The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-07-24 Info Packet~ - i --~..~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET July 24, 2008 JULY 29 "TOWN HALL MEETING" AND SPECIAL WORK SESSION IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum from Community Development Coordinator: Voluntary Buyout Letter and Questionnarie MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Meeting Schedule October -December 2008 IP4 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Absence IP5 Memorandum from the Assistant City Manager: Accessible Parking Meters IP6 Email from Marc Linder to the City Manager: 90-Minute FEMA Town Hall Meeting [staff response included] IP7 Letter from the City Attorney to Ms. Ellen Sweet and Ms. Karen Woltman: Notice of Violation for weeds IP8 Memorandum from the Recycling Coordinator: Rummage in the Ramp - 2008 IP9 Letter from Lee Grassley: Mediacom cable service rates DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Historic Preservation Commission: July 10, 2008 . ~~®~ U7-Z4-US ~~`"',~~ IP1 ~,~ City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas July 24, 2ooa www.icgov.org • TUESDAY, JULY 29 Senior Center 6:30p - 8:OOp "Town Hall Meeting" with Federal & State Flood officials Followed by Special Work Session -Flood matters TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE • MONDAY, AUGUST 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Special Work Session 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting Continue Work Session if necessary • 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 • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 24, 2008 To: City Council From: Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator Re: Voluntary Buyout Letter and Questionnaire A letter was mailed on July 23, 2008 to each property owner in the Park View Terrace, Taft Speedway and Idyllwild neighborhoods to inquire about their interest in a voluntary buyout. We asked for a response by August 7 and included three options for returning the enclosed questionnaire. The first option is to return the questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope, the second is to go to www icaov.orq/buyout and fill out the questionnaire online and the third option is to call City staff to set up a personal appointment to assist with the questionnaire. In addition to asking about interest in a buyout and current contact information, we also asked for responses to questions that are asked on the Notice of Interest (NOI) for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) application. The questionnaire asked for their National Flood Insurance Program Policy number (if applicable), the use of the property (owner-occupied, rental, second home, commercial), and the flood damage estimate. If a property owner has not yet obtained a damage estimate, then they can check a box on the questionnaire to request that the City contact them to set up a time to have members of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association determine damage estimates at no cost. In addition to the mailing, the letter and the questionnaire were posted on the Park View Terrace website and also emailed out to the Idyllwild email list. We will be monitoring the responses and if needed, we will do further outreach to make sure that everyone has been contacted. Attached please find a copy of the letter and questionnaire mailed on July 23. Please feel free to contact me at steve-long@iowa-city.org or at 356.5250 if you have any questions. Cc: Michael Lombardo Jeff Davidson Marian Karr ~~~®03 ~ ~~u_i~~~ CITY OF IObL'A CITY July 23, 2008 PLEASE RESPOND BY AUGUST 7, 2008 IMPORTANT NOTICE: PROPERTY OWNER INTEREST IN VOLUNTARY BUYOUT You are receiving this notice because your property in Iowa City is located in either the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. The City Council is in the process of determining how many property owners are interested in a voluntary buyout through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding through FEMA. The first step in the process is for the City to submit a Notice of Interest listing those properties and respective owners interested in a voluntary buyout. Please note: There is no guarantee that the City will be awarded funds to acquire properties or that, if awarded, all property owners who expressed interest will be bought out. However, the City Council does wish to receive an accurate assessment of the level of interest among impacted homeowners for voluntary buyouts of their properties at this time. This is an initial survey of your intent. It is not a binding or legal commitment on your part at this point in the process. This program is completely voluntary. The City at this time needs to know whether you are interested in a voluntary buyout of your property. Please respond by Thursday, August 7, 2008. You will most likely receive multiple copies of this notice and survey; please fill it out only once for each property. There are different methods available to submit your intentions as listed below. Please choose whichever option is more convenient for you. 1. Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return in self-addressed stamped envelope. 2. Go to www.icgov.org/buyout to fill out and submit the questionnaire online. 3. Call for personal appointment with City staff. Please call 319.356.5230 to set up an appointment. If you need assistance in completing this form, please call Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator, at 319.356.5230 or by email at steve-long@iowa-city.org. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in submitting your response in a timely manner. Those who submit their intention for buyout will be kept informed as the process continues. STATEMENT OF INTEREST HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM Fill in online at www.icgov.org/buyout Property Owner Name(s): Present Contact Information: Mailing Address: _ Telephone: ( ) Flooded Property Address: ~ r ~ ~.