Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-04 Bd Comm minutesApproved MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2003 - 7:00 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gunn STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Kevin Burford, Barbara Buss, Bob Dingbaum, Shannon Kennedy, John Roffman CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 801 Brown Street. McCafferty said the applicant was present at the meeting to answer questions. McCafferty stated that this is a non-contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. She said this is a modern, ranch style house. McCafferty said the owner proposes to install sliding glass patio doors - one on the side of the house and one to the rear. She said the guidelines disallow the installation of modern windows if they are not original to the house. McCafferty said Gunn informed her that, given that this is a modern house with modern doors, he feels this would be appropriate. Maharry said that because sliding glass doors were available on houses built in 1963, this proposal would not be incompatible with a house built in 1963. Carlson said the guidelines call for disallowing the installation of sliding patio doors when they are not original to the building, not for disallowing them when they are not original to the era. McCafferty said she has been going through the guidelines and has found small items like this that need to be clarified. She said sliding glass patio doors are allowed on setback additions on the rear and on contributing structures on the back of the building. McCafferty said, given this one technicality, she did not think it disallowing this application is counter to the intention of the guidelines. Carlson said the guidelines actually say that sliding glass patio doors can be installed, on a non- contributing structure, as long as they are not on a street elevation. He stated that one of these doors would be positioned on the Lucas Street elevation. McCallum said this house has a mixture of both long and double hung, so he did not have any problem with the new look for that reason. He said he felt the proposed windows would be compatible with the other windows in the house. Ponto said that this is not an historic structure. He said that to him it does affect why it's non-contributing, as far as how he would apply the guidelines. Maharry said the Commission would be discussing non-contributing buildings at a joint work session with the City Council on July 14~h. Weitzel said that since this is a non-conforming property, he would be inclined to approve this. Carlson said he had no trouble with the spirit of this, he was just concerned about the letter of the guidelines. McCafferty said, regarding the guidelines, that it's difficult, because design is so subjective. She said the Commission cannot predict all situations and write guidelines for all situations, but the Commission wants to spell out things that should definitely be disallowed with strong language. McCafferty said things that the Commission wants to see, which could perhaps be affected by unforeseen circumstances, are to be addressed by the softer language. Maharry said he did not think approving this certificate would be arbitrary. He said that in the spirit of the era of this structure, the Commission would be applying the guidelines appropriately to approve this. Maharry said the Commission is not making this out as unique, and he did not think the Commission is looking at this case any differently than it would look at any other 60s ranch house. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal at 801 Brown Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1~ with Carlson votinR no. 603 Rundell Street. McCafferty said this application is for the construction of a handrail for a rental property. She said the Building Department requires such a handrail for a rental property. She said the owners propose a simple pipe rail. McCafferty said the guidelines state that a handrail should either match the baluster or be a simple pipe rail so that it is clear this proposal meets the guidelines. McCafferty showed a sketch, saying the pipe with the little ball on it will be the top post, with another pipe coming down. She said this house is a small Moffitt Cottage. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal at 603 Rundell Street. Weitzel seconded the motion. McCafferty added that Gunn is in support of this project. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 528 Colleqe Street. a. Sheet Metal Roof. McCafferty said the applicants, Helen and Kevin Burford, were present at the meeting to answer any questions. Kevin Burford said that since applying for the certificate, they changed their minds about the roof. He said they initially wanted to use a sheet metal material to emulate a terne metal roof. Kevin Burford said that since that time they had changed their plans and would like to use architectural asphalt shingles, probably a black color. McCafferty said the intent of using asphalt is to have it appear like weathered cedar shingles. Kevin Burford said the reason they are going through design review is because the Building Department required new sheathing and therefore a building permit. McCafferty said in this case, the Commission can review the material to be used. McCafferty said the Commission can merely make a recommendation as to color, but the Commission would probably be more concerned about the color if this were to be a metal roof, as metal would be more permanent. Weitzel recommended that the asphalt shingles have the appearance of weathered, cedar shingles. McCafferty read from the guidelines, under the recommended heading, "Using asphalt shingles that resemble the texture and color of weathered, wood shingles for roofs that had wood shingles originally." MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application of the asphalt shingles to the building at 528 College Street, with the recommendation that they resemble the texture and color of weathered, wood shingles. Smothers seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. b. Repair to Solarium. Kevin Burford said he would like to bring the solarium back to what it was. He said there has been termite and water damage to the lower part of the solarium. Kevin Burford said he would like to use tempered glass and also needs to tuckpoint the brick underlayment. McCafferty said there will be no changes to the original design, so technically this would qualify as a certificate of no material effect. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of no material effect for the proposed repair to the solarium at 528 College Street. Sueppel seconded the motion. Sueppel asked what the plans were for the roof of the solarium. Kevin Burford responded that the roof is in good shape and does not need work. Carlson asked about the tempered glass. McCafferty said it would look the same as the present glass, although it would not have any waviness through it. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. c. Remove Ramp. McCaffer~y said this proposal involves the removal of a non-historic ramp. Sueppel asked what they would do with the rail that was there before the ramp was put on. McCafferty said that would probably be addressed when the applicants submit a proposal for the reconstruction of the porch. Kevin Burford said the ramp is actually pulling the porch down. Maharry said it would appear that removing the ramp will not affect anything original to the house. Sueppel said the house will look more like the original without the ramp. Carlson asked if there would be a step down into the old sidewalk that goes to the front of the house. Kevin Burford said there would be, temporarily. McCafferty said the owners' intention is to restore this house. She said some of the issues will be addressed in the future, as they proceed with the rehabilitation. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal to remove the ramp and railing at 528 College Street. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 906 E. Colle.qe Street. a. Window Replacement. McCafferty said this proposal involves two certificates of appropriateness, with the first one concerning the replacement of some windows on one of the addition to the sorority. She said the proposal is to replace the windows with the Weather Shield windows with simulated, divided lights. McCafferty said the proposal includes the installation of the Mon-Ray storm windows, which have been used throughout the house. McCafferty said Gunn found this to be acceptable, and she concurs. She added that the same trim will be used, but the windows just need to be replaced. Carlson said he couldn't actually tell where these windows are, as there are several similar windows. McCafferty said they are on the west side of the house. Maharry asked if the windows would look the same as the current windows, and McCafferty confirmed this. Maharry asked if the age of the addition is known. McCafferty said the addition is at least 25 years old. Sueppel said most of that house is very historic. Maharry said if the Commission wants to try to make that part appear a little more historic, he would recommend a window with a bar down the middle. He said with such a bar, the Commission could try to make this part look like the rest of the house, considering that it is a landmark. McCafferty said the Secretary of the Interior Standards discuss the concept of not trying to create a false sense of history. She said the windows are already of distinctly different proportions than the original windows. McCafferty said the addition is distinct from the original building, though compatible. McCafferty said there will be a black sash, and the Mon-Ray storm windows are also black aluminum. She said this would move the windows more toward being compatible with the rest of the storm window treatments. Smothers said most of the houses of this style have divided lights. Smothers said this house itself is unique. She said she had no problems with these windows, especially on an addition. McCafferty said the applicant is doing this on sort of a piecemeal basis. She said there are still other