Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-10 Bd Comm minutes FINAL/APPROVED Minutes Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board Meeting August 29, 2002 Attended by: Tammara Meester, Michele Brandstatter, Maryann Dennis, Jonelle Hankner Staff in Attendance: Misha Goodman, Tom Widmer, Sue Dulek - Iowa City Sue Cote, Terry Koehn - Coralville Others: Mark Dennis D.V.M, Alan Berger D.V.M, William Gay D.VM Absent: Tom Gill 1. Minutes - July 24, 2002 A correction to the minutes: Page 2, New Business #1. Miccio Foundation Grant. Delete the sentences "A cat can test negative and still have the disease. The presence of disease does not mean it is contagious nor is it necessarily fatal." Correct next sentence to read: "Center is debating whether or not to test for FIV as well." Moved by Meester, Second by Dennis to approve minutes as corrected. Motion passed. 2. 28E Agreement - Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney appeared to distribute and explain the 28E Agreement between the City of Iowa City and Johnson County. She asked the Committee to provide a recommendation to the Iowa City City Council regarding the Agreement. A 28E Agreement allows governments to sign agreements to share in responsibility for services. This Agreement is between the City of Iowa City and Johnson County and allows City to engage in governmental action in the County in regard to animal control services. Representatives from both units of government have discussed the Agreement and recommend approval. The fee schedule and responsibilities were explained to the Committee. County Officers do not have the expertise or the equipment to pick-up animals in certain situations (e.g. aggressive animals). The Agreement allows Center staff to assist in the County. Either party may terminate Agreement with a thirty-day notice. Goodman responded to question by Meester that an increase in the number of animals at the Center is not expected if the Agreement is entered into. Moved by Dennis, Second by Meester to recommend the Iowa City City Council adopt 28E Agreement between Johnson County, IA and the City of Iowa City for the provision of animal control services. Motion passed. 3. Veterinary Bid Proposal - A draft of the RFP application dated May 22, 2002 was distributed. Drs. Dennis, Berger and Gay provided technical assistance in the review of the application by Committee members. Widmer stated the selection of Veterinarian providers at the Center must be fair and equitable. Goodman differentiated between an RFP and bid process. The RFP process allows more discretion for provider selection (i.e. more than accepting the lowest, qualified bid.) Goodman asked the Committee for input regarding the RFP process. The draft application was reviewed including the purpose of the RFP, the scope of services required by selected providers, proposal requirements, provider qualifications, and the application and selection process. Goodman explained that it might be desirable to select a "pool" of providers for availability or that it may be more efficient to have an exclusive provider. Veterinarians in attendance discussed the pros and cons of participation in the process for their individual practices. The veterinarians agreed to review the RFP application and provide recommendations at the November Committee meeting. Moved by Dennis, Second by Hankner that the community Veterinarians review the application and present recommendations at the November meeting. Motion passed. 4. Licensing Report- Presented by Widmer Widmer met with Coralville Chief of Police about the licensing issue. The goal is to have a joint agreement that is agreeable to both Iowa City and Coralville. Koehn stated that Coralville is interested in a coordinated licensing system for both communities. Widmer offered to review the 28E Agreement between Iowa City and Coralville and to examine current Coralville ordinances with Coralville staff members. A desired outcome is to increase licensing revenues and to increase the awareness of residents of the importance of licensing pets. Widmer, Koehn and Goodman will discuss the next steps and report back to the Committee. It may be necessary to change meeting days so that Koehn may attend. 5. Paws in the Park: Brochure distributed. This is the biggest fund-raiser for FACF. It will be on Sunday, September 15, 2002 in City Park. 6. Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board FY03 Plan: Goodman distributed the annual plan and reviewed FY01 Accomplishments. The goals for FY03 are: · Install roof over outdoor kennel runs to protect dogs from adverse weather conditions. · Research installation of an outside drainage system for the outdoor kennel runs · Complete dual licensing system with Coralville · Complete RFP process for Veterinary Consultant/Services by June 31, 2003 · Establish a Pets for Life behavioral hot line 7. DOGSP (Dog Obedience Grant Support Program: This program is for Iow-income pet owners to participate in training classes at a reduced cost. Low-income pet owners would pay $15 to participate in classes at Spot and CO and the remainder ($80) would be paid by the grant. 8. OTHER: Goodman reported that the second phase of the HVAC has been approved by City Council. Approved MINUTES ~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Peter Jochimsen, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel, Michaelanne Widness STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: G.T. Karr, Frank Flemming CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 900 N. Johnson Street. McCafferty said this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for a deck to be added to the back of a bungalow in the Brown Street Historic District. She said the owners have made a conscious effort to construct something that works with the historic character of the house. McCafferty stated that the deck would be on the back of the house and would not be visible from the street. McCafferty said the owners have said that, due to expense, they may not use concrete piers on the deck as illustrated, but may end up using wide deck-posts. She said the owners have therefore asked for approval for both options: the concrete pier and the simple wood posts. McCafferty showed details of the railing. She said the Commission should look at approving this with just two-by-two balusters as well as the decorative balusters. McCafferty said painted wood would be used. She showed drawings of the existing structure and of the proposal. Jochimsen said the proposal appeared to be an improvement. Maharry said that from the street elevation there would be no change in appearance. McCallum said this property is very isolated in the back, and there are no neighbors in that direction. Enloe asked if the other stairway on the side would be visible from the street. Carlson responded that it would be just barely visible. MOTION: Jochimsen moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a deck at 900 North Johnson Street with the options of using concrete posts or two by two balusters. Carlson asked if the Commission would need to see drawings that incorporate the wood posts. McCafferty said the posts would not be visible but would be covered by skirting. Gunn asked if wood posts would be covered by the latticework. McCafferty replied that the latticework would at least butt up to the posts. She said the posts would be treated lumber, but the Commission could require that the posts be painted and/or covered by the latticework. Gunn said he felt the Commission should require stucco or paint on the wood, something that would keep it from looking like treated wood. Carlson said he was not certain if this meets the requirements or even needs to meet the requirements for the post to match the original foundation end whether or not a deck counts as an addition. Gunn stated that the foundation is stucco. He said considering that the rest of the deck is painted, not treated, the Commission should require at least paint to match the stucco or a stucco finish. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 2 MOTION: Gunn moved to amend the main motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a deck at 900 North Johnson Street with the option of using concrete posts or two by two balusters, subject to the wood posts being painted to match the stucco or having a stucco finish. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 220 S. Johnston Street. McCafferty said the Commission looked at this property previously with regard to a siding issue. She said the property was mostly sided with vinyl siding before the Building Department determined that it was in a historic district. McCafferty said this application for a certificate of appropriateness is for the replacement of the lean-to type addition that has been partially constructed by another contractor. She said the applicant would like to remove that structure and construct a new porch entry at that location. Kart said he consulted the handbook closely in making the plans. He said across the front would be three-turned cedar, paintable columns. Karr stated that the roof structure itself will be high enough and at the same pitch as the above roof, with matching shingles. He added that he would use some synthetic siding on the ends, but that is only to match the existing structure. Kart said the remaining frieze board and fascia will be in white metal to match the existing structure as well as the soffit. Karr said this is a fairly simple plan in order to meet the Commission's guidelines and also to keep costs down. He said it will be attached to the house. Kart said from the front of the house, one will be able to see a slight corner of the new porch from the road, but it will not be seen from the rear of the property because there is a fence and a single-car garage there. Carlson asked if the new porch would come out as far as the existing porch. Karr siad the new porch would be six inches to a foot closer to the house than the existing wrap-around porch. Kart said the owner doesn't want to do an entire porch, and it is cost prohibitive to match the design of the front porch. He said this is just intended to protect the entry and path from the weather. Maharry asked if the ground will be the floor for this. Karr said that is correct. He said the owner has a sidewalk and some paving stones down now. Karr said he will remove what he has to in order to pour his footings. Gunn asked if all of the existing structure will be removed, and Kart confirmed this. Gunn said the guidelines say the porch should look like it fits in the existing neighborhood and be in character with the house. He said although this is not on the front fa~:ade, it is in a prominent place. Gunn said having a porch covering over a door is certainly a normal thing to do. He said he did not have any problem with adding a porch; however, this does net look quite right. Gunn said he is concerned that the porch is large and still has more of a lean-to look, and there is no deck. He said he understands the need for a covered entrance, but he would prefer to see a small deck and would prefer not to have an end showing. Kart said from the front elevation, someone walking or driving by will actually see very little of the porch. Kart said the columns are considerably smaller, and he thought it would look worse to have larger columns ton the new porch. He said the end of the porch would be behind the wrap-around porch. He said it won't be seen from the front because of the existing wraparound porch that is about three feet off the ground. Karr said with another railing, that is five feet off the ground and can hide most of that. Maharry said that to him, a porch has a floor, and this uses the ground, so that it is actually a covering of an entrance and not a porch. Enloe said this is what Gunn is talking about in asking if this is going to be consistent with the flavor of the neighborhood. He said they are mostly porches that are sheltering entrances, porches with a different character to them. Gunn said he did not have a problem with the turned columns and did not think this had to match the front porch. He said the front porch is a very large wraparound porch with very large columns. Gunn said a more appropriate structure here would be a smaller porch with a floor and a hip roof. He said he doesn't see this type of shed roof anywhere on porches in the neighborhood or in other older neighborhoods. Gunn proposed using a hipped-roof instead. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 3 Karr asked for input on the height of the deck itself. Gunn said it should be a couple of inches below the floor so the door will open with a little snow. Gunn said it appears that the floor is about three inches above the concrete deck now. Kart said there is about an 18-inch concrete step. Gunn said the deck would then be at about the same level of the concrete. Karr said he needs a stairway at the rear and asked if the deck should then extend all the way to the wraparound porch. Gunn said it could be a deck and a single step just attached; it does not have to be elaborate. Enloe asked if Gunn was suggesting a deck that would be as large as the dimensions of the porch roof. Gunn said it could be as large as the roof, but if the owner is just interested in covering the entryway, smaller is more appropriate and less expensive. Karr said he needs the 18-foot length. Gunn asked Kart if he was looking at something like eight feet by eighteen feet. Karr responded that he would have to draw it out to see what it does to the pitch of the roof and that sod of thing. Gunn said an eight-foot porch is pretty common. Maharry asked what the owners' thoughts are about having snow protected over the window over the area that really doesn't look like it is going to be accessed at all. Karr replied that the owner considers that a staging area for her trash and wants it as large as it can be done. Karr said he planned to go the 18 feet to cover that area below the step on the photograph. He said in between that and the chimney is an area that the owner would use, and it protects that window, which the owner has trouble with. Gunn said whether the length is ten feet or eighteen feet is not a big concern of his. He said he is more concerned with the details. Gunn said porch materials are fairly expensive, but if the owner is set on an 18-foot length, he did not have a problem with that. Kart asked if there would be a problem with a stairway toward the front coming toward the wraparound porch and then an additional one going off to the rear. Gunn said that would be fine. He said this should just look like a porch that might have been here originally. Gunn asked for a dimension on the turned columns. Kart said he would be using four-by-four turned columns. Gunn said the four-by-four, if it were a full four-by-four, would be passable. He said three-and one-half by three and one-half posts would be too thin. Gunn said there is a nominal five-by-five available that is about four and one-quarter square that would be acceptable. He said they could be cedar or pressure treated, as long as they are painted. Gunn said the Commission could probably approve something like that but would have to make it contingent on McCafferty's approval of the details so that the applicant doesn't have to come back before the full Commission. McCafferty said typically there is a frieze on a porch, as opposed to the columns just hitting the bottom of the porch. Gunn agreed and said the frieze is a natural outcome of a beam that you have to have anyway. Karr said there will be approximately a twelve-inch soffit around the perimeter. Karr asked if there were any concern about the interior frieze board or beams. He said as of now it would not be seen from the road so that from a cost perspective, the owner would like to leave it open. Karr said the interior soffit would not be finished; there would just be rafters. Gunn asked if the Code addresses that issue, and McCafferty did not believe so. Gunn said he would like to see something on there; even if it is painted plywood, it is better than just open. Kart said he could use a vinyl beadboard ceiling. Gunn said the Commission has not yet discussed whether vinyl beadboard would be an appropriate substitute material. Karr said he can put plywood up and paint it. Gunn said it would not be elegant, but it would not be awful either. Enloe agreed that there should be a painted plywood ceiling attached directly to the joists. Karr stated that was fair. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 4 MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a porch as drawn for the property at 220 South Johnson Street, with the porch to be approximately eight feet by eighteen feet or smaller, with a wood deck, a hip roof, a painted plywood ceiling, and turned posts to have a nominal dimension of five inches, with details to be approved by staff. Jochimsen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 815-17 Summit Street. McCafferty said this is an application for approval of vinyl siding on a non- contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. Karr said he is the contractor for this project, and Frank Flemming is the property owner. Kart said his proposal is to install vinyl siding. He cited the "siding page" of the Historic Handbook and said he claims that the siding will retain the appearance and function of the original work, will be durable, and will accept paint. Kart said he will not remove any details and stated that this will actually allow the house to fit into the neighborhood more. He said the house currently has eight-inch siding. Karr stated that the house does not below in the Summit Street Historic District. He said the house is a duplex ranch built in 1957 and is right on the end; he said it never should have been built there. Karr asked why there is a synthetic siding exception in a conservation district and not in an historic district. Gunn said that all the historic districts are national historic districts. He said they follow quite closely the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, which would not approve of vinyl siding. Gunn said conservation districts are strictly locally designated, and the standards are more flexible in a number of places. Karr asked how the boundaries for the Summit Street Historic District were originally determined and why this property was included. Gunn responded that no one currently on the Commission was on the Commission at the time the boundaries of that district were determined. He said he believes the boundary went to the railroad tracks, because that was an obvious boundary. Gunn said there is a contributing structure on the east side. Gunn stated that not every property in the district has to be a contributing property; if that were the case, there would not be many historic districts. Karr said because this house was built on the edge of the historic district, even though it is non- contributing, the historic district designation mandates that the homeowner will not be able to install synthetic siding. Gunn confirmed this. Karr asked what he would have to do to appeal this decision. He said the duplex in question is a rental unit and has been cited by the City to be painted. Kart said the house will no longer hold paint, and the owner would like to side it. Maharry asked for clarification of the citation. Flemming, the owner of the property, said the City inspects rental properties every three years, and at the most recent inspection, the City said he would have to side or paint the house. Maharry said he walked by the house and felt the wood looked pretty good. He asked if the wood could be scraped and painted. Karr said then you're in the same boat in ten, five, or maybe fifteen years. He said the point is that the owner wants to side the house. Gunn said the house has not been painted in at least ten years. He also felt the wood appeared to be in good shape and said that scraping and painting would be in order in the same fashion as is done all over the City. Gunn said an appeal regarding property in an historic district would go to the City Council. He said Karr should send a letter of appeal, along with any pertinent drawings. McCafferty provided Karr with the appropriate information regarding an appeal to City Council. MOTION: Gunn moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the application of vinyl siding to the duplex located at 815-817 Summit Street, Enloe seconded the motion, The motion to deny carried on a vote of 8-0. 725 Clark Street. McCaffedy said this is an application for a porch reconstruction, and it came to her through HIS. She said the owners applied for a permit and did not realize they would need a certificate of appropriateness. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 5 McCafferty said this is the reconstruction of a porch deck that would leave the existing concrete steps and footings. She said the only thing she had to add to this application, with the applicants' approval, was that the baluster and rails must be a full two-inch dimension. McCafferty said she also clarified that the applicants would use both the existing roof and columns. McCafferty said the current baluster is solid and has clapboard siding on it. She said the owners feel this is not the way it was originally constructed. McCafferty said the owners propose, in the reconstruction of the deck, to change the baluster to a spindle baluster with square balustrades. Jochimsen asked if the owners were going to do something with the railing. McCafferty answered that the latticework is to be removed. McCallum asked if the floor was rotted here so that it has to be replaced. McCafferty assumed that was the case; she said the owners have to replace the floor joists and rebuild the structure of the porch. Gunn asked if an approximate date of construction were available for this house. McCafferty guessed that it may have been constructed in the late teens or early 20s. McCafferty said the other issue is that the solid baluster does not allow for drainage of the porch floor. The Commission discussed whether the porch was originally constructed this way or whether it might have been remodeled at some later date after the house was built. Enloe said the photograph shows that the siding doesn't line up with the siding on the house. He suggested that indicates it may not be original. McCafferty said the question is whether it would be inappropriate to put the two-by-two balusters in there. Smothers said it would not be inappropriate. Gunn said that block of Clark Street has all sorts of houses on it. He said it is not a street lined with houses with porches that look like this one. Gunn said there is a variety of styles on that street and without any evidence from the house itself, it is hard to say whether the porch is original. Maharry said he does not think this porch is original. Enloe pointed out that the Commission has no way of knowing whether it is original short of tearing it down. McCafferty said regardless of whether it is original or not, the owners have to deal with the balusters to get the drainage so that the issue of rotting is solved. Smothers has said that it would not be inappropriate. Enloe said unless there is a reason to believe that was the original porch, he did not see any objection to the owners doing something that is still appropriate. McCafferty said the owners would keep the original posts and replace the baluster. Gunn said the owners are paying pretty good attention to detail. McCallum said the contractor being employed is very good. Gunn stated that they need to get dimensions from the guidelines so that this doesn't have a modern, spindly-looking railing. MOTION: Enloe moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for a porch restoration at 725 Clark Street, given that the correct dimensions are used on the railings and balusters. Gunn seconded the motion. Carlson asked if it would affect the Commission's approval if the owners find evidence that this was the original porch. Enloe said the Commission can't second-guess its decision. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION: OLD GOOSETOWN SCHOOLHOUSE: McCafferty said the Commission's role with regard to this item is to make a recommendation to the State as to whether or not the Commission wants to accept this nomination: whether it meets the criteria for a National Register property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 6 McCafferty said this is a private residence that has been restored by the owner, Mary Beth Slonneger. McCafferty said the application itself is pretty sufficient in terms of the history of this property. She said it was the first schoolhouse. Enloe agreed that certainly has local significance. Carlson and Maharry concurred. McCafferty said Slonneger lists the house as significant under criteria "A" and "C": significant contributions to the broad patterns of our history and the property embodies a distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction. Smothers asked if Slonneger would like to receive feedback regarding the application. McCafferty said it would certainly be appropriate to forward comments to SIonneger. MOTION: Jochimsen moved to recommend to the State the nomination of the Old Schoolhouse at 405 Reno Street to the National Register of Historic Places, Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. UNIVERSITY PROPERTIES - DUBUQUE/LINN STREET AND MELROSE NEIGHBORHOODS: McCafferty distributed a sketch of the University's proposed Athletic Learning Center. She said it relates to the Cannon-Gay House. McCafferty stated that on Grand Avenue Court, four houses were demolished, and the Cannon-Gay House is just across Grand Avenue Court on Me[rose. McCafferty stated that the University has requested that the City vacate Grand Avenue Court so that the University can purchase it. She said the University is at least asking for a portion of Grand Avenue Court right now. McCafferty said staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended that the street be vacated contingent upon a covenant being placed on the Cannon-Gay House so that the University would have to abide by historic preservation regulations. McCafferty said as this went through the Planning and Zoning Commission and was discussed by staff, the University seemed amenable to signing such a covenant. She said that at the City Council level, the University said it would not sign such a covenant. Maharry said the University has agreed to write a letter stating its intent to move and preserve the Cannon-Gay House, but just the original house, not to include the addition. Maharry said the University will not agree to abide by the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, which would involve moving the house. Maharry said that in certain circumstances, a historic structure can be moved. He said people wanted to move the four houses that were demolished, but it was not feasible, due to electrical lines, etc. McCafferty said that moving those houses would have been down Rohret Road for quite a distance. She said it would be more practical for the University to move the house to the south side of Melrose. She said there are houses in the vicinity that are not historically significant that could be demolished to provide a site for the Cannon-Gay House. She said keeping the house in the neighborhood would make it less likely to be delisted from the NRHP. McCafferty stated that at the City Council meeting, there was much discussion on the preservation issue. McCafferty said there might be two positive votes, but the others seemed to feel this could be vacated without the covenant but with simply accepting a letter of intent. Maharry said he plans to encourage the Friends of Historic Preservation to contact the City Council members to request that Council require a covenant. Gunn asked for specifics regarding the covenant. McCafferty said the covenant would require the University to abide by the Iowa City Historic Preservation regulations, as well as the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Gunn asked how those read, regarding the moving of the house. McCafferty said there is nothing specific in the guidelines regarding the moving of houses so that the Commission would then refer to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. She said, if indeed the University intends to move the house, then putting a covenant on it saying they have to abide by the Secretary of the Interior Standards does not necessarily go counter to the University's intent. McCafferty said, however, that the University does not want to sign such a covenant. Gunn asked about the status of the Cannon-Gay House. McCafferty replied that the house is listed on the National Register and is an Iowa City landmark. Maharry added that W. D. Cannon was the first European settler born in Johnson County, and this was his house. Gunn said the Commission doesn't Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 7 have any authority, because the City doesn't have any authority over the State. Enloe said that was true except for the issue of the vacation of the street. McCafferty said the City still owns the property that makes up the right-of-way Grand Avenue Court. She said the University doesn't have to abide by the City's regulations on property owned by the University, but the City still owns the street. Gunn asked if the University could just take the street. McCafferty said not as far as she knew. McCafferty said a National Register property is a property that can be locally significant and does not necessarily have to have national significance. She said the only time at which guidelines and regulations kick in for a National Register property is if federal funds are used to alter that property. McCafferty said because no federal funds have been used, the State can do whatever it wants to, even though this is a National Register property. Maharry noted that this is a local landmark as well and asked if the City precludes demolition for a local landmark. McCafferty confirmed this but said that because this is the State, it does not have to abide by municipal regulations. She said as soon as the State buys property, that property automatically becomes zoned "P", and the State can do whatever it wants. Maharry said therefore the only bargaining power available to protect the house is to tie it into the vacation of that street, which the University obviously does not want to do. He said the City Council will therefore need encouragement in the matter of protecting this property. Maharry said he sees this as similar to the Carnegie Library, as far as people contacting City Council members to make their wishes known. He said as far as being threatened with demolition, he sees this house as being up there in importance with the Carnegie Library. Enloe added that the statistic about this being the home of the first European settler born in Johnson County should be repeated loudly and often to the City Council. Maharry pointed out that the University's plans for the Athletic Learning Center show that the area where the house is now is proposed to be part of the new residence hall. He said the University obviously does not have plans for the house at its current location. McCafferty said Deirdre McCIoskey owned this house at one time and apparently tried to find someone to buy it besides the University, because she knew the fate of it would probably be demolition if the University purchased it. McCafferty said McCIoskey eventually ended up selling the house to the College of Law, with the idea that the College of Law would preserve it. McCafferty said Widness has contacted McCIoskey to see if there was any informal agreement with the College of Law to save the house. Maharry said at least a letter from the Historic Preservation Commission to the City Council would be in order. He said it should be emphasized that if this house is demolished, it negates a lot of the Commission's work. Maharry said the Commission would have to ask why it is doing this work if people are not then going to abide by the standards. He said Commission members could also contact the City Council as individuals to state their opinions. Maharry said the City Council should be reminded of the fact that moving does not necessarily not comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He said the question can be asked then that why would the University not sign such a covenant if it says it intends to move the house. Maharry said it should not be difficult for the University, if it says it will move the house, to sign something that allows them to move the house. McCafferty said it would be reasonable to say that if the City is going to give up this street and the last vestige of this historic neighborhood, the least that should be expected from the University is a binding covenant to save this one house. She said it would also set a precedent for the preservation of future significant University buildings. Gunn said he thought that was appropriate as long as the University is allowed to move the building, which the Secretary of the Interior Standards permit. Maharry said if the University agrees to move the house, whether or not it abides by the Standards, there theoretically is a limited place, logistically, to which the University could move the house. He said obviously the house could not be moved east across the river. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 8 Gunn asked if the Commission really cares if the house is preserved several miles outside of the City. Maharry said the other houses could not be moved that far because of issues such as power lines, etc. He said because this house is in that same category, the radius where it can be feasibly moved is limited, and so it will probably have to be moved to the same general area anyway. Smothers said another alternative for moving this would be, instead of putting the entire structure on a flatbed truck, to separate the house by floors for moving. She said there are alternatives for moving such a house. Smothers said with the Shambaugh House, there was a reason for the University to move it in order to preserve its own history. She said this would be a chance for the University to show the community that it wants to preserve historic properties. McCafferty said anyone corresponding with the University regarding this matter will find pertinent information on page 62 of the Preservation Plan. She read from the Plan, "In 1991, the University identified preservation of buildings and outdoor spaces of historic and aesthetic value" as part of the framework of planning principles for future campus development. She read on, "No efforts have been completed since 1982, and none are in the planning stages at the present time." Carlson asked, if the Secretary of the Interior Standards are what the Commission wants to ask the University to follow, what are the standards that would apply to moving a National Register property. Carlson said the only standards the Commission has here are for rehabilitation, which is not what is going on here. He wondered if the Secretary of the Interior even has standards that would apply to moving a building. Maharry said he thought there were such standards. McCafferty said she did not know specifically where it is cited but did think that the Shambaugh House and another property did not lose their designations because there were relocated appropriately. She said the primary significance of that other structure was historic; the significance did not relate so much to the siting of the structure. McCafferty said she could contact the State to see if a specific standard can be cited. McCafferty stated that there are standards for preservation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and restoration. Carlson said the preservation standards are probably the only ones with possible relevance here. Smothers said she does not think there are specific standards or guidelines for the relocation. She thought the issue relates to in what condition the structure arrives at the new site and the documentation that is involved. Smothers said there was a similar relocation in Savannah, Georgia. She said the primary concern in that instance, as far as the status of the property, was how the building was put back together and documented. McCafferty said this was recently discussed with regard to the Shambaugh House. She said she would find out about the process and let the Commission know what the requirements are. Maharry said, if nothing else, he was certain that the standards would call for not demolishing an historic structure. Carlson said he wanted to make sure that if the Commission is asking the University to do something, it really does give them the flexibility. Maharry said he believed the University would have the needed flexibility, because the Shambaugh House was moved, and it is still on the National Register. McCafferty said she would find out the specifics for moving such a house. UPDATE ON PROJECTS AND TASKS: Maharry said there was a public informational session about the College Hill Conservation District two weeks prior. He said in the end, of the four people who attended from the district, three were neutral or in favor of the designation and one was against it. He said the next meeting will be the Commission's public forum in October. Maharry said at that time, public information will be sought and forwarded, along with the conservation district guidelines and application, to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said if Commission members know an.Ytohne who lives in the district, they can be encouraged to come forward with comments at the October 10 h meeting. Regarding College Hill, McCafferty said the State is recommending that the Commission designate local landmarks within a conservation district to ensure that the appropriate guidelines are applied to more Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 9 significant structures. She said some structures have been identified as local landmarks. McCafferty said nominations will need to be prepared for these properties. McCafferty said she has spoken with the State about preparing a short form for these properties - not preparing the form to the standards of the National Register but including enough information to assure the State that these properties are eligible for the National Register. She said she will need assistance with that work. McCafferty said 726 Iowa Avenue and 730 Iowa Avenue were recommended as local landmarks by Smothers. She said other recommendations for landmark status were 802 East Washington Street, 8'15 East Washington Street, and 30 South Governor Street, which were proposed by Jan Nash. McCafferty said the Commission needs to decide if it would like to include more properties, if all of these recommended properties are eligible, and, if so, needs to proceed with the local nominations. McCafferty said the State wants to see this done to ensure that a higher level of standards applies to these properties when the Commission considers certificates of appropriateness. Carlson said all of these properties certainly fall into the local landmark category, although he did not know if there might be other possibilities. Maharry agreed. Maharry asked if these nominations would affect the timeline as far as meetings are concerned. McCafferty confirmed this. She said before the Planning and Zoning Commission can vote at its second meeting, which is November 7th, a recommendation from the State is required. She said this information should be included in the State report. McCafferty said she would therefore suggest pushing the idea of the short form. She added that more information is available regarding some of these houses than others. McCafferty said for some of these houses, information can be added from the surveys and Margaret Keyes' reports. She said the forms can summarize why the properties are significant under local and National Register criteria. Carlson asked when the information has to get to the State. McCafferty said she can forward the information she currently has to the State. She said the State will then have looked at this in the rough draft form and will at least be able to e-mail feedback before this gets to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Gunn said if the State knows the Commission is going to look at the landmarks, it will not likely hold up the nomination for a conservation district based on the fact the Commission is not designating landmarks. He said it would not make sense for the State to hold up the designation process. McCafferty said there is some ease to putting the conservation district and the landmark designations all through at once. She said the Commission does not necessarily have to do that, however. Carlson asked if the State ever actually looks at this a second time, if it goes back to the State once it has been approved by the State the first time. McCafferty said the State eventually sees the final version and provides comments back to the Commission. She said although the State has indicated in the past that landmarks should be designated within the district, the State did not hold up the process for that. Carlson said the difference here is that before, the State had not actually informed the Commission that it wanted this additional thing done before a conservation district could be approved, and now it has. He did not think the ~tate would hold this up because of that, but it is a change since this was done before. Carlson said he felt that if .the Commission says it will designate these landmarks and includes the preliminary information so that the State can make evaluations, that should be all the State needs at this point. MOFFITT CO,q-AGE HISTORIC DISTRICT: McCaffedy said the map and guidelines are completed regarding this district. She said that unfortunately, even though a couple of lines are just being redrawn, this still has to go through the entire process, because it is an amendment to an ordinance. McCafferty said nothing will be changed in terms of control over this property or use of the property. She said she is in the process of preparing the report. Gunn asked if the proposed guidelines would apply to all of the Moffitt properties. McCafferty said the guidelines just apply to the five Moffitt Cottages along Muscatine. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 10 PROPOSED DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT: McCafferty said Weitzel is working on the downtown brochure, map, and preparation of an address list. She said Smothers is compiling information for a presentation. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 8, 2002 MEETING: Carlson noted three typographical errors on page three of the minutes. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, subject to correction of the typographical errors. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Maharry said that items one through three referred to suggested reading material. Regarding the Longfellow National Register Nomination, McCafferty said it has been accepted and is now listed on the National Register website. Boundary of Proposed Colleqe Hill Conservation District. Carlson asked if Muscatine would be used as the eastern boundary of the district. McCafferty produced a map of the proposed district. She said she has found a few minor changes, some properties that were missed at some point and not addressed. Gunn asked if anyone has verified the map by walking the district. McCaffedy said that has been done. She said she has verified all of the addresses. McCafferty stated that she has made some verification in terms of contributing and non-contributing, although that could be looked at again if someone wanted to do it. Maharry said many of the non-contributing structures are not infill structures. He said many are old, original structures that were deemed non-contributing. McCafferty said she had questions about a couple of properties. She stated that there were some properties on Burlington that she changed to contributing, because the survey was based on a historic district, using the much more stringent criteria. Smothers pointed out that on Muscatine there are several barns and older garages that really define that curve. She said those buildings are not currently part of any district. She said it would be something to think about for the future. Carlson asked, if someone on the east side of Muscatine asks why he was not included and someone on the west side of Muscatine asks why he was included when an identical house across the street was not included, how would the Commission respond to that. McCafferty said Muscatine seems like a natural boundary, in terms of zoning. She pointed out there are a lot of houses on Burlington that could be considered contributing. McCafferty asked if anyone wanted to take one last look at the properties in the proposed district. McCafferty stated that she, Smothers, and Maharry have all looked at the map depicting the proposed conservation district and the contributing and non-contributing properties. Gunn said that was then more than sufficient for him. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte shared on c~t ynt/pcd/rnin u tes/h pC~h p009~26-02 doc Approved MINUTES E HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 IOWA CiTY CiViC CENTER - EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Jochimsen, Tim Weitzel, Michaelanne Widness STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Nila Haug, Dennis Nowotny, William Downing, Christine Walters, Dennis SchinUer, Michael Lynch, Susan Licht, Jackie Briggs, Jim Walters, Walter Kopsa CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Colleqe Hill Conservation District. Maharry announced that this was the public hearing regarding the proposed College Hill Conservation District. He said that all property owners in and near the proposed district received notification of the public hearing, and this would be the opportunity to receive public comment on the letter and on the proposed conservation district. McCafferty said the purpose of a conservation district by City ordinance is multi-faceted. She said the reasons for such a district include: to conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods, including their architectural, historical, and aesthetic qualities; to provide for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings for compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods; to encourage the retention and rehabilitation of existing dwelling units in older neighborhoods; to stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods; and to protect the environmental setting of historic landmarks and historic preservation overlay zones in close proximity to the surrounding conservation district. McCafferty said this proposal is for a conservation district for College Hill. She showed the boundaries of the proposed district as outlined on an overhead map, with Van Buren Street on the west, Iowa Avenue on the north, Muscatine Avenue on the east, and Burlington Street on the south. McCafferty stated that the proposed district would surround the existing already-designated historic districts: the College Green Historic District and the East College Historic District. McCaffedy said the changes that this designation would have on property owners within the district include the fact that any project requiring a building permit, something involving a change to the exterior of the property, would require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. She said the Historic Preservation Commission would use the College Hill District Guidelines, which are part of this proposal, as well as the Iowa City Historic Preservation guidelines, to determine whether the project is appropriate. McCafferty said the property owner would be required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission before a building permit is issued. She said the district guidelines that would be adopted with this district would also apply to the properties in the College Green Historic District as well as the East College Historic District. McCafferty said in that manner, the entire College Hill neighborhood would be affected by the College Hill District guidelines. Enloe asked for clarification on exactly what was covered by the guidelines. McCafferty responded that the College Hill District Guidelines; which were mailed out to all the owners within the College Green Historic District, the East College Historic District, the proposed conservation district, and properties within Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 2 300 feet; are district guidelines that deal with site and scale issues. She said all of the properties within the two districts and the proposed district would be subject to those guidelines. Enloe asked if this would change the current College Hill and East College Historic District guidelines. McCafferty stated that district guidelines that deal with site and scale issues have not been adopted for any districts in the College Hill neighborhood. The Commission's goal is to write district guidelines for the various historic neighborhoods. An example of this is the Longfellow Neighborhood Historic District Guidelines, which include guidelines for the Summit Street Historic District, the GovernodLucas Conservation District, the Dearborn and Clark Street Conservation Districts, and the Longfellow Historic District. She said the Commission has been writing guidelines to encompass entire neighborhoods with similar characteristics that are adjacent to each other. McCafferty said the same thing would be done with College Hill, in taking these three districts and adopting district guidelines for them. Public hearing open: Nila Hauq, 517 East Washinf:lton, said she owns 517 and 521 East Washington Street. She said she lives at 517 East Washington Street, even though the City tried to keep her from living there because it is zoned CB2. Haug said she has owned the 5'17 East Washington property since '1976 and has owned the 521 East Washington property since the mid 1990s. Haug said she has managed, in spite of the City, to make these economically obsolescent houses an attractive part of the neighborhood. She said she has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the houses without a, "Nice job," "Thanks for improving the neighborhood," or an historic preservation award. Haug said she has been criticized by passersby, because she has asphalted the backyards for parking, which the City made her do, and now a committee of persons who do not live in her neighborhood want to rush through this designation of conservation district because the area does not contain enough noteworthy houses to quality as an historic district. Haug said that someone by the name of Gunn stated in the minutes, "He has always been in favor of including as much property as possible in the local designation, because that gives the Commission some control over this." Haug said she is offended that persons not associated with her neighborhood want to control the neighbors and what they do with their property. She said if you want to control the neighborhood, buy property in the neighborhood, or spend your time on a hobby instead of meddling in the business of others. Haug said that years ago the City zoned this area CB2. She said she has had to abide by the Codes for that zoning, improving the property and putting all this money into these houses. Haug said she was even told that she could not live in the house, because it had to be a commercial establishment. She said this conservation designation would now essentially downzone the area, freeze the tax base, and devalue her properties. Haug said these are old houses with lovely interiors, because she has kept them that way, but according to City Code, no one is supposed to live in them. She said this is not the highest and best use of the properties in this area. Haug respectfully asked the Commission to reconsider its direction and the manner in which this is being done. Dennis Nowotny, 528 East Washinqton Street, said McCafferty had commented earlier that she had sent notices; he did not know if it was to property owners or property residents. Nowotny said there would be a few more people here, if the owners actually knew that the Commission was going through this. He said the Commission could go to the tax base and find out who the owners are, instead of trying to sneak this through. Nowotny said Maharry commented earlier in the evening that he thought most people at the meeting would be owners, and that just isn't the case. Nowotny said he did not think owners probably even knew about this; if notice is sent to the residents, they won't give a hoot about what is going on with zoning or any of that stuff. He said the residents are here for one year, and that's about it. McCafferty commented that all of the property owners were notified. She said she has a list of all property owners within the proposed district that is available for public review. McCafferty said those names were obtained through the building rental permit information and tax base. Nowotny said he looks at the map and he knew that in the past, the Commission probably said something about when these were considered for historic areas that they should be contributing, but the map is so Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 3 helter-skelter as to what is contributing and what isn't. He said, regarding his neighbors, one looks like it is more original than others, and it is white, a shade meaning it's not contributing. Nowotny said, regarding his house, which is supposedly contributing, the only thing it has left on it is the white, wood pillars on the front that are original. He said the house has slate siding, and all the tin there could possibly be on it for