® _~I~~~~~ • rir®~~~ CITY OF 10~~1'n CITY' Cell: ( ) Email: Are you interested in having your property considered for inclusion in the FEMA buyout program? ( ) No. If you checked "no", please stop at this point, and mail this questionnaire back to City Hall in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. ( ) Yes. If you checked "yes", please continue on with the rest of this questionnaire. 1 2 3 National Flood Insurance Program Policy #: (if you have flood insurance) Is your property (check one): ( )owner-occupied ( )rental Damage Estimate: Cleanup costs = $ ( ) second home ( ) commercial Structure repair costs = $ (Note: If your property is in Idyllwild, include only the estimate for repair of your individual unit, not the common elements). [ ] Please check this box if you do not have a damage estimate and you would like the City to contact you to set up a time to have members of the Greater Iowa City Homebuilders Association determine damage estimates at no cost to you. Additional Remarks: Please mail back to City Hall in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope, addressed to: City of Iowa City, Attn: Buyout-Community Development Division; 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. Please return completed questionnaire to City Hall by Thursday, August 7. Ppdcdbg/NOl.doc 7/2008 r ~~~,®~,~ CITY OF IOWA C[TY 1P3 RAC D ~ E~~ DATE: July 16, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council ~~ FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Meeting Schedule, October -December 2008 At the work session on Monday, July 14, the following schedule was agreed upon. Special meetings will be called as necessary. All meeting subject to change. Monday, October 6, Work Session, 5:30 PM and Special Formal, 7:00 PM Monday, October 20, Work Session, 6:30 PM Tuesday, October 21 Formal, 7:00 PM Monday, November 3, Work Session, 5:30 PM and Special Formal, 7:00 PM Tuesday, November 11, HOLIDAY Monday, November 17, Work Session, 6:30 PM Tuesday, November 18, Formal, 7:00 PM Thursday, November 27, HOLIDAY Friday, November 28, HOLIDAY Monday, December 1, Work Session, 6:30 PM Tuesday, December 2, Formal, 7:00 PM Tuesday, December 16, Special Work Session, 5:30 PM and Formal, 7:00 PM Cc: Cable TV City Hall Maintenance S:schedule (Oct-Dec 2008).doc ~~~®~1 ~ ~~~~~~ ,~®,~-~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 MEMORANDUM ~aTl/: July 17, zoos TO: Mayor and City Council ~/ FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~1~-~ RE: Absence 1 will be out of the office Thursday and Friday, July 24-25, attending the Iowa Clerks Institute in Ames. Please contact Sondrae and Kellie with any questions you may have during my absence. ce: Michael Lombardo Eleanor Dilkes U/abscncc.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager ~_ DATE: July 23, 2008 RE: Accessible Parking Meters IP5 After the severe weather this past winter, one of the expressed concerns dealt with the true accessibility of accessible parking spaces as well access to the corresponding parking meters, particularly access by persons using wheelchairs or scooters. This is to briefly update you on the staff follow-up addressing those concerns. During the winter months we make it a priority to clear the accessible spaces of snow and ice. We clear all accessible parking spaces and ramps to the sidewalk by either hand shoveling or using a snow blower. Ice melt is then applied to help prevent the area from becoming icy. The requirement for ADA accessibility at metered parking spaces is 48 inches from the ground to any mechanism required to operate the meter, which is the standard that we continue to use when placing a designated accessible parking meter. In addition, we have replaced all mechanical meters with electronic meters so that a customer utilizing an accessible meter must only deposit the coins into the coin slot. There is no handle or any other mechanism to operate when paying for a metered space. In order to better accommodate persons using wheelchairs we are working on a different arrangement for meters so that there is additional leg clearance, the end result being better accessibility to the parking meter. We wish to extend the meter out away from the vertical meter post to accomplish this. We are searching for a manufacturer who produces this type of post. It might be possible to construct something similar in-house but the preferable option would be to purchase a manufactured product in a number sufficient to retrofit all of our accessible meters. This should not impact our customers with other disabilities who qualify for the use of designated accessible parking spaces Cc: Chris O'Brien, Acting Director of Parking & Transit Birgit Wilhelm, Executive Director, Evert Conner Rights & Resources Center for Independent Living Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr 07-24-08 IP6 From: Michael Lombardo\ Sent: Wednesday, July 16,008 8:08 AM To: 'Linder, Marc' ~ Cc: Council Subject: RE: 90-minute fema town ha mtg not long enough Marc, I understand your concerns and wi pass them on to Council for their consid ation. If you have particular questions that you are willing to rovide in advance, I can ask that the presentatives from Iowa Homeland Security and FEMA address them in any opening remarks. --Michael Lombardo From: Linder, Marc [mailto:marc-tinder@uiowa.edu] \ Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:04 PM To: Michael Lombardo Subject: 90-minute fema town hall mtg not long enough Mr Lombardo City council this evening indicated that it would limit the to hall mt with fema on 7/29 to about 90 minutes. That's just not enough time. For a very large number of people w o have man questions at a time when they are trying to make excruciatingly difficult life decisions without adequ to information his will probably be the only chance they'll ever get to pose those questions to and get meaningful a savers from relati ely high and responsible govt officials. There is no rational reason to limit the question period n such an arbitrary ay. I urge the council to schedule/structure the mtg so as to enable everyone to ask his/her quest' ns Marc tinder S ~~ ~' red, ~~ ~~ i~ ~~ h ~~ 7/22/2008 ~~~~~1~~~ 5~~~. ~~ W~rl ~ ~ JOSS ;c~,.