HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-19 Info Packet1
~~~®~o'~
~w~ ~
.. ,~®~~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
June 19, 2008
June 23 WORK SESSION ITEMS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from the Assistant City Manager: Old Bus Depot - 404 E. College Street
IP3 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Smokefree Air Act
IP4 Memorandum from Mayor Bailey and email documentation from Council Member Wilburn:
Metro Coalition
MISCELLANEOUS
IP5 Memorandum from the City Manager: Acting Director of Parking and Transit
IP6 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Retreat Date
Letter from Iowa Department of Transportation: Avenue of the Saints Dedication Ceremony
[Distributed at 6/23 Work Session]
Letter from City Clerk: Special meetings for flood matters [Distributed at 6/24 formal
meeting]
DRAFT MINUTES
IP7 Planning and Zoning Commission: June 5, 2008
IP8 Planning and Zoning Commission: June 2, 2008
IP9 Airport Commission: June 13, 2008
IP10 Historic Preservation Commission: June 12, 2008
~ - 1
~III~
,~w~~~
-n.a~._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
June 19, 2008
I June 23 WORK SESSION ITEMS ~
IP1 Council Meetings~nd Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from the~ssistant City Manager: Old Bus Depot - 404 E. College Street
IP3 Memorandum from the City~ttorney: Smokefree Air Act
IP4 Memorandum from Mayor Bailey a d email documentation om Council Member Wilburn:
Metro Coalition
MISCE
IP5 Memorandum from the City Manager: Acting
IP6 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Retreat
of Parking and Transit
MINUTES
IP7 Planning and Zoning Com
IP8 Planning and Zoning Com
h: June 5, 2008
n: June 2, 2008
EO~tJS
IP9 Airport Commission: Ju a 13, 2008
IP10 Historic Preservatio Commission: June 12, 2008
:..®~i
~~--..+~..~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas June 19, 2008
W W W.ICgOV.Org
• MONDAY, JUNE 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• Planning and Zoning Items (Item 4f,g)
• Subdivision Regulations (Item 4a)
• Old Bus Depot Site (reference information packet IP2]
• Agenda Items
• Public Property Smoking Policies (reference Information Packet #IP3]
• Metropolitan Coalition Process (reference Information Packet #IP4]
• Council Committee Appointments (reference agenda item #12)
• Council Time
• Schedule of Pending Discussion items
• Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations
• Discussion of Meeting Schedule
• TUESDAY, JUNE 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• TUESDAY, JUNE 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, JULY 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, JULY 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, AUGUST 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Special Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
Continue Regular Work Session if necessary
• SATURDAY, AUGUST 16 TBD
TBD Special Council Work Session/Retreat
• WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall
4:30p Joint Meeting
• MONDAY, AUGUST 25 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, AUGUST 26 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
Labor Day -City Offices Closed
All meetings are tentative and subject to change.
Previously distributed as IP2 of June 12, 2008 Information Packet
_'r_,_-r_®~; CLTY OF IOWA CITY 1P2
~~~'°~'~~~ MEMORANDUM
Date: June 12, 2008
To: City Council
From: Dale Belling, Assistant City Manager
Re: Old Bus Depot - 404 E. College Street
<~~
The property at 404 E. College Street was purchased by the City in 1974 as a relocation site for
the Greyhound Bus Depot that was being displaced due to the downtown urban renewal project.
The property was leased to Greyhound and housed both the bus depot and one or more taxi
dispatch facilities until completion of the Court Street Multimodal Transportation Facility in 2005.
In the '70s the City also purchased the site of the former "U Smash 'Em - I Fix 'Em" building
directly north of 404 E. College. The upper level of that building was demolished and the lower
level was retained for storage. The deck over the lower level was replaced and is now leased for
parking for tenants of the Commerce Building across the street.
In 2000 the City purchased the Wilson Sporting Goods building next door at 408 E. College with
the intent of eventually owning the entire block and use as a City Government Campus, keeping
City facilities in close proximity. That building is the primary storage facility for City Hall offices
and also houses the Bike Library.
The only remaining parcel on the block to be acquired is the MidAmerican Energy substation
which the company apparently intends to abandon in the fairly near future and to which they
have agreed to afford the City a first right of refusal to purchase the site. The estimated cost to
relocate the substation was $1 million several years ago which would be at City cost if we were
to acquire the site before the substation can be phased out. That cost was considered to be
prohibitive.
The Old Bus Depot building has been evaluated in the past by City Building Inspection staff and
I have attached copies of two separate assessments of what would be required to bring it up to
code and thus usable for commercial purposes. Note that the October, 2005 estimate of cost
was then $30,000.00 just to prepare the building for needed interior renovations. I have also
enclosed a February 7, 2007 report from the Department of Public Works indicating that the cost
of demolition of the building would be approximately $15,000.00.
Currently the building is being used for storage and occasionally is utilized as a staging area for
community events occurring in the area. There have been numerous inquiries as to the City's
intent for use of the site since the bus depot was moved. Interest in both purchase and lease of
the building and/or the site has been expressed. Our response has always been that the cost of
bringing the building up to code is prohibitive, that the building is planned for demolition, and
that the future use of the site is intended for a City government related purpose.
There are essentially three general options the City has regarding future development of the
404 E. College Street site, possibly along with adjacent properties.
Demolish the structure, retain the site for a future City facility, and utilize it for public
outdoor space in the interim.
June 12, 2008
Page 2
2. Place the property on the market and sell it for private redevelopment. This would likely
involve a request for proposal with established parameters regarding future use, building
design, etc.
Pursue apublic/private joint redevelopment effort. Council would no doubt wish to
determine the specific public purpose to be achieved before seeking a private interest to
partner with.
With any of the above options, it should be considered whether or not demolition of the adjacent
Wilson Building and the "U Smash 'Em" parking lot should be included to create a larger site
and increase the range of options for redevelopment. Further, including the substation site
would provide complete availability of all of the south portion of that block that lies west of the
Chauncey Swan parking garage.
Finally, I have included a copy of a September 28, 2005 memo from the City Manager outlining
possible uses of the Old Bus Depot site. These were identified by a committee of staff from
Planning & Community Development, Parking & Transit, Parks & Recreation, and
Administration. That committee did not see the sale of the property for private redevelopment as
a desired option.
Please contact me if you need additional information or clarification before your work session
discussion.
cc. City Manager
Planning & Community Development Director
Parks & Recreation Director
Parking & Transit Director
Page 1 of 1
Dale Helling
From: Joe Fowler
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:03 PM
To: Tim Hennes; Chris O'Brien; Dale Helling; Doug Boothroy; Ron Knoche
Cc: Loren Brumm
Subject: RE: Old Bus Depot use as veteran's office
Thanks Tim, I will contact them.
From: Tim Hennes
Sent: Wednesday, March iZ, 2008 11:00 AM
To: ]oe Fowler; Chris O'Brien; Dale Helling; Doug Boothroy; Ron Knoche
Cc: Loren Brumm
Subject: F"W: Old Bus Depot use as veteran's office
Following are the issues that need to be addressed prior to the Old Bus Depot Building being occupied:
Code issues that must be addressed:
1. Building appears to have structural problems with cracks in the masonry. Building appears stable and
does not appear to present imminent danger as far as posting as a "Dangerous Building". A survey by a
licensed structural engineer-especially in determining what is causinglhas caused the cracks and the
possibilities of problems continuing or becoming more severe is required.
2. Structural repairs would need to be completed.
3. The electrical service and system is required to be inspected by a licensed electrician and any repairs and
upgrades need to be completed. The service drop currently is sheathed in ice and the panel is located next
to a mop sink. The proposed tenants indicated this was in their plans: electrical issues would be resolved
with a new service and new interior wiring.
4. The mechanical systems need to be inspectedlupdated. The current building provides combustion air
through building air gaps. The proposed tenants indicated they would redo the mechanical systems.
5. The plumbing system needs repair, the building sewer probably needs to be scoped to determine the
extent of the problems. The building sewer may need replacing.
6. The building is generally accessible with some modifications. Doors currently do not all operate properly.
A new front door or repaired door is needed. Restrooms need some modifications. The new use would
need to meet all ADA requirements as per new construction.
7. Exterior parking/site issues would need to be considered.
8. Building plans would need to be prepared by a licensed design professional and required permits would
need to be obtained.
Issues the City, as owner, should address:
1. Asbestos abatement needs to be considered and/or verified.
2. The condition of the roof would need to be verified and the gutter and downspouts
3. Gutters and downspouts need to be adjusted to function correctly.
4. Length of the lease agreement needs to be considered.
5. Abatement of the gas tanks/contamination needs to be considered.
6. Energy conservation needs to be considered.
Thomas Kelly and Leonard McCellan with Vets Helping Vets asked to be updated with this information. I'm
assuming someone will be communicating this information in addition to other issues regarding this building with
them.
Let me know if you need additional information.
Tim
3/12/2008
* Previously distributed as IP14 of October 27, 2005 Information Pa^t.~r
City of.lowa City
MEMORANDUM ----
October 12, 2005 ~ W-
To: Steve Atkins, Ci[y Manager ~ ""
From: Joe Fowler, Director Pazking & Transit ~.t~
Reference: Old Bus Depot
Wednesday October 5, 2005 Chris O'Brien and I met with Doug Boothroy, Tim Hennes,
and Loren Brumm at the Old Bus Depot to evaluate the condition of the building. The
following items were identified as in need of repair/replacement. The costs are estimates
and are not based on contractor estimates. The building would require a new electrical
hookup on the exterior, $2,000, the HVAC needs to be replaced $5,000, and replacement
of the roof is estimated at $10,000. In addition there are cracks in the concrete block
walls that day light shows through. Estimated total make ready cost before any interior
renovations are started is $30,000.
The building is a block building on a concrete slab. This would make it very difficult if
not impossible to move.
In addition, the majority of the metal squares, which are the major architectural feature of
the building exterior, have been removed.
1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -Engineering Division
SPECIAL PROJECTS REPORT
~„ _
CITY OF IOWA CITY Report
hoiact DerrlWitlon d Ura fwlwr Oreylwund Bus 8btlon N /o{ Collapa Btreet to hovMe Low Cosl SuRau Perklrp
Corttrecbr: Iowa CIN to aG as G.C. Deb: 7th Feb. 07
Bbrt ~: T~ Report No. 1
Job tlo.
~; TBD Dsslyn: In house
Valve d Work b Deb: E1,000
Fsb __~__ _ _ _ _ _ re........ n.... WUM 4s _. _.
This cat estimab rs for abae 9ra~ demolidorl 8 perierally includes 9ie tumoral and disposal aboe pmund sbucWrec.
This es9mab does not irwlWe ergirieedrp, design, hll emimnmenbl sbdY m wnsbucean manapemerR
Cdy Nall vdll dismnxt water, sewer aM ienw.e liphb aM ballaals aEC..
AbOW BfWlld Rotas
DemolRion
Ea9mated Cost
1lebacbs Removal:
Asbestos femoral with tlenralikm b tallow (ooN wlll be blpMr R WlMlnp k b rertlaln( 7B00
OanaM wmollllon:
t00
Bond 6 p~n~
MobA~GOn 700
RNmral:
Ekfctrkal ~
Mxbaniral 200
Hoe Breaker 1000
~~~ 1000
Bd krader 2000
Tnwis for rubble 2000
Labor ~~
Trucks to bndfill 2000
Landfill tees 1800
Tool C1Brrtehd Cost ftOJi60.00
Shaun Blatltaxy, Special Projects
Feb. 2007
V2.2
um sr. •..e,.. r, sase,a~~ ~em.v. c®,ms. a ow..v a. s s,....n.v... e..,>+o,n
* Previously distributed as IP4 of September 29, 2005 Information Packet
,~®~, CITY OF IOWA CITY
~:~'~~~ MEMORANDUM
Date: September 28, 2005
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Redevelopment reuse of
Below is a brief outline of issues related to the redevelopment or reuse of the old bus depot at
the northeast corner of College and Gilbert streets. This outline is provided to facilitate the
Council's discussion Monday evening.
COLLEGE/GILBERT NORTHEAST CORNER
REDEVELOPMENT SITE
• Parcel size: approx. 21,000 sq. ft.
Constraints:
• Grade change from College to alley
• Alley
Transformer
• LUST ?? or other environmental hazard
• Potential uses
1. Expansion of Chauncey Swan park
2. Expansion of Recreation Center
3. New and larger venue for the Farmers Market
4. Parking (extension of Chauncey Swan or surface?)
5. Municipal building with storage
6. Community meeting hall
7. Public safety building
8. Sell for private use
Phase change (items 1-7):
• Demolition U Smash'Em and convert to green space
• Use old bus depot for storage
• Demolition bus depot and Wilson's
• Construct new building/sell
e Previously distributed as IP2 of June 5> 2008 Information Packet
Z
~hp~,~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P3
~-~~'~~~~ MEMORANDUM
~~~
DATE: JUNE 5, 2008
TO: CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, DEPARTM~IRECTORS, AND DIVISION HEADS
FROM: ELEANOR M. DILKES, CITY ATTORNEY
RE: SMOKEFREE AIR ACT
INTRODUCTION
This Memorandum summarizes the provisions of HF 2212, the Smokefree Air Act ("the Act"), that are,
in some way, directly applicable to cities. It is not a summary of the provisions governing all locations.
Local establishments that have questions about the Act's applicability should consult their own
attorneys. Following the summary is a series of questions about the Act that I have received from staff
and my answers to those questions. Both the summary and my answers include references to the draft
rules issued by the Iowa Department of Public Health ("DPH"), which are subject to change before final
approval.
The Act expressly states that the person having custody or control of an area that is not covered under
the Act may declare the area to be non-smoking. Thus, the City has authority under the Act to prohibit
smoking in any additional areas under its custody or control. These areas include parking ramps, city
plaza, and parks/open spaces not included within the definition of "grounds" of a public building.
Please note that the law and rules have a definition of "school grounds" that is broader than the
definition of "grounds of a public building." Therefore, do not assume that the answers in this memo
would apply equally to the University of Iowa or the schools. My understanding from the University
officials is that they interpret the Act to require the entire campus to be smoke free.
SUMMARY OF SMOKEFREE AIR ACT PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CITIES
The Act is essentially divided into four parts: a) places where smoking is prohibited; b) exemptions to
said prohibitions; c) grant to local authorities to declare additional areas smokefree; and d) enforcement
provisions. The Act creates a new chapter in the Iowa Code, Chapter 142D, and my citations are to
sections of the new chapter. I also cite to the draft administrative rules, 641 Iowa Admin. Code 153.
Where Smoking Is Prohibited
„
1) All "public places" defined as enclosed areas" (walled in spaces) to which the public has
access, even if under private ownership. Section 142D.3.
2) Public transportation facilities, including buses and boarding and waiting areas of these
facilities. Sections 142D.2(16)(h) and 142D.3(2)(c).
3) Public buildings owned, leased or operated under the control of the city. Sections
142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3.
4) Vehicles owned, leased or operated by or under the control of the city. Sections 142D.2(16)(q)
and 142D.3.
Page 2
5) All enclosed areas within places of employment, including private offices, with very limited
exceptions (e.g., gaming floors of casinos). Section 142D.3(1)(b).
6) Outdoor areas. Section 142D.3(2).
a. Public transit stations and shelters.
b. "Grounds" of public building, owned , or licensed or under control of the City.
"Grounds" is not defined in the Act, but is defined in the draft rules as "an outdoor
area of a public building that is used in connection with the building ,including but
not limited to, a sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building; a sitting or standing
area immediately adjacent to the building; a patio; a deck a curtilage or courtyard; a
swimming or wading pool; or a beach, or any other outdoor area as designated by
the person having custody or control of the public building...." 641-153.2.
c. "Seating areas of outdoor sports arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters, and other
entertainment venues," which are defined in the rules as "areas designated by the
owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody or control of the area to
be used primarily to witness entertainment events and shall include, but not be
limited to, all chairs, seats, and bleachers whether permanent or temporary; standing
room only; general admission or festival style seating areas; and any other areas
where individuals congregate to witness entertainment events." 641-153.2.
Places that Are Specifically Exempted
1) Privately-owned vehicles unless otherwise defined as a public place (e.g., taxicab) or place of
employment or on "school grounds" Section 142D.4(7); 142D.3(2)(d)
2) Outdoor places of employment unless otherwise covered (e.g., grounds of public buildings,
seating areas of sports arenas, and public transit stations). Section 142D.4(6).