trim. Nowotny said there is a house on the corner with basically most of the porch torn off, and that is supposedly contributing. He said this is so helter-skelter that he is not sure who decided what. Nowotny said we should at least start from a basis that seems like it is more in keeping with what is there and not so mixed up. Nowotny said his properly is also zoned CB2. He said the things about the square footage on the frontage basically seem kind of contrary to what zoning says about what is allowable in CB2. He said he does not care for that. Nowotny said even though he has no intention of tearing down the house and putting up a big apartment building, he does not like someone coming in dictating what is the potential future value of the property, considering it is CB2. He said obviously a residentially zoned property is not going to be valuable nearly as much as that sort of thing, so this would take away some of his property value, plus freeze the tax base by essentially downzoning this. Nowotny said he has gone through all of this before on the North Side, as he has a property on the North Side that is right next to commercial. He said they were downzoning there, going from four bedrooms down to three bedrooms. Nowotny said the whole North Side was downzoned. He said the North Side is a big area of town, and taking away one bedroom from the entire north side of town is a big chunk of money. He said as far as he could see, the Commission could probably come in and steal all those buildings, and the owners probably wouldn't even have thought once about it, the way it looked. Nowotny said basically that is the way it went, and he thought the owners lost anyway, since there can't be but three people in there basically. McCafferty said in terms of the determination of contributing and non-contributing properties, in 1996, an architectural/historic survey was conducted of the College Hill Neighborhood by professional historian and architectural surveyor Jan Nash. McCafferty said the survey included pretty much all of the area of the alley between Iowa and Washington down to Burlington Street. She said another historic preservationist surveyed the southern portion of Burlington, and that was associated with the survey of the Longfellow District. McCafferty said the Commission made its determination based on these surveys. In addition, she said two architectural historians on the Commission did a briefer survey of Iowa Avenue. Therefore, McCafferty said these determinations have been made with professional expertise. Regarding the general criteria, McCafferty said the criteria for contributing versus non-contributing properties is less stringent in a conservation district than in an historic district. She said that generally, if the building still has some architectural detail, if it still has its basic original form, or if the original style is still evident in the building, it is considered to be a contributing property. Regarding zoning and occupancy, Maharry said the proposed conservation district does not have any guidelines about occupancy but mostly has to do with exterior changes to the properties and not the interior. William Downinq, 1030 Burlington, said the last speaker's initial suggestion that owners would not have received notice because the tenants would not pass it along is interesting. Downing said he is an owner in the neighborhood and also a resident of the neighborhood. He said there seems to be a suggestion that this is a no man's land given up to a student ghetto. Downing said, as an owner and resident, he is in favor of this. He said it is his experience as an architect that ordinances are not necessarily there to prevent owners from doing what they want do and are not necessarily there for the benefit of the owners, but they are often there for the benefit and protection of the neighborhood as a whole. Downing said this needs to be considered perhaps with a bit of enlightened self-interest, when one is considering what to do with his own properties, whether or not to own properties, and where to live and how to treat one's neighbors. Christine Walters, 1033 East Washinqton Street, said she is also a property owner and resident of this neighborhood. She said what the Commission is doing is just wonderful, and she is really excited about someone being interested in protecting the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 4 Walters said she has seen what has happened to some of the properties on Burlington Street where landlords or whoever started to pave over the yards and things like that. She said she finds that really ugly and is glad that someone besides she and a few of her close neighbors has some interest in protecting how the neighborhood looks. Waiters thanked the Commission for the work it has done and said she is really glad the Commission is doing this. Dennis Schintler, 1033 E. Burlington Street, said he lives on Burlington Street and also owns a duplex eight houses down on the same side of the street at 1217 East Burlington Street. He said he is against this proposal. Schintler said he did not understand where everyone is coming from as far as students and keeping their property looking nice but would like to say he is against this proposal in his case. Michael Lynch, 802 East Washinqton Street, said she is the President of the River City Housing Collective, which owns two homes in this area, one at 200 South Summit and one at 802 East Washington. She said for the River City Housing Collective, density is always an issue, because there are ten people living in one home and sixteen in another. Lynch asked if this designation would affect the prospect of the Collective being able to expand and ever purchase other housing in this neighborhood, in terms of density. McCafferty replied that this designation would not affect density. She said density is regulated by the underlying zoning of the property, not the overlay for historic preservation conservation. She said if the Collective wanted to put an addition on a property, it would be subject to the guidelines, and that would require review by the Commission. Lynch asked, if the Collective ever wanted to do anything ecological, such as adding a solar panel to the exterior of a house, would that be permitted. Gunn responded that there are a lot of changes made to properties in historic districts. He said if the addition would be sort of high-tech, very prominent, and would alter the character, then there might be some objection by the Commission. He said if there are ways to put it where it is not obvious, the Commission tries to allow a lot of things to be done to the properties. Gunn stated that for any alterations, particularly to the front facades, that alter the original character, the Commission generally tries to find some other way to handle it than that. He said if the request is for a great big solar collect in the front facade the answer is no. Gunn said if the request is for something on a roof, like a skylight or a panel, that is away from the street fa(;ade particularly, then it would probably be approved. Lynch said the overwhelming comments from the Collective's Board of Directors have been in approval of this, and she is glad to see that the neighborhood is being protected. Susan Licht, said that she and her partner own properties at 505 East Washington and 511 East Washington. She produced a map for the Commission showing a color-coded zoning, not overlay, but zoning. Licht said the green structures are zoned CB2, which means they are commercial properties. Licht stated that many of the properties here in the CB2 look like houses, but they have value to them that is put on them, because they have business district value. She said that by putting a conservation overlay onto these properties, it is almost in a sense downzoning without going through the proper channels. Licht said that what will happen to her property when this happens, is that it will virtually take away all her equity. She stated that her appraiser has already told her that her property values will diminish to the tune of the amount of money she has in these properties. Licht said she is not going to tear her buildings down and has won preservation awards for them. She said, however, that she cannot afford to lose the value of her property. Licht said this type of a conservation district works very well in neighborhoods that are zoned all the same. She said if she is over in the Longfellow District and the conservation district around there is R8, it doesn't affect the property value. Licht said when you overlay this on top of a CB2 district, it virtually eliminates her ability to have any equity in her property. Licht said she is not against conservation zones, as Commission members are aware, but she would like very much to see the CB2 properties pulled out of here. She said she is very curious as to why New Pioneer was not included, nor any of its properties. Licht said this is very carefully crafted out around their properties. She asked the Commission to consider taking the CB2 properties out. She said she is not Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 5 opposed to a conservation district, and she knows the survey work has been done because she read a lot of the survey work herself. Licht said these properties are CB2 because of their location to the commercial district. She said many of the people in the CB2 zoning bought the property because it was CB2. Licht said she paid full price for that property because it was CB2. She said it does not seem appropriate to her to downzone what she can do with her property without due process of going through a downzoning process, if that was what the Commission really wants to do. Licht said that by putting this overlay on, it virtually takes away her equity base. She said she is therefore opposed to having the CB2 properties in the conservation district but is not opposed to the district. Smothers asked who appraised Licht's properties. Licht said it was MRS Appraisals. Smothers asked what their research was based on. Licht said their research is usually based on other properties of like type. She said other commercial business district properties in Iowa City is what they use for their comps. Gunn said he assumed that what is driving this is the land value itself, not the property that is built on it. Licht said that is correct; she said the land value on some of these properties is worth more than the buildings themselves. She said hers is not exclusive of that. McCafferty said there were a couple of comments regarding due process and rushing this through. She said this meeting represented the very beginning of the rather long process that is the opportunity for due process. McCafferty said the current meeting is the public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission. She said if the Commission decides to significantly revise the boundaries, it may hold a second public hearing. McCafferty said that following the public hearing, the recommendation made by the Historic Preservation Commission will then go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. She stated that there will be two meetings at the Planning and Zoning Commission level at which public input is accepted. McCafferty said there will then be three considerations by the City Council and a total of five meetings at the City Council level. She said this is therefore the very beginning of the due process. Jim Walters, 1033 East Washington Street, asked why the New Pioneer was excluded and also about 22 South Van Buren and maybe a little bit on why the two properties immediately north of 22 South Van Buren are included. Smothers said for survey purposes, the Department of Interior's National Standards are usually used. She said if a building has been altered in any way, shape, or form, the Commission tends to look at how it has been altered and why it might be excluded. Smothers said, if it was allowed to put a vent on the front of it or perhaps fire doors that don't go historically with the building but are there for the safety of a commercial use for Code reasons, that may have been excluded because it has basically taken away from its historical aesthetics. Smothers said many of the buildings have vents on the front of them and have been altered considerably, especially during the 1970s, prior to a national historical movement across the nation to save our buildings. She said there are some checks and balances. McCafferty said the exclusion of New Pioneer was also based in part on the commercial character of the property. She said as the Commission and historians surveyed the area, it was based upon a consistent character, although there are a few properties that do not meet the character that are internal to the conservation district. McCafferty said generally New Pioneer at the Van Buren location did not really fit into the character, and it was very easy just to lop that off. She said New Pioneer on Iowa Avenue is within the conservation district. Gunn said as the district boundary lines evolved, the Commission felt that properties in the 500 block of Iowa Avenue on the south side were worthy of preservation. He said he did not know that New Pioneer was so much an exclusion as it is being surrounded by additional properties in the 500 block. Gunn said he did not recall any discussions of New Pioneer Co-op specifically; he believes it is more a product of adding the south side of Iowa Avenue in the 500 block. Dennis Nowotny said, regarding the exclusion of the New Pioneer Co-op, the Haunted Bookstore, which was a commercial building, was once a credit union for many years. He said, granted it has some architectural beauty and is pretty nice, but it is not very much architecturally different than what New Pioneer Co-op could have been if they would have kept up their sides like they, well it is sort of like the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 6 Credit Union was basically. Nowotny said the Co-op has got a lot of odd-looking additions, obviously, next to the creek. Nowotny said this thing about whether or not there are any architectural elements left basically, the house on the corner next to him has half of its porch gone and has for years. Nowotny said at least the owner who has gotten it recently has decided to take off the big red staircase from the front of his building. He said he might actually do something if he wasn't hindered to by another regulating board, basically. Nowotny said he seems to be pretty upbeat about improving his property and not being one to bulldoze them like Clark maybe or somebody. He said it seems like it has been helter-skelter. Nowotny said just that example of that white building on the corner being contributing is unreal, since half his porch is gone, basically. He said there are no architectural elements left on his basically, except for his nice wood round pillars on the porch, of course. He said he doesn't have any of his rails left and does not have anymore of the ticky tacky stuff that was from the old ages basically on there anymore. Jackie Briqqs said she is the Director of the Friends of Historic Preservation. She said some very important points have been raised about the boundaries of the proposed College Hill Conservation District. Briggs stated that she is sure the boundaries will be looked at in the multiple meetings to come. Briggs said there are dozens of members of her organization who live around this neighborhood and in this neighborhood who support historic preservation and would be for the conservation district, given that the boundaries might be looked at more closely. She said it is something that really adds to the character of what is trying to grow downtown, as Iowa City is an historical, interesting place to live. Briggs stated that this whole area is really a part of that for those who come to visit the City. She said she hoped this is something that will go through in good time, after it is looked at very closely. Briggs said she and the Board of Directors of Friends of Historic Preservation are in support of this conservation district. Jim Walters said he had some small concerns about the issue of New Pioneer and Ralston Creek and the dividing line the Commission has drawn here. He said there are some particular issues about the railroad right-of-way that was vacated through here that apparently belongs to New Pioneer Co-op. Walters said he formerly served on the Board of the New Pioneer Co-op for four years. He said the Co-op was assessed the cost of removing trees from Ralston Creek by the City of Iowa City to the tune of quite a few hundred dollars that he disputed prior to learning that the Co-op owns that little chunk, the little white triangle on the map. Waiters said the Commission has essentially put some of the Co-op's property in the district and some out of the district, that little chunk in the backyard that apparently belong to New Pioneer Co-op. He said as a member of the Co-op and a former board member, he would really like to see the Co-op involved in the decision-making and brought into this, because there are some really issues about the value of the property if you put parts of it in an historic district and parts of it outside. Walters said he's always felt the Co-op should be able to access through that corridor that right now is closed offto it. He said if it is legally the Co-op property and the Co-op is assessed by the City for maintenance of it and things, then the Co- op should be able to use it. Walters said he had a concern about why the line didn't run down Van Buren and why the Co-op wasn't just put in the district. He said if the property is going to be excluded out of the district, then all of the Co-op property should be excluded out of the district. He said these are complicated issues, but they need to be resolved. Public discussion closed, McCafferty said at this point someone could make a motion to proceed with the proposal, as presented, a motion to amend it to revise the boundaries, a motion to table the proposal to re-look at the boundaries and have another public hearing, or a motion to completely table the proposal and not propose a conservation district. McCallum said he is a new member of the Commission; he said he has looked at this, and it has some implications that he was not aware of that he would like to discuss with the Commission at some point. MOTION: McCallum moved to table the proposal for the College Hill Conse~ation District to give the Commission the opportunity to review the boundaries and the guidelines. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 7 McCallum said he is empathetic to why the CB2 area was included in this. He said he was not part of that decision-making process, so he would like that at least looked at. McCallum said he owns an historical property on College Street, the old sanitarium building. He said he has 1,800 square feet of frontage on College Street on a double lot. McCallum questioned whether he could rebuild on the existing footprint if his building burned down. He questioned why that was put into the guidelines, because this would expand the guidelines for the College Green District as well. McCallum said he has every intention of preserving his building, but he is not certain, if this were to pass, if he could rebuild the existing building as is. Enloe seconded the motion. Gunn said he is in favor of the motion to reconsider the boundaries, as well as everything else that has been said at the public hearing. He said this is the second meeting; the first meeting was called about six weeks before. Gunn said there was not a lot of input at that time; this is the first meeting at which the Commission has had a lot of people in attendance. Licht said she did not receive notification of the first meeting, or she would have been in attendance. McCafferty said the first meeting was an informal neighborhood meeting. She said typically, the way the City puts together its mailing list is from water bills. McCafferty said that most often, the water bills go to the landlords. She said she put together the mailing list in that manner for the neighborhood meeting. McCafferty said, following that, it was determined that most of those notices did not get to the actual property owners. She said the mailing list for this particular and formal public hearing was compiled after she looked at every single property, based upon building permit and tax information, to insure that the notices went to the owner. Dennis Schintler said he lives at 1033 East Burlington Street, and his notice was sent to his duplex at 1217 East Burlington Street, eight houses away, to his rental tenants so that he never received it. He said he did know about the meeting, because he also lives in this area. He asked to have his address changed to his mailing address at 1033 East Burlington Street. Schintler asked if owners would be notified of future meetings. McCafferty responded that owners will be notified of future meetings; they will be notified if the public hearing is continued and will be notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. She said that if this goes to the City Council, the notification will be published in the newspaper and listed on the web site; a specific letter will not be sent for that action. McCafferty recommended at this point that the Commission leave the public hearing open and continue it at the next meeting on the second Thursday in November. Regarding the questions about the guidelines, Gunn said that if a new structure is built on the property, the 1,200 square feet on the facade applies for a new property being built. He said the 1,200 square feet figure comes from the character of the neighborhood. Gunn said most of the structures within the neighborhood fall within that 1,200 square feet, so a new one would be. He said for rebuilding, that is not square footage, that is in elevation, that is, a street elevation of 1,200 square feet; it is not for a floor plan. Concerning rebuilding, Gunn said as long as a very small percentage, he believed it was 5%, of the building remains, then it can be rebuilt on the footprint if it burns down. Walter t(o~)sa, 713 Iowa Avenue, said, regarding his building on Jefferson Street, he was told initially by the City that because it was burned beyond the value of the improvement, he could not rebuild the same building without bringing it up in all Code respects. He said the guy doing the work took it to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which overruled and said as long as the frame and foundation were there, the building was not destroyed 100%, and Kopsa did have a right to rebuild it. Kopsa asked if this historic conservation overlay would interfere with the right to reconstruct an existing building exactly the way it was before it was burned. He asked if a newer building, perhaps with vinyl siding and all of that sod of stuff, if it burned, could be rebuilt the way it was. He said it could be done if the property were not part of this historic conservation district and asked if the historic conservation designation would change that. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 8 Gunn said, to his knowledge, that is something that has not been done before or anticipated. He said this was an issue with some other properties, and it was established at meetings that if a building burned, it could be rebuilt, and that was in historic districts. Gunn said the Commission has not ever had this happen or run across this situation or anticipated it to put it in explicit language. He said it is not, as far as he knew, a decided issue. Gunn said if the question is if vinyl siding can be put on a brick house in an historic district, he would say no, because that has been anticipated and guidelines have been written for it. He said regarding the question about rebuilding a modern structure, he did not have the answer. Kopsa asked what would happen if a building in the CB2 zone burns down and someone wants to construct a commercial building on the property. Gunn said that has been anticipated. He said as the boundaries are drawn now, if the building is completely destroyed, the new property would have to conform to the guidelines. Gunn said that obviously creates some problems for that zoning. Kopsa said, if the Commission is going to go to a discussion of the boundaries, he owns a property in the 700 block of Iowa Avenue. He said to the best of his knowledge, there are no owner-occupied properties on either the 600 or 700 block of Iowa Avenue. Kopsa asked if people in a certain part of this district don't want to be in it, could they put together a petition and would that have any effect. Maharry said this is the public forum to address that, and the same is true of the opposite: if 100% of the people in the district wanted the designation, this would be the public forum. Kopsa asked if property owners did make their feelings known whether they do or do not want to be part of the district, will that affect the Commission's decision. Maharry confirmed that and said the comments and any proposal will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will have access to the discussion and also the minutes of this meeting. Enloe said there is a difference between an historic district and a conservation district in terms of the guidelines. He said the criteria for being included in an historic district are much stricter, which means the Commission would hope to get neighborhoods that are more fully intact. Enloe stated that conservation districts have looser entry requirements, but they also have looser guidelines as to what can be done to which buildings within the district. Kopsa said that was not clear to him, and it was his understanding that the guidelines were the same in the conservation district as they are in the historic preservation district. McCafferty said the site and scale guidelines that were written specifically for the College Hill Neighborhood apply to all the districts. She said there may be some things that are specific to one district and not another. McCafferty said the College Hill guidelines apply to everything, but there are some variations within those guidelines based upon the district the property is located in. Kopsa asked what the variations would entail and how would it be different to own a property in the conservation district than in the actual historic district. Enloe said the issue of vinyl siding was raised. He stated that vinyl siding is not being permitted on structures within an historic district. Enloe said vinyl siding can be applied to certain buildings within a conservation district. Kopsa said he was at the original meeting and was told that vinyl siding would not be allowed in a conservation district. Enloe said that would apply to a contributing structure. Kopsa asked if a building were deemed a contributing structure if the rules are basically the same. Gunn said there are a number of districts. He showed a copy of the guidelines and said they are available at the Planning Office and on the web site. Gunn said what Kopsa received were the district guidelines that would apply throughout. Gunn added that there are a number of much more specific guidelines regarding materials and details that apply in all the historic districts, including Lucas Street, Governor, all of Longfellow, Summit, and Brown. He said in the past the historic districts have only been in owner- occupied neighborhoods, but in the Governor/Lucas Conservation District, there are a lot of rental properties. Gunn said rental properties are included. He said the guidelines do not distinguish between rental and owner-occupied. Gunn said there are differences in a conservation district from an historic district, and there are differences between contributing properties and non-contributing properties. He said it all sounds very complicated, but the reason for that is the Commission has tried to be less restrictive where it could be Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 9 less restrictive, and that created the complication. Gunn said it would have been easier to say that everything in the districts should be done to these certain standards, but the Commission is realistic enough to see that some properties don't contribute, and there is no point in making them look like historic properties if they are not. He said the Commission tried to be as reasonable as it could be, which added some complications. Gunn said the guidelines are available and not a carefully guarded secret. Gunn said 15 to 20 years ago, when the districts were first being designated, no one knew what would really happen. He said that at least now, what will govern a district is pretty much in black and white, so at least an owner can look and see and decide for himself what is good. Gunn said in historic districts, on average, the Historic Preservation Commission looks at a property every fourteen years for work to be done. He said the Commission is not there all the time telling an owner to do. Gunn added that the Commission only comes into play when a building permit that requires a certain amount of work is applied for, and on average, that is once every fourteen years. Gunn said for the most part, the owners come away from the Commission meetings feeling that they have benefited from the Commission's input. He said the Commission does sometimes impose things that might not otherwise have been done, and this is another layer of regulation, the purpose of which is to maintain the character of historic districts. Gunn said he did not want anyone to think this is a terrible burden that you live with all the time, because it just isn't so. He said the Commission only comes into play when an owner is making significant changes to the exterior. Nila Haug said in other towns that she is familiar with, when it wants to preserve historic houses, the City will offer some kind of incentive, such as Iow interest loans. She said instead of coming in and imposing things on them, they encourage them to keep them up, which helps people and might help in the situation of conservation or historic districts, whether they are rental properties or not. Haug said coming in and putting this zone on saying you can't do anything with it won't help, because people can't do anything and won't do it, and they'll become more slummy rather than looking better, in her opinion. Dennis Nowotny said he could have sworn that they were told that the tax records were used to figure out who the owners were so they would get notices, and now he has heard that the information for the first meeting came from the water bills. He said he has been through this before with Planning and Zoning when they downzoned the North Side. Nowotny said there was a petition signed by the entire 200 block of Bloomington Street. He said three-fourths of the owners were there, and it is pinned between two commercial areas. Nowotny said it literally is a block that is commercial on one side with Pagliai's and the other is RM-44, and they had every owner's approval on what they wanted there. He said that was like blowing in the wind and absolutely did not affect it one iota. Nowotny said they might as well have just given away the property; there was no effect whatsoever. He said there is no due process; this just marches on because basically, City staff wants it, and that is all there is to it. Nowotny said if anyone has any thoughts that any petitioning has any effect whatsoever, forget it. McCafferty suggested that the rest of the public comments wait until the continuation of the public hearing. Maharry asked if Commission members had any further comments. Carlson said he agreed with Gunn that because so many property owners apparently did not hear about the first meeting, it would be a very good idea to table this for a later meeting to discuss their concerns. Maharry commented that the first meeting was not required; it was a neighborhood information session and not a public forum for public discussion on the record at all. He said it was an information-gathering and information-dispersing question and answer session. Maharry said there was no intention to subvert anything. He added that he agreed with the motion to review the guidelines and boundaries by continuing the public hearing to the next meeting. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Gunn moved to continue the public hearing regarding the proposed College Hill Conservation District to the Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting on the second Thursday in November at 7 p.m. Carlson seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 7- Longfellow and Moffitt Cottaqes Historic Districts Amendment. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 10 McCafferty said this is a proposal set forth by the Commission that would combine the Moffitt Cottage Historic District with the Longfellow Historic District. She said the purpose of this is primarily to reduce the burden on the Historic Preservation Commission. McCafferty said the Historic Preservation Commission is required by State law to have a representative from each historic district. She said that currently in the Moffitt Cottage District there are only five properties; therefore, locating a representative has been difficult. McCafferty said the Commission has been without a representative from this district for at least a year at this time. McCafferty said now that the Longfellow District, which is contiguous to the Moffitt Cottage District, has been designated, the Commission would like to combine the two districts. She said the Longfellow Neighborhood Guidelines would be revised by this proposal to include guidelines for the Moffitt Cottage National Register Historic Preservation District. McCafferty said both the Longfellow Area and the Moffitt Cottage District are National Register of Historic Places districts. She said this proposal would not affect the National Register designations. Public hearing: There was no discussion. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Enloe moved to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission an amendment to the Moffitt Cottage and Historic Preservation District Ordinances to combine the Moffitt Cottage and Longfellow Historic Districts into one district. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Maharry thanked Gunn for all of the work he has done on the district guidelines. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 718 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET: McCafferty said the owner of the property, Barbara Buss, was in attendance to answer questions. McCafferty said additional elevations were provided to Commission members before the meeting. McCafferty said the owners have outlined a number of projects proposed for this particular property. She said the first project would be to replace an existing bay picture window with a more appropriate, three- sided bay window, as shown in the elevation. McCafferty said the one modification to the elevation is that the windows in the bay on that elevation wiJr actually be the same height as the adjacent windows that are already existing. She said there will therefore be much taller windows, and the height of the roof will be tall enough to accommodate that. McCafferty stated that the second project proposed is to replace the two windows on the north side of the kitchen with three windows so that the area between the two windows that is solid would actually be a third window. She distributed photographs showing the windows. McCafferty said the third project being proposed concerns the small, older addition on the structure that is a sort of porch/mudroom. She said the owners propose to remove the door and move it to the other side where the steps are and then extend the stoop to have a porch/landing area at that door. McCafferty said there would be a rail and two by two balusters on the landing. McCafferty said the fourth project would replace the windows and the door on the mudroom with all windows, as shown in one of the elevations. Regarding the south elevation of the bay window, Smothers said it looks as though it has been drawn showing brackets or short columns as supports. Buss said she thought of just putting a vertical lattice apron around that part to tie it in to the part that will have to go around that new little porch. She said she was open to suggestions about this. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 11 Buss said there is the option of cantilevering that out, but that would still leave a gap. She said whether it is supported or not, something will have to be done with the fact that it is coming out two feet beyond where the existing foundation is. Buss said there never was a bay there; she is not restoring anything. She said there was a little box window there, which she doesn't care for, and the objective is to get the maximum amount of light. Buss said they could put in another foundation as an aesthetic thing, although it would not be needed structurally. She said they will have to put some sort of lattice that goes with the stairs and thought they could tie it in. McCallum said he had a similar bay that just projected over with no foundation underneath it, and it looks fine; he landscaped underneath it. Buss said if it is at issue, she could do it either way. McCafferty said she might have architectural details for something like this, and she would make these available to Buss' contractor. McCallum said this looks like a nice plan. Enloe said none of the changes are on the street facade and they are nicely sheltered behind other pads. Buss replied that to her knowledge, she would not be taking anything that was part of the original house. She said even the windows on the south side of the kitchen are new. MOTION: Smothers moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for four projects on a house located at 718 South Summit Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Carlson asked if anyone wanted to have this subject to some kind of foundation for the bay. Smothers said if it is not needed, it would be her personal preference to do it without the supports. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, subject to Carlson's correction of typographical errors. Smothers seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte shared on ci(yn~pcdln~nuteslhpc/hpc10-24~O2doc MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2002 -6:30PM CIVIC CENTER- LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Lori Bears, Amy Correia, Rick House, Jerry Anthony, Mark Edwards, Matt Hayek, Jayne Sandier, Morgan Hoosman Members Absent: John Deeth Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Stephen Long City Council Members Present: None Others Present: Christina Canganelli, Patti Santangelo, Herb Hethcote, Wanda & Phil Daniel, Jesse Burns, Alaina Welch, James Thomas, Marilyn Belman Call to Order Rick House called the meeting to order at 6:30PM Public/Member Discussion of Items not on the Ac~enda Matt Hayek was introduced and welcomed as the new commission member. Election of Officers Nominations & Elections (Chair & Vice Chair)- House nominated Correia for Chair. Correia accepted the nomination. MOTIQN: House moved that Correia be elected Chair. Edwards seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0 (Deeth, Hoosman & Sandier absent). Anthony nominated House for Vice Chair. House accepted the nomination. MOTION: Anthony moved that House be elected Vice Chair. Edwards seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0 (Deeth, Hoosman & Sandier absent). Approval of the Sept 12 Minutes MOTION: Bears moved that the minutes of Sept. 12, 2002 be approved as submitted. Anthony seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0 (Deeth, Hoosman & Sandier absent). Sandier arrives. Monitorinq Reports MECCA--Transitional Housing (House)- House read from a memo from Ron Berg. He informed the committee that they had taken possession of the building August 2002. Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Furniture Project (Sandier)- Sandier reported that she met with Cris Kinkead, who administers the program. They just moved into their new facility at the landfill and have a new shed for receiving. Families are asked to identify material needs before they arrive on the site. The program helps 10-15 families a month. There are about 35 furniture projects in the US, some OVIP connected, and many charge a nominal fee for the furniture. She suggested that it might be appropriate for this project to charge a small fee, as well. They are currently backed-up 3-4 weeks on furniture pick- up. There is some question of the City taking over the program. All funds used. The $4,500 went mostly to administrative costs; volunteers are needed. United Action for Youth--Facility Acquisition (Hoosman)- Long reported in Hoosman's absence that they have purchased the space at the new parking ramp on Iowa Ave. They are currently fundraising so that they can build out the space. Housing and Community Development (HCDC) October 17, 2002 Page 2 Public Meeting - Review of the 2001-2006 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS) Long began by saying that this is the third public meeting on this subject (meetings were also held at the Local Homeless Coordinating Board & at the Broadway Neighborhood Center; both were well attended). The City believes it is important to review CITY STEPS annually because they feel it important to receive timely community input for strategies, needs, and priorities, especially when they review funding applications. Correia opened the pubfic hearing: Herb Hethcote- said that he is on the Board of Directors of Emergency Housing. He pointed out places on pages 96, 92 & 89 where the data was either misleading or unclear. He wanted to make it clear that there is a great demand for emergency housing from June-August. He emphasized the need for flexibility in granting practices, to which Long answered that they already are flexible. Long said that there will be a change made to page 89 so that needs are broken down by shelter type. Hoosman arrives. Crissy Canganelli- She pointed out that nowhere does it show how many people were turned away. She asked that more accurate counting practices be employed and that the narrative portion of the text show that between 1980-2000 there was a 35% increase in the population of Johnson City, but a 25% decrease in general use homeless beds. She pointed out that urgency is missing from this document and needs to be added. Wanda & Phil Daniel- Wanda informed the committee that she is a 12 year resident, a city employee and a mother of three. What she needs help with is finding an affordable house. She asked if the committee would be able to help her in this endeavor. Correia- She answered that the committee is currently discussing the document regarding city funding priorities. So, this public hearing was held to pinpoint those priorities. Daniel- said that their landlord is Saratoga Springs and has been for six years. There is no room for their kids and parking is overcrowded. There was a flood in August, which made matters worse, but still they are grateful for what home they have. They would like to purchase a home so that their 10, 12 and 14 year old kids can live in a better environment. The barriers they see to buying a home are: 1. Credit ($6,000 in debt) 2. No extra money to save; living hand to mouth 3. High cost of living in Johnson County Hightshoe- she said that these same issues/barriers were brought up at the Broadway Center. One participant suggested that financial education would enable to her to begin working on better credit practices that would enable her to obtain housing. Belman- pointed out that handicapped/eLder accessibility Ls necessary, as is affordability. James Thomas- stated that he is a 20+ year resident and ran HUD programs in FLorida before coming to Iowa City. He disagreed with page 89, paragraph 3; need to change attitudes. Currently student housing is favored over Iow-income housing--this needs to change. Biases against lower-income individuals need to be combated. He said that there is a new Housing Counseling Program in Iowa City and he will be in touch with the Daniels and will try to help them in their house search. Jesse Burns- referring to the September 10, 2002 Nasby memo, he said that cost per unit standards will set a benchmark that drives down opportunities to buy lots in favorable locations; need to look at the big picture. Belman- added that there needs to be an integration of disabled and poor into the regular community. Inclusionary zoning would be a good way to do this. Housing and Community Development (HCDC) October 17, 2002 Page 3 Hightshoe- noted that inclusionary zoning has been suggested for Iowa City, but historically there has not been enough support to pass it citywide. This practice will be researched further by staff. Thomas- suggested that there be a focus on service for individuals and families (service could include meals, bus tickets, etc.). He said that page 88 is misleading about effective services. Correia- summarized that the data needs to be re-researched (need to get non-duplicated numbers) and re-worked to better reflect community needs. Need to add information on the population increase, as well as new poverty data. There is a need to address negative community attitudes towards poor and disabled persons. Cost per unit standards need to be based on the type of building and the location. Housing stock needs to be affordable for Iow-income owners and renters and needs to be integrated within the community. Need to reflect that there is economic revenue set aside (9%) based on the total CDBG/HOME allocation last year. Recommended CDBG & HOME be considered separately since used separately. Long- noted that this could be recommended to the City Council, and can break it out into the narrative of CITY STEPS. Anthony- commented that this report is a very good effort. In the long term, need to work towards an update based on the most recent census information; data must be standardized. Right now, the problem is that we are effectively looking at old needs, new money and new supply--must have better data. Though this data is currently presented well, it could be done better. Need to show data on housing, need, supply and market together to better appreciate the numbers and need. Need to go further than saying what the money need is and show what we currently have. Then people can feel that the problem is manageable and not nebulous. In short, the data must be combined in a better fashion. At the beginning of the document, need text about why affordable housing is a priority--effects individuals, the city, the economy, etc. As for strategy, Anthony suggested: 1. Housing supply--detail city initiative supply more 2. Show how financial institutions are doing in this city. 3. Try to allocate housing for education programs about affordable housing Hightshoe- noted that the City Council has a Public Hearing on Nov. 5 and they will vote on Nov. 19 if necessary. If HCDC wants to make a recommendation they need to do so at this meeting for council consideration on Nov. 5. Correia closed the public hearing at 7:48PM. MOTION: Anthony moved that the City Council reduce economic development set aside monies to approximately $90,00 by using 9% of Community Development Block Grant funds instead of ali resources--separate it out and reduce set aside. Hoosman seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0 with Hayek abstaining because of lack of background on the subject. Census information will be updated, but not by next month. Anthony suggested that Housing Need software would be useful; Long agreed, but said this would be costly, but staff could try to develop a similar program in Excel. Anthony and possibly Edwards will attend the Council Hearing. It was commented that it would be a good idea to have a commission presence if the Council has questions. Old Business Hightshoe reported that all comments from the last meeting were incorporated into CAPERS. Some things that the committee expressed concerns about were denial reasons for different ethnic categories-- Hightshoe reviewed denial reasons for GICHF applicants from the last quarter, a summary was included in the HCDC packet. In the future, will request numbers and reasons for denial. It was noted that many denials were due to insufficient information. Welch noted that Burns & Burns doesn't go through approval processes until a unit becomes vacant. Housing and Community Development (HCDC) October 17, 2002 Page 4 Housing Criteria Discussion--Recommendation to Council Burns reiterated his opinion that the proposed criteria makes it more expensive to do affordable housing, which will lead to less affordable housing. He quoted the HOME purpose from the website: "The purposes of the HOME program in the federal regulation are to extend and strengthen padnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and non-profit organizations in the production of and operation of housing affordable to Iow income and moderate income families. Eligible and ineligible investments, participating jurisdictions are given the discretion to invest HOME funds as equity investments, interest bearing or non-interest bearing loans or advances, interest subsidies or other forms of assistance that HUD finds to be consistent with the purposes of the law." He said that Burns and Burns is doing its best to be a gap financer, but this criteria makes it more like a bank~oesn't meet the objectives of HOME. Welch said that she couldn't understand the interest rate disparity for non- and for-profit companies working on affordable housing. Costs are often similar between the two, so all you do is push the for- profits out. Welch and Burns emphasized that for-profits are not making a lot of money in the affordable housing industry; they do it because they feel it is important, not profitable. In their opinion, this proposed criteria should be struck down. Correia agreed that CITY STEPS seeks to decrease barriers to affordable housing and that this memo increases the number of barriers. Anthony asked that staff research other communities who receive HOME dollars or provide housing assistance. Hightshoe stated she would research how other entitlement cities review housing projects. The commission will formulate a recommendation at the next meeting; they will also revisit the policy for re-capturing funds. Adiournment MOTION: Hayek moved that the meeting be adjourned. Hoosman seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:38PM ***The next meeting will be held on November 21, 2002.*** shared on c~t ynt~pcd/min ut e~/h cdc/h cdc I 0-17~)2 doc FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2002, 4:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER, 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Gary Haman, Doug DuCharme, Tim Fehr, Anna Buss, Tom Werderitsch (arrives 4:20), Wayne Maas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hermes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Jann Ream (Code Enforce- ment Asst. acting as minute taker), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall) OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Frantz, Kevin Hochstedter, Gene Nissely (Frantz Construction), Paul Anderson (MMS Consultants) Steven Kanner (Council member - arrives at 4:55) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:03 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from September 9, 2002 meeting were discussed. MOTION: Buss moved to accept the minutes. Haman seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Appeal Inspector's (Fire Marshall) interpretation of the Code / Request for use of alternate material or methods of construction. (1619,1623,1627 Clifford Lane) Bill Frantz explained that Clifford Lane is a cul de sac street and the turnaround at the end will accommodate all of the Iowa City fire trucks except for the large ladder truck. The ladder truck would be able to get to a fire and be available to fight the fire but it would not be able to turn around to leave - it would have to back out the entire length of Clifford Lane. The Fire Marshall determined that because of this problem, the three buildings proposed for Clifford Lane would have to be sprinkled. Frantz estimated that the initial cost to install sprinkling systems in the three buildings would be $48,000 and the yearly cost to maintain these systems would be $1260. Frantz proposed that in lieu of installing sprinkling systems in these buildings that they would build a two hour fire wall between the dwelling units essentially making them single family dwellings. Frantz introduced Paul Anderson as his engineering consultant who could answer questions. DuCharme asked if there was no way to enlarge the turnaround area of the cul de sac. Anderson replied that the turnaround was as large as it could possibly be given the subdivision parameters. Buss asked if Clifford Lane could be opened up to Scott Boulevard. 