~J ~ ~ 0 ~~c `°~= July 22, 2008 Ms. Ellen Sweet PO Box 2988 Iowa City, IA 52244 Ms. Karen Woltman PO Box 10 Swisher, IA 52338 Dear Ms. Sweet and Ms. Woltman: i r ~ IP7 ~III~ ~ ~~~~~ -r~a.at._ CITY OF IOWA CITY City Attorney's Office 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5030 (319) 356-5008 FAX www.icgov.org At the City Council meeting on July I5, you raised the issue of whether the City was required to send a Notice of Violation for weeds to Ms. Sweet, the property owner, by certified mail. As I advised Council, certified mail is not required, and this letter explains the basis of my opinion. Under section 364.12(3)(g) of the Iowa Code, the City may require property owner to cut weeds or other growth. Section 364.12(3)(h) of the Iowa Code, in turn, provides: [i]f the property owner does not perform an action required under this subsection within a reasonable time after notice, a city may perform the required action and assess the costs against the property for collection in the same manner as a property tax. Notice may be in the form of an ordinance or by certified mail to the property owner.... (emphasis added). State law allows the City to require the property owner to cut down weeds or other growth. In addition, state law also allows the City to cut down the weeds or other growth if the owner fails to do so within a reasonable time after notification of the violation. The City notifies a property owner of the violation by sending a Notice of Violation. Because the City has a "weed ordinance (Section 6-3 of the City Code), property owners are provided notice by ordinance, and therefore the City is not required to send out the Notice of Violation by certified mail. I do note that in the case of an emergency, section 6-3-4 of the City Code allows the City to remove the weeds without sending a Notice of Violation but before assessing the costs, the City must send written notice to the owner by certified mail. This certified mail requirement applies only to assessment of the costs for emergency removal of weeds by the City without a prior Notice of Violation. In your case, the City did not proceed under the emergency provision of section 6-3-4 but rather provided you with a Notice of Violation under section 6-3-2C. I am enclosing a copy of the Notice of Violation that was mailed to you on September 10, 2007 (It bears a date of July 11, 2008 because that is the date it was printed off. The City does not retain hard copies of Notices of Violations; it stores them electronically.) The Notice of Violation cites to section 6-3-2C and requires you to abate the violation by September 20, 2007. On September 27 and 28, the property was reinspected, and because the growth had not been cut back, the City contracted with Mall Services Instant Green to cut back the vegetation. Also for your information I am enclosing a copy of the activities report for this complaint, which is entitled Activities for Case #: COM07-1241 12 19 Oakcrest Ave, and the invoice from Mall Services Instant Green. In addition to the notice provided to you before the city contracted for removal of the weeds, the City has, as required by Iowa law, provided you with notice of the intended assessment. I will not review that process in detail here as it is my understanding your concern is with the method by which the initial notice of violation was sent. In summary, it is my opinion that the City has complied with the applicable legal requirements for assessment of the costs of the weed removal to Ms. Sweet. If you have any questions about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek. Sincerely, Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Enc. Cc w/o encl.: City Council Doug Boothroy, Director, Housing and Inspection Services Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney r ~. _ ~~ '_ CITY OF tOWA CITY IP8 ~..:.® ~nl~ ~ Date: July 16, 2008 To: Iowa City City Council From: Jennifer Jordan, Recycling Coordinator Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Nate Kabat, Neighborhood Services Coordinator intern Dave Elias, Wastewater and Landfill Superintendent Re: Rummage in the Ramp - 2008 Rummage in the Ramp 2008 will be held in Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp from Thursday, July 24 through Saturday, August 2. This event was held for the first time in 2007 as an effort to keep discarded household items out of the Iowa City Landfill and recycle them to households who could reuse them. Some of the other goals of the project included: • Improving neighborhood relations between single-family homeowners and renters • Advertising the sales events to low-income families who may not have been able to afford new items • Providing local environment groups and human service agencies with a potential fundraiser • Reducing the workload of City refuse workers and private waste haulers Last year, ten local ten local non-profit agencies with either an environmental or human services mission volunteered to participate in the event by providing staff to work for one day. These agencies split the share of the profits from the event and we have about 15 groups signed up to participate this year. We had about twenty tons of items donated last year, including furniture, clothes, books, toys, and non-perishable food. Items were priced at $1, $5, and $10; this year we'll be accepting the same items and price most of them at $1, $5, $10, and $20. Proceeds are split among the groups that help run the event. Last year we raised about $4,000. We will also be offering a limited pick-up system this year for those who cannot get their donations to the ramp any other way. This was the most frequent question we got last year and we are pleased to be able to comply. Ultimately, we feel that the event was a huge success in 2007 and it will likely be even bigger in 2008. We are beginning to receive some press about the event and hope to capitalize on that to help the public reduce waste and keep reusable items out of the landfill, help our local non-profit groups fundraise and provide the community with items they need at low prices. Cm~c~cei.