windows that look like this. McCafferty said when those are replaced, if they need to be replaced, there is something to be said for consistency. Maharry agreed that it is a strong argument to not create a false sense of history. Carlson said he would like to know exactly which windows are being replaced. McCafferty said she can clarify that and specify the exact windows in the certificate. Sueppel said he agreed with Carlson's comments. He said the proposal is to replace three wood windows that are 20 to 30 years old. Sueppel said the proposal is to replace them with clad windows, not wood windows. McCafferty agreed they would not be all wood windows but would be wood clad. Sueppel said he would also like to know what window is actually being put in to replace that window. He said some of the applications could be clearer. Maharry said the three windows on the west side are all the same, but this one is different. McCafferty stated that, realistically they are probably replacing only three windows because of budget constraints. She said there is another project going underway, so they are probably replacing the three windows that most need replacement and likely will work on the others in the future. McCafferty asked if the Commission does not have the right to specify that an applicant invest more in the building than is necessary for approval of a project. She said this house has a history of being very well maintained and has also won a stewardship award. Sueppel said he had no problem with these three windows. He said he did have a problem with applicants not providing enough information so that even when you go to visit the site, you can't tell what is being referred to. Carlson stated that all this would require is a simple plan showing exactly which windows are being replaced. Maharry said McCafferty's point is to ask if the Commission is going to disallow this, depending on which windows are to be replaced so that these windows are acceptable in one location on the house but not another. McCafferty said she would find out which windows are being replaced and specify that on the certificate to make it very clear. McCallum said this is a National Landmark property, and McCafferty clarified that this property is on the National Register. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal to replace three windows at 906 E. College Street, specifying which windows are to be replaced. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel said the replacement windows are for the addition, and the other windows already look like this. He said he would not want the Commission to create a false sense of history or create a mismatched fa(~ade. Carlson said the addition has a concrete block foundation. He said it is very clear this is a modern addition. Carlson said putting divided lights in would make it look a little strange, with the historic look above and modern below. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. b. Stairs and Ramp. McCafferty said this proposal is for stairs and a ramp at the rear of the property. She said as one enters from College Street facing to the north, where the garages are back by the alley, there is a delivery area on the addition. McCafferty said Gunn thought this would be appropriate. She said Gunn did have some concerns with regard to the wrought iron. McCafferty said the Commission disallows wrought iron, but wrought iron is already used throughout this property. She said Gunn would recommend that, in the future, the owner at least get rid of the wrought iron on the front entrance. McCafferty said, however, that since this is already used on the site, Gunn thought wrought iron would be acceptable on the ramp and the stairs. She said Gunn said he would like to see a stipulation that the ramp and railing be painted. Roffman said he intends to use a Timbertech polyrecycled product that is a natural color and looks like concrete. He said there is a texture to it, because the ramp will be relatively steep. Roffman said it can be painted, but he doesn't want to lose the graspability going up the ramp. He said he does intend to paint the stair jacks, and the railing will be painted. Roffman said he would prefer to leave the steps unpainted. Regarding the railing, Roffman said wrought iron is used all around the house, so he felt that would be the most appropriate. Carlson asked how far out the ramp would come. Roffman said it would come out 18 feet from the landing area. He said it would be used for deliveries. Carlson asked if there would be a wrought iron railing on both sides of the ramp, and Roffman confirmed this. Ponto asked how wide the ramp would be. Roffman said the stairs would be four feet wide, and the ramp would be four feet nine inches wide. Smothers said she considers this a temporary structure - an addition or alteration that could be removed at any time. She said making historic buildings accessible to the disabled is constantly being discussed. Smothers said ramps have been allowed on several national sites, as long as they are removable. McCafferty added that the ramp would be on the addition, not the original building. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriate for a proposal for stairs and a ramp at 906 E. College Street. Weitzel seconded the motion. Carlson said the ramp does come out a bit farther than he would expect. He said he did not really know how that would look from the street or if that is even a consideration. Roffman said there is a garage that sets back there, and the ramp will come toward the garage. He said it will eliminate people taking a shortcut through the parking lot. Carlson said the guidelines do disallow wrought iron, even if it is used on the rest of the building, although it would probably look better than what the guidelines demand. He said he was not certain the Commission could go ahead and approve this. Weitzel stated that the guidelines say not to introduce wrought iron if it was not used already on the building. McCafferty read from the guidelines, under disallowed, "Using wrought iron elements unless they were part of the original design." She said they were part of the addition design. Roffman said there are plans to renovate the front porch next year, as it is rotted out. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Carlson votinq no. 520 S. Grant St. McCafferty said this item had been deferred. 722 Oakland Avenue. McCafferty said the contractor, Bob Dingbaum, and the owner were available to answer questions. Dingbaum said the deck had already gone through design review, which is why this was designed as a screened porch. McCafferty said that it was built before there was a district here, therefore design review was not required at the time the deck was originally constructed. McCafferty said she met with Dingbaum that afternoon to discuss the project and he has a new proposal for a three- season porch in lieu of the screen porch proposed in the packet. Weitzel said he likes the flexibility of the design. He said he did not think the Commission should require the applicant to remove all the siding just to see what is underneath. Weitzel said if the design is flexible, it can match later. Dingbaum said it has been designed so that it can be sided to match. He said all the owners will ever have to do will be to pull off the eight-inch lap that he would put in instead of the panels. Dingbaum asked what windows and doors the Commission would like to see here. He said he did not know what was original on the house. Dingbaum said the only thing he is certain is is the two columns on the left of the entry. McCafferty said the front view shows divided lights on the top with the six over one. She asked if Dingbaum is proposing to use a casement. Dingbaum said he would like to use a simulated, divided light casements. Ponto asked if this is a contributing property. McCafferty confirmed that it is. Sueppel said he thought the fact that the house has aluminum siding would have made it non-contributing. McCafferty said even if the house is sided, if one can look at the house and still see what the style is, what the architectural structure is, and if it still has details on it, it would likely be a contributing property, because eventually that siding could come off and the property be restored. Weitzel said casement windows are actually seen in the Longfellow Neighborhood as a feature on sun porches. He said that Mediterranean style and Tudor revival styles all have casement windows. McCafferty agreed that with the early 20th century styles, such as colonial revival and Mediterranean, casements are used a lot, particularly on the sun porches. McCallum said the roofline here matches and brings everything into symmetry. He said the back doesn't look like the front, so that the observer can tell that it must be an addition. McCafferty said she would recommend having larger corner boards. Dingbaum said that would be easy enough, especially with casements. Carlson asked if the material to be used would be the same as that described in the initial design. Dingbaum said that was strictly for the screened porch. McCafferty said this would be constructed with painted fiber cement board and painted wood, with metal clad windows. Carlson asked what the doors would look like. Maharry asked if they should be multi-paned. McCafferty said if you were to use divided light in the door, they would not align with the casement lights and therefore would look odd. She said her thought would be to either leave it as presented or install a three- quarter light if it could match the line across the bottom. McCafferty said her recommendation would be to install a full light door. Carlson asked if a full light door would be historically appropriate. Weitzel said that it would be appropriate. Dingbaum asked if he could use a metal clad door. McCafferty said it could be metal clad but not vinyl. She read from the guidelines under recommended, "Substituting a material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the substitute material retains the style and appearance of the original doors and screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the HPC, such as fiberglass or metal. McCafferty said that wider, wood cornerboards would work here. Sueppel asked if there would be a double, full light door in the middle with two operable doors. Dingbaum said that is what he plans. Weitzel asked if there is still a concern about the roofline. McCafferty replied that she believes the roof is adequate, and she has recommended a little wider overhang. Weitzel said typically they are more fiat, but it doesn't really bother anything in the back. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 722 Oakland Avenue, as drawn, but with wider corners of eight to ten inches and three full light doors and casement windows. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0~ with Sueppel abstainin.q. 718 S. Summit Street. McCafferty stated that the applicant, Barbara Buss, was present at the meeting to answer questions. McCafferty said the proposal is to add an exterior entrance to the basement by using "Dorothy" doors. She said Gunn did not have any issues with the proposal. McCafferty said the applicant will have better access to the basement with these doors for large items, etc. and will be using the longer six-foot model with the extension. Maharry asked what the door would be made of, and McCafferty responded that it would be galvanized metal. Buss added that the door can be primed and painted. Carlson asked for the location of the doors. Buss responded that they would be right next to the shared driveway just east of the air conditioner. She said that would put the doors at the corner of the house way in the back. Sueppel said he has seen this house restored over the years, and it seems like the owners have always done the right thing with regard to restoration. He said he had no problem with this. MOTION: Carlson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 718 S. Summit Street. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 347 S. Governor Street. McCafferty said she did not hear back yet from the City Attorney about this item. McCafferty said that some time ago, the Commission looked at the demolition of a barn on this property as well as the potential of moving the barn. She said the barn straddled the property line. McCafferty said in this case, the applicant demolished the building and took the penalty. She said she discovered the demolition was proceeding after it was substantially damage. McCafferty said the applicant was then required to have a demolition permit after the fact, which costs $1,000 because this was in a conservation district. McCafferty said she has requested that the City Attorney's Office look at what the Commission's options are in terms of providing a better deterrent to prevent demolition of buildings in the future. She said that one option would be to increase the permit cost and base the structure of the permit on the building's significance. McCafferty said the other option would be to withhold a building permit for a number of years after the demolition of the building. Maharry asked if the Commission needed to deny a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition permit. McCafferty said the Commission would need to officially deny the certificate. McCal[um asked about the design the Commission had proposed for the vacant lot. McCafferty said the Commission had discussed the design for the vacant lot with the applicant. She said she also had Doug Steinmetz at the site to discuss the feasibility of moving the barn, and the possibility of moving the property line was also discussed. All of these discussions were shared with the owner. MOTION: Weitzel moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition permit for 437 S. Governor Street. Carlson seconded the motion. McCafferty said the Commission may want to make a recommendation that the City Attorney's Office pursue municipal or environmental infractions in a case like this, if legally possible. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Carlson moved to recommend that the City Attorney pursue environmental or municipal infractions, where applicable. Sueppel seconded the motion. McCafferty said the Commission consulted with the applicant last fall. Maharry said the Commission told him no on the demolition, and he tore the building down anyway. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Carlson moved to amend the motion to include a statement to the effect that the Commission strongly disapproved of the demolition, particularly in light of the fact that, 1) the applicant was aware of this, 2) the Commission consulted with him, and 3) the Commission made every effort to come up with options for the applicant, yet the applicant demolished the property in flagrant opposition to the Commission's advice. Sueppel seconded the amendment. Weitzel suggested that the Commission would want to discuss demolition by neglect at some point. McCafferty said the City is currently rewriting its zoning ordinance. She said it has been determined that economic hardship is not really an issue in this city, but demolition by neglect is being reviewed. Sueppe[ asked if the person hired to do the demolition is fined. He said in order to stop this kind of thing, the person who does the work should bear some responsibility. McCafferty said that since this situation occurred, her office has compiled a mailing list of contractors and sent a letter outlining the process. She said the letter includes a map of all the districts and a notification that a contractor should determine whether a property is in a district or is a landmark. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Carlson moved to amend the motion to include a recommendation to the City Attorney to consider liability for the contractor, where applicable, in a situation in which a property is demolished without a permit. Sueppel seconded the motion. The main motion with its two amendments carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER DISCUSSION: McCafferty stated that an important concern is streamlining the process as more and more projects come before the Commission. She said that until 2000, the Secretary of the Interior Standards were the only guidelines used by the Commission. McCafferty said one major step in the process is that the Commission now has more specific standards to use, with the disallowance of vinyl siding and the requirement of a demolition permit being the two most substantial changes. McCafferty said everything else is based upon the Secretary of the Interior Standards but is now more specific and clearer. McCafferty said that up until this point, this has been a fairly casual process, and it has worked. She said that now that the Commission is receiving more applications, there will need to be a more formalized process. McCafferty suggested that when the agenda is set, she can have her assistant send a letter to everyone listed on the application so that everyone is informed to ensure that the applicant/owner knows what is going on. Maharry commented that in both of the two cases that were recently appealed to the City Council, the City Council decided that the Historic Preservation Commission did not act in a capricious or arbitrary manner. McCafferty said she has had discussions about this with Karin Franklin. McCafferty said the commission is in already the process of addressing some of the issues involved with the appeals. She said she is preparing a memo outlining the changes that the Commission is making and how it is addressing the issues involved in the appeals. McCafferty said the plan is to ask the City Council to be specific about its concerns in order to focus in on the issues at the work session. She said the Commission needs to give the City Council adequate background information, as this is not something the City Council deals with frequently Maharry commented that the district guidelines in Iowa City are actually less stringent than in many other communities. He stated that the State has been critical of the Commission because the guidelines are less stringent here. Weitzel added that some other communities do not allow antennas or satellite dishes in their districts. McCallum asked if the appeals both concerned properties in historic districts, and Maharry confirmed this. McCallum asked if both of the districts came about as a result of a petition by the neighbors. Ponto said the house in the Summit Street District Historic District was purchased after the neighborhood became an historic district, although the other one was owned before the area it is in became a district. Weitzel said, however, that the applicant would have received all the letters of notification and did not oppose the district. He said the applicant had a chance to say something but never did and never talked to anyone about designating a district. Weitzel said he understood the concept that the neighborhood should want to have a district and should petition the Commission for designation. Weitzel said, however, that especially in a case like Longfellow, which is right on the edge of being 50 years old, not everyone will understand that it is a significant contributing feature of the community. Weitzel said for turn of the century areas or areas built in the 1920s and such, the historic significance may not yet be appreciated. He said if such areas are let go, they won't be in any shape to preserve. Weitzel said the Commission did send out a letter to all the residents in Longfellow stating that their neighborhood is being looked at for a potential historic district. He said there were neighborhood meetings and chances to discuss this, and there was very Iow turnout. McCafferty said the City makes its best effort to notify property owners and goes above and beyond what is required by State law. McCallum said that the State Code allows for the repeal of a district. He said he likes the Goosetown Neighborhood approach, since the petition is coming from the neighbors themselves. McCafferty said she has spoken with the City Attorney's Office regarding an ordinance to establish a Design Review Subcommittee. She said that although the original intention was to include this ordinance when the entire new code is adopted, given the current need to streamline the process, staff recommends they proceed with the ordinance immediately. Weitzel said he believes that 90% of the frustration with the process is the time that it takes. He said speeding it along would certainly help out. Ponto said a few people really benefit from and appreciate the help up front, rather than their first encounter being an acceptance or rejection at the formal meeting. McCafferty said that design is a tough issue. She said the Commission may want to consider having Kerry McGrath discuss the process of interpreting the guidelines and applying them. McCafferty said the guidelines need to contain strong enough language for the Commission to support its decisions, yet there has to be enough flexibility to deal with the real world. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 512003 MINUTES: Carlson said he had typographical corrections to submit. MQTION: Weitzel moved to approve the June 5, 2003 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte data on cityntJpcdlm[nuteslhpcO6-26~3.doc Approved MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10, 2003 - 7:00 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Paul Sueppel STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 347 South Governor. McCafferty said that at the Commission's last meeting, the Commission disapproved a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition after the fact of the barn at 347 South Governor Street. She said that in this case, the penalty for demolition is an increased fee for a demolition permit after the fact. McCafferty stated that, according to ordinance, a permit cannot be issued until a certificate of appropriateness is approved. She said that she is therefore recommending that the Commission rescind its disapproval and then approve the certificate of appropriateness, while adding language to explain the Commission's decision. Maharry proposed the following language to add to the certificate: Whereas, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission determined that the outbuilding at 347 South Governor was indeed an historic, contributing structure to the neighborhood and thus denied an application for demolition; whereas the applicant was notified both of the denial and the contributing nature of the outbuilding in person and in writing by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission; whereas on or around June 3, 2003 the outbuilding described above was demolished, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves the application for demolition and strongly condemns the action by the applicant and the company or persons hired to carry out the demolition. The Commission further recommends seeking harsh penalties for the applicant and perpetrator to the fullest extent possible. McCafferty pointed out that the Commission only consulted with the applicant and did not officially deny a certificate of appropriateness. She said it was also determined by Doug Steinmetz, AIA that the barn could in fact be moved, and the Commission also offered the alternative of moving the property line. Maharry asked if the owner was notified that the building was contributing, and McCafferty said that was correct. She added that the owner was notified that if he applied for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, it would be denied by the Commission. McCafferty said Steinmetz determined that the barn was structurally sound and could be moved, and the option of moving the property line was discussed. Weitzel said if a property can be moved, that means it is in good shape. McCafferty said that a house has not yet been built on the adjacent property. Maharry suggested the additional language therefore be changed to: Whereas the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission determined at its (to be filled in with the date of the meetinq) meeting that the outbuilding at 347 South Governor was indeed an historic, contributing structure to the neighborhood; whereas the applicant was notified of alternatives to demolition, which included moving the structure and moving the property line; whereas on or around June 3, 2003 the outbuilding described above was demolished, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves the application for Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 2 demolition and strongly condemns the action by the applicant and the company or persons hired to carry out the demolition. The Commission further recommends seeking harsh penalties for the applicant and perpetrator to the fullest extent possible. MOTION: Ponto moved to rescind the denial of a certificate of appropriateness for 347 S. Governor Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 347 S. Governor Street with the following notation: Whereas the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission determined at its (to be filled in with the date of the meeting) meeting that the outbuilding at 347 South Governor was indeed an historic, contributing structure to the neighborhood; whereas the applicant was notified of alternatives to demolition, which included moving the structure and moving the property line; whereas on or around June 3, 2003 the outbuilding described above was demolished, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves the application for demolition and strongly condemns the action by the applicant and the company or persons hired to carry out the demolition. The Commission further recommends seeking harsh penalties for the applicant and perpetrator to the fullest extent possible. Weitzel seconded the motion. WeiLzel stated that he understands the rationale for this, although it seems odd to approve something that is so wrong. McCafferty agreed this is a technicality. She said she has discussed increasing the penalty for demolition with the City Attorney's Office, and they are looking at language to amend this. McCafferty added that in a case like this, the City of Dubuque withholds building permits from the offending party for a period of years to prevent something from being built on the lot. Maharry said this will be a topic for discussion at the July 14th meeting with City Council. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 443 South Governor. McCafferty said this is an application from Ann and Brent Freerks to remove the 1960s entryway on the front of the house. McCafferty said the Freerks have a long-term plan to reconstruct the porch. She said the front entryway is currently on a slab and is pulling away from the house. Smothers asked what the Freerks would have for a door covering before the final porch work is done. Freerks responded that the existing door is still on the house. She said she wants to protect it somehow and asked for ideas for some type of storm door for that purpose. Freerks she would like to have it done before winter. She said she is planning to take the synthetic siding off the front of the house and behind the entrance addition. Freerks said there am no clapboards beneath 1960s entrance addition. She said the entryway is falling away, resulting in some leaking as well. Freerks said she has asked one of the previous owners what the original porch looked like, and he has given her some information. Freerks said the pomh was enclosed and did not have spindles. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the front entryway at 443 South Governor. Carlson asked if everything else but the siding on the front would stay until next year. Freerks said they intend to take that siding off. Carlson asked if that should be included in the certificate. McCafferty said restoring original siding does not require a permit. Carlson asked if the Commission should or even could state that the certificate is being approved with the expectation that the porch will be rebuilt. McCafferty said she did not think the Commission could require something that will burden the homeowner with additional expenses. McCallum said this will be an improvement just in the fact of taking the entryway off. Ponto seconded the motion. Regarding a potential screen door, McCafferty suggested talking with Adams Architectural Wood Products or looking at Hawkeye Lumber. Freerks asked if there were specific requirements for a storm door. Weitzel said that Adams works for the correct time period, and they custom build all of their doors. McCafferty said that for screen doors, the Commission recommends wood screen doors with Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 3 interchangeable sashes or combination storm insert. She said the Commission disallows plain aluminum doors. Carlson asked if the storm door would also require a certificate of appropriateness. McCafferty replied that right now a building permit is not required for doors. She said doors are considered an historic facet of a property, but they are more easily replaced than windows. Ponto said he has always assumed that storm doors are equivalent to storm windows, and because storm windows don't require a permit, storm doors also should not require a permit. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS: McCafferty said the handbook obviously needs a lot of grammatical, spelling, and clean-up type changes. She said, at this point, she would like to focus on content. McCafferty provided several new pages for some of the more significant changes she had already made after receiving input from Gunn and Maharry regarding nonhistoric properties. She suggested first focusing on where guidelines have been added or changed. McCafferty referred to the classification of properties on page six. She said the thought is that if there is a nonhistoric property in an historic district and synthetic siding is allowed on that, does that mean synthetic siding should be allowed on new construction. She said one of the arguments against vinyl siding is that you're imitating wood with plastic, but that perhaps plastic could be acceptable if the aesthetic of vinyl was not to imitate wood, but had the aesthetic of plastic. McCafferty said, however, that there is nothing out there like that. She said that based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards, the integrity of materials should be maintained, especially on primary structures for both new and old buildings in historic districts. Regarding the siding issue, McCafferty said she had thought that perhaps the Commission could consider giving a little leniency to primary structures, if synthetic siding was available during the time period of significance. She said the Commission could then allow the type of synthetic siding that was available during that time period. Smothers said that for new construction, she would rather see new materials on it to define it as a new building going in. McCafferty said the other thought is that plastic, synthetic siding, whether it looks like wood or not, is a modern material, so the Commission should just allow modern materials for new construction. She said the other thing to keep in mind is that there was an appeal several years ago where the Commission required fiber cement board when the applicant wanted vinyl. McCafferty said, based on other historic districts in Iowa as well as other states, her recommendation at this point is that the Commission minimize the changes to the vinyl siding guidelines for historic districts. Regarding the outbuilding section, McCafferty said if a person has a nonhistoric property and no garage, synthetic siding would be appropriate for an outbuilding. She said if one has a nonhistoric garage that he wants to reside on a noncontributing property, then vinyl siding might be acceptable. McCafferty said that for the primary structures, however, unless synthetic siding was available during the period in which it was constructed, she recommended that it continued to be disallowed. Smothers stated that vinyl siding may have been available in the 1960s. She asked if the discussion was strictly regarding new construction. McCafferty said she is talking about residing a nonhistoric structure. Carlson said it would be some decades before there is a district covered by a period during which vinyl siding was available. He said the most recent period covered by a district is the 1940s. McCafferty said she believes vinyl siding became available in the late 1970s. Carlson asked where vinyl siding is currently allowed. McCafferty responded that it is currently allowed on noncontributing properties in conservation districts. Maharry said he did not have a problem with an exception that would allow synthetic siding, provided the proposed type of synthetic siding was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 4 Ponto discussed the third bullet under Exceptions on the right-hand side of page 16. He said this is for noncontributing properties in conservation districts. Ponto said there could be a 1960s house with the very wide, original siding. He asked, if someone wanted to use narrow siding that would perhaps match some other things, would the Commission not allow that because it would not match the original. McCafferty said the Commission could recommend fiber cement board. She said if it was really wide, the Commission might stipulate using the widest available, if it was a dimension that was commonly used. Ponto wondered whether the Commission should soften the language and say that it should match the original or be similar to other properties in the neighborhood. Weitzel said he has a problem with a building that is clearly out of context with the neighborhood when someone is trying to make it look more like the neighborhood. He said trying to assimilate a property sometimes results in something that is weird looking. McCafferty said the Commission needs to keep in mind all of the building styles. She said the Commission needs to be particularly concerned about the historic structures. Ponto said the Commission doesn't care that much about noncontributing properties, but this exception is specifying that even on noncontributing properties, the siding should match the original. Maharry said noncontributing does not necessary mean that it is a newer house. He said the building could be a 100- year old house that the Commission has labeled noncontributing because of alterations. Ponto said, for this exception, if noncontributing is still historic, then he totally agrees with the language. He said, however, that if the noncontributing property is a 1970s house and the owner wants to change the exposure on his siding, he would not have a problem with it. McCafferty said that at some point the Commission may want to add a clause stating that, although the Commission takes into consideration all architectural styles and ages of buildings, the guidelines are primarily written for historic buildings, and the Commission may, at its discretion, grant some flexibility for nonhistoric structures that are less than 50 years old. Ponto said he would like to see some flexibility like that added to the guidelines. Maharry said he would rather see a sweeping statement like that than address each issue individually. Weitzel said that does make a difference. McCafferty said the neighborhood guidelines for new construction describe the models that should be used, along with some alternative designs. Weitzel said that for new construction in a conservation district, as long as the vinyl looks like the right exposure and the real material, then it doesn't have to be wood or fiber cement board. Weitzel also referred to paragraph two on page 16 where it says that synthetic siding will last longer than a paint job. He said that a paint job can last 20 years or more and suggested changing the word "will" to "may." McCafferty said the other thing she added in the siding section under Exceptions to noncontributing in conservation districts is that trim boards shall not be recessed behind the face of the siding. The issue was raised as to whether or not that might encourage an owner to remove the original siding. McCafferty said the Commission could specify that original siding that has not deteriorated cannot be removed. Weitz_el suggested stating that it cannot be removed without a demolition permit. He said there may be a case where the siding is completely gone, and the owners would like to replace it with wood, rather than vinyl. McCafferty said that some districts go so far as to say that the applicant has to actually shim out all that trimwork. She said she was not certain an owner should go through all the work of shimming it out and then later, if it is restored, the owner would have to go through the extra work of putting it together. Weitzel said he did not think the Commission would want to absolutely prevent siding coming off in a case where it looks so bad that it would be better for the interior structure to remove the rotten wood. McCafferty suggested then adding the clause that original siding cannot be removed unless it is severely deteriorated. Maharry said that is also within the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. McCafferty referred to page 21 and the Exception at the bottom. She said that this is a broad statement that allows more flexibility for nonhistoric properties. Maharry said he asked himself whether this would help someone doing research as to what can and cannot be done. He said if someone were searching the handbook to see if vinyl could be used on an outbuilding, that question is answered specifically. He said that for all of the nonhistoric exceptions, if they help someone figure out easily whether he is able to do something, then that is a plus. Maharry asked if someone would be looking up applying new Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 5 balustrades and handrails in the guidelines or if a sweeping statement would be preferable, because the person probably needs to discuss this with McCafferty anyway. He said if a broad statement is inserted, the handbook would not be burdened with a lot of exceptions. McCafferty said one benefit of having more exceptions is that they affect public perception. Ponto agreed and said that judgments by the Commission seem less arbitrary if they fall under an exception. He said the Commission would do well to have both. Maharry pointed out that the Commission does not want to have more exceptions than rules in the handbook. McCafferty said she has rearranged the handbook and discovered that a lot of the exceptions apply to additions. She said once those are pulled out and put in the additions section, there are fewer left in the alteration section. Ponto said that in the past, the Commission discussed the possibility, for noncontributing properties in conservation districts especially, of going to nominal lumber sizes for spindles, rather than full two by twos. McCafferty suggested going to nominal sizes for the rear of the property. Ponto said that is absolutely true, but to him it would be fine even on the front of a noncontributing property in a conservation district. Maharry said he could see it on a nonhistoric property. McCafferty said she first questioned what difference one-half inch would make. She said that as she has looked around to see what proportions look right and what don't, and she has found that the narrower spindles look flimsy. Ponto agreed but said if this is the same house that has vinyl siding on it, he does not think it is that big of a deal. Maharry said he would be comfortable with putting in an exception for nonhistoric properties in both conservation and historic districts. McCafferty said that nonhistoric is covered by the bottom Exception, so that the owner does what is appropriate for the house. Carlson said he did not quite understand why that first exception is even there, because it seems to be very similar to the second bullet under "New Balustrades and Handrails." McCafferty said it would cover the situation in which the Commission might request turned spindles on a Victorian house, which typically has turned spindles, because other similar houses have turned spindles. This item gives an exception to simplify that detail. Maharry said in the case of a Victorian, the Commission would still want to see the owner work toward something historic, as the house is still old. Weitzel asked how much the Commission wants to encourage restoration versus rehabilitation or adaptive reuse. McCafferty said the Commission might want to do more research in this area to see if in fact square spindles might be acceptable on even Victorian house styles. Smothers says she sees that loophole there for someone whose porch is falling off and cannot reasonably pay for the turned spindles. Ponto asked if the first exception could be rolled into the second exception to say that, "Alternative designs are acceptable, provided..." McCafferty said the second exception applies specifically to nonhistoric properties. Weitzel said that requiring turned spindles could turn into an undue financial burden fairly quickly. Smothers said that turned spindles are currently being mass-produced, but at this point they are much more expensive than square spindles. Maharry asked if square spindles weren't on a Victorian house, even if it is noncontributing, does the Commission want to allow that and then have every house on that block now have square spindles because they were cheaper. Carlson said he would be inclined to change noncontributing in the exception to nonhistoric to narrow the exception. Maharry said there is a greater financial burden to using turned spindles, but everyone who buys an older house takes that on. Weitzel said that is a good point. He said an older home takes lots of repairs and maintenance, even if it is not in a district. Maharry said he is talking here about noncontributing properties in either conservation or historic districts, structures that were built in the significant period that have been altered and whether the Commission wants to allow a lesser requirement if the porch is rebuilt. He said that now that the nonhistoric category has been defined, it is a distinct layer in and of itself, and it helps the noncontributing properties contribute a bit more to the neighborhood aesthetics. Maharry said he thinks that is the goal. He said there is not as much desire to turn nonhistoric properties into the rest of the neighborhood, but the Commission would encourage people as much as possible to make their noncontributing properties contributing. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 6 Maharry asked how much discussion of spindles starts splitting hairs and how much it adds to or detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood. He said that on rear elevations it would not seem to be much of a problem. The consensus was to add the phrase in the first exception on page 21 so that the sentence reads, "Square spindles may be installed in place of turned spindles in balustrades, when not highly visible from the street." Carlson said that Gunn's point was that the Secretary of the Interior Standards don't distinguish between visible or not visible from the street but apply to the whole exterior of the building. McCafferiy said that the street visibility issue primarily applies in conservation districts, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards are not strictly implemented in conservation districts because they are a City entity. Ponto said that one of the benefits of conservation districts is having more flexibility. McCafferty said she would check through the handbook to see that the exceptions for things that are not highly visible from the street are used for conservation districts. Weitzel said he believes that is very appropriate for conservation districts. Ponto pointed out that on page 21 in the first exception for balustrades not highly visible from the street, historic districts could be removed. McCafferty said one concern is that the Commission is revising the guidelines to be more restrictive in some areas. She said Gunn was involved in the writing of the guidelines in the first place, and he would probably have valuable input in this area. Weitzel said he did not want to see politics erode everything that the Commission has done, but the reality of the situation is that some issues need to be addressed. He added that he would hate to see the guidelines rewritten for historic districts so that one by one, as porches are replaced, they all become made up of square spindles. Maharry said one important point to make is that the intention for conservation districts and historic districts is similar - to preserve the historic buildings. He said whether the district has a cohesive concept or not, whether they fit the guidelines of conservation districts, which represent the traditional character of Iowa City neighborhoods through architectural characteristics, building scale, setbacks, etc., preservation is still an important aspect to a conservation district. He said there is the same desire to preserve the homes. Maharry said the City Council may be looking for greater differences between the two types of districts, but he feels the Commission might need to focus more on nonhistoric properties rather than noncontributing properties. He said it should be emphasized that there are still some gems out there that are encrusted in mud right now. Maharry said those are the noncontributing properties, and he thought they should be deserving of some of similar protections. Carlson said he would not want to see the Commission go too far in saying that the two districts are the same. He said there may be concern that the Commission is basically designating stealth historic districts and calling them conservation districts. Maharry said that was the concern, but it wasn't the Commission's call. He said the Commission went with the recommendation of a preservation architect, who was paid a lot of money to make the determination. Weitzel agreed that the designation came about as the result of an informed professional decision. Maharry said if the thinking is that a conservation district is easier to pass, that is incorrect. He said there is more work involved with a historic district, but that doesn't mean it is easy to have a conservation district. McCafferty said one consideration is that there are a lot of properties in the conservation districts that need a lot of work and have had unsympathetic alterations, but one can still tell the style of the structure. She said that in a conservation district, if the criteria for classification as a contributing property is looser and more properties determined to be contributing, then there needs to be a little more flexibility. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 7 Maharry referred to page 21, the last bullet on the left under Recommended, saying that it is not controversial and would be acceptable. Regarding the chimney section on page 22, McCafferty said that she was filling in information for chimneys. Smothers asked for discussion about chimneys that are encased in rubber sheathing or chimneys that are painted and sealed because people don't want to do the masonry work so high up. She said this is happening around town and is being used for a quick fix. McCafferty said the Commission would probably want to recommend against the practice, but enforcement would be an issue. Weitzel said that no permit is involved. McCafferty stated that there are other issues in the handbook that the Commission does not have authority over, in and of themselves, but the Commission still has guidelines for. She said if such an issue is ever rolled in with another project, the Commission can use the guidelines as a reference for its decision. Weitzel said the main reason the Commission doesn't want people encasing chimneys is that it is not an acceptable repair. Smothers agreed but said people are seeing these as options, with everyone having a different interpretation of what can be done. She said if they are not taking away the historic brick, they think it is acceptable. Smothers asked if the Commission wanted to add some language to disallow this type of inappropriate repair. Weitzel, McCafferty, and Ponto agreed that they would like to add such language. Weitzel said a lot of the quick fixes are just deferred maintenance. Weitzel referred to page 23 and suggested that somewhere the Commission include language to make at least not recommended, if not disallowed, the removal of existing historic fences. Maharry said that would not require a building permit, but it would be good to include it in the handbook. Weitz. el said the second bullet under Recommended for fences did not include a location. He asked if that was referring to the front plane of the house. McCafferty said at this time fences 4 feet high or less are allowed in the front yard and do not require a building permit. McCallum asked if the height of the fence would depend on the scale of the building. McCafferty said the maximum allowed height for a fence in the front yard would be four feet, per the building code. Maharry said that on page 26 in the section on decks and ramps, the second bullet under Not Recommended is essentially the same as the bullet under Disallowed. The consensus was to leave the bullet under Disallowed and delete the bullet under Not Recommended. Maharry suggested that on page 26 in the second bullet under Recommended, the word "rot" be changed to "deteriorate." Smothers asked if the Commission wanted to make size and scale recommendations for decks. McCaffedy said it was determined, when the guidelines were originally being written, that legally the Commission cannot limit the size of an addition. Smothers said she is considering the house size as compared to the lot size, for example in the Goosetown area. She said she would not want to see decks from the back porch all the way back to the alley or even landscaping from the edge of the porch all the way up to the City sidewalk. Smothers said that in her opinion, the size of the deck should never be equal to or larger than the square footage of the footprint of the house. McCafferty suggested a broader statement, to say that the deck should not detract from the predominant character of the neighborhood backyards. Maharry agreed that would be a very broad statement. Smothers said she did not know what the City code specifies, especially for the rear of a building. She said, however, that you could end up with what looks like a huge deck with a house attached to it. Maharry asked if the Commission could disallow that kind of deck in general by a vote saying that overall this takes away from the appearance of the neighborhood and not necessarily listing something specific. McCafferty said there may be other factors to balance. She said if someone wants to build a Iow deck with no railings, then the Commission would probably be more lenient than for some giant structure cascading down a hill. McCafferty said that those things are hard to define. Smothers agreed that some things can be done quite nicely, such as boardwalks and lower garden beds, so she did like McCafferty's suggestion for making the language a little broader. Weitzel said the tricky thing is that decks did not exist during the pertinent time periods so that it's hard to regulate them in terms Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 8 of period aesthetics. Maharry said the biggest guiding factor is how much it would detract from the appearance. Carlson suggested separating out decks from ramps in separate sections. He said even though there are a lot of similarities, for the most part, people who are looking for deck guidelines won't be looking for ramp guidelines and vice versa. Maharry agreed. Ponto said that in some cases, ramps may have to be on the front of a house, based on door width or other factors. The consensus of the Commission was to change the second exception on page 29, applying to conservation districts, to add the words, "...or the style of the primary structure." Maharry stated that on page five in the bottom line under historic districts, the sentence should read, "...must have a cohesive character that provides a distinct sense of time and place." He said that the second sentence on page six under conservation districts should read, "However, because they have fewer properties that retain a high degree of historic integrity and contribute to a distinct sense of time and place within the neighborhood, they do not quality as historic districts based on State Code." Maharry said that on page six under the section on Classification of Properties, the second sentence should begin, "Due to changes in the neighborhood over time..." He stated that in the next paragraph, the first sentence should read, "...or not contributing to the historic character of the proposed district." Maharry said the next sentence should begin with "For" instead of "In." Maharry said that on page seven under "When is Design Review Required?" the handbook should be consistent. Examples of projects that do require design review should also be written as bulleted points. He said the first sentence should read, "Design review by the Historic Preservation Commission is required for all construction projects that require a regulated permit and that change the exterior features of properties in conservation and historic districts and historic landmarks." Maharry asked about if key/contributing properties should also be in the section. McCafferty said they should not, as that is just a subcategory of contributing. Key properties are treated the same as contributing properties in historic districts. Maharry said the next sentence should include, after"applying siding", "reapplying siding." Maharry said McCafferty planned to clean up the language of the underlined on page 7 to emphasize the guidelines for siding and window replacement. McCafferty said she already cleaned up some of the language and included a note in boldface to state that the application of siding and windows requires a building permit for landmarks and properties within districts. She said outside of districts, these items do not require a building permit. Maharry said that on page eight in the section under Certificate of Appropriateness, the language should include key/contributing structures in conservation districts in the first sentence. He stated that in the second sentence in the same paragraph, the sentence should read, "...however, there are two alternative types of review that are intended to shorten the design review process." McCafferty stated that on page eight under Certificate of No Material Effect, the sentence should end with, "...if the work contemplated in the application will have no effect on the appearance of significant architectural features." Maharry said that on page 10 under Exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines, the first sentence should be deleted, and "However" should be removed as the first word of the next sentence. McCafferty said she had already made those changes. Maharry suggested that for the sake of consistency, the recommended and allowed items be on the left side of the pages, with the Disallowed on the right side of the pages. He said some of the recommendations are so long they carry over to the right side. McCafferty said she carried the "Recommended" caption over to the right side, but she could try to get them all to fit on consistent sides of the pages. McCafferty stated that on page 11 under Building Code and Zoning Ordinances, she added, "The Historic Preservation Commission does not review projects for compliance with the building code or the zoning ordinance." Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 9 Maharry recommended that on page 17, regarding paint and color, the second sentence read, "One color for the body of the house, one for the trim, and one for accent is historically proper." Ponto pointed out that on page 17, the recommended section discusses removing loose and peeling paint. He stated that under Not Recommended, dry sanding, dry scraping, etc. are listed. Ponto asked how one would remove loose and peeling paint if none of those methods are allowed. McCallum suggested that some of these things are listed under Not Recommended because they may be dangerous to the person, particularly if the paint is lead paint, as much of the older paint would be. Ponto said that he sees people dry scraping all the time. McCafferty said these issues come into play when an owner is using federal funds. Ponto said he is concerned that a person who is using the handbook as a resource would not have many options for removing paint. He did say that it is under Not Recommended versus Disallowed. McCafferty said the Commission could at least remove dry scraping from the list of Not Recommended items. Weitzel suggested that on page three there could be another subset of items under Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations, specifically under Mass and Roof Lines and Site and Landscaping. He said there are so many other issues under those two things that unless there is an index, it would be difficult to find them. Weitzel said HIS is going to be prepared to handle different types of permits for historic districts. He asked if the replacement of sashes requires a permit, and McCafferty responded that a permit is required for replacement sashes. Weitzel asked if anything else is like that in that a permit is required for a property in the district but not city-wide. McCafferty replied that siding and window replacement and demolition of portions of buildings typically don't require permits but would require a permit for a property in the district. Weitzel said it should then be made clear that these things are required because the property is in a district, and HIS should know to flag them when they come up. He said he is also concerned that this not be seen as an historic preservation tax. Weitzel said he would like to word it so that people understand that the reason they may have to pay a permit fee for a property in a district when they would not have to elsewhere is because the Commission needs to regulate the design process. McCafferty said that at the current time, if an owner wants his property to be designated a landmark property, he/she is required to go through the rezoning process, which requires a $380 fee. She said the Commission may want to discuss waiving that fee, because there are so few such applications, and this is something the Commission would want to encourage. Ponto said that on page 13, in the third bullet under Original Masonry, he would suggest changing the bullet to read, "Replacing deteriorated masonry units with ones that match the color, texture, and size of the original and use an appropriate hardness." He pointed out that the Commission had discussed this before and come to the conclusion that if there was an improper hardness originally, it should not be replaced with that improper hardness. Carlson stated that on page thirteen in the second bullet under Disallowed, the wording should read, "Pointing soft, historic masonry with a strong Portland cement mix or synthetic caulking compound." Ponto discussed the last bullet under Disallowed on page 19. He suggested adding the language "...are possible and not original." McCafferty suggested putting that bullet under Not Recommended instead of under Disallowed. Smothers stated that on page 24 under Recommended, the bullet "Leaving large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors" should be under Disallowed. Carlson said that under Siding, the second bullet regarding synthetic siding should be under Disallowed. Smothers discussed the Disallowed bullet on page 28 under Masonry. She asked if the Commission wanted to discuss masonry veneer if it is not tied into a building. Weitzel said that is already addressed by the building code. McCafferty said the issue here is when using thin veneers, if you don't have corner pieces, it can look pretty bad. She said she would consult the Secretary of the Interior Standards for more information. Ponto pointed out that the key/contributing structures should have an asterisk on the map on page 58. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 10, 2003 Page 10 Carlson stated that in the Disallowed section on page 20 under original porches, the third bullet should be changed to, "Enclosing front or other character defining porches with permanent windows and/or walls." DISCUSSION OF CURRENT PROJECTS: Maharry said that Goosetown is going to have a neighborhood meeting, at which time a petition will be circulated for interested parties to sign. He said it will be a good gauge of the interest in having a district in the area. McCafferty said the Commission has not discussed the potential downtown district for some time. She said the deadline for application for a CLG grant is approaching. Maharry said the CLG grant is a good way to get professional assistance. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Weitzel moved to elect Maharry as Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0, with Maharry abstaininf~. MOTION: Smothers moved to elect Carlson as Vice-Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0, with Carlson abstaininf~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 6, 2003. Maharry deferred consideration of the minutes to the Commission's next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY~ JUNE 12~ 2003 - 5:45 P.M. IoWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Ellis, Randy Hartwig, Rick Mascari, Baron Thrower STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ellis called the meeting to order at 5:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 6, 2003, Commission meeting were approved as submitted. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari made a motion to pay the bills. Thrower seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0, with Robnett being absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Ellis introduced Randy Bisgard and Bobbi Thompson, from Airport Business Solutions, to the members of the Commission and staff. Ron Duffe, from Jet Air, said Jet Air has hired three more mechanics. He said the volume of maintenance has increased. He said he would like to work out an agreement to use t-hangars on a temporary basis ;vhen long-term tenants are not using them. O'Neil will work with Duffe on an agreement. Dick Blum, from H. R. Green, said he would like to remind the Commission that Fly Iowa 2003 will be in Cedar Rapids on July 4, 5, and 6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP)- Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, presented his monthly report. He said there was not a lot to add to the report. He said commercial real estate sales are slow for everyone. He said there was an offer for the entire property but the offer was not enough to be considered a serious offer. Mascari asked about national advertising. O'Neil said Michael Hodges, from ABS, was going to contact Overton on where he thought it would be best advertise nationally. Thrower asked about the marketing plan from Iowa Commercial. Ellis said it was his recollection that Iowa Realty was selected with the understanding that the marketing would be regional instead of national. The Commission did not have additional funding to advertise nationally. Thrower asked what type of regional advertising is done? Overton said he meets with the Cedar Rapids office weekly, it is on their web site, and every quarter he sends an e-mail to 1 3200 commercial brokers. Thrower asked if there is a direct mailing part of their marketing? Overton said they have not made any direct mailing. O'Neil said Cedar Rapids Airport has a marketing person and they could be contacted to see hoe Cedar Rapids markets their property. Overton said he called a commercial broker in Joplin, Missouri. Joplin has a similar development to Iowa City. Overton said the realtor told him that commercial sales were slow. He said he is trying to get information from other people in the area and what their marketing plan is. O'Neil said the Joplin lease was reviewed when the lease for the ACP was being developed. Mascari made a motion to send a recommendation to the Council to terminate the agreement with Iowa Realty. Thrower seconded the motion. Ellis said he thought Mascari not giving Overton enough time. He said the entire commercial market was slow. He said ABS was hired to help the Airport and Iowa Realty. Thrower said some representations have been made by Iowa Realty and he did not think they had been fulfilled. Hartwig said because he is relatively new to the Commission, he was not ready to change realtors. Mascari said he has nothing personal against Iowa Realty or Overton, but since none of the property has been sold, he thinks a change should be made. He does not think Iowa Realty is being aggressive enough. He said he understands the market is slow, but he wants someone that is more aggressive. Ellis said that before the Commission selected Iowa Realty, Iowa Realty told the Commission it would be a ten-year project. Mascari said that if they hired another firm and they sold only one lot, that would be a 100% improvement. He said there have been no new contacts. He said he could have done as good of a job. O'Neil said the Commission needs to review the contract. Dulek said there is one contract that provides for leasing and sales. Ellis called for the vote. Mascari and Thrower voted for the motion to recommend to Council to terminate the contract. Ellis and Hartwig voted against the motion. The motion was defeated for lack ora majority. b. Hangar//31 lease - Harry Hinckley, the tenant for hangar//31, was present to discuss the lease. Mascari asked Hinckley what specific changes he would like to make to the lease? Hinckley said he thought the whole lease should be changed. He said social engineering should not be done in a lease. He said it is a t-hangar lease modified to try to conform to a corporate hangar. He said the old lease form was better and more accurate for a corporate hangar. Hinckley said he would like to sit down with the Commission or a subcommittee and discuss the lease. Ellis said the Commission is not going back to the old lease. Hinckley asked specifically what the Commission thinks is wrong with the old lease? Ellis said the Commission is attempting to make all leases on the Airport more uniform. Hinckley said the Commission needs to take the time to read both leases and they will see the original lease is better. Ellis said there is nothing specifically wrong with the old lease. Mascari and Hartwig will meet with Hinckley to discuss the lease. The subcommittee will recommend a lease to the Commission for action at the July meeting. c. Environmental Assessment project (consultant-Howard R. Green) - Thc Commission agreed to discuss this issue with item (f). d. Strategy/business plan project (consultant ABS) - Thompson said they would review and comment on the corporate hangar lease as soon as information was sent to them. Otherwise, they were just there to observe and collect information while they were in Iowa City. O'Ncil will send copies of the lease to ABS. e. Obstruction mitigation project (consultant Stanley Engineering)- Mike Donnelly, from Stanley, said they had made several contacts with obstruction owners. He said contacts were made by letter, phone and personal interviews. He said a list is being prepared that will let the Commission know how many obstructions they can mitigate for thc money they have. Donnclly said he had contacted Menards. They have a corner of their building that is an obstruction and they would be willing to light it. O'Neil said Mcnards applied for an airspace study and were suppose to design the building so it would not be an obstruction. It should not be an obstruction if they built it according to plans. Donnclly said Menards said they couldn't find their copy of the airspace study. Donnelly said he has discussed several other ways to mitigate some of the obstructions and hc thinks many of thc obstructions will be mitigated. O'Neil said the obstructions need to be mitigated, regardless of whether or not thc airport would get a precision approach. Donnelly said there is an unknown liability by the owners of thc obstructions. The obs,:ructions are a violation of federal airspace. Donnclly said that he has spoken with Gary Nagle, from the University of Iowa, and informed him that the University was required to do an airspace study before they placed thc flagpole on the Old Capital dome. The University was not aware they needed a federal study. Donnelly will follow-up with thc University. f. United Hangar disposition- Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, said he met in Kansas City last week with the FAA to discuss thc EA. Thc disposition of the United hangar was discussed in connection with thc extension of Runway 07. Joe Tmka said that the FAA had some questions about the noise contours that were included in thc draft EA report. He said another question was that of rerouting or pu~ng Willow Creek in a culvert. Trnka said the United hangar would need to be removed. It is an obstruction. Trnka said it would be about $20,000 to document the building before it is tom down. He said it could be moved and restored or moved and not restored. Thc FAA will pay for relocation, but not for restoration of the building. They would pay 90% of the site preparation if the building were moved. O'Neil said hc had additional information that may be helpful and left the meeting to get the additional information. Blum said that in conjunction with doing the EA, the question was raised concerning what to do to reroute Willow Creek so it would not be in the runway safety area. The ALP has a design that would reroute the creek to the west. Blum suggested installing a culvert, with an overflow swail on top. 3 To best accommodate the culvert, the runway elevation would be reduced by about 7 feet. This would mean less fill over the culvert and less fill for the runway extension. If the creek is put in a culvert, the creek would not be considered to be rerouted and that should reduce the time to receive approval from the various agencies. Blum said all the design and construction work is eligible for funding through the FAA AlP program. Blum said O'Neil could contact the FAA to see if they would agree to pay for the revision of the ALP. Ellis asked what the alternative would be? Blum said the alternative is to design the culvert with the runway elevation as it is currently shown on the ALP. Mascari asked if this was addressed when the 1996 ALP was completed? Blum said he thought there was discussion on rerouting the creek, but there were not a lot of questions on how McClure intended to reroute it. O'Neil will contact Todd Madison to see if the FAA would fund the additional planning. The discussion returned to the United hangar. Trnka said the Commission would need to decