Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-01-21 Bd Comm minutes
APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn, Peter Jochimsen STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Spencer CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Demolition of barn. Maharry said he would have to recuse himself from participating in discussion regarding the two certificates of appropriateness because of a potential conflict of interest. McCafferty said there are actually two properties involved in this discussion, and Dennis Spencer owns both of the properties. She said a barn is located on the property line between 347 and 401 South Governor. McCafferty said there is currently a house at 347 South Governor, and the house is considered a contributing structure to a conservation district. She said the house was built sometime around the turn of the century. McCafferty added that there is a vacant lot between 347 South Governor and the Bethel AME Church. McCafferty said Spencer is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the barn, since its location on the property line is problematic for him. McCafferty said Spencer is also looking for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a house on the vacant lot. Regarding the demolition of the barn, McCafferty referred to the photographs in the Commission's packet. She said she visited the property with Doug Steinmetz, a preservation architect, to look at both the house and the barn. McCafferty said it is Steinmetz' opinion that the barn could potentially be moved. McCafferty said Steinmetz believes it would take some lateral support, going in with sheets of plywood and screwing it into the studs, probably building a sill around the base of it, and then picking it up and sliding it over, so that it is off the property line. McCafferty said a house mover looked at the barn for Spencer but felt that it could not be moved. Spencer said he believes that anything is possible with the right amount of money, but the house mover did not feel it would be financially feasible to do the move. Spencer said the other issue involves the property line. He said the property line basically splits through the center of the barn. Spencer said if it were simply a matter of sliding it over to the other property, that would be one thing, but then there would be setback requirements off of alleys and that kind of thing. He said not only would it have to be slid over, but also it would have to be moved 30 feet toward the house. McCafferty said in that case what could be done would be to request a special exception. She said that issue comes up frequently in older neighborhoods, because the rear setback requirements were basically written for new neighborhoods. McCafferty said in a lot of older neighborhoods, the garages and accessory structures were put on the alley line. She said that would then require a special exception, but it is possible. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 2 Spencer said he intends to sell the existing house, and that is why the barn located on the property line has become an issue. McCallum asked if the barn needs to be out of the way to accommodate the parking for the new house. Spencer said that would be best. He said the biggest issue is how to resell the house next door with the barn splitting the properties. Spencer showed the parking with a retaining wall coming up. He said it would certainly be better to not have the barn there, although it would probably not be mandatory. McCallum asked if this would be an income-producing house requiring four parking spaces. Spencer confirmed that it would be a rental property. He said four parking spaces are needed, although the requirement might only be for two spaces. Ponto said the Commission is in favor of off-stroet parking. Spencer said the house was constructed in 1903. He said it has been altered since that time. Carlson said the building does actually contribute to the neighborhood feel so that he would be all in favor of moving it slightly from its present position if at all possible, Enloe said to put emphasis on the slightly, to not totally displace it to another neighborhood. Spencer said the building is about twelve feet wide and sixteen feet deep1 with probably five feet of the building lying on 347, and the other seven feet lying on 401 South Governor. Smothers said she agreed with Carlson. She said she would not vote for demolition. Smothers said she believes that there are people out there who would not mind this being here on the property line. She said even if this is not used for a barn or garage, it would make a beautiful studio space. McCafferty said the issue is not so much the design, but the legal issue of having this on the property line. She pointed out that Spencer needs to clear the title so that he can sell the property. McCallum asked if there could be a common easement over the piece of properly to be owned by both or shared by both. Spencer said that both properties have been owned by the same person since at least the 1960s. He said he now wants to sell one property. Enloe asked if the shape of the plat could be changed in order to clarify the ownership. He asked if both lots are of equal size. Spencer responded that the lot with the existing house is about five feet wider than the empty lot. Enloe suggested it might be possible to cut the barn out of the other property. Spencer said he supposed the legal description could be changed to draw the boundaries around the structure. McCallum asked if it really creates a title problem to have that barn as a shared feature of both properties. Enloe said to make a studio, as suggested, would be much more complicated than a shared garage. Spencer said the question is whether the person who is buying the property next door would want that. He said obviously the Commission has different concerns, but his question is whether the person buying that property would want it. Spencer said if that is the case, then maybe it would be a good thing to draw the line around it. He said he could try that approach of redrawing the line. McCallum asked Spencer if his first choice is to demolish the building. Spencer replied that his first choice would be to have someone use the building. He said if he is going to develop the property, he wants the structure off the property he is building on. Spencer said it is somewhat of an eyesore the way it is, although he can see the potential of doing something there. He said what he really wants is for the Commission to answer the question. MOTION: Enloe moved that a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a barn on the properties at 347 South Governor and 401 South Governor not be granted. VVeitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Construction of new house at 401 South Governor Street. McCafferty said Spencer proposes to build a new house on the lot at 401 South Governor. She said thero are guidelines for site and scale issues for the conservation district. McCafferty asked Spencer what the height up to the eave would be. Spencer responded that it would be approximately 18 feet. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 3 McCafferty said there are setback guidelines require that the new structure be located in line with structures on the adjacent properties. She read from the building facade guidelines, "The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure shall be no more than 1,200 square feet on Governor. Outbuildings shall be placed in the rear. Vehicular access shall be from the alley." In terms of building styles, McCafferty read, "Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and conservation districts. A new primary structures should reflect the historic styles of the neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single styles should dictate the height, mass, reoflines and fenestration and overhangs for new buildings. Please refer to the section entitled 'Architectural Styles'." McCafferty read further, "A new building on the Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, vernacular, or Foursquare. New single-family houses or duplexes should be one, one and one-half, or two stories high. Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified in this district. Dormers must be in proportion to the overall size. New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style. Window placement on the facade of a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full-light or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic style of the new structure." McCafferty read on, "In a conservation district, synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on non-contributing structures. Horizontal siding like clapboard or cedar shingles are preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Fiber cement board is accepted." Regarding porches and balconies, McCafferty read, "Single story covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow Neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the new house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and windows. Porch flooring should be vertical grain porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable materials that accept paint. Where a spindle railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail. The spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. In conservation districts, dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed 1/8 inch and poured concrete floors may be used provided that the porch floor is not more than '18 inches above grade." McCafferty said those are the issues to consider in looking at this proposal. Spencer said he had a couple of concerns to discuss. He distributed photographs of the house at 950 East Jefferson, which is basically the same house he is proposing, although a couple of things would be slightly different because of the lot. Spencer said he has heard comments that the house on Jefferson is well thought of for a new house in an older neighborhood, so that is what he went after. He added that it is a house he has built before so that he has experience in constructing it. Spencer said there is a huge oak tree in the front yard of this house next to the church. He stated that it is at least 100 years old and in good health. Spencer said the City Arborist looked at the tree to give him advice. Spencer said the setback of the old house that he owns next door is 26 to 27 feet. He said if he maintains that same setback for the house next door, he should be able to keep equipment off there, and the City Arborist thought the tree could then be saved. Spencer said the foundation plan shows a concrete wall beneath the porch, and it would have a stoop cap on it. He said because of the location of the tree is wants to save, he would like to not have to do the excavation, which can damage the tree's roots, and do a wooden front porch on piers instead. Spencer said he intends to duplicate the house in the photograph that was passed around. He said he did not know what the style was called. Spencer said he also considered a foursquare look with hips on the front side. He said he did not have a problem with that either or with varying widths of siding and that kind of thing. Spencer said he did not have a problem with changing the style of it, although the house in the photograph is a nice looking house, and it seemed like it might fit in. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 4 Enloe said the guidelines call for an Italianate, foursquare, Queen Anne, or vernacular. He said foursquare would be nice. Enloe said the issue that bothers him is the windows; the windows on the first floor are too small and too close together. He said the fenestration needs to be consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. He added that the house needs more widely spaced windows next to the door. Spencer said he did not have a problem with bigger windows and actually thought the same thing, especially on the side windows. He said he did not know that there was a lot to be done with the front, although obviously there is a lot that could be done with the big window that is in the porch. Enloe added that the guidelines state that it is the front of the house, not the sides, that is really encoded in the guidelines for a conservation district. Spencer said the photograph shows a small octagonal window added that looks okay but might not really fit the side. Enloe said the windows need to be symmetrical up and down and balanced. He suggested redesigning the facade so that there would not be one massive window. McCafferty asked Spencer about the construction schedule for this house. Spencer said he probably would not start until the end of March or April. McCafferty said the Commission does not like to just say no and send the applicant away without some direction and guidance. She said she sees a couple of options here, one of which would be to take this more toward a craftsman kind of foursquare with a hipped roof and using some appropriate details and dimensions on the porch. McCafferty said the one thing she would want the Commission to consider in terms of the plan of the house is that, in looking at houses on that street, they generally tend to be 24 to 26 feet wide. She said this is a 30-foot wide house. McCafferty said she and Spencer could work together to do a lot to get this into a style, if the Commission feels that this width of a facade is appropriate. Smothers said the pitch of the porch roof is different from the main roof of the house, and that makes it seem a little off. She suggested making them similar in terms of choosing a style. Smothers said she is not hung up on materials, but scale and proportion, along with the fenestration, are very important. McCafferty said, generally, for example with a Queen Anne, the house would not need all the bric-a-brac but would need to have the right scale and proportion and trim. She pointed out that there are a number of foursquares on that street. Carlson said this does seem very broad for houses on that street. McCafferty said the Commission wants to work with Spencer to come up with a solution. Spencer said he does see asking to narrow the 30-foot width as a little bit of a problem, from the standpoint of the way the second floor of the house is laid out. McCafferty said the second floor is what is dictating the width of the house. She said she has looked through some plan books and feels there are solutions to do a narrower house and still get the four bedrooms. McCafferty said what that would mean is that there will need to be more architectural work, and she would be willing to work with Spencer to provide direction and recommendations.. She said if the Commission really thinks that this scale is too large, then there will have to be more work to get a plan that works, and this will probably have to be redrafted. Carlson asked if a hipped roof would look more appropriate on a house if it is kept fairly broad at 28 to 30 feet. Enloe said it is a square house as it is, 30 feet by 30 feet. Weitzel said it is such a massive gable. McCallum said if it is more Victorian, they tend to have skinnier ends. He said that is sort of what this is attempting, but because of its width, it makes the foursquare seem more right. Enloe said the Commission needs to address the scale issue in and of itself. He said the question is whether this house would fit in the context of this neighborhood on this street. Ponto asked how wide most other foursquares are. Enloe responded that his is 24 feet wide. He asked how wide this lot is. McCafferty replied that the lot is 40 feet wide. Enloe said the Commission would therefore have to consider a 30-foot house on a 40-foot lot. McCafferty showed examples of various styles of houses. She showed a craffsman foursquare that is 22 feet wide and contrasted it with one that is 28 feet wide. Enloe said the question is how would it fit with the mass, scale and size of houses on that street, on this narrow lot. McCallum asked about the width of the house next door. Spencer thought it might be 22 to 24 feet wide. He said there are, however, a lot of houses along that street that have 30 feet in width. He said some are oriented differently so that the width is more than the depth. Spencer said he did not know how appropriate those houses are for that street. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 5 He said the house right on the other side of the church is at least 30 feet wide, although it is kind of out of place in the neighborhood. Smothers asked Spencer if he wants to obtain a certificate of appropriateness based on the 30-foot width. Spencer responded that he is willing to look at other things, but he has built this house three times. He said from his perspective, the fourth time is that much easier, but he is not cast in stone on this and is willing to listen. McCafferty said that since the general sentiment of the Commission is not to make a decision on accepting this right now, perhaps she and Spencer can look at doing a narrower, longer skinny house. She said if that is not satisfactory, she and Spencer can look at what can be done to change the proposed design. McCafferty said those two options can be considered, and this can be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Carlson said he agreed with Enloe in that the width of this is a problem for him in the context of the South Governor neighborhood. Weitzel said the width of the lot is also a factor. McCafferty said this is a long lot, and she has a lot of planning books with ideas that would work here. She said she did not want Spencer to go away discouraged. Enloe said the Commission is therefore asking Spencer to come back with more information. Spencer asked if width is what he should be mostly concerned about. McCafferty said the width and the style, with the appropriate scale and proportion for that style, should be the focus. McCallum said a foursquare seems to be closer toward what the applicant's building would be appropriate for. McCafferty said that would lend itself most to going in that direction. Spencer said that is actually what he wanted to do in the first place, although he had been told that people liked the way the Jefferson house looked in that neighborhood. He said, however, that the foursquare hip is what he was really planning on doing in the first place. Regarding material choices, Spencer asked for clarification. Enloe said that synthetic siding is acceptable for new construction in a conservation district. Spencer asked about the guidelines for windows. McCafferty said the house should have double hung windows, as shown on the proposal. She discussed the option of doing synthetic infill with fiber cement board trim. McCafferty said it was used on the City's house at 1821 B Street, and it gives the extra crispness that synthetic doesn't have. She said if the siding then ever needs to be replaced, the infill can just be cut out and replaced. McCafferty said the Commission does not really specify types of trim, but there would need to be wider trim around the windows and cornerboards and that type of thing would probably have to be used. Spencer said he doesn't have any problem with moving windows and putting different windows in. He said the maintenance issues of the products used on the house are important to him, and he will certainly work with the rest of it with no problem. McCafferty asked Spencer to call her in order to set up a meeting between the two of them. McCafferty commented that fiber cement board holds paint quite welk Spencer said he considered doing that. He said he would like to be approved for vinyl siding but would look at the cost of the cement board. Weitzel stated that Spencer is within his rights to use vinyl siding in a conservation district. COLLEGE HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT: College Hill Neighborhood District Guidelines. Maharry said the guidelines had been slightly revised. McCafferty pointed out the underlined portion as the added clause put in to deal with the concerns regarding larger buildings. Maharry read from the last set of minutes, "Fa~:ade dimensions of the rebuilt structure should not exceed the dimensions of the original structure." The consensus was that the added language said the same thing. Maharry said the Commission needed a motion to approve the guidelines, but members living within the district would be required to abstain. He said therefore Enloe, Maharry, and McCallum would be required to abstain. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 6 Carlson said this says, "If the primary structure is accidentally destroyed or is a noncontributing structure that the owner wishes to demolish..." He said he did not remember the clause concerning demolition of noncontributing structures from the previous discussion. Carlson said that may have been part of the discussion, but he recalled the discussion being that of a hardship if the building were destroyed by fire. McCafferty said in her discussion with Mike Gunn, one of the concerns was that if there is a non- contributing structure that is perhaps multi-family that it could be demolished. She said they wanted to leave enough flexibility so that a property owner could demolish a non-contributing building. McCafferty said of course the owner would first have to provide plans for the proposed building. She said with the underlying zoning, the owner has density grandfathered in for that non-contributing building. McCafferty said if a building was constructed under RM-20 and is at an RM-20 density, it can be rebuilt to that RM-20 density. She said if the owner wants to rebuild to that density, the Commission wants to be able to give him the flexibility to have the fa(;ade that allows that. Carlson said it is therefore a right the owner has already. McCafferty agreed it is a right the owner has already, and this reiterates that to address the public discussion regarding accidental destruction of a building. She said the Commission would not want to discourage the demolition of an ugly building to be replaced by something more appropriate. Weitzel said this wording seems compatible with the fire destruction discussion. He said this isn't talking about demolition of a contributing structure, so it is not changing the character of the neighborhood for the worse to take down a non-contributing structure and could potentially improve the neighborhood. Carlson asked about the extent of the Commission's design review over the building to go up on the same lot. McCafferty explained that an owner would have to present what he plans to construct before the demolition would be allowed. She said if a building were destroyed in a fire, right now regardless of whether a conservation district or historic district is in place, if the building were in the Central Planning District and the building is destroyed to in excess of 100% of the appraised value of it, it can be reconstructed to the density it previously was at. McCafferty said what triggers the multi-family guidelines in the Central Planning District is not whether it was on an empty lot or there was a pre-existing building, but is the site plan review process. She said if the building burns down and the owner wants to construct a new one, he has to go through the site plan review process if he builds more than two units. McCafferty said it is this process that triggers the multi- family guidelines, so already property owners are subject to design guidelines, regardless of the conservation district. She said that with the designation of a conservation district, instead of going through the Design Review Committee, which is a staff committee, it would go through the Historic Preservation Commission, and there would be more stringent guidelines. MOTION.: Weitzel moved to approve the College Hill Neighborhood District Guidelines, as written. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Report to State - Comments and Review. Maharry referred to McCafferty's conservation district nomination report to the State and commended her on doing a good job. McCafferty said she was open to suggestions and corrections. Widness suggested that if this had been done as a Word document, McCafferty could e-mail it out and it could be proofread using Change Tracker. She said it makes it so much easier to see the suggestions while the original text would remain. Widness said otherwise it is so hard to read the corrections in a single-spaced document like this. McCafferty said because of time constraints, she used existing material and credited it to the extent that she could. Maharry asked if members had any comments regarding the substance of the report or any suggestions for additional material. He stated that the third paragraph on the first page is really good in that it emphasizes that the purpose of designating a conservation district is to act as a buffer around an historic district. Maharry said that is really what the Commission is doing, and it was good to emphasize that in the opening paragraphs. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 7 McCafferty said she is waiting for information regarding Iowa Avenue and its historic significance from Carlson and Smothers. She said Iowa Avenue was not included in the 1996 College Hill survey. Maharry said this report goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the State. McCafferty said this is primarily for the State, but she would do another staff report that deals with how this affects land use issues, which is what the Planning and Zoning Commission is concerned with. McCafferty said this report is primarily to fulfill the requirements of the State, and it will be sent to SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office). She said SHPO has to respond to the report before the Planning and Zoning Commission can vote. McCafferty said the reason SHPO has to comment on this is because Iowa City is a Certified Local Government (CLG). She said otherwise, the conservation district ordinance is a municipal rather than State entity. McCafferty said in the past, the State has returned the report to her with comments and deficiencies. She said the primary criticism in the past was that landmarks were not designated in conservation districts, but that has been corrected. Maharry asked for suggestions regarding the Iowa Avenue material. McCafferty suggested one good- sized paragraph. Weitzel said Madys Svendsen has a written a paragraph in the downtown survey that discusses the general function and purpose of Iowa Avenue. He said there is some material about both ends of Iowa Avenue but not much about the middle, although there is a context statement about what Iowa Avenue was for. Maharry suggesting sending the report in to the State before the holidays. Carlson said he would work on the draft paragraph and e-mail it to Smothers for review. Smothers said she would then send it to Weitzel for his input. Regarding the final portion of the report, McCafferty said she came up with a new historic landmark nomination form, based on the National Register site inventory form. She said she created a form for each of the houses. McCafferty said one item she is still awaiting information on is the Overholt-Crum House. She said someone at Security Title is researching the abstract to resolve the discrepancy regarding when the house was built. Colleqe Hill Land Values. Maharry said that at the last meeting people had expressed concern over whether property values were higher or lower in districts or not in districts. He said the areas in and around the districts were researched. Maharry said in his interpretation of the data, RM-12 values are higher in historic districts, in RNC-12 zones values are lower in the historic district, in RS-8 zones values are higher in the historic district, and in RNC-20 zones values are lower in the historic district. McCafferty said if one looks at all the different individual numbers on a per square foot basis, there is a lot of variation, even for properties that are very similar in their location on the street. Weitzel said he noticed that there are quite a few properties in an RNC-20 zone within an historic district that, on a square footage basis, have higher values than outside the district. He said that the average there may be misleading. Weitzel said looking property by property might show a different trend if one looks at the number of occupants or the style of building or something like that. McCafferty stated that the values are comprised of the assessed land values only. Regarding the RNC districts, she said there may be more variation because the density is grandfathered in. Weitzel added that for the RNC-12 zoning inside the historic district, two numbers don't really signify a trend. McCafferty said if one looks at the RS-8 zoning, where there are no issues in terms of grandfathered densities, one sees that the trend generally is higher in historic districts: 7.85 versus 6.46. She said those numbers also tend to have a little more consistency to them. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 8 Weitzel asked Carlson if he could give more information about his thesis and how it would apply to this issue. Carlson said he looked at three historic districts in two cities in New York State that were designated in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. He said he looked at price trends in those neighborhoods between 1960 and 1992. Carlson said some of the districts contained large early 20~h century houses that were zoned for single- family residences. He said, however, one district was very much like the College Hill area with a mix of single-family and multi-family converted houses in a college environment. Carlson said he found that in all three areas, there was really no significant difference in price trends or in rehabilitation trends before or after the designation. He said if a City had a lot of rehabilitation activity, that activity went on both in the district and outside the district. Carlson said he look at sales prices, not assessed values, and those sales prices continued the trend before and after the designation; there was no significant increase or decrease after the designation. McCafferty asked about the condition of the properties prior to the designation. She said sometimes a historic district designation is used as a means in which a depressed area can get tax credits for reinvestment in the property. McCafferty said in Iowa City it has been the case where there has first been a sort of upswing with a single-family neighborhood, and the designation has been placed for more of a protection as opposed to an economic incentive. Carlson said one of the neighborhoods he looked at was a depressed, inner-city neighborhood. He said the trend before designation was to have fluctuating property values, and the trend after designation was to have fluctuating property values. Carlson said the designation did stabilize the neighborhood to a certain extent. McCafferty said she forwarded to Commission members the Commission's user name and password for the National Trust. She said there is a forum listserve there that she subscribes to, and there has been discussion lately about this issue. Enloe said he has some problems with this particular analysis. He said it is very difficult to look at any trends comparing inside and outside the district, because his tax bill changed radically since the last assessment. Enloe said the value of the land went up, and the value of the house went down. He said many of the issues the Commission looks at do not concern the value of the land per se but the houses on the land. Maharry said the Commission was concerned about the land per se. He said the commercial buildings were removed, because those people complained so much that the value of their land, not their buildings, would be adversely affected. Enloe said the concern here is the combination of the land and the house, particularly in the historic districts. Maharry said the concern of the people at the public hearing was their land value; they didn't care about their houses. Enloe said the assessed values include the values of the land, and it is difficult to examine trends when he saw, in his last assessment, that his land value went way up, and his house value went way down. He said it is difficult to put that in perspective when comparing within and outside of the districts. Enloe asked if all of the properties were reassessed at the same time and what is governing how they changed and evaluated the land. McCallum said the tax assessment on his land is about $100,000. He said when he bought the building, an appraiser looked at the property and gave the land value a value of $390,000, based on the going market rate for lots. McCallum said if you can build 13 units, as Brad Houser had mentioned, the value is now $30,000 to $50,000 for land near campus. He said that is what the people in the CB-2 were pointing out. McCallum said they are concerned about the fact that sometimes the loans are based on an appraiser's assessment. He said they may not be able to get refinancing on their property. McCafferty said Gunn was particularly concerned with whether the Commission would be diminishing development potential that people have invested in. She said that is really based upon the land and not the house that is on the property. Maharry agreed this is a difficult issue to study. He said the Commission could pay an assessor in the community to get his professional opinion. He said it would probably not be an historical evaluation, but it Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 9 could tell what an appraiser feels the value would be. McCafferty said the National Trust does have a booklet out on assessing historic properties. Enloe said, particularly in the historic districts, many people have bought houses because of the character of the structure. He said Gunn frequently discusses the idea that historic districts make the value of the land go up. Enloe said he is not particularly interested in the value of his land going up, because he pays taxes on it every year. He said he is not a real estate speculator, and people who are attracted to and value historic districts are people who want to have stable neighborhoods in which they can live. He said they are not real estate developers who are looking to speculate and increase the amount of their money. Enloe wondered if this is an appropriate thing for the Commission to be concerned about and said he is not certain it is even true that this increases the value of the land, which is used as a selling point to try to convince people to go along with designating an historic district. Widness said it has certainly been mentioned in the literature the Commission has put out over the years, but she did not think it had ever been emphasized to the exclusion of other things. On the contrary, Widness suggested that the thing that has been stressed most prominently is the fact that designation tends to stabilize neighborhoods. She said that is something the Commission has some basis in fact to argue, while the other argument about property values may be on shaky ground. Maharry asked what stabilizing a neighborhood means. He said it means that houses won't be bulldozed to be replaced with multiple apartment buildings, which, in turn, would devalue the values. Widness said that is indirectly true. She said the Commission can make that point and let people infer that it will have an effect on the property values without having the Commission come out and say it will have an effect and this is what it believes the effect will be. Widness said she did not think the Commission can say that. Widness said this was Sue Licht's point -that trying to superimpose this overlay on this district is going to have an effect on property values. Widness said when that becomes the chief complaint, the Commission needs to be able to parry and have a response. Enloe said it clearly would have an effect on commercial properties, because those people are getting loans to buy, maintain, or improve these properties based on the market value. Widness said Licht's point was that the value is based not on the structure but on the potential density of the lot. Weitzel said it sounded as if they were comparing all of their CB-2 properties to the last building that sold in a CB-2 zone, which sold for $400,000. He said that just because a building is in a CB-2 zone does not mean that property has the same location value, just as all RS-8 properties don't have the same property value. Weitzel said just because the last building sold in a CB-2 zone sold for $400,000 doesn't make anybody else's worth $400,000. He said there are location and site problems and other issues to consider. Weitzel said it cannot be said that just because this is called an historic district, that it is taking their property values and ruining the potential to develop it. Enloe said if the Commission seriously restricts the ability to develop it that has an effect, and the speculative aspects of owning land in a commercial district is a significant part of its value. McCallum said he was on a consulting board for a fraternity house on Dubuque Street. He said the land value there far exceeds the building value. McCallum said a loan for the house was procured based on the value of the land. He said that money was used to improve the house. McCallum said the land value is high because over 45 units could be built on that spot. He said banks will loan the money to do improvements on the property, because even if the house burns down, the land is worth more than the amount financed. McCallum said there are situations in which people rely on the underlying property values to be able to improve their property. Weitzel said the Commission has to be farther sighted than a bank would be for the value of a property or a neighborhood. He said the trends for a market are based on constructing buildings and returning capital in the short term. He said if all of the buildings were constructed with this intent, the quality of the character of the entire neighborhood would be diminished. Weitzel said a neighborhood of ten-story buildings could not be supported in the CB-2 area; it just isn't going to happen. Maharry referred to the reading included in the Commission's packet that was a summary of rezoning. McCafferty said it was done at the request of Dee Vanderhoef and the City Council to determine what the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 10 development potential was along in the near eastside and if there was indeed incentive to demolish properties. McCafferty said Karen Howard, one of the City planners, said conducted the study and determined that there was not a strong incentive. In fact with the downzoning a couple of years ago, there are actually propedies that are built beyond the density allowed in the underlying zone because of the grandfathering in of existing densities the RNC zones. Overall there is not a lot of development incentive in this area. She said because there isn't that strong incentive, it was decided to wait until the Central District Plan is completed for the Comprehensive Plan to address this issue further. McCafferty said the Central District Plan will be the next plan to be addressed by staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission, and that there will likely be opportunity for the Historic Preservation Commission to have input in the planning process. Maharry said the study seemed to refute or parry the arguments that some of the landlords had that they were not being allowed to do what they wanted with their property. Maharry said essentially the density is already maximized, so the Commission is not inhibiting the right to expand, because the owners really don't have a right to expand based on the allowed density. He said what the Commission is placing more control over is adjustment to the fa(;ade. McCallum said so much of Iowa Avenue is non-owner occupied. He asked how people can be encouraged to do the rehabs to bring the properties back to their original conditions. McCallum asked if there were a possibility of TIFFs for one block at a time. McCafferty said in the packet for the previous meeting she had included some options, if the Commission wants to look at getting an incentive in place. She said currently on the books is the Tax Abatement for Historic Properties, which is State enabled and Johnson County has passed an ordinance adopting this legislation. McCafferty said it is not available in a conservation district, so the Commission may want to make that available to contributing properties in a conservation district by going to the County Board of Supervisors and requesting that they amend that ordinance. She said that is essentially the same type of tax abatement that one would see with a TIFF district. McCafferty stated that the increase in value is abated over the period of four years at 100%, and for the next four years, it is reduced by 25% increments, which is also what happens in a TIFF District. She said under this ordinance, applications are approved by SHPO, and it also requires substantial rehabilitation. McCafferty said another option would be to do an urban revitalization district. She said the Commission could set its own parameters, perhaps requiring less investment in the rehabilitation, but the applications would have to be approved by the City Council. McCafferty said the City Council would not be looking strictly at historic preservation, but would also be considering the other issues that may come into play. She said it would be somewhat more subjective, but the Commission could try to do something like that, as there could be a need to provide incentives that don't require substantial rehabilitation. McCafferty suggested that in reviewing the downtown area, perhaps the Commission could apply for economic development money for Iow and no-interest loans just to do facade improvements. She said it is likely that buildings there will not need substantial rehabilitation. McCafferty said during the Commission's annual meeting on Saturday, there could be discussion regarding whether or not it wants to pursue some of these issues. McCafferty distributed the Commission's plan from the previous year for discussion at the annual meeting. She said the Commission had discussed having the preservation plan updated using CLG money, but decided to use the CLG grant for the Northside districts. McCafferty said she did go through the preservation plan, reviewing the goals and objectives outlined in the plan and reviewing what has been accomplished. She said she summarized the plan and what recommendations have and have not been accomplished. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION',~ NOVEMBER 14, 2002 MEETING: Carlson said he had typographical corrections to submit. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 11 Carlson said that on page two, in the final paragraph, the first sentence should read, "...was not a significant difference between the values of properties in the CB-2 portion of the proposed district and similar properties in the residential portion." MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's November 14, 2002 meeting, as amended. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Widness said it was with great ambivalence that she had to tender her resignation. She said she just does not have the time to make the effort that needs to be made, as this is a very busy Commission that needs fully working members. Widness said she would be able to remain on the Commission until a replacement can be found. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte shared on cityn~Jpcd/min utes/h pCJhpc 12 - 12~)2.d cc APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2002 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, James Ponto, Tim Weitzel, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gun, Peter Jochimson, and Amy Smothers, STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. AGENDA FOR UPCOMING YEAR: The commission met to discuss what has been done and where they would like to go in the upcoming year. The commission discussed the Preservation Plan. McCafferty stated that the plan was done in 1992, and it outlines a number of goals and strategies of things that should be accomplished. The primary focus to date has been getting the survey work done and designating districts. She stated that the commission may want to consider some of the other goals and strategies of the plan, such as education, public awareness, incentives and partnering with other organizations. She provided a summary of the goals and objectives of the Preservation Plan The Brochure The commission discussed the creation of the brochures. McCafferty stated that, if possible, hiring a graphic designer to do the brochures would probably be the best route to take, since the Commission and staff simply do not have the time or resources. Widness agreed. Widness stated that the project is just too big for people who don't do this type of work professionally. McCaffer[y pointed out that once the brochures are created that there is the question "How do we distribute it?" Widness stated that, in the past, some were at the library, the hospital, and the visitor's center. Widness didn't think that distribution was the problem. Rather, the real issue is the appearance of the brochure- so that it isn't so big that it isn't off-putting. She recommended one map that doesn't have everything on it, but still hits the high points, carlson suggested identifying a handful of landmarks from each of the districts so that we aren't eliminating all of the description- there are probably a few things that a visitor ought to see. McCafferty suggested illustrating historic neighborhood, not just the official districts, so that when a new one is added the map and brochure don't become obsolete- put some historic landmarks on it as well. Maharry pointed out that this brochure, then, probably isn't truly a walking tour brochure. It will give a general sense of the historic qualities of Iowa City. Widness agreed and said that a walking tour brochure should be done on a smaller scale such as a single historic district or neighborhood. McCallum suggested that a way of distributing the individual district brochures could be to have boxes at the beginning of each district underneath the brown signs. Maharry suggested that a subcommittee be formed to work on the brochure. Ponto then stated it may be best to find funding for the brochure and a graphic designer first. Then, a subcommittee should be formed to work with the designer. Suggestions for possible graphic designers are Joan Benson, Design Ranch, and the designer for the Jazz Fest. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2002 Page 2 The Commission also reviewed the 2002 Work Plan. Ronalds Street McCafferty stated that Ronalds was one of the four districts identified for the CLG grant. In terms of the local district, the representation can be rolled in with Brown Street. For the National Register, Brown Street and Ronalds Street would be two separate districts. The Commission discussed what districts of are of the highest priority for 2003 - the Downtown or the Northside. McCafferty pointed out that there is a sense that the downtown business community would like to see something happening with a downtown historic district. Karin Franklin also feels that there is a window of opportunity in which the Commission is likely to find support for a district. Downtown District The next step for creating a downtown district would be to recruit somebody from the downtown to fill Widness's at large space on the commission. McCallum suggested Mark Ginsberg. McCafferty also thought that the distribution of a PR piece about creating a downtown historic district might be helpful. Widness suggested another person to contact for the commission position would be Bill Nusser. McCafferty said that in order to do the downtown, the maps need to be finished. Weitzel said the maps are ready to go. In addition, the commission needs to do an outline of the guidelines. McCafferty said the commission could likely get some economic development money to do a revolving loan program for the downtown. A downtown subcommittee was formed. McCafferty thought that Smothers would like to work on a downtown subcommittee. Weitzel also said he would like to work on the subcommittee. McCallum said he'd be willing to contact Mark Ginsberg, Bill Nusser, and maybe some others from the downtown about the vacancy on the commission. Other suggestions for the vacancy were the owner of the Soap Opera and the owner of Textiles. Maharry said he would also help. Ponte and Widness both thought that contacting somebody in person about the vacancy would be better than sending a form letter. Montgomery-Butler House Carlson stated that the National Register Nomination was approved with a few changes. He said that most of those changes have been made, except one is holding him up. He had received a comment from the State Archeologist that this should be a historic district, composed of the building and archeological sites. The state review committee didn't buy the historic district comment with one contributing archeological component and one contributing building component. One problem is that there wasn't enough evidence that the archeological component was contributing. If one of the archeologists at SHPO could provide him with some argument that this is a contributing archeologica[ component, then Carlson would revise the nomination and eventually have it approved. Prioritization of Projects Because of the potential community interest in downtown, the Commission thought that area should be a priority. Another suggestion for an at-risk area is to look at conducting a survey of the area south of Melrose. In addition, Maharry suggested that the commission talk with the University to see what their plans are. Weitzel said he would like to see a comprehensive survey of the archeological resources done for Iowa City. it may be best to identify areas of higher priority. However, Weitzel thought there may not be that high of a priority for it. McCallum suggested creating incentives for people to restore buildings. McCafferty stated that she would take the minutes and the old work plan and create a new work plan te be reviewed at the next meeting. From that the commission may want to revise it and change the prioritization. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:56 pm Minutes submitted by Erin Welsch shared on cityndpcd/~nutes/hpc~hpc12-14-O2do¢ MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Dennis Keitel, Vince Maurer, Eric Gidal, T.J. Brandt MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Adam, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: David Thompson, Duane Musser, Jerry Hansen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, Keitel, Brandt, Gidal, Paul present. CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2002 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Paul moved to approve the November 13, 2002 minutes. Gidal seconded, Motion carried 5- 0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC02-00022. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by David Thompson for a special exception (EXC02~00022) to allow dwerling units above the ground floor of a commerciar use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1120 North Dodge Street. Adam stated that the appricant wishes to expand the dwelling space on the second story of a former single-family house with frontage on N. Dodge St. A special exception is required to bring the use into compliance with the Zoning Code. Applicant had commenced construction prior to obtaining site plan approval, but has since discontinued construction due to a stop work order. Adam said that the specific standards requirement stating that the density of dwelling units in the zone may not exceed one dwerring unit per 1800 sq. ft. of lot area with not more than three roomers per dwelling unit has been met inasmuch as the applicant proposes to build two one-bedroom dwelling units above the ground floor. The lot area is 13,500 square feet. Adam stated that the change in floor area will not be substantial. He said that the initial application was for the expansion of a single two-bedroom unit, and the amended application is for the construction of two one-bedroom units with resulting extension of the building's footprint southward. He said that the first story extension will be for office use. The only substantive change to the property will be the addition of a parking lot near the frontage on the west side of the building. He said that the applicant has landscaping adjacent to the neighboring homes on the site plan. Adam said that future redevelopment of the lot could cause traffic issues, but that would not be of concern on this case. He said that two new trees would be required in the yard. If the applicant maintains one existing tree, then one more would be required. He said that additional trees will be required in the right- of-way, but that finar determination would be during the site plan review process. Adam said that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Pran, as amended. He said that staff recommends that a row of shrubs, spaced four feet on center in a five-foot-wide area in front of the new parking lot, be provided to soften the effects of the new parking lot, and set south of the 10-foot-wide future temporary construction easement & permanent utility easement along North Dodge. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes December 11, 2002 Page 2 Adam stated that the applicant's site plan shows a parking space in front of the porch, which would have to be moved once Dodge Street is improved because it will not longer comply with the minimum five-foot spacing and landscaping requirement. He said that staff recommends that the parking be allowed no closer than five feet from the southern edge of the construction easement to avoid a non-conforming parking lot. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC02-00022, an application for a special exception to allow two dwelling units above the ground floor of a principal use in the Community Commercial zone, be approved subject tc the provision of landscaping on the west property line along the parking rot, the provision of a five-foot-wide area planted with shrubs spaced no less than four feet on center and attaining a mature height of no less than three feet between the parking lot and the 1 O-foot-wide permanent utility easement, and the planting of at least one more tree in the vicinity of the south side of the new paving, provided the existing tree off the northeast corner of the building is retained, otherwise to be replaced by another tree in the yard. In response to a question from Maurer, Adam said that when construction begins on North Dodge, the sidewalks will be torn out again and moved in, but this should not affect anything other than the sidewalks. Adam said that no parking should be affected, and that the utility easement would be a buffer between the street and the parking area. in response to a question from Paul, Adam said that the only concern the Board has regarding the parking would be a recommendation regarding shrubbery placement. He said that the driveway and curb cut issues are under the domain of the IDOT. Paul clarified that the Board's primary concern is the expansion of the building and screening. In response to a question from Keitel, Adam said that if the two units are approved and the applicant does not get permission to place the driveway as required, he would be able to make changes on the lot to accommodate parking. Public Hearing Opened David Thompson identified himself as the owner of the property. He said that he just received staff's proposed changes to the site plan a couple of days ago. He said that he had prepared minor changes, and handed out copies of a revised site plan. Thompson said that with the driveway located in the front, he proposes that 13 feet would be sufficient area to put in shrubs. He said they would like to provide a handicap parking space in the front of the building, but would like to construct it to what he believes is the state minimum of 12'6". He said the would be able to keep the shrubs if the sidewalk was moved in. Holecek said that the size of the proposed front parking space is not within the purview of the Board's discretion. In response to a question from Keitel, Thompson said that there should be nothing to prevent relocating the tenant parking if necessary, especially along the alley. Public Hearing Closed Motion: Gidal moved to approve EXC02-00022, an application for a special exception to allow two dwelling units above the ground floor of a principal use in the Community Commercial zone, be approved subject to the provision of landscaping on the west property line along the parking lot, the provision of a five-foot-wide area planted with shrubs spaced no less than four feet on center and attaining a mature height of no less than three feet between the parking lot and the 10-foot- wide permanent utility easement, and the planting of at least one more tree in the vicinity of the south side of the new paving, provided the existing tree off the northeast corner of the building is retained, otherwise to be replaced by another tree in the yard. The motion was seconded by Paul. Findin~ls of Fact Keitel said that he thinks the applicant will be able to work with the City, and does not think this would be detrimental or injurious to others. He said he would vote in favor of the application. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes December 11,2002 Page 3 Gidal said he would vote to approve. He said it meets the specific standards and the general standards. Maurer said he would vote in favor for the reasons stated. Paul said he would vote in favor of this application. He reiterated that Mr. Thompson has met the general standards for special exception review requirements as stated by staff. He stated the project would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said it would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Paul said that the project will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. He no[ed there are adequate utilities, access roads, and drainage. He said this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Brandt said he would vote in favor, and felt that this project will help to dress up the area. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. EXC02-00023. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Hawkeye Investments for a special exception (EXC02-00023) to allow a restaurant in a Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 1901 Broadway Street. Keitel stated that his firm had some involvement with the preliminary planning for this project, and he recused himself from reconsideration of this application. Adam said that applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use building and wants to put a restaurant commercial use on the ground floor with dwelling units above. He said that staff had concerns that if the type of restaurant changes, a new restaurant use may produce offensive wastes (such as grease) that could be a nuisance to other tenants. Therefore, he said staff recommends that dumpsters shall be located no closer than 50 feet to any window of any habitable or leasable structure on the subject property or neighboring property. Adam stated that access to the property has been much enhanced since completion of the Highway 6 Trail. He said that people who wish to use the trail and have need to cross this property would be safer if separated from vehicular traffic by well-demarcated pedestrian walkways. Therefore, staff recommends that a standard 4-foot-wide sidewalk be provided along Broadway Street and that appropriate connections from that sidewalk and the Highway 6 Trail be made to the proposed structure. He said that the number of parking spaces is not an issue on this application. Staff included a sketch showing how a connection to the trail could be achieved by a "bump out". Adam said that the existing curb is only about fifty feet south of the Broadway and Highway 6 intersection and staff feels this provides a hazard. He said that standard traffic engineering & planning practice has been to recommend a minimum distance of 150 feet between drives and intersections. In addition, fast food restaurants tend to generate rapid turnover traffic. He said that staff recommends that the existing curb cut near the northeast corner of the property be closed, and that no new curb cuts be established closer than 100 feet from the northeast corner of the lot. In addition, Adam said that the opposing driveways across Broadway Street should be across from one another with minimal offset, or should be offset by at least 125 feet. He said that staff has discussed this issue with the applicant, and they have been working on reconfiguring the drive to better align with the opposing driveway at 1902 Broadway. Adam said that the City Engineering Department strongly recommends to the applicant and the owners of Pepperwood that a connection to Pepperwood be created to encourage traffic flow. He said that staff does not want to make a recommendation to the Board that would tie the hands of the owners, but prefer that the applicant and the owners of Pepperwood work this out. He suggested that the Board could strongly encourage the creation of a connection. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes December 11,2002 Page 4 Adam stated that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that staff feels that the development and the building design as proposed will be an asset to the commercial area along Highway 6 East. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC02-00023, an application for a special exception to establish a restaurant in a Commercial Office zone at 1901 Broadway Street be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. General conformance with the building and site plan submitted by the applicant; 2. Dumpsters shall be located no closer than 50 feet to any window of any habitable or leasable structure on the subject property or neighboring property; 3. The northeast curb cut and driveway shall be closed. 4. No new driveways shall be permitted closer than 100 feet to the northeast property corner; 5. The new curb cut and driveway shall be located so there is roughly 50-percent overlap, as outlined in the Opposing Driveways illustration provided by the staff, between it and the opposing driveway at 1902 Broadway Street; and 6. A standard 4-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along Broadway Street with appropriate connections both from that sidewalk and from the Highway 6 Trail to the proposed structure. In addition, Adam said that staff suggests that the Board urge the applicant to seek internal access with the owners of Pepperwood Mall, and that the Board suggest including the recommendation of a "bump out" next to the building if the Board feels it appropriate to delineate access to the trail. Public Hearing Opened Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, identified himself and stated he was speaking on behalf of the applicant. He said it sounds like staff's major concern is a "bump out" next to the building. He said that the applicant wants to keep as much parking in front to maintain accessibility to businesses in the building. Musser said that the applicant did include a "bump out" across from the doorway because it lines up well with the handicap ramp. He said the applicant would be willing to consider a colored concrete pad, but wishes to maintain all parking spaces in front as identified in their plan. Musser said that they will discuss with Pepper~ood vehicular access between the two properties. He said he has concerns about additional water runoff into the parking lot, and they will address those concerns. Musser said the applicant will eliminate the curb cut and move access to the south. He said they are trying to minimize the cost of relocating the drive across from the opposing driveway at 1902 Broadway Street, and that the utility poles are a major concern. Jerry Hansen identified himself as the Chairman of Wetherby Friends & Neighbors. He said that the major concern of the neighborhood is regarding the type of apartments that will be maintained above the office space. He said that Pepperwood is currently 70% vacant, and they are concerned that subsidized housing will keep away more commercial business. He said that the neighborhood has gained a reputation, which they have not been able to flick off. He said there is a lot of property for sale in the area, affordable single-family homes at entry level. He said it takes a long time to sell property in the neighborhood. Hansen said they need commercial development in the area, but many have left the area following gangs of kids hanging out in front of the buildings. He urged the Board to think very carefully about how this part of town is developed. He suggested other uses, such as a neighborhood center or church. Paul stated that, under the current zoning, apartments are allowed. Holecek clarified that apartments are allowed by right. Paul said that the Board is only concerned with establishing a restaurant in the zone, and the neighborhood's concerns would be more suited to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Paul stated that he understands Hansen's concerns about market statistics, but that the highest and best use for the property is to be determined by the landowner. He said that in this case, an entrepreneur Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes December 11, 2002 Page 5 wants to come in and build a building, and make a go of it in the neighborhood. He said that with the current zoning, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from building this project. Brandt said that he understands the concerns, but it is not this Board's purpose to determine who can come in and try to make a go of it. He said it is the right of the property owner to do what they wish with the property, within the guidelines of the zone. Paul said the bottom line is that, as a Board, regardless of any personal or professional feelings, they have standards the applicant has to meet. He said that if the applicant has met the standards, and the Board denies based on another reason, they can appeal to district court. Holecek clarified that as long as the Board is not arbitrary or capricious in articulating the reason for denial, and they have a rational basis for denial, they are within their right. However, she said they are not talking about the residential use above; the only item within the Board's purview is the type of use that will occupy the commercial space. Public Hearing Closed Motion: Paul moved to approve EXC02-00023, an application for a special exception to establish a restaurant in a Commercial Office zone at 1901 Broadway Street be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. General conformance with the building and site plan submitted by the applicant, with the inclusion of a clearly demarcated pedestrian connection between the Highway 6 Trail and the building entrance; 2. Dumpsters shall be located no closer than 50 feet to any window of any habitable or leasable structure on the subject property or neighboring property; 3. The northeast curb cut and driveway shall be closed. 4. No new driveways shall be permitted closer than 109 feet to the northeast property corner; 5. The new curb cut and driveway shall be located so there is roughly 50-percent overlap, as outlined in the Opposing Driveways illustration provided by the staff, between it and the opposing driveway at 1902 Broadway Street; and 6. A standard 4-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along Broadway Street with appropriate connections both from that sidewalk and from the Highway 6 Trail to the proposed structure. Gidal clarified that the motion as made does not demand a "bump out", but simply some kind of clear demarcation, which would allow them to maintain the two handicapped spaces, with the space in between and planned. The motion was seconded by Gidal. Findinqs of Fact Paul stated that he would vote in favor of the special exception. He said that the general standards have been met, as far as it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; and it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or diminish or impair values in the neighborhood; and it will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. He said that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and facilities are being provided; adequate measures have or will be taken for ingress and egress; and except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of the zone in which it is located and it does appear to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Maurer said he would also vote in favor for the reasons stated, and he thinks this is an effort to help improve the situation that exists in the neighborhood. Gidal stated he would vote to approve for the same reasons, and hopes this development will help to turn the tide in relation to the viability of the neighborhood. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes December 11,2002 Page 6 Brandt stated he would vote to approve for the reasons stated. He said he wants to express his concern to Mr. Hansen's points regarding what the neighborhood has turned into. He said that hopefully this building will attract some additional commercial activity, and hopefully the Boards and the Councils in the future can help to revitalize that entire area. He reiterated that the applicant has met all the standards and the Board has no grounds to deny the application. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0, one recusal. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT iNFORMATION Adam said that Carol Alexander has been appointed by the City Council to the Board of Adjustment. Adam stated that the questions regarding Budget Rent-A-Car's special exception on Riverside Drive have been addressed with the applicant. He presented a letter that came out of a discussion between the applicant, Gary Smith, Sarah HoJecek, Julie Tallman of Housing Inspection Services, and himself regarding what landscaping would be put in. He referred to a drawing on the back, and said that it has been solidified exactly what the applicant will do, with dimensions. He said they also addressed the issue of having enough width for planting, so the applicant will be removing some concrete, extending the planting area, putting in shrubs, replacing the tree that is in the corner, and has been advised he cannot have any tall vehicles within view of Riverside Drive. In response to a question from Holecek, Adam clarified that an office building could have been built, with residential above the ground floor, without any need to come to the Board. The difference in the need for the application was the intensification of the commercial on the ground floor. Brandt thanked the members of the Board and stated it had been a pleasure working with staff for the last five years. Paul thanked Brandt for his service. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 2002. Gidal advised he will not be present at that meeting. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn, seconded by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 6:17 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor shared on cityntlpcdlmJnuleslboalboa12-11-O2doc IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FiNAL/APPROVE 3 EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington St. November 26, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Paul Retish, Lucia Page, Jan Warren, Charles Major, Nick Klenske, Keri Neblett, Bob Peffer MEMBERS ABSENT:Rick Spooner STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Beckmann asked for approval of or any changes in the minutes from the October meeting. Under #4 New Business Homeless Task Force, in the fourth sentence Beckmann wants this removed as she isn't sure what this refers to, "Beckmann will do some checking..." In the same section Major would like to make it clear that it is a VA sponsored program that helps the homeless. Motion to approve amended minutes by Page and seconded by Peffer. Motion: Minutes unanimously approved. 