2 Anderson stated that the City had not wanted Clifford Lane to access to Scott Blvd. Jensen stated that there were listed exceptions from the access road requirements in Section 902.2.1 of the 2000 International Fire Code; one of these exceptions was that there would be no more than two (2) Group R, Division 3 (single family dwellings) occupancies. Jensen said that the three 3- unit buildings with two hour fire wall separations would comprise nine (9) Group R, Division 3 occupancies and therefore the exception would not apply. Dulek stated that Section 902.2.1 did not apply anyway because an access road did exist; so, therefore, the exceptions for the requirement of an access road were not applicable. Hennes wondered, since Scott Boulevard was within 150ft of the building, why Scott could not also be considered an access road. Jensen said that there were trees and bushes forming a barrier and the Fire Department was not going to go though that to fight a fire. Hennes reiterated that the code only required an access road if the building was more than 150 ft. from an approved route; the code did not refer to obstacles in that 150 ft. Jensen disagreed. Jensen pointed out that Section 902.2.2.2 listed the specifications for access roads and that Public works and Engineering had determined actual dimensions for these guide lines based on the existing apparatus of the Iowa City Fire Depadment. The turnaround at the end of Clifford Lane does not meet those guidelines. Hochstedler stated that because this subdivision was an OPDH (Overlay Planned Development), it came under the review of the fire department. If it was a standard single family dwelling subdivision, then the fire department would not review it. Jensen said that that was not the case; the fire department reviews the preliminary plats for all new subdivisions. Discussion occurred concerning the advantages of a two hour fire wall. Jensen pointed out that Clifford Lane is a private street that is 761 ft long and only 22 ft wide and that is not only important that a truck be able to position itself at a fire but also that it be able to get out quickly if a second call comes in. Jensen stated that from 1/1/02 to 9/1/02 the fire department had responded to 2,082 emergency calls and there were 317 overlapping incidents. Jensen said that in Iowa, there has been successful litigation against municipalities for failing to provide a certain level of fire protection. He stated that Board should ask itself what it could cost the City if an incident occurred. Dulek disagreed and told the Board that the issue of liability should not be factored into their decision. Buss asked Frantz if any homeowner had ever requested a sprinkling system for any of the structures his company had built. Frantz said no. Jensen explained that he had called some sprinkling companies to get cost estimates. A 13-D system would be allowed and although the backflow devices would still be required, a separate water line would not. The estimates he had received were between $10,000 - $11,000 per building. Jensen said he did not think the appeal met any of the standards to allow an exception. Dulek stated that the legal issues needed to be clarified. She stated that the first thing that needed to be determined was if the fire department actually had the authority to require a sprinkling system in this instance. Dulek pointed out the section in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code - Section 1001.9 - that stated the fire chief can require additional safeguards to a structure such as a sprinkling system if the access for fire apparatus is determined by the fire official to be unduly difficult. Dulek said it was her understanding that the requirement for sprinkling that was delineated in the issued building permit was based on Section 1001.9 of the 1997 UFC - that the fire department had determined that Clifford Lane would create an unduly difficult situation for fire fighting apparatus. Dulek said that what the Board had to determine was if it was a reasonable interpretation on the part of the fire department to say that the turnaround issue created an unduly difficult situation for fire fighting apparatus. If the Board determined the interpretation was correct, then the appeal should be denied on that basis. Jensen disagreed going back to the listed exceptions in Section 902.2.1 and the fact that the turnaround does not meet the approved specifications for turning the ladder truck. Discussion occurred concerning how many of the emergency calls were fire calls and how it is determined which apparatus goes where and which stations respond to calls. Dulek reiterated that the required access section with its listed exceptions (902.2.1) is not the part of the fire code that gives the fire department authority to require sprinkling in a structure that would not normally require it. The requirement for sprinkling in the issued building permit was a result of the fire department's conclusion that, because the turnaround at the end of Clifford Lane would not allow the large ladder truck to turn around, it made the access for fire apparatus unduly difficult per Section 1001.9 of the 1997 UFC. Dulek stated that the first issue before the Board was to determine if it was a reasonable interpretation that Clifford Lane presented an unduly difficult situation for fire apparatus. The second issue was the addition of two hour fire walls. Anderson said that this was presented as a way to satisfy the "additional fire protection" listed in exception 2 of Section 902.2.1. Dulek repeated that the Board was not discussing whether or not an access road was required - the road exists - the question was what authority the fire department had to require that the structure be sprinkled. Werderitsch asked for direction in determining what test of reasonableness should be applied. Dulek stated that all opinions discussed in the meeting could be included. Discussion occurred as to how the fire department responds to fires - which stations, how many trucks, which trucks etc. MOTION: Werderitsch moved that the Board accept the fire department's interpretation that the turnaround at the end of Cliiford Lane made access for fire apparatus unduly difficult and could therefore require the buildings on Clifford Lane be sprinkled. Seconded by Fehr. DISCUSSION: Werderitsch stated that although he did make the motion in order to get the issue on the table, he did not feel that the situation was really that bad. He felt that the large ladder truck could either access the building from Scott B[vd or Clifford Lane; and, although having to back up several hundred feet on Clifford Lane was not ideal, it could be done. He stated he was going to vote against the motion. Haman stated that he saw no problem with access for the truck. Haman said that if another call came in while the ladder truck was needed at that location, they were not going to pull the ladder truck off of the fire anyway. DuCharme stated that in his opinion, access includes a round trip - both getting there and getting out. VOTE: The vote was 5-2 to defeat the motion with Fehr and DuCharme voting to accept the motion and Maas, Haman, Roffman, Buss, and Werderitsch voting to defeat the motion. Motion defeated. Ream asked for clarification on what exactly would result from the defeated motion. Dulek stated that because the Board had determined that the situation was not unduly difficult for fire fighting apparatus, the fire department could not require sprinkling. Therefore, Section 902.2.1 was not applicable to the appeal and the request for alternate materials and/or construction was not needed. Hermes asked, since this appeal was specifically for the three dwelling units located in one building, if this motion could be extended to the remaining buildings proposed for Clifford Lane. Dulek said no. Roffman stated that it shouldn't really come up again since the Board had determined that the fire department did not have the authority to require sprinkling. Dulek stated that the other buildings were not before the Board at this time but it could be determined if they actually had to come up before Board. Werderitsch said the determination would be the same but maybe technically they would have to go through the process. (City council member Steven Kanner arrives) Discussion, and possible recommendation to Council, reqardinq an amendment to the City Code Title 14, Entitled "Unified Development Code," Chapter 5, Entitled "Buildin,q and Housinq," Article M, Entitled "Appeals" to include a fire professional on the Board of Appeals. This issue was discussed previously by the Board and the vote was 3-3 so it is back as an agenda item with all seven members of the Board. Roffman stated that the request was to add a fire professional to the Board of Appeals. He wondered since they were discussing this issue 4 perhaps they should think about other areas of expertise that might also be helpful to include on the Board. He thought that if they were going to change the make up of the Board, then they should look at the make up of the entire Board. Hennes stated that if the two "at-large" positions were eliminated and replaced with a specific required member that it might become difficult to fill all of the positions on the Board. He stated that there were vacancies on other Iowa City Boards and Commissions and those positions were being difficult to fill. Werderitsch asked the other Board members what their position was since he was the Board member who had not been present at the meeting that produced the 3-3 tie. Buss stated that she voted against it because she did not feel it was necessary; and, if expertise was needed, then the fire department provided it. DuCharme stated that he had voted for it because it would be helpful given the complexity of some of the issues that have come before them. Maas stated that he felt the "at-large positions" were necessary and that the criteria defining a "fire professional" were too broad. Haman stated that he felt a fire professional would be helpful on the Board since they had just instituted licensing for fire and sprinkler installers. Fehr thought the change was too drastic and that he also wanted more specific criteria to define what a "fire professional" was. Roffman said that he saw both sides of the issue and perhaps they should add more members to the Board in order to provide more representation. Hennes said that he felt a nine member board would present logistical problems and pointed out that there was nothing preventing the "at large" position from being filled by a fire professional. Jensen stated that he didn't think that was quite fair since builders, plumbers, and electricians were specifically represented. Werderitsch felt it was important to have two "at-large" members on the Board. He was unsure of creating a larger Board. He asked Jensen if the department was more interested in having an expert on the Board who could help with code questions or if they were more concerned about the fact that the latest decisions on the Board had not been in favor of the fire department. Discussion occurred concerning enlargement of the Board to nine members and the size of other City boards. Roffman asked Kanner if the City had problems filling Board positions. Kanner responded that he did not think they had had any problems filling board positions - that they had been able to pull from a large pool of qualified people. MOTION: Haman moved that a fire professional be added to the Board of Appeals replacing one of the "at-large" positions. DuCharme seconded. DISCUSSION: Werderitsch stated that he would vote against it simply because he felt it was more important to keep the two "at-large" members. He added, however, that he did think it was a good idea to add a fire professional to the Board and that the Board should investigate options on how to do that. Fehr agreed. VOTE: Motion was defeated 7-0. Werderitsch requested that the Board start investigating the possibility of adding two more people to the Board, perhaps one of which would be fire professional. Dulek stated that this could be added as an agenda item for the next meeting but the Board would have to vote to do that. MOTION: Werderitsch moved to add an agenda item to the next meeting to start discussing possible enlargement of the Board of Appeals. Buss seconded. VOTE~: Motion was approved 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Maas asked if Dulek had investigated what was proper for Board members to discuss with appellants. Dulek stated that if an appellant asked to speak with a Board member about an issue, that member should refer them to her. It was acceptable for Board members to discuss procedural and other like matters such as code revisions among themselves but issues relating to appeals should only be discussed at the meeting. She stated she would put together a written policy for them. 5 ADJOURNMENT: Haman moved to adjourn the meeting. Buss seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:24 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chairperson Date FINAL/APPROVED ~ MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002, 4:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER, 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Gary Haman, Tim Fehr, Anna Buss Tom Werderitsch, Doug DuCharme MEMBERS ABSENT: Wayne Maas STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall) OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Porter (The Summit - 10 S. Clinton) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:06 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the September 17, 2002 meeting were discussed. MOTION: Haman moved to accept the minutes. Buss seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Appeal the decision of the Fire Chief because of an incorrect interpretation of the code. (10 S. Clinton) Hennes explained that the Fire Chief had made a decision to not allow a portable heating device at The Summit bar at 10 S. Clinton Street. Mike Porter (owner) was appealing that decision. Dulek stated that she had hoped to have some information to the Board prior to the meeting to help with this issue; but, because it had been difficult to reconcile the two applicable code sections, she had not been able to get the legal issues resolved until a few hours before the meeting. She explained Section 603.4 of the 2000 International Fire Code states that portable unvented fuel-fired heating equipment shall be prohibited in certain occupancies. Dulek said that if the Board found that what Mr. Porter wants to use at The Summit is a portable unvented heating device and the occupancy of The Summit is one of the prohibited occupancies, the Board has no discretion and the device is prohibited since Section 603.4 provides a blanket prohibition. The second section that was cited by the Fire Chief was Section 603.6 of the 2000 International Fire Code which references those unvented fuel-fired heating devices at other occupancies than those listed in the previous section (603.4) and also refers to non-fuel-fired unvented heating devices. Dulek explained that if the Board determined that the device at the Summit was covered by 603.6, then there would be a basis for appeal since this section states that these devices are allowed at the discretion of the Fire Chief. She said that if the Board finds that there is no basis for the appeal then the fee should be refunded since Mr. Porter was given the understanding that he did have a basis for appeal. Roffman asked Hennes what the occupancy rating for The Summit was. Henries verified that it was an "A" occupancy which is one of the prohibited occupancies in Section 603.4. Mike Porter asked for verification of what is included by "in" when determining if this device is "in" the occupancy since this is an outdoor area. He also asked since this was venting directly to the outdoor air, is it really unvented? Hennes explained that since the area was covered by the second floor and surrounded on three sides by the walls of the building, this area did fall within the occupancy. Werderitsch asked that if this area was completely in the open would this be a different issue? Henries explained that it would be - that there could be different scenarios that would have to be looked at individually. Haman added that all areas of business would be included in the occupancy. Discussion occurred as what constituted a vented device. Hennes said that a device would have to have dedicated venting system. MOTION: Werderitsch moved that the appeal be denied because was no basis for appeal under Section 603.4 and that the application fee be refunded to Mr. Porter. Haman seconded. VOTE: Motion passed unopposed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS; ExParte Communication memorandum from Susan Dulek, Assistant City Attorney: Roffman stated the memo from Dulek basically spells out for Board members that any appeal issue can only be discussed at the hearing. Any code amendment issue can be discussed outside of appeals meetings. Jensen asked that the Board readdress the issue of required retro-fitting of sprinkling systems in fraternities and sororities. Jensen said he had some new information. The national chapter of Phi Kappa Theta was taking a pro active role in that they were requiring all of their chapter houses to fitted with sprinkling systems if they were not already sprinkled. Also the Associated Press was getting ready to do a series of stories on the issue due to the advocacy of the mother of a University of Missouri student who died in a fraternity fire. Roffman said that what he would like to see would be for notification to go out to all of the fraternities and sororities in Iowa City sometime before winter break (with a reminder in January) laying out the issue and setting a public input date at the February meeting. Werderitsch asked that notification be sent to all appropriate parties (like the housing corporations and alumni) and not just the chapter president. Jensen stated that he would put together a proposal that could go out with the notification. Hermes stated that at the next Board meeting he would put the issue of adjusting the make up of the Board on the agenda as long as all members would be present. Hermes stated that he had not put it on the agenda for this meeting because he knew there would not be a full board present. The next meeting was set for 12/2/2002. ADJOURNMENT: Buss moved to adjourn the meeting. Haman seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chairperson Date MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, October 17, 2002 5:00 PM - 2nd floor Conference Room Members Present: Linda Delisperger, Lisa Parker, Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, Jim Swaim Staff Present: Susan Craig, Martha Lubaroff Others: Joel Miller, Building Project Coordinator CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm AGENDA ITEM The only item on this special meeting agenda was awarding the contract for the cabling project. The public hearing was held in August. It was recommended that we not award the contract at our September meeting, c~arify some matters and call a special meeting to award a bid. Miller presented the Board with a memorandum from Ann Lewis, our telecommunications consultant in which she detailed her recommendations for documentation from our Iow bidder. He also included a spread sheet which detailed the documentation received from Cable Tech, Inc. as well as the other vendors who submitted bids. Cable Tech, the apparent Iow bidder, had left out a significant piece of equipment. They were not allowed to change their bid, but decided to proceed at the original quote. Their references were good and Miller recommended that the Board award the contract to them. Swaim moved to award the contract to Cable Tech, Inc. Dellsperger seconded the motion. There was some discussion. Parker called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously. ADdOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm Minutes taken by Martha Lubaroff Iowa .C.i . Pubhc Library MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING - 2® floor Conference Room THURSDAY, October 24, 2002 5:00 PM Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Shaner Magalh~es, Lisa Parker, Pat Schnack, Jesse Singerman, Jim Swaim Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Others: Joel Miller, Building Project Coordinator, Paul Harbor, Dawn's Hide & Bead Away CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION There was none. Our guest was there to listen to the discussion of renting retail space. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Swaim to approve the minutes of September 26, 2002. Seconded by Dellsperger. The motion was approved unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Miller gave the Board an update of the building project. Phase I move date has been pushed up to April 16. We plan to be closed to the public for two weeks. That time period will be needed to complete the second floor bathrooms, which require plumbing directly over the current Information Desk and the floor removed where compact discs are currently located, for the plumbing line. The work that has to be completed during those two weeks is crucial and two crews will work in the am and pm to get everything October ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda Item 3A October 24, 2002 Page 2 done. Moving will also be done during those two weeks. Staff will be at work. Miller described the photos in his handout. They show the work that the masons have begun on the west end. The windows are going in. The skylights have been demolished. Swaim encouraged library staff to plan for public announcements involving our closing down. He suggested that we incorporate other Johnson County libraries in the announcements, using this opportunity to demonstrate to the community that the libraries work together. Craig said it is our intention to do a public information piece and send it out about six weeks prior to closing. Singerman wondered if there was any advantage to starting now. Craig would prefer to wait until January to be sure that the dates remain the same, although we will begin to get the word out. County Budget Parker has spoken with some Supervisors, as did Swaim. Parker felt that during her conversation with Carol Thompson, she was able to provide information that would promote support of funding. However the financial constraints are even more difficult for the County than previously. Parker's impression was that there was hope on the part of the county that we could continue to deliver service for less money. Swaim spoke to Sally Stutsman about supporting library services. Craig explained that the Fact Sheet she put together was after a meeting with the other library directors of Johnson County public libraries was available at public service desks. The directors agreed to recommend to their Board that we all stand together. All were in favor of a combined meeting with the library boards and the supervisors. Parker said she would call other library board presidents. Parker recommended talking to people in the County recommending they talk or write to Supervisors. Dellsperger asked if the threat of cutting off library services has been raised. Swaim would prefer not to have to take an action that would deny, or charge residents for service. Another option that Swaim raised was that we might reduce services across the board but continue to serve County residents which seemed inequitable to Iowa City taxpayers. Library Directors will meet with Terrence Neuzil. October ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A October 24, 2002 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Retail space in new building. Craig has spoken to the City attorney. She thinks it will be the fall of 2004 before retail space is available. Policy decisions would include any restrictions placed on tenants regarding what would take place in the retail space, and what would be appropriate to require for inside and outside the building. A property manager would be hired. Rent has been pledged during campaign to pay down the bond. Parker will form a committee to work on developing policy that will include the types of business, rental rates, etc. Parker suggested that she'd like to talk to Surer and VanDusseldorp about serving on this committee. Parker asked about a time line. Craig thinks that guidelines should be in place by early spring of 2003; we begin to advertise so that potential renters would know by fall of 2003, and sign some kind o£ commitment for the next fall. Swaim asked about the possibility of having public meetings inviting input from the public. Singerman agreed that would be a good thing. By the next meeting, we will identify the committee, goals and timeframe. STAFF REPORTS Departmental Reports: Children's Room, Systems, And Technical Services. gob Audit data has all been entered. Some summary of results will be presented by December Board meeting. Black was pleased to announce that the tagging machines are working and staffhave been tagging this week. Development Office Report: Cultural Alliance is part of the Convention and Visitors bureau. It is an energetic enthusiastic group of people who want to plan and organize and promote cultural events for the Iowa City/Coralville community. The group has developed a new award to be given to people who advocate for arts and culture. It is called the Larry Eckholt award. Systems: A question was asked about the new Innovative Server and whether it was budgeted for. Nichols responded that it was budgeted for from our replacement funds. We want to get it up and running before we move. Service would be costly now that server is out of warranty. October ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda Item 3A October 24, 2002 Page 4 Inservice Day: Invitations were included in the packet and all Board members are invited. PRESIDENT'S REPORT None ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS All Iowa Reads. Magalhges and Craig are on the committee. The book selected is called "Peace like a River" and more information will be coming in the future. FIRST QUARTER REPORTS Financial and use reports for first quarter were included. Craig reported that there was nothing unusual. She asked for questions and said that she thinks circulation may be the same or may drop during the year once we move and are less accessible. DISBURSEMENTS Visa expenditures for September were reviewed. Dellsperger moved to approve Disbursements. Schnack seconded the motion and they were approved unanimously. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR NOVEMBER MEETING Reminder that next month we meet on the 3rd Thursday of the month. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 6:30 after a motion by SingermardSwaim Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff FINAL/APPROVE[ MINUTES IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002 - 5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty McKray, Jim Pusack, Cathy Weingeist, Kembrew McLeod MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Andy Matthews, Dale Helling OTHERS PRESENT: Rene Paine, Randy Brown, Jon Koebrick, Beth Fisher, Kameron Swinton, Brandon Pearlman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Koebrick reported that beginning in November that the cable modem service and the cable TV service will be combined on subscriber bills. Letters have been sent out to those who subscribe to both cable TV and the cable modem service. In addition, phone calls are being made to those subscribers. About 75% of such subscribers have been contacted. PATV's annual membership meeting will be held November 21 at 6:30 at the PATV facility. A board member will be elected at that meeting. It is anticipated that the public comment on PATV's performance requirement in their contract can be conducted at the meeting. Automated channel playback equipment has been ordered for the Iowa City Public Library and is now arriving. It is hoped that the library channel system will be entirely digital within three years. Shaffer reported that Mediacom is challenging the City's recent basic tier rate order at the Federal Communications Commission. Koebrick said that Mediacom will reduce the basic tier rate to $13.91 and raise the expanded basic rate to compensate so that most subscribers (those that subscribe to the Family Package) will not see a difference in their rates. Shaffer reported that City staff and Mediacom met recently to discuss possible methods of implementing the liquidated damages discussed so that subscribers will receive a benefit. Mediacom will be presenting a proposal to the City in the near future. Koebrick provided answers to questions contained in a letter from the City regarding Triennial Review issues. .APPROVAL OF MINIUTES Pusack moved and Weingeist seconded a motion to approve the regular September 2002 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS McLeod said that he may be out of the country during the third year of his term and, if so, unable to serve out his term on the Commission. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet. There were 24 complaints-4 about cable modem problems, 2 about wanting just the basic tier and a premium channel and the company telling them it was not possible, 4 about higher rates and fewer channels, 2 about not being able to get a cable buried, 2 about channels being taken off the basic tier, 2 about not being able to reach the company by phone, 1 about an unidentified woman claiming to be a Mediacom employee in an apartment complex basement with no identification or a call ahead., I about being charged to return digital equipment after a free trial period, I about charging in advance for service, 1 about a rate change in February without notice, 1 about who has to pay for replacement of a cable ~ine, 1 about the lack of competition, 1 about the Mediacom web site not having current prices for Iowa City. Brown said Mediacom has a review process that alerts them when a cable modem node is over-used. At that point arrangements are made to split that node. Koebrick said that one complicating factor is that Iowa City is not typical of other systems in that it is a computer- rich environment in which users are more likely to be utilizing larger amounts of bandwidth. That combined with areas of rapid growth may lead to deficiencies in Mediacom's usual procurement procedures for equipment. Brown said that there was a large up-swing in data use in some areas when the students returned to the University of Iowa. MEDIACOM REPORT Koebrick reported that beginning in November that the cable modem service and the cable TV service will be combined on subscriber bills. Letters have been sent out to those who subscribe to both cable TV and the cable modem service. In addition, phone calls are being made to those subscribers. About 75% of such subscribers have been contacted. There will be changes in the billing cycle and charges will be pro rated for the interim period. Steps to accommodate the expected rise in subscriber inquiries about the change are being made. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT No representative was present. PATV REPORT Paine reported that PATV staff attended a regional trade show to learn about new equipment. PATV recently provided a tour for a visitor from Slovenia. PATV participated in the University of Iowa Homecoming Parade in support of the Iowa Shares program. The new season of series programs began on Oct. 7. PATV is part of a grant by the Iowa City Community School District Senior High Alternative Center to do interviews with members of the University of Iowa's International Writing Program. PATV's newsletter will be out in November. PATV's annual membership meeting will be held November 21 at 6:30 at the PATV facility. A board member will be elected at that meeting. It is anticipated that the public comment on PATV's performance requirement in their contract can be conducted at the meeting. SENIOR CENTER REPORT No representative was present. ICCSD REPORT No representative was present. Pusack said that the channel still suffers from a technical problem for those subscribing to the digital tier and asked about the pass-through fund allocation that was to purchase a time-base corrector to solve the problem. LEGAL REPQRT Matthews said he had nothing new to report. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported that the PoPo Puppet Festival will be held Nov. 23 and will be taped for cablecast. There will be about 10-15 shoots in November. Automated channel playback equipment has been ordered and is now arriving. It is hoped that the library channel system will be entirely digital within three years. KIRKVVOOD REPORT No representative was present. MEDIA UNIT Shaffer repoded that Hardy was ill. Staff recently attended a regional trade show to learn more about new equipment. Staff have been receiving training on the use of digital equipment. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer reported that Medicom is challenging the City's recent basic tier rate order at the Federal Communications Commission. Koebrick said that Mediacom will reduce the basic tier rate to $13.91 and raise the expanded basic rate to compensate so that most subscribers (those that subscribe to the Family Package) will not see a difference in their rates. Shaffer reported that City staff and Mediacom met recently to discuss possible methods of implementing the liquidated damages discussed so that subscribers will receive a benefit. Mediacom will be presenting a proposal to the City in the near future. Shaffer said the annual report and the budget are being worked on. Shaffer will distribute a copy of the budget before the next Commission meeting. TRIENNIAL REVIEW Shaffer referred to a September 25, 2002 letter to Mediacom with questions regarding the Triennial Review. 1. How many subscribers were affected by the loss of premium movie service and then received rebates or credits for loss of that premium movie service during the January through February, 2002 period? Koebrick said approximately 2,000 or 10-11% of all subscribers were in this category. Mediacom provided pro rated service credits. In addition, there were a number of individual accommodations made when a customer called to complain. 2. Does Mediacom keep a record of any complaints received from subscribers and if so, can the City receive a copy or inspect these? Koebrick said that complaint records are kept at the local office and are available to City officials at that location. A copy of the complaint file will be forwarded to Shaffer in the near future. Many complaints Mediacom receives are in the form of email from Shaffer. 3. How many cable TV outages over 18 hours in length occurred in 2002, how many subscribers were affected, and how many rebates were given as a result? Koebrick said that there were no instance of an outage of node size or larger for greater than 18 hours in 2002. Mediacom does not have a way of knowing how many individual outages occurred. Many individual credits were given, but the exact number is not known because the adjustment or credit may also be an accommodation for other complaints as well and the coding the customer service representatives use may not clearly indicate that it was for an outage. 4. How many cable modem outages over 18 hours in length occurred in 2002, how many subscribers were affected, and how many rebates were given as a result? Koebrick said there were no system-wide outages over 18 hours in 2002. On an individual basis there is no way to know if the service was down if the subscriber doesn't inform the company. Pusack said that the company doesn't appear to be offering pro rated rebates for outage of the cable TV service or the cable modem service unless the subscriber requests it. 5. Please provide documentation that the required drop audit as stipulated in the franchise Section VIII.E) has been completed. Koebrick said that the franchise requires that a drop audit be completed within two years of the rebuild. The rebuild was completed in 1998 when AT&T held the franchise. Drop maintenance is an on-going program for Mediacom. Mediacom would not have documentation of them doing a drop audit within 2 years after the rebuild because they did not have the franchise. However, when the question was put to AT&T and it was calculated that 8,313 drops had been replaced since January of 2000. Every time there is a service call of any kind the drop is checked. In the last six months 120 drops have been replaced. There is no way to go back to the period two years after the rebuild and arrive at a figure of the number of drops tested. Pusack said that his understanding is that the franchise holder was required to audit 95% of all drops within two years and that the franchise holder was in non-compliance at that time. Shaffer said that the concern is that because the system was built around 1980 over a period of time there is a decline in the cable's usefulness so drops need to be replaced. The question is how much and how fast. Pusack said that the question is how reliable the plant is. Does it make sense to audit 95% of all drops? Perhaps a certain per cent should be checked every year or after a period of time determine how close the company is to testing all the drops through the usual course of examining drops when service calls are made. Koebrick said that from January of 2000 to March of 2001 over 8,000 drops were replaced. That together with the drops that were replaced during the rebuild demonstrate that a very large per cent of drops have been replaced. There are about 18,000 subscribers. In other franchises Mediacom has agreed to place messages on a local origination channel that informs subscribers that if there are any signal problems that Mediacom will come out and test the drop at no charge. That may be an option in Iowa City. Pusack said that a program of random checks might be a good method of monitoring drops. Wein9eist said she likes the random check idea. Koebrick said that the entire system is checked once per quarter for signal leakage. Defective drops typically leak and many are identified during those checks. Brown said that each year the company budgets to replace 10% of all drops. Pusack asked Mediacom to make a proposal for alternative language regarding drop audits. (Comments from Kameron Swinton and Brandon Pearlman were heard at this point so that need not stay for the entire meeting. Minutes of their comments follow the enumerated points.) 6. How many households in Iowa City have satellite service? Koebrick said that the data they purchase indicates only if it is greater that 15%, the level at which it is said there is effective competition. Iowa City is not at that level. 7. What changes have been made to the Iowa city cable TV system since the rebuild? Keobrick said that since the rebuild the system has been made 2 way interactive so that the cable modem service could be launched. The system was also modified so a return path from the digital boxes does not need a phone line. The plant has been extended in a lot of areas. 8. What is the state of the ad in Mediacom's cable systems? Koebrick said that state of the art systems for Mediacom offer analog and digital programming, offer the cable modem service, and are two-way interactive. Testing is being done on other services such as video on demand, but no Mediacom system has services not offered in Iowa City. Pusack asked if there will be any channel additions. Koebrick said the digital tiers will likely expand. 9. Does Mediacom foresee any plans for expansion or upgrading during the remaining years of the present franchise in Iowa City? Koebrick said that Mediacom would consider an upgrade to add bandwidth for future uses but there is a balance that needs to be maintained, especially in light of the cable modem service. Doing an upgrade would disrupt those subscribers dramatically. Is that disruption wodh the cost? Any additional bandwidth also comes at a cost and must be balanced against the new services that could be carried on the expanded bandwidth. Mediacom is looking to launch a business grade cable modem service that guarantees a cedain level of bandwidth for an increased cost. 10. Does Mediacom foresee any plans to add or delete any channels during the remaining years of the present franchise in Iowa City? Koebrick said that Mediacom's plans will be dependant on the relationships and contracts they have with program providers. As long as a channel is wodhy of offering in the line-up at a reasonable rate that they can pass the costs on to subscribers and they will continue to subscribe, those channels will stay on the system. If a program provider demands too high a payment, then they might not be carried. There are some channels, such as ESPN, in which the contract prohibits cable companies from offering them a la carte. If they were offered a la carte, operators could avoid the problem of high fees for a channel that from a marketing point of view must be offered on the system. Some channels simply can't be dropped because they are carried by direct broadcast satellites and have a viewership that would switch subscribers from cable if it was not carried. In addition, Mediacom, as a smaller operator, is unable to negotiate terms as favorable as larger operators like AT&T. Brandon Pearlman read a prepared statement in which his and his roommate, Kameron Swinton's difficulties with the cable modem service were presented. They subscribed to the cable modem service in August when they returned to school. Their apartment is just south of Burlington St. Beginning in September they began receiving very slow speeds and had trouble staying connected. A technician came out who swapped out modems and the problem apparently was fixed for about 6 hours. Within about the next 2 weeks eight different technicians attempted to fix their problems. The service appeared to be fixed when they the technicians left but the problems kept re-emerging. Four calls were made to the voice mail of the supervisors in Des Moines before a return call was made claiming that there was a problem with too many users on that node. The supervisors claimed that the problems was with returning college students and that an order to purchase additional equipment had been made. During the next seven weeks he received numerous reasons why the problem had not been corrected. There still is no resolution to the problem. Mediacom is a large, profitable corporation with a monopoly in the local market. Subscribers that use the service less are less likely to complain if they have problems. Kameron Swinton said he is unable to use his cable modem to connect to University of Iowa servers to dp classwork because it is so unstable. If the company tells you that the problem will be fixed by Friday but it is not, the company will not call you back to inform you. Phone technical support often will put you on hold for long periods of time and then do not have records of your previous calls and complaints. Puscack asked how many nodes in Iowa City have over 20% subscription levels. Brown said that node serving Pearlman and Swinton is the only node that is over-utilized. Weingeist said the lack of communication with subscribers has led to frustration by subscribers. Koebrick said that Mediacom is having some growing pains with the cable modem service. Phone center staff are being added. Brown said Mediacom is developing a method to be more proactive in identifying and correcting nodes that are being over-utilized. PATV CONTRACT Paine said that there is a performance review public comment requirement in PATV's contract and asked if it would be appropriate to conduct this during PATV's annual meeting. McKray said that as long as it was advertised that would be a good time to collect public comment. ADJOURNMENT Weingeist moved and Pusack seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator FINAL/APPROVED- - MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Al Stroh MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Boyd, Toni Cilck, Doug Ginsberg, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, John Westefeld GUESTS: Margie Jones and Jenny Homing, North Liberty Parks and Recreation Commission members; Julie Johnson, Director, Fred Fevold and David Thayer, Coralville Parks and Recreation Commission members; Chris Rohret, .Johnson County Conservation Board; Steven Kanner and Irvin Pfab STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood Due to the lack of a quorum, no business was conducted and the meeting was canceled. Members departed for the annual tour of various park and recreation facilities. Joining the commission and staff on the tour were Margie Jones and Jenny Homing, members of the North Liberty Parks and Recreation Commission; Julie Johnson, Director of the Coralville Parks and Recreation Department and commission members Fred Fevold and David Thayer; Chris Rohret of the Johnson County Conservation Board; and Iowa City council members Steven Kanner and Irvin Pfab. MINUTES APPROVED E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Don Anciaux, Ann Bovbjerg, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chair, Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Bob Callaway, Keith Oehley, Anna Buss, Judith Klink, Tom Gelman, Mark Kennedy, Bob Downer, John Ockenfels, Darrell Lamb CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said if members of the audience were interested in helping their City they could volunteer to serve on a City board or commission. A listing of the current vacancies on the various boards and commissions was posted on the wall in the outer lobby. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ02-00019/SUB02-00018, an application submitted by Tom Lewis for a preliminary plat of Lewis Addition, a 4-lot, 5.6-acre subdivision and for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Area Overlay (RS-5/OSA) for property located at 1520 N. Dubuque Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB02-00019, an application submitted by CB Development for a final plat of Whispering Meadows Part Three, a resubdivision of Whispering Meadows Part Two Lots 139-156, an 18-1ot, 26.14 acre residential subdivision located south and west of Whispering Meadow Drive, subject to approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB02-00020, an application submitted by Mark Kennedy for a preliminary plat of Kennedy Subdivision, a 40.2 acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located in Fringe Area C southwest of the intersection of Dane Road SW and Osage Street SW. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, VAC02-00006, an application by Eagle View Properties for a vacation of approximately 5,900 square feet of Lafayette Street right-of-way, located west of Capitol Street, subject to Eagle View Properties incorporating their properties west of Capitol Street and north of the CRANDIC Railroad into one lot by auditor's plat prior to the right-of-way being conveyed. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, VAC02-00007, an application submitted by Mercy Hospital for the vacation of the east to west alley in Block 27 of the Original Town Plat, subject to 1) no direct vehicular access to Market Street, 2) the current alley intersection with Dodge Street will be closed and there will be no additional direct vehicular access from Block 27 onto Dodge Street; the exit-only from the existing parking facility onto Dodge Street will be allowed to remain, 3) any overhead utilities relocated from the alley will be located at least 100 feet from Bloomington and Market Streets or peaced underground. REZONING ITEMS: REZ02-00019/SUB02-00018, discussion of an application submitted by Tom Lewis for a preliminary plat of Lewis Addition, a 4-lot, 5.6-acre subdivision and for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Area Overlay (RS-5/OSA) for property located at 1520 N. Dubuque Road Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 2 McCaffedy said the property was 5.6-acres in size. A proposal had been submitted to subdivide it into 4 lots ranging from 1.2-1.6 acres in size. The land was relatively fiat. On the east side of the property a wooded ravine ran across the property that had steep and critical protected slopes on it. Currently the property had a single older home and three other out buildings on it. The applicant had proposed that no development would occur on the property at this time so the subdivision would not require any new streets. Sewer connection would be required to the four lots. The sewer main currently ran at the base of the ravine. A sewer connection would be provided for the lots, connecting to the sewer main at the bottom of the ravine, going up to Dubuque Road and extending from the north property line all the way down to the south property line of Dubuque Road. Some disturbance of the protected and critical slopes was required, which was allowed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), because the sewer line was considered an essential public utility. McCafferty said Staff felt that the amount of disturbance was minimal so the intent of the SAO had been met. An escrow fund for sidewalks would need to be established so that as the properties were developed sidewalks would be provided along North Dubuque Road. McCafferty said Staff recommended that REZ02-00019/SUB02-00018, an application submitted by Tom Lewis for a preliminary plat of Lewis Addition, a 4-lot, 5.6-acre subdivision and for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Area Overlay (RS-5/OSA) for property located at 1520 N. Dubuque Road, be approved. Hansen asked what would Staff's position be regarding curb cuts onto Dubuque Road when the property was developed. McCafferty said there would be one curb cut per lot which would have to meet Public Works' standards. Bovbjerg asked how the frontages of the proposed lots (153', 120', 97' and 136') compared to lots around the City for RS-5 zoning. McCafferty said the proposal was considered a large lot development. Because of its rural character and the sensitivity of the topography, the North District Plan recommended that it be developed as a large lot development. The proposed lots and their frontages were quite a bit larger than the typical RS-5 lot. Miklo said minimum lot width required by zoning was 60-feet for RS-5 lots, so this subdivision well exceeded the minimum. Public discussion was opened. Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said they had done the design work for the subdivision. He was present to answer any questions or provide additional information as requested. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ02-00019/SUB02-00018 to the 11/21/02 Commission meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Hansen made a motion to approve REZ02-00019/SUB02-00018, an application submitted by Tom Lewis for a preliminary plat of Lewis Addition, a 4-lot, 5.6-acre subdivision and for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Area Overlay (RS-5/OSA) for property located at 1520 N. Dubuque Road. Shannon seconded the motion. Koppes asked for a clarification. The SAO applied to the larger lot, but after it was subdivided was it correct that development still could not occur on the sensitive area even [hough it was less than two acres in size. McCafferty said the developer would have to further subdivide it and it would have to be reviewed again for the subdivision. Koppes asked if the second review would actually occur because it was less than 2-acres in size so it would not be reviewed as a sensitive area. Miklo said if it had critical or protected slopes the Commission would continue to review it, depending on what happened with the pending ordinance that was before the Council regarding the SAO. Bovbjerg asked if the tract were a sensitive area, wouldn't the conditions go with the whole tract? Did it stay with the land, as the land was or did the lot lines make any difference? McCafferty said the buffer would be recorded with the deed for the property and would go with the property. Therefore if it were further subdivided, the subdivider would have to abide by the covenant. Behr said the buffer would run with the title of the land and be binding upon subsequent owners. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 3 The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ02-00018/SUB02-00021, discussion of an application submitted by Callaway Development Inc for a preliminary plat of Ruppert Hills for a 22.91-acre, 4-lot subdivision, and for a rezoning on 10.15 acres from Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) to Sensitive Areas Overlay and Planned Housing Development Overlay (RM-20/OSAJOPDH) to allow the development of a 198-unit apartment complex and clubhouse located at the Nodhwest corner of Highway 1 and Ruppert Road. McCafferty said a correction needed to be made - both applications were submitted by Callaway Development Inc. McCaffedy said the area was recently downzoned and was subject to a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning due to the presence of critical slopes on the property. The purpose of the subdivision on the property was to establish the legal property lines which corresponded to the boundaries of the recent rezoning, which had been approved by Council. The subdivision complied with the Southwest District Plan. At this time no public improvements would be required because the subdivision application did not propose any development on any of the four lots. Under the subdivision and the OPDH, dedication of 1.4-acres of neighborhood open space was required. The applicant had proposed to dedicate Outlot A, 1.5-acres in size, which was located directly adjacent to Miller Orchard Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission would review the proposed dedication at their 11/13/02 meeting. McCafferty said Staff felt that the application met ail the requirements for open space under the OPDH and subdivision ordinance. Sidewalks would also be required as part of the dedication. Staff recommended that because of the topography on Outlot A the location of the sidewalk be determined at the time that Parks and Recreation developed a plan for the future extension of the Park. The applicant would have to put funds for the construction of the walks in an escrow account. McCafferty said the rezoning also had a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) of fifteen conditions which required the evaluation of a number of complex issues: · The Conditional Zoning Agreement · The OPDH ordinance which was the Planned Housing Overlay · The Sensitive Areas Ordinance McCafferty said the CZA required a pedestrian trail easement which was intended to connect the neighborhood with the Park as well as to provide the potential for a future connection to the south and also to the commercial area located south of HWY 1. McCafferty said Staff recommended that at the time Lots 2 and 3 were developed, if the trail had not yet been constructed the location of the easement be renegotiated with the owners of the property in order to have an easement that would be more compatible with the topography, a more direct route to Miller Orchard Park and be integrated into the proposed development so as to be more sensitive to it. Proposal of Lot 1, Callaway Lodge. McCaffedy said the Southwest District Plan recommended that the lot be rezoned to RM-12 or to RM-20 with a CZA, which was intended to mitigate some of the negative impacts of large multi-family buildings being directly adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. The property was rezoned to RM-20. The CZA that ran with the property had fifteen conditions to it. a. The applicant was required to submit an OPDH plan. The applicant had done so. b. Vehicular access would not be permitted from Harlocke Street. No public access was proposed from Harlocke Street. To comply with CZA condition k. the application had proposed to install a gate with a Knox Box at that location to provide access for emergency vehicles. In response to concerns expressed by neighbors in that area, McCaffedy said the applicant had stated that no construction trucks would have access to the site from Harlocke Street. All construction trucks would access the area through the HWY 1 access point area. c. A buffer area. A layered buffer had been proposed. A 100-foot buffer from the development to the Iow density single family neighborhood to the west; in the first 50 feet of the buffer no development was to occur; in the next 50 to 75 feet, 25-foot tall buildings as well as landscaped parking could occur in the buffer; in the next 75 to 100 feet area, a building no higher than 60 feet could occur within that buffer. Staff felt the applicant had met the buffer requirement. d. The development be sensitive to the topography, with 75% of the parking to be located below the building. The applicant had proposed to locate 80% of the parking below the building. A total of 607 parking spaces were proposed, 493 of those spaces were proposed to be located below the buildings in two levels. e. Approved IDOT access to the property along HWY 1 directly across from Rupped Road. The condition had been met. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 4 f. Ruppert Road was to be a private street, with an emergency vehicle and public access easement over it. The CZA required that it be designed to collector street standards. In order to reduce the chance that there might be obstructions to the road, a wider road was being required. The wider road helped to ensure that if a car was stalled or a tree fell partially across the road, access would still be available around the obstruction. The applicant's proposal illustrated a number of variations from the collector street standards. The standard called for a 31-foot wide road. The proposal illustrated a 28-foot private street. The standard called for 4-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. The CZA required trail easement went through some very steep topography. The curve would be very difficult to negotiate, so Staff recommended and the applicant concurred that it would be better to have the trail easement and a wider sidewalk follow a more negotiable grade along the driveway in lieu of having sidewalks on both sides of the street. The radius of the curves was tighter than what was allowed under the collector standard. A memorandum from a representative of the applicant had been given to the Commissioners explaining why some of the variations should be approved. McCafferty reminded the Commission to consider that access was being allowed from only one location. That constrained the property and the use of the property. If Ruppert Road were to be a through street with access through the single-family neighborhood at Harlocke Street, collector street standards would not be required. Condition D stipulated that the property be developed in a manner that was sensitive to the topography. A narrower street would reduce the disturbance to the critical slopes. Most likely the street would only be used by guests and residents. It also should be noted that there would be no on-street parking on those parts of the street that are narrower than 31 feet. McCafferty said Staff felt the variations were reasonable and should be approved. g. If warranted, the property owners must pay for improvements at the intersection and one-half the cost of a signal at the intersection of HWY 1 and Ruppert Road. The applicant had agreed to do this and had provided a traffic study to Staff and the Commission. The general concept plan included in the traffic study was acceptable. A memorandum from Jeff Davidson indicated that some revisions to the traffic study would need to be resolved to specifically determine the design of the intersection. There would also need to be pedestrian facilities with a signal to allow pedestrians to cross HWY 1. h. A private street must stub to the west properly line of Lot 1. The applicant had proposed to have an easement which went to the west property line which would provide the opportunity in the long-term future for the continuation of the street. Under the CZA, the applicant was under no obligation to actually build a road that would be a through street and continue across the adjacent property. McCafferty said the reason for the easement and not actually building the stub was because it was not likely that it would be needed in the near future, if ever. i. A turnaround was required to be constructed at the end of the street. The turnaround proposed by the applicant met the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Signage to prevent parking in the fire lane would have to be provided in that area and also at the emergency access point at Hadocke Street, and to ensure that the area remained free of snow and obstruction at all times. k. Emergency access would be required to the north. The condition had been met with the gated access to Harlock Street. I. through o. regarded pedestrian facilities. McCafferty said these conditions were of particular concern because it was likely that this particular development would be marketed to University students. Staff wanted to ensure that there would be adequate pedestrian connections to the north and also within the development to facilitate walking and biking to the University. Pedestrian access was provided at Harlocke Street, at a connection that went up and over a retaining wall at Benton Manor and a third access point also cut through Benton Manor. Sidewalks inside the Callaway Lodge development connected the doorways along the private drive. OPDH Plan. McCafferty said the property sloped from the west to the east. It contained very steep slopes and a ravine with critical slopes. The proposed density was 22 units per acre, RM-20 zoning allowed 24-units per acre. The proposal was for 198-units for a total of 555 bedrooms. The applicant had proposed to dedicate 1.5- acres of open space. 1.4-acres was required for a subdivision so the open space requirement had been met. A .water tap on fee would be required. A number of retaining walls would be required on the property. The proposal required running a sanitary sewer line underneath a retaining wall. The City preferred not to have stacked construction of that type in case it ever needed to be excavated. Therefore Public Works had asked that the applicant provide structural calculations of that sewer line, allow the City to videotape the installation of it and in the future if there was an issue with the sewer line and it had to be excavated, the applicant would pay for the reinstallation of the retaining wall. Sensitive Areas Development Plan. McCaffedy said some degree of subjectivity was required in determining how the disturbance of the critical and protected slopes would be balanced with the constraints and conditions Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 5 that had been placed on the property by the CZA. The applicant had proposed that 65% of the critical slopes be disturbed. The property contained 1.35-acres of critical slopes,. Approximately .87-acres would have to be disturbed to accommodate the private street and underground parking. McCafferty said there were ways in which the amount of critical slopes being disturbed could be reduced. If more retaining walls were used, the amount of disturbance could be reduced. What the applicant had proposed was rather than using retaining walls was to reduce the grade of the whole slope then re-landscape with additional landscaping which would actually help to stabilize the slope. McCafferty said one of the intents of the SAO for regulated slopes was to stabilize the slopes and reduce erosion, so Staff felt that the proposal of not using retaining walls met that intent. If access were allowed via Harlocke Street, collector street standards would not be required and less of the slopes would need to be disturbed. McCafferty said the applicant had asked for a variation in the increase in allowable height. It was allowed under the SAO and OPDH procedures but was up to the Commission's discretion. The underlying zoning allowed a maximum of 35-feet, the applicant had proposed a maximum height of 58.5-feet. One of the reasons for the increased height was due to the sloping topography of the site. The north side (back side) of the property would generally not exceed the 35-foot maximum. However it was the downhill sloping side of the development in which the 35-foot maximum would need to be exceeded. The CZA required that 75% of the parking be located below grade. The proposed increase in building height was to allow two levels of parking under the building. The north or the uphill sides of the buildings would mostly be within the 35-foot height limit. The applicant had also proposed mounds or berms with landscaping to be located in front of the below grade parking areas to help screen the two levels of parking that would be exposed on the south side. McCafferty said because there were still deficiencies and discrepancies with the applications, Staff recommended that REZ02-00018/SUB02-00021 be deferred pending correction of the deficiencies and discrepancies. Hansen asked what would be the maximum occupancy of the development. McCafferty said 555 persons. The proposal was for 555 bedrooms with one occupant per bedroom. Hansen asked if the police department had been asked to comment regarding their ability to provide services to this building. McCafferty said they had not had any input from the police department at this time. Relative to other OPHD rezonings that Staff had looked at, there was less subjectivity involved with this one because it had been downzoned and the baseline zoning was not being changed nor was the Comprehensive Plan being amended. Hansen asked how the proposed development complied with the Comprehensive Plan, in light of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan called for fewer number of units per any given intersection. McCafferty said in the main document of the Comprehensive Plan, for new neighborhoods, the Plan recommended 3-4 small apartment buildings at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. This project was considered to be infill housing, not a new neighborhood. Therefore the guidelines to which Hansen referred did not apply to this particular development. The Southwest District Plan had an extensive section which dealt specifically with this piece of property. Staff felt that the application did comply with the guidelines of the Southwest District Plan, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Shannon said in her report McCafferty had mentioned various times that the applicant had complied with CZA conditions. Were the deficiencies of such a serious magnitude that the applications could not be passed with the condition that the deficiencies and discrepancies be corrected before consideration by Council? McCafferty said generally if there were more than three deficiencies, Staff recommended deferral. At this time the applicant had submitted a good amount of information to resolve the major deficiencies that were listed on the Staff Report. A number of deficiencies had been submitted and potentially resolved but Staff had not yet had the opportunity to evaluate them. A number of smaller items relative to Public Works, getting the drawings in order, legible/correct dimensions, etc., were not listed in the fist of deficiencies. Bovbjerg asked if in the CZA or any other type of agreement, was a secondary access prohibited from the other end of the private drive? McCafferty said it was not. Early in the discussions there had been the potential to locate that drive such that it courd connect to the Russell property directly to the west. The reason that it was not able to connect dealt with the topography in that area. The topography was simply too steep and the connection could not be made. Bovbjerg asked if a second connection to HWY 1 was also prohibited due to topography. McCafferty said that dealt more with IDOT. The applicant would have to seek approval from IDOT and it was likely that IDOT would not allow a second access point. Miklo said when HWY 1 was reconstructed Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 6 in that area, the Department of Transportation had actually bought up the rights to access the land. IDOT had provided that particular access which the applicant was taking advantage of and one farm access. Therefore the points of access were pretty much limited to the one point of access onto HWY 1. Bovbjerg asked what was the estimated time for the determination of a traffic signal and installing it. Was it relative to a study or to number of units? McCafferty said it had been determined that a traffic signal was necessary. Miklo said it would be put in with the construction of the development as a condition of the project. Miklo said Staff felt that the Department of Transportation would require it before they allowed any access onto HWY 1 in that area. Bovbjerg said it certainly seemed necessary before anyone moved in, but also with a concern for the condition that no construction trucks go through the existing neighborhood. If the signal were able to be ready for the construction trucks, that would help the construction trucks as well as everyone on the highway. Public discussion was opened. Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said he wished to address the design concepts that went into the modified collector street. The memorandum he had provided to staff earlier in the week had addressed a lot of these issues. As additional background, the Fire Marshall required a 26-foot wide street that was clear on one side. That made it difficult to provide parallel parking as was typically done on a collector street. A 28-foot width had been selected because several streets in Iowa City had been classified as 28-foot width streets. The City had built Foster Road, a collector street, to a 28-foot width. It contained some fairly steep grades, had some trees along it and had a one-way access to over 1,000-acres of ground. MMS Consultants preferred not to have a 31-foot width street because it gave motor vehicles a chance to drive faster. The area was primarily a pedestrian oriented area and he didn't wish to encourage fast moving vehicles in that area. The main entrance drives which were the short hairpin curves would have no parking off the sides of them. The total length of the street from HWY 1 to the fire truck turnaround was about 2,000 feet. Bob Callaway, architect-developer, San Antonio, TX. Callaway said he had been in the profession for over 45 years, a practicing architect for most of those years. Recently he had dedicated his time solely to developing. His company had been in all phases of real estate development but principally in multi-family housing, luxury housing, high rise condominiums or what the market called for. Even before it was called student housing, he had built apartments around major Universities, which filled up with students. In the last 4-6 years, there had been attempts to build smaller projects. The trend now in major Universities was larger, student designed, apartment complexes. This was not only in response to students, but to the mothers and fathers requesting a different atmosphere for their children. Callaway Development had built several projects designed strictly for students. Approximately five years ago they had built a student facility at Texas A&M. It had been a high-end large building. Callaway said they managed their properties, the luxury and the student properties. It was a challenge to manage student properties. He explained how they had selected Iowa City as a potential development site. Callaway said they had searched for major universities on the computer, looked at housing on campus then private housing. Iowa City was presented to Callaway by an individual who travels the country specifically looking at student housing opportunities. They had looked at aerial photographs, topos, and property location in relation to the University. Callaway then contacted a good friend of his who received his Master's degree and PhD from the University of Iowa who explained a lot about the UI. Callaway said they then came to Iowa City, looked at the topos, came to understand that it was a very challenging site and conceptually planned the development. They discussed with Staff various proposals, some were immediately rejected and others received a good reception in their philosophy of how to deal with this site. They had met with Staff several times on different projects. Callaway said they had decided they did not want to fight the site, they wanted to work with it and its contours. They looked at several other proposals, started working with the contours of this site and met with Staff again. They had made changes that Staff had requested and moved forward. During this time, the Southwest Plan was being approved and provided them the opportunity to utilize the Plan and conform to it as well as they could. Callaway said it had always been his style over the last 40-years to work with people and neighborhoods. This was the first time he'd heard the Good Neighbor Policy called such, but he'd been working with that philosophy over 40 years. Callaway said he liked to meet with private groups one- on-one, listen to their wants and desires and hopefully be able to honor those. They had met several times with neighbors here. Callaway said the management of a development like this was very important. They designed, built and managed their own product. This required a large on-site staff to manage the property. Callaway said his Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 7 management staff would be visiting Iowa City again in the next few weeks to tour other complexes. There would probably be 8 or 10 persons on site to manage the complex. It would not be managed similar to the Texas A&M property, their management was very stern there. They allowed no alcohol or smoking in the facilities. During the last three years it had worked in Texas. Their occupancy was full. The Iowa City development would be a different product. The upper north pad of the building would contain the management offices, leasing and maintenance personnel. The recreation building for the students would contain computer labs, exercise rooms, and activity room for studies. Inside the buildings they tried to provide laundry facilities, study rooms and living areas. Usually they also put a senior class person on each floor of the facility that played mom or dad. That was their style of management. Hansen asked Callaway what was the name of his unit at Texas A&M. Callaway said it was Callaway House, in response to a request by his children to name a facility after himself. Hansen asked if Callaway planned to have on-site security. Callaway said at the Texas A&M facility they had 24-hour security. At most complexes they had drive through security. If necessary, they would have on site security. Freerks asked the size of the Callaway House. It was 184 units or 580 students. Most, but not all, of their projects contained an individual bedroom and bath for students as that was the current trend. Hansen asked Callaway if he was associated with the Dinerstein group. Callaway said he was not. He did have a web site which people could tour his other facilities. Keith Oehley, San Antonio, TX. Oehley said this was one of the most difficult sites he had worked with. Because of the difficulty of the site and topography, it had been necessary to work almost backwards. He had started by determining how he could design an 8% slope road from only one access point, work with the site's contours and to create the most sensitive road possible in order to provide access to all points of the site. They had tried to push the buildings down toward HWY 1 and away from the residential neighborhood in order to try to provide as many views over the top of the buildings as was possible, to try to leave as much green space as possible and also to try to de-emphasize their mass. The only way to put the parking under the building was to put it along the contours of the building. Oehley said he was not sure that there was any other practical solution to the site. Oehley said not being from this country, he subjected himself to quite of bit of research. He had found a great precedent in the book, "The Lodges of the North West", that had been built during the great railroad times. Those lodges had had a similar use, to provide bedrooms for persons who were traveling and they had had to hug fairly steep slopes. Oehley had found the buildings generally tended to be fairly homogenous buildings with one roofline, generally made of wood, three stories on top of a stone foundation generally a basement. They were logical in terms of excavating below the snow line. The building model made sense economically, visually and were appropriate for the northern climate. The great lodges were a mixture of North American Indian influence as well as arts and crafts. Oehley also consulted books on arts and crafts, and had used this particular style in a more contemporary fashion on a project that was currently under construction in Kansas. Oehley said Callaway was very passionate about providing more detail to a project and they often had to try to stop him from adding more instead of less detail to a project. Oehley said he walked the site and discovered that several major topographical areas were not adequately able to be represented in drawings for the elevations. The building was not straight and actually 'broke up' because of the modules of the units that were required. Oehley said none of the three building's ground floor footprints were at the same level. Their ground levels were 726, 736 and 746. Oehley said one of the issues he was concerned about was called the third level of detail, which was generally missed by many architects and developers. For instance, how was the skin of the building going to be developed? For the proposed building the skin would be a cement board siding but would not necessarily be only a horizontal band. They proposed to use a hardy plank to symbolize the wood, the roof would be a shingle roof made out of composition shingle, and he hoped to find the opportunity to put some rock accents on the building. Koppes said in reviewing the latest drawing that they had received earlier in the evening, there had been a lot more screening in the original concept plan. It also looked like some of the screening encroached onto the pedestrian easement. Schnittjer said initially there had been more trees on the north side of the project, but he was informed by City Staff that the trees had to be removed from the pedestrian walkway area. All the trees had also been removed from the 15-foot walkway on the west side. The tree trunks had been moved just outside the easement, but the canopies would be over the easement. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 8 Koppes said at the informal meeting she had asked about the stormwater onto HWY 1. Had there been any progress? Schnittjer said they had not proceeded on the application yet. He had worked with IDOT before and it was not a major concern. If he met IDOT's requirements they would work with him. The stormwater basin would be a dry bottom facility. There were existing storm sewers underneath HWY 1 which would carry the discharge over into a stormsewer that ran from HWY 1 down to Cub Foods and back into the pond area at Wal-Mart and out to the Iowa River through the City's commercial development. Schnittjer said one thing that was touched on but not addressed in the drawings was how they proposed to visually handle the south side of the structures. The 58.6-foot building height was from the lowest point of entry on the garage level to the midpoint of the roof. Theoretically they did have that height of a building, but in reality with the berms that they proposed to build along the southside and the landscaping, that height of a building would not be seen from HWY 1. Shannon asked Schnittjer for more of a detailed clarification regarding the deficiencies that Staff said existed. Schnittjer said the deficiencies that he was aware of were foot candle for the site lighting, photometric plan and some engineering issues. They didn't have apl the responses back from Public Works yet to know if Public Works was satisfied with the revisions. They had anticipated a deferral at this meeting but fully intended to have everything put together for the next Commission meeting. Schnittjer said there were some issues that they wished to have feedback on yet that evening. One was the 28-foot street width, was it acceptable? Were there other issues that needed to be addressed? McCafferty said under the CZA the Director of the Planning Department had the discretion to approve the modification to the street. The Director felt the modification complied with the CZA and had approved it. Anciaux asked what was the white area on the drawings between the buildings. Schnittjer said it was a hallway. Oehley said he was concerned about breaking the two buildings and making them look like two buildings. It had made sense to use the space in between as a large lounge with a fireplace, a lot of glass which extended toward HWY 1 and would act as the entrance on the rear side of the building. It would serve as a communal space. In response to a question from Bovbjerg, Oehley explained that the driveway entrances to the buildings were at the ends of the buildings. It was possible to drive through the parking area from one end of the building to the other. There were no center vehicular exits. It was not practical due to the extreme height of the slope. Bovjberg asked what were the disaster, fire or venting provisions? Were there contingencies for getting people and cars out if there was a disaster. She saw the area as a huge tunnel and potential carbon monoxide problems. Oehley said over one-half of the area was open and on the lower side of the slope it was all open. Where the entrances were on the ends was all open. There were two fire exits at each building. There was an elevator from the garage at each building and two stairway fire exits at each building. Miklo said they were possible getting into building code issues. Bovbjerg said her earlier concerns with the emergency gating issues had been satisfied during the presentation. Schnittjer said as the street came in it would be approximately 36-feet wide. Three 12-foot lanes, an in-turn lane, a straight through lane and a right turn lane for the exit were required. Anna Buss, Miller Avenue, asked for a clarification of where the driveway coming out would be. Was it just to the west of Sobaski's? McCafferty used several drawings to clarify the driveway's position. It was directly north of the existing Ruppert Road. She said the commercial lot was between the access point and Sobaski's. Buss said there was already a bottleneck traveling west from Riverside Drive near Orchard Court and again near the stoplight at Miller Avenue. The timing of the traffic lights caused a major bottlenecks. An additional traffic light would cause a backup even into Wal-Mart and Menards. The development would add another 500 cars plus perhaps 100 visitor's cars per day buzzing in and out of the development. Buss said she felt there were a lot of traffic issues that would have to be addressed with regard to the complex. Buss said knowing the Iowa City students the potential for a race track within the development existed. Buss said the foot traffic would all go north, probably toward Benton to catch the bus. There were pedestrian traffic issues that would need to be addressed as well. Where the bus stopped in the morning was also a racetrack. Buss said the Commission needed to take a cold hard look at the traffic issue because it was going to be a problem. She said they already had a racetrack on Miller and Hudson Streets. When drivers saw all the traffic lights on HWY 1 they would drive through the residential area. Buss requested that the developers and the Commission get together to address these issues. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 9 Judith Klink, 1101 Harlocke Street, said she was speaking as one of the neighborhood representatives as well as someone who had padicipated in the Southwest District planning process. Klink said at the informal Commission meeting concerns had been expressed about the interconnectivity within the development and to the adjacent areas. Some of those concerns had been clarified but she still wished to further discuss that issue. Klink said she was concerned about having the parking lot immediately adjacent to 8-prex and single- family home on Harlocke Street, the second building in. She preferred to have the parking lot more topographically sensitive as it was illustrated in the Southwest District Plan's sketch for the development. Klink said there would be a problem with 24-hour lighting of the parking lot; the headlight beams and noise from the parking lot would affect the lives of the residents on Harlocke Street. Klink said they preferred all the parking to be underground. Klink said in order to prohibit student vehicle traffic from using the emergency access gate on Harlocke Street the gate would need to be very creatively designed and much longer than the width of the road. It would need to extend behind the 8-plex as it was possible to drive behind the building. Klink said density and type of dwellers were also concerns. The Southwest District Plan showed nine bigger apartment houses of the newer Iowa City type buildings. Callaway's development showed one huge building 5-stories high and two or three other buildings of substantial size. The development was proposed to be 198 units with 555 bedrooms, 90 4-bedroom units, 87 2-bedroom units, 21 1-bedroom units seemed a far cry from the Southwest District Plan where naturally existing wildlife was still imaginable. The fact that the proposed apartment residents would all be undergraduate students was quite a shock. Klink said she would personally prefer a more traditional population of mixed students, adults and some amenities for children. She said the statistics of proposed disturbance to the sensitive areas, to disturb 65% of the critical slopes sounded like a contradiction in terms. Klink said she had had the opportunity to meet with the developers and they had been willing to make changes in the first plan which pleased the neighbors. The neighbors were very pleased that the developers had promised there would be no construction trucks traveling in their neighborhood on Harlocke Street. Callaway had promised to preserve as much of the old ravine trees as possible which had been done very effectively in the adjacent Southgate development. In that way the remnants in the Southgate development would have corresponding neighborly patches in the new development which would enhance the appearance of the whole area. The developers seemed eager to fit the buildings to the topography of the land. Klink said to summarize the concerns of the participants in the Southwest District Planning process were: trail planning, placement, attractiveness, destinations; pedestrian access to businesses south of HWY 1; density of the population and increased pressure on the infrastructure; maintenance of the buffer zone between the Weaver-Harlocke residential area and the new development; design and placement of the parking lots; fence design at the end of Harlocke Street; and preservation of the sensitive areas including the critical slopes. McCafferty said she wished to make clarifications. Under the CZA the applicant was not required to construct the trail, only to provide an easement and location for the trail in the future. The budgeting of the City Parks and Recreation Department would determine the construction of the trail. Koppes asked if Parks and Recreation would review that detail. Miklo said he didn't think they would review the proposal for that, only if to accept the proposed open space at the corner of Benton Street. Miklo said budget wise Parks would probably not be ready to put in the trail anytime soon. Tom Gelmaq, 714 McLean Street, said he wished to refocus and make sure the Commission was reviewing what they were supposed to be reviewing. There were three things before the Commission. 1) Subdivision of the plat which was straight forward. It was for the purpose of dividing the property in a way that now reflected the current zoning. 2) The Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning, The central issue was to evaluate the intrusion of the sensitive features on the property. The intrusion had to do principally with the development of the road at identified locations. Staff felt it met the intent of the ordinance. The developer had made the necessary compromises to least impact the sensitive features. 3) The OPDH plan. The scope of the review had to do with the variances that the developer had requested in connection with this development, The variance requested was a height variance for the buildings. Gelman said the developer had shown an extraordinary effort to try to accommodate both the needs of the development as well as the sensitive features of the land. Gelman said the proposed development was in slight contrast to the plan included in the Southwest District Plan of a possible development on that site. The architect had explained that they had approached the site backwards, from a topographic standpoint. This development was much more sensitive to the site than the hypothetical design included in the plan. Callaway's design met all of the criteria in the Plan, was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was a good resolution to that particular site which had historically been difficult to develop. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 10 McCafferty said there had been discussion regarding the concept plan in the Southwest District Plan. She said that concept plan was. based on RM-12 zoning. Therefore it did not have as much building footprint as there was with the current building proposal. RM-20 zoning with CZA had also been recommended to mitigate some of the conditions that had been discussed earlier. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chair made a motion to defer REZ02-00018/SUB02-00021, an application submitted by Callaway Development Inc for a preliminary plat of Ruppert Hills for a 22.91-acre, 4-lot subdivision, and for a rezoning on 10.15 acres from Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) to Sensitive Areas Overlay and Planned Housing Development Overlay (RM-20/OSNOPDH) to allow the development of a 198-unit apartment complex and clubhouse located at the Northwest corner of Highway 1 and Ruppert Road to the 11/21/02 meeting. Shannon seconded the motion. Koppes asked if an updated tree count could be provided before the next Commission meeting. McCafferty said the original tree count included the square footage for the club house which actually was not a residential building. With the new submittal, that square footage had been taken out. They now met the tree requirement. Koppes said the applicant had said they had removed some of the trees. She again asked for an updated tree count. Bovbjerg said she appreciated the CZA and the difficulty of the whole project. She said she felt the Commission's concerns expressed at the informal meeting and earlier in the evening was exactly was that Commission was supposed to do. They were to look at proposals from the neighbor and from the street and mull around what it would be like to have these proposed buildings in Iowa City. Bovbjerg said when persons brought something as complex as the proposed development before them, persons had to realize that they were citizens coming to the project as were the citizens living right near by and they would be asking questions because they truly wanted to know the information. The Commission is experienced enough that they would not let something irrelevant make their vote go one way or another. Anciaux called the question. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUB02-00019, discussion of an application submitted by CB Development for a final plat of Whispering Meadows Part Three, a resubdivision of Whispering Meadows Part Two Lots 139-156, an 18-1ot, 26.14 acre residential subdivision located south and west of Whispering Meadow Drive. Miklo said this property had originally been approved as pert of the Whispering Meadows subdivision in 1993. The applicant was now replatting a portion of it in order to allow a small portion to be built rather than escrowing for the entire development. The plat was in order. Staff recommended approval of SUB02-00019, subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Koppes asked about the buffer between this property and the one next to it. Miklo said there were a few evergreens planted but there was no requirement that the subdivider provide a buffer. Public discussion was opened. There wes none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve SUB02-00019, an application submitted by CB Development for a final plat of Whispering Meadows Part Three, a resubdivision of Whispering Meadows Part Two Lots 139-156, an 18-1ot, 26.14 acre residential subdivision located south and west of Whispering Meadow Drive subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Chair seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUB02-00020, discussion of an application submitted by Mark Kennedy for a preliminary plat of Kennedy Subdivision, a 40.2 acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located in Fringe Area C southwest of the intersection of Dane Road SW and Osage Street SW. Miklo said this property was on the west side of Dane Road within two miles of the Iowa City Corporete limit. Therefore under the Fringe Agreement with County the Commission had the ability to review and approve or Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 11 deny a subdivision in this area. That was also a state law. This particular subdivision was approved in 1997 as a preliminary plat. Preliminary plats were good for a two year period, then they expired. The reason for the expiration was in the event that they were not built and any new laws or policies subsequently came into play, it would give the City the opportunity to impose those laws or policies on the subdivision. In this case there had been no changes in the Fringe Area Agreement or the City subdivision regulations that would apply in this particular case, so the subdivision as it was approved in 1997 had been resubmitted. The applicant was seeking reapprovaL Miklo said a small private street would be built, three additional building sites would be approved and the remainder of the property would be outlots for agricultural open space purposes. Staff found that the plat was in conformance with the Fringe Area Agreement and the City subdivision regulations and recommended approval of the application. Public discussion was opened. Mark Kennedy, 931 Maiden Lane, said on the outlots of the area he had gone into the PIC program and planted 7,000 trees. It was still agricultural property but they were using it for nesting and tree development. The PIC program was a government farm program that paid persons to set aside and not plant on certain tracts of land. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chair moved to approve SUB02-0002q, an application submitted by Mark Kennedy for a preliminary plat of Kennedy Subdivision, a 40.2 acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located in Fringe Area C southwest of the intersection of Dane Road SW and Osage Street SW. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. VAC02-00006, discussion of an application by Eagle View Properties for a vacation of al~proximately 5,900 square feet of Lafayette Street right-of-way, located west of Capitol Street, subject to Eagle View Properties incorporating their properties west of Capitol Street and north of the CRANDIC Railroad into one lot by auditor's plat prior to the right-of-way being conveyed. Miklo said Staff recommended approval subject to Eagle View Properties submitting an auditors plat that incorporated their properties west of Capitol Street and north of CRANDIC Railroad into one lot by auditor's plat, prior to the right-of-way being conveyed. Public discussion was opened. Bob Downe~, 122 S. Linn Street and John Ockenfels, 3 E. Benton Street, were present to answer questions. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve VAC02-00006, an application by Eagle View Properties for a vacation of approximately 5,900 square feet of Lafayette Street right-of~way, located west of Capitol Street, subject to Eagle View Properties incorporating their properties west of Capitol Street and north of the CRANDIC Railroad into one lot by auditor's plat prior to the right-of-way being conveyed. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. VAC02-00007., discussion of an application submitted by Mercy Hospital for the vacation of the east to west alley in Block 27 of the Original Town Plat, located between Market and Bloomington Street west of Dodge Street. Miklo said Staff had found that with the single owner of the entire block the alley was not needed for public purposes. To assure that policies regarding vehicular access to arterial streets were adhered to, Staff recommended several conditions if the alley were to be vacated. Staff recommended approval subject to 1 ) no direct vehicular access to Market Street, 2) the current alley intersection with Dodge Street will be closed and there will be no additional direct vehicular access from Block 27 onto Dodge Street; the exit-only from the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 12 existing parking facility onto Dodge Street will be allowed to remain, 3) any overhead utilities relocated from the alley will be located at least 100 feet from Bloomington and Market Streets or placed underground. Public discussion was opened. Darrell Lamb, 4561 Jenn Lane NE, Director of Engineering for Mercy Hospital said he was present to answer any questions. Bovbjerg asked if the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report were acceptable to Mercy Hospital. Lamb said they would prefer to have the property without conditions, but the conditions were not inconsistent with their plans for the property at this time. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to approve VAC02-00007, an application submitted by Mercy Hospital for the vacation of the east to west alley in Block 27 of the Original Town Plat, subject to 1 ) no direct vehicular access to Market Street, 2) the current alley intersection with Dodge Street will be closed and there will be no additional direct vehicular access from Block 27 onto Dodge Street; the exit-only from the existing parking facility onto Dodge Street will be allowed to remain, 3) any overhead utilities relocated from the alley will be located at least 100 feet from Bloomington and Market Streets or placed underground. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Miklo said he had provided each of the Commissioners with a copy of the recently adopted Southwest District Plan. CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 17, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as printed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Jerry Hensen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill MIN UTES Final/Approved SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lori Benz, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Allan Monsanto, Charity Rowley, Jim Schintler and Carol Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Joanne Hora, and Deb Schoenfelder STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Susan Rogusky and Julie Seal. GUESTS: William Laubengayer CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Motion: To approve the September minutes as distributed. The motion carried on a vote of Rowley/Monsanto-?-0 PUBLIC DISCUSSION None OPERATIONAL BUDGET: PLANS AND PROGRESS- Honohan Honohan reported on the September 25th joint meeting of the cities of Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty, Johnson County and the Iowa City School Board. A packet of information describing the Center and its services was distributed to all involved city administrators prior to the meeting. During the meeting Commissioners were not allowed to make a presentation and responded to only one question pertaining to the number of Senior Center padicipants living in North Liberty. The recommendation from the joint meeting was for representatives from the Commission and Board of Supervisors to meet and discuss the Center's operational budget in order to determine the level of FY04 funding that will be provided by the County. Following this determination, the Commission and other representatives from Iowa City were invited to schedule a council work session with the cities of Coralville and North Liberty to discuss the Center's operational funding. In accordance with the directive received at this meeting, a meeting to discuss the Center's operational budget was set for Thursday, October 10, 2002. This meeting included Honohan, Kopping, City Manager Steve Atkins, Councilors Mike O'Donnell and Connie Champion, and Supervisor Sally Stutsman. Supervisor Terrence Neuzil was absent from the meeting due to illness. The outcome of this meeting was Stutsman agreed to schedule a Senior Center budget discussion at an upcoming Board of Supervisors' Work Session. Subsequently, the Senior Center was placed on the agenda for the Board's Thursday, October 17th' 2002, Work Session. Honohan commented that shodly after the Thursday, October 17th, 2002, meeting with the Board of Supervisors, he will contact city administrators from Coralville and North Liberty and ask to have the Center's operational funding placed on the agenda of an upcoming work session. W:~wpdatatlNDEXBC\WEB\SCC10-15-02.doc MINUTES Final/Approved SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION 2 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 Honohan reported that his impression from these meetings was that the Board of Supervisors would fund the Senior Center in fiscal year 2004, but at this time they are not sure how much funding they will provide. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE OPERATIONAL BUDGET PROPOSAL- Rowley The proposed operational budget for FY04 is around $663,000, approximately $20,000 less than the approved budget for FY03. Rowley reviewed the costs associated with staffing, supplies, services and capitol improvement projects. She pointed out that the majority of capitol improvement expenses in the FY04 budget are loan repayments from past projects. She concluded by noting the proposed budget will be submitted to the City Manager and Finance Director tomorrow. The Commission discussed a variety of revenue generating ideas to address the FY04 budget shortfall including participant membership and class fees. Kopping stated that if these changes are implemented Senior Center programming and services will have to change. There will be much greater emphasis on class series, fewer single event programs, and several volunteer programs are likely to be eliminated (or replaced) as the focus of programming changes. It was noted that class fees of $2.50 to $3.50 per hour and membership fees of up to $35 annually would not generate adequate levels of funding. Tiered memberships were discussed briefly. This would involve a lower fee for basic activities (e.g. exercise room, computer lab) and a higher fee for individuals interested in taking classes or class series. Staff indicated that this option will be explored fudher. Other revenue generating ideas that were considered were how to calculate class or participation fees for participation in activities like the New Horizons Band and charging in-house agencies rent for the use of space. Laubengayer, member of the Participant Advisory Committee, reported on a recent meeting of the Committee that was focused on Senior Center funding. He noted that the Committee had discussed class fee structures ranging from $2.50 to $3.50 an hour. At this time there was support for class fees of $2.50 per hour (the lowest possible rate) with no additional class costs for participants living outside of Iowa City. Because the New Horizons Band's use of the building is distinctive, Committee members supported the creation of a unique funding scheme for this group. There was unanimous support for the use of a funding program to suppod the padicipation of Iow-income elderly. Membership fees ranging from $15 to $30 a year were discussed by the members of the Participant Advisory Committee as well. While no final recommendations were made they supported resident fees (of Iowa City and other funding areas) of around $20 annually with a higher non-resident fee. Committee members also suggested that people from areas in Johnson County that provide funding but not in proportion to the number of participants who come from that particular area, should be asked to pay the full non-resident fee. Again, there was unanimous support for a funding program to support the membership of Iow-income elderly. Benefits of membership might include such things as 1. The ability to maintain programming. 2. Participation in the parking program. 11/22/2002w:\wpdata\indexbc\web\scc10-15-02.doc MINUTES Final/Approved SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION 3 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 3. Use of special equipment and rooms e.g. exercise, computer, ceramics, pool room and exercise room. 4. Ability to register for classes. 5. Subscription to the Post. It was noted that the use of membership benefits are likely to be somewhat self- regulating and in this respect similar to the parking program. In other words, people who are paying fees--parking or membership--are likely to report to staff the use of benefits by non-paying individuals. Laubengayer reported that the Committee has planned a sedes of public meetings for November. Honohan has been asked to facilitate these meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to gather participant opinions and suggestions for resolving the budget problems faced by the Center. Once the Committee gathers and considers this information, recommendations for the Commission will be developed and submitted. LEASE UPDATE- There has been no progress in securing a response to the kitchen equipment inventory and ownership information that was prepared by the Center and sent to Heritage Area Agency on Aging for verification. Kopping indicated that she had attempted to contact Teresa Kelly to find out when the information would arrive, but Kelly had not returned her call. Commissioners recommended Kopping contact Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek and ask her to send a letter to a higher level official at Heritage asking what the hold-up has been and when the information could be expected. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Operations - Kopping Kopping indicated that the past month had been spent almost exclusively on budget issues that had been reported on earlier in the meeting. Programs - Seal Seal highlighted some of the programs planned for November e.g. Veterans' Day Celebration, American Cancer Society programming, a financial program, and a lecture by Loren Horton. For a complete list of activities see the November edition of the Post. Volunteers - Rogusky Rogusky reported on the progress of the Center for Learning in Retirement in planning their spring classes and the status of the Senior Center website. The website is nearing completion. Once it is finalized it will be up to the staff to maintain the site and keep it updated. CITY COUNCIL - Benz Benz reported to the City Council on the September 25 joint meeting between Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Johnson County and the Iowa City School Board and the FY04 budget issues. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Monsanto Monsanto reported to the Board of Supervisors offering a brief overview of programs and the budget issues for FY04. 11/22/2002w:\wpdata\indexbc\web\sccl 0-15-02.doc MINUTES Final/Approved SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION 4 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 COMMISSION DISCUSSION Motion: to adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Monsanto/Kelly 11/22/2002w:\wpdata\indexbc\web\scc I 0-15-02.doc