~ `~~ ~. July l o, 2008 ~~_~~ IP9 Ms. Marian Karr City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 Dear Ms. Karr: Mediacom continues to offer state-of--the-art telecommunication services to our customers. Unfortunately, certain operating costs continue to rise, especially in the areas of programming, fuel and technology improvements. As a result, it is necessary to adjust the below listed cable service rates, effective on or about August 9, 2008. These rate changes may be in addition to previous adjustments announced on June 23, 2008. The specific changes are outlined below: Service Old Rate New Rate Change Starz Premium Package $ 11.95 * $ 12.95 * $ 1.00 Digital Box w/remote $ 6.00 $ 3.00 ($ 3.00) Primary DVR Service $ 8.95 $ 9.95 $ 1.00 Additional DVR Service N/A $ 5.00 $ 5.00 In addition, on or about October 1, 2008, Mediacom will apply a handling fee of $5.00 per transaction for customers using a live telephone agent in order to process a bill payment. Customers may still pay their Mediacom bill for no charge by using our online bill payment service, automated phone system, local payment center or mailing the payment to the statement address. We take our responsibility seriously as the preferred provider of cable television, high- speed Internet and phone service in your community. As we manage rising programming and operating costs, we're committed to giving our customers superior value through discounted pricing available when our cable service is bundled with our high-speed Internet and/or phone services. If there are any questions please call me at 319-395-9699 ext 323. Sincerely, ~ f. ~ _ ee Grass ey I Senior Manager, Governm t Relations *Starz Premium Package includes programming fee, digital gateway fee and digital box w/remote Mediacom Communications Corporation 4010 Alexandra Drive Waterloo, IA 50702-6 1 1 8 'tom ~~--t~~~/ 319-232-8800 Fax 319-232-7841 ~~ G,iC~c=-~ IP10 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Victor Tichy STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Cindy Elbert, Pat Elbert, Mark McCallum, Scott McDonough CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. ELECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIR: MOTION: Swaim nominated Ponto to be temporary chair for the meeting. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CONSENT AGENDA: 815 East Washington Street. Kuecker said the owners of this property want to do some repairs of the front sidewalk and stairs. She said that normally this would qualify for a certificate of no material effect. Kuecker said, however, that the owners would like to remove the small L-shaped brick wall and replace it with a brick wall that simulates the brick wall on the other side. She said the. driveway and stair are not very functional at this point because of the brick wall and added that removing the brick wall and making it straight will help accommodate some building code issues. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of this item, with repairs and replacement to match the existing and the new brick wall to be constructed to mimic the wall on the other side. She said that either the sidewalk or the driveway should be widened so that the curb would line up with the wall coming toward the street. Kuecker added that any handrails must adhere to the guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook. MOTION: Trimble moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 815 East Washington Street, subject to staff conditions. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 530 East Washington Street. Kuecker said the Commission approved an application for the replacement of windows and installation of a door at this property about a month ago. She stated that the property is located at the corner of Johnson and Washington Streets. Kuecker said it has since been found that in order to meet egress codes, five windows in bedrooms need to be larger. She stated that if these were to stay double hung windows, the increase in size would disrupt the rhythm of the windows of the house. Kuecker showed a window that the owner said is currently a vinyl window and would therefore be an easy fix. She said that on the left and less visible driveway side, the four windows to be replaced are not vinyl. Kuecker said that in order to do this, instead of increasing the window size and using double hung windows, staff would like to see casement windows used here, with a mullion through the middle, as has been allowed on other properties. Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 2 Kuecker said the other part of the application concerns the air conditioning units. She said the owner planned to use window air conditioners but now would prefer not to block the new windows. Kuecker showed the areas where, depending on the Commission's preference, the applicant would like to put a wall air conditioning unit. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of the casement windows that retain the same dimension, with the muntin bar put in the middle to simulate double hung windows and approval of the wall air conditioner on the north side so that it is not on the prominent street face. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 530 East College Street with the conditions that the opening for the air conditioner be located on the north fa5ade in keeping with the established window patterns and that the casement windows retain the same dimension as the existing double hung windows, with muntin bars to be used to give the appearance of double hung windows. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 811 East College Street. Kuecker said the applicant for this property called her today and asked that the application be deferred indefinitely. 502 '/z Clark Street. Kuecker said that the applicant for 502 '/2 Clark Street would like to construct atwo-car garage on the southwest corner of the lot. She stated that this is a unique situation in that there is no street frontage and that the property is completely landlocked. Kuecker said that in front of the property is 502 Clark Street and in the back is Longfellow School. She said that the property has a driveway easement to allow owners access to the property. Kuecker showed the location of the potential garage and said that the applicant believes this would be an appropriate place for the garage. She said that the applicant believes that if the garage were located in the rear, it would require the entire side yard and most of the back yard to be paved to get to the rear garage. Kuecker said that in the front location, the garage would not be visible from the street. She pointed out that one can hardly even see the house at 502 '/z Clark Street from the street. McDonough, the contractor for this project, said that one can barely see the roofline of the house from the street, and the garage would not be as high as that. Kuecker commented that the house was originally located at the 502 Clark Street address but was moved to the rear of the lot in the 1950s. She said that putting the garage in front of the house would still result in it being behind the house facing the street. Kuecker said that a garage in the front of the house is against the guidelines, which state that new outbuildings should lay to the rear of the primary building. She said that under normal zoning code situations, this would not be allowed because of front setback and front yard coverage area requirements. Kuecker stated, however, that because of the unique situation of the lot, the Commission and applicant is able to consider this. Kuecker said that staff concerns are that this would be against the guidelines and that most of the front yard would become paved surface. Regarding the other two portions of the application, she said that the applicant would like to install a stair on the south side of the porch in order to get from the garage to the porch and install a slider door on the rear of the house. McDonough said that the slider door request is now off the table; the applicant no longer wants to do that. Kuecker showed photographs of the house and where the garage would be. McDonough said that the utility pole is approximately 11 feet to the north of where the garage would be located. Kuecker said that because the garage does not meet the guidelines, staff recommends denial of this application. She stated that the Commission would need to decide whether this is an appropriate time to make an exception to the guidelines, which state that a new outbuilding should be to the rear of a primary structure. Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 3 McDonough said that the garage for 502 Clark Street would be side by side to this garage. He said that he has talked to the neighbor about having a joint retaining wall. Swaim said that she looked at the property and feels that if the garage were in the front, someone would not see it from the street. She said that the house in the front and that house's garage would block the view. Ponto said another consideration is that the guidelines say there should not be a garage in the front yard. He said that assumes that the front yard is between the house and the street, but that isn't the case here. Ponto said this is a real exception to the intent of the guidelines. McDonough stated that where the front steps are currently located, he can make it to be a quaint side door that goes out the garage, into the steps, and up the deck and then continue on with a sidewalk out to the back deck. Kuecker commented that the applicant will be returning with designs for the garage and the paving for approval. She said this application is for approval of the location. Baker asked if the steps need to be included in the language of the motion, since that is part of the application. McDonough said that would be located on the front porch. Baker said that one could just say as proposed. Ponto asked if the sliding door is off the table and is anon-issue. McDonough confirmed this. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 502 '/z Clark Street, as proposed. Baldridge seconded the motion. Baker said that because of the uniqueness of this scenario and this being such a landlocked plot with the garage fairly hidden from the street, this is a reasonable exception. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 803 East College Street. Kuecker said that the applicant was unable to attend this meeting. She said there are three primary issues with this application. Kuecker said that three things were done to this property without a permit. Kuecker said that this property is at the corner of Lucas and College Streets in a fairly prominent location. She stated that until recently, the house was in a state of disrepair needed a lot of work. Kuecker said the owner is now working on the repair of the property. Kuecker said the first item concerns the fact that the two historic chimneys have been removed from the house, and the applicant would like approval for that removal. She said the applicant has stated that the chimneys were in bad condition, as a mason inspected the property and said that the chimneys could not just be tuck pointed but would have to be removed and rebuilt. Kuecker said the applicant has also stated that a roofer then fell into one of the chimneys, and the chimney fell into the house. She said that at that point the applicant authorized the removal of the chimneys from the house. Kuecker said that the second item relates to the roof and frieze board. She said that the reroof and removal of the building gutters were approved by a certificate of no material effect, provided there would be no change in the external appearance of the building, such that the roof would be configured in such a way that the roof kind of kicks or flares out at the end. Kuecker said the applicant had indicated that it would not change in appearance, but when it was reroofed, the roofline was straightened, causing the soffits to be lowered. She said that there had been about one foot of space between the roof and the top frames of the windows to allow for appropriate frieze board and brackets. Kuecker said that now there is no space for that. She added that the brackets have been retained, and some of them have been rebuilt. Kuecker said that staff has identified three possible ways to deal with this situation. She said that one method would be to require the applicant to take off the roof and repair it back to its original look. Kuecker Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 4 said the second option would be for the applicant to do what he is doing here, and the third option would be to install a frieze board behind the brackets. She said it would break at the windows, but it is a valid possibility and would return the appearance of the roof closer back to its original appearance. Kuecker said the third issue concerns the outbuildings. She said there is an old, two-story barn on the property and noted that one vinyl window was there prior to purchase by this owner. Kuecker showed the location where vertical siding had been removed and replaced with horizontal siding. She said that it does not match the historic siding in dimension. Kuecker said the applicant has indicated that he was unable to find this sort of siding, and Kuecker agreed that she was also unable to find that type of siding. She said that it could be milled, but it is not readily available. Kuecker said the owner would like approval for the siding that he has already installed. Kuecker also pointed out a window that the applicant replaced with a vinyl window. She said she had pointed out to him that vinyl windows are not allowed in historic districts. Kuecker said the owner would like approval to either leave the vinyl window or fill in the opening and side it with the same siding. She said that more than likely that end of the outbuilding was a barn door or garage door, and the window would not have been original to the building. Kuecker said that there are a few other things that are approvable by a certificate of no material effect, but since the Commission is discussing this property, those things could be approved at the same time. She said that these items include replacing the floor boards on the back porch, building wood stairs on the back porch, replacing the kitchen window with a wood or metal clad double-hung window, and repairs to the existing windows provided that the same windows are placed back into the original locations. Kuecker said the Commission therefore needs to decide what is best for this property and for this neighborhood. She said the Commission must decide if the chimney removal is appropriate or if the chimneys will need to be rebuilt, which option is appropriate for the treatment of the roof and frieze board, if the siding choice for the outbuilding is appropriate, if the vinyl window is to be allowed on the outbuilding or a wood window should be required or the opening could be filled in, and if the traditional certificate of no material effect items can be approved with a vote by the Commission. Ponto suggested the Commission discuss each item individually. McCallum said that this property is located right next to his property. He said that although he knows the owner has not met the letter of every standard as one would like on a deal like this, it has been a very pleasant experience having him come in and clean things up. McCallum said the new owner has really straightened up the porch. He asked the Commission to work with the owner as much as possible. McCallum said he is pleased with what the owner is doing and said that the owner is totally turning that building around. McCallum stated that given what the owner had to start with, he is taking this in the right direction. Regarding the chimneys, Michaud said that at one time she replaced a chimney with astraight-up chimney, and it cost $1,500. She guessed that it would be about $4,000 to put two chimneys back where they were. Michaud asked if the fireplaces were workable. McCallum said that he did not think they have ever been workable on that house, especially since it was built in the 1800s. Ponto said that if chimneys are an architecturally major part of the building, the guidelines say work should not be done that, "...removes prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building." He said that the Commission would need to decide first if the chimneys were prominent and second, if they were important to the architectural character of the building. Michaud said that that if this were an arts and crafts building or earlier, and there were a full chimney profile on the house, that would be one thing. She said it is too bad they are not there any more, but he had kept the more prominent architectural features, such as the eyebrow in the front gable. Swaim said there is less awareness among the public about chimneys being an issue, and she didn't really know it either until this last year. She said that is one issue where there are ways for the Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 5 