Discretion for Additional Non-smoking Areas
The City may declare other areas within its custody or control that are otherwise exempt under the Act
to be non-smoking. Such places include parking ramps, city plaza, and parks/open spaces not
included within the definition of "grounds" of a public building. Section 142D.4(5).
Enforcement
1) DPH is the primary enforcement agency. Section 142D.8(1). The Act is unclear regarding the
role of local authorities and further study will be necessary.
2) For businesses which have some type of license, violations may result in suspension or
revocation of license. Section 142D.6(1).
3) Smokers are subject to a $50 civil penalty for violations. Section 142D.9(1).
4) Owners/operators who fail to comply are subject to civil penalties
a. 1s` offense = $100
b. 2"° offense (within a year) _ $200
c. Subsequent violations (within a year) _ $500
Note: Each day violation occurs is a separate violation. Sections 142D.9(2) and
142D.9(6).
5) Employees or private citizens have a right to bring legal action to enforce this law, and DPH or
any person aggrieved by failure of an owner or person in control may seek injunctive relief to
enforce the law. Section 142D.8(2).
6) Employers are prohibited from taking any adverse action against employees who exercise their
rights under this law, and employers may be subject to civil penalties of $2,000 to $10,000 for
Page 3
discrimination or retaliation against employees who report a violation, provide information, bring
legal action, make a complaint, etc. Sections142D.7 and 142.8(3).
7) Violations of this law constitute a public nuisance and employers may be ordered to abate.
Section 142D.8(5).
~~}y Obligations as Owner / Partv in Control of Places Where Smoking is Prohibited
The Act imposes certain responsibilities on the "owner, operator, manager, or other person having
custody or control" of places where smoking is prohibited that requires the City to:
1) Communicate prohibitions to employees and prospective employees upon application for
employment. Section 142D.6(2).
2) Sign certain places. Section 142D.(6)(3).
a. Signs must be placed at every entrance to a non- smoking place.
b. Signs must be placed in all vehicles owned, leased or operated by or under the control of
the City. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3. Under the draft rules, signs do not have to
be placed in City vehicles that are issued a "regular" registration plate (e.g., unmarked
police cars). 641-153.4(1)e(4).
c. Signs are required to:
(1). Be clear and conspicuous
(2). Be at least 24 square inches.
(3). Contain the words "No Smoking" or the international "no smoking" symbol, the toll
free number for reporting complaints to DPH and the DPH web site,
<www.lowaSmokefreeAir.gov>
(4) City may use sample signs available on the DPH Internet site or another sign that
meets the requirements.
3) Remove all ashtrays from places where smoking is prohibited. Section 142D.6(4).
4) Assess compliance with requirements of the Act during inspections of any non-smoking place
(e.g., fire, alcohol license, and building inspections), inform violators of prohibitions of Act, and
report any violations to DPH. Section 142D.8(2).
5) Inform persons violating the law of the provisions of the Act. This responsibility is placed on the
"owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody or control of a public place." This
would likely include the senior City staff person in control of a public building or a City
vehicle. Section 142D.8(3). The draft rules provide that a manager will need to request that the
person stop smoking immediately, and if she/he does not, may request that the person leave
the area where smoking is prohibited and may notify the police department. 641-153.5(4).
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SMOKEFREE AIR ACT
C~, Can a person smoke in City Hall, Fire Station No. 3, the Wastewater Treatment Plant, or in any
other City Building?
No, smoking is prohibited in all enclosed public buildings and in all enclosed areas within places
of employment. Section 142D.3(1).
C~, Can a person smoke on the front steps to City Hall?
No. Smoking on the "grounds" of a public building is prohibited. The draft rules provide that
the front steps are part of the grounds. Section 142D.3(2)(e); 641-152.2.
f~ Can a person smoke while standing in the City Hall parking lot?
Page 4
No. The draft rules provide that the parking lot is part of the grounds of City Hall. The rules
allow the City Council to exclude the parking lot from the designated grounds of City Hall.
Section 142D.3(2)(e); 641-152.2.
C~ Can a person smoke on the sidewalk in front of City Hall?
Yes. The sidewalk is right-of-way, and right-of-way is not the grounds of a public building.
„•
l~ Can a person smoke on the internal" sidewalks (e.g., sidewalk leading to parking lot)
immediately adjacent to and used in connection to City Hall?
No. Sidewalks immediately adjacent to and used in connection with a public building are
grounds of a public building. 641-152.2.
(~ Can a person smoke while in a City vehicle?
No. Smoking is prohibited in all City vehicles regardless of where the vehicle is located.
Section 142D.3(1)(b).
C~ Can a person smoke while parked in a private vehicle in the City Hall parking lot?
Yes. Private vehicles, except when on school grounds or otherwise defined as a public place or
place of employment (e.g. taxicabs), are exempted. Sections 142D.3(2)(d) and 142D.4(7).
(~ Can a person smoke in a sidewalk cafe located on the public right-of--way?
No. Smoking is prohibited in "[o]utdoor seating areas of restaurants." Section 142D.3(2)(b).
(,~ Can a person smoke in City Plaza?
Yes, except in sidewalk cafes. City Plaza is right-of-way, and the Act does not prohibit
smoking on the right-of-way.
(3 Can a person smoke in an outdoor service area on private property?
No, if the outdoor service area is a restaurant, and yes, if it is a bar. The Act defines
restaurant as "eating establishments, ... which offer food to the public, guests, or employees, ...
~~
and including a bar area within a restaurant. Bar is defined "an establishment where one
may purchase alcoholic beverages ... for consumption on the premises and in which the serving
of food is only incidental to the consumption of those beverages." Sections 142D.2 and
142D.3(2)(b). The draft rules further define "incidental to the consumption of alcohol" as
prepackaged food such as peanuts or reheating of commercially prepared foods such as a
frozen pizza. 641-153.2
~ Can a person smoke at the City cemetery?
Yes, with the exception of those outdoor areas used in connection with and immediately
adjacent to an enclosed public building in the cemetery. 641-153.1.
Page 5
C~ Can a person smoke while grilling in City Park?
Yes, with the exception of those outdoor areas used in connection with and immediately
adjacent to an enclosed public building in City Park. 641-153.1.
(~ Can a person smoke while sitting in the bleachers and watching a softball game at
Napoleon Park?
No. Smoking is prohibited in the "seating areas of outdoor sports arenas, stadiums...."
Section 142D.3(2)(a).
g Can a person smoke while watching a Kickers game at the soccer fields?
No. Smoking is prohibited in the "seating areas," which includes where "members of the
general public assemble to witness entertainment events." Section 142D.3(2)(a).
C~ Can a person smoke in a public housing unit?
Yes. "Private residences, unless used as a child care facility, child care home, or health care
provider location" are excluded from the Act. Section 142D.4(1).
f~. Can a person smoke in an airport hangar?
No. A hangar is a public building. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3(1)(a). Additionally,
the draft rules requires all leases of areas where smoking is prohibited to include a no
smoking provision. 641-153.7.
4 Can a person smoke in the leased space at the library or the CouR Street Transportation
Center?
No. They are public buildings. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3(1)(a).
(~' Who is responsible for the no-smoking signs on a space in a public building that is leased to a
private entity?
The tenant. 641-153.5(3).
Q Can a person smoke on the bike trails?
Yes. Bike trails are not the grounds of a public building.
g Can a person smoke in a City parking ramp?
Yes. A parking ramp is not an "enclosed area," and therefore, is not a "public building." In
addition, none of the City's parking ramps would be considered "grounds" of another "public
building."
C~ Can a person smoke at the Jazz Fest or Arts Fest?
Under the draft rules, one cannot smoke in "areas designated by the owner, operator, manager,
or other person having custody or control of the area to be used primarily to witness
Page 6
Q
g
4
g
g
entertainment events and shall include, but not be limited to, all chairs, seats, and bleachers
whether permanent or temporary; standing room only; general admission or festival style
seating areas; and any other areas where individuals congregate to witness entertainment
events." 641-153.2. This would include the area near the stage. Council may designate by
ordinance, what this area includes, (etc., within fifty feet from the stage). Please note that the
Act does not go into effect until July 1, 2008, so the Act is not applicable to the Arts Fest this
upcoming weekend.
assembles to witness entertainment events." Section 142D.3(2)(a).
Can a person smoke during the Friday Night Concerts?
As with the Jazz Fest and the Arts Fest, the area to be used primarily to witness entertainment
events is smoke free. Again, Council may designate the boundaries of this area by ordinance.
Can a person smoke at Riverside Festival stage?
No. Smoking is prohibited in the "seating areas of outdoor sports arenas, stadiums,
amphitheaters and other entertainment venues where member of the general public
Can a person smoke at the City bus stop?
No. Smoking is prohibited at "[p]ublic transit stations, platforms, and shelters under the
authority" of the City. Section 142D.3(2)(c).
Can a person smoke at the landfill?
Not in the enclosed City buildings located at the landfill or the "grounds" of those buildings.
Smoking is allowed in the outdoor areas not used in connection with and immediately
adjacent to an enclosed public building at the landfill. 641-153.1.
Do the prohibitions apply to chewing tobacco?
No. The Act applies to "lighted" tobacco products. Section 142D.2(21).
Where can a City employee who works in City Hall smoke during work hours?
On the sidewalk on the perimeter of the grounds of City Hall, which is public right-of-way, and in
their private vehicles.
Are motorcycles treated differently than cars and trucks?
No. You can substitute motorcycle for any question or answer that uses the term
"vehicle." Bicycles are not vehicles, and the same prohibitions and exemptions that apply
to pedestrians apply to bicyclists.
(~ Who enforces the Act?
The DPH. The Act is unclear regarding the role of local authorities and further study will be
necessary.
Page 7
g
4
g
g
g
4
Has the DPH designated any entity?
Yes. Under the draft rules, law enforcement agencies of each political subdivision, which
includes the Iowa City Police Department, are designated to assist the DPH and "may" issue
citations. 641-153.8(2). Staff will need to have further conversations about the Police
Department's role.
Can an Iowa City police officer issue a citation to a person who is smoking in prohibited area?
Yes. The draft rules provide that local law enforcement may issue a citation to a person who
smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited. 164-153.8(2).
Does the Act require the City to inform its employees about the Act?
Yes. The City must inform all existing and prospective employees about the smoking
prohibitions in the Act. Section 142D.6(2). This notification should be included on all job
applications.
Will department directors or division heads have any responsibility to notify existing or
prospective employees?
Although Personnel will provide the initial notice, if a problem arises, the supervisor will need to
address it and contact Personnel if in need of assistance.
Does the City have to post no-smoking signs?
Yes. The Act requires signs to be posted "in and at the entrance to the public place, place
of employment, area declared a nonsmoking place.. [and] outdoor area...." Additionally, no-
smoking signs must be placed in all City vehicles. Section 142D.6(3).
Must no-smoking signs be placed in police vehicles?
Yes, with the exception of unmarked police cars. The Act contains specific requirements for
the contents and design of the signs and allows the City to use the sample signs provided by
DPH. Section 142D.6(3); 641-153.5(1)(f).
Please call me if you have additional questions.
* Previously i~tributed as IP3 of June 12, 2008 Information Packet
^~ ®~ CITY OF IOWA ClT1~ IP4
~ `'°`~~~ NIEMORANDUIVI
DATE: June 12, 2008
TO: City Council
FROM: Regenia Bailey, Mayor
RE: Metro Coalition
As we move into our second legislative session as a member of the Metro Coalition, we need to
identify our areas of interest so we can provide input on the Coalition's legislative agenda.
Additionally, we need to develop a process for timely response to the Metro Coalition's lobbyist
on various bills and proposals that come up during the legislative session.
Our lobbyist provided us with the Following list of potentia12008/09 areas of interest:
• Alternative Revenue
• Franchise Fees
• Increasing $ Brown/Grayfields
• State Historic Tax Credits, Lift Cap
• ADR "Stop Gap" options
• Time 21 (trans/infra.)
• Liquor License Enforcement
• Re-define Role of Cities (all? large?)
• Further define Role of M.C.(with Gov. office? Legis?)
• Sustainability issues (Cost of Govt., Quality of Life, living expenses - e.g., gas/tie to
workforce/drawing workforce from rural into large cities, labor needs, mass
transit/transportation needs, Time 21, etc.)
• Other...
A A AA AA A A A AA W07 07W 0 m m W m 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 00
AA 00 0
AA A 0
O
m m mm mm mm m mm rr
D rr
D D r
D r
D r
D r
D r
D A
m A A
m m A
m A
m A
m A
m A
m m m m m m m r
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
c7c~ c7~ ~ ~ ~ n n m mm m m m m m m mm mm m 0
zz zz z z z z z z zz z z Z Z z z Zz 2Z zA
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
m 3 0?
:
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
O ^
O ° ;
O ~ ;
O ;
O ~~
0 0 ;~ .
. ;
0 0 O m
>
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O ,
.
W Q7 J N W N
w T T O ) N =
J
A A ~ ~p V NN J J W N W
N
W
N N W
W~ .~
W W
W W
O W
O W
N W
~ i W
W f /1
41
J J m N O ~ fAl ~ O J A N ~
N m i i p Q ~ A W O1 A N N T i W N 0) N vNi i
S
N
T W ~ y Q ~ O ~
N
~ J P N A
O V Of W
N~ (O
O~ Ol
01 W
W N
O A
N 0)
D7
N '
~ T
~` J M N N N !T
N N N A N N N N i ~ ~Nj A o~ O + A W M IA
O
m H W N O A T
W O~ ~ W A A O O N A t
p O (
J V~
w ~ C)C w ~ r0 7 t- i3 ~-~ Aw
C m A gm
3 ~ m
N 3 Z
O a A
0 S 00
m _-1 m m
~ ~
( ~ ~ a
a i rym
C ry ;
O d A
O p (n
N m
° f N
a 1
~
O=
C= a y S
d C T
O' C
J T T
C j m
D ~
U
p Q C ^
O 3 O
/
O > T
a
O - N m
n
m m
F
m _
> P
~ c __ Q C C C
n O w
. V G~ O d O ~ ~ ^ ~~ m > O O C
C t0 N ~
O m G d ,
> F CI
N
N .
Fo' A 4' O
p~ Q m O B ~ && o > m c m Q ~ 3 0 j 0 '^ 3~ m
> 3 m' v~ °x $> °i m F f
° w m
~ 9 A
n d =
Q N d
d m a a
O> A
~ W ~
^
W N
`~
C
6 <
m
S
C
N~
n N O
~~
W
d
to ~
c
m m
O
O
N
~
[~ > t°7' ? 3 p
> " » ~ C
= A A -' ~ o o. '° ~ a m w W 3 w
01 m > C
m ° o ° (~ o C~ = 3 c>> m ^ 'c m 3
N O. N N m w~ w - m m m
3 > C l O .
1 O d i~ 6 N ~ ' 6 ~ S
? 3 a O N O
m ~ m ~ 0 ~ N O
obi io m m d m w o ~ f F m a a ~ -
.
N° w a d n ~ 5 s
~ o ~~ ~, 3 ° m n w 3 a
33 o x~ 0 m o. 0 m
-. vv .>.- ~ d ~ 0 ~ m v o°- d <~ m3 d 3
C°
9 ~ 'mm om .~ 'm rv W~ ° .y
o > S 2 O `°_ Ow m 3n ~ £ ~
.
3
°
w>
>
~'
d n o a a o >
m m
n m x > w m
m A m
~ . >
^ ~
m
- d
S .
> N
m ~
w H 3 c p
m ~ 3
3 ~ n
w ~
O c 3 3 < r
n D ., o m a v~ 5 m c m
c~
- ~ O ~
.. , n
d w 3
m m> w >
m > m w Q O a n ~
o m > c
g
o
.w
v
0
m
y
c.3 ,
~~
>
w
m
3
m
3
a
~
n
~
m
~~
c
w
w
`~
m ~
° c
m S m m
w
H °- a a
° m
> a
_ m D
~ a
N
3> O
> -
m 1 m
m ~ a O
~< m
w »-
'm0 o ,~
of
v ~ c
m
~ S K > ~ 3 m c g - ~ -
o u,
m m x
5 o
_
o
>
>
m
> >
a ~ a
O
~
T
TT
TTD
D
DD
CC
~
~-1
-1
-/
T
D
C
CC
-i
~
~
1
-1
~
-iti
~
-I
ti w
..
..1 O
N (~ N
G CC CC
C G
~
D a ~
m> O
'
>
D
J
J
a ° ' °' ° ' uwi n d
o m a ¢ a
a
D w
a w
O O '
d a a ^
0
0 0
D
D o
d D
D 5 3 ° !°.
a ~
f
D d n
m
v
D D
D o
.° C7 0 a
< D a
< < d
< D
_
< '~
C
'<' '<" n d m a a i m m m < < ~. < '<" < > o
O 3 < <
m <
m < <
m m <
m
m
o
a
m
m m
m
m z
Z
m m 3 a n 3 3 3 n n n m m d m m m o<~ m m o _ ~
m m m m ~ o a a a ~ ~ ~ m
a d d d N 0 m 3 Q N
w
w w
w
6 w
O O O
d
C
D C
C
i
O N ~ j p
W I
G
D N
6
D D ~!
d 0 O w ~
d d ^
a 0 0 0 O D D D D a (
N S
m~
m D w p (O
<> D D d
~ O 10
c> O (O
<> O t0
<> O 10
<> m D D D D T
< >
n m m
d d >>
o. o. > m
a a m m
a d ~.
- < < < '<' < n a
>
Q~' < < <° mn
3 <
m .
< 0.
m 'D a,
3 m n
3 m o.
3 m n
3 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c
0
m m 3 0. 0. 33 3n nn .
d. mm m m m n
d N n m m O m ~ O CO O~ O ~ O W w
°
1>°
d =
a
J d d
> > a
> 1>II N > N
w w w w m
O
w
41 N N N V1 N 0) N O) N NUI N N m
O O 0 00 00 00 0 O O H> > O 0 ~ > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
m m m m m m m m m
d m m
d d O O O O O O O O O > ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ' ~ >
m
m m
> ~
m
>
m
~ o
d d d d d d a d o
0 '° m m m m m m m m
o
a
o
n ~
o. a n o. o. 0.a 0. a . .
n a a a n a n a n o. 0. a° o. a a n o. a . .
N
W
C
w
fA In (n N N [~ N
_ W N
_. f/i
-. UJ (/
-._ ~ f/~
_. (n
_ ~
_
>
m _
>
m _ -
J >
m m _
>
m ~
>
m
O
m
>
m
>
m
>
m
> J
m m
>
m
>
m O
<
m
6 n O- 4 6 n n n a n l l a l j
N A A A A A W N A A A A A A p
O N N N N N N N N N N N N D
O
OJ O
0 N
O 0
0 O
O O
O O
O O O
O O
O O O
O O O
O O
O O
~
W ~
W y O> O t CO O
~ OJ W CO O J W W p
J
A A A A AA AA AA AA .' d . ~ AA AA AA AA AA AA A
m AA
mm A
m AA
mm AA
mm A f
m 7
O
m m m m mm mm mm mm m m mm mm
v mm
oo mm
ov mm
vv mm
vo v vo v oo vo v r
0 o v v vv vv oo vv o v oo v O
A
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
° 3 3
m
° X 3
°
A 3 n
m m n m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m : . ^ :
. : ..
.
' ::
' m
o '0 0 0 0 'o 'o 'o oo 'o 'o o 'o o '0 0 0 'o o 'o 'o 'oo o '0 0 0 '0 0 0 'o o o o . '~
m v m ~~ p w o ~ N
~ o' ~ w m w W m p7
i i O N O N N
N
~ Q J
N N
A -+ (T
m J ~
N
N
m
V
N
N
~
N
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
~
N
O~
m
N
(n
N
m
N
m m
A J N N
O _
W
O N O
W A m m l0 lO m V V O m~ W m
A A
O m
N O
N N
N
m A m
N N V OD N J (O m N f 0 <O N
A
N N i i i i O N W i W W W W N y
~ 0 fD m N W m W
Of O N
O m
m N
J W A
~ A A T
~
~ A U N m W
CO ~ j N d d O
O O m O O ~ O O 0 0 J~ ~ ~ p b 0 O O O O d ~i N O N ~ O d° O
? O ° 3
n,~ n
a•m C
x g p m
od
?
n
>•y
m
~
a
o
' p
c
~
o
~
J
w
ic
3 d
..m o d ~ a A
m a c
h ~^
A M o
J
'm J o
T
m
Q J ,
m J
o
d
H .
~ E
1 a
m
o
~
°'
y :°.
o
n
n
(~ ~
m
o a
o
T m
m o
m ,~
n
m
O ry
' a• ~
N m
< D Y
° 3
3 N
~
O » m
~ c
6 ~+ n
' ~
G7
N b
d
N ~O
N X d
x O
o J
~ cn
3 m
T
0 x
J
0 ~ d
'» ~ ~
(p
O J~
G J m
N
n 3
o o S N J m
N
m
a
~
n
~ x
m m m ~o
J m fi
° a
m n d 3
m m
m m °
d O
S m
J m
x (~ Z m ~ °c ° m ~ d ~
J d ~ Q 3 ~ d O ~
. n
m o d
0
5
w H
n x x
m c o
m o _.
a m' °o a»
0 in
~ J
~+
a n
~ m
a m
m d o
~
o J
~' a o
m -
~
o
m
n 3
a 0
n o
~ m
d 3 S
J o
~.
d
O ~
3 ~ C 0 V I N 3
'O ° ~ ~ R J 0 N O < J N
[~ .
-.
m< n
a D N?
w s o . m b < y 3 rr ^.
& m i X
3 0 0
s ~ n
o N 3
m o m n O~
'< a ~ ~ ~ a c ' m m 1O ' ~ ° » ~ J m ' o 0 0 3 » n ~ m ~ ~
. o
m o m= ^ " ^ O 0 ~ H d m
~' c ~
d o ~ ~ °' ~ b
m o
~
^ Oi .'£ ~ " N n N A
N _
O ° N ~ N .
d b is
J^ .~
d
p `G a O N N^
a N
a ~ ~
J O N O d
J .
_ .-r X
~ O O
N 3 O
N N 11
N ^~ J N n ~ N m ~
> > In ~ H n ~ m n
~ N
c c m m °-' m m n ~ o ° ~ i ~ a O <
o~ °
3 J d ^ ^ Z .
b 3 F G ^ T O
6 N O N O O
J C O N n , d J
N N ~ N J N 3 N O (/ ~
d
`Y~ N a d O (~
° N N
"O N <
N J (
N1 J
6 6 6 _
3 =
(O
O
N ~
O N N
C J N {j~ d m j N
l0 f0. a O N J d R .Z ~ O y X j ~ 3 N
ry d N d O J
N 3 ? ~ ~
N ~G 7 ~
N
O
H
-i
-1
~
1
-i
ti -
1 ~ 1
~
-1
-1
~
~
-1
~
-1
-1
~
-1 ~
~
1 -1
~
-/
H
~
-1
~
~
~
~ -1 N
:.
O
J
~ ~ ~ D D
~ J
r/~ N
d ~
~ a d
~
0
0
~ 0
0 0
0
O
O
O
a
O
D
O
O
D
O O
D D
D!
D
D
d
m
a
D
o
D D T
C
b
J J d
< d
O N
d N d
d d N I
d b D d
d N
d d
d N
d d
d N
d d
d d
d b
d N
d N N
d O
b d N
d<
<
<
<
G
m
<
~°
J.
<
m
~.
<<
m°
Z
n n ° co£ d n o. o .n an o. n a n n n n a n n nn nA m m ° m v Z
(T J
ry ry N J J J r
J
VI J
N N d N N
~ ~ D D N
d d J
d d O O O D 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 O O D O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O ~ o o D D v G
m
J J N d N N N N N W N
d d N
d N
d N
d d
d N
d N
d N
d N
b N
d N
d N N
d d N N
d d d
d d
d N
d N
d N
d ~ ~ < <<
m C
l ~. d
n d
n d
n d
n d
n d d
n n a n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n v m m m J
~
~
o
o J
m
d d N b~
J 7
V~ N
O
w
f/1
O ~ O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~
N O
W O
0 O
A O
N O
A O O
ID N ~
N
A m
d W
b A
b W
b m
b b
d m m
d b 0 W
b b A
d 0
b N
b N
d 6
d N
b N
d N
d m
d N
d 0 fD
d d m N
b b A
b N
d b b d b d b b b p
d
a n a n a a n no. o. o. n a n a a n n n n n an nn a n a a a s o. n a n J
N
C
b
G1
R
J
O
N
n
O
A A AA A ~ 1 p A ~ A A A A A A~ A T A A A
m A A
m m A A
mm A A
m m A
m A A n
mm O
mm mm m mm m mm m m mm
0 mm
ov mm
vv m
v m
vv o o vv o v v ov
vo oo o vo v oo v o 0 o
A
33 33 3 33 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 3 33 3
m 3 33 3 33 33 ~
w ?
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ~ w~ ;; ; : !~ m.
m
w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N m m m m
2
m ~ ~ J N A A ~
> W ~o N
~ VNi ONi V p
~
A N m ~
N N N N j N N N N N N N
J N
~ N N N N N
p m t ~ W O N N ~ N ~ m O N
J (T
m N
O1 A
D) O m
N m A
(O A
N A T
A W N W ( O J A 01
~ N ~ N ' P N W ~ N O (/1 N
1D A N OWi W W O A T
`
Q) (O W W CD ~
mT ~ d ppa V 3 a3 c y ma ~ o ~
~ a o
' O 0(~
m m O ~o F_a ma
° o o 7J
m ~ ~1
m vm
o v
0 aa
o -1
O
o
n d
`" m m c
o m » . T
c ?
-' '3 o
m m
n» - 3 ~ ~ o <
~ n m m o
x a
.s? ma c~ 2a m n a
o m
O~ n m
m m°
a d ~1
(n a m~
71
O a
m
in o
p^~ m
n ~
m
s
b
Ul ,_,
y
o ~t p 71 m
N c
N Q n m
~ o
m n m m
. m °1 m
D m
3 c c
~
n
~ » N
X N N = 3 (/I O N O Q m ^ N m
? N_ p m O N j. `G m J In O m O
d O<
m~ ~ 6 0 ~ W O m N N O N 3 Q (p O^ O N (~~ m m O
O _ m O N ~ (/ 1 X S N ~ !
/~ m `G
m
(k d m
O C N N O N O m m
2 A Q m d d
m (p m»
T ~
d O
S ~
d ~ d m
~ to O
m S p
O
D m J
n N 6 ~ Q
-' d
a _.C
m a » N C
3'o 0 3
c O C
m u N
o m i
V = m O
m .~
n o N 3
w m
n
a 3 m
m o-
'~
3 ?: ~ b
n
~ F
3 o
x
°-' 3
I n
d
p1
m
m
`, x
i S-'
N
~
m c
o m
,a
m X _
d 7 m
N a O .
» O 7 H O d 7 ~ 3
d ~ S ~ d .
3 N .~+ = m Q D _
d ~
^ C
<
x n ~
m !~ .
VI
c m
a
m ~
C 6
lP 3 m
m S
'
O N
O d N
X m
w
F
-1
3
n X
o m -
p d d
6 N N N
x m
m NFri ~2 0 N
~<~
m m m O °-
an ~ vD ~ o .
-~
d c 33 o c'm n
N
3 ( a] N ^
ti O
d ~ ~ 0 N =
m d
~ O C
O
b d .
. m m ~
O . d N S
^ k O
-
^ 1
0
~ 3 y 3? ~ O ~ C
d O O
O N <
O
O
0 -
.
0 T O A m .ZI d'
y m ~ W d 7 O
S m
O X
o O O
~
c a9
A 3 0 o ? °o r o '- o d ~
O m
X 3
(
O N O S E
d _T N O O N N ~ O:
^ . d d
C
~ m N
_
S
~
~
d
m a
~
' d
O m O
a a
O
O Q O
S y a
a
0
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
C C
~
~
~ '
~ ~
"~
~~
~ N
^'
C O
~L ~~ ~ D w m m v m m a m '
d d d d »
N N N N N I/1 l/1 N 41 M T
b b m d 0 O O O O O O O O O O b D d d D o 0
m d
> d
> d d
>> b
> d d
>> d
~
C
O
a >>
n n > m
n b m
d m
m m
d m
b m
d m
d m
d m
d m
b m
m < < << < ~. b
' n n n n n n n n Z
n n n n n n n n n n n m m m m m m n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _
3 3 3 3 ~ y m v m d m m v r
m
b m m
d d m
d N > i
o
> 7 J 7 0 7
N
N N N N N N V1 d (% N
N
<
G <
<
< <
<
N
N
N N
N
W N
N
b G
d d N ;
N N N Vi !/ n
b N VI (
d m /1
d 0 O O O O O O O O O O O v D D D D S
m d
J d
O d b
J T d
J d d
7 J d
J
T
~
a O>
n n > m
n d m
d m
b m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d
n <
m <<
m m <
m < d
m n n n n n n n n n O
3 3 3 3 n n n n n n n n n n n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~
m m m m y y d~ m m m m m
-
b d d d N
N N N N N (% N N N N N
T
N
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O
m m 0
m 0
m 0 O
m m O
m O O
m m O
m
m m m m m m m
b m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
d m
b m
b m m
d d m
b b d d d d d b d b b O
b
a b b
o. a b b
s a d
a a n o. a a a a a o. n a o. a a a a a o. a a a a a n ~
ur
c
m
m
O
N
A
O
Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: Ross Wilburn
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:11 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: FW: Metro. Coalition - 2008/2009 Priorities -Respond by 6/6 and 6/13
For next packet
From: Erika [mailto:ea2@mchsi.com]
Sent: Fri 5/30/2008 5:56 PM
To: bobanncamp@aol.com; citymanager@cedar-rapids.org; jamesf@cedar-rapids.org; Kay.Halloran@cedar-
rapids.org; suev@cedar-rapids.org; ctm@ci.davenport.ia.us; bkindred@city.ames.ia.us; 'Barry Lindahl'; 'Mike Van
Milligen'; Teri Goodmann'; iwestfall@councilbluffs-ia.gov; 'Bruce Bergman'; 'Reindl Kandi P.';
RAClark@dmgov.org; 'Frank Cownie'; 'Jerry Fitzgerald'; Regenia Bailey; Ross Wilburn; 'Brian Fagan'; Tom Cope';
'Ann Marie Skaggs'; pauleckert@sioux-city.org; mayor@waterloo-ia.org; Jeff.Pomeranz@wdm-ia.com; 'Scott
Sanders'; Mayorgluba@ci.davenport.ia.us; rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org; Dale Helling; mikehobart1228@gmail.com;
thanafan@councilbluffs-ia.gov; thanafan@cox.net; Sschainker@city.ames.ia.us; Michael Lombardo
Cc: 'Chad'; 'Erika'
Subject: Metro. Coalition - 2008/2009 Priorities -Respond by 6/6 and 6/13
Metropolitan Coalition:
At our meeting on Tuesday, May 27th, we discussed the need to for an "Interim 2008 Plan of Action" to
address Coalition priorities for which we need to lay the groundwork prior to the 2009 Legislative
Session. Many members asked for time to return to their cities to ask for input from administration,
Councils, and elected officials regarding the potential priorities for the Coalition in the coming months.
The list at the end of this message reflects the group's brainstormed possibilities for 2009 priorities. A
strategic planning session to finalize 2008/2009 priorities and a plan of action is tentatively scheduled
for the week of June 30th in Iowa City.
Action Items
1. Respond to this message by June 6th with the availability of your city to send avoting-member
representative to participate in a strategic planning meeting on: June 30th, July 1St, or July 2nd in
Iowa City. Please note whether a hotel room(s) will need to be reserved for the evening of or before
the meeting. If these dates are not workable for a majority of the members, we will look at an
alternative date.
2. Respond to this message by June 13th with input from your city on the following questions:
^ Over the next year, on what issues should the MC "spend its time?"
^ What are your community's needs, interests, and main priorities for the coming year?
^ What assistance meeting these needs/interests/priorities would you like or expect from the MC?
^ Do you have suggested action steps or interim plans for addressing these
needs/interests/priorities?
^ Categorize your communities' needs/interests priorities into the following sub-categories:
-- proactive priorities (the type you would list on a flyer)
-- influence priorities (topics for which members could lend expertise, shape conversation, etc.)
6/2/2008
Page 2 of 2
-- defense priorities (those areas of concern that if proposed by other groups the MC would like to
respond/participate)
Potentia12008/09 Areas of Interest
. Alternative Revenue
. Franchise Fees
. Increasing $ Brown/Grayfields
. State Historic Tax Credits, Lift Cap
. ADR "Stop Gap" options
. Time 21 (trans/infra.)
. Liquor License Enforcement
. Re-define Role of Cities (all? lazge?)
. Further define Role of M.C.(with Gov. office? Legis?)
Sustainability issues (Cost of Govt., Quality of Life, living expenses - e.g., gas/tie to
workforce/drawing workforce from rural into large cities, labor needs, mass transit/transportation
needs, Time 21, etc.)
. Other...
Thank you! -- Erika & Chad
Erika f~nderson, M.P.A., J.D.
Anderson Legislative Consulting, LLC:
Lobbying & Governmental Relations
P.O. Box 1172 - Waukee, IA 50263
email: ea@mchsi.com
mobile: 515-333-1202
6/2/2008
The Honorable Governor, Chester J
Marian Karr
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:49 PM
To: Ross Wilburn
Subject: RE: Metro Coalition -DRAFT Agenda -May 27, 2008 -Des Moines (Draft)
From: Ross Wilburn
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:11 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: FW: Metro Coalition -DRAFT Agenda -May 27, 2008 -Des Moines (Draft)
From: Erika [mailto:ea2@mchsi.com]
Sent: Tue 5/20/2008 2:10 PM
To: bobanncamp@aol.com; citymanager@cedar-rapids.org; jamesf@cedar-rapids.org; Kay.Halloran@cedar-
rapids.org; suev@cedar-rapids.org; ctm@ci.davenport.ia.us; bkindred@city.ames.ia.us; 'Barry Lindahl'; 'Mike Van
Milligen'; Teri Goodmann'; iwestfall@councilbluffs-ia.gov; 'Bruce Bergman'; 'Reindl Kandi P.';
RAClark@dmgov.org; 'Frank Cownie'; 'Jerry Fitzgerald'; Regenia Bailey; Ross Wilburn; 'Brian Fagan ;Tom Cope';
'Ann Marie Skaggs'; pauleckert@sioux-city.org; mayor@waterloo-ia.org; Jeff.Pomeranz@wdm-ia.com; 'Scott
Sanders'; Mayorgluba@ci.davenport.ia.us; rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org; Dale Helling; mikehobart1228@gmail.com;
thanafan@councilbluffs-ia.gov; thanafan@cox.net; Sschainker@city.ames.ia.us; ]MWarburton@dmgov.org
Cc: Threase Harms-Hassoun'; 'Chad'; 'Erika'
Subject: Metro Coalition -DRAFT Agenda -May 27, 2008 -Des Moines (Draft)
Good Afternoon! Please review this DRAFT agenda for next week's Metropolitan Coalition meeting in
Des Moines. Respond to this email by Thursday with questions about the agenda or if there are specific
topics/discussions that you would like to see included within one of the agenda items. A final agenda
will be distributed by the end of this week. Finally, we need to secure an attendance count to ensure
adequate meeting room space and so that lunches can be ordered. The following are the numbers we've
estimated or have been told will be attending from each location. Please confirm and, if your city's name
is in CAPS, please forward the names of the individuals to be attending. Thank you! Erika (515-333-
1202)
DUBUQUE:2
Davenport: 1
Cedar Rapids: 2
IOWA CITY: 4
AMES: 2
Des Moines: 4
West Des Moines: 2
SIOUX CITY: 2
COUNCIL BLUFFS: 2
Lobby Team: 3
Total Estimated: 24
The Honorable Governor, Chester J
10:OOam Welcome & Introductions (Ross)
10:10 2008 Session Review (Erika, Threase, Chad)
1) Priorities
• Alternative Revenue
^ Brownfields/Redevelopment
^ Automatic Traffic Enforcement
• Retirement/Pension
^ Alcohol License Enforcement
• Local Control of Smoking
2) On Defense
• Collective Bargaining
3) Bill Tracking Update
4) Outstanding Issues
11:15 Coalition Operational Review (Ross)
- Wall of Wonder
12:30pm Lunch (continue morning agenda, as needed)
1:00 2008 Interim Activities (All)
1) Discuss Need for 2009 Priority Development & Strategic Planning
2) Discuss Relationships with Local Legislative Delegation
3) Developing Local Government Champions (Existing, Candidate Lists)
4) Groundwork for 2008-2009 Priorities
• Alternative Revenue (Meeting with Rep. Olson/Sen. Bolkcom)
• Brownfields (Signed? Rules/Implementation)
• Automatic Traffic Enforcement (Court Decisions)
• Alcohol License Enforcement (ABD Hearings)
• Other Potential Priorities
2:00 Consultant Review & Next Steps (Ross)
3:00 Adjournment
Ir I
"~°-~~~-
,~®t~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www. icgov.org
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
Michael A. Lombardo
City Manager
michael-lombardor7u Iowa-ciry.org
Dale E. Helling
Assistant City Manager
dale-hell ing@ iowa-c iry.org
Kathryn L. Johansen
Administrative Assistant
to the City Manager
kalhryn-johansen@ i owa-c ity. org
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
IP5
June 17, 2008
Effective midnight, June 28, 2008, Chris O'Brien, Parking Manager, will be
Acting Director of the Parking and Transit Division. This appointment is
effective until further notice.
Michael A. Lombardo
City Manager
cc: City Council
City Attorney
City Clerk
Department Directors
Phone: (319)356-5010
~r t
~_.:.®~~
"m~-~' ,~
®..~
CITY OF IOWA CITY IP6
ME~oRA~~uM
DATE: June 19, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council,
FROM: Marian K. Karr ~,.,"
RE: Retreat Date
Please set aside Saturday, August 16 for a City Council retreat. The time and location
will be confirmed shortly.
~~11owa Department
~ of Transportation
June 20, 2008
City Clerk
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA
Dear city of Iowa City representatives;
Mo~OT
~ri^
Due to the recent flooding in many Iowa and Missouri communities, the Avenue of the Saints
Dedication Ceremony scheduled for June 27 has been postponed. The celebration will be
rescheduled sometime in mid-July, hopefully coinciding with the actual opening of the four-lane
in Missouri. You will receive notification once a date has been determined.
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~~J~
Dena M. Gray-Fisher, Director
Office of Media and Marketing Services
DMGF:cm
_ •.~
,~-
~~
~~ ~
~
~
_ ~ rs ~
-< rte- w
_ m
O~
T.
A w
tf+
r
~~®~ CITY OF [4WA C[TY
.:m~.~,~
~ ~ RA
ME
DATE: June 24, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Special meetings for flood matters
Based on discussion at last night's work session, and individual Council Members
discussions today, please set aside the following dates for and times for discussion of
flood related matters.
June 30, 6:30 p.m. work session
July 3, 7:30 a.m. Special Formal
July 10, 7:30 a.m. work session
July 14 regular work session agenda will include flood discussion at the end of the
agenda
IP7
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 5, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Ann Freerks,
Charlie Eastham
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik, Bob Brooks
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Doug Ongie, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Mitchell, Ryan Horn, Jeremy Carter, Jackie Cook-Baxby,
Gary Sanders, Barry Westemeyer, Tom Carsner, Dan Daly,
Wally Taylor, Sarah Swartzendruber
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommend approval by a vote of 4-0 REZOS-00007, an application submitted by 6 Corp for a rezoning
from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately .28 acres of
property at 700 S. Dubuque Street.
Recommend approval by a vote of 4-0 a proposed amendment to 14-5J-9 Variances to Flood Plain
Management Standards.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEMS:
RE208-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for a rezoning to amend
the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16 acres of
property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 ~ 1001 Highway 1 West. The 45-day
limitation period is June 29, 2008.
Miklo stated that Wal-Mart is seeking an amendment to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that
applies to the Westport Plaza shopping center. The property fronts on Highway 1, where it has its
primary entrance; there is a secondary entrance off of Ruppert Road. Miklo pointed out that the City is in
the process of building McCollister Boulevard just to the south of Ruppert Road which will provide better
access to this property from the east. The applicant is seeking to redevelop the site by removing the
existing Cub Foods and Staples stores, building a new Wal-Mart building, and tearing down the existing
Wal-Mart store. In 1989, the Joseph Company, the original developer of Westport Plaza, entered into a
zoning agreement that tied them to a specific development plan that was intended to produce an
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 2
integrated shopping center. In order to significantly vary from that site plan, the zoning agreement must
be amended as the agreement applied to the original developer and then any subsequent buyers of the
property. One of the original reasons for the conditional zoning agreement was to address aesthetic
concerns along Highway 1, as this is a primary entrance way and commercial corridor for the city. The
shopping center initially proposed never fully materialized as envisioned in the zoning agreement, and the
appearance of this area remains a concern. Staff is not opposed to amending the site plan, but given the
original intent of the zoning agreement and the concerns about aesthetics along Highway 1, Staff believes
that at a minimum the zoning requirements for commercial site development should be adhered to.
The original proposal to amend the site plan placed the loading docks in such a way that they were highly
visible from Highway 1. Because of that, Staff found that it did not comply with site development
standards. After some discussions, the applicant submitted a new site plan which moved the building
toward the back of the lot and turned the primary facade so that it now faces the highway. This new
orientation makes it possible for the project to come into compliance with the zoning site development
standards. However, Staff received this plan and a variation of it only one day prior to this meeting, and
as a result, has not had an opportunity to fully review it for compliance with the commercial site
development standards such as parking and landscaping. Therefore, Staff is not in a position to
recommend approval of this site plan as is.
Miklo said that Staff has determined that some aspects of the design do not comply with the building
standards for large retail use. The standards require that public facades for large retail buildings be
designed into smaller modules to moderate their scale. One theory behind what some refer to as "Big
Box" regulations is that they help to make such buildings re-useable for smaller businesses should they
ever close. These standards are also intended to address concerns about the appearance of the
community, and are becoming quite common in many localities.
Our community's regulations require that at least every 100 feet there be a projection, a bay, or a recess
of at least 3 feet. There are also requirements for other architectural features to break down the scale of
the building. The intent of these is to break both the horizontal and vertical mass of these buildings.
Although the front of the proposed building along Highway 1 does seem to generally be in compliance
with code, there are some details that need to be worked out. The Ruppert Road elevation does not meet
the standards, and there would need to be some redesign of it to articulate the facade and bring it up to
minimum standards. Staff also is concerned about the lack of landscaping in this vicinity and along the
front of the building. The code specifes that areas not needed for vehicular or pedestrian use be
landscaped. The intent of this is to help moderate the "heat island" effect of large paved areas, help slow
traffic, and enhance the general appearance of the development.
Staff has also asked that the two primary facades use more brick to help comply with the standards
contained in the code and to minimize the use of concrete block on the primary facade.
At this point, Staff recommends that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to comply with the
minimum standards of the code, and to address some of the other suggestions made by Staff. Miklo
offered to answer any questions Commissioners may have on the topic.
Eastham asked if the site plan shown on Miklo's presentation was the same as the one distributed in the
Commissioners' packets. Miklo replied that it was not. The traffic flow pattern shown on the site plan
presented to the Commission in their informal work session was of concern to Staff. The revised plan
attempts to address that concern.
Freerks noted that there had been concern about the tightness of the entrance on Ruppert Road and
wondered if that had been addressed. Miklo responded that that area was one in which Staff had
suggested additional landscaping to provide space between traffic and the brick wall that screens some of
the buildings' cooling units.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 3
Eastham asked if the Wal-Mart stores featured in Miklo's presentation as good examples of architecture
that complies with Iowa City's codes were of a comparable size to the proposed store. Miklo said he did
not know their sizes as they were simply photographs taken off of the Internet, whose primary objective
was to show "Big Box" retail that complied with City standards.
Koppes asked if the site plan indicated a stub to the Menard's property to the west of the Wal-Mart. Miklo
said that it did, and that there was a zoning agreement that required that access be provided from the site
of the former Menard's across this site. Miklo said that he had been looking into it but that he had not yet
found a condition that would require it for this site. He stated that if there is such a condition, the
condition would still apply and the amendment would not change it.
Eastham said that as he recalled, the original CZA required screening on the southwest corner of the
property. Eastham asked if that screening was ever put into place. Miklo said that there was a
landscaping plan, and that if you approach the property from the west there are trees in the area Eastham
was concerned about.
Weitzel said that he had noticed that there are a lot more windows on the facades of some of the example
Wal-Marts that Miklo had shared then there are on the proposed Wal-Mart, which has very large areas
that lack any windows at all. Weitzel asked if there was any way to have the applicant add windows.
Miklo responded that that may be something the applicant wishes to address, and that it has certainly
been recommended by Staff. Miklo said that in discussions with the applicant's architect it was noted that
they do have a concern for increased heating and cooling costs that windows might cause. The applicant
does intend to provide a lot of skylights to bring in natural light. Miklo shared an architectural example
which had display windows which did not penetrate the building but still had the look from the outside of a
window.
Eastham asked if the roof toward the back might be plainly visible from the highway, given the highway's
elevation and the store's great size. Miklo said that it was possible to do an analysis with modeling to find
out exactly the answer to this question; however, he did not believe this was a concern due to the
requirement for a parapet wall and the fact that the store will be at the same elevation as the current store
(for which roof visibility is not a concern).
Freerks asked if there were any further questions for Staff from the Commission. There were none.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant was invited to speak.
Dennis Mitchell of Meardon, Sueppel and Downer spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the
applicant is agreeable to a deferral in order to give themselves time to work through the remaining issues
Staff has. Mitchell said he was hopeful that any concerns would be worked out by the time he appeared
before the Commission again in a few weeks. Mitchell said that he had with him Ryan Horn, Senior
Manager for Public Affairs for Wal-Mart, Jeremy Carter, engineer and project manager from Art Design
Resources, and Jackie Cook-Baxby, an architect from the Benham Companies, who would all hopefully
be able to answer the Commissioners' questions.
Ryan Horn thanked the Commission for the opportunity to come before them. He noted that this was a
very complex development with: a very large site, vacant buildings, a lot of demolition and a lot of very
advanced site planning required. Horn wished to point out a couple of differences between this project
and the last Wal-Mart project. First, Horn said, there are no other Wal-Marts in the state of Iowa that look
like this one. Horn said that this Wal-Mart had a much higher level of architectural design; a level which
Wal-Mart would be turning to more and more in the future. Horn said he believed that the style of
architecture was one that fit Iowa City very well, and that it is very appropriate that Iowa City should be
the first to have this new look for the Wal-Mart brand and the customers who shop there. Horn stated that
a new facility was also important for the 200 folks who work at that Wal-Mart; people who run one of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 4
best pertorming stores in the region, and whose building right now does not reflect the quality of work that
they do, nor does it reflect the modern Wal-Mart brand. As a company, this change will give Wal-Mart an
important role in the look of Iowa City and the community of Iowa City, as this property is situated on an
entrance corridor to the city. Horn noted that the retail sector in the United States is in an era of
contraction not expansion, and this change is a good opportunity for Wal-Mart to make a positive impact
on the look of the city and bring a real modern discount product to the fore.
Another difference between this Wal-Mart project and the last one is the issue of environmental
sustainability, said Horn. Around the same time the last plan was presented to the City a few years ago,
the company as a whole began looking at environmental sustainability and the role the business
community and private industry should play. Wal-Mart has, on the whole, embraced environmental
sustainability as a company. From the energy efficiency of trucks, to their overall carbon footprint, to
where they get their fish, to international labor practices, to fair trade products stocked on their shelves:
all of these are areas Wal-Mart is focusing on intently right now. Wal-Mart's biggest focuses right now, as
far as environmental sustainability, is the way in which it builds its stores and their energy efficiency. This
particular store will have a couple of unique features -hopefully, Horn noted, they will not be unique for
long. First, this particular store is going to have a little bit smaller footprint, decreasing the retail space by
about 9,000 square feet from what is available at the shopping plaza right now. About 350 parking stalls
will also be eliminated, so there will be less impervious surface. The architecture has a very organic style
with a lot of trees, canopies and landscaping. Horn noted that the drawings being discussed are in fact
architectural renderings, and therefore are focusing on the building more than the landscaped areas.
