Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-07-31 Info Packet
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CiTY OF IOWA CITY July 31,2003 www.icgov.org MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP1 Memorandum from City Manager: Allocation of Proceeds from Sale of Parcel 64-1A IP2 Letter from City Manager to Congressman Leach: National Housing Trust Fund IP3 Memorandum from City Clerk to All Iowa City Establishments Serving Liquor, Beer, and Wine On Permises: August 1 Required Signage IP4 Email from Garry Klein (Creekside Neighborhood Interim Coordinator) to Planning and Community Development Director: Neighborhood Services IP5 Letter Nancy Quellhorst (The Workplace Learning Connection) to Community and Economic Development Coordinator: Students Who Have Participated IP6 July 29: ECICOG Executive Committee Meeting [Wilburn] IP7 Email Article [Denver Post]: Glendale Council Donation to Chamber 'Far too Cozy' [Pfab] IP8 Email Article [The Boston Globe]: Mass is called No. 1 in Fee Hikes [Pfab] IP9 Email Article [VVeNews]: Study Indicates Jobless Abusers Most Apt to Kill [Pfab] I PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Historic Preservation Commission: July 8 IPll Historic Preservation Commission: July 24 IP'I2 Iowa City Board of Adjustment: July 9 IP13 Planning and Zoning Commission: July 17 IP14 Public Art Advisory Committee: July 7 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 31,2003 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Allocation of Proceeds from Sale of Parcel 64-1A With the pending sale of Parcel 64-1A, the City will receive $250,000 for the land, which must be placed in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund. The property was purchased under the federal urban renewal program and our agreement with HUD requires any revenue generated by subsequent sale of the property to be used for CDBG-eligible activities. Since we have an allocation process set up which annually allocates such funds, I would suggest we include this amount with the allocation received from the federal government for our fiscal year 2005 and use the annual allocation process of the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) and the City Council. HCDC would take applications in January, 2004 and make a recommendation to the Council by March, 2004. The Council's final decision on the allocation would then allow distribution of the funds by July 1,2004. We will proceed with this process unless the Council expresses a desire to do otherwise. cc: HCDC Steven Nasby Mgr\memos\64-1 aproceeds.doc July 22, 2003 Honorable Congressman James Leach 2186 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: National Housing Trust Fund Dear Congressman Leach: As you know, the City of Iowa City has long supported and funded the development of affordable housing for our community's Iow-moderate income households. To further these efforts, additional tools such as the National Housing Trust Fund are needed. The Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission, a citizen group charged with making recommendations to the City Council, requested that the City Council adopt a local resolution supporting the passage of legislation creating the National Housing Trust Fund. On July 15 the City Council passed Resolution 03-227 (please see attached) that encourages Iowa's Congressional delegation to support the National Housing Trust Fund. Many Iow income Iowans are unable to secure affordable housing. The creation and financing of the National Housing Trust Fund will help to provide the resources needed to meet this ever- growing need in our community. Sincerely, City Manager cc: City Council Director of Housing and Inspection Services Director of Planning and Community Development Housing and Community Development Commission Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinator Attachment mgr/Itrs/leach-N HTF doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240- 1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Kadn Franklin, PCD, 410 E. Washington St.. Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5232 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE IOWA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND ACT OF 2003 (HR'I'I02) THAT WILL CREATE, REHABILITATE, AND PRESERVE 1.5 MILLION UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. WHEREAS, in Iowa City in 2002, an extremely Iow income household (earning $19,440, 30% of the Area median income of $64,800) can afford a monthly rent of no more than $486, while the Fair Market Rent for a Iwo bedroom is $610/month; and WHEREAS, a worker in Iowa City must eam $11.73 per hour working 40 hours per week to afford a two bedroom unit. This is 228% of the present $5.15 minimum wage. A worker at minimum wage would have to work 91 hours/week to afford a two-bedroom unit; and WHEREAS, in Johnson County, the demand for affordable housing far exceeds the supply-- 12,233 households at 50% of the area median income ($38,000) compete for 8,504 rental units affordable at that level; and WHEREAS, by October 2002, the Iowa City Community School District had identified 223 homeless students. A lack of affordable housing is considered one of the contributing factors to homelessness; and WHEREAS, the availability of affordable housing lowers tenants' and homeowners' monthly housing costs. These savings get reinvested in the local economy; and WHEREAS, the construction of affordable housing is a viable economic development strategy. Housing construction creates higher paying construction and industry-related jobs resulting from the increased demand for household goods and services; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Steps Consolidated Plan and Continuum of Care recognizes the need for more affordable housing units and additional funding resources; and WHEREAS, the National Housing Trust Fund Act of 2003 (HR1102) will create, rehabilitate, and preserve 1.5 million units of affordable housing throughout the nation over the next 10 years; and WHEREAS, 75% of these units will be targeted to the neediest households, those with incomes less than 30% of median income. Resolution No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT 1. The City Council reaffirms the importance and need for affordable housing and hereby petitions the Iowa Congressional delegation to support the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2003 (HR 1102). Passed and approved this day of ,20 MAYOR Approved by ATTEST: CiTY CLERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by and seconded by the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Kanner Lehman O'Donnell Pfab Vanderhoef Wilburn City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 18, 2003 TO: All Iowa City establishments serving liquor, beer, and wine on premises FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~t.~ RE: August 1 Required Signage The City Council recently passed an ordinance prohibiting persons trader 19 years of age from entering or remaining on licensed premised after 10:00 PM effective August 1, 2003. A letter was sent to you last month (copy enclosed) with important information. To date your establishment has not picked up one of the required signs. Please remember effective August 1, your establishment MUST POST EITHER: An exception certificate OR City Notice Sign at every entrance Both signs are available at the City Clerk's office. Please call with any questions you may have, 356-5043. Enc.: June 18 letter and application for special exception FINAL NOTICE June 18, 2003 The City Council of Iowa City recently passed an ordinance prohibiting persons under 19 years of age from entering or remaining in establishments with on premises liquor licenses or wine or beer permits after 10:00 PM. This ordinance goes into effect on August 1, 2003. This ordinance does not apply to: 1. Persons under 19 who are employees or performing a contracted service and are on premises during scheduled work hours. 2. Persons under 19 accompanied by a parent, guardian, spouse, or domestic partner registered as such under Section 2-6-3 of the City Code. 3. Establishments whose primary business is not the sale of alcoholic beverages, wine or beer and have received an exception certificate issued by the Police Chief or designee which is posted at every entrance. To qualify for an exception certificate your establishment must: · File an application with the City Clerk (enclosed). · After filing with the City Clerk, the Police Chief will review the application and may request additional information including tax returns, applications for and audits made for dram shop insurance and receipts from vendors. Please allow 5 working days for processing of routine applications. A request for additional information from the Police Chief will likely extend the time needed for processing. An exception certificate is valid for the duration of your license or permit year and must be posted at every entrance to your establishment. You may also qualify for a limited exception to the ordinance for a non-alcoholic event. A plan must be provided and approved by the Police Chief. Applications for approval of non-alcoholic events are available at the City Clerk's office. Please allow 5 working days for processing. On August 1, every establishment serving on premises must have either an exception certificate or notice to persons under age 19 that they are not allowed on the premises after 10:00 p.m. posted at every entrance. As noted above, exception certificates are issued by the Police Chief. Notices to persons under nineteen (19) are free of charge and can be picked up in the City Clerk's office, between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, starting July 1, 2003. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Marian K. Karr, MMC City Clerk Enclosures: Application for Exception Certificate clerk/Itr/underl 9doc CITY OF IOWA CITY APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE (BY LICENSED ESTABLISHMENT WHOSE PRIMARY BUSINESS PURPOSE IS NOT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, WINE OR BEER PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 4-5-8.)* CAUTION: An application alone does not entitle an establishment to exception from the provisions of Section 4-5-8 of the City Code prohibiting persons under the age of nineteen (19) from being present in licensed or permitted establishments. An exception is not effective until a certificate is issued by the Chief of Police and posted at every entrance in view of patrons in accordance with the provisions of City Code. pirections: Complete Section A AND one of the following. All applications should be filed with the City Clerk, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. · Existing establishments must complete Section B (Page 2). · New establishments desiring a temporary 6-month certificate must complete Section C (Page 3). · New establishments with a temporary 6-month exception certificate desiring a certificate for the remainder of the duration of the license must complete Section D (Page 4). A. .General Information (must be completed by all applicants) Licensed or Permitted Establishment: Address: Owner Submitting Application: The ordinance requires that an exception certificate, if granted by the Police Chief or designee, be posted at every entrance. If granted, number of certificates required: # (please specify) *For specifics of the under 19 law you must refer to the ordinance ffO3-4073 available from the City Clerk or available on the City website www.icgov.org derk~aPl~excePti°n'd°c 1 B. .Existing Licensed or Permitted Establishment(Existing establishments making an initial application and at the time of license renewal must complete Section STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) , being flint duly sworn on oath, states as follows: 1. I am an [accountant/certified public accountant] doing business in Iowa City, Iowa at [address]. 2. I have reviewed records made in the regular course of the 's [licensed or permitted establishment] business for purposes of determining whether said licensed or permitted establishment qualifies for an exception to the provisions of Section 4-5-8 of the City Code regarding the presence of persons under the age of 19 in licensed or permitted establishments. 3. The records maintained by [licensed or perm~ed establishment] in the regular course of its business establish that on average over a calendar year. % of said licensed or permitted establishment's gross sales on the premises are from the sale of goods and services other than alcoholic beverages, wine or beer, which sales do not include income from fees charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as cover charges, drink mixes or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in Chapter 123 of the Code of Iowa.* Signature of Accountant Subscribed and sworn to before me by on this day of ,20. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa * Pursuant to Section 123.3(4) of the Code of Iowa "alcoholic beverage" means any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume including alcoholic liquor, wine, and beer. C. New Establishment Desirin,q a Temporary 6-Month Certificate. 1. I am the/an owner of [licensed or permitted establishment ]. [licensed or permitted establishment] opened/plans to open on . The following is a description of the pdmary business purpose and nature of the establishment (for example, description of goods and services sold; description of menu (e.g. prepackaged or full service); hours kitchen open, etc.): (attach extra sheet if necessary) 2. The business plan for said new licensed or permitted establishment reasonably projects that on average over a calendar year, approximately __ % of the establishment's gross sales on the premises will be from the sale of goods or services other than alcoholic beverages, wine or beer, which sales will not include income from fees charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as cover charges, drink mixes or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in Chapter 123 of the Code of Iowa. * Signature of Owner Subscribed and swom to before me by on this day of ,20 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa * Pursuant to Section 123.3(4) of the Code of Iowa "alcoholic beverage" means any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume including alcoholic liquor, wine, and beer. D. New Establishment with a Temporary 6-Month Exception .Certificate Desirin.q a Certificate for the remainder of the ,Duration of the License (Exception based on sales during period of temporary exception.) STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) , being first duly sworn on oath, states as follows: 1. I am an [accountant/certified public accountant] doing business in Iowa City, Iowa at [address]. 2. I have reviewed records made in the regular course of the 's [licensed or permitted establishment] business for purposes of determining whether said licensed or permitted establishment qualifies for an exception to the provisions of Section 4-5-8 of the City Code regarding the presence of persons under the age of 19 in licensed or permitted establishments. 3. The records maintained by [licensed or permitted establishment] in the regular course of its business establish that dudng the establishment's first 5 months of operation, from to [dates] % of said licensed or permitted establishment's gross sales on the premises were from the sale of goods and services other than alcoholic beverages, wine or beer, which sales do not include income from fees charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as cover charges, ddnk mixes or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in Chapter 123 of the Code of Iowa.* Signature of Accountant Subscribed and sworn to before me by on this day of ,20 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa '1)Additional information requested on (date) as foilows: 2) Exception Certificate for Period Issued on (date). 3) Exception Certificate Denied on (date). Police Chief or Designee Review: signature * Pursuant to Section 123.3(4) of the Code of Iowa "alcoholic beverage" means any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume including alcoholic liquor, wine, and beer. Marian Karr IP4 From: Garry & Betsy Klein [the3rdiowa@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:25 AM To: Karin Franklin Cc: steve-atkins@iowa-city.org; cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Neighborhood Services I wanted to share with you that Harcia Klingaman has been a great asset to helping the Creekside Neighborhood to get the ball rolling toward having a vital associatien. Threugh her and her staff we netlfied the 550 or se neighbors of eur desire to meet te leek inte the need for an association. On 7/20, 20 people attended our inaugural meeting. Harcla took the time to attend, on a Sunday evening, outside in sweltering humidity ne less! She presented the purpese ef Neighborhood Services and answered many questions that people had, as well as co-facilitating our meeting. I believe that Marcia exemplifies the quality ©f city employees whose werk, I hope, is appreciated by the community at large. With the city budget woes, it is all the more important that Iowa City residents understand the important role the city staff plays in making Iowa City the great place it is to live. As for the Creekside Neighborhood Association, we are planning to meet on 8/17 to plot our course. Our neighborhood is diverse and has many needs. We look forward to working with the city to improve the Creekside Neighborhood. Sincerely, Garry Klein Creekside Neighborhood Interim Coordinator ~Tuly 25, 2003 ~4~~ J Mr. Steve Nasby Community & Economic bevelopment Coordinator City of Iowo City 410 E Washington Street Iowo City IA 52240 ~ear Steve: When I spoke to the Iowo City Economic bevelopment Council Committee, they were interested in results of o survey administered to students who have p~rticipoted Jn services through The Workplace Learning Connection. We recently collected dato for the '02-'03 school year and I hove enclosed these data so you end the committee may review our progress. We're proud to have evidence that our work positively impacts workforce development in the area. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to shore information about The Workplace Learning Connection. We look forward to a continuing relationship with the City of Iowa City. Program Coordinator cc: 5. Atkins K. Franklin E. Lehman b. Vanderhoef Encl. (1) EC ~ From Council Member Wilbu~n, ", IP6 EAST CENTRAL IOWA · COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ~ YfDUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENC~ - MEMORANDUM ... DATE: July 21, 20~3 TO:" ECICOG ExecutDe Committee ' FROM: Doug Elli ye Director, ES(ecut~ve Committee Meeting - July 29,. 2003 At its meeting on June 26, 2003, the ECICOG Board of Directo.rs voted to authorize.the Executive Cbmmittee to m~et in lieu of the full board in order to condOct the dgency's business for the month of ~uly. The Executive Committee will meet v~a conference call on Tuesd .ay, July 29, 2003; at 1:00 p.m. A speakerphone will be available at the ECICOG offices. / An agendg and meeting matetials are enclosed. Also, for any b6ard members who did not see my email last week, Tracey Mulcahey has accepted the posiffo[t of city admihisffator with the City of Solon. Her last day at ECICOG is Friday, July 25m. :Cci ECICOG Board of Directors EncJosures ¥ F_,nc. 108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 C~dar Rapids, Iowa 52401 319-365-9941 FAX 319-365~9981 www. ia.net/-ecicog ~,~ ~os~ c(~su~R c~r~m East Central Iowa Council c Committee Meeting Notice TEL 365-9941 FAX365-9981 1.0 CALL TO ORDER .1 Public Discussion .2 Approval of Agenda 2.0 ROB'lINE MATTERS .1 Preceding Month's Budget Report.s/Balance Sheets 3.0 AGENCY REPORTS · 1 Chairperson's Report .2 Committee Members' Reports .3 Director's Report 4.0 IOWA I~TERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM 5.0 OLD BUSINESS .1 Approval of Expenditures 6.0 NEW BUSINESS 7.0 NEXT MEETING: August 28, 2003 (full board) ECICOG is the Region l O planning agency serving local governments in the counties of Benton, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Linn, and ~ashington. Marian Karr IP7 From: Irvin Pfab [ipfab@avalon.net] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 11:57 PM To: Iowa City City Council Subject: 72703fw..Glendale council donation to chamber 'far too cozy': Denver Post, by Karen Rouse - Denver Post staff writer Denver Post Glendale council donation to chamber 'far too cozy' By Karen Rouse Denver Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 27, 2003 - GLENDALE - As municipal jobs were being chopped to cope with a budget deficit, the City Council donated $75,000 to the Greater Glendale Chamber of Commerce, a group that employs the mayor as executive director. Mark Smiley, chamber executive director and Glendale mayor, did not cast a vote on the recent donation because he votes only as a tie-breaker. But Councilman Mike Dtmafon, vice president of the chamber, and Councilmen Dan Van Winkle and Larry Harte, both chamber members, voted in favor of the donation. Smiley said funding the chamber, which serves the Arapahoe County community of 4,500 people, surrounded by Denver, is a wise investment. "When you're down economically, the last thing you cut is marketing," Smiley said last week. "That would be foolish." Dunafon, Van Winkle and Harte could not be reached for comment. However, one advocate of open government said the donation appears inappropriate. "It seems to be far too cozy ora relationship when council members are voting to make a significant grant award to a chamber that they" are closely linked to, said Pete Maysmith, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works for honest and accountable government. "It smacks of conflict," he said. "It's too close a relationship, and it blurs the line inappropriately between their public responsibility and the public hat they wear versus the private citizen side." The city donation makes up 68 percent of the 2-year-old chamber's $110,000 budget. The city gave $50,000 to the Glendale chamber last year when Smiley - who was not yet appointed mayor - went before the council to ask for the donation. Smiley said it is "unheard o~7' for cities not to support their chambers of commerce. However, a spokeswoman for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses throughout the metro area, including Glendale, said the organization gets no ftmding from municipalities. Instead, she said, it relies on membership dues, $400 a year for an individual and more for companies. Outside of the city's donation, Glendale's chamber also relies on dues, which range from $50 to $850. 7/28/03 Page 2 of 3 At a minimum, Maysmith said, the Glendale officials with leadership roles in the chamber should have stepped aside. They should "recuse themselves, really completely separate themselves from the debate, literally not be in the room," he said. "That sends a strong message to citizens." The hefty donation from Glendale comes as the town tries to trim a $400,000 deficit in its $10 million budget, said City Manager Cliff Dodge. To reduce the deficit, Dodge said six positions were eliminated in the city, five held by employees who either retired or resigned. But former projects coordinator Sharon Powers was laid off on July 18 on a day's notice, Dodge said. Powers declined conunent. I~~[~[~DALE finances.'"'It had nothing to do with her job performance," Dodge said. "It had to do with ISPENDING Since May, the city has eliminated the positions of the following former employees I i~ after they left the city, Dodge said: ^mona the things the * Former human resources director Brandy Turner, whose salary was $68,172. Greater Glendale Chamber of Commerce has * Former police Cmdr. John Garavaglia, whose salary was $75,720. budgeted money for: · $22,000 for business $ Former police Cmdr. Norman Renter, whose salary was $74,304. after-hour events · Former evidence technician Diane Siebrandt, whose salary was $38,631. · $14,000 for grab bags for residents with coupons and other promotional * Former police aide Tammy Stogner, whose salary was $15,704. items · $9,000 for special "This is to balance the budget," Dodge said. "If things continue to improve, we're still networking events, such going to be $400,000 short, unless some other moves are made." as a Hardi Grad night · $4,000 to promote the Councilman Mike Hald said the positions were terminated because "we didn't need that city through hats, T-shirts many employees to provide the level of service (that exists) in Glendale." and banners. Smiley said, "You're talking about people that are making a lot of money and jobs that were deemed unnecessary for the city." While not providing funding to the chamber, Denver does fund its convention and visitors bureau with 2 percent of its 9.75 percent lodgers tax. Last year, that brought in $4.9 million - less than 1 percent of Denver's $760 million budget, said Steve Hutt, Denver city treasurer. Englewood gave $12,500 to the Englewood Chamber of Commerce last year for events such as golf tournaments and festivals, City Manager Gary Sears said. That amount is less than in past years, when the city has given as much as $20,000, he said. Manitou Springs, which has about 5,000 citizens and is a tourist destination, gets $200,000 from the city, said Leslie Lewis, executive director of the Manitou Springs Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau. "That money is what we used to advertise Manitou Springs," she said. Unlike Glendale, Manitou Springs relies on tourism, she said. Its attractions include the Pikes Peak Cog Railway and Cave of the Winds. 7/28/03 Page 3 of 3 Smiley said Glendale is equally reliant on visitors spending money in the city. "One of our goals is to have people spend money in Glendale. We want people to eat in our restaurants." City Attorney Jeffrey Springer said he is "not sure it's even a conflict to be a member of the chamber and vote on whether the chamber is to get funding. To me it's insignificant." Other cost-cutting measures in Glendale include charging residents for ambulance services as of July 15, 2003; asking employees to contribute more toward their spouses' and dependents' health care, and reducing its fleet of nonemergency police and public works vehicles. The cuts will save as much as $314,247 this year, Dodge said. *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** 7/28/03 Boston Globe Online: Print it! Marian Karr IP8 From: Irvin Pfab [iplab@avalon.net] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 6:40 AM To: Iowa City City Council Subject: 72403fw..Mass. is called no.1 in fee hikes: The Boston Globe, by Rick Klein - Globe staff THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING Mass. is called No. 1 in fee hikes By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 7/24/2003 This time it's fees, not taxes. Still, Massachusetts may have enhanced its reputation as "Taxachusetts." A survey of states grappling with spending crises has found that Massachusetts imposed more fee hikes than any other state in the nation this year -- at least $500 million. Governor Mitt Romney and the Legislature, faced with a multibillion dollar shortfall, made it more expensive to get a marriage license or a divorce, file a court case, buy a house, renew a driver's license, or tap into a host of other state services. The governor points out that he helped avoid a broad-based tax increase and says the targeted fee increases for specific services. But taxpayers still feel the bite, even if it's not in the form of taxes. "I'm not surprised we're number one,"said state Representative Paul C. Casey, a Winchester Democrat and chairman of the House taxation committee. "Our approach was to hit every fee in sight." The study by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that Massachusetts was one of 30 states that enacted fee increases this year. The organization found that 17 states enacted significant tax increases, unlike last year, when many states were hesitant to turn to taxes because it was an election year in most places. Of the 30 states to raise fees this year, only nine are bringing in $100 million or more from those fee hikes. Massachusetts reported $501.5 million in fee hikes; the second-biggest fee increaser was New York, with $367 million, though New York has a much larger budget. "Fees have been the name of the game in the past year," said Corina Eckl, the NCSL's fiscal program director. "In Massachusetts, the sheer number of fees stood out." 7/24/03 Boston Globe Online: Print it! Page 2 of 3 The study included tax data from the 42 states that were far enough along in their budget process for their officials to respond to survey requests. It does not include data from California, which has the nation's largest budget gap and has not completed a budget, or New Hampshire and Connecticut, which were not far along enough in finishing their budgets to respond to the survey. Romney makes a distinction between taxes and fees by describing fees as charges that are levied in return for specific services. Since the amount of the fee often covers the cost of a service, the governor has said he views fees as distinct from -- and preferable to -- broadly applied taxes on income or the sales of goods. Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director, criticized the study for lumping together fees that were increased during the last fiscal year, which ended June 30, and ones that were increased for this fiscal year, which began on July 1. He said because the group did not offer detailed documentation, it may be presenting a misleading portrait of the scope of fee increases in Massachusetts. He said the governor's office has calculated the additional fees for the fiscal year that began July 1 to be about $313 million. "We used the occasion of the fiscal emergency to look at our fee schedule and make adjustments," Fehrnstrom said. "Yes, fees did go up, but taxes did not." But fiscal watchdog groups say the avoidance of taxes in Massachusetts was driven by political considerations and didn't take into account the best way to pay for essential state services. Many of the fee hikes enacted this year raise money for general state operations, not a particular service, leading an outside budget analyst to complain that their broad impact means they're essentially taxes disguised under less offensive names. "These are just indiscriminate, broad-based fee increases because of a reluctance to raise taxes," said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "It's been disingenuous to say there's no new taxes, in the sense that there's very little connection to the fee increases and the cost of services that the fees are supposed to represent." Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, said the state definitely had room to maneuver in terms of raising the fees; US Census Bureau data released this year showed Massachusetts had the second-lowest fees in the nation as a share of personal income. Still, he said the state would have been better-served to close the budget gap with taxes that affect everyone, such as the income tax. Such taxes spread the burden more equitably across the population than fees, and are generally more dependable sources of revenue, Berger said. "The important question to ask is what's the right thing to do, not what's allowed politically," Berger said. Even with the fee increases, Massachusetts lawmakers have had to cut spending on K-12 education, forcing teacher layoffs, push 10,000 legal inunigrants off Medicaid, and force rape crisis centers to close, along with a host of other state services that have been scaled back. Casey, the House taxation chairman, agreed that new taxes probably would have made more 7/24/03 Boston Globe Online: Print it! Page 3 of 3 sense than across-the-board fee hikes as a means of supporting state programs. But taxes were political kryptonite this year on Beacon Hill, and Romney's veto threat meant tax votes would have required two-thirds votes of the House and Senate -- impossible in the current climate, he said. "There's less political fallout for fees," said Casey. "The general public isn't conflicted. They just say, 'Oh good; you didn't raise our taxes.'" Some lobbyists and activists are still pushing on the tax front. About two dozen demonstrators -- many of whom were arrested at a protest last month for refusing to leave the State House when the building closed -- waited out the rain and navigated the wind to symbolically "raise revenue" on Beacon Hill yesterday morning. And so, a balloon-lifted, 50-foot white canvas banner with "REVENUE" written in red briefly hovered over Beacon Street. But the message seemed to have fluttered away with the banner: New taxes still appear unlikely to be on state lawmakers' agenda this year. Lawmakers who want to raise taxes say they are realistic about the political climate, but still want taxes to be on the Legislature's agenda. The Legislature should have considered the fact that while state taxes are deductible on itemized federal tax forms, fees aren't, said state Representative Anne M. Paulsen, a Belmont Democrat. "We really need to measure what happens when we raise taxes and what happens when we raise fees," Paulsen said. This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 7/24/2003. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company. eSafe scanned this email for malicious content **~ IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders 7/24/03 Marian Karr IP9 From: Irvin Pfab [ipfab@avalon.net] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 3:32 PM To: Iowa City City Council Subject: 72403fw..Study Indicates Jobless Abusers Most Apt to Kill: Womensenews, by Marie Tessier - WeNews correspondent Study Indicates Jobless Abusers Most Apt to Kill By Marie Tessier - WeNews correspondent (WOMENSENEWS)--Scholars from 11 cities have come up with some new answers to an age-old question in the battered women's movement--which abused women are in the most danger? As researchers probed the stories of women who had been murdered, some obvious clues such as gun ownership and an abuser's arrest record were predictably prominent. But some more surprising results turned up, such as the presence of a stepchild and an abuser's job status, says Jacquelyn Campbell, a leading scholar in the field who teaches nursing at Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing in Baltimore. "Unemployment came out as the single most important demographic factor, so it really shows the community implications and the need to think about employment as being an important element for women's safety," Campbell says. The study appears in the July issue of the ~erican Journal of Public Health. Up to 1,300 women each year are killed in the United States by husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends or ex-boyfriends, according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Along with Baltimore, researchers covered 10 other cities, including Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta and Portland, Ore. Warning Signs Can Be a Matter of Life or Death Knowing the warning signs about an abusive relationship, and when it might go from bad to lethal, can be a key life-saving tool for people close to a woman who is in an abusive relationship, according to experts. "Victims die every year because someone they were talking to didn't understand how dangerous the situation was," says San Diego City Attorney Casey Gwinn, who often works with Campbell in training and other advisory efforts around the country. "Someone always knows about the abuse, whether it's their mother, neighbors, friends or co-workers--someone knew." Advocates for battered women and law-enforcement agencies have long known the list of factors that put women in more danger from an abuser: a history of assault; gun ownership; forced sex; an arrest record; threats of assault, suicide, or homicide; stalking; an escalation in the seriousness of violence and highly controlling behavior. The article identifies such new factors as the presence of a stepchild, highlights others, such as highly controlling behavior, and indicates that some abusive behavior may not be strong predictors of homicide, however terrifying or damaging they are in daily life. According to the study authors, knowing the risk factors offers a variety of benefits, from helping victims to understand the gravity of their situation if they are minimizing abusive behavior, to guiding law-enforcement efforts to keeping the most dangerous abusers behind bars. In San Diego, where coordinated victim-support and law-enforcement efforts 1 are widely viewed as state-of-the-art, City Attorney Gwinn uses a different risk assessment tool from Campbell's, but praises efforts to spread the word about the risks that battered women face. Assessing the danger or "lethality" that a woman faces also helps law-enforcement to focus their efforts where the need is greatest, Gwinn says. "If we see a lot of risk factors at play, we can ratchet up our attention," Gwinn says. "It allows us to target the use of our limited resources." 'Femicide' Term Entering U.S. Usage The journal article takes the step of using the term "femicide" to describe the homicides of women and it is the literal definition of the term. The term has long been used among feminists in an international context for practices such as stoning a woman to death for adultery and for so-called "honor" killings of women in some Muslim societies if their families believe that a rape or a relationship has dishonored the family. But the term is only recently gaining ground in scholarly literature on homicide in the United States. "Homicide of women, or femicide, is all about domestic violence," Campbell says. "If you want to prevent homicides of women you have to look at the reasons why women are killed, because the reasons are different than the reasons for homicide in general. "Using the term femicide really identifies these deaths for what they are and I think it helps clarify it as the separate category of homicide that it is," she adds. The study takes an important new step in research on women's homicides because it was the first to use a rigorous scientific method to compare the lives of women killed by abusive partners with battered women in general. The consortium of researchers in 11 cities drew information about 500 women who were either victims of femicide or attempted femicide. They identified another 427 women in the same cities who were living in violent relationships. Then they homed in on the femicide victims and interviewed a relative or friend of the dead woman who would be likely to provide an accurate account of the victim's life circumstances. This method of using case controls--comparing actual femicide victims to the population of abused women-is important to establishing the scientific validity of the research, a goal of several national funders. The research had support from the National Institute of Justice, the National Institutes of Health and other funders in the Washington area, according to Campbell. Marie Tessier is a freelance writer who writes frequently about violence against women for Women's eNews and other publications. For more information: Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing-- - "Identifying Risk Factors for Femicide in Violent Intimate Relationships": - http://www.son.jhmi.edu/research/cnr/homicide/main.htm National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: - http://www.ncadv.org U.S. Justice Department--Bureau of Justice Statistics: - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs Draft IP10 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003 - 7:00PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, James Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Drew Davis, Connie Webb, Shelley Brighi CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 520 GRANT STREET McCafferty asked Commission members to review the information packet that had been distributed earlier. She explained the design included in the packet is different from what was previously approved by the Commission. The previous design McCafferty had drawn up as a recommendation had incorporated using casement windows with panels at the bottom similar to the storm windows that area currently on the porch as well as corner boards and trim work. The design variation currently submitted uses wider double-hung windows creating fewer divisions between windows, but does incorporate panels and trim elements to make it look similar to its existing design. McCafferty asked the homeowners, Webb and Brighi, and their contractor, Drew Davis, to please add any comments they may have. Davis said replicating the porch is difficult because the windows there currently are storms and not a true window. He distributed a handout with pictures of various homes of similar style that have a sun porch with double-hung windows. Gunn asked Davis if the double-hung windows have already been purchased and if they are vinyl windows. Davis said the windows had been purchased and they are white, vinyl windows. Gunn asked if the windows were purchased before an application of appropriateness was submitted. Davis said the windows were ordered prior to the issue of a building permit because he had done work in the same general area of this home but was unaware of the changes in the historical district. Maharry asked if the building permit was not flagged when it was applied for. McCafferty said when the building permit was applied for, it was then that she received an application from Housing Inspection Services (HIS), and HIS also informed Davis of the need for a certificate for appropriateness. The building permit application was also accepted as an application for a certificate of appropriateness, however this is no longer the procedure used because of the potential of miscommunication. ' Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 7, 2003 Page 2 Ponto asked McCafferty if there is a photo of the house. McCafferty provided photos of the house to Commission members. Maharry said a couple of points of discussion are if this design detracts from the historic character of the neighborhood and house, and also the window and window opening dimensions. Carlson said the dimensions and appearance of the windows are character defining for this house and because they are the same as in the first application that was rejected, he would not approve. Davis said there is no way to replicate a storm panel and that is not what the homeowner wants anyway, and he feels they should have say in the matter. McCafferty said there seems to be some agreement with the design in terms of the panels, corner boards, trim etc. and the question is with the proportion of the windows. Perhaps the criteria to look at are if the windows detract substantially from the character of the house and neighborhood. McCallum said he appreciates the changes and improvements made from the first submission and feels this is an awkward situation. He said he has a difficult time telling a homeowner to throw away windows that have already been purchased and to further conform to the Commission's desires. This design is OK and something he would be comfortable with approving. Maharry asked if this is a contributing structure. McCafferty said it is a contributing structure. Smothers said she did a deed search and a Sanborn map of 1933 shows the house with a sun porch. The homeowners said the original owners told them the home was built in 1949. McCafferty clarified there is often a discrepancy in information concerning the age of a home and that Smothers is trying to determine if the porch is original to the house. McCallum asked McCafferty if one would see either casement or double-hung windows on a home of this style. McCafferty said that both exist, and both are typical of the time period. Gunn asked what was the original date of the application. McCafferty said it was received from the building department on April 18, 2003. Gunn said if the owners knew then what they know now, they probably would have approached this very differently. The initial application was denied and the owners were not present at the meeting because there was confusion over who knew of the meeting and who was representing the owners. The homeowners then went to the City Council with an appeal and an alternate design but there was some misunderstanding because the Council only determines if the Commission acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner. The Council determined they their decision was not capricious or arbitrary and now the homeowners are before the Commission again. He also said that nothing has been done to the house, windows have been purchased, and the design is one that might have existed. Gunn said he wished there was a graceful way to remedy this issue. Smothers said she is not insisting on complete restoration but believes that what is there is wodh working with. She agreed with Carlson, there is altering of the window openings and therefore would deny. McCafferty said they have processed over 150 applications for certificates of appropriateness. The process has been somewhat casual, but they have been expanding and experiencing some growing pains, and unfortunately this is a case where the informal process did not work. She has been implementing new procedures to ensure HIS sends applicants to her and that they know whom the primary contact is. Because this has been a learning experience for the Commission as it grows, perhaps they may want to take this under consideration. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 7, 2003 Page 3 Sueppel said he would not approve because the homeowners have not been bending or compromising much with their design. Ponto said the window size is very important. By having 3 wider windows verses 5 narrow windows the look of the porch is changed from its original appearance. Smothers asked if the windows that have been purchased could be returned. Davis said the windows were special ordered and could not be returned. He also said the homeowners did not want casement windows because they are longer and would limit privacy. The double-hung windows also replicate what is on the rest of the house. Smothers said the windows on the sun porch are different, it was designed to look like a sun porch and not like the rest of the house, The sun porch was meant to be different, look different, and be used for a different purpose. Weitzel said the modern casements would match the architectural style of the sun porch and preserve the integrity of the house. McCafferty referenced previous situations that were unique, but where the Commission had worked with the homeowners, compromised and came up with a solution. Gunn and McCafferty said in these situations there was some action on the part of the City that was not exactly as it should have been. However, this application is not like that because the windows were purchased prior to the application for a building permit. Gunn said if this were an application for an addition, the design would be acceptable. It is a reasonable design but the design does not in any way preserve or restore the existing porch. He noted the Council is looking at this situation. Gunn then said he is inclined to vote to approve the application not because it is the proper thing to do or proper application of the guidelines, but because there has been some financial commitment on the part of the homeowners and some misunderstanding and miscommunication along the way. The situation is like the Vogel house, it is not the purest thing for the Commission to do but considering financial strain, and it makes the most sense. He said he feels somewhat wishy-washy on the issue but would vote to approve. McCallum said he has mixed feelings on the issue also but has some of the same thoughts as Gunn. He also said that as someone who purchases older properties, the porch as it is now would be of more value to him if he were purchasing the home for resale. However, the Commission needs to make compromises at times and this is a situation where the homeowners have made a sincere attempt to move in the direction of the Commission and is uncomfortable denying the application. The solution is not ideal, but not every situation is ideal either, and he would suppod the applicant. Carlson said there had been some compromised solutions that McCafferty put forward at the last meeting and they are the outer limit of what he feels is within the guidelines. He would vote against the application. Sueppel said he had issue with many of the materials to be used on the sun porch. The moldings and windows should be made of wood and not of poly-type materials that can melt. He said he doesn't mind the looks of the poly materials if they are done the right way but quality is an issue and he would like to see the product before approving. Smothers said she wished they could begin over and be able to convince the homeowners of the importance of what they have now. She also said there are ways to reduce sound and increase insulation by repairing the existing windows, but understands the homeowners are looking toward the future. Their desire is to accommodate their needs as they grow older, but advised to also remember that nothing is maintenance free. Because the design alters the proportions of the windows, she would vote to deny the application. Ponto said the design looks very nice if it were an addition but because of the way the windows are situated it looks like an addition and not what the original sun porch looks like. He is all for making compromises but this design is too far away from the Secretary of Interiors standards and it is changing the historic characteristics of the home. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 7, 2003 Page 4 Maharry said they have heard form the majority of the Commission and asked for a motion. MOTION: Carlson moved to deny the certificate of appropriateness of 520 Grant Street because the windows on the sun porch are character defining features of the house and the proposed remodel would significantly alter the proportions of the windows and appearance of the sun porch. The proposed windows are specified as vinyl, which is not allowed by the guidelines, and the Commission had previously approved an alternative design plan for the sun porch. Sueppel seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Weitzel noted by denying the certificate of appropriateness they are preserving the curb appeal and resale value by keeping the home's historical integrity which is the broader goal of the Commission. Maharry said he had originally questioned the appearance of the altered sun porch to the neighborhood. He said he feels the changes would not greatly alter the appearance to the neighborhood. The other issue is if the Commission is being capricious and arbitrary especially when they disallow something. The opinions stated do not appear to be capricious and arbitrary, they follow the guidelines of the Commission and are appropriate. Maharry also said he would vote against the motion because the design submitted would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: Carlson, Sueppel, Smothers Ponto vote to approve the motion. Maharry, McCallum, Gunn vote to deny the motion. The vote is 4-3, motion is approved. Maharry noted the motion was approved to deny the certificate of appropriateness. The Commission informally discussed the benefits of having a motion made in the positive verses negative. McCafferty said she would discuss the issue with the legal department to clarify. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS McCafferty referred to the handbook revisions that were included in the Commission's packet. She said she is preparing a memo to Council addressing some of their concerns, informing them of what the Commission is doing and the changes they are implementing. She asked for an indication from the Commission if they want to proceed with the substantial changes made in the revised handbook. Specifically, the issue of identifying non-historic properties, adding some flexibility for those and the reformatting of the handbook. Sueppel said the revisions are very good, straightforward and will be a great reference for any contractor. Maharry and Ponto noted the revised handbook will be good for the novice or for those who don't understand historical properties. The Commission informally discussed various parts of the handbook, including defining factors for non- historic properties, clarifying conservation districts, randmark properties, and guidelines for additions and new construction. McCafferty added that there is work still to be done on the handbook including any spelling and grammatical errors. Maharry asked the Commission to please review the handbook before the next meeting and to also review each of the guidelines and look for exceptions. ADJOURNMENT McCallum moved to adjourn the meeting. Gunn seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. data on citynt/pcd/minutes/hpc07-08~3 doc Draft IPll MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Maharry STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Justin Pardekooper Gunn agreed to chair the meeting, as neither the chair nor vice chair was present at the start of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Gunn called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: McCallum said that he recently walked through Brad Houser's house. He said it does have some mission- style doors with original hardware that he may try to salvage. McCallum said there is also siding and oak flooring there. He said there will be a window of five days during which the material will be available for salvaging. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1005 Muscatine Avenue. McCafferty said Pardekooper is the contractor for this project. McCafferty said one of the portions of the project to be discussed is in the packet, and the other has been added since the packet was distributed. McCafferty said the owner has proposed to add a dormer to the back of the house. She said it would be of similar proportions as the previous ones. The applicant is also proposing raising the roof pitch slightly on the dormers. McCafferty said that in her opinion, the pitch difference would be imperceivable, particularly at the back of the house. She said the property has a lot of trees, and it is difficult to get a good view of the back of the house. McCafferty said the owner also plans to change out the windows in all the dormers using metal clad windows with simulated divided lights to match the existing divided light pattern. Ponto asked if there were already dormers on three sides of the house. Pardekooper confirmed this. He said the homeowners want to utilize the existing attic for a master bedroom. He said the owners have chosen to put a dormer on the back side of the house and use the front half for storage space. Pardekooper said he was going to try to use the existing staircase and did not plan to alter it too much. He said that of course he would need to talk to the Building Department, and, as McCafferty explained, there may be a need to alter the pitch slightly. McCafferty said the new dormer would be sided with fiber cement board, and Pardekooper confirmed this. McCafferty said the brick is no longer available and is structurally difficult to install. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 2 Gunn said this is an atypical setback addition that meets the criteria of a setback addition. He said that if it were a big setback addition on the back it could be sided anyway. McCafferty said this property is in a conservation district so that larger dormers than what might typically be on the house are allowed, as long as it doesn't detract substantially. Weitzel asked if the dormer roofline should have a profile similar to the original roofline. He said there is a little bit of a sweep at the eave of the existing dormers. Pardekooper said he can do a sweep on the dormer. He said he is concerned about standing water on a sweep like this. He said he can sweep it if that is what the Commission requires. Weitzel pointed out that on the front dormers, especially from where it can be seen, the sweep is a defining characteristic of this architectural style. He said since it is not visible on the back, he did not feel it would need to be exactly 100% the same. Gunn asked if, aside from the sweep, there were any other issues with this addition. Carlson said he was also concerned, because the application says the existing dormers on the north and south would be replaced with 10-12 pitch. He asked if the all dormers roofs would be altered to match the side dormers. Pardekooper said he would need to raise the pitch of the roof a little bit to get clearance for head room in the stairwell, unless there is a way to circumvent that as far as the Building Department is concerned. Carlson asked if then both north and south are necessary for the staircases. Pardekooper said there is not going to be a staircase on the north side, although the owner would like to have a bathroom on the north side. Weitzel pointed out that those are visible from the street. McCallum asked Pardekooper if he is having a problem with ceiling height in the interior so that the pitch has to be raised to meet code. Pardekooper confirmed this. McCallum asked if it is functionally workable the way it is now, and Pardekooper said it is not really. He said he did not know how anyone would be able to move any furniture in. McCafferty said the headroom is clost to that required by code. McCafferty asked Pardekooper if he would leave the sweep pitch as is and raise the pitch of the portion above the sweep. Pardekooper said a lot of that would have to do with NNW's engineering of it. Pardekooper said he has not run the full gamut with the engineer at NNW yet as far as the engineering of it. He said he and NNW wanted to get a lot of feedback from the Commission first to see what he can and cannot do. Gunn asked if the dormer roofs would go above the peak of the roof. Pardekooper said they would not, although the homeowners' original plan called for something different. He said McCafferty informed him that their first proposal did not comply with the guidelines and would likely be denied by the Commission. Pardekooper said he therefore brought the proportions down and tried to use as much of the original profile as he can. Weitzel asked if the walls would be changed on the dormers. Pardekooper answered that just the roof would be changed; the brick and the walls would all stay in place. He said he will be raising the peak of the roof. Pardekooper said that as far as wall height, the brick of the dormer, the friezeboards, and the moldings, he would not be raising those or changing them. He said material that needs to be replaced will match the original. Weitzel said that since he seems to be the only one who is concerned about the sweep, he would say to go ahead with the dormer. Carlson said he was a little concerned about the sweep on the existing dormer but is a little less concerned about the one on the back. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 3 McCafferty asked Weitzel if he is then saying that it is acceptable to raise the pitch of the roof slightly but he would like to see the sweep maintained. Weitzel responded that he would like to see the sweep if there were a consensus that that was the original style. McCafferty stated that, in her opinion, this is likely original, as all the roofs have that sweep, and that is not an unusual detail for a foursquare. Carlson said he is also has a concern that this would be raising the dormer pitch on only two sides of the house. He said if one is looking at it from a certain angle, it will look strange if the front dormer hasn't been raised like the side ones. McCafferty said this sits close to the street so that the view one will have of it is fairly oblique. She said one cannot get far enough back to get more of an elevational view of it. She said there will always be this perspective so that it is not that noticeable. McCafferty said she did not think that one can ever get far back enough from it to see that the dormer roof is not quite parallel with the roof of the main house. Carlson asked how much higher the peak of the proposed new dormer would be than the current one. Pardekooper replied that the bottom of the ridge will be six to seven inches above the existing. He said he has to alter the ridge anyway, because this has a true one-by ridge, which isn't going to be allowed any longer. Pardekooper said he would like to get half a pitch or a full pitch out of that roofline to get the head clearance coming up the stairwell and to the other side too. Pardekooper said he is trying to make the Building Depadment happy as far as clearances go, but he is also trying to make it so that he doesn't have to be too aggressive as far as changing this too drastically. He added that the homeowners are warming up to this idea too. McCallum asked what the height is for someone for clearance here. Pardekooper said he thought it was six feet ten inches, and the height here is at about six feet six inches right now. Pardekooper said most people could probably walk through there if they stayed to the right of the stairwell and turned a little bit. He said the real problem is that the majority of the stairwell is really running at an eight, because the ridge and the hip rafters are eights and the dormers are at six. McCafferty said this is intended to meet the building code. She said that to move the stairs, in order to get the clearance with the stairs from down below, would be more difficult than adjusting the roof. McCafferty asked Pardekooper if he had talked the HIS about the building code for the conservation of existing buildings. Pardekooper responded that he has not done that yet, because he was directed to discuss this with the Commission. Sueppel asked how many of these would be altered, and if they are all going to then be altered the same. Pardekooper replied that is not the plan. He said the one in the front will not be touched at all because it will be utilized for storage. Pardekooper said he will alter the other two and then create the new one in the back. Sueppel asked if the new one in the back would then meet the same as these and if they would all be the same height on every one except the one in the front. Pardekooper said the back one will be just a little bit higher, because that is the master bedroom where more room is needed. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal to add a dormer to the rear elevation and for the roof alteration to the house at 1005 Muscatine Avenue, with the conditions that the sweep be kept and that the new windows have the simulated, divided lights to be consistent with the other windows in the house. Sueppel seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 4 Pardekooper said he plans to use Marvin windows with simulated, divided lights. He said the windows will have the same amount of division, and he will match the windows to the existing windows to the extent possible. Carlson asked if the new dormer on the back would be similar, with four divided lights. Pardekooper answered that the owners would like a larger window, but he can still do the simulated, divided lights. McCafferty said the drawing looks as though this is sort of matching the propodion and size of this (which?) window with the dormer window. Pardekooper said if that is what he needs to do, then that is what he will do. He said he can lay out the parameters specified by the Commission to the homeowners and say that this is the box that they have to work in. Pardekooper said he believed the homeowners would be pretty cooperative and have no problem with that. Carlson said that he is certainly happy to be more flexible on the back, but he wanted to make certain that it doesn't just look out of character with the rest of the building. McCafferty said that the previous proposal was for a big gable in the back covered with stucco and with a large, arched window, so this is certainly more in character with the house. She said that in a conservation district, dormers may be larger than those commonly found in the neighborhood, provided the dormer does not seriously alter the character of the building. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Carlson assumed the chairmanship of the Commission at this point. McCafferty said another issue with this house involves the windows and the door. She said there was a single door going down to the basement steps. McCafferty said the owners have had to finish off the basement to make it habitable space and have had to reconstruct the stairs. She said there were previous changes to the stairway, but it is not really clear what was done and when, although it was obvious that it was not quite original. McCafferty said in order to make this usable living space, have needed access, and get more light into the basement, the owners needed to make this a double door. She said there will be two two-six doors with approximately five-foot openings. McCafferty said one door will be passive, and the other one will be the operative door. McCafferty said there was also a non-original, little canopy. Pardekooper said the canopy had to be removed, because it was fairly loose and presented a safety issue. McCaffedy said the owners propose the double doors and a hipped canopy over the double doors. Smothers stated that because of the asymmetry of this elevation, she did not have a problem with the double doors. She said it shows progress with the house. Weitzel said he appreciates the new canopy in keeping with the style of the house, as opposed to the one that was there at one time. Carlson asked if the doors that were replaced were original doors, and Pardekooper said they were not. Weitzel asked Pardekooper what the plans are for the header course above the door. Pardekooper said that because the landing was sagging, he let a header into that framing and put in a brand new lintel all the way across the new opening. He said that in doing so, he is hoping that with the proposed canopy, he will be bringing it down so that there is really not a lot of space between the actual doorjamb, the trim, and that roofline. Pardekooper said he is really planning to close it all back in. McCafferty stated that she would put the supports under the frieze rather than the eaves. Pardekooper said the homeowners think that they would like both - that both would be fine, so he would go with whichever one would look better period-wise. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 5 McCaffedy asked if it would use the dimensions of the existing fascia and eaveboard. Pardekooper said he is trying to, but since it is such a small roofline, he doesn't want to make it beefy. He said it is going to be close. McCaffedy said the other item involves an egress window and a scapewell system added on the nodh side. McCafferty said it is actually bermed up a little bit around the house with ferns, etc. Pardekooper said the berm is back up, and the landscaper will be transplanting all the ferns around. He said the scapewell is only out of the ground about four inches. Gunn asked if the windows are a pair of casement windows. Pardekooper said there is one Marvin egress window. He said it is an outswinging casement that swings out into the scapewell system. He said there are really two separate windows there. Pardekooper said there is a pair of windows, and one is the egress window. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the door and window at 1005 Muscatine Avenue, while noting that it would have been better if the Commission had been contacted before the work was initiated. Smothers noted that these are egresses that are required for safety reasons and therefore more flexibility should be allowed to change the fenestration. She said it is different in that the homeowners have presented their reasons very well in terms of needing to get things into the house and get out of the house - basic safety issues. Weitzel added that it does not noticeably change much of the house. McCaIIum said that plantings could totally obscure that on the north side. Ponto pointed out that there appears to be a window missing on the south elevation. Pardekooper said it was just an error in the drawings, and they intend to keep the window. Carlson said his one concern is that the doors on the south elevation look better with the divided lights so that it is more circa the 1920 period than what is in there now. McCafferty said the drawing shows it with the divided lights, although the proposal is for doors without the divided lights. Pardekooper said the owners really did not want the maintenance of divided lights. McCallum said he believes it looks better without the divided lights or with something more in line with the windows on the second floor. Weitzel said he believes that any of the options discussed would work. He said it could have a sort of French door look to it. McCafferty said if there are no strong feelings, it could be left up to the homeowner. McCallum said he would rather see the mission style or nothing at all versus the nine lights, because to him that is inconsistent with the windows and the rest of the house. Smothers said that it is an egress to a basement and is therefore modern and perhaps should be left up to the homeowner. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 528 COLLEGE STREET: McCafferty said the Commission has looked at this house before. She said the owners need a certificate of appropriateness to rebuild the two porches to their original condition. McCafferty said it would depend on the interpretation as to whether or not this would be a certificate of no material effect. McCafferty said that the original columns were boxed in at some point and made fatter. She said if you look at the columns, there are pilasters against the walls that are actually thinner, and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 6 she showed what the columns on the front porch will look like. Carlson asked if they would just be square versions of that pilaster, and McCafferty confirmed this. McCafferty said the owners haven't really decided if they want to leave the baluster across the roof. She said they are working with Doug Steinmetz, and he believes it was probably not original to the house and should come off. McCafferty said that the Bur-fords are on decided as to whether they want to keep it. McCafferty said the owners would therefore like to have the option of removing the baluster or rebuilding it. Gunn said there are no doors, so he suspects it is not original. McCaffedy agreed and said it is simpler and is not consistent with the other spindles and so forth on the house in either the front or the back. She said she told the owner she thought it should come off. Gunn said it is certainly old enough to be historic, and he asked if this should be the choice of the owner to rebuild it or not. McCafferty said she had told the owners she would run this by the Commission. Weitzel asked if the Commission needed to give its approval to allow it to be taken off. McCafferty said the Commission could approve rebuilding the porch as is or the removal of the balustrade. She showed a photograph from the 1980s of the porch. McCafferty said it is a certificate of no material effect for the back porch, because it is really just repairing it. Gunn asked if the front should also receive a certificate of no material effect. McCafferty responded that she thought that as long as the Commission was holding a meeting, and given the fact that the owners are removing some material to restore the porch, this approval would make sure the project was covered. Carlson said the owners are removing non-historic material, and McCafferty confirmed this. Carlson asked if the material is being replaced with anything. McCafferty replied that they will most likely have to replace portions of this to match the original. Gunn said it seems like the homeowners are trying to do a very good job. Sueppel asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to say that as long as the homeowners are continuing in the same theme that was the original house that the Commission will approve it, so that the owners can make some of these decisions. He said it looks like the owners are trying to make it look as good as it did when it was first built. McCafferty said that when the owners get to the windows, the Commission would probably want more specifics about what is going in. Sueppel said he is talking about the porches. McCafferty said for the porches, the Commission could approve the reconstruction of the porches, the removal of non-historic material, and the re- creation of any missing material to match the historic material, based on photographs. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction of the porches, the removal of non-historic material, and the re-creation of any missing material to match the historic material, based on photographs, for the house at 528 College Street. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISlONS' Sueppel said he wanted to revisit something from the previous week when he was absent. He said he noticed that you people discussed, and being the "vinyl siding expert," the section on siding, 4.5. Sueppel said apparently the exceptions were changed to include, "Synthetic siding may be used on a primary building provided the proposed type of synthetic siding was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed." He said he did not know if the other Commission members know what kind of can of worms they opened up on that. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 7 Sueppel said that that little sentence in there... He asked if anyone knew when aluminum siding first went on. Weitzel said he believed it was in the forties, and Smothers said it came into use in the fodies and fifties. Sueppel said 1946. He asked when vinyl was first put on. Weitzel asked if he meant commonly used. Sueppel said it doesn't say commonly used; it says able. Weitzel said it reads, "...was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed." Sueppe~ said that was right, but it was put on in 1954. Weitzel said that is past the era the Commission is concerned with, and Carlson stated that it is not much past. Smothers said what this is talking about, within one year, those will be applicable. She said they'll be fifty years old. Sueppel ask if you are saying that all these houses with vinyl siding would have to go back to the siding used then. And Smothers said no. Weitzel discussed the neighborhood behind the Hy-Vee on Muscatine. He said if that became an historic district, the owners could use vinyl siding there, and it would be perfectly appropriate for that time period. Weitzel said they could use aluminum too. He said, however, that on Summit Street, vinyl siding would still be disallowed. Sueppel asked why the Commission has just said that about siding and why hasn't it said that about all other things. He said that Ty-Vek wasn't used back then, and we have nails that are different kinds than were used back then. Sueppel said why is the Commission just saying siding. Gunn said the Commission does say it about doors, windows, siding, baluster design, porch design, and a lot of other things. Sueppel asked if it were changed on all of those things. Gunn replied that it is already in there this way, where it frequently says appropriate to the style, time, architecture, etc. Carlson said it is phrased differently other places, but he believes the Commission intends the same thing here. McCafferty said the language is basically just to clarify. Sueppel said he does not think it clarifies; he thinks it clouds. He said he can say right now, the worst part is that you can get somebody who will fight this son of a gun and probably beat you on the fact that you don't give a date, you don't give a time, you merely say the period in which the building was constructed. McCafferty asked Sueppel what he would recommend. He said to leave that portion out. Sueppel said he doesn't understand why that portion has to be put on. Smothers asked if there is still asbestos siding. Weitzel said there is not much of it left. Smothers said it is still there. She said that is a product from the 1930s, and it will last forever if it is completely sealed. Smothers asked Sueppel for his suggestion when the size and the scale of that piece is to go up on the building, if there is a synthetic siding company that provides an alternative. McCaffer~y said there is another product made that simulates the asbestos. Smothers asked if it was vinyl. McCafferty said it is not. Sueppel said it is vinyl. Weitzel said it is a concrete and fiberglass product. Sueppel said there is some concrete with fiberglass you can get in vinyl. Weitzel said it is a thin tile and is like Masonite. Sueppel asked why you people hate vinyl so much. He asked Commission members what they have against vinyl. Gunn answered that it covers the historic building. Weitzel said it wasn't used during the time periods of the district. Sueppel said it wasn't used when. He said it has been used since 1954. Weitzel said that until 1954 it wasn't used. Sueppel said then so anything after 1954, it can be used on. Ponto said that is what this exception is saying. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 8 Sueppel said but why is the Commission putting these, where people have to look this stuff up. He said the Commission is trying to make it difficult and is making it impossible for people to read its things without going through all this crap again. Sueppel said that is exactly why he liked this was it was so easy to read and so easy to look at and say well, yes you can here, no you can't here. He said now you're throwing things in there so you have to look up the age of the house and be sure that you're in the right year, because if it's a 1956 you can't be there, you gotta be 55, you can be here. McCafferty said the exception could be deleted. She said the Commission was just trying to provide a little more flexibility and clarify some issues for non-historic properties in order to give more options. Sueppel said he did not believe that. Gunn said that currently, vinyl is not allowed in historic districts, period. He said it is allowed on all non-contributing properties and new structures in the conservation districts. Sueppel asked what about the older homes that need something done that are non-historic. Gunn said that has never been on the table as far as he is aware of. Sueppel said he thought that was what a non-historic house was was something that is non-historic within that neighborhood. He said isn't that what we're talking about. Weitzel said the Commission wanted to keep things to the period of that neighborhood, so if there are going to be any changes made, they would be to the asset of the time period of the neighborhood, not to the detriment of that. He said then that rather than creating more chaos in that neighborhood, it's going back toward the mean. Sueppel said there are houses on Summit Street that were built after 1955. He asked if the Commission is saying they could have vinyl siding. Gunn said that is what the exception says. Sueppel said what if you've got one next door that was built the year before. He said you can do the one, but you can't do the other one. McCaffedy said the line has to be drawn somewhere. Weitzel agreed that the line has to be drawn somewhere. He said sometimes it is difficult, but it's that way with everything in life. Gunn said there is also a time period of significance for each district. He said the cutoff date is therefore already in place, and he believes the latest period to be 1949. Gunn said still there are pretty clean lines between historic and non-historic. Sueppel said he has no problem with that, non-historic and conservation, he has no problem with that. He said he just thinks that when you put in here, people have to go out and prove when the product was made in order to prove you can put it on a certain house. Sueppel said he thinks that is just something that is just... Carlson said it is the same language the Commission has to say that something needs to be with the age of the building and in character with the building. He said one still has to go out and look to see, for example, would this window have been possible in a 1915 house. Carlson said he does not see that this is really substantially different than what the Commission has already done and what it has actually been doing for some time. Gunn asked if aluminum siding is ever put on any more. Sueppel said it was. He said in this particular case, a good example would be that a person could put aluminum on because it was put on ten years before the vinyl and not put the vinyl on. Gunn said the Commission can specify the period of 1955 or 1960 or later as a further clarification. He said this language is what is commonly used throughout, and it works for styles. Gunn said for example, turned balusters were common in certain neighborhoods in certain times but not in others. He said the Commission can't spell out every single date on every single Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 9 architectural style; pad of what the Commission does here is to make judgments about things. Gunn said if one is talking about vinyl siding, it is basically homes built after, he would say, 1960. He said you could say 1954, and it could be debated, but 1954 is pretty close to Longfellow. Weitzel said he was not certain that it was even common in 1954, although it may have been introduced in 1954. Sueppel said it was introduced in 1954, and the first factory, Byrd, starting making it and producing it, and in 1958 Crane started going nationwide and produced about five different companies were selling it at that time. Sueppel said aluminum however, 1947, is one that he just picked out that he called up Reynolds and said when did you start, and 1946 is when he started up putting aluminum and steel on buildings all over, and he could show where they are and everything else. Sueppel said he hasn't checked with Alcoa or anyone else, but these are the ones he checked, and they are the ones that told him Byrd was the first one and Crane was the second. Ponto said the thought behind this concerned the fact that for the house on Summit Street that ended up going to City Council with an appeal, all the guidelines said there could be no vinyl siding. He said, however, that for the age of that house, it might have been appropriate. Ponto said the Commission was just trying to allow some flexibility in those types of situations. Gunn said that for that particular house on Summit Street, it was built with wood siding, and wood siding is more appropriate to the district. He said it is a pretty good argument to say leave the thing alone and paint it. Gunn said, however, that he is willing to vote in favor of allowing synthetic siding on houses like that, although it is better off to leave it wood and paint it. He said it is more compatible with the district, and it is original. McCallum asked Sueppel if he wanted to see the exception deleted then. Sueppel answered that they already have that in most of the things the Commission does, so why put it back in under the exceptions. Weitzel said one point is that this version is trying to make it clear where the Commission does and does not allow so that the Commission is not putting out a monolithic, "No, you can't do anything to your house." Gunn pointed out that unless it is in the exceptions, it is disallowed. He said synthetic siding is disallowed, with the exception being these cases. Gunn said if the Commission is going to allow it in historic districts, it has to be put in as an exception. He said that still, for the most part, synthetic siding is not allowed in historic districts, except in these particular cases. Sueppel said since these are exceptions, take the house on Summit Street as an example, and on that house, since that is an exception, he would not have to get permission to do that or he would still have to get permission. Gunn said the owner would still have to get a certificate of appropriateness to do the work. Sueppel stated that then why is that paragraph necessary when you have the paragraph above it. Ponto said that the paragraph above it applies to outbuildings. Weitzel said he thinks it is a good statement, but if the Commission wants to take it out, he would survive. Carlson said it also means that any new construction could have vinyl siding. McCafferty said the paragraph only refers to outbuildings. Carlson said it says, "...may be used on a primary building provided..." Ponto said the exception though is for non-historic properties. Carlson said that any modern building is a non-historic building in an historic district. Ponto said that would fall under the new construction guidelines. Carlson said someone could build a building now using hardi-plank, and then the next year go in with this exception and show that this is a non-historic building and put vinyl on it. Sueppel said that by that same token, isn't cement board a synthetic product so that you can't put that on there. Gunn said the Commission has expressly approved it. Sueppel said no, it says synthetic siding; he said the whole paragraph just breeds, when he read that paragraph, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 10 he thought, "What in the hell are we doing?" He said he is not saying put it one way; he is just saying the way that thing reads, every time anybody uses something, they'll have to figure out what year it was made, who could put it on, who couldn't put it on, whether it was common, whether it was uncommon. Weitzel said it should at least be made clear that if someone builds a new house, he still can't just do whatever he wants to with it; he has to follow the guidelines. Sueppel said he has no problem with that. Carlson said it seems really odd to say that you can't put vinyl on your house, but you can put vinyl on anything older than something built right now. Gunn agreed that it is odd. He said, however, that this whole discussion is over six or eight houses, or ten at the most. Gunn said in all the historic districts, there are very few new homes. He said it is already allowed in conservation districts, which is the bulk of it. He said this whole discussion is over almost no properties. Sueppel said yes, except the Commission has revisited it twice now. He said he leaves, and the Commission revisited it when he wasn't here. Sueppel said Gunn's comments were put in, because McCafferty puts Gunn's comments in when Gunn is gone. He said to read the minutes, "Mr. Gunn feels this way. Mr. Gunn feels that way." Sueppel said that is something else he wants to visit, that if Gunn's comments are going to go in, then everyone else should have input when they're not at the meeting. Sueppel said all the minutes he has read since he has been on the Commission have had Gunn's comments whether or not he has been present at the meeting, but it doesn't have other people's comments. Carlson said if anyone submits note to McCaffedy because they'll be absent from the meeting, she does read them to the Commission. Sueppel said he has never seen anyone else's name but Gunn's. McCafferty said she has Maharry's comments. Sueppel agreed that Maharry's were also in there. McCallum said he understood the confusion, but he thought this phrase was sort of a compromise for the homeowners who were in those unique properties, so he had no problem with it. He said he believes that taking it out would make it less flexible. McCallum said the Commission ended up disallowing vinyl for that house on Summit Street, for example, but if this exception had been in the handbook, the Commission may have had a different outcome on that property. McCafferty said that exception could just be taken out of the handbook if people feel it is confusing. She said it is not critical but was a compromise for people who live in odd, non- conforming houses. Sueppel said if you look at the first one done and then look at the second one, this just puts more language and more exceptions in there, when it was pretty clear in the first draft. McCafferty said she added the exception with regard to the outbuildings. Sueppel said he had no problem with the exception with outbuildings, but this went into all the buildings and put in another paragraph there. He asked why it is being put in a different place, why it isn't being put all under the same exception. Sueppel said you've got one exception here and one exception there, and to him, it just... McCafferty suggested getting rid of allowing it in historic districts altogether, as that would simplify it. MOTION: McCallum moved to remove from the handbook the second bullet point under Exceptions in Section 4.5 Siding, "Synthetic siding may be used on a primary building Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 11 provided the proposed type of synthetic siding was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed." Weitzel said if people think it would be easier to remove the language, he would be in favor. Ponto agreed. Sueppel looked at the first draft and said what was done here was that we took out, over here we had the historical district, non-historic. He said what happened was this was under one paragraph, very easy, have them both under here, just one exception. Sueppel said now we've got something over here that says one, and something over there that says the other. He said it just to him makes it more difficult to read and makes it more confusing for people. Weitzel agreed that that this is for only six or eight houses. Sueppel said one of the things that was told to the Commission members is that they all agree too much. He said now the members get to disagree. McCafferty said what the agreement of the Commission means is that they works things out and makes compromises as a group. Weitzel said if the Commission is actually working together as a group, he did not know how that would be incriminating in any way. Sueppel said it might be the best thing for the Commission's notes to show that the Commission does not always agree. McCallum said the Commission doesn't always agree. He said he empathizes with what Sueppel is saying. McCallum said when the average person comes in and reads some of these things, it can be easy to get confused and frustrated. Weitzel stated that if one looks at this and then at what the Commission originally had, you can see that this is going in the right direction. Weitzel said this is 100% better than that, and he has no problem with that. He said he wishes this could be put at least ail in one paragraph or on one side of the paper or something, so it doesn't look like we've got recommendations over here and then we've got disallowed over here, and we've got the exceptions, where there are some under this one and some under this one. Smothers said that there have been people who have worked really very hard to put this together, who have spent many, many hours and received suggestions from other individuals and written this all out. She said she did not believe Sueppel was considering how much time has been put into the handbook. She stated that if Sueppel had a suggestion, that would be wonderful; the Commission should be doing positive work. Smothers said the Commission could work on this to Sueppel's satisfaction but stated that this should not be so negative to break this down and say how confusing it is. Smothers said she believes this flows well, and once the reader gets through the first couple of pages, he understands where the recommendations are, where the disallowed things are listed, and where the exceptions are written out. McCafferty said, in looking at this particular paragraph and as she thought about this, it seems that typically vinyl siding came into common use sometime in the 1970s. She said it may have existed prior to that, but in terms of commonly coming into Iowa City as a building product, that might have been in the 1970s. McCaffedy said the Commission would need to look at a specific date. She pointed out that aluminum came in much earlier, so the intent of separating this out in historic districts was to, given that those dates varied significantly between aluminum and vinyl, pull that out separately to insure that it is appropriate to the building. McCafferty said that, if in fact vinyl came into common use in Iowa City much earlier than that, then it might be appropriate to simply combine this exception with the other one. McCaffedy said it may be helpful to go to the Historic Society and look at building catalogs and other reference information for Iowa City to see specifically if the dates are different enough that it should be pulled out or rolled in or eliminated all together. She suggested that, at this point, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 12 the Commission do more research on these materials, as that information is readily available. McCafferty said the Commission might want to look at other options on this issue for the next meeting, and Sueppel could bring any suggestions. She suggested that the Commission move on to discuss the rest of the handbook. Gunn asked if non-historic would be a designation on the maps, and McCafferty confirmed that they would be marked as white with an "X" on the maps. Gunn asked if that would take precedence on the issue of siding, so that if there is a non-historic "X" on the map, then it is a done deal. McCafferty confirmed this. Gunn said he did not think there had been any change to anything discussed here; this is verbage. He said it is exactly the same guideline that has been talked about for two months or more. Gunn said it is cleaner to just leave it as, "There is an 'X' on the map; it's non-historic; synthetic siding goes on." Ponto said he realizes there are space problems, but from a formatting point of view, every place else the exceptions are in the right hand column. He said that at first glance that might cause a little confusion. McCafferty said she would look at formatting that differently, although she did not want to have a lone exception hanging over on the next page as it could be missed. McCafferty asked for suggestions for the rest of the handbook. Gunn stated that on page 18, in the first exception, the text should read, "Vinyl clad wood windows..." Gunn asked if in Section 4.12 on page 22, in the only exception, if "brick veneer" meant the same thing to everyone. He asked if Z-brick is brick veneer. Smothers said it is brick veneer. Gunn asked if any thin masonry would be the same. He asked if this is to say is this brick or stucco, or is it tooled into plaster and painted colors, or what exactly is this referring to. Sueppel said there are a lot of products out there. McCafferty said there are a lot better products now, including a brick, clay veneer that is actual brick but is thin. Gunn said the Commission just needs to be clear about it. He said that typically when he thinks of a brick veneer building, he thinks of a wood frame building with 3 ¼ inches of brick on the outside; that is a brick veneer. Gunn questioned whether that is what brick veneer is to most people and is that what the Commission is saying. McCallum said that for chimneys, someone wouldn't want that kind of weight on his roofline. McCafferty said this is to provide a lighter weight option. McCallum said what this is referring to is actually smaller bricks. Weitzel said it is not the same as the specification of brick veneer on a wood frame or a concrete block. Gunn said he is not suggesting anything other than that the Commission should be clear about this. McCafferty said one of the confusions is that under recommended for new chimneys it says, "If a new chimney pipe penetrates the roof structure, it may be boxed and finished with brick veneer or stucco." Weitzel said that veneer is not whole bricks. McCallum said that is understood by him. McCafferty said Gunn said there is not really the need for an exception here, as that is already covered under new chimneys. The consensus of the Commission was to delete the exception. Smothers suggested that in Section 4.12, in the fourth bullet under Recommended: Original chimneys, the text be changed to read, "If an original chimney is no longer needed, it should be repaired and capped in a manner that prevents vermin from entering the chimney, but allows air circulation. If not vented, chimney tar and creosote can emit gases resulting in toxic fumes in the house." Sueppel said this is in the building code, but Smothers said she felt it would be a good reminder for people. McCaffedy agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 13 Gunn stated that in Section 5.1, on page 25 under Not Recommended, the "and" should be changed to "or." Ponto pointed out that in Section 6.1, on page 29 under Not Recommended: Porches, "the" should be changed to "it." Ponto referred to Section 7.0, on page 31, in the second bullet under Disallowed and said he totally agreed with disallowing the removal of defining original architectural features for an historic house. He asked if that should be in effect, however, for a modern house, since he would not have a problem with that. Gunn said that a modern house would never be contributing to the district. The consensus was to add an exception to make non-historic properties exempted. Smothers suggested, for Section 2.1, on page seven, in the note, changing the word "require" to "requires." Weitzel asked McCafferty if she had found out whether there would be the same fee structure for building permits that are required for things are only in historic districts. McCafferty said she has not yet found out that information. She said the fee structure is usually amended on an annual basis. Regarding the guidelines for ramps, Weitzel stated that people keep asking him why the Commission forced the people on Oakland Street to take down their ramp. McCafferty said it was not initiated by the Commission but was initiated by complaints from the neighbors. She said a ramp is sort of in a gray area in terms of building permits. McCafferty said if there is no complaint, the Building Department will generally let it go. She said since there were complaints, the Building Department has to address the issue, which means the owners have to get a building permit, which means the Commission has to review it. Sueppel referred to Section 8.1, page 32, and said that in the Summit Street paragraph, the requirement of 750 square feet for a new building would prevent a garage from being built. McCafferty said that should actually read, "...not less than 750 square feet for a new primary building." Weitzel said he believes the Commission is going in the right direction with these guidelines, and he believes they will be helpful. McCafferty said the guidelines are not substantially changing but are being clarified. Weitzel agreed and said he thought that is what people are asking the Commission to do. Ponto said Commission members did not purposefully talk about something because Sueppel was absent. Weitzel said there isn't an agenda against Sueppel or against vinyl siding. He added that the Commission may, however, be dancing around the issue where Sueppel thinks vinyl siding is okay, and some members don't think it's appropriate preservationally. Weitzel said the Commission may need to get some data both ways on this issue. Sueppel said, regarding any of the houses on Summit Street that the Commission talks about, that he has no problem with that. He said he has no problem with most of the houses. Sueppel said that in fact the owner of 921 E. Burlington wants him to do a house, but he's waiting to talk to McCafferty to tell him what he can do, because he knows the house is in the district. McCafferty stated that the house is in the Summit Street Historic District. 