Commission to get that information out, although people are starting to catch on regarding porches and windows. Ponto said that after the tornado there were several chimneys that were down. He commented that the Commission required a couple of them to be rebuilt, because they were important to the architectural character of that particular building. Ponto stated that there were also several others that the Commission said were no big loss comparatively. He said that the chimneys that Commission felt were not a big loss were mostly just the straight ones with no enhancements. Ponto said that therefore in the past, the Commission has considered this issue on a case by case basis. Swaim said that when she looked at the house earlier in the day, she tried to imagine what it would look like with chimneys. She stated that she wished that the chimneys had been repaired and saved. Swaim said there are other interesting things about the house near the roof that are now much more evident than they were before, so it is not as if there are not great things to look at near the roof so that she did not feel the loss of the chimneys is an incredible loss. Baldridge asked if is correct to assume that it is not possible to put a dummy chimney on the roof. Kuecker said that it would require some structural work on the interior of the building. She said that there would have been structural work present, and she did not know how much of that was left on the interior. Baldridge asked if there was anything left of the old chimneys. Kuecker did not know. MOTION: Swaim moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow the removal of the two chimneys from the house at 803 East College Street. Michaud seconded the motion. Trimble said it seems that in the past the Commission has allowed demolition of chimneys, but a lot of those decisions were based on whether or not the chimney could be seen from the front of the house. Ponto stated that the guidelines use the word "prominent," and this particular location is prominent. He said that those chimneys were historical architectural characteristics of the building to him. Ponto stated that the Commission is supposed to consider this as if the chimneys were still standing and this is a request to remove them. He said that on the other hand, the fact that the owner is doing a lot of really good things with this property is even more architecturally significant to him, which makes this a difficult decision. McCallum said that he believes the owner has invested more than $100,000 in this house, exclusive of the purchase price. The motion carried on a vote of 3-3 with Baker Ponto and Trimble voting no. Ponto said that it is important to discuss each item separately because each has individual sticking points that need to be reiterated in the motions and the minutes. Regarding the roof and frieze board, Ponto stated that the guidelines discuss that it is disallowed to alter the roof slope near the gutters when covering built-in historic gutters. He said that certainly then one can cover built-in gutters, but the roof slope cannot be altered in that case. Ponto stated that part of the reason for that guideline is that the shape of the roof and the height of the soffit above the windows changes. Ponto said that as far as precedents are concerned, after the tornado, there was a house on Iowa Avenue that did not quite match this situation, but the roof shape was changed, and the Commission did require that it be changed back to the original. Baker said that it was afour-square that originally had a flare, but that was removed when the rebuilding was done. Ponto said the argument was that the flare was an important architectural feature of the house. He suggested that the Commission look at this issue in terms of its guidelines and also with respect to the architectural importance of this particular house. Swaim said that she sees some merit in the third option, putting the frieze board in the same direction to run up to the window, with the brackets on top of that. She said there still would be a frieze board there , but it would not be above the windows, but there would be something for the brackets to be on. Michaud said that she also thinks that would be a good way to deal with this. She said that when you put that back in, if that would work, it shouldn't be quite as deep, because if it comes too far down it could look strange. Kuecker suggested that this go to the bottom of the brackets, perhaps ten to twelve inches. Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 6 Ponto said that it does look kind of funny to have the brackets on the siding. Michaud agreed and said that the brackets are very important. MOTION: Michaud moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the roof as it is and the installation of the frieze board and bracket as listed in option three as proposed by staff. Swaim seconded the motion. Trimble said that although the owner is doing great work with this house, if he had come before the Commission when he was supposed to, Trimble did not believe the Commission would have approved the change in the roof flare. She said that is what the Commission is supposed to be judging this on. Baker said that that the front facade looks very different than the way it looked before. She said she appreciates what the applicant is doing on this house, but it just isn't the same. Baldridge said he appreciates the difference that this presents, having seen the older version. He added however, that there is part of him that objects to having to undo this work. Baker pointed out that the Commission is expected to judge an application on the merits as if the work had not already been done, although that is difficult to do. Swaim said that although this situation is unfortunate, she would vote in favor of the motion, as it would be a compromise with the applicant. She added that it is important for