When the store is built, a good portion of the material from the demolition will be ground and reused in the
subflooring for the new store. The store will be equipped with light-emitting technology on the outside
signs and on freezer cases. Everything Wal-Mart does in environmental sustainability is done for its
proftability, said Horn. He believes that this is at the core of the long-term success of the sustainable
movement: there has to be a proft motive behind all of it, otherwise companies will not do it. Heat
transfer technology will go into this store, where there will be no water heaters per se; rather all of the
water is heated by the heat loss that is created by heating and cooling systems. Horn said there are a
myriad of other things the store will be doing to increase its sustainability. Horn believes these are the
two main differences in the store this time around, and that they reflect the differences in their changing,
evolving company. He thinks this is a chance to do something very positive for the city and for those 200
people working at the store.
Eastham noted that Horn had said there would be less impervious surface area in the new development.
Horn said that yes, there would specifically be less parking area. Eastham said he understood that there
would be less parking area, but noted that this did not necessarily mean less impervious surface. Horn
said that he had to admit he had extrapolated that because the building space itself will go down by about
10,000 square feet and 350 parking slots would be eliminated, there would be less impervious surface.
Eastham suggested that it would be interesting to look at that idea in detail. Horn said that they would do
so. Horn said that Wal-Mart had also been testing pervious concrete in some of its stores, but that they
were finding that it was not working as well as had been hoped. Horn then invited Jeremy Carter to
speak.
Carter showed a graphic of the current site plan laid over the current shopping center to demonstrate the
actual reduction in retail space after the fnished product. The current landscaped islands at the site were
done 18-20 years ago and are very small, Carter said. The new islands meet the ordinance; there are a
lot more islands which will equal more green space and as a result, less impervious surface area. Less
impervious surface translates into less storm water run-off. As a result, the existing storm-water system
will be sufficient.
Carter said that one of the big differences between the present Wal-Mart and the proposed Wal-Mart is
the presence of a grocery area in the new one. There are three entrances: the grocery vestibule, the
general merchandise vestibule, and the garden center. There are, of course, significant things that
happen at the back of the building away from the eyes of most customers. Almost all merchandise that
Planning and Zoning Commission
tune 5, 2008
Page 5
comes through the store will come through the truck dock, which has two major parts to it: the truck wells
for big semis, and the delivery door for the smaller trucks. The refrigerator compressor housing is also in
this area.
The plan submitted a week ago had some concerns regarding traffic flow. Wal-Mart addressed these
concerns in the newest plan by eliminating some parking and redirecting traffic around some landscaping
islands. The trucks would enter and exit from the Ruppert side.
Jackie Cook-Baxby said that architecture is a tough subject because everyone has an opinion on what
materials should be used, which way it should face, etc. Within the last year, Wal-Mart has begun looking
at not only the energy conservation inside the building but what they're actually using on the exterior
when building. Cook-Baxby called this truth in architecture, truth in merchandising. In discussions of
adding windows where there are "back of the house' functions, Wal-Mart has at this point decided that
that is not what they wish to do because they are misleading the public into thinking that there is
something important there for them to look at. In reality, Cook-Baxby said, the important parts of the
store are at the front: the Market and Pharmacy entrance, the General Merchandise/Home and Living
entrance, and the Garden Center entrance. This store will have a full garden center with asemi-interior
feature, similar to Lowe's garden center, as well as adrive-through area where the bagged goods are
kept. An open canopy feature has been added to some of the entrances to add interest to the entrances
along the front of the store. A large planter with an edge and height appropriate for sitting has been
added. Lighted and decorative features along the front of the store help prevent contact between
pedestrians and traffic. They do have windows in all of the places that make sense, and entryways that
are very well lit. There are a few windows in the recycling area and the cart area; they have a treatment
that mimics windows in areas where there are things you would not want to be witnessing - a bathroom
area, storage area, etc. There are a number of brick features across the front. To address some of
Staff's comments, Cook-Baxby said that a brick wall has been added at the end of the Garden Center to
break up the wall mass of the area. They have also added a continuous canopy around the corner of the
building per Staff suggestions. Cook-Baxby pointed out a number of decorative and landscaping features
on the truck-dock side of the building, that she believes meet or exceed standards. The building is done
with a wide variety of high-quality construction finishes. Cook-Baxby truly believes that this building
reflects the future growth of Wal-Mart, a more contemporary idea that has addressed the zoning
ordinances, and results in a nice property for Iowa City.
Weitzel said that he believed that some of the areas on the building are still quite massive and could be
further articulated horizontally or have fenestration added to break up the large space. Cook-Baxby said
that they had looked at it and had tried to emphasize those features that are going to draw the public to
where they want to be. As a result they have a pedestrian scale, a branding scale, and a signage scale.
Weitzel said he would refer to the suggestions, if not a direct requirement, in the code which asks that a
building could be easily repurposed into smaller stores should it ever need to be re-used. Weitzel said he
understood Wal-Mart wished the building to be designed for its own use, but that 25 years is not a very
long lifespan for a building. Cook-Baxby said that she did not anticipate the building being torn down, and
added that her firm has repurposed at least two Wal-Mart stores quite successfully.
Eastham said that he understood Cook-Baxby's firm had designed the original Wal-Mart store in question.
Eastham asked if she and the firm had a chance to review the current zoning ordinances before
designing the current plan. Cook-Baxby said that they absolutely had reviewed them.
Freerks referred to the examples shown in Miklo's presentation aswell-designed within the standards of
the code, and asked Cook-Baxby if any of these were affiliated with her firm. Cook-Baxby said they were
not, but that she could say that those Wal-Marts all appear to be several years old with a larger floor plan
than this, and several of them appear to be in more temperate climates than this. Cook-Baxby said that
this store is designed to be of the highest energy usage for a cold weather climate, and that her firm
specializes in that.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2005
Page 6
Horn interjected that from a layman's point of view it is very difficult to compare a photograph (as were
used in the examples presented by Miklo) and an architectural rendering (as used in Wal-Mart's
presentations) because photographs have so much more relief. Horn said that this building probably has
as much or more relief than the buildings shown in the photographs, but the architectural rendering which
flattens everything into 2-dimensions makes that difficult to see.
Miklo stated that some of the photographs were from the suburban Chicago area.
Eastham asked Cook-Baxby if her architectural firm was also responsible for the design of the parking
area and its landscape and she said that it was not.
Freerks asked if there was anyone else from the applicant's staff who wished to speak. As none came
forward, Freerks opened the comments to the public.
Wally Taylor, an attorney from Cedar Rapids representing Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart stated that he had just
had the opportunity to look at the Conditional Zoning Agreement. It appeared to him that what was being
talked about was not amending a zoning ordinance, but about minor landscaping details and the like.
Basically, Taylor said, we're talking about putting lipstick on a pig. Taylor said that a step back needs to
be taken to look at the zoning agreement that has been in place, where it has been, and why Wal-Mart
should not be allowed to amend it again. The original zoning agreement was adopted back in 1989 by
the Josephs Company, and the plan then was to have a group of smaller stores that were compatible,
looked nice, and went together. Somehow, Taylor said, that didn't quite happen. Wal-Mart was one of
the original tenants, the anchor tenant at that time. In 1996, because things had not gone according to
plan the City Council agreed to make a couple of minor adjustments to the zoning agreement, taking out
the requirement that the facades on the retail centers would have to provide horizontal continuity,
although they were still to be compatible. The other item changed in 1996, was to remove the
requirement for cohesive integrated development; however, it was left in the ordinance that it was to be a
development of several stores whose facades had to be cohesive and match each other. Taylor noted
that the responsibility of the developer to conform to the zoning agreement was passed to Wal-Mart when
they purchased the property. Wal-Mart, Taylor said, is now responsible; the zoning agreement has not
been complied with throughout the property's history, and he does not think that Wal-Mart should be
allowed to just throw out the agreement now and amend it again. Taylor said that Horn was correct in
saying that retail is in contraction, but that the reason for it is because companies like Wal-Mart have
eaten up all of the competition. Taylor disagreed with Horn's statement that Wal-Mart was a company
focused on sustainability; asustainable community, Taylor said, is one that has many different types of
businesses and employs lots of people with good jobs. Taylor said that the Commission has the ability
and the authority to say that the CZA has been violated, the plan adopted here does not fit with what the
city of Iowa City wants for that area, and therefore, the application should not be approved.
Gary Sanders, Chair of Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart, complimented the Wal-Mart folks on their presentation
and acknowledged that they had all worked extremely hard on this. Sanders said that they just had some
different ideas on a few things. The look of Iowa City, Sanders said, was one of these issues. He has a
different idea of what he would like the look of Iowa City to be when you enter into town. In terms of the
environmental issues, Sanders said that he would like to point out that considering that Wal-Mart
manufactures most of its products in countries with almost no environmental controls -such as China--,
and that these countries are half-way around the world and products therefore must be transported long
distances to reach the United States, that by helping to destroy local businesses all over the country Wal-
Mart has increased the distance that people have to drive to buy life's necessities, and that Wal-Mart
paves over millions of acres every month, the idea that this is a green company is laughable. Sanders
said that if the Commission did not wish to take that into consideration by the narrow standards of what
they believe they have to vote on, then that is their own affair. However, Sanders stated that he is
strongly opposed to this project. He said that the project is a monster, and while it may be the best
looking monster in the state of Iowa, it is a monster nonetheless and he is completely and totally opposed
to it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 7
Rob Eidelhart, a Ruppert Road property owner, wished to state that the people from Iowa City Stop Wal-
Mart do not care about Iowa City; rather, they just hate Wal-Mart. Eidelhart said that it does not matter
what the front of the building looks like or what materials were used, that it wouldn't matter if there were
solar panels on the roof and not a drop of energy used to run the place, it would still not be enough for
these guys. In making your decision, Eidelhart urged the Commission, remember that these people are
here to make trouble, not to help Iowa City.
Eidelhart stated that he had owned rental property in that area for about two years now and that he feels
his property values are going down because the area is deteriorating. He said the vacant buildings on the
site and the unsuitable parking lot make it impossible to draw new businesses to that area. He believes
that the requirements that Wal-Mart is willing to meet and the money they are willing to invest will
completely revitalize that part of town. He believes that anyone who owns a business on that side of Iowa
City will love to see the new Wal-Mart come in because it will generate so much traffic, so much business,
and so many taxes. Eidelhart said he believes that this is a very nice Wal-Mart, and that when such a
nice building goes in, the rest of the buildings in the area will follow-suit. Eidelhart indicated that he
doubted that the Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart group was there when the new Menard's building was going up,
and that building was not nearly as nice as the proposed Wal-Martin his opinion. Eidelhart reiterated that
this was a good thing for Iowa City as well as a good thing for him personally as a property owner in the
area, and that he fully supported it.
Barry Westemeyer, managing partner and president of Westport Touchless, the car wash in the front of
Westport Plaza, stated that he had a vested interest here but that he tended to agree with Horn in his
assessment of Wal-Mart's impact on the look of Iowa City. Westemeyer asked if we want the look of Iowa
City to be hulking, empty buildings, with Menard's, Cub Foods, potentially Staples, potentially Wal-Mart if
it decides that it is no longer worth being in Iowa City anymore if they have to continue to fight.
Westemeyer said that he believed Wal-Mart would continue to make improvements to meet all
requirements. He said that he was excited about the change and believed it was a great thing. He stated
that he does not in any way agree with everything Wal-Mart does, not by a long shot. However, he said,
they're here already, and they're here in an ugly building with an atrocious parking lot. From the
perspective of a property and business owner in town, Westemeyer asked if his property taxes would rise
even more if Iowa City continues to lose businesses. Referring back to Taylor's statement that the
proceedings were tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig, Westemeyer posed the question of is it better to
just let the pig sit there and decompose.
Tom Carsner stated that he had spoken a few years earlier when the Wal-Mart issue came before the
City Council. Carsner stated that there were at least 22 detailed conditions that Wal-Mart had demanded
of the City before they would sign the contract at that time. Carsner remembers thinking the City should
make some requests of Wal-Mart to even things out. In this situation, Carsner said, the important thing is
to play by the rules. It doesn't matter that Wal-Mart is the largest company in the world, Carsner said;
they still have to play by the rules. The rules, Carsner said, are those imposed by the City and its
Planning and Zoning Commission, but also those which measure Wal-Mart in the larger sense as a
corporate citizen, a member of the community, how they treat their employees and the environment, and
what we want as a city. Playing by the rules is very important, Carsner said, and it is the role of the
Commission to make sure they play by the rules. He said that most of what had been talked about are
details, but really there is an agreement the Commission is being asked to change. You should be sure,
he cautioned, that they are doing it by the rules and that there are good reasons for it. The Planning and
Zoning Commission said no to Wal-Mart a few years ago, and they can do it again, Carsner said. When it
comes to playing by the rules, everyone is equal, and he urges the Commission to continue to use their
good judgment and look at Wal-Mart as an equal and as any other customer trying to do business with
the City.
Dan Daly said that he hoped that the Commission could consider looking beyond the interests of owners
of deteriorating property, vested interests, and real estate speculators and embrace the idea of cultivating
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 8
good corporate citizenship in our communities and their positive impact on the community as a whole.
Daly said that he shares the concerns voiced by others for the businesses that Iowa City is losing as a
community, especially in the time since Wal-Mart has come to town. Daly asked who was responsible for
monitoring and maintaining the water quality of the retention pond and to meet what standards. He also
wanted to know, in the interest of carbon footprints, if Wal-Mart was making an active effort to buy from
local and state manufacturers, contractors and producers. Finally, he wished to know if the issue of the
large number of Wal-Mart employees in town who qualify for welfare is being addressed. He said that he
knew a great number of Wal-Mart employees were only working part-time and as a result could not
adequately provide for their families. He posed the question as to what the percentage of Wal-Mart
workers working part-time was nationally as well as locally, and what that percentage would be for the
new, proposed Wal-Mart. Daly said he did not represent any group, and that he was simply a citizen and
a taxpayer that wanted to know some of these things.
Sanders returned to the podium and stated that he would never impugn the motives of anyone for or
against this project or any project in the city. He said that he believed that all of the residents of Iowa City
in the room have the common good of Iowa City in their hearts, although their opinions on the proposed
project may differ. No matter what the Commission decides, Sanders said, he would never say anything
personally about the motives of the Commission members; just as three years ago, he never said
anything against the members of the Council or the Board of Adjustment when they voted in favor of Wal-
Mart, as he knew then, and now, that those people believed themselves to be working in the best
interests of Iowa City. Sanders said he would never say anything against those working for Wal-Mart as
they are just doing their jobs. He said that he would like to have the discussion of this project among all
of the citizens present reflect that though they may differ, they all have the good of Iowa City in their
hearts.
Horn returned to the podium and said that one part of his job that he takes very seriously is the 200
employees of Wal-Mart whom no one else represents in these types of discussions. Some questions
were asked about the wages Wal-Mart employees make and the health-care benefits they receive, and
whether or not they were all on Medicaid, and, Horn pointed out, those questions were not before the
Commission at this time. Nevertheless, Horn said, he wished to address the facts of these matters and to
tell the truth about how hard these people work doing what they do. Horn stated that Wal-Mart's average
percentage of associates not covered by health insurance is a little over 7%, which is roughly half the
national average. Over 50% of Wal-Mart's associates are covered by the Wal-Mart health insurance plan,
as opposed to 40% reported by the New York Times as Target's average. In Iowa the average wage of
hourly employees is over $11.00 per hour; at a store like this one in Iowa City with a lot of experienced
workers he imagines it is even higher. A strong majority of employees in Iowa City and the state of Iowa
as a whole are actually full-time workers, working an average of 32 hours per week or more. All
associates, whether full or part time, are eligible for health care benefits with a wide array of plans from
which they can pick and choose the plan most appropriate for them. Because there were questions on
these subjects, Horn said he wanted to clear these things up. He said he wanted to make sure that
people knew that people who work at Wal-Mart often do so because wages are competitive and benefits
are good, and he advised people who have concerns about this to go and ask the managers at Hy-Vee.
Freerks asked if there was anyone available from Wal-Mart this evening that could address the questions
concerning the retention pond, or if more time was needed on that. Jeremy Carter responded that the
retention basin is currently maintained by Wal-Mart, Staples and Cub Foods. He stated that when Wal-
Mart purchases their property, Wal-Mart will become solely responsible. Carter pointed out that the
storm-water retained in the pond comes not just from Wal-Mart's site, but from the car dealership to the
north and from public water off of Ruppert Road. Carter said that he could not quote the standards of the
actual ordinance, but he assured Commission members that it would be looked at and would fully comply.
Freerks invited further public comment. None was offered
The public hearing was closed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 9
Eastham moved to defer REZ08-00006, an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for a rezoning
to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16 acres
of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West, to the
Commission's June 19, 2008 meeting:
Weitzel seconded the motion.
Freerks invited Commission discussion on the matter
Eastham stated that the features of the application that he was interested in as a Commission member
have to do with the parking area as well as the design of the building facade.
Koppes requested more information on what the current CZA is. She said that she can see in the site
plan that there is not a whole lot changing, but she would like a clearer definition of what in the CZA will
be changed. Freerks clarified that this request was for further information to be provided at the next
meeting. Koppes said she was asking Staff to really highlight what the changes are to the CZA, as she
was still seeing very similar wording. Hektoen-Greenwood said that at this stage it is primarily about the
site plan, as it is incorporated into that agreement that they are bound by the current site plan. She said
that some of the other requirements at the time the property was developed were about the access road
and things like that that are no longer applicable because they have already been done. Miklo said that
the only significant change was replacing one site plan with another, one concept plan for another.
Koppes said that the question she has is if, legally, the only thing the Commission is looking at is the site
plan; all of the other issues, environmental, corporate citizenship, etc., cannot be addressed. Freerks
said that the other issues could be looked at in terms of how they fit into the City's code. Hektoen-
Greenwood said that these issues could be looked at in the context of the City's ordinances. Koppes said
there was not to her knowledge anything in the code regarding "green" versus "non-green." Freerks
clarified for the audience that there are "Big Box" standards beyond the CZA that the Commission would
take into account in its decision.
Eastham said that along the same lines he was going to ask the Assistant City Attorney or Staff to clarify
or give a summary of the review criteria at the next meeting that they see as applicable to the
Commission for this application. Eastham said this was especially relevant given the number of
comments that had been made about things which may or may not be within the scope of the
Commission. Hektoen-Greenwood said that this application was considered just as any other rezoning
because that is what it is.
Weitzel said that he feels there is clearly reason to defer this application given that the site plan is still
being developed.
Freerks agreed with his comments and said that she wanted to take some more time with the CZA and
take a look at that. She said that especially in light of the fact that things did not occur as expected the
last time around with Wal-Mart she wanted to take her time. She believes that the exterior requires some
work before it could meet the City's "Big Box' standards. She would like to have Staff have information
on changes prior to the day before the Commission meeting so that they have time to closely review the
materials. She stated her agreement with the deferral.
The motion to defer passed 4-0.
REZ08-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by 6 Corp for a rezoning from Community
Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately .28 acres of property at 700 S.
Dubuque Street. The 45-day limitation period is June 29, 2008.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 30
Ongie stated that the zoning change requested by the applicant would allow the lower level of the
property to be converted into self-storage units. The upper unit of the property, which faces Dubuque
Street, currently operates as a yoga studio, which the applicant would like to continue. The applicant
would like to supplement this use with self-storage units in the lower level of the building. The current
CC-2 zoning is intended for retail goods and services that require high visibility. CC-2 zoning does not
allow self-storage units. The proposed zoning, CI-1, allows outdoor storage, self-storage units, repair of
large equipment and motor vehicles, and buildings that are not completely enclosed. Rezoning would
allow the applicant to both continue the building's current use in the upper level, while adding the self-
storage to the lower level.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies properties south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad as appropriate for
Intensive Commercial use. Except for the University's property in the P2 zone, properties south of the
railroad are zoned CI-1, so rezoning this property would make this property more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding area. Staff is currently working on the Central District Plan and
has identified this area as appropriate for transit-oriented development in the future. The applicant has
expressed interest in redeveloping this property for amixed-use purpose in the future, but as of this time,
the request is for CI-1 zoning. Traffc along the back side of the property where the storage units will be
contained cannot be accessed directly from Dubuque Street. Access to these units is provided by a drive
coming off of Lafayette Street. Staff believes that the change in use will not significantly impact traffic
flow. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request.
Freerks asked if there was a plan to alter the exterior of the building, or if screening standards would
come into play. Ongie said that he was unsure about the property owner's plans for screening at this
time. Miklo said that if there was any outdoor storage then screening would be required.
Freerks opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak.
Sarah Swartzendruber of Moyer & Bergman Law Firm spoke on behalf of the applicant. As to the
question on configuration, Swartzendruber said the storage units will all be located inside of the building
and will be accessed by the existing entrance. The yoga studio currently operates in two buildings that
are adjacent, 700 and 710 S. Dubuque Street. One of these buildings is zoned CC-2 and one is zoned
CI-1. The application is just to rezone the CC-2 property to CI-1 in order to make things more consistent.
The principal use of the building will not change with this rezoning. Until such time as the Comprehensive
Plan is amended and amixed-use transit-oriented development is more appropriate, this rezoning will
better suit the applicant's purposes.
Koppes asked if the storage units would be accessible 24-hours a day. Swartzendruber did not know.
Koppes asked about security plans in the event of 24-hour accessibility. Swartzendruber said that the
surrounding properties were zoned CI-1 and that a neighboring building is used as construction storage
and to her knowledge there are no security concerns in the area. She said that they would certainly
comply with any lighting or security standards code required. Freerks asked Miklo if there were security
requirements for self-storage units. Miklo said he did not believe so. Koppes said that lighting was her
primary concern. Miklo said that he didn't believe there was an applicable minimum standard in this case
Freerks asked if the applicant was aware that if the property was fully redeveloped with a CI-1 zoning
there would be other things required in terms of screening, etc., that would need to be complied with.
Freerks said she understood that the applicant was not planning on an immediate redevelopment but she
said that she needed to clarify and think to the future as the zoning could be changed one day and the
property sold the next.
The public hearing was closed.
Koppes motioned to approve REZ08-00007 an application submitted by 6 Corp for a rezoning from
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 11
Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately .28 acres of
property at 700 S. Dubuque Street.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion on the issue.
Weitzel said that it looked like the project met the criteria of the zoning codes and Comprehensive Plan
and he would be voting in favor of it.
Freerks said she believes it complies with the Comprehensive Plan and that she sees no reason not to
approve the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of a proposed amendment to 14-5J-9 Variances to Flood Plain
Management Standards.
Miklo said that current flood plain management regulations are pretty much modeled after the federal
regulations that are pretty common throughout the country. Miklo said that when the City adopted its
most recent zoning code a reference was made to the general variance requirements, even though there
was already a variance standard in the floodplain regulations. Miklo said that in retrospect this should
probably not have been done as the standards for a general variance through the zoning code are very
high. To meet those standards, it must be shown that reasonable use of the property cannot be made
and that by imposing the standards the City is almost taking away the value of the property. For flood
plain regulations, the standard is somewhat different in that what is considered is whether a property that
is not in compliance with standards will sustain more monetary damage in a flood than the investment it
would take to bring it up to standards.
Miklo said Staff is proposing to strike the language regarding the general variance in the flood plain
regulations. The variance standards within the flood plain regulations would still apply, and would still
need to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Miklo invited questions from the Commission.
Weitzel asked if this would have implications for construction standards. Miklo said that this generally will
apply when someone is adding on to an existing building. In almost all cases of stand-alone new
construction, the standards should be able to be complied with. Miklo said that what brought the problem
to light was the Parkview Evangelical Church, whose building is currently only 6 inches above the
floodplain and who would be required, by today's standards, to be one foot above flood plain. The new
section of the building where they are adding on will meet current standards. However, in order to tie that
portion of the building in with the existing building, current wording would require much greater expense
to be gone to in making the older section meet requirements than the building would sustain if ever
damaged by flood.
A public hearing was opened on the matter. Seeing no one, the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to recommend amending the zoning code, Article 14-SJ-g, Variances to Flood Plain
Management Standards, as proposed in a memo from Karen Howard to the Planning and Zoning
Commission dated June 5, 2008.
Weitzel seconded
Freerks invited discussion from Commission members.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5, 2008
Page 12
Koppes said that she thought it made things much easier to simply reference directly the federal
standards, and that this is a good change.
Weitzel said that this would seem to be a universal standard.
Freerks agreed, pointing out that applications for variances would still be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR:
Koppes motioned to defer electing aVice-Chair at this time because Wally Plahutnik was not present and
it was her understanding that a new Commission member had been appointed. She preferred to discuss
the issue when more Commission members were present.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 4-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 12`" and May 15`" 2008
Miklo pointed out that in the past the Commission did not review the Informal Meeting minutes, but that
Staff will be trying to get those to Commissioners in a timely manner for their review, and would try to get
them out at the same time as the Formal Meeting minutes.
Eastham pointed out three brief revisions to the minutes that needed to be made. After discussion of the
changes among members, Koppes motioned to approve the minutes with the changes suggested by
Eastham.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 4-0.
OTHER:
Miklo updated Commission members on the City Council's actions on the Neuzil property on Olive Court
and the Galway Hills development.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham motioned to adjourn. Weitzel seconded.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
c
O
N
N
.~
U~
c_ v
c ~
N N p
~ C N
rn~
c ~
C y
C L'
A Q
a
U
3
O
v~
~ W
~
X
X
X W_
O I
I I
I
X
X X X X X ~ ~ X
N
N X X X X ~ ~ ~ X
II ~ X X X X X X O I
I
i a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
I
~
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
I
M
X X X X X O I
~ X X X X X O X ~
E ~ o ~ M N O
~ aO
O ~
~ M
_
N N ~ N ~ N N ~ N
F w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
Y
L
H
~
N
O Y
C
~ C
O
C
W
c r
d ~
m N
w ~
a 0
Y !~
a L
v~ ~
m d
3
E
z" ad ci d ui 3 o ~ ~
O X X X X I X
~- W X X X X I X
~ O I 1
' ~ X X X X X X X ~
X X X ~ X
H O O I
X
X
X
X w
0 W
0 W
0 I
1
N
d
`
O_
~
M
N
O_
O
~
M
41 N ~[1 N N in Y] ~ N
H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E Y c
Y « ~ d ~ C L W
O
~
01
L C
~p
.
._
` d A d
~ m w LL Y a vi w 3
Z m U Q LLI ~ O F H
N
N
U
x
W
C C C
N N N
U1 N N
a`¢a
I, I, u
w
YXOO
IP8
MINUTES Preliminary
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 2, 2008 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel,
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Bob Brooks
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Various representatives of Wal-Mart
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
REZONING ITEMS
REZ08-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for a rezoning to amend
the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16 acres of
property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West. The 45-day
limitation period is June 29, 2008.
Miklo stated that the property in question is on Highway 1 and is the current location of the Westport
Plaza shopping center which includes Wal-Mart, Staples, and the former Cub Foods store. Miklo said
that the Commission was not being asked to change the zoning from one classification to another, but it is
being asked to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that was entered into in 1989 by the
Josephs Company, the original developer of what was to be a shopping center. When that rezoning was
proposed, this area was considered an entrance-way into the city, so aesthetics were of concern. The
proposal was to do a unified integrated shopping center, rather than free-standing big-box stores. There
was supposed to be a row of retail shops along Highway 1 facing the highway to give a finished look to
the property. There was to be another row of shops connecting to the anchor stores. This vision never
materialized. Wal-Mart and Cub Foods were built and then an amendment was granted to allow Staples
to be built to replace a portion of the proposed shopping center. Although the original vision of the CZA
was not adhered to, the property is nevertheless a major entranceway into the city and as a result,
aesthetics and the appearance from the highway are important.
Miklo said the first plan that was submitted had the Wal-Mart store facing more to the west and more of
the side of the building facing the highway. Miklo said there were reasons for the applicant to propose
this orientation as it would have allowed them to keep the current store open while building the new one.
Staff was quite concerned about the building not facing the highway, in terms of meeting some basic
requirements of the zoning code that talk about articulating the front of the building and basically putting
the best face forward. With this plan, the side of the building that was facing the highway did not have a
lot of detail and the loading docks were quite visible from the road. Upon review, Staff found that the plan
did not meet the basic requirements of the zoning code, and talked to the applicant about moving the
building so that the docks are not visible from the highway. The applicant was able to amend the plan so
that the main facade is what the public will see from the highway. Miklo said that with the new plan there
were still some concerns regarding traffic routing and landscaping, but Staff believes these are issues
that can be worked through. It was Miklo's understanding that Wal-Mart's engineer was working on
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2008 -Informal
Page 2
revisions to the plan to address these concerns. Miklo said that he hoped that by Thursday Staff would
have a new plan that would show compliance with the city's zoning codes regarding traffic circulation.
City code generally does not allow a drive carrying lots of traffic to also serve as an aisle (a traffic way
that has parking directly on it). Miklo said there were a few areas on the current plan in which this
concern was present.
Other than the parking lot design issues, Staff has concerns about the Ruppert Road entrance, which is
going to be highly visible and will carry a lot of traffic into the area. The code talks about breaking down
the design of the building into smaller elements to eliminate the "big-box' look that might otherwise be
present. This is a relatively new code, two or three years old. Miklo said that a fairly good job of
complying with this code was done on the front side of the building which is visible from the highway.
However, Staff does have concerns about the Ruppert Road elevation and does not feel it meets the
minimum standards spelled out in the zoning code.
In the front of the building there are a few details Staff feels should be addressed. The code talks about
both vertical and horizontal articulation, and while the design does a good job in the horizontal aspect,
more could be done to break the vertical plane. Overall, Staff is suggesting using more brick on the
building and less of the proposed concrete block. More articulation on the Ruppert Road side is also
suggested, and Staff has concerns about the tightness of the entrance on that side (the entranceway is
proposed to be adjacent to the building), as well as a need for more landscaping than has been indicated.
Miklo reiterated that the application does not require rezoning from one classification to another, but is
asking for an amendment to an existing zoning agreement. The Commission is being asked to replace
the requirement for an L-shaped shopping center laid out in the current CZA with a larger building on the
tract. Staff is not averse to making such a change to the concept plan, but feels that the plan must meet
the minimum spelled out in the zoning code and address the aesthetic concerns. Staff is also
recommending some more landscaping and tree islands based on a provision in the code which talks
about minimizing paving and that where paving is not necessary for pedestrians or traffc there should be
landscaping.
Miklo repeated that Staff is hoping for a new plan to be submitted prior to the June 5'" Formal Meeting,
and hopes to be able to report back to the Commission that they concerns have been addressed. Miklo
asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
Eastham asked how much of the roof area would be visible from the highway. Miklo said they had not
tried to calculate that because although the highway elevation is higher than the store, the current store's
roof does not show from the highway due to the requirement for a parapet wall. Miklo said he did not
imagine that this would be a problem. Eastham asked if it could be calculated prior to approval of the
plan. Miklo said that the applicant could be asked to address that at the Formal Meeting. Eastham
expressed concern that because the new building was so much larger than the current building the back
of the roof might be much more visible.
Eastham asked if the Commission's standard of review could include parking lot design and Miklo
responded that it could. In terms of amending the CZA, the Commission would be an amendment that
was put in place for aesthetics. As a result, the standards of the code pertaining to aesthetics should be
adhered to. Miklo said that if there are specific concerns about parking lot landscaping, they could
certainly be made part of the CZA. Eastham asked if the applicant could be asked to make the main
entrance a drive that is bordered by islands that are tree and grass covered. Miklo said that this would
be one way of doing it, and was the way it was handled with the Menard's project.
Plahutnik asked if the property was currently owned by Wal-Mart or if it was still owned by the developer.
Miklo believed that it was owned by Wal-Mart with options to buy Cub Foods and Staples.
Eastham asked about the highway right of way and the two adjoining lots and whether or not they would
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2008 -Informal
Page 3
be affected by a change to the CZA. Miklo said that these were two independent lots consisting of a car
wash and a real estate center, and that while they were part of the original CZA, the conditions and the
terms for these properties would not change
Eastham asked if requirements for providing screening for the parking lot would complicate things. Miklo
said that an S-2 level of screening was required, which consists of 2-4 foot shrubbery surrounding the lot.
Eastham expressed concern that because of the elevation of the highway the standard may not be
adequate. Miklo noted that while it might not make the parking lot invisible form the highway, the S-2
screening would make the general appearance more pleasant.
Koppes asked if there was currently a requirement for access between the Wal-Mart lot and the Menard's
lot. Miklo said he would check on this. Koppes asked if the connections shown on the new plan were the
same connections currently in place, and Miklo said that he believed they were.
Eastham asked if there were sidewalk or trail connections along the highway that were planned. Miklo
said that there were not as that would be a capital improvement project. He said that it is in the capital
improvement plan to do a trial system along the highway similar to what was done east of the river but
that it is not a funded plan at this point. Eastham asked if there would be pedestrian access from the
highway. Miklo said that the plan does include one and if the trail does go through it would hook into that.
Koppes asked if an amendment to the CZA would go to the City Council. Miklo responded that it would
follow the exact same process.
Eastham asked about a blank space on the plan in the southwest corner. Miklo said he would have to
look into it, but it could be the garden center.
As there were no other questions, the Commission moved to the next item.
RE208-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by 6 Corp for a rezoning from Community
Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately .28 acres of property at 700 S.
Dubuque Street. The 45-day limitation period is June 29, 2008.
Miklo said that this property is just south of the railroad tracks and currently contains a fitness center.
One level is on Dubuque Street and then the property drops off to have almost two more levels on the
rear side that is accessible from Lafayette Street, which is essentially more of an alley than a street.
Under the current CC-2 zone the property owner feels it would be very difficult to utilize the back portion
of the property due to its isolation from Dubuque Street. As a result, the applicant would like to convert
the building to some CI-1 uses, namely warehousing uses in the form of individual cubicles to be rented
out for storage. The Comprehensive Plan in this area and everything south of the railroad tracks is
shown to be appropriate for CI-1 zoning. This is the only property in the area that is not already zoned
CI-1. In terms of consistency with the neighborhood, it is similar to other uses and zoning in the
neighborhood. In terms of long-term planning, as part of the Central District planning this area is being
looked at as potentially mixed-use or even residential uses in this area. This would be several years
down the road in all likelihood, so in the interim, Staff sees no conflict with rezoning this for CI-1 and
recommends approval.
Freerks asked what the previous use for the bottom half of the building was and when it was built. Miklo
said he was not sure on either count but that it may have been built in the 1950s.
There were no further questions and the Commission moved on to the next item.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of a proposed amendment to 14-5J-9 Variances to Flood Plain
Management Standards.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2008 -Informal
Page 4
Miklo stated that the City has adopted the federal flood plain standards, as has much of the country.
Those flood plain standards have a provision that allows for a variance from the regulations that allow the
property owner to seek relief from strict compliance. Generally what would need to be shown is that the
cost of complying with the standard would be more than any flood damage that might be incurred. This
particular issue was brought to Staff's attention because Parkview Evangelical Church wants to add on to
their existing building. When that building was built it was 1 foot above flood elevations but due to some
recalculation it is now only 6 inches above flood elevation. To add onto it by a certain percentage of the
building, everything would have to come into compliance, even those parts of the property that are
currently grandfathered in. When the flood plain regulations were adopted, the City also made reference
to a general variance standard which requires a higher test. The general variance requires an applicant
to show that unless they receive a variance they couldn't make a reasonable use of the property, a very
high test. Staff is recommending removal of that standard and relying on the standards laid out in the
federal regulations. Miklo said there will still be a process; an applicant will still have to show that there
was good reason for the variance; the Board of Adjustment will still have to approve or deny the variance;
but the standard would be less strict than it is today.
Freerks asked if this was the first time the issue has come up. Miklo said that to his knowledge it was.
Eastham asked if reference to this provision was made in other places as well. Miklo said that he did not
believe so.
There was no further discussion on the matter.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
Freerks stated that the Commission needed to elect aVice-Chair. Freerks also mentioned that Bob
Brooks had announced that he would be resigning his post as a Commission member due to other
obligations. She said that he would be sorely missed.
Freerks advised people to make sure and communicate early and often if they would be unable to attend
a meeting in order to ensure a quorum and a productive meeting. Eastham asked for clarification as to
whether or not at least four votes are required to make a recommendation to Council. Miklo stated that
four votes are required for a positive recommendation for an amendment to the zoning code or the
Comprehensive Plan, or anything else substantial. Miklo said that a 4-1 vote would be sufficient in these
cases, but a 3-2 vote would not. Koppes asked if this was the case for anything the Commission might
take under consideration. Miklo said it was not true for subdivisions, but for any zoning matter. The idea,
Miklo said is that you really want to show a majority of the full Commission in the vote.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m
C
O
.y
y
.~
E
U 'o
O) O
C ~
C ~
N d c
~ C N
w~
c ~
c d
c Z
io Q
a
U
3
O
b
X
X
X
X
X
~
~
X
N
y X X X X ~ ~ ~ X
`"
' X X X X X X p ~
a
~ x X x x x x X
X X X X X X O
I
X X X X X ~ ~
~ X X X X X O X ~
E ~
` O ~ M N O
~ aO
O ~
~ M
_
d N ~ N ~ ~ N O N
N W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E Y c
y
o
~ y y
~ C
' 0
c
c
~
b
~
m
w ~
LL
l r
a A
v~ ._
v~
~
z m U Q LLI ~ O F- F
X X X X ~ ~ X
~ X X X X ~ ~ X
~ ~ X X X X X X X I
v
N p X X X X
O O t
X
X
X
X W
0 W_
0 W_
0 I
I
E d
` O ~ M N O
.- N
O ~
r M
_
~ N LL~ ~ N ~ N ~ N
H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y E
y
~
y
O ?~
C
O c
0
C
L
O w
N
L
C
s +
. ay
~
E ~
m a
W ~
W o
Y i°
o_
y E
y v
~
z oo ci a ui 3 o ~ ~
N
U
W
C C C
y ~ N
N ~ d
a¢a
ii u u
w
YXOO
IP9
MINUTES DRAFT
Iowa City Airport Commission
June 13, 2008
Iowa City City HalUCity Attorney's Conference Room - 7:30 AM
Members Present: Howazd Horan, Randy Hartwig, Greg Farris, John Staley, Janelle
Rettig
Staff Present: Sue Dulek
DETERMINE QUORUM:
Chairperson Farris called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
1. Runway 7/25
A. Rettig moved Resolution No. A08-19 approving supplemental agreement
No. 9 with Earth Tech for engineering services related to the runway 7-25 on the condition
that the fee for services not to exceed $127,200. Horan seconded the motion. Motion
passed 5-0.
B. Hartwig moved Resolution No. A08-20 accepting bids and awarding
contract for Rehabilitation of Runway 7-25 - Phase I to Metro Pavers, Inc.
Rettig seconded. Dulek explained the DBE reconsideration process and that
Ron Knoche had concluded that Metro Pavers had made good faith efforts
to meet the DBE goal. Farris told the Commission that the FAA did not
have the funds for the base bid and the alternate, but that the alternate would
get done in the next phase of the project. Motion passed 5-0
2. Flooding. Members discussed the rising flood waters. Faros and Rettig stated that
they would contact tenants in the north t-hangazs and offer assistance with moving the
planes. Members agreed that the Barnstormers event needs to be canceled.
ADJOURN:
Meeting adjourned at 7:50 A.M.
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2007
tMeetino Patel
NAME TERM
EXP. 1/11 2/8 3/8 3/28 4/12
Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X
Greg Farris 3/1/07 O/E X X O/E X
John Staley 3/1/10 X X X X X
Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X
Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X X
I{EY: X =Present
O =Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
IP10
MINUTES Preliminary
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2008
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Pam Michaud, Jim
Ponto, Tim Toomey
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, Ginalie Swaim, Viktor Tichy, Alicia Trimble
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Austin Chamberlain, Ronald M. Cohen, Glen W. Fessenden, Jr., Landis Fick,
Nancy Fick, Ed Folsom, Mark Isham, Susan Isham, G. T. Karr, Michael Krogh,
Shelley McCafferty, Kelly Neveln, Rob Phipps
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Kuecker introduced Robert Anderson, the new intern for the City. Kuecker said that Anderson would be
working on the rewrite of the guidelines to make them more user-friendly and more streamlined.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1027 Sheridan Street. Kuecker said that 1027 Sheridan Street involves porch repairs and a porch roof
replacement. She said the applicant wants to replace some of the decking, the ceiling materials, and one
of the posts. Kuecker said that all of those would qualify the porch for a certificate of no material effect;
however, it does not qualify because if the current metal porch roof is not repairable, the owners would
like to replace it with a shingled roof.
821 Dearborn Street. Kuecker said that this project is for an outbuilding that was previously approved with
stucco siding to match the house. She said the applicant would like to change the project to use fiber
cement board or wood siding with the same color scheme to match the house.
Cohen, the applicant, said that hardi-board with a stucco finish is made, so that is what he would like to
use.
1227 Sheridan Street. Kuecker said this is anon-historic property in the Longfellow Neighborhood. She
said the owners would like to replace some windows and doors and also construct a deck on the back of
the property.
923 Iowa Avenue. Kuecker said the owners previously proposed a wood ramp here but would now like to
install an elevator lift and also change the railing design. She said that previously it was thought the railing
could be open, but because way the grading worked out there was a drop of more than 30 inches.
Kuecker stated that now there will need to be the spacing every four inches to meet building code.
Toomey asked why the house at 1227 Sheridan Street is considered non-historic. Kuecker replied that it
was built in the late 1950s and was therefore not 50 years old at the time of district designation. She said
that also it is not the same style and was not built during the period of significance for the Longfellow
Neighborhood.
Kuecker stated that if the neighborhood was now resurveyed, there is a chance that that property might
become a contributing property. She said however, that the Commission needs to make its decisions
based on the current designation.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 2
Bunting Eubanks asked about changing the roof material at 1227 Sheridan. Kuecker said that the raised
seam metal roofs are expensive to replace. She said that on the rest of the house, which might have had
a metal roof atone time, asphalt shingles have been applied not too long ago.
Ponto suggested that since the application for 821 Dearborn Street is different than what was listed on
the application, it should be broken out from the rest of the consent agenda items. Bunting Eubanks
agreed.
MOTION: Ponto moved to consider an application for 821 Dearborn Street separately from the
other consent agenda items. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve certificates of appropriateness for applications for 1027
Sheridan Street, 1227 Sheridan Street, and 923 Iowa Avenue, subject to any conditions proposed
by staff. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
821 Dearborn Street. Cohen, the owner of the property, said he found a sample of fiber cement board
that looks like stucco. He said that stucco is increasing in cost year after year. Cohen said he thinks with
the fiber cement board it will look pretty much the same as previously approved.
Kuecker asked Cohen if he still plans to do the frieze board along the eaves and a band board along the
windows, or if he would want the whole face of it to be the same material. Chamberlain, the contractor,
said that they plan to put on a water table board of twelve inches, and then a shadow board. He said the
plan is to blend in with the house.
Toomey asked how the corners would be finished up and if the corners would be angled together.
Chamberlain said he would want the corners to look the same as the house.
Baldridge asked if the structure is even visible from the street. Kuecker said that it is not, but it is on the
alley, which everyone on the block uses.
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 821
Dearborn Street, as proposed, with the corners to match the main house.
Toomey stated that the main house is stucco. He asked if the garage would be lap siding and what the
size of it would be. Chamberlain, the contractor for the project, said that they would be four by ten sheets.
Toomey asked if they would just be butted up against each other. Chamberlain responded that they
would be tongue and groove and would be laid out so that the trim boards would cover many of the
seams. Chamberlain said that the intent is to have as few seams showing as possible.
Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
747 Grant Street. Kuecker said that this proposal is for an addition to the rear of the house. She stated
that the property is located near the intersection of Grant and Sheridan Streets. Kuecker showed an
image of the house and the location where the addition would be located. She said that it would be a 16
foot by 12 foot, one-story addition and would mimic the roofline of the existing house.
Kuecker said the addition would have fiber cement board hardi-plank lap siding to match the house. She
said the trim and the windows and the fish scale siding would all match the existing house. Kuecker said
that staff recommends approval of the certificate as presented in the application, with the exception that
instead of using the Andersen windows, the applicant now plans to use the Pella windows that would
match the windows on the rest of the house. She said that the Pella windows are wood with metal
cladding.
Baldridge asked if the place where this is attached is original or if that itself was an addition at one time.
Kuecker said she believes it was original.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 3
Kuecker said that this is another property in the Longfellow District that, at the time of the survey, was
classified as non-contributing; because of the use of aluminum siding, that has since been removed. She
said that the wood siding has been restored so that if another survey of the district were done, the house
would probably be classified as contributing. Kuecker added that the Commission has to consider this a
non-contributing structure at the present time.
MOTION: Toomey moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 747
Grant Street, as recommended by staff. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 6-0.
838 Dearborn Street. Kuecker said this property is just north of Jackson Avenue on the east side of
Dearborn Street. She said that it is a foursquare without its front porch, which was removed 40 to 50
years ago.
Kuecker said that aluminum siding was placed on the structure, but the applicant would like to remove the
metal siding and restore the house back to the shingle siding. She said the shingle siding probably isn't
original to the house; it was probably stucco, but the shingle siding is more appropriate to the style than
the synthetic siding.
Kuecker said the owners would also like to reconstruct the front porch using cues from the shadow line
that is on the front of the house, from the rear porch, and other porches on this style of house. She said
the proposed porch would be of fiber cement board construction with a recessed balustrade and rafter
tails like the rear porch. Kuecker said the stairs are proposed to be concrete. She said that although the
guidelines state that wood porches should have wood stairs, it is not uncommon for a foursquare porch to
have concrete stairs on a wood porch. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of this project as
proposed in the application.
Bunting Eubanks asked the owners why they wanted to use concrete stairs. Susan Isham said she was
concerned about the slipperiness of wood steps and did not want to have to chop ice off of them all
winter. Mark Isham said that concrete steps would last longer. He said that the steps are currently
concrete, and concrete is easier to maintain.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 838
Dearborn Street, as proposed. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
409 Brown Street. Kuecker said that this application is for a porch reconstruction. She stated that the
property is located on the south side of Brown Street between Gilbert and Van Buren Streets.
Kuecker demonstrated from an aerial photograph that many houses on that side of the street have full
width porches that extend farther toward the street, showing that this property probably did have a full
width porch at one time that has been removed. She provided a picture of the current front of the house,
showing a small later addition porch in the L of the property. Kuecker showed a photograph that the
applicant found of the house with the historic porch on it.
Kuecker said the applicant would like to recreate this porch but not quite as wide, because that would put
the porch on the neighbors' driveway. Kuecker said the applicant proposes the porch to be about one to
one and one-half feet past the edge of the house and will have to apply for a minor modification from the
Building Department in order to do that, because it would put the porch within five feet of the side lot line.
She said the owners would like the motion to take that into account so that if the minor modification is not
approved, the porch could still be built at the edges of the house rather than the 1 Y: foot extension.
Kuecker said the back porch still has some of the remnants of its construction, and the neighbors' porch
is almost the same as what is shown in the photograph. She said that this house and the neighboring one
were built by the same contractor, so it is likely they had similar porches. Kuecker said that staff
recommends approval of this project. She said the owners plan to use wood for the building materials, but
if that changes, the owners will come back before the Commission. Kuecker said the owners also want to
have removable wood screens on one portion of the porch. She said that is allowed in the guidelines as
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 4
long as they are constructed of wood. Kuecker added that the owners would like to install ceiling fans in
the porch. She said that should be subject to staff approval. Kuecker stated that any exposed foundation
should match the foundation of the house.
Bunting Eubanks asked about the porch screens. Kuecker said that the guidelines require the porch
screens to be removable, and that is acceptable to the owners. Regarding the ceiling fans, Kuecker said
they do not require a building permit, but because they are part of the entire porch construction, the
Commission does have some purview over that.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 409 Brown
Street as proposed, subject to staff's recommendations, with the additional requirement that the
use of fiber cement board would require staff approval. Baldridge seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
739 Clark Street. Kuecker said this proposal is for an addition to the rear of the house located at the
intersection of Sheridan and Clark Streets. She showed where the 9 foot by 20 foot addition would be
located. Kuecker said the addition would not be visible from Clark Street, and the only way it would be
visible from Sheridan Street is if the bushes in the backyard were removed, and it still might not be very
visible then.
Kuecker showed an illustration of the addition and said staff has confirmed that the roof would be of a
similar pitch as the existing porch and expressed concern that there should not be a faux gambrel edge
constructed. She said that would only be around the main wing of a house, and would not be commonly
found on an addition. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of this as presented in the application,
with the use of smooth fiber cement board for the siding material, the use of wood or metal clad wood
windows with the same divided light pattern as on the rest of the house, and with the pitch of the roof
being the same as the pitch of the porch.
Phipps, the contractor, asked a question about the muntins having to be adhered to both sides of the
glass that is not on the rest of the house. Kuecker said it is in the guidelines about the muntins, and the
Commission would have to approve that. Folsom said that the rest of the windows have snap in muntins
and only on the inside.
Baldridge asked if the screened porch is an addition. Folsom confirmed this.
Michaud said they have to match the rest of the house so that from the outside it must match the rest of
the house but did not know about the inside. Kuecker said that in the past it has been required that the
muntins are put on the front and back.
Bunting Eubanks asked if the windows were original on the house. Folsom said that the only original
windows are on the front of the house. Baldridge said that those are the windows that are visible from the
street, and the addition is very discreet in the back. Bunting Eubanks said the guidelines recommend the
wood windows that are historically accurate, even if the other ones are not historically accurate so that as
other windows are replaced, they stay historically accurate.
Phipps said he would prefer wood windows and said that he would like to only have grills on the inside.
Kuecker said the guidelines say that divided lights may be created with muntin bars that are adhered to
both sides of the glass but not with snap-in muntin bars.
Bunting Eubanks said that the Commission could discuss whether the applicants would need to use
adhered divided lights or have no divided lights, because the back side of the house does not have
permanent divided lights. Phipps said his choice would be to have no divided lights.
Baldridge said that given the situation with the house, yard, and vegetation, only the owners will see this
addition. He pointed out that this is also a second addition to the house, and it makes it interesting to
show the transitions of the house.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 5
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 739 Clark
Street as presented with staff's recommendations and with the option for either the divided light
pattern with muntin bars on both sides of the windows or undivided lights and with the option for
the windows as presented or windows that are longer in the vertical dimension that match the
existing windows on the house. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
1230 Burlington Street. Kuecker said this application is to remove the steel siding and replace it with vinyl
siding. She said this property faces Burlington and has a rear entry off of Muscatine. Kuecker said that
this is anon-contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. She said it is non-contributing
not because of its age but because it is a Cape Cod style, and there are no other Cape Cod style
structures in the College Hill Area.
Kuecker said that sometimes the Commission has denied the application of vinyl siding on a non-
contributing structure in a conservation district because, if it had wood siding again, it could become
contributing. She stated, however, that since this is not non-contributing for that reason, it is something
that could be allowed. Kuecker said that the guidelines do allow vinyl siding on non-contributing structures
in conservation districts.
Kuecker said the applicant wants to remove the steel siding and replace it with vinyl siding that would be
the same dimension as the wood siding that is underneath with the same exposure of four and one-half
inches. She said that when the steel siding is removed, the owners will repair all sources of water
damage and not cause further damage to the wood siding that is underneath. Kuecker said that the
proposed trim would be built out to extend in front of the vinyl siding and be wrapped with aluminum. She
said it will keep the same profile as the existing trim.
Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of this certificate as presented in the application with the
following stipulations: that the wood siding not be removed but all sources of water damage be corrected
and that the historic trim not be removed but be built out with the same profile and dimension as the
historic trim.
Karr, the contractor for the project, said he was available to answer any questions the Commission had.
He talked about the dormers on the roof and said that whoever did it stripped down the wood where one
can see the flashing along the dormers. Karr said that is when his company got involved. He said there
is no wood there, but there was excessive rot. Karr said he anticipates that when he pulls the steel siding
off there will be a mess with the condition of the wood.
Karr said the backside has a flat roof with a rubber membrane on it. He said this project will not address
the roof itself, but he is certain there is flashing beyond on that fascia board where it is coming over, and
he would like to introduce a little frieze detail to try to tie it into the house a little bit.
Michaud said this is an opportunity to correct some inconsistencies. She said that on the front of the
house there is one shutter on each side. Michaud said that if there is room for two shutters that are the
right length to match the windows that would be good, but if there is not, the Commission does not require
replacing the shutters, because they are the only ones and they do not even fit.
Karr said that on the windows he would like to take a one by six to rip it down to the exact width of the
original and bring that out flush. He said his concern on this one is that there will be issues and how far to
take wood replacement.
Toomey asked Karr if he would remove all the drywall or plaster and put in vapor barrier to the inside.
Karr said that for moisture control, it says in the report that he will be using a Dow fanfold insulation that
has a very similar perm rating as the Tyvek that lets the house breathe but does not let the water in.
Toomey said that is moisture barrier, but he is asking about a vapor barrier. Karr said that he is not doing
any inside work. Toomey said there won't be a vapor barrier so then moisture will move out to the
outside of the building and then into the wood. He said that a house will rot if the siding is put on without
the moisture barrier on the inside. Toomey said that is his concern with a lot of the vinyl that is put on
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 6
older buildings. He said that new construction will have a vapor barrier properly installed, but in houses
that were built without vapor barriers, the moisture migrates through into the wood and then they collapse.
Karr said that he would not be putting plaster on the inside but would be addressing this from the outside,
giving the house breathability without letting moisture in or out of windows, eaves, doors, etc. He said he
has not had any mold problems or that type of issue.
Toomey said the science of it is that on the inside, the heated side, there needs to be vapor barrier. He
said that older homes were not made with a vapor barrier so that in the winter, there is nothing to keep
the moisture from migrating into the wall.
Karr asked how that is different from the other applications. Bunting Eubanks and Toomey said that this
is a problem typical to vinyl. Michaud said that the vinyl does not breathe like the other materials.
Karr said that he can put Tyvek up, but there is air behind the hollow backs. He said he understands the
argument and the process very well. Karr said that whether one uses Tyvek or foam, one is doing the
same thing, if one leaves an inch gap with brick, stucco, fiber cement board, scale, or aluminum. He said
that it is a pretty hard case to make that the vinyl is going to act differently -that the vinyl will trap more
moisture. Karr said that his problem with vinyl is when people just go over the wood and do not use any
flashing, he agrees that it will be a huge mess. He said that one material or another; cement, wood, or
OSB; will do the same thing if one has the same substrate.
Bunting Eubanks stated that the guidelines discourage the use of vinyl. Toomey said that he will never be
able to vote in favor of putting vinyl on an older home unless the owner goes through the process of
putting a vapor barrier on the inside.
Karr said that the perm rating he is using will allow water vapor to escape but will not let water go in. He
said it is very similar to the perm rating on the Tyvek. Karr said that there obviously is no perm rating on
the interior vapor barrier whether one is using 4 ml or 6 ml plastic.
Bunting Eubanks asked if it is possible to put a vapor barrier on the inside to protect the house. Karr said
that would involve removing all of the trim, doors, and windows; taking the plaster and lath down; putting
new insulation in; putting the plastic up; putting grout around; finishing it; painting; and putting new trim
up. Bunting Eubanks said that it might then be better to use a fiber cement board siding than to do a
vapor barrier or something of that sort.
Bunting Eubanks said the Commission's role is to preserve older homes. Toomey said the Commission
doesn't know what the condition is under the steel siding. He said it might turn out to not be too bad
underneath and might be repairable.
Karr asked if he can get the approval for this as the guidelines state and proceed with this. He said that
at this point, from the owners' standpoint, they want vinyl siding on the house.
Bunting said the Commission could consider a motion that says that staff can have final approval if the
condition is such that this is non-repairable. Kuecker said that the Commission is allowed discretion on
any of its decisions. She said that if the applicant believes the Commission is making a decision against
what the guidelines state, then there is the ability to appeal that decision.
MOTION: Toomey moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1230
Burlington Street as proposed.
Ponto said that since this is allowed by the guidelines, and he does not think it will further distract from the
conservation district and other properties, and not being able to require people to take good care of their
houses, he would vote in favor of this.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 7
Karr asked if he tears this off and is approved for the synthetic siding, what would happen if on the front
brick side of the house the wood is rotted. He said that he doesn't want to build over rotted wood.
Kuecker said that the rotted wood can be removed but no more than that.
Karr discussed contractors using wood with knots or inferior materials.
Regarding window detail, Karr asked what he is required to do if crown molding is chipped off above
there. He said he is not going to remove any more, but is he okay just keeping the existing. Kuecker said
that is correct. Karr asked if he is okay with the frieze board detail, and Kuecker confirmed this.
Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3-1 with Toomey voting no and
Toomey said he is voting against this, because this is the Historic Preservation Commission and he
cannot vote for something that he knows will be destructive to the building.
702 Grant Street. Kuecker stated that this project involves the removal. of wood stairs and retaining wall to
be replaced with stone stairs and walls with landscaping. She said that the Commission does not
generally have purview over landscaping, but because there are stairs involved and also because one of
the retaining walls is over four feet tall, a building permit is required. Kuecker said this therefore had to
come before the Commission.
Kuecker said that the property is located on the southeast corner of Grant and Center Avenue, and the
landscaping would be located on the Center Avenue side of the structure. She said the retaining wall and
many of the stairs are currently constructed of railroad ties. Kuecker said the application proposes the
construction of stone stairs and landings such that none of the stairs would be greater than two or three
stairs and no handrail would therefore be required.
Kuecker showed the stone that is proposed to be used. Landis Fick, one of the owners, said that he
wants to terrace back a little bit from the driveway and avoid a guardrail if at all possible. Regarding the
retaining wall, he said that he also wants to keep it low enough to avoid using a railing. Landis Fick said
that the current situation with the railroad ties is both unsound and non-conforming.
Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of this application, and if it is determined that handrails or
guardrails are required, they would need to meet the guidelines for balustrades and handrails, and those
guardrails would be subject to staff approval, if needed.
Ponto said this application looks straightforward and would be a big improvement.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 702
Grant Street, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Baldridge seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
DISCUSSION OF WORK PLAN:
Kuecker said that the work plan was included in the Commission packet. She said that the work plan was
submitted to the City Council, which had some concerns for the Commission to consider and possibly
address.
Kuecker said that the first issue concerned the district forums listed in item one of the work plan. She said
the City Council suggested coming up with a schedule prioritizing the districts or listing the ones to be
emphasized this year.
Kuecker said the City Council was also concerned about the rewriting and streamlining of the historic
preservation guidelines. She said that she informed the City Council that a capable intern has been hired
to help with that.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 8
Kuecker said the City Council suggested also working with the Iowa City/Coralville Convention and
Visitors Bureau on the walking tours and guidebooks as a way of compiling and marketing them.
Kuecker said the City Council also offered to help in any way in terms of speaking with the Campus
Planning Committee.
Bunting Eubanks said that the grant application has been completed. Kuecker said that the Commission
should hear by July 15' if the grant has been received. She said that if it is not received, there is another
grant due in mid-August that would allow the Commission to reapply for other grant money for the
Manville Heights Neighborhood.
Kuecker said that Mayor Regenia Bailey said that she meets with the Campus Planning Committee on a
semi-regular basis so that the Commission should let her know of any issue about which it is concerned
and she would discuss it with the Campus Planning Committee. Bunting Eubanks said that she would be
willing to write a letter on behalf of the Commission to the Mayor regarding having a summary of the
Commission's goals and concerns presented to the Campus Planning Committee.
Regarding item number one in the memorandum to the Commission, Bunting Eubanks agreed that it is a
good idea to only work on two or three district forums per year. She said that will allow the forums to be
tailored to the needs of the particular district hosting the forum.
Ponto suggested utilizing the neighborhood newsletters to advertise the forums.
Bunting Eubanks suggested that for organizational purposes, the Commission could consider the districts
in alphabetical order. Michaud suggested that the College Green and College Hill Districts are contiguous
and have a similar composition so that they could possibly be combined for one neighborhood forum.
Bunting Eubanks suggested that Commission members be available at the neighborhood forums for their
districts in order to answer questions and provide information. She said that with ten districts, there could
be a forum held for each district once every three years, about three per year for the Commission.
Bunting Eubanks said she hoped for everyone on the Commission to tackle one task per year, be it
hosting a walking tour, working on a grant application, or providing information to property owners at a
neighborhood forum. She asked that Commission members each select some task by September.
Kuecker stated that the forums do not necessarily have to focus on historic preservation applications but
could include information about repair versus replacement, how to determine when repair is necessary,
etc. Toomey said that he would be willing to hold an educational session regarding siding and/or other
materials, possibly at the Salvage Barn.
Regarding revising the guidelines, Ponto asked if staff wanted help from the Commission or if the
Commission would be in a reactive position. Kuecker said that changes would be made based on issues
that have come up in applications and on information gleaned from what other communities have done.
She said that if Commission members know of things specifically in the guidelines that were not
addressed in the Preservation Plan, they should bring that up to staff. Kuecker said that one goal is to
remove discrepancies between the Preservation Plan and the zoning code. She asked Commission
members to let staff know of anything to be changed, added, or eliminated.
Anderson asked that if Commission members have any materials about districts that have been
resurveyed or properties that have been reclassified that the information be forwarded to him.
Michaud asked Toomey abqut the application for vinyl at 1230 Burlington Street. Toomey responded that
the Styrofoam is put behind there in the name of insulation value, but it has nothing to do with insulation;
it just gives a smooth surface from which they can attach the thing. He said that between that and the
vinyl it is destructive.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 9
Toomey said that the fact that the Commission just approved that is beyond his comprehension and so he
would resign. He said he did not want to have anything to do with a historic preservation commission that
would approve putting vinyl on older houses.
Toomey stated that whether there are loopholes or not, there is a right and wrong here. He said that after
what was done at the house on Keokuk and Kirkwood, when the Commission approved what was
disallowed by the rules, he almost resigned then. Toomey said it was an illegal meeting in that the doors
were locked, and it wasn't open to the public. He said that Sunil Terdalkar put the rules up there in broad
daylight, and the Commission ignored them.
Bunting Eubanks said that the makeup of the Commission is quite a bit different now. Toomey responded
that he doesn't really care about grants or bureaucracy or paperwork, but he does historic preservation.
He said he just can't watch these things go by any more.
Bunting Eubanks said that she is not a builder and doesn't know all the ins and outs of construction, but
she does look for balance in what an owner wants versus what would be historically appropriate. Toomey
said that the property is a nice little house, whether one calls it non-contributing or not. He said that the
Commission is just rubberstamping what the homeowner wants to approve.
Regarding the house at Keokuk and Kirkwood, Toomey said that it was a wonderful house. He said that
he did not speak up then because the rules were right there that this would need to be disallowed.
Toomey said everyone then voted in favor.
Toomey then said he was resigning and left the meeting.
Baldridge said the guidelines allow vinyl siding on this non-contributing house. Baker agreed and said
that the same thing happened with 923 Iowa Avenue, and if the Commission denied this application, it
would have been appealed and then approved.
Bunting Eubanks said she sees her role on the Commission as balancing what an individual wants versus
the needs of the neighborhood. She said it is difficult to deny something that is allowed on other houses
or require that a homeowner spend $10,000 more on something more expensive.
Baker said the Commission has certainly denied people who have wanted something that was not
appropriate. She said, however, that in this case, it was in the guidelines that this could be done so that
in this particular case, the Commission was not going to win.
Ponto said that over the years there were many complaints to the City Council that the Commission was
being overly picky for non-historic structures. He said that after that there were compromises made in
having less strict guidelines for non-contributing structures.
Baldridge said he is not opposed to allowing non-contributing structures to have more leeway. Regarding
the house on Grant that will eventually become contributing, he said that the Commission may need to
develop a scheme for reevaluating structures when they are old enough to become contributing.
Baldridge said that he would talk to Helen Burtord to see if she can get Toomey to come back on the
Commission.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 22 2008:
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission
meeting, as written. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
Ponto thanked Kuecker for providing recommended motions in the staff report.
Kuecker said that there will be a July meeting, but there is no need for a second meeting in June
Historic Preservation Commission
June 12, 2008
Page 10
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s/pcd/mins/hpG2008/hpc 06-12-OB.doc
C
O
.N
N_
U ~
d
c ~
0 00
m
R C O
~ N
d ~
N C
~ ~
aQ
.`
0
N_
W w w W
o X X O X X X 0 0 X O
c
X X X X ~ X ~ ~ X X
,
o X x X O x x X X x ,
X ~ ~ ~ X X X Q X X
p
X X X X X ~ X X X
M ~ p
~
a X w X X X X w
o
; w
'o w
o X
o
; x X x o x x x X X o
o o ° ~ o ° o ~ o ° o
E d ~
F W rn
N rn
N rn
N rn
~ rn
N rn
N rn
N rn
N rn
~ rn
N rn
N rn
N
v
OI
C
C
Y
~
'
>.
°~
N
w
d 9 c 'E ~ m o f
z m m m o w f a u~ r r r 3
a~i
f/1
U
X
W
_ c
~ ~ ~
y ~ a
d~Q
d Q u
~nuw
YXOO