2004 CLG GRANT: The consensus of the Commission was to apply for a CLG grant to nominate downtown to the NRHP. Carlson said there is only about a week before the deadline for a draft of the grant. McCafferty said it is just a draft. She said that mostly it's a matter of informing the State about Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 14 what the Commission is doing and that it is reasonable. Weitzel volunteered to help work on the application. REVISED BY-LAWS: McCafferty said the by-laws are the recommendation of the Legal Depadment. With regard to ex parte contact, Gunn said it should be acceptable, according to the by-laws, to inform McCafferty at the meeting before she gives her report. He said when members actually talk to someone, that runs counter to what the Commission is normally supposed to do, according to State law. Gunn said the Commission has to be able to work in such a way, however, that members can tell people what they want to know. He said this was written in so that members can talk to people before it gets to the Commission. McCaffedy said the nature of the Historic Preservation Commission is very different from that of other boards and commissions. She said the Commission is basically told by the State how it has to perform and what it has to do. McCafferty said that for that reason, the Commission tries to work things out to a common goal to come up with a solution. She said this is more of a solution-based commission. Gunn said the ex parte contact provision just states that a member has to inform McCafferty of any contact with an interested party before McCafferty gives her report. Sueppel said that, in his position, he feels that he has to refer people to McCafferty. He said he is safer doing that, especially since he is selling a product. McCafferty said the ordinance to establish the Design Review Subcommittee would be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Gunn asked if all of this information is going together as a package. McCafferty said she would like to send the by-laws, the handbook, and the Design Review Subcommittee ordinance all together for consideration, and perhaps even issues regarding fines and deterrents to not abiding by the guidelines. Gunn stated that these things have come a long way, but the Commission should take a little extra time to get it as right as possible so that it isn't proposing more changes six months after the passage. Weitzel said McCafferty had mentioned that the maps are kind of set in stone, because they are passed as an ordinance. He said that now they will need to be altered. McCafferty said she needed to discuss that with the Legal Department. She said that identifying non-historic properties may not be an issue, because it actually gives more flexibility to those properties. Weitzel pointed out that the by-laws allow no vote by proxy - that only those present at the meeting may vote. Ponto said by proxy refers to the actual vote, but the Commission really doesn't have a policy one way or another regarding comments from someone who is absent. McCafferty said she is glad to pass along any feedback and comments from someone who can't attend a meeting. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROVISION ORDINANCE: McCafferty stated that in the Code rewrite, this is the proposal for additional language to provide some exceptions for historic properties. McCallum said he is encouraged but is curious as to what community service use means. McCafferty responded that there is a definition for that, and she would provide it to McCallum. McCallum said that for Section 2a, where it says the exception is necessary, he wondered what the standard for determining that would be. McCafferty said she would ask the Legal Department for specifics. She said that currently in the RM-12 zone, there is an exception similar to this. McCafferty said that, as the Commission has discussed wanting to encourage the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 15 re-use of historic buildings, it seems to make sense to have an exception for historic buildings in all zones. McCallum said that his only other concern was that this might encourage more paving, for example for a retail use with high parking requirements. McCafferty said that when an application goes before the Board of Adjustment, there is a whole list of other criteria to be met. She said if it is determined that the use is actually going to be detrimental to the neighborhood, or the parking will detract from the property, or some other criterion is not met, the application can be denied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 26, 2003. Carlson said he had typographical corrections to submit. He added that on page five, in the eighth full paragraph, the third sentence should be deleted. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. July 10, 2003. Carlson said that on page three, in the first full paragraph under Historic Preservation Handbook Revisions, in the second sentence, "context" should be changed to "content." He said that on page six, in the eighth paragraph, the second sentence should end with, "...and calling them conservation districts." He said he also had typographical corrections to submit. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte dale on dtynt/pcd/minutes/hpc07-24-03.doc Minutes Preliminary Iowa City Board of Adjustment Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall, Civic Center Members Present: Carol Alexander, Eric Gidal, Vincent Maurer, Mike Paul Members Absent: Dennis Keitel Staff Present: John Adam, Sarah Holecek Others Present: Marcia Mackay Call To Order Paul called the meeting to order at 5:01 PM. Consideration of the May 14, 2003 Board Minutes Motion: Gidal moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Special Exceptions EXC03-00007 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by David and Karen Long for a special exception to allow parking on a lot separate from the use served in the Medium-Density Single Family (RS-8) zone at 927-29 North Dodge Street. Paul noted the letter from the applicants attorneys, Holland and Anderson LLP, asking for the matter to be deferred to the August meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The attorney's had just recently met with Dave Long regarding the property and pending application and ask for time to prepare for the hearing as the site plan and documentation are not yet available. MOTION: Gidal moved to defer the hearing on EXC03-00007 until the August 13 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Other Business None. Adiournment Motion: Alexander moved to adjourn the meeting. Gidal seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:04PM. NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - AUGUST 13, 2003 data on Ctynt/pcd/minutes/boaO7*09-03.doc MINUTES PRELIMINARY IP13 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2003 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Ann Bovbjerg, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks, Jerry Hansen, Benjamin Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Anciaux STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Ruppert, Winifred Holland, Steve Holland, Joel Fagan RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ03-00017/SUB03-00019,_a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Low Density Single-Family, OSA-5, and a preliminary plat of Oakmont Estate, an 8.7-acre, 16-1ot residential subdivision located on the west side of Foster Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB02-00011 a preliminary plat of County Club Estates, Second Addition, a 16.65-acre, 42-1ot residential subdivision located west of Phoenix Drive and west and north of Flagstaff Drive. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB03-00029, a final plat of Village Green Pad 19, a 7.11- acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at Wintergreen Drive west of North Jaime Lane. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, a two year extension for the preliminary plat of Village Green Part XX. CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said there were always openings for volunteers to serve on the various City Boards and Commissions. The City always appreciated the help of its citizens. A listing of the current vacancies on the various boards and commissions was posted in the outer lobby. ZONING ITEM: REZ03-00017/SUB03-00019, discussion of an application submitted by K.G. Bird, L.L.C. for a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development, to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Low Density Single-Family, OSA-5, and a preliminary plat of Oakmont Estate, an 8.7-acre, 16-1ot residential subdivision located on the west side of Foster Road. Miklo said a revised plan was before the Commission which had eliminated one of the lots, so there were now only 16 lots. The plan had also been revised to more accurately show what was woodlands on the site. The applicant's engineer had done a count of the trees on the site and determined that part of the site did not qualify as a woodland as defined by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) in that there were fewer than 200 forest trees per acre. The western portion of the subdivision did qualify as a woodland area and was regulated by the SAO which specified that 50% of the woodland should be retained on the site. Miklo said the SAO did allow for the removal of above 50% provided one forest tree was planted for every 200 square feet of disturbed woodland area above the 50%. The applicant had proposed to disturb a total of 68% of the woodland. If the additional 18% disturbance were approved it would require 102 replacement trees be planted. The tree protection plan proposed planting the trees Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 2 along the nodhern and southern boundaries of the site. The applicant's proposal required removing the trees in order to allow the cul-de-sac and building sites for Lots 7, 8, and 9. The applicant's engineer had worked closely with staff including the City Forrester to protect some large oak and hickory trees that were on the property but were outside the woodland area. Miklo said Staff felt it was a fair trade off to allow the additional 18% of clearance in the woodland area in order to protect these trees. The City Forrester had identified the large oak trees as being of high quality, specimen trees. In order to avoid destruction of those trees, the applicant had spread the subdivision out rather than concentrating it which would be allowed by the SAC in order to avoid the woodlands. If the proposal were approved by City Council upon recommendation from the Commission, the legal papers for the final plat would contain the requirements for the replacement trees specifying where the 102 replacement trees would be planted. Outlot A was proposed to be dedicated to the City for open space. It would be added to the Peninsula Park adjacent to the river. Most of the sensitive areas, including the woodlands, the protected, steep and critical slopes were located on this piece of property. Their dedication to the City would assure their protection. On the overhead site map, Miklo indicated where some grading of the steep and critical slopes would occur in order to allow the cul-de-sac to be installed. The SAC allowed the grading of steep and critical slopes as long as it was minimized. As part of the new, expanded Lot 1, the steep and critical slopes on the former Lot 1 would be protected as a no-build zone, which complied with the intent of the SAC. The deficiencies noted in the previous staff report had been corrected so the preliminary plat was in order for approval. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ03-00017/SUB03-00019, a rezoning from ID- RS, Interim Development, to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Low Density Single-Family (OSA-5), and the 16-1ot subdivision for Oakmont Estates including approval of the tree protection plan and the removal of woodlands. Hansen asked if there were any plans for the City Forrester to revisit the site in one year to see if the trees were still alive. Miklo said there was no specific plan for that, however the tree protection plan required the placement of construction fencing around the trees to be protected. During the installation of subdivision streets, utilities and the construction of homes on individual sites, Julie Tallman of the City's Inspection department would be monitoring the site to assure that those trees were protected. If the trees died in the next couple of years due to natural causes, there was no recourse on the part of the City or requirement that they be replaced. Hansen asked about the reforested trees. Miklo said there were requirements in the SAC that those be monitored and replaced if they did not make it. Chait asked what if the woodland area died. Miklo said the SAC did allow for woodland management, so if individual trees died, they could be cut and removed. Chair asked what if the entire woodland area died or no longer met the requirements of 200 trees per acre. Miklo said that area contained steep, critical and protected slopes and was being dedicated to the City so it would be under the City's control. If it became no longer a woodland, it would be the City's choice to reestablish it or leave it as it was. The City did not regulate "Acts of Nature." The no build area would also be protected which would be specified in the legal papers for the final plat. It would be similar to the Hickory Heights subdivision which had specifications in its legal papers that natural vegetation could not be disturbed and a property owner could maintain the trees or remove a dead tree, but they could not do a clear cut. Bovbjerg asked about the construction of rock dams to minimize erosion which had been mentioned in the previous meeting's minutes. Miklo said the City Engineer's office had worked closely with the applicant's engineer in the design for the storm water to follow a some what natural route to the Iowa River. Those specific designs would be approved as part of the construction drawings for the final plat. Bovbjerg asked if there would be a regular schedule of City Engineers visiting the site to monitor the prevention of erosion during grading. Miklo said it was generally done on a complaint basis. City Engineering staff did inspect the installation of infrastructure and made sure that erosion control devices such as silt fences, etc., were installed at that time. If they didn't work properly and someone notified the City, then action to correct it was taken at that time. Bovbjerg said to approve the additional 18% disturbance was putting the slopes and woodlands in jeopardy if the applicant didn't do a correct job. The City would be unable to correct or patch it. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 3 Public discussion was opened. Douq Ruppert, attorney with the Meardon office representing K.G. Bird L.L.C. Ruppert said he was there to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chait made a motion to approve REZ03-00017/SUB03-00019.,_a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Low Density Single-Family, OSA-5, and a preliminary plat of Oakmont Estate, an 8.7-acre, 16-1ot residential subdivision located on the west side of Foster Road. Shannon seconded the motion. Chair said all parties had seemed to address the concerns of everyone. He wished to acknowledge both sides in that the applicant and Staff had reached a good compromise and the language and logic were well laid out. Freerks said she would vote in favor of this item as well. She didn't think she would make a habit of voting for allowing removal of more than 50% of a woodland, but she understood the reasons they were doing it. Protecting the central oak trees made good sense, it made more appealing lots and was better for the community. She appreciated the applicant's taking the Commission's direction and eliminating the lot in the north east corner by incorporating it into the adjacent lot. Hansen said he appreciated the revisions to the plan. He liked the no build areas around the existing trees to save those and he was in favor of this proposal. Shannon said he had had a concern regarding the proximity of the Elks Club property. In the past they had come off poorly with some adjacent development plans. Since he had not heard any comments from the Elks Club members, it must be ok with them. He thought it was a good idea as well. Bovbjerg said this project had evolved into a wise use of the land. Bovbjerg she hoped and she trusted that the land that had to be disturbed would be done so carefully so as not to damage the remaining trees and ravines. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB02-00011, discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development L.L.P. for a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Second Addition, a 16.65-acre, 42-1ot residential subdivision located west of Phoenix Drive and west and north of Flagstaff Drive. Miklo said at the time of the last phase of Country Club Estates, City Council and the Commission had asked for a concept plan to show how the rest of the subdivision would develop. The concern had been that the design of the subdivision not be done in a piece meal fashion that would result in an unworkable street configuration. On the concept plan, Lake Shore Drive would extend to the north onto the County owned property and also to the south to Rohret Road providing relief to Phoenix Drive in terms of a collector street. Therefore not all of the traffic from the development would go back through Country Club Estates or Southwest Estates. Staff felt in general the concept plan was workable, but there might need to be some changes when the western pad of it was subdivided to assure that SIothower Road did not become a straight cut through between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road. Staff would look at that on future plats. Miklo said the Country Club Estates Part II plat included the extension of Flagstaff Drive, Lake Shore Drive and a new street Tempe Place/Court. All of the lots in the development met the RS-5 requirement of being at least 60 feet wide and being 8,000 square feet in area. They ranged in size from just over 8,000 square feet to just under an acre (lot 18). Public Works staff had worked with the applicant's engineer with regard to the stormwater retention basin, which was on the boundary of Southwest Estates and Country Club Estates. Public Works was satisfied with the design of the basin and the easement that accompanied it. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 4 Approximately 17,000 square feet of open space would be required for a subdivision of this size. Staff recommended that the open space for this subdivision be deferred and pooled with the open space required for a larger development so that a larger neighborhood park could be developed at a future date. Staff had sent their recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their consideration and this would be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. The City's Secondary Access Policy indicated that Phoenix Drive was suitable for up to 40 or 45 additional lots before a secondary access was needed to relieve traffic on Phoenix Drive. Staff felt that Phoenix Drive was sufficient to handle this 42-1ot subdivision but recommended that no fudher parts of Country Club Estates be approved until another way back to Rohret Road or to Melrose Avenue was available. Miklo said the deficiencies noted in the Staff Report had been corrected. Staff recommended approval of SUB02-00011, a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Second Addition, a 16.65-acre, 42- lot residential subdivision located west of Phoenix Drive and west and north of Flagstaff Drive. Hansen asked if there was any concept as to where the neighborhood open space would eventually be. Miklo said the Southwest District Plan contained ideas about the open space. On the overhead map he indicated the approximate location of a large tract of land that the City had purchased for part of the water plant / distribution system. Miklo said at the time of the Southwest District Plan the thought was that the neighborhood open space could be added in combination with the water site to make a larger neighborhood park. Bovbjerg asked with respect to the restriction of the number of lots onto Phoenix Drive, would it be possible for a developer to blank out some of those lots and defer them to another adjacent preliminary plat. Miklo said Staff would not recommend that. Once a preliminary plat was approved, it gave rights to develop the final plat and the City had less control over the situation. It might be possible that a developer would re-plat it and set some of the lots aside as open space or for future development. Currently Staff envisioned this as 42-lots with no more approved until a second access was constructed. Bovbjerg asked if it was correct that a concept plan did not have force the way a preliminary plat did. Miklo said that was correct. Shannon said at one time the developer had proposed building a community pool, was that still part of the plan. Miklo said on Lakeshore Drive there was a small pool house and a pool that was open to the residents of Country Club Estates Part I and would also be open to the residents of Part II as well. Bovbjerg asked if the stormwater areas on Lots 18, 19, and 20 would be in the legal papers for each of the lots. Miklo said there would be an easement that would cover those. Behr said that would be covered in the legal papers, all buyers would be on notice. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to approve SUB02-00011, a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Second Addition, a 16.65-acre, 42-1ot residential subdivision located west of Phoenix Drive and west and north of Flagstaff Drive. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB03-00029, discussion of an item submitted by Third Street Partners LLC for a final plat of Village Green Part 19, a 7.11-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at Wintergreen Drive west of North Jamie Lane. Miklo said the preliminary plat, which included Part XIX and Part XX, was approved approximately a year and six months ago. Part XIX consisted of Outlots 55 and 56, which had been approved as part of a Planned Development Overlay rezoning for condominium development. The remainder of the lots in the subdivision were approved as single-family lots in accordance with the RS-5 zoning. The final plat was consistent with the approved preliminary plat and with zoning and subdivision regulations. Staff recommended its approval. The applicant has also requested a two year extension of Part XX which is due to expire in December, 2003. Miklo said preliminary plats expired after 24-months, the purpose of the expiration date was in the event that the City's policies or laws regarding land development changed, the new policies and laws Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 5 could be applied to a development. Staff anticipated that there would be some amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations. However, that Part XX was part of a planned development and was laid out to be very consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, Staff recommended that the extension be approved. Miklo said if the Commission chose not to approve the extension and the applicant did not final plat it before it expired, they would have to re apply. Hansen asked if there would be any need for secondary access to Scott Boulevard. Miklo said eventually there would be a connection between the two developments so there would be a second way to get back to Scott. Eventually there would also be a connection to Sterling Drive which would also provide secondary access to the area. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve SUB03-00029, a final plat of Village Green Part 19, a 7.11- acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at Wintergreen Drive west of North Jamie Lane prior to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve a two year extension for the preliminary plat of Village Green Part XX. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC03-00001, discussion of an application submitted by Michael Lensing for the vacation of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street. Miklo said the single family homes located adjacent to the funeral home were zoned RS-5. The funeral home was zoned CO-1 and had a special exception which allowed it and the crematorium to occur on that property. Lensing had asked that a portion of the alley be vacated, his intent was to purchase the alley and to work with the adjacent property owners who would also have a right to purchase one-half of the alley. In the future, Lensing might also purchase portions of two rear yards of the properties on Diana Street for the future purpose of expanding the funeral home's parking lot. Miklo said presently the Commission was only looking at the alley vacation. In the event that there would be expansion beyond the center of the alley where the current CO-1 zoning ended, there would need to be a rezoning of the eastern and southern portions of the alley. The special exception which allowed the funeral home would also have to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Miklo said vacation of the alley did not automatically allow expansion of the commercial zoning or development to the area east of the alley. Miklo said there were three general considerations that Staff looked at when considering requests for vacations of right-of-ways for alleys or streets: · The vacation of the property would not be detrimental to vehicle or pedestrian circulation. · The vacation would not interfere with access to private property. · The vacation would not interfere with access for emergency vehicles or utilities. In general, Staff found that this request passed all three of these tests. The portion of the alley that Lensing has requested be vacated was currently not used for vehicle access nor had it ever been improved or opened for traffic. Therefore it was not essential for access to the adjoining properties. The eastern section was used for access to the residential properties, therefore it was essential that the alley be maintained and left open. Qwest had indicated that they did have a cable line in the alley. An easement would need to be retained for this cable or if Qwest and the property owners could reach an agreement, the cable line could also be moved. The easement would allow for things such as parking, open space or landscaping, but it would not allow for the building of a building in that area. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 6 Miklo said if the alley were vacated, Lensing would have the opportunity to purchase the western and northern half. The adjacent property owners would have rights to the eastern half and the adjacent landowners would have rights to the alley area south of the funeral home property. Staff recommended that if the Council did approve the vacation, the actual final vacation not occur until there was a final agreement as to how the land would be disposed. That would prevent a situation where part of the alley were acquired by Lensing and a part remained which would be of no use to the City. If the Commission recommended a vacation, then negotiations for the actual sale or disposition of the property would occur prior to City Council consideration. Miklo said Staff had heard of a concern from adjacent property owners that if the alley was vacated it would be used as an access to and from the funeral home's parking lot which would introduce commercial traffic into a residential area (Diana Street). Staff concurred with this concern. If the vacation were to occur, Staff recommended that any agreement to sell it to Lensing or the adjacent property owners would stipulate that there be no access from the commercial property to the alley. If a rezoning and a special exception were approved to expand the funeral home including the parking lot, a requirement be included to require a curb or fencing or landscaping to assure that no traffic from the funeral home went back to Diana Street. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the vacation subject to retention of any necessary utility easements, the conveyance of the right-of-way be approved concurrently with the approval of the ordinance approving the vacation of the alley and the inclusion of a barrier along the east - west gravel alley to prevent vehicular access from the commercial property to Diana Street. Bovbjerg asked Behr for a clarification regarding the Commission's recommendation on this application and any implications it would have for the surrounding property owners or the applicant. Behr said the question of vacation dealt with basically whether or not the City needed the alley for public use. If the Commission were to pass a recommendation of vacation it would not even be put on to the Council's agenda until adjacent property owners had been given the opportunity to offer to purchase and there were offers to purchase all of the land. Then it would go to the Council as a package. Historically Council had not vacated anything until it was authorized to be conveyed as well. The vacation essentially would make it possible for all concerned padies to start making arrangements and trying to ~urchase parcels if they wished to. Bovbjerg asked if it was correct that a vacation didn't direct anyone to do anything ~n particular, it just opened up the possibility to discuss it. Behr said that was correct. Bovbjerg asked if the parties never came to any type of agreement, what would happen. Behr said he didn't believe Council would want to see the tract carved up into pieces. It would be necessary to see how the offers came it and it would be worked out with legal staff. At the time that there were offers to purchase all of the tract, it would go to Council with the Staff's recommendation of whether it should be conveyed in that fashion or not. Chait asked to clarify what the Commission and legal staff had just discussed. If the Commission recommended that the alley be vacated, the entire alley would have to be acquired prior to Council agreeing to formally vacate it. How it was acquired was up to the various landowners. The conversation that had occurred at Monday evening's informal meeting had indicated that if there were a lot of negotiations between Lensing and some of the neighbors, it seemed reasonable to expect that Lensing, a proponent of the vacation, would somehow assure that all the land would be disposed of as opposed to not all of the land being sold and therefore nothing happening. It would be more of a private transaction being worked out among Lensing and the neighbors and until that happened, however it happened, nothing would move forward. Chair said he understood that there had been and were ongoing conversations between Lensing and the neighbors. However it happened nothing would be bullied onto anyone. It would have to be mutually beneficial. The requirements and concerns of the Commission and the Council were that everyone was treated fairly in the terms and conditions of these types of conveyances. Bovbjerg said what the Commission was doing was simply making it possible, but they were not making it happen in any particular way. The City's stipulation that the vacation not be detrimental in any way was a major concern. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 7 Chair said additionally on Monday evening, they had discussed that prior to any parking lot expansion beyond the center point of the alley or any additional expansion of the facility on the properly acquired by Lensing, would have to come back before the Commission for rezoning. They would have the additional opportunity to look at a specific proposal. Just because the Commission recommended the vacation didn't guarantee that a parking lot would occur. Public discussion was opened. Michael Lensin¢l, Lensing Funeral Home, said he agreed with the neighbors that there were a lot of traffic problems but it was not their intent to increase the traffic problems. He had visited with Jeff Davidson regarding stop lights and other options. Lensing said he had visited with the neighbor directly east of the funeral home, who had no problem with the vacation as it affected only approximately 5-feet of their back lot. Fencing or landscaping by Lensing's would be required which would enhance that property so the neighbor was in favor of it. The property where Peter Weinstein resided on the south and east side of the alley had been shown to be non-conforming on the recent appraisal. Lensing said if he was able to acquire the whole piece of property, nothing could be built on it because of the lot size according to the appraisal. Miklo said a single family residence could always be built on a non-conforming lot. It appeared to him that the lot was less than 60-feet wide. It also needed to be 8,000 square feet. So as long as 8,000 square feet of the property were retained a portion of it could be sold. If there were less than 8,000 square feet than none of it could be sold or added to the funeral home property. Lensing said the current resident was probably going to move within one year. The property was currently better maintained than it had formerly been, but repairs had been very limited to the home. Lensing said if he were ever to acquire that portion of property, he would ask that it be written into the zoning that the property remain residential or whatever it was and he would simply put trees on it. Lensing said he had visited with the owner, in the third house down on Diana Street. The current property owner was not sure that he could afford to purchase the vacated portion of the land, so Lensing could purchase it, but would not be able to do anything with it. Lensing said the reason they were looking at the property was because of the trees, big walnut trees. They had always maintained the trees and by obtaining that property, it would allow them to square off their lot. Both John Roffman and Peter Weinstein were willing to sell off the back 40 feet of their lots. Upon appropriate approvals and zonings, Lensings would run a fence down the property line down to hopefully put in a parking lot there. It would allow Lensings to square their property off. At the back of the building was a very small landscaped area where Lensing hoped to make the back of the building square. That change would allow them to get cars out of their parking lot and onto Kirkwood Avenue. It would also provide more parking spaces which cars sometimes did spill over onto the street for parking. Lensing said they really wanted to be neighborly. That section would all be curbed and landscaped. Hansen asked if this came to a rezoning, would the Sensitive Areas Ordinance come into effect because of stormwater management and the slopes on the rear of the property. Miklo said he didn't think so. He did not think it was steep enough to be regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Lensing said when Dr. Riegler owned the building next door the storm water sewer had been put in. They had put drains under their parking lot and a culvert which ran directly into the stormwater retention center. In talking to John Roffman they thought, there was more height on Roffman's property which could be moved over to bring the culverts up to the level of the parking lot so the water would run down directly into the system. Hansen asked if the purchase of 40 feet of the rear yards of the two adjacent properties would make them non-conforming properties. Miklo said no, they were both well over 8,000 square feet. A lot that was currently for sale was being marketed as two. Lensing said it was 65 feet from his lot line counting the alley which was twenty feet, so the neighbors could sell him 40 feet of their back yards. Lensing said it was not his intent to build buildings, it was a matter of wanting to square off his property. If they did do an addition, it would only be across the back of the building going out 30 to 40 feet at the maximum. Bovbjerg asked about the walnut trees and whose property they sat on. Lensing said for twenty years he had taken care of the trees which set right on the property line. They were very dirty trees and he would Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 8 cut them down. It would be possible to get 30 additional parking spots there, however if the neighbors really wanted him to keep the trees he supposed he would. Lensing said he would prefer to landscape the area with oak and maple trees. Lensing said this might be the only opportunity in his life time to purchase a piece of property close to his property without having to purchase a house, so he had to ask the question, to know about the future. He'd had the opportunity to purchase a house which connected to Diana Street, but he had not wanted to fix the house up. Winifred Holland, 1105 Diana Street, said she was the original owner of her home having moved there in 1956 when the home was completed. Holland said she was requesting that the Commission reject Lensing's application to vacate the right-of-way for several reasons. · Vacating the public right-of-way would open up the Lensing property to the alley onto Diana Street which would have the possibility of creating more traffic onto the street. The street was narrow and already overloaded with traffic. Many drivers used it as a cut through from Dodge Street to Hwy 6. · It had the potential for persons stuck in traffic on Kirkwood Avenue to use the Lensing property as a short cut over to Sycamore Street. · More traffic on the narrow street would make it more dangerous for children. Families were moving into the area. · Cars parked on only one side of the street so the added traffic would add congestion. · The added traffic would be a deterrent to the City's interest of maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood and nurturing it for future generations. · Recently she and her neighbors had received information regarding Iow interest loans for upgrades to their homes. Residents in the area were eligible for funding under the Targeted Area Rehabilitation program. This program was designed to stabilize and revitalize targeted neighborhoods. The City already had a residential program in place for property that Lensing had an interest in purchasing. · She saw the vacation as a prelude to the application for rezoning a residential area into commercial. · She was concerned about water run off which had been addressed by Lensing. Holland said a realtor was currently listing a property for sale without the 40-feet of the back of the property being listed for sale. Holland said she would like to know how Lensing could purchase residential property for a commercial use. She saw it as an encroachment of the CO-1 district into the RS-5 district. Holland said approving the vacation of the right-of-way, purchasing sections of single family property and rezoning for business use would signal that the City was no longer serious about nurturing and upgrading the quality of life for residents in the neighborhood. Currently at the end of many residential properties was a fence demarcating the boundary which indicated how strongly the City felt about the need to protect residential interests. Holland said the residential neighborhood needed to continue to be protected from business encroachment so she was requesting that ~he Commission deny the vacation request. Chait asked Holland if she understood that part of the vacation would not allow any traffic to go from the Lensing property down the alley to Diana Street. Holland said she had not been privy to that information. Chair said that was the conversation that they had had earlier. Holland said she did not quite grasp that. Chair said a number of concerns expressed by Holland concerned traffic. The vacation would preclude any traffic from transgressing on what was left of the alley. Holland said that was not on the letter she had received from the City regarding the vacation. Chair said he wanted to clarify to be sure that she understood that because it was not only a concern that Holland had but had been brought up by Staff and perhaps the Commission as well. Chait said the rezoning and the acquiring of property was not what the Commission was considering at this time. Holland said Lensing had stated his intentions for the future and he also might sell the property. Chait said regardless of who owned the property, the restrictions on the east-west alley went with the property. Bovbjerg said those types of restrictions went with the land, not with the use or with the owner, it was part of the City's ordinance. Regardless of how the property was used or who the neighbors were, the restriction was there and would have to be overturned by a great deal of consideration by the City, so the residents would be protected. Steve Holland, son of Winifred Holland, said they had not been privy to all the information regarding restriction of traffic flow through the alley to Diana Street so they had prepared the best they could with Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 9 the knowledge they had. Holland said he felt there was precedent for the neighborhood and for the Commission's decision. Over the years other business interests had come forward in the neighborhood. When he grew up there, it had been only Lucas Field so they had seen the area grow and questioned time and time again about the demarcation of where the business interests stopped in property and where the neighborhood interests began. Years ago his mother had pushed for the fence to be installed, maintained and listed in the City Code. Holland said he found the idea to be unbelievable that backyards in neighborhoods could be sold to a business when in the past the City had said those boundaries are very very important and that should not be crossed. He saw it as a way of inching forward. He didn't think Lensing had any evil intent but was trying to do his best for business, but felt Lensing had other options such as the business parking lot to the west. Holland said he didn't believe that this was a request solely for parking and nor did he believe that to put more cars on the lot would help the already congested traffic at Kirkwood and Dodge Streets. Holland said he was asking the Commission not to recommend the vacation. He said he thought there should be an investigation into other uses for the area, including maintaining the walnut trees. Public discussion was closed. Chair said based on the public discussion and the Commission's practiced policy of having two meetings on issues, he was asking the Commission if they would not feel more comfortable about having two meetings on this topic, just because there was discussion on this application. There were no time concerns so it seemed to him that another meeting would be prudent. Motion: Chair made a motion to defer yAC03-00001, an application submitted by Michael Lensing for the vacation of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerks said everyone's points and views were very important. What the Commission was doing now was perhaps the easier part of the equation for Lensing's plan for the future. There were many other concepts/issues that had to be considered for making decisions regarding zoning. Shannon said he was glad that they were going to wait. He would like to hear from other homeowners in the neighborhood, even from persons who were marginally involved. Koppes said she agreed with the deferral. She thought it was the right way to go and the Commission could get more information. Bovbjerg said generally it was wise, when there was confusion and discussion, to take their time since there was nothing time sensitive. The general question before them was just the vacation. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Miklo said Staff wished to schedule at least one meeting next week on the Code re-write. Temporary Uses and Non-conforming Uses would be presented. It was decided July 23 at 5:30 pm for 1 ~ to 2 hours. Bovbjerg and Shannon would be absent. Joel Fa,qan, 741 Chestnut Court, said he'd received a letter from the City dated June 27, 2003, which stated that on July 17, 2003 at 7:30 pm there would be a discussion regarding the Sand Hill Estates rezoning request. Miklo said another letter had been sent last week stating that the discussion would be postponed to one of the two meeting dates in August. Fagan and members of the audience said they had received all the other letters but not the one indicating the postponement of the discussion. Miklo said the most recent letter indicated that the applicant was making revisions to the Plan so the item was being deferred potentially until August 7 or 21. Residents would be notified by letter when the item was on the agenda. Miklo said some persons had received the letter but apologized for any inconvenience to those in attendance. Hansen said an alternative means to obtain an agenda for the Commission's meeting was to go to the City's web site and they would email the agenda directly to interested parties. Miklo said persons were also welcome to telephone the office before the next meeting to see if this item was on the agenda. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 10 CONSIDERATION OF 6/19/03 MEETING MINUTES: Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as written and corrected. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 pm. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill data on c~tynt/pcd/minutes/p&zO7-174)3,doc Minutes Draft Public Art Advisory Committee Monday, July 7, 2003 - 3:30 PM City Managers Conference Room Members Present: Chuck Felling, James Hemsley, Terry Trueblood, Emily Walsh Members Absent: Barbara Camillo, Rick Fosse, Betsy Klein Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Others Present: None Call to Order Felling called the meeting to order at 3:50 PM. Public Discussion of any Item Not on the Aqenda There was none. Consideration of the Minutes of the May 1, 2003 Meetinf:l Felling noted the correct spelling of Thomson. Motion: 'rrueblood moved to accept the minutes as submitted with the correction of spelling of the name Will Thomson. Hemsley seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 4-0. Discussion of the Iowa Sculptors' Showcase Klingaman reported the sculpture originally planned for the Iowa Sculptors Showcase pad by the Iowa City Public Library has been permanently placed elsewhere by the sculptor. Staff has since created a call to approximately 200 Eastern Iowa artists and also contacted individuals on the Department of Cultural Affairs email list to spread the word that an opportunity exists to display their work. The call for artists is also listed on the City's website. The deadline for response was June 30, 2003 and they did not receive any responses. Klingaman asked the committee for suggestions as to how to proceed. There is nothing on the pad currently and questioned if they want to try to find something right away, should the pad sit vacant until next spring, or should they try to place something permanently. The latter option could be a problem due to budget constraints. Trueblood asked what the intent is of the Sculptor's Showcase Pad. Franklin responded the idea was to provide an opportunity for local artists to show their work, and also offer it for sale, for one year and they would receive a $500.00 honorarium. The plan was to showcase a new scurpture every year at Artsfest. Walsh suggested they go back to the other artists who submitted work for consideration the first time and chose from those submissions. Klingaman responded that the majority of those submissions were returned per the artist's request. Franklin noted the committee members may have connections with various artists and organizations and could network to get the word out. Another possibility would be to contact the University of Iowa School of Art for possible submissions. The committee agreed the best route to finding a sculpture as soon as possible would be to contact the University. If that does not provide a solution, the group agreed the next step would be to network with local artists. Franklin and Klingaman asked the committee if they want to go forward and try to secure another sculptor for next spring or do they wish to change the whole approach to the pad. Walsh said the rotating sculptor idea deserves another try, especially in consideration of the unusual circumstances surrounding this year. The committee agreed and said the concept could work if the right connections are made. Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes July 7, 2003 Page 2 Discussior~ of Composition of PAAC Franklin said that in the budget discussions with the City Council, a concern was noted that the Public Art Advisory Committee might be comprised of too many staff members and they questioned if these committee slots would be better filled with citizen volunteers. She has discussed this with Trueblood and Fosse and an idea is to change the committee bylaws so these 2 staff members are not required to be on the committee and thus opening the positions to the general public. The direction of the committee has been shifting more to neighborhood art, and it would be a much more efficient use of Trueblood and Fosse's time to use their expertise only if a project would warrant it. They would still be committee members but in a non-voting, advisory capacity. Felling asked Trueblood how much time the committee requires. Trueblood responded that the committee does not require that much time now, but did require much more in the beginning. He said if the key factor is to get more citizens involved, that is a good thing and he is very willing to step down. Franklin said there is a need to have more artists on the committee, to help make aesthetic judgments and generate ideas. Felling noted there is not a shortage of artists in the Iowa City area but they are also very protective of their time. Trueblood said a downside for an artist being on the committee is that they can not submit work for consideration. He also said since the committee is now up and running there is a need for more artists and individuals with knowledge and interest in art. Klingaman said she would like to see the committee become more of a working committee, and the 2 extra members would help spread the responsibilities. The group is possibly looking for additional funding or fund raising and it is more appropriate for the request to be coming from a citizen committee member. Felling agreed this is an important issue and one for the committee to consider and address at the next meeting. Discussion of Themed Street Art Klingaman referred to a recent article concerning the "Overalls over all" theme art project in Cedar Rapids and how the project brought in over 160,000 visitors to the Cedar Rapids area. She would like to see Iowa City create a real attraction like this and asked the committee for their thoughts on the idea. The project would be smaller in scale, would have to be very well done and hopefully done by all local artists. The project could be done in conjunction with Artsfest but would be very uniquely Iowa City. Walsh noted the life size cow exhibit that was in Chicago and how popular that attraction became and has become as an annual exhibit with a changing theme. Trueblood had several very creative ideas for the project. Franklin said the person coordinating the Cedar Rapids "Overalls Over all" project was Josh Schomberger. She asked the committee if they would be interested [o have him come to the next committee meeting and discuss the project. The committee all agreed it would be a great idea and Klingaman said she would arrange to have him come to the August 7, 2003 meeting. Updates · Neighborhood Art Program Longfellow Neighborhood - Felling reported the Longfellow neighborhood is moving along nicely with the project. They recently had a neighborhood meeting and Will Thomson presented 3 illustrations of the 5 ideas they have for the area. The people attending the meeting were very impressed and had very positive comments about the illustrations and ideas. Felling shared the 3 illustrations with the committee. The 5 art concepts are: Historical markers for the neighborhood; A sculpture with birds for the entrance to the nature trail; A children's art project that includes sand and industrial glass; A muted wind chime for the entrance to the trail tunnel; Whimsical small bronze animals for the tops of some street signs. Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes July 7, 2003 Page 3 Klingaman asked about the timeline and next step for the projects. Felling responded that Mr. Thomson is contacting individuals that could fabricate the pieces and also looking into costs. Felling said once the Longfellow neighborhood committee collects all the information for the various projects, they will present the finalized ideas to the Public Art Committee for approval. Northside Neighborhood - Klingaman reported the neighborhood has had 2 meetings and has discussed several ideas with the pros and cons of each. They are in the process of trimming the list of projects. The art ideas include: · Banners along Dodge and Governor Streets. These may be too temporary with maintenance being an issue. · A rotating display that could be moved to various areas in the neighborhood. This would be less permanent and possibly less stable than desired. · Various birdhouses throughout the neighborhood. Goosetown Neighborhood - Klingaman reported the neighborhood has had one initial meeting and nothing specific has been determined. Wetherby Neighborhood - Klingaman reported they have had one meeting with very little input and are trying to get together for another meeting within the next month. Franklin said that she and Klingaman were discussing what can be done with Capitol Improvement money, which includes public art funding. Whatever is done should be something that will last at least the life of the bonds, which is 15 years. Accessibility to the public and neighborhood as a whole is important and should be considered. What is happening with the neighborhood art program now is critical to its future and the projects need to be within these parameters. Klingaman agreed and said the neighborhood committee members will come to a public art committee meeting and give updates on what is happening. · Poetry in Public Klingaman reported that all posters are in place on the city buses and downtown kiosks. The Government Access channel also wants to use the posters as a mini commercial in between programming. This will help as a promotion for the fall kick offfor the poetry program. · Irving Weber Day Klingaman reported Irving Weber Day will be Saturday, August 9, 2003. The Weber statue is completed and will be dedicated at 4:00PM. The Lion's club has had a key role in all the planning of the day's events that will include a reception for all the major donors. The actual ceremony will include either the Senior Center Band or Weber Elementary School students providing music. There will also be an ice cream social at College Green Park. The committee will be receiving invitations that will spell out the details of the event. Franklin said they are looking into installing decorative ballards around the statue to protect it from vehicles in the event of an accident. Committee Time/Other Business There was none. Adiournment Motion: Hemsley moved to adjourn the meeting, Walsh seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:03 PM.