the Commission to be careful about bringing the applicant's situation into the discussion. Swaim stated that the Commission is looking at the properties in terms of their present importance and long-term importance to the community, rather than what the applicant is going through. She said although that may be a component, the most important thing is the property itself. The motion failed on a vote of 2-4 with Baker Baldridge Ponto and Trimble voting no. MOTION: Baldridge moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the new roof and the reconstruction of the roof to its original configuration to match the historic roof, including the exposure of the frieze board. Baker seconded the motion. Kuecker said that because this is an income-producing property, the owner might qualify for a tax credit, based on the amount of money he has spent on the property compared to the value of the house. The motion carried on a vote of 5-1 with Swaim voting no. Regarding the outbuilding, Ponto said the Commission would need to consider the siding replacement. McCallum said that the siding that was on the building before was from the 1970s. He said that the new siding is far superior to what was there. Regarding the window, Baker said that it is so hard to justify the vinyl windows, because the Commission has told so many people no. She said her preference would be for the owner to use siding to cover that space since there was not originally a window in that location anyway. Ponto said that the Commission would obviously prefer siding to match the existing, but if that is not available, that is a good reason to him to accept something else. Michaud said she assumed that there is a window of some type on the first floor. McCallum responded that there is a window on the east side. Kuecker pointed out a second window on the outbuilding. Baldridge asked what the distinction is between the new siding and the old above it, if it is some kind of protrusion. Kuecker said that it is a difference in paint colors. McCallum said that the old siding was a four-inch vertical siding, and the red is just where someone painted above the other. Swaim said that she feels satisfied that a successful search was done by both the applicant and staff to find the same dimension of siding. She said she is therefore in favor of the siding as proposed. Swaim said that since there are adequate windows for egress, she would be comfortable with there being no window on the north side of the first floor. Ponto said the Commission could give the option of having no window or of replacement of the present window with a window that meets the guidelines. Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 7 MOTION: Swaim moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the following for the outbuilding: the siding replacement and the option to close in the north side first floor window with horizontal siding, or if a window is desired, one that meets the guidelines and is subject to staff approval. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Ponto stated that there are several items that Kuecker had said could have been allowed with a certificate of no material effect, but since the property is under consideration, the Commission can just vote on these issues now. MOTION: Baker moved that the Commission approve the repair or the replacement of the deteriorated floor boards on the back (west) porch to match the existing floor boards, the replacement of cinder block steps on the back porch with wood steps to meeting the building code, the replacement of the kitchen window on the primary structure with a wood or metal-clad double-hung wood window of the same size and dimension as the existing window, and repair to the existing windows to be replaced in their original locations and to retain their original appearance after the repairs. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 12 2008. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2008 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Kuecker said that the City did receive the grant to do a survey of the Manville Heights Area. She said that she and Anderson are putting together an RFP to send out and hope to have a consultant lined up by the beginning of September, which adheres to the approved timeline. Kuecker said that first the consultant will do a sort of drive through/reconnaissance survey to get an idea of where the potential boundaries could be. She said that the intensive survey, including site inventory forms and photographs of the areas designated in the first survey, would follow. She added that in this grant application, the two stages of surveying were grouped into one request to expedite the process, and this was approved. Kuecker said that she received one application earlier in the month from an owner who would like to have the Commission review the application at a second July meeting. Ponto and Michaud said that they both preferred to have a second monthly meeting when requested, especially in the summer, so that homeowners are not delayed in getting projects done before fall. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/mins/hpc/2008/7-10-OS.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2008 Name Term Expires 1/10 2128 3/13 4/10 5l8 5/22 6/12 7/10 Baldridge 3/29/11 -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E X X X Baker 3/29/09 X X X O/E X X X X Brennan 3/29/08 X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Downing 3/29/10 X X X O/E X X O/E O/E Eubanks 3/29/11 O/E X X X X X X O/E Michaud 3/29/09 X X X X O/E O/E X X Ponto 3/29/10 X X O/E X X X X X Swaim 3/29/09 X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E X Tichy 3/29/11 -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E X O/E O/E O/E Toomey 3/29/09 X O/E X X X X X -- -- Trimble 3/29/10 x O/E X X X X O/E X Weitzel 3/29108 O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused