in 2002, the church was not even built at that time. Freerks stated that a church can be in any residential area. Bartholomew said that the numbers are not accurate on the traffic count because the church was not taken into account, school may not have been in session, the daycare that the developer may want to put in would increase traffic, and people who are going to come off of Melrose to cut through were not considered. Miklo stated that a collector street is considered overburdened when it exceeds 2,500 vehicles a day. Board of Adjustments did consider traffic from the church when it was approved, and if a special exception for the daycare goes forward, they will also look at those numbers. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 13 Miklo said that based on the church, the elderly housing, the development of these 51 additional lots, and projections form the Walden Hills subdivision, the Transportation planners estimated 1,500 vehicle trips per day. Bartholomew asked if the daycare was included in that figure. Freerks advised her to go to the Board of Adjustments regarding the daycare. Bartholomew asked what to do if the road was approved and the daycare was approved to then calm traffic. Miklo said if there's an indication that the daycare would overburden this street then the Board of Adjustment would have grounds to deny the daycare. Freerks once again advised Bartholomew to go to the Board of Adjustments regarding the daycare, because the commission cannot take it into consideration. Bailey returned to go over the traffic numbers once more. According to her calculations the traffic calming measures would be reasonable to avoid problems rather than waiting until one actually occurs. Miklo stated that it is difficult to tell in advance when traffic calming is necessary. At present transportation planners have deemed there is not a need for traffic calming. If problems arise, a number of techniques can be employed to assist in calming traffic. Eastham pointed out that in his experience when traffic calming devices are installed there is generally more objection from those who live in the neighborhood than those who travel through it. Bailey replied that this may because it is reactive rather than designing the road for calming in the first place. Nancy LeaVesseur stated that the situation reminded her a lot of the neighborhood by Coral Ridge Mall where the traffic was so increased they had to narrow the street and make it a one-way leading into the mall. She expressed concern that it would not be a connecting street but simply a way through. Freerks asked if there were further comments from the public. There were none and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to recommend approval of SU606-00003. Koppes said that usually when the commission has a pretty controversial issue they defer it. Freerks stated that if there is no second, the motion will die. The motion failed. Brooks moved to defer to the May 15'" meeting. Weitzel seconded. The issue was deferred until the May 15~" meeting. Freerks opened for discussion. Koppes asked if it was possible to re-do the bottom part of the plan where the park and road are an issue. Miklo stated that Shannon Drive was built to that point, so the road is a fixed point. Koppes agreed with that but wondered if there was something that could be done. Miklo advised that there was an 8-foot sidewalk proposed that would go all the way to Melrose. Commission member agreed that they would like to investigate what other options might be available. Discussion was closed and the motion to defer was passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 14 SU608-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. The 45-day limitation period is May 25, 20008. Miklo said that the subdivision design would include a cul-de-sac on Stevens Drive. Lots 4 and 1 would have access to Stevens Drive. There would be no direct access to Gilbert Street from Lot 1. Lot 2 and 3 would share a driveway to Gilbert Street. No other access would be allowed to Gilbert Street. There's also an access easement which would provide alternative routes for all of the lots to Stevens Drive. As submitted, the subdivision is in compliance with subdivision regulations. There were some drainage issues that have been resolved. Staff now recommends approval of the subdivision. Weitzel asked Miklo to speak to the arterial road and curb cuts. Miklo said that generally minimizing curb cuts to arterial streets is the preferred method. He said that staff felt one shared driveway was reasonable in this location. Koppes asked if the Fire Department was fine with the cul-de-sac, and Miklo stated that it was. The developer was invited to speak but said that he would simply make himself available for questions. There were none. Public hearing was opened and then closed with no comments. Brooks motioned to approve SU608-00001, and confirmed with Miklo that the deficiencies had been resolved. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks asked if there was any discussion. Brooks asked for clarification on whether efforts would be made to align the driveways with existing driveways. Miklo said that they would. The motion carried 5-0. SUB08-0004: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Company for a final plat of Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, a 17-lot, 7.6 acre residential subdivision located on Walker Circle. The 45-day limitation period is May 15, 2008. Eastham disclosed that he is the president of the Housing Fellowship, which owns property within 2-3 blocks of this subdivision. He did not see this as a conflict but wanted to bring it up. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she concurred that there was no conflict of interest. Miklo stated that in this subdivision, Walker Circle would connect providing a loop street, and then there would be Barber's Place which would be a small street off of that. There would be 17 single family lots, all of which comply with the preliminary plat as approved by the planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Staff recommends approval at this time. Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak to this issue so the hearing was closed. Brooks moved to approve. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried 5-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate BP Properties to vacate Northtowne Parkway located east of Northgate Drive and to relocate the street to the north. Miklo stated that the subdivision approved the platting of the Northtowne Parkway between lots 12 and 11. A portion of the Parkway has been built and there was an escrow for the remainder of it. The applicant is now asking that this be vacated so that it would become part of the development on lot 12, and the proposal is to replace it about 450 feet to the north in this vicinity with an east-west roadway to provide for future access in this area. If this is vacated it will provide some more options for the Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2008 Page 15 development of lot 12 and eliminate the need for a creek crossing in this area. There is a draft agreement specifying the requirements for the replacement street and its construction at the time that the property adjacent is developed. Approval is recommended. Public hearing opened and closed without comment. Koppes motioned to approve. Eastham seconded. Motion carried 5-0. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. Eastham moved to defer. Weitrel seconded. Motion to defer carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 3 AND APRIL 17 MEETING MINUTES: Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Koppes seconds the motion. Motion carries 5-0. Freerks welcomed Weitzel to the Commission. Miklo let commission members know that when an application is made the property owner checks a box letting Planning and Zoning know if the property owner requires permission before someone from the Commission goes on the property. Miklo advises that when commissioners make a site visit, unless they have been told in a staff report not to go on the property, they may do so. Greenwood-Hektoen reminds members that no more than 3 can go on a site visit at a time to avoid a quorum. Motion to adjourn is made and seconded. Motion carries 5-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Pcdlmi ns/p&L2008I05-01-OB.tloc OOX~ m ~ u i ii .. yyv V y N ~ ~ 7 m n m a :-~ ~ m ~ - -~ N 3 ~ p tn ~ m ~ _ ~ v m ~ ~ m T~ o ~ N D m ~ ~ N C~ m N ~ 3 m m p x ~ z 3 ~ O ` W O (` ~ ~ O N O 00 O \ ~ O O \ N O N W O (`t ~ O (\ O k~ N y 3 i 1 o m 0 m o m x x x x j x 4 o x X x ~ N N X X X X X X X A A -i ~ m faG - ~ N 3 ~ o UI ~ ~ 7 o ~ ~ m ~ w ~ m S. o fD u~ D T 'm m 7C ~n n m p1 ~ d 3 m W o p N ~ ~ O (` W O N --~ O (li N O l`n O O (\ N O (` W O t\ O N O K -{ N N 3 ~ X ~ X X X X X N ~ ~ X X X X X ° x x x x x x W o x x x x x x x ,°-, ~ x x x x x x A ~ x i ~ x x x x ; 3 m m ..i z O d n ~~ m ~ a~ m o ~ G^ °° m c ~~ o ~c an 0 3 3 N N O 4b 6 MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 THE MANSION - 538 SOUTH GILBERT Members Present: Mark Seabold, Patrick Carney, Rick Fosse, DaLayne Williamson, Terry Trueblood, Annadora Khan, Jan Finlayson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Marcia Klingaman, Jeff Davidson, Brandy Howe 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 MARCH 6 2008_MEETING Mark requested a minor change be made to the March 6'" minutes. MOTION: DaLayne moved to approve the minutes with correction; Annadora seconded. The motion passed 7:0. CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS ON FUTURE PUBLIC ART PROJECTS A focus group discussion was held to discuss components of a public art plan. This was done to avoid a lull in projects and to decide how to allocate new funds coming in the next fiscal year. Maintenance of art pieces should also be included when considering the public art plan. Fosse shared that some early objectives for the Public Art Program included avoidance of controversial pieces and a focus on the Artists Rights Act. The first step of the focus group involved brainstorming ideas for future Public Art Council endeavors and projects. The following represent the outcomes of this brainstorming session. • Develop a master plan (funding for this can not come from the Public Art budget). • Identify other funding sources. • Art that also serves a functional purpose. ~ Nashville example of old parking meters artistically decorated and reinstalled as an alternative to giving money directly to panhandlers. ~ Park benches, fire hydrants, fountains, garden art, bicycle racks. • Murals • Incorporate art on the front of city buses. • Cigarette machine that distributes tiny boxes of art (possibly another funding source). Iowa City entryways, specifically Riverside Drive. The possibility of partnering with Project Green to do a landscaping project was discussed. • Opportunities to enhance the I-80 corridor, possibly with a light installation. • Gilbert Street underpass -another opportunity for a light installation. ~ The potential for this to curtail graffiti in this area was also discussed. ~ It was noted that lighting and fountain projects do not align with LEED certification. • Neighborhood Art projects • Art in the parks • Art in public buildings • Public facility artwork Pedestrian bridge from Rocky Shore to the Peninsula Park Road bridge Trailway signage • Find a home for the old Pedestrian Mall fountain ~ Potential light installation to simulate water ~ Locate at Sand Lake to allow recirculation • Gilbert Street & Hwy 6 entrance • Iowa Avenue and Hwy 6 (spiral on pedestrian walkway) • East Side Recycling Center clean-up ~ Opportunity to use innovative found object art Second, the committee prioritized this list via vote; each member placed eight stickers next to projects that they deemed should receive attention and funding first. Sticker were tallied and projects were prioritized based on score. Several projects tied for 2"d and 4`" place. 1~' -Trail Art (signs to demarcate trail, education plaques, benches) 2"d -Downtown Fountain - Planter Art -Gilbert Street Underpass 3rd -Functional Art, Neighborhood Art, Pedestrian Bridge (Rocky Shore) 4'" -Gilbert Street and Hwy 6 entrance to Iowa City - Park Art It was decided that the committee would focus their attention on Trail Art and that a tour of some of the trail networks would be arranged for the May 1 meeting. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Respond to Press Citizen article: Former City Councilman, Bob Elliott, recently published an article in the Opinion page in the Press Citizen regarding the recreation center pool art that is scheduled to be installed this spring. The committee discussed whether or not they should respond to this article. One member noted that the press release for the pool art will be published in the near future. It was decided that this press release could be used in lieu of a formal response. The dedication for pool wall has been scheduled for Friday, June 6~" at noon. The artist, BJ Katz will be present for the dedication. Marcia noted that the specifications for installation are still being configured. Kidz Tent -Iowa City Artsfest Last year a kidz tent was set up at the Arts Fest in which kids under 12 could purchase art. The committee discussed if this should be included again this year. The Arts Fest committee has suggested the possibility of doing a silent auction tent instead and that the Kidz Tent may be somewhat in competition with their event. The committee noted that the calligrapher last year was a huge hit. Including this person again this year would be a way to create awareness for the PAAC and Iowa City Public Art Program. ADJOURNMENT Jan moved to adjourn; Annadora seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:32 pm. Next meeting scheduled for May 1, 2008. Minutes submitted by Brandy Howe v d .. E e~ o c U ~ ~a 00 .'`, N " °o 'b ~ Q C L a~i Q Q V .y a ~ ~ X ~ k ~ ~ X ~ i i ~ M i j O N i i O ~ .-. i i ,n ~ •-• .--~ •-• .-. ~ ~--~ .-r O .--~ 01 ~ 'r ti ~--~ ~ ~ --~ Q --~ ~ -. ~ -, ~ .--~ W ~ 0 , ~ , ~ . 0 ~ ~ c 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~o R . C ,Y ~~ C C .fl y ~ O Z ~ ~' a C c`e ~ p ~ y rv'j~ L ~ b i ~ C C/) ,y C fs. H °~ C ca ,a ~ fy L ~ •L ~ i z d m ca ~ a a F , b .7 U X W c N ~ a. ~ Q II II II a~i w ~>GOO MINUTES FINAL r~+~~~ IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TUESDAY, Aori] 22, 2008 LOBBY CONF E'Re:NCE ROOM, CI'I"Y ^ALL Members Present: Newman Abuissa, Yolanda Spears, Florence Ejiwale, Martha Lubaroff, Eric Kusiak, Joy Kross. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Ca11 to Order Abuissa cal. l.ed the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Recommendations to Council (Become effective only after separate Council action): None. Consideration of the Minutes of the March _25, 2008 meeting Minutes approved 5-0. Note: Only commissioners Abuissa, E'j iwale, Lubaroff, Kross and Kusiak were present. Town and Gown Presentation Rowers reported that the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Human Rights Commission will collaborate on several programs scheduled for the summer and fall of 2008. Discrimination Outreach Programmi_ny The Commission will do additional outreach that will include advertising on City Channel 4 Corridor Pride_ Commissioners voted 6-0 to place an advertisement in the Corridor Pride publication. A_micus Brief on Same Sex Marriage Kusiak reported that the brief has been submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court. Kusiak wil! keep the Commission posted on any future developments. Youth Awards 'Phe Commission will. be honoring 119 youth at the Ceremony being held on April 29"'. Commissioners are to arrive at 5:30 p.m. and the recipients have been asked to arrive no Latex than 6:15 p.m. University of Iowa President Sally Mason will deliver remarks. Mr. Eze Presentation Mr. Eze will present his program September 24 at 7 p.m. at the Iowa City Public Library. Human Rights Breakfast Commissioners selected a keynote speaker. Bowers will report at the next meeting whether the invitation has been accepted. Programming for 2008 Comm issioners discussed upcoming programming they would like to hold and the various venues for such proyramming including the film series. Reports of Commissioners Abuissa reported on a suspected hate crime in Austin, Texas. Kusiak is trying to coordinate some joint proyramming between the University of Iowa Human Rights Center and the Iowa City Human Rights Office. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1122 2/26 3125 4122 5/27 6/24 7122 8/26 9123 10/28 11/25 12/23 Florence Ejiwale 1/1/09 X X X X Kate Karacay 1/1/09 X X X O Martha Lubaroff 1/1/09 O X X X Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 X X X X Joy Kross 1/1/10 X O X X Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 X X O X Dell Briggs 1/1/11 O X X O Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X O X X Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 X X X O KEY: X =Present NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum O =Absent NM = No meeting 4b 8 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 9,.2008 - 5:00 PM EMMA J HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITYICITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Payne, Caroline Sheerin, Ned Wood, Karen Leigh MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Thornton STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Sara Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (becomes effective only after separate Council action): NONE. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 13. 2008 MINUTES: Wood noted corrections: to insert the word "a" in paragraph 3, page 3 to read "due to a new hospice". Also on the same page, in the second paragraph after the motion, to delete the words "in again" in Payne's statement regarding practical difficulty. Wood asked for other correction; none were offered. Motion: Payne moved to accept the minutes of the March 12, 2008 meeting as corrected; seconded by Leigh. Motion carried 4-0. Thornton not present. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Leigh moved to adjourn, seconded by Payne. Wood adjourned the meeting at 5:15 PM. ~ N I ~' O ~ u Q ~ w a~ o u ~ _ i ~ fd ~ O = m ~ ~+ Q o_ N O O O~ M O~ n ~o e a v X X X X X X X X M ~ M X X X X N O ` F E E F E _ Z Z Z Z Z E v o . X N H w O O O _ O O _ O 0 O O O O O c ~ i d ~ ~ ~ h L d C O ++ ~NO ?o'°`'° ~ C d O Z ~' 4=Wr J~ ao ~ d H ~ ~ C O C p 'C ~ d f (! o i~ i u~ C y Oq > ;u o e~ v z F W ~ ~ j ~~ X ~ y W ~ Y N ~ C v v E w ~ ~ 0 0 n`.QQZZ II II II II II XOOZ i W Y MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission April 28, 2008 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 7:30 AM FINAL 4b 9 Members Present: Greg Farris, Randy Hartwig, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John Staley Staff Present:Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Determine Quorum: Chairperson Farris called the meeting to order at 7:30AM 2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. IDOT FY2009 Grant Application - Retting motioned to move item 2a to after 2c. Seconded by Hartwig, motion passed 5-0 b. ITC Midwest -fencing agreement -Tharp gave a description of the fencing proposal stating that the ITC would like to replace the existing fence with a new fence to match the fencing that they are putting upon the rest of the lot. Tharp noted that as part of the airport's permission ITC would need to assume the future maintenance of the fence. Rettig asked about the current condition of the fence and if it could be reused elsewhere. Rettig asked to request the fence to be removed in a manner so that the airport could reuse it. Tharp stated he would forward that request. Horan motioned to approve the ITC Midwest request to replace the shared fence, seconded by Staley. Motion carried 5-0 c. FAA/DOT Projects i. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on for the plans, specifcations, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of Runway 7-25 Runway Reconstruction, and directing city clerk to publish notices of said hearing, and directing the chairperson to place said plans on fle for public inspection Rettig moved approval of resolution, seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 5-0 a. IDOT FY2009 Grant Application -Tharp handed out an email from David Hughes. He stated that with the current prices it was estimated that the airport could construct an 80 foot by 80 foot hangar for approximately $650,000. Tharp noted that he expected the application to ask the state for $250,000 in grant funds, which had been the previous high award, but that a number less than that might be what was offered. Rettig asked about the repayment options with the city. Horan stated the city council likes to maintain a loan payoff in 10-12 years. Tharp stated that as in the past the airport would be most likely be loaned the money from the landfill cash reserves. Rettig asked about when the grant had to be used. Tharp responded that the grant agreements have given 1 year to have the project under contract. Commission concurred with submitting the application for a new hangar. 3. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at B:OOAM CHAIRPERSON DAIt Iowa City Airport Commission April 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2 AIRPORT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 IMeetina Datel NAME TERM EXP. 1110 2/14 3/6 3/13 4/10 4128 5/8 Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X X Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X X X X X X Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X --- X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X X X 1 - i KEY: X = Present O = Absent OIE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 4b 10 MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 6:30 PM FINAL Members Present: Greg Farris, Randy Hartwig, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John Staley StaflPresent: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: John Yeomans, Peggy Slaughter, Randy Miller, AI Wells, David Hughes, Minnetta Gardinier, Phillip Woolford, Jay Honeck, Jason Honea, Corey Pospisil DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Farris called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: none APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 13, 2008 MEETING: Farris asked if anyone had any changes to the March 13, 2008 minutes. Staley moved to accept the minutes of the March 13, 2008, meeting as presented; seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 5-0. PUIILIC DISCUSSION: John Yeomans, Farm Manager with Farmers National Company, stated that he has some pictures of their project that he would like to share with the Commission. He noted that it looks really nice, and that the fence gate is being reinstalled as it was installed improperly. He added that the contractor putting in the roadway found this error. He stated that they have also been trimming brush along the fence and cleaning up the area. Yeomans stated that schedules are getting set up, as is soil sampling, and that the farm is getting ready for spring. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park -Hartwig made a motion to move Item 4.d.vii up to the discussion with 4.a.; seconded by Staley. Motion carried 5-0. Randy Miller told the Commission that they have had several more inquiries in regards to lots, but nothing official yet. Peggy Slaughter added that the interested parties need to find investors before they can build, and that this process takes a bit longer to iron out. Dulek Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page 2 of 9 noted that an offer was received yesterday on Lot # 1, from Mr. Wells (on behalf of his LLC), and that it expired today. She added that it was not accepted because of contingencies that were part of the offer, and that due to the time constraints there was not time to review this with the Commission prior to the expiration at 5:00 P.M. Dulek continued, stating that the Commission has two options now with regards to the United hangar -they can reward the demolition contract to the lowest bidder, or they can explore an agreement with Mr. Wells. Dulek stated that if they chose the latter, then a myriad of issues would need to be addressed, such as when would the hangar come down, what FAA money is available, and other Airport-related issues that could be included in an offer between Mr. Wells (his LLC) and the Airport. She further explained what the Commission needs to decide upon at this evening's meeting. The discussion began with Rettig asking Slaughter what Che lot is listed at. AI Wells joined the Commission at this point in the discussion. At 6:45 Rettig moved to temporarily adjourn the meeting due to a tornado warning; seconded by Farris. The meeting resumed at 8:00 ,with discussion returning to the Aviation Commerce Park and the United hangar demolition and offer. Wells noted that his new offer would not have anything to do with the United hangar or the land lease or the fence agreement. He added that what he understands is that Iowa City City Council needs to review the offer, and then the Airport Commission will review it. Wells stated that this offer expires tomorrow at 5:00 P.M. Horan asked what [he details of this offer are, and. Wells stated that it's based almost exactly on the iTC purchase, $180,000, which is 80% of the asking price, which is what the ITC offer was. Wells added that there are requirements of due diligence that cover adequate enough time to acquire the United hangar and get it over to this lot, if he receives approval for this. Another alternative, according to Wells, is that if a contractor does get the demolition contract, he could still pursue obtaining the hangar from the contractor. It was noted that the low bid for this demolition is $103,060, and the high bid was $135,040, with four total bids received. Horan noted that it appears to him that the contractors would be considering the value of the salvageable steel when demolishing this hangar, and he questioned the cost to Wells. Wells added that perhaps he could subcontract for the contractor, and take care of getting the hangar down himself. Rettig asked how much they have invested in this bidding process so far, and whether they could revisit this at a later time. Discussion ensued, with Members discussing rebidding and what they might expect if they did do this. Tharp noted that one concern is that they have the bid process underway already, and that he has discussed this with the FAA already. He stated that he believes that if they did rebid, the FAA would not contribute to the cost of doing this a second time. lowa Gity Airport Commission April 1 Q 2008 Page 3 of 9 The discussion continued, with Hartwig stating that his concern is that they don't have much time left on this. He asked David Hughes of Earth Tech for some clarification on time frames. Hartwig noted that the historical aspects of the United hangar were taken care of as planned, and that he believes nothing should uphold the opening of the runway, as they have been planning accordingly all along with this project. Members continued to discuss [heir concerns, with Dulek responding [o time frame questions for them. The discussion turned to whether or not the FAA would even allow the hangar to be moved and installed on Lot I in Aviation Commerce Park. Wells questioned if the bids would actually go up, if the Commission chooses to do a rebidding process. He stated that he believes the bid prices would go down. Rettig noted that steel prices have climbed, and scrap metal is a high commodity right now. She also questioned Wells having a subcontract type of deal with whoever is awarded the demolition contract. Wells addressed some of the concerns, stating that the "through the fence" agreement is pretty cut and dried. He added that if you follow the minimum standards, you can still have a "through the fence" facility that will compliment the Airport. He stated that the facility he is proposing could potentially have twenty airplanes at it, and that this would be a sizable addition to the Airport. Wells added that he believes this could be a win-win for everybody involved, with [he additional development outside of the Airport fence being a real positive. Rettig noted that she is very much interested in Wells' idea, but that she questions how this can all work. Wells continued speaking to the Commission, explaining what all he has researched in coming up with his proposal. He noted that he has had no response and no guidance from the City in this endeavor, and he questioned the process thus far. He added that the purchase agreement he presented this evening isjust for the land, and that it does not say anything about the hangar or a "through the fence" agreement. Wells continued to state his case, explaining how he has gone above and beyond the minimum standards required, based on what he has read about "through the fence" agreements. He talked about swipe card systems, identification facts, and single-vehicle entry points at his facility, items that he claimed the FAA requires. Fle compared the Merschman agreement with his proposal, and responded to Members' questions about his proposal. Wells added that his purchase agreement does have conditions and time frames for other items that do not have to do with the Airpor[. The discussion continued, with the Commission reviewing Wells' purchase agreement. Rettig asked for clarification of this offer. It was stated that this offer is for Lot 1 and the outlot. Dulek responded to questions regarding the [TC offer, and clarified some of the issues that Members were unsure of Members continued discussing what they would Tike to do, whether to continue with the awarding of the demolition Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page 4 of 9 bid or trying [o work-out an agreement with Wells. Various scenarios were discussed, with Rettig asking what type of expenses are they looking at if they stop the bid process for now and see what happens with Wells. Tharp responded that it's the legal publications for the bid process and whatever staff has to do to the plans. Therefore the republication would not be much, but he is concerned about what the new bids could come in at. Staley talked about having Wells deal directly with Zimmerman on the demolition and obtaining of the United hangar that way. Tharp noted that the FAA has to approve what they come up with. It was pointed out that the bids are for not only the demolition and removal of the hangar, but also to remove the debris and Che concrete, and to replant the grass in this area. Wells again talked about how in a case like that, he could offer $30,000 to the contractor for the hangar, and how the contractor would still come out ahead. He added that he is not familiar with Zimmerman Excavation, but that he is familiar with the other three bidders. Farris stated that they needed to make a decision and move on. He added that as a steward of the Airport, and with the money and funding that they have, as well as the runway extension and the amount of risk that he sees at the moment, he believes is beyond what they should take on at this time. Farris moved to consider Resolution A08-13 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the Demolition of the "United" Hangar; seconded by Hartwig. Staley added that his preference would be to work out some sort of arrangement to delay the action, but that it is not practical at this time. If they aim to get the extended runway open by July 1, Staley believes they need to move forward. He added that Wells can work out the possibility of obtaining the hangar with the contractor. Dulek responded to this, clarifying Members' concerns. Rettig stated that she will be voting no on this issue, briefly adding that she believes it could be a calculated risk to keeping the United hangar close by. She believes having this hangar on Lot 1 could help relieve space issues. Wells asked if there is a financial penalty ifthe runway is not opened by July I, and Members responded to this. Jay Honeck added that he believes Wells has a great idea, and that the Commission is missing a great opportunity if they don't take advantage of this. Motion carried 4-1; Rettig voting no. b. Hertz-Tharp began the discussion, stating thatthe Hertz lease is before the Commission as there have been some changes to their operations at the Airport. He added that the Commission needs to renegotiate the lease basically. Rettig asked if Tharp obtained the information she had requested. She would like to know how many cars Hertz has on the airfield at any given time. Corey Pospisil and Jason Honea spoke to the Commission on behalf of Hertz, and responded to Members' questions Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page ~ of 9 concerning their operations. It was noted that Hertz has two full-time employees at present, and plan to add a third in the next month or so. Rettig asked again how many rental cars could be expected to be on the airfield, and was told it could be as high as 50 rental cars, plus employees'. She asked how many spaces Hertz rents from the Airport, and Tharp responded that their lease defines it as seven to eight spaces. The Hertz representatives explained a typical week for their business and continued to respond to Members' questions. Rettig stated that she is all for leasing space to Hertz, but that their lease needs to be redone to reflect the space they are actually using. Hartwig stated that he agrees, as the original lease dealt with the seven to eight spaces at the south end of the lot. He questioned though if they have the space to have 50 cars. The Hertz reps responded again, stating that they would most likely not have 50 cars on the airfield at all times. Rettig asked for more details on the sublease that liertz has with Jet Air, and stated that she would like to review a copy of this lease. She asked Dulek for clarification on subleases on the airfield, and Dulek stated that most likely there is a provision that there are no subleases without the Commission's approval. Rettig stated that she would make the motion to dissolve this lease with Hertz, and in the interim, negotiate a new lease with them. Horan agreed with her, stating that he would like to see the monthly fee of $100 go to $300, and to lease three more parking spaces to Hertz at $40 a month. The discussion continued, with Dulek responding to questions on the original lease with Hertz. Members also discussed what time frame they will give in renegotiating this lease, and the Hertz reps explained what they need to do on their end. Rettig refined her motion, adding a 90-day time frame to negotiate this lease. Rettig also clarified the lease agreement that Hertz is to continue following, until their new lease is agreed upon. Honea noted that he does not know what the management at Hertz will want to do, and that he will have to go through the channels on his end to see how they want to handle this. Rettig volunteered to serve on the subcommittee that will work with Hertz on the lease negotiations. Rettig made the motion that the Airport Commission give 30-days notice to dissolve the current lease with Hertz, and in the interim a new lease will be negotiated within 90 days; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 5-0. c. U.S. Army -Tharp stated that two issues have come up with this lease. One is that the Army wants more than a 30-day notice to vacate. They would like to have 180 days. Also, Tharp noted that there was a clause that Dulek had some opinions on the "reasonable consideration" issue. Dulek briefly addressed this with the Members. Rettig asked ifthe U.S. government is actually nine months behind on their lease, and Tharp stated that that is true. Rettig added that they would not accept this from any other lessee. Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page 6 of 9 i. Consider a Resolution Amending Lease -- Staley moved to consider Resolution A08-10, amending lease; seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 4-1, Rettig voting no. d. FAA/IDOT Projects -Earth Tech i. Runway 7/25 -David Hughes addressed the Commission, stating that the Members have a resolution Co approve tonight which will accept the work for the Phase 2 runway grading. Hughes added that they have met with the pavement contractor. 1. Consider a Resolution Accepting Work for the Phase 2 Runway 7-25 Extension Grading -- Farris moved to consider Resolution A08-11, accepting work for the Phase 2 runway 7-ZS extension grading; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 5-0. Hughes added that they are currently in the design phase for the rehab on the remaining portion of the runway. He noted that this would be an overlay. Hughes stated that the FAA has shortened their fiscal year by three-quarters; therefore, he stated they need to have a grant in place by mid-June. He stated that the Commission would need to have a special meeting in order to meet the timeframes being set forth by these deadlines. A discussion ensued on the best time to hold these meetings, and Monday, April 28`h, was chosen for a morning meeting to take care of the overlay issue. ii. South Aviation Development Study -Hughes stated that they would be finalizing this report soon. iii. South Taxilane Rehab -Hughes noted that they have met with the City and are working with the contractor on a few issues. iv. North Taxilane Rehab -Survey was completed, and Hughes stated they are in the design phase. v. Jet A Fuel System / AvGas Upgrade- Hughes stated they have met with the FBO and the contractor, and are resolving some issues. vi. Terminal Apron Rehab -Hughes stated that the contractor is basically done, and is requesting an early release of his retainage. 1. Consider a Resolution Approving Early Release of Retainage -- Staley moved to consider Resolution A08-12 Approving Early Release of Retainage; seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 5- 0. vii. Obstruction Mitigation -FAA approval on funding has been received. Mediacom and MidAmerican are lined up to get their pieces done. viii. United Hangar-(Discussed above under 4. a.) Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page 7 of 9 IDOT FY2009 Grant Application -Hughes stated that there are different options for hangars -one being corporate style, and the other i, community type t-hangars. He added that they have talked to some hangar manufacturers, and he shared the cost of installation per square feet. A 120 X 120 hangar would be about $1.4 million. Hughes continued to respond to Members' questions regarding the cost of building new hangars. It was noted that the deadline for this grant is May 2"d. The discussion continued, with Members talking about what they may be able to afford to do since the price of steel has climbed so dramatically. Tharp and Hughes shared what they have come up with, cost wise, for a possible hangar project. Rettig asked if they shouldn't look at an 80 X 80 hangar, and what type of revenue they could expect from it. Tharp stated that with Hughes' figures, this would be around $600,000 to build. Hughes asked the Members for a dollar figure so that he can work to see what that would build. Rettig stated a maximum of $650,000 sounds good, and hopefully the State would give them $250,000. After a brief discussion, the Members agreed on the $700,000 range and what type of building could they get for that amount; and what type of return would they get on their investment. Tharp and Hughes will work on gathering this information for the Members. e. Airport "Operations": Strategic.Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management -Rettig had asked questions of Tharp in an earlier email, and they shared this with Members. "fhe first item was a question about unemployment and seasonal employees. Next she asked about Tharp's classification in the budget. Tharp explained that he was hired at 60% time, and Rettig questioned how he could have increased his time without approval. A discussion ensued on this, with Members reviewing how this would have occurred. Rettig explained that the Commission has not approved Tharp to be paid at a higher rate. Dulek stated that they need to decide how they will dcal with this from now on. Staley asked if the Chairperson doesn't have the authority to sign the timesheets and to allow Tharp's position the hours it needs. Staley moved that they give the Airport Commission Chairperson the authority to sign the timesheets for the Airport Specialist to authorize payments based on what the Chairperson feels is necessary to get the job done. Horan stated that he is in favor of staying within the budget, and that he found it difficult to count up all the hours for the employees when he was faced with this. He added that there is not much they can do about what's already happened, and that he agrees they need to decide what to do from here on. Hartwig agreed, stating that he believes they can rely upon the Chair to handle this as Staley has suggested. Staley moved to give the Airport Commission Chairperson the authority to pay beyond the .6 FTE, if needed; seconded by Hartwig. Motion carried 4-1, Rettig voting no. Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page 8 of 9 Rettig then asked what they plan to do about this as they are over budget. She asked that the Legal Department address this, and what happens when they have beyond the budgeted 1.6 employees. Horan added, how can they operate over budget. Tharp stated that he also has the snow removal report, and Rettig asked that he hold that for the next meeting. She asked that Tharp explain how they will get through the summer, and where they are going to get the extra money they need for the budget. Staley stated that he has one comment in looking at the total, and times four, he believes they will have no problems. Tharp explained the changes to the various budget lines that Rettig had questioned in her earlier email. Rettig noted the memo from Jeff Davidson that the Members received, and Tharp stated that a request was made from the City Council on how airports are funded elsewhere, and that he received a copy of this memo from the Interim City Manager. Rettig expressed her concerns about this issue. Tharp stated that in his conversations with Hertz recently, it was brought to his attention that there is some roof leakage and that he is working on getting someone out to look at it. Hartwig also noted a concern about garbage in the wash bay area, and Tharp stated that this has been relayed to Hertz personnel. f FBO Staff Report- Phillip Woolford of,Jet Air stated that he didn't have much to add this evening. He noted that they are looking forward to Che runway opening. Horan asked how long it is taking to fuel up with the Jet A fuel system, and Woolford responded. It was noted that for the helicopters, it is working well. g. Subcommittees' Reports -Farris stated that as soon as the weather breaks, they hope to start on the shelter. He noted that they will be meeting the first part of May to finalize some fundraising plans. h. Commission Members' Reports -Horan noted that he drove down and looked at the gate that Merschman put in, and that it looks like things are moving forward. Farris stated that he has been meeting with the City Council Members, and he hopes to get Regenia Bailey down for a flight. Farris then spoke about Angel Flight and their thank you to the Airport recently. Staff Reports -Tharp reminded Members of the Aviation Conference on April 23 and 24. SF,T NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: May 8, 2008, at 5:45 P.M. AD.IOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:13 P.M. CHAIRPERSON DATE Iowa City Airport Commission April 10, 2008 Page 9 of 9 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 lMeetine Uatel NAME TERM EXP. 1/10 2/14 3/6 3/13 4/10 5/8 Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X Oreg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X X X X X Iluward (loran 3/1/14 X X --- X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -April 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: FINAUAPPROVED 4b 11 Vice-Chair Elizabeth Engel called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Loren Horton, Donald King, Greg Roth Michael Larson Staff Kellie Tuttle Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD; and public, Caroline Dieterlie, Dean Abel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #07-01. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by King to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/11/08 • ICPD General Order 99-02 (Alarm-Open Door Response) • ICPD General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure) Motion carried, 4/0, Larson absent. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Future Forums -The Board discussed that early fall would be a good time to hold a forum. Motion by King and seconded by Horton to table the discussion until there were all members and legal counsel present. Motion carried, 4/0, Larson absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by King to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not PCRB April 8, 2008 Page 2 required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Larson absent. Open session adjourned at 5:37 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 5:54 P.M. Motion by Horton and seconded by King to forward the Public Report as written for PCRB Complaint #07-01 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Larson absent. Motion by Roth and seconded by King to request a 60-day extension for PCRB Complaint #08-03 due to timelines, scheduling and absence of legal counsel. Motion carried, 4/0, Larson absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • May 13, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • June 10, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • July 8, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • August 12, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Roth. Motion carried, 4/0, Larson absent. Meeting adjourned at 5:56 P.M. ~~O>C 0 ~ ~ y fD y ~ eo O b p .~ rA., ~ ~. "' A ~ ~ y '1 fD a d ~ a~+ L: 0 as ry "wl' A e T o~ n A °Q 'A ~ xr o '~1 1 o o o r~~ ~ PQ N fD °' m ~ ~ S„ tl1 ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ X ~ a r~ ~ a a N 'k ~C ~S yC >C w :- .. k ~ >C iC YC H H ,~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ n d o ~ ~- n 0 b 0 C" .~ n C~J (~ ~. y z l~ 0 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 Apri18, 2008 {-.~ O _~ To: City Council = ~ ,- Complainant _ _ ~1 ~ '~~' _ Dale Helling, Interim City Manager _ - ~~ ~ Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police i? z.a '_! ~~ Officer(s) involved in complaint _ _ - ~ -- ~`--~ ca Z o From: Police Citizen's Review Board --' Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #07-O1 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Boazd") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #07-01 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Boazd to apply a "reasonable basis" standazd of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because ofthe-Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on December 4, 2007. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. 1 The Chiefs Report was due on March 3, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on March 3, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on Mazch I 1 and April 8, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation." FINDINGS OF FACT During an investigation of a shooting which resulted in physical injury, police officers, while attempting to locate suspects, sought permission to search a residence in the area. An adult male answered the door at the residence and upon identification by the officers of their status, stated that he lived at the residence with his children, and he gave the officers permission to seazch the residence. The Complaint was not filed by the adult male mentioned above, but by an adult female who was not present during the search. The Complainant states that officers seazched her residence without her consent and harassed the father of her children. The second allegation is that the officers, after the search, proceeded to her place of employment and threatened to revoke her Section 8 Housing Assistance. The Chiefs Report contained summarization of three allegations, but the Board agreed to collapse the second and third allegations into one. The third allegation asserted that an officer sent e-mail correspondence offering assistance at the housing termination hearing. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Complaint and the Chiefs Report, the Board concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. Sufficient evidence was presented in the Chiefs Report to conclude that the adult male had residence status at the apartment, and therefore had legal right to give officers permission to search. :'~J 1. adult male's name on 2 police arrest dockets giving his address as this ~~ =` residence. _ 2. all persons agree that adult male is father of children at residence. "_ ~, I 3. adult male's driver's license gives this residence as his address. _'- ~, _""- 4. adult male gave this residence as his address on two applications with Iowa i'_ ` I I Workforce Development. _ -- '~--~ 5. Post Office reports that adult male gets mail at the address of the residence~_' `' 6. adult male's clothing was found in the residence. Y 7. School District shows this residence address for adult male as the responsible person For the children, and has addressed mail to him there. 2 Sufficient evidence also was presented to indicate that the process of terminating the Complainant's Section 8 Housing Assistance was already in progress and any actions by the officers were tangential to such action. 1. Landlord notified Complainant of unauthorized occupant living at the residence. 2. Hearing before the Director of Housing and Inspection Services resulted in termination of Complainant's participation in the Section 8 rental assistance program. Fifteen points were listed in the hearing evidence, only one of which concerned the search in question. Allegation # 1 -Unauthorized search of residence, and harassment of children's father - NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation # 2 -Threatening revocation of Section 8 rental assistance program, and assistance of a police officer in those proceedings -NOT SUSTAINED. ~~ L~ _~ - _ - - ~ ~_ i 1 _ .5? ~~ 4-. G~ FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -March 11, 2008 4b ~ 2 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Engel, Loren Horton, Donald King, Greg Roth MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle, Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Sergeant Doug Hart of the ICPD and Officer David Schwindt of the ICPD and President of the Labor Relations Organization; and public, Ruth Spinks from the Local Chapter of the ACLU RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL The Board recommends approval of the amendments to its Standard Operating Procedures, to include the changes made necessary from the amendments to the Home Rule Charter, and non-substantive changes and formatting issues. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by King to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 01/08/08 • ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling) • ICPD General Order 01-06 (Juvenile Procedures) • ICPD General Order 07-01 (Patrol Rifle) • ICPD Memorandum, Quarterly Summary Report (all quarters) IAIR/PCRB, 2007 • ICPD Department Memo 08-04 (September-December Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report -October 2007 ICPD Use of Force Report -November 2007 • ICPD Use of Force Report- December2007 Motion carried, 5/0. OLD BUSINESS Review of amended SOP's (Chanoes necessary by 11/6 election) -The Board reviewed the draft prepared by Legal Counsel Pugh and made minor additions suggested by Pugh. Motion by Engel and seconded by King to adopt the Standard Operating Guidelines as amended and forward to Council. Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. PCRB March 11, 2008 Page 2 BOARD INFORMATION King informed the Board that he had been attending the 11'" Annual Police Citizens Academy for the last eight weeks and that they were all invited to graduation on Wednesday, March 12`" at 6.30 P.M., held at the University of Iowa Police Training Room in the Old Capitol Mall. STAFF INFORMATION Pugh notified the Board that she had communication back and forth with City Attorney Dilkes to receive her input regarding the amended SOP's. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confdential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 5:50 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:15 P.M. Motion by King seconded by Roth to set level of review for PCRB Complaint #07-01 to 8-8-7 B(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 8, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room May 13, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • June 10, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • July 8, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Pugh announced that she will not be available for the April 8th meeting. She will review the draft report for Complaint #07-01 prior to the April 8`" meeting. Motion carried, 5/0. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King and seconded by Roth. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M. 4b 13 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, William Downing, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, Jim Ponto STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burtord, Carl Hirschman, Cecile Kuenzli, Martin Wenck CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Burford notifed the Commission that work done on the old law school has been halted because of failure to review the project under Section 106. She stated that Richard Carlson has been called in to work on this. Burford said that Friends of Historic Preservation would not have stepped in to salvage parts of the building if it had known that this had not been reviewed. Burford stated that an opinion page editorial in today's Press-Citizen raised points that she hoped could be addressed during the discussion of the Work Plan. She said the article discussed moving the Wetherby House. Burtord said the author also addressed the needs of the community with regard to historic preservation and specifcally addressed some items to the Historic Preservation Commission. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 430 Oakland Avenue. Miklo stated that this property is in the Longfellow Historic District and showed an aerial photograph of the area. He said the proposal contains two major aspects: the construction of a two- car garage with an accessory apartment above, and an addition to the east side of the house to accommodate the expansion of the kitchen and a new bathroom on the third floor. Miklo said that staff has had several discussions with the applicant about how to accomplish an addition to this property, and there are several things that need to be taken into account in addition to historic preservation. He said there are some zoning requirements, one of which is that any garage has to be at least 25 feet from the property line. Miklo said they looked at the possibility of a driveway back to Oakland, but both staff and the applicant felt it was not desirable to have the garage doors on the primary fanade on Oakland and determined the best location for the garage was to have it oriented with the garage doors facing Grant Court. He said that it would also result in the front yard not being paved to the extent that it would be if the garage faced west. Miklo said there is also a fve-foot setback on the east side for the side lot line. He said the garage could be moved a little further to the east; however, there is a large pine tree on the neighboring property, and the design is planned to minimize as much root damage as possible. Miklo said that in the fall, the Commission discussed the possibility of enclosing the north porch to allow more living space, but the Commission was unenthusiastic about that plan. He said that alternatives were looked at, and the plan is now to extend the footprint of the building on the east side slightly to allow for additional interior space. Miklo said the existing view from Oakland really would not change. He said that the garage would be seen from Oakland. Miklo said that given the complex gambrel roof of the house, it was difficult to find an addition that would be respectful of the roof. He said this is the most reasonable approach presented the applicant's designers. Miklo said that it does have the gambrel shape, but because of the dormer on that side, the applicant was not able to do the full gambrel down to the side. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 2 Miklo said that there are also a couple of minor aspects to the plan. He stated that one of them would be the replacement of some windows on the side of the house with clear-story windows. Miklo said another issue would be the plan to make the third floor window larger to allow egress. He said it would then be similar in size to the windows on the second floor. Miklo said it was not possible to do that on the less prominent north side, because of the stairway there. Regarding the garage, Miklo said that ideally the stairway to the second Floor should be in the interior of the structure, but that would require an expanded footprint. He said that to avoid root damage to the pine tree, the applicant is proposing an exterior stairwell that would not require a full foundation. Miklo said that since this is a secondary elevation of the building, staff feels this is a reasonable design solution. He said the stairwell would be screened with a lattice work design. Regarding the view from the south, Miklo said the applicant proposes to mimic the gambrel roof style of the house itself. He added that carriage doors on the garage would help this appear to be of a similar period as the original house. Miklo said that if this is approved, the details of the doors still need to be worked out. Miklo said there are two alternative window patterns for the garage itself. He said that one would be a single sash window similar to the north side of the house, and the other would be a double hung. Miklo said the concern with the double hung is that in order to get a window of the appropriate size, the window would have to extend into the frieze board. Miklo said that some of the neighbors have expressed concern about this application, including one neighbor who expressed concern about the potential loss of the yard. He said, however, that from a zoning point of view, the proposed garage meets all the requirements of the zoning code. Miklo said that if this open space was historically significant for some reason, such as a garden that is well known, there could be an argument made against building in this space. He said, however, there is no historic significance to this yard any more than any other yard in the neighborhood. Miklo said the question then becomes the design of the structure. He said it could be argued that a simple garage without the apartment would be lower in prof le and less intrusive to the space; however, a simpler design without the gambrel roof would not mimic the house as well. Miklo said staff recommends approval of this, with a few details to be worked out in terms of window specifications and the garage doors. Weitzel asked if the garage would be attached to the basement. Miklo said that it would be freestanding from the house, as recommended by the guidelines. Weitzel said that the guidelines don't really describe what scale and mass are in terms of subordinate structures. He said he did not know if the footprint being almost equivalent between the garage and the house makes it the same as the house or if it is still smaller because it's shorter. Miklo said that there is a change in grade, which helps in this situation. He said that even though this is a story and a half building, because it is lower in grade, it's not looming compared to the house. Toomey asked about an item shown on the plan. Miklo said that it is the existing garage in the basement. Wenck, the consultant for the project, said that the dimensions of the existing basement garage door are about eight feet by seven feet, and it is not big enough to hold a modern car. Eubanks said the application refers to the possibility of enclosing the porch. Hirschman said that with the changes, in order to put a bathroom on the first floor, that is where if he can use the clear-story windows then he could put a bathroom in that area. He said that if that is not possible, he would still like to find a place to put it on the first floor, and the only free floor space would be that porch. Hirschman said that using the clear-story windows would be a compromise situation. Hirschman said that he went around and spoke to all the neighbors who were home on Oakland and showed them the blueprints. He said that all of them who had time to look at the blueprints did approve of them. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 3 Weitzel noted that Caroline Colvin was a signatory on a letter to the Commission, but she has now recanted, because she did not know about the apartment over the garage when she signed. Swaim said she thinks it is laudable that the applicant went back to the drawing board to revise the plans for this and said it was the right thing to do. Eubanks said that she likes the porch, and she would not want to see it enclosed. Hirschman said that if the clear-story windows are allowed, he would be able to keep the porch. Weitzel said the Commission would prefer not to change the fenestration whenever possible, and the porch is one of the historic features of the building. Kuenzli said that she has lived in this neighborhood since 1972. She said she has walked past this house since then and has admired the way it sits on the lot and its proportions and realized that it was not being taken care of. Kuenzli said she hoped someone would buy it who would be a good steward of the house, appreciate it for what it is, and preserve it for the future. Kuenzli said that the most beautiful part of the house, besides the way it sits on the lot, is the south facade and the sunroom and the screened porch behind it. She said that the proposed plan would almost completely obscure what is truly an elegant south facade. Kuenzli said she agrees that this house needs a garage badly but asked why it needs atwo-story garage with an apartment that would cover up the most beautiful part of the house. She asked if it would be possible to do a more diminutive garage without an apartment in it. Wenck said that no one will ever really look straight on the south elevation. He said that as one walks by the house from the west, one would still be able to see most of the south facade, although probably not that back screened porch. Kuenzli said that the clear-story windows would be a minimal change and easy to accord, but it is the south facade that is of concern. Hirschman said he agreed with Kuenzli's comments, but because of the zoning, he has to put the garage as close to the house as possible or it would be too close to the street. Kuenzli asked if it wouldn't be less expensive to make the basement garage usable. Hirschman said that he has looked at the possibilities for a garage under the house, but none of them were feasible. He said that the present plan is the least invasive option. Wenck said that the basement garage is tiny and narrow and would not fit a car of today. He said it would be ideal to find some way to not build on the south, and that was part of the reason for bringing the garage down as far as he could get it. Kuenzli said that not having the second story on it would bring it down. Wenck said it would not bring it down much, because the garage needs a roof that mimics the house, unless one would put a 4:12 roof there. Weitzel said that there are flat-roofed garages in the neighborhood, and garages don't always match the house exactly. He said there are other ways to design a garage that would go with the house. Kuenzli asked if a very shallow hip roof could be done over the garage. Hirschman said that it would still cover that south porch. Regarding the porch, Weitzel said that the foundation doesn't really match the original house, so he believes it was added later. He said it may be a historic feature but is not necessarily original to the house. Weitzel said there is a gardenlike feature on a garage on Grant Street. He said it is a very small garage, but it has a pergola look to it. Weitzel said he did not know if one could incorporate a design like that into a modern garage, but it would match what is on the screened porch right now. Miklo said that even if one built a lower profile garage, and cone-story garage is possible, someone walking by would see the garage and would not see over it to see the screened porch behind. He said Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 4 that if there is going to be a garage on the site, the view is going to change; there is not any way around it. Miklo said it is a judgment call as to whether one wants to match the roof of the house or have more of a four-square type garage. Swaim and Eubanks said that they preferred the mimicking of the roofline. Weitzel said that the two major pieces of the proposal could be considered separately, since the Commission seems to be coming to some consensus on the garage. Eubanks said that one wants to have historic structures stay historic, but they need to be made functional for the present time. Weitzel said he does not see any way that the Commission can say that a garage cannot be allowed. Toomey said that this meets the guidelines, as the appearance of the house from the street is not changed. Weitzel said the Secretary of the Interior Standards call fora 360 degree view, although it doesn't mean things cannot be done. Michaud asked if there is any way to allow an interior stairway on the garage. Hirschman said that he would like to enclose the stairs so that they are hidden, but that may not be possible. He said that is why he plans to use a lattice screen if he is forced to build an exterior stairwell. Downing said he is a little conflicted, because nothing the applicant plans would violate any of the zoning requirements. He said he appreciates the effort to mimic the style of the house. Downing said he would be cautious about the impact on the sun porch. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a garage at 430 Oakland Avenue subject to: the windows being wood or metal-clad, solid wood, with the size and style of the new windows to match the historic windows; the original windows to be salvaged and reused whenever possible; the carriage house style garage doors must be compatible with the style of the property; cement board or wood siding and trim to match the profile of the existing siding and trim; and with the window and garage door final design to be subject to staff approval. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1, with Downing voting against. Eubanks said that she would like to see the addition approved subject to not changing the side porch and not allowing the windows in the back to be too intrusive. Miklo pointed out that if the Commission does not approve the change to the enclosed porch, it does not then force the Commission to approve enclosing the existing side porch. Weitzel said that a porch enclosure is disallowed in the guidelines. Swaim said that she doesn't mind the clear story windows, because there is the precedent of the window on the far right and because this side of the house isn't very visible at all. Downing asked if the back porch would then contain the first level bathroom. Hirschman confrmed this and said that the present bathroom would be incorporated into the kitchen. He said that the interior plans have not been finalized. Miklo said that the interior of a building is within the Commission's purview to the extent that ihterior plans affect the outside of the building. He said that the Commission can consider the interior floor plan when considering resulting changes to the exterior. Downing asked about the attic window. Weitzel said he had asked if that could be put in the addition instead. Downing stated that HIS will require a bedroom to have an egress window. Hirschman said that would be the south exposure. Weitzel said that it isn't horrible there, but he would rather see the window stay the same, because it matches the one on the north side. Wenck said that window would be the minimum size for a double hung window. He said that one of the reasons he changed that was to get better light quality in that room. Wenck said he would be changing the window to match the two below it. MOTION: Eubanks moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 430 Oakland Avenue, as proposed in the application. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1 with Weitzel votina against. Miklo asked if Commission members were concerned about the window pattern on the garage. Weitzel said that he liked the smaller one -that it looks more like a carriage house and doesn't get into the frieze Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 5 board. Wenck said that one window would be functional, but the other would not be functional on the inside. The consensus of the Commission was to approve the upper window design. Miklo asked the applicant if he intends to change the garage door on the original house. Hirschman said that he will replace it with whatever he uses on the south side with so that all of the garages match. Weitzel asked the applicant to consider, since this is a wet basement, treating the foundation to preserve the longevity of the house. Swaim said she appreciates the fact that the applicant took the initiative to get neighborhood input. Three property owners from the neighborhood attended the meeting. Two of the three spoke, and they both said they were thrilled that someone is going to fix up the property. DISCUSSION OF 2008 WORK PLAN: Miklo commented that the City Council unanimously approved the updated Preservation Plan last week. He stated that he drafted a work plan to present to the City Council based on discussion at the last meeting. Burtord said that the Press Citizen opinion page article points out that moving Wetherby House is symbolic of what can be done on behalf of historic preservation in Iowa City. She said the author is also saying that it demonstrates how difficult discerning the events around historic preservation can be. Burford said the author is suggesting we find ways to move ahead and keep things going that will preclude demolition notices from showing up on buildings that are historic. Toomey said the author asks for a citywide survey and nomination for places to be noted as recognized as having some historical significance. Weitzel said that goal one does address that, but the Commission does need to decide its priorities for when it happens. Burford said that the Commission has surveyed the community, and what is architecturally significant has been identified. She said that the article is getting at identifying socially, anthropologically important criteria, which are extremely difficult to research and identify. Weitzel stated that some of the surveys that have been conducted are better with regard to Criteria B significance than others. He said that there also properties outside the current districts that the Commission might want to consider to be landmarks. Burford said that even if a building is not eligible to be on the National Register, there is a potential there for the same kind of response. Weitzel said that the Commission needs to do a systematic survey for National Register properties and work on getting them nominated. He said that it is part of the goals. Weitzel said that the Preservation Plan is not just for the Commission but is for the whole community to follow. He said that other organizations could pick up on some of the surveys by funding them and/or supporting them. Swaim asked if the issue is who is going to do the work. Weitzel said that is a big chunk of it. He said that in any case, a grant needs to be applied for in order to hire a consultant. Miklo agreed that to be successful at doing a survey, the Commission needs to hire a consultant, and in order to do that, grant funding is needed. He said the work plan includes applying for a grant to study of the economic impact of historic preservation on the local economy. Miklo questioned whether that should have as high of a priority as doing a survey of an area such as Manville Heights, Kirkwood Avenue, or the near south side. He said that an economic impact study is not going to be as concrete as surveying a specific area, and that can probably be assumed without a study, as there are lots of other communities that have done it. Miklo asked if the Commission wanted to add an item to the work plan to apply for a survey grant or bump number five on the proposal. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 6 Eubanks said that if the Commission is more modest in its goals, they are more likely to be accomplished. She suggested bumping goal number five and replacing it with applying for a grant of a specifc area. Weitzel said that the political climate currently is much more in favor of preservation, and he therefore feels that a survey should be substituted for goal number five regarding economic development. Miklo said that page 108 of the Preservation Plan contains a list of recommended surveys that are graded in terms of priority. He said that the near south side has a few historic buildings left but does not really have a constituency in terms of a neighborhood that is asking to be preserved. Miklo said that having that area designated a landmark may be an uphill battle. He said that in order to get a building landmarked when the property owner objects, the approval of six of seven City Council members is required. Miklo said that Manville Heights is listed as recommended for a high priority, and there is also the Oak Grove to Kirkland Avenue Area and the Lucas Farm Area. Swaim said that she would much prefer moving on to getting a grant for the Manville Heights Neighborhood, as residents of the neighborhood are very interested in this, and if designation is successful, that will attract a lot of residents to the cause of preservation. Swaim said she believes that designation of the south side would be much more contentious. Weitzel said that the State has already virtually said that it would not fund a survey of the near south side area. He said their idea is that there are other areas that have more potential for valuable resources. The consensus of the Commission was to replace goal fve in the Work Plan with the goal of applying for funding to do a survey of the Manville Heights Area. The Commission approved the updated 2008 Work Plan by consensus. DISCUSSION OF MELROSE NEIGHBORHOOD Weitzel asked for comments on the draft letter he had prepared regarding the Melrose Neighborhood. Miklo said one concern he would have is that the Melrose Neighborhood residents would be making their case based on some of the politics and such, and that is their case to make. He suggested that the Commission focus more on the historic nature of the neighborhood and let the residents make the other arguments, which they have done well in their report. Baker said that paragraph three could be omitted in that case. Miklo said that would work, along with possibly a few specifics about the history of the neighborhood, giving the reasons the neighborhood is on the National Register. Eubanks agreed to make the changes to the letter, and Miklo said there is time to have the revised letter back on next month's agenda for Commission approval. Swaim pointed out that there are two grant deadlines coming up. Baker said that she would be willing to help on one of those. Miklo said that a draft for the combined near south side and Manville Heights grant application has already been prepared, and that draft could be adapted and revised to refer to just the Manville Heights Area. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Weitzel nominated Eubanks to be Vice Chair of the Commission. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MOTION: Toomey nominated Ponto to be Chair of the Commission. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Swaim thanked Weitzel for all of his work done on behalf of the Commission. Weitzel said that he would be working on the Board of Friends of Historic Preservation and has been appointed a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 28. 2008. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 7 Baker said that on page one, in the fourth paragraph under discussion of the work plan, in the first sentence, the word "revised" should be changed to "revise." Michaud said that on page two, in the seventh paragraph, first sentence, "more acceptable of green" should be changed to "more inclusive of green." The minutes, as amended, were approved by consensus. OTHER: Miklo asked if there would be any interest in changing the time of the monthly meeting to 5:30. The consensus of the Commission was to keep the meeting time at 6:00. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcdlmins/hpd200013-13-OB.tloc C O .y N O O U ~ d c ~ o ao m °c° 2 RN d ~ N C d Y a~ ~a .` 0 Y N X O X X X ~ X X X X N X ~ X X X X ~ ~ ~ X X X X ~ X X X X x ~ E v F W ~ o rn N M OJ o rn N M O ~ rn N M 40 o 'm N M m 0 rn N M r 0 m N M ~ 0 rn N M m 0 rn N M O ~ m N M O o rn N M ~' £ z d ~e m c c d m` rn c 3 o° ~ c A a w' 9 ~ t ~ f c a° q E N ~, °' E o r°- _ a E ~ w b y 3 N J U x w a c m ~ a~i n d~Q d Q u iii nw 1X00 4b 14 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Pam Michaud, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Thomas Baldridge, James Ponto MEMBERS ABSENT: Viktor Tichy, William Downing, Esther Baker, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Scott McDonough, Melvin Shaw, Orlando R. Dial CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Election of Chair Bunting Eubanks stated that she had been made aware that William Downing (not present) might be interested in being chair. She asked if anyone else would be interested in the chair position and asked for nominations. There were none, other than the possibility of Downing. MOTION: Ponto made a motion to defer the election of a chair to the next meeting. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. ConsentAgenda 521 S. Governor Street Kuecker stated that the board had previously approved an addition and that this was to add a porch roof to the entrance to that addition. Michaud said that it does not look as austere as it once had. She asked about porch posts. Miklo stated that this is a simple structure with no detailing. Scott McDonough, the builder, stated that the property owner had decided not to proceed with the project at this point. He stated that the frame was in place and asked that the owner be able to proceed with the project later. MOTION: Ponto made a motion to approve as proposed. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Certificate of Appropriateness 411 and 415 S. Governor Street Miklo stated that there had been a proposal for this property over a year ago that had already been approved. That proposal was made for two reasons: 1) It is a conservation district that requires approval of any design, and 2) the property is non-conforming in terms of zoning requirements such as parking and setbacks. He said that the Board of Adjustment has the authority to waive zoning requirements if it is needed to save a historic structure and that this would probably be requested for this property. Miklo said that the State Historical Society had expressed concern over the size of the new structure. Drainage and space on the property were also concerns. To lessen this concern, the church had purchased an adjacent property, giving them more space to work with. Kuecker stated that the applicant planned to demolish the existing house on the property it had purchased to make space for landscaping and the church expansion. She said this house is a non- contributing structure in the conservation district. Kuecker stated that staff recommends approval of the Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 2 demolition subject to 1) a certificate of appropriateness being given for the expansion, and 2) the Board of Adjustment approving the special exception. Kuecker stated that the proposal called for the removal of a porch that is not original, construction of a new front stoop that would face south, removal of a covered basement doorway and replacement with a window. She said the addition is separated from the existing church by an 8 foot breezeway. She said the existing structure would be restored and would be used. The new addition is shorter than the existing church. Kuecker stated that fiber cement board siding would be used that would match the existing structure and that limestone accents would be used at the entryway. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval subject to the doorway and window specifcations approval by staff and use of fiber cement siding, aluminum clad wood windows, wood or fiber cement soffits, wood stairs in front with lattice, compatible handrails, and restoration of the existing space that would not be divided up into smaller rooms. There was a question about roofing material. Miklo stated that, historically, the building had a metal roof, and that was the roofing material that was planned for use. There was a question regarding the structure that was proposed for demolition. Miklo stated that it was non-contributing because it was built later than the surrounding structures. Michaud inquired as to whether the structure could be moved to another lot. Miklo stated that the difficulty with this is in Ending a new lot. Shaw asked whether partitions could be used within the existing structure. Kuecker replied that temporary partitions would be permissible, but not permanent walls. Shaw asked if it would be acceptable for the applicant to put more effort into the new structure first, then work on the old structure. Miklo stated that the City would not put a time frame on the work being done to the old structure, but that the structure would have to meet zoning code requirements during the work process. Bunting Eubanks asked if there were any concerns regarding the list of changes that staff had made. Shaw stated that the design reflects the changes and that the congregation was satisfied. MOTION: Trimble moved to approve the demolition of 415 S. Governor St subject to approval of a certificate of appropriateness and special exception by the Board of Adjustment. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Baldridge moved to require staff approval for specification of materials for windows and doors. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Discussion of Melrose Neiohborhood Miklo stated that the memo emphasizes what the Commission could do. Bunting Eubanks asked if the neighborhood could be considered as a historic district. Miklo stated that it is eligible, but that the neighborhood has chosen not to pursue the designation. A question was asked about how much of the neighborhood is currently owned by the University. Miklo stated that several of the homes along Melrose are University owned, but that it is homes in the interior of the neighborhood that are of concern to the neighborhood. Bunting Eubanks asked if the neighborhood residents would have to come forward in order for the designation to occur. Miklo stated that if 20% of the landowners object, then it takes asuper-majority of the City Council to approve the district. It was mentioned by a Commissioner that some of the homes in the area were rented, and that the owners of these homes might object to a historic designation. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 3 Miklo asked if there was a consensus that this memo should be sent as written. He said it would be sent to the neighborhood and that they could send it to Council with their package. MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve the memo. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Miklo showed the Commission's work program for the year. He said that it first needs to be sent to City Council. Miklo said that the first draft of item 2 would be done by staff, that item 5 would be worked on by staff in the near future to meet a deadline, and that staff would initiate contact with the Campus Planning Committee for item 4. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.m Minutes submitted by Adam Ralston slpctllminuteslhpG2008/HPC 04-10-0Q.tlOc C O .y N .~ E~ 0 0 U ~ d c o ~ d R C O 2 10N d ~ N C V Y aQ v .` 0 .. N 2 v X O O X X X ~ ~ X X ; i X ~ X X X ~ X ~ X X X a x o x x x x o i o o X ~ X X X ~ X X X X x m E F w rn N M o rn N M o m N M ° rn N M - m N M o rn N M ° rn N M o rn N M ~ rn N M o m N M ° rn N M a m N f'l ~ E d W c 9 y x C ~ m c 3 N A a V L ~ ° c E •E ~' ~ T E o a E t •-y N N J U X W C N ~ N d N ~ Q d Q II ~ II II W YXOO 4b(15) MINUTES Youth Advisory Commission Apri121, 2008 Lobby Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Malatek, Nelson, Segar, Weeks Members Absent: Green, Han Others Present: City Clerk Kan, City Council Liaison Wilburn Call to Order: 733 P.M. FINAL Introduction of New Member: Malatek introduced herself to the commission. She is an active member in the creation of the Youth Advisory Commission but was unable to serve because she lived outside of Iowa City. The other Commission members briefly introduced themselves to Malatek. Approve Minutes: Nelson moved to approve the minutes. Segar seconded. The minutes were approved 4-0. Update on Website: Karr stated that she had received Segar's picture. She mentioned that she needed a picture from Malatek and a parental release form from Green. Youth Empowerment Grant: There were no new applications for the Youth Empowerment Grant. Nelson summarized the Grant program for Malatek. Nelson and Karr discussed issuing another press release before the end of the year, as well as changing the application requirements for the Grant. Malatek inquired whether recipients had to actually live in Iowa City or only to attend school there. Karr clarified that recipients must reside in Iowa City. Malatek then asked whether a member of the YAC could apply for a grant. The group agreed that the issue was not addressed or discouraged in the application, so it would not be a problem, but would probably be preferable that the applicant not be on the Youth Empowerment Grant subcommittee. Nelson suggested another round of Facebook ads for the Grants, and stated that he would send out instructions for posting the ads. Summer of the Arts Update: Segar and Weeks shared their ideas for the Egypt booth with the committee. Ideas included flags; toilet paper mummies; pyramid building with sugar cubes, Popsicle sticks, or clay; Pharaoh-type headdresses; and hieroglyphic translation. Segar said that the subcommittee was and would continue to be in contact with organizer Lisa Barnes. Karr reminded Segar and Weeks the procedures available to pay for supplies. Make up of 2008 Subcommittees: Nelson explained the sub-committees to Malatek, and pointed out that any subcommittee meeting with four or more members would constitute a quorum, and be an official meeting. Malatek joined the Summer of the Arts subcommittee and suggested a subcommittee to deal with recruitment for the Youth Advisory Commission. Segar motioned to create a recruitment subcommittee, Nelson seconded. Malatek joined the subcommittee. Weeks pointed out that Green and Han should be given a chance to join since they are some of the newest members. Youth Advisory Commission Apri121, 2008 Page 2 Public Discussion: Wilburn reiterated the importance of contacting administrative officials at the high schools and junior highs about participation in the YAC. Karr asked whether it would be a good idea to revisit the commission's by-laws and stated that she would send a copy to the members of the commission for review. Wilburn informed the committee of several different organizational arrangements of various commissions of the city government. Announcements/Invitations: Segar, Nelson and Karr spoke about their NCJC Road Race experience. Nelson mentioned that the Commission was very active in volunteering at various community events. Meetin¢ Schedule: The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, May 14th at 7:30 pm. Adjournment: Motioned by Nelson, seconded by Segaz. Approved 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:08 pm. Minutes prepared by Weeks. Z O ~o N ~ ~U OWao U~o } W N Q' fA Q W ~ Z ~ Q W H 2 H ~a 0 .~ m .. R A on A a o x x x x E N O X X x X i i N X X X X ; ; T ~ g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W X W M M M M M M M H N N N N N N N r .- W ~ ~ y d ~ ~ p 'D R Y d Y d~ _ G Z G t d V G t 6 V~ R G d m m V N ~m J~ ~~ j 2C9 ~2 ~Z d ~ of ~ x c E ~ :- d .. ~ ~ tlj y N ~ w .C a`aaz°z° II II ~ II I x Q O Z i W Y