3. NEW BUSINESS: New Commissioners: Shank reported that Klenske has been reappointed. David Shorr and Billie Townsend will be the new members and they will begin their terms in January. Page will be resigning due to the fact that she is moving to Boston. Shank states that the January meeting will be held in the Lobby Conference Room. Beckmann would like to have the December meeting rescheduled. The new date will be December 17th, though there may be some members absent. Shank wants to make sure that there is a quorum because the City Attorney will attend the meeting to discuss a case. Retish asked Shank to send a reminder email to all about the meeting. Retish states that this is a difficult season for himself and others who are not Christian. He discussed the "shopping day program" that is sponsored by the Iowa City Police Department where they take poor children shopping. He doesn't like the fact that it is called "Christmas" shopping as not all people are Christians and we should be sensitive to this because we live in a very diverse community. Shank suggested the Commission write a letter to the editor stating this opinion. Retish suggests that maybe we wait until after the holidays. Page asked about planning something for next year well in advance of the holidays. Shank will contact Matt Johnson in regards to the "Cop and Shop" program to express the views of the Commission. Retish would like a more neutral program so that all children could participate and have fun. Human Rights Breakfast: Beckmann, Retish and Shank had email correspondence in October about an idea to recognize kids at the breakfast. She states that there are many kids, elementary, junior high and high school out there that engage in human rights projects all the time and couldn't the Commission recognize them in some way. Retish spoke about a book by Dan Eldon and how wonderful it was. He indicated that Shank thought it had many great ideas for human rights projects. Retish stated that maybe we could bring books into the schools and tie it together with the human rights breakfast and this new idea. Beckmann suggested sending out letters to the schools, teachers or religious organizations to solicit input on this but not pick a winner. Instead the Commission could recognize everyone that submits an entry. Warren would prefer in addition to this, the addition of a specific award, a youth award for the next Human Rights Breakfast. She stated that the students need to be recognized publicly in a formal setting and feel as important as the adults receiving the awards. Beckmann would like to see the age limit set at eighteen years old or younger. Major thinks it may be hard to develop criteria as how to choose the winner. Retish has some reservations about trying to chose out of a group of young people, choosing a distinction between high school, junior high and elementary. He would prefer the idea of saying we're going to have a panorama of all projects and we're going to award everyone for their great work. He thinks that putting them into an adult motif may be rewarding for one but may have a negative effect on all the others. He doesn't want kids to feel discouraged because they weren't selected. Page would like to see more of a display at the next breakfast, pictures or pamphlets or something and maybe we can tie the student projects into this and show what they have done over the year, and the work they've put into it. Warren also suggested that we bring in some entertainment to the breakfast pertaining to human rights as opposed to just speakers, which also might attract a new audience. Beckmann would like this subject added to the agenda for next month and continue discussion on this. Community Projects-Role of the Commission: Retish discussed what the education committee is currently working on. He said past projects included showing movies at Pheasant Ridge and that they have been trying to develop some programs for the south and east part of Iowa City. Meetings have been held and a representative from that area talked about some of the things that people in that area thought would be appropriate, such as better access to the religious communities in Iowa City. They would like to be a part of these religious organizations but there is a lack of public transportation. The education committee tried to think of a way that they could bring this together. A meeting was held with representatives with some religious organizations and a discussion was held with them regarding what could be done to help. One suggestion was putting together a directory of the religious institutions available in Iowa City and Coralville. Retish states that they have been trying to find out which religious communities have their own transportation and what else is available. He fudher stated that there will be a meeting December 3rd discussing ways to develop a job fair where the education committee will try to get representatives from the Iowa City area who have jobs available. The education committee will try to get that information to people citywide and a discussion on how to put this together will be held at that time. Shank reports that she attended a meeting of the consultation of religious communities. She said she enjoyed it very much and they were very interested in making a directory of sorts. There was an outline drawn up as to what they wanted in the directory such as available transportation, accessibility, etc. Shank said after she had the letter drawn up she realized that the Human Rights Commission office could not do this because of separation of church and state. She did get two offers of assistance from other people, so she will follow up. She further stated that we couldn't use any of our HR office materials. Retish added that they do not have a date yet for the job fair but it might possibly occur in the spring. Beckmann suggested that maybe the Commission could write a letter to the editor with regard to the job fair. Beckmann also stated that the Human Rights Commission should go ahead and sponsor this. Sexual Orientation: Beckmann received an email from Dave Leshtz that stated that the Civil Rights Commission had passed a resolution reaffirming its recommendation to the Iowa Legislature and other jurisdictions that sexual orientation be added to the list of protected classes. Beckmann sent back an email thanking Mr. Leshtz for all his work and asked him what the Commission could do to support this. Leshtz responded that it would help if the Commission wanted to write a letter to all the Commissions in the state of Iowa and encourage them to add sexual orientation to their human rights ordinance. Beckmann thought it was a good idea and that maybe we should contact Ames, Cedar Rapids and write one letter and have all the Commissions send a letter to every other Commission in the state suggesting that all join in. All agreed it was a good idea. Shank will provide a list of contacts. Beckmann and Shank will meet and discuss it further. 4. OLD BUSINESS: Survey-Charles Major: Major is still working on the survey and will get back to them. Beckmann asked that he bring all the surveys to the next meeting, as he will be off the Commission at the end of the year. Breakfast Accounting-change the price of the breakfast, menu: Shank reported that after all bills were paid, copies, mailings, etc., there was $187 that went into the breakfast fund for next year. Beckmann states that that is not good because if we want to lower the price of the breakfast to $10, we'd be in the red. Shank states that if she adds in the copying, mailings and other costs to the Human Rights budget, then it might be possible to lower the price but she would have to talk to her boss, Dale Helling about this. The whole idea was to have the breakfast pay for itself. Beckmann asked if the Commission could afford to charge $10 for coffee and juice and fruit, or whether the Commission wanted the prices and menu to stay the same. Warren would prefer to leave the breakfast tickets at $15 and advertise the fact that if a person couldn't afford it, tickets would be set aside. Major would like to see the breakfast go to $10. Retish would like to have menu breakfast #1, coffee and muffins. Beckmann stated that the Commission is in agreement about ~owering the ticket price and Retish will talk to Phil Jones and get back next month with more information. Beckmann explained that there is information in the packets in regards to the San Francisco weight, height bias. Retish stated that with the continual additions protected categories, weight, height, etc., how far do we go and will the Commission miss the people who really need protection. Retish agreed that people need to be protected, but where do you draw the line on the list of classifications. 5. REPORTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS: Klenske no report Warren no report Peffer no report Major no report Neblett no report Page spoke about an article she received from her mother in Argentina about a GLBT march that was held. She also discussed a news story about "the black people love us .com", she thought it was very interesting and humorous. Retish stated that he is in the process of trying to get visas for people from Asia and he is concerned about the profiling in our country. He is also concerned about human rights and where America is headed because of the fear of allowing potential terrorists in. 7. STATUS OF CASES: Shank reminded members of Team A that they have a case to review. 8. ADJORNMENT: Motion made by Retish to adjourn, seconded by Warren. Meeting adjourned at 8:22 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002 CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Emily Walsh, Sandra Hudson, Terry Trueblood, Rick Fosse Members Absent: Barbara Camillo, Betsy Klein, Chuck Felling Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Others Present: None Call to order: Sandra Hudson called the meeting to order at 3:32PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL That the Community Initiated Public Art Application Procedure and Form, as amended at the meeting, be adopted as part of the Procedural Rules of the Public Art Program by a vote of 4-0. That the Policy for Dedication of Public Art to Individuals, as amended to include reference to the gift policy, be adopted as part of the Procedural Rules of the Public Art Program by a vote of 4-0. Public discussion of any item not on the a~lenda: Hudson noted that she was concerned that Klein has accumulated excessive absences. Franklin noted that her absence is excused today. Consideration of Minutes of October 3, 2002: MOTION: Rick Fosse moved that the minutes for October 3, 2002 be approved as submitted. Terry Trueblood seconded the motion. Motion passed, 4-0. Updates Neighborhood Art Project (Felling): Felling was absent but gave Klingaman his report in writing. Klingaman reported that the Neighborhood Art Video Subcommittee has met 3 times, reviewed, edited the interviews, and compiled a script of the comments. However, there are some comments that are still needed, particularly regarding "what do you consider a neighborhood?" They will interview some Neighborhood Association members. They had hoped to have the draft available in December, but more likely, it will be January. Klingaman commented that this project really concerns two videos: 1. Promotional Video 2. Charatte Process Video Franklin reiterated her concern that if the public art money is not spent this year, the Committee might lose it. However, the fact that the project was for neighborhood art, an expressed Council priority, retention of the funds would be arguable. She noted also that neighborhood participation in the project requires more time. Weber Statue: Fosse and Hudson have visited the foundry. Fosse passed around pictures of the project in progress. Hudson said that she did not know Irving, so she would not know if it was a good likeness, but four Lions members that knew him said that it was a good representation. The only concern was with the glasses because the frames are only suggested to deter vandalism. The Lions seemed to accept this. Hudson noted some roughness on the model, but assumes that these will be smoothed out in the next stages. Overall, everyone was pleased. Franklin agreed that the model looks more like Irving with glasses on. She was worried that the assumption would be that a mistake had been made. Hudson suggested putting the glasses on, and if vandalism is a problem, they can be pared off with no net loss. Franklin will Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 2 speak with Steve Maxon about the glasses matter to make sure that the frames are being omitted because of vandalism concerns and not because of projected problems with their production, Review and Recommendation to Council on the Methodolo,qy/Procedure to Address Proposals to PAAC (Klin.qaman) Klingaman read the purpose statement, selection criteria, and submittal requirements, with changes made from suggestions brought up at the last meeting. The purpose statements and selection criteria were informally approved. As for the submittal requirements, Hudson suggested artists be able to submit digital images by CD, zip disk, etc. in addition to slides and photographs. She also suggested that on the application there be a space for artists to note their e-mail address. Fosse asked that "medium" be added to the application. Need to clarify what is meant by site and project locations, making sure that redundancy is eliminated. It was clarified that installation costs could be better expressed under construction costs. Trueblood suggested that there be a footnote for other costs that are associated with construction/installation (site preparation, staff contribution, engineering & plumbing costs). MOTION: Rick Fosse moved that the Community Initiated Public Art Application Procedure & Form be approved with the amendments suggested at this meeting. Terry Trueblood seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Review and Recommendation to Council of the Policy for Dedication of Public Art to Individuals (Franklin) Franklin reported that she had made the changes suggested at the last meeting; in the second sentence, the second bullet is new. This will go into the PAAC document. MOTION: Emily Walsh moved that the Policy for Dedication of Public Art to Individuals be approved as amended. Rick Fosse seconded the motion. Discussion followed. The discussion centered on the problem of hypothetical persons wishing to donate money for a sculpture or other public ad piece on the condition that it be dedicated to their lost loved one who may not meet the criteria for dedication as described in the policy. Trueblood, in particular, argued that it would be shortsighted to not accept a sculpture because the credentials did not "add up". Hudson commented that there are already memorials allowed in parks to allow grieving friends and family to express loving memories of the deceased; public art is not an appropriate vehicle for this expression. Franklin noted that they needed to distinguish what is the difference between "in memory of" and a dedication. Franklin noted that this policy covers extant public art and/or a proposed project. A gift or donated artwork may have donor stipulations that could fall under "in memory of", but not under a dedication. It was decided that the following bullet be added to the document: "This policy does not apply to gifts"--this would then reference rules applying to gifts. There was a friendly amendment to the last motion. It now reads: MOTION: Emily Walsh moved that the Policy for Dedication of Public Art to Individuals be approved with the addition of the bullet regarding gifts. Rick Fosse seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0 as amended. Discussion of Relocation of Snelson Sculpture Franklin noted the Snelson has already been re-located once and the question being posed to the committee is whether it should be moved again. The reasons for moving it are: 1. Sculpture may be losing visibility in the trees 2. Only piece that has been vandalized; could be due to location Trueblood noted that the trail going past it would be lighted at night, which would help. Franklin commented that there has been a suggestion from the public to place the Snelson in front of the water plant. It was decided that Snelson would get more exposure at the present location. The committee agreed that rather than moving the sculpture, the trees should be trimmed and the anchors fixed more securely in the ground. Hudson suggested putting the sculpture on a schedule for re-configuration and asked that the artist be approached to submit plans for re-configurations. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 3 Discussion of Proposal for Poetry on the Buses Klingaman commented that she has seen this done with success in various communities. She sees this as another form of public art and asked the committee if this should be an avenue that is pursued. The goal behind putting poetry on public buses would be that it would give both public art and local literary artists more exposure. Klingaman clarified that this project would be similar to, but separate from the federal "Poetry in Motion". This would be an on-going project, as the poetry would be rotated. Hudson thought it sounded fun and asked that a subcommittee be formed to look into the matter. Klingaman, Walsh, and Hudson will work on a proposal for the project, not its implementation. They will check with local writers' groups and transportation agencies. Committee Time/Other Business: There was a discussion regarding meeting dates for the next two months. It was decided that the next meeting will be on December 12, and the January meeting will be cancelled. Franklin announced that Hudson had received the "Larry Eckholt Award for Art Advocacy". The committee applauded her receipt of the award. Klingaman alerted the committee that an art proposal having to do with placing Zen sayings on local billboards might be given at the next meeting. Franklin noted that this is the last meeting for the current minutes-taker, Lindsay Eaves-Johnson. The committee thanked her for her service. Adiournment Sandra Hudson adjourned the meeting at 4:45PM. ***Next meeting will be December 12, and the January meeting is cancelled*** M IN UTES FIN AL/AP P ROVE D PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Toni Cilek, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Al Stroh, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Ginsberg, Craig Gustaveson STAFF PRESENT: Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Boyd~ to approve the November 13, 2002 minutes as written. Unanimous. PROPOSED RECREATION FEES A 2002 Aquatic Fee Survey, which was completed by the Aquatics Committee of the Iowa Park and Recreation Association, was distributed; a summary of which is attached hereto and made a part of the minutes. He noted that a number of the larger cities did not participate in the survey. At last month's meeting Trueblood had indicated that the swim pass fees might need to be restructured, because they may be too high. With respect to the daily admission, Iowa City is in line with the average fee charged. With respect to the summer pass, Trueblood noted that Iowa City's summer pass is actually a 3-month pass, good for 3 months from the time of purchase. He noted Coralville is the highest on the survey at $90 for youth and adult, followed by Iowa City at $88, but Iowa City is the highest at $176 for family, with Coralville lower at $125. The survey averages for summer passes are: youth = $50.91; adult = $54.82; and family = $113.56. With respect to the annual pass, Trueblood noted Iowa City is the highest at $176 for a youth or adult and $352 for a family pass. The average annual pass is $93.64 for youth, $106.17 for adult and $186.04 for family. Trueblood noted it is very difficult to compare "apples to apples" because of the difference in facilities, hours of usage, etc. For example, Dubuque's fee for a youth and adult annual pass is one of the lowest. They have two great outdoor pools (i.e., "water park" concept), but the only indoor pool is at the Hempstead High School, with very limited public use only during weekends. With respect to the punch card fee, Iowa City is in line with the average fee charged for youth and below average for adult. Trueblood indicated he contacted Coralville to obtain their proposed FY04 swim pass fees to determine how Iowa City compares. With respect to the annual pass, Coralville's proposed fee is $200 for an individual and Iowa City's is $176; for a family pass, $275/Coralville and $352/Iowa City. With respect to the summer pass, Coralville's proposed fee is $140 and Iowa City's is $88; for a family pass, $175/Coralville and $176/Iowa City. Coralville will also be offering a 3-month pass for the school year, and is proposing to charge $105 for an individual and $140 for a famity as compared to Iowa City's $88 and $176. It isn't determined yet as to whether Coralville's newly proposed fees would become effective in FY04 or when their new pool is completed. Trueblood indicated he contacted Cedar Rapids to compare their fees to Iowa City due to an inquiry from a Council member and since they are the nearest large city to Iowa City. With respect to the daily admission, Iowa City is lower at $2.25 than Cedar Rapids' fee of $3.00. With respect to the 3- month pass, Cedar Rapids charges $55/individual, $115/family and $45/senior citizen as compared to Iowa City's $88/individual and $176/family. Trueblood noted Cedar Rapids 3-month pass is good for the summer only. With respect to the annual pass, Cedar Rapids charges $130/individual, $230/family and $105/senior citizen as compared to Iowa City's $176/individual and $352/family. Trueblood noted Cedar Rapids does not offer a true annual pass; they offer summer passes and 9- Parks and Recreation Commission December 11, 2002 Page 2 of 6 month passes and the fees reflect the cost of a summer pass plus a 9-month pass. Robinson noted he recently read in the newspaper where Cedar Rapids will be raising their swim fees. Cilek asked if iowa City had ever offered a senior citizen rate. Trueblood stated Iowa City had a senior citizen rate on a number of activities years ago, but it was discontinued when the Iow-income program was instituted. The Commission at that time felt a discounted fee should be given based on income and not age. Stroh stated there are so many variables when looking at fees, such as demographics of the community, if year-round facilities are available and fundamental ratios. Staff needs to look at what it is trying to accomplish - does it want to encourage usage or raise revenue. Trueblood stated the swim pass fees are based on a ratio/format, with the goal to make it a bargain only for people who did a lot of swimming, but this may not be the right philosophy. Westefeld asked if the revenue goes into the general fund or operations; Trueblood noted it goes into the general fund, but the amount of funding the Recreation Division receives from the general fund is based in large part on how much revenue is generated. Boyd asked if revenue has increased; Trueblood noted revenue has increased but participant numbers probably have not. Trueblood stated staff wants to do more research before making a recommendation. The department may be at the point where it needs to lower the fees for swim passes to encourage participation. The projected sale of a family 3-month pass is a total of six, based on past averages, with the annual pass being a total of four. Staff feels it may be able to gain revenue from additional sales. Westefeld stated if fees were cut, there would need to be a public relations campaign to increase usage; Cilek agreed because people are not in the mode of buying passes. Trueblood noted staff would likely recommend that fees for passes be restructured in order to attract people, especially in light of the fact that other communities are renovating and improving their pools. Ostrognai felt older youth were able to get to City Park pool, but the younger generation is not due to their inability to get there safely. She suggested looking at some alternative to get younger youth to the pool. Trueblood noted City Park has been holding its own in numbers and is a popular pool. Trueblood stated staff will study this information further, and next month will have a specific recommendation to take to the City Council with the entire fee package. Stroh stated the goal should be to restructure the fees with the aim of increasing the use of facilities. FY04 BUDGET REQUESTS Trueblood reported the FY04 citywide recommended budget will be completed next week. It appears that the depadment's operating budget will be very similar to the current budget. The department is asking for additional personnel as follows: Parks - one Maintenance Worker II and one Natural Areas Specialist; Forestry - one Maintenance Worker I; CBD - one Maintenance Worker II; and Recreation - 1/2-time Custodian. Currently the Mercer Park Aquatic CentedScanlon Gymnasium has two 3/4-time custodians and the additional 1/2-time custodian is requested to make them full time. Staff will keep the Commission posted when information is received. CAPITAL PROJECTS The Commission was provided with a listing of the tentative CIP Committee proposals for park and recreation related projects FY03-FY06. Trueblood noted the Commission's number one priority this past year was the Waterworks Park and it is being recommended for funding, along with another top priority, the Miller/Orchard Park. The Meadow Street Bridge and Trail Connection project is also being funded; the trail connection will serve the proposed Court Hill Trail. Assuming creek beds are city property, Stroh stated that every time the City does a bridge project it should look for possible trail connectivity. Parks and Recreation commission December 11, 2002 Page 3 of 6 Trueblood noted the Commission wanted to discuss prioritizing the CIP projects, possibly concentrating on one or two projects instead of ten. One change the Commission indicated at last month's meeting was they want more staff input. Trueblood stated he would provide a more complete project descriptions, especially with new projects, for the January meeting. Stroh stated a park and recreation master plan would be a great aid to determine the correct direction. He felt the CIP projects are of relatively equal benefit and there is no right or wrong answer. A master plan would give professional input that has validity because it is done outside the bubble. He would like to see the City go forward with completion of a parks and recreation master plan. Trueblood noted $40,000 had been budgeted last fiscal year, but fell victim to budget reductions. He stated he recently discussed with the City Manager that staff would like to revisit this issue. The City Manager is open to discussing this, but staff might have to find a funding source in its budget. Boyd felt the Commission could easily make a case to the City Council, noting a lot of CIP projects were cut back. The City should take a long-term look. He stated the Commission understands the budget constraints and it would like to focus on what it can do long term. Truebiood stated if staff could get funding it would be an opportunity for the Commission to be more proactive and have a higher profile. A substantial sum of money was budgeted for the Recreation Center Pool Project, which ended up costing less than expected. Staff will determine if the funds are still available and if so, request that it be used towards completion of a master plan. Stroh stated during difficult times planning is even more important; resources are limited and they need to be spent the right way. A master plan gives an opportunity to focus on what is most important to the community. Stroh also stated a master plan would give structure for the top CIP priorities. Boyd suggested in the short term the Commission focus on a few of the CIP projects. Pacha stated some projects are in place, and whether the process is good, bad or indifferent, the Commission has done a fair job of trying to prioritize them. He stated he would like to see the Commission's efforts go towards completion of a master plan. Trueblood stated the master plan process would be similar to the neighborhood open space plan process, but more comprehensive. The master plan would involve parks, recreation, trails, environmental issues and all sections of the city. Cilek asked if it would include staffing; Trueblood stated it could depending on what the people want. Westefeld indicated anything that gets the Commission out and interfacing with the City Council and the public is a good thing. He felt it was a good way to target more advocacy. Stroh stated a master plan would involve public input, and would get their recommendation to tailor a package to meet the needs of the community. The Commission agreed a master plan was more important to focus on than prioritizing other CIP projects. Pacha stated the first step is for staff to determine if it can regain funding for it. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Moved by Cilek, seconded by Westefeld, to nominate Matt Pacha as Chair and Al Stroh as Vice Chair. Unanimous. The Commission elected Pacha as Chair and Stroh as Vice Chair for 2003. Pacha and Stroh thanked the Commission for their vote of confidence. COMMISSION TIME Stroh stated he received the newsletter from the Friends of Hickory Hill Park. He felt it was a pretty remarkable that this group basically arose from nothing, and staff needed to maximize and encourage this grass roots effort and partner with them whenever possible for the good of the community. Pacha suggested utilizing the City channel to advertise public meetings if a master plan is funded. Parks and Recreation Comm/ssion December 11, 2002 Page 4 of 6 Cilek expressed her appreciation to the Commission for their support during her term. She encouraged staff to contact her if they needed anything from the school side. Stroh stated the Commission, staff and the school board should keep their eyes open for future opportunities to partner with the City and parks and recreation. Cilek noted the upcoming bond referendum and possible partnership if it is passed. Boyd apologized for his absence the last couple of months, noting he was working very hard in Linn County on a couple of Iowa House races. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha expressed his appreciation to the Commission for a good year and to Cilek and Pruess for their service to the community. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: RuDDert Property. A letter was sent to the attorney representing the Ruppert family, noting the Commission's interest in purchasing an additional .5 acre immediately south of the dedicated parkland on Benton Street. Staff received a call from Mr. Meardon indicating that such a possibility is feasible, and asked if the Commission had a price in mind. Trueblood indicated he told him the City paid about $1.55 per square foot for the adjacent two acres three years ago. Based on this, he felt the Commission would not object to paying a similar price. Stroh noted the tax advantages if the property was sold for less than its value or donated. Staff will keep the Commission informed. An offer to sell would have to go first to the Commission than to the City Council for approval. Hickory Hill Trails. Staff received a letter from a student legal intern working with the Johnson County Coalition for Persons with Disabilities asking whether any steps had been taken to improve the quality of the trails that had been washed away by rain. Staff informed him work has been completed and more is being done to rectify the problems. Staff and the consultant met with the contracting crew that built the trail system to discuss what needs to be done. A report has been submitted, and cost estimates are forthcoming. Doe Park. A group of individuals have met, with the intent to form a group to work towards developing a dog park. Staff was informed they are looking at land out by the landfill as one possibility. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING MEMBERS Pacha presented Cilek and Pruess with a Certificate of Appreciation for their outstanding service. Trueblood, on behalf of staff, expressed his appreciation for their support and being great to work with. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Pruess, seconded by Cilek, to adjourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. 12-11-02 2002 AQUATIC FEE SURVEY Participatin.q Cities: Ames Coralville Knoxville Pella Bettendorf Dubuque Marshalltown Marion Cedar Falls Fort Dodge Norwalk Urbandale Clinton Grinnell Sigourney Des Moines Iowa City Wilton DAILY ADMISSION YOUTH ADULT Range: $1.25 (Dubuque, Fort Dodge) Range: $1.75 (Fort Dodge) to $3.00 (Bettendorf, Grinnell, to $5.00 (Des Moines) Norwalk, Des Moines) Average: $2.18 Average: $2.74 Iowa City: $2.25 Iowa City: $2.25 Coralville: $2.25 Coralville: $2.25 SUMMER PASS (Three cities in survey do not offer this option for youth and four cities for adult and family) YOUTH ADULT FAMILY Range: $32.00 (Pella) Range: $40.00 (Fort Dodge, Range: $85.00 (Cedar Falls) to $90.00 (Coralville) Des Moines) to $176.00 (Iowa City) to $90.00 (Coralville) Average: $50.91 Average: $54.82 Average: $113.56 Iowa City: $88.00' Iowa City: $88.00' Iowa City: $176.00' Coralville: $90.00 Coralville: $90.00 Coralville: $125.00 ANNUAL PASS (Ten cities in survey do not offer this option) YOUTH ADULT FAMILY Range: $34.00 (Dubuque) Range: $60.00 (Cedar Falls, Range: $85.00 (Cedar Falls) to $176.00 (Iowa City) Dubuque) to $352.00 (Iowa City) to $176.00 (Iowa City) Average: $93.64 Average: $106.17 Average: $186.04 Iowa City: $176.00 Iowa City: $176.00 Iowa City: $352.00 Coralville: $175.00 Coralville: $175.00 Coralville: $250.00 PUNCH CARD (Seven cities in survey do not offer this option for youth and eight cities for adult) YOUTH ADULT Range: $1.40 per swim (Wilton) Range: $1.50 per swim (Urbandale) to $2.30 per swim (Grinnell) to $2.89 per swim (Knoxville) Average: $1.91 per swim Average: $2.15 per swim Iowa City: $1.91 per swim Iowa City: $1.91 per swim Coralville: $2.25 per swim Coralville: $2.25 per swim * Iowa City's "summer pass" is actually a 3-month pass, good for any consecutive 3-month period. FINAL/APPR(~~ POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - November 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton and John Watson; board members absent: Bev Smith and John Stratton. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Turtle were present. Also in attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD and Vanessa Miller of the Iowa City Press Citizen. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Reports on Complaint #02-03 and #02-04. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Watson and seconded by Hoeft to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 10/22/02 · ICPD Use of Force Report - September 2002 · ICPD General Order #00-08 (Weapons) · ICPD General Order #99-05 Use of Force) · ICPD General Order #00-01 Search and Seizure) · ICPD General Order #02-01 Temporary / Light Duty) · ICPD General Order #99-01 Police Vehicle Pursuits) · ICPD General Order #99-11 Arrests) · ICPD General Order#99-12 Field Interviews and "Pat Down" Searches) Watson noted that it was difficult to know what updates or changes have been made on the general orders. Widmer offered to note the changes on future general orders so that he could go over them with the Board if they had questions. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. FINAL/APPROVED BOARD INFORMATION Watson reported on his presentation of the PCRB video to the Noon Kiwanis Club. He said it went very well and that there were a lot of questions. STAFF INFORMATION Turtle verified with the Board members if it was their intention to distribute the PCRB brochure when giving presentations of the video. The Board agreed that they did want to distribute the brochures. Tuttle stated that she would need to know ahead of time the date of the presentation and the number of brochures that would be needed. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Hoeft and seconded by Watson to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22- 7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. Open session adjourned at 7:10 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:41 P.M. Motion by Watson, seconded by Hoeft to accept the Public Report as amended and forward to Council for Complaint #02-03. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. Motion by Watson, seconded by Hoeft to accept the Public Report as amended and forward to Council for Complaint #02-04. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. FINAL/APPROVED ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Hoeft and seconded by Watson. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:47 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 4'10 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-'1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #02-03 DATE: November 13, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #02-03 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2. While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-TB.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 16, 2002. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief completed his Report and submitted it to the Board on October 4, 2002. The following documents were included with the Report: Incident Report and certified mail receipt. The complainant did not respond to the investigator's requests for an interview. At its meeting on October 22, 2002, the Board voted to review the Complaint at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(a), review the Complaint on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: October 22, 2002 and November 12, 2002. FINDINGS OF FACT In July, 2002, Officer A observed a mother and her small child on the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer observed that the child ran in and out of a store, collided with an elderly woman, urinated in a planter, and was held by a man that the officer knew had been intoxicated earlier in the day, had felony charges against him in another state, and showed numerous sores and wounds. The officer was also aware of previous complaints by other citizens about the child's behavior and the mother's lack of supervision. The officer addressed his concerns to the mother. The mother disagreed with the officer's assertion that she was not providing adequate supervision and stated that her daughter's behavior was not inappropriate. The officer stated to the woman that, because of her lack of care and supervision and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for her child's behavior, he was going to contact the Department of Human Services (DHS). Before calling DHS, Officer A contacted his supervisor, who advised him to call DHS. He then contacted a social worker at DHS and explained the situation. Officer A stated that the worker advised him to arrest the woman. He contacted his supervisor again and was advised to try to have the mother come to the ICPD to resolve the matter. The mother agreed to this, but complained loudly and angrily about the situation to others on the plaza. CONCLUSION The Complainant alleged the following: Alle,qation 1: Officer A actions toward the mother were inappropriate. Officer A observed behaviors of the mother and her child on the pedestrian plaza that led him to believe that the mother was not exercising adequate care and control. He stated his concerns to the mother. When she disagreed with his statements regarding her child's behavior and her supervision, he contacted his supervisor (twice) and a DHS worker regarding the situation. The advice he 2 received was that the mother's and child's behavior indicated that adequate care and control might be lacking. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that ©fficer A acted appropriately is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS None. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #02-04 DATE: November 13, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #02-04 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2. While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-TB.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 16, 2002. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief completed his Report and submitted it to the Board on October 9, 2002. The following documents were included with the Report: Incident Report and Summation of Complainant Interview. At its meeting on October 22, 2002, the Board voted to review the Complaint at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(a), review the Complaint on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: October 22, 2002, and November 12, 2002. FINDINGS OF FACT In July, 2002, Officer A observed the Complainant and her small child on the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer observed that the child ran in and out of a store, collided with an elderly woman, urinated in a planter, and was being held by a man that the officer knew had been intoxicated earlier in the day, had felony charges against him in another state, and showed numerous sores and wounds. The officer was aware of previous complaints by other citizens about the child's behavior and the mother's lack of supervision. The officer addressed his concerns to the mother. The mother disagreed with the officer's assertion that she was not providing adequate supervision and stated that her daughter's behavior was not inappropriate. The officer stated to the woman that, because of her lack of care and supervision and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for her child's behavior, he was going to contact the Department of Human Services (DHS). Before calling DHS, Officer A contacted his supervisor, who advised him to call DHS. He then contacted a social worker at DHS and explained the situation. Officer A stated that the worker advised him to arrest the woman. He contacted his supervisor again and was advised to try to have the Complainant come to the ICPD to resolve the matter. The complainant agreed to this, but complained loudly and angrily about the situation to others on the plaza. The Complainant, the Complainant's former husband and father of the child, Officer A, and the DHS worker met at the ICPD. The Complainant continued to maintain that her child's behavior was "natural" and appropriate. The Complainant did agree to accompany the DHS worker to MECCA for drug testing. CONCLUSION The complainant alleged the following in her complaint: Alleqation 1: Officer A made an inappropriate contact with her because he dauqhter had urinated in some bushes on the Ped Mall. 2 Officer A observed behaviors of the Complainant and her child on the pedestrian plaza that led him to believe that the mother was not exercising adequate care and control. He stated his concerns to the mother. When she disagreed with his statements regarding her child's behavior and her supervision, he contacted his supervisor (twice) and a DHS worker regarding the situation. The advice he received was that the mother's and child's behaviors indicated that adequate care and control might be lacking. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that Officer A acted appropriately is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Alleqation 2: Officer A made an improper referral to DHS concerninq the Complainant's parenting of her daughter. As a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse or neglect, Officer A is required to report incidents of suspected abuse or neglect. Both his supervisor and the DHS worker confirmed to the officer that intervention was appropriate. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that Officer A acted in accordance with policy and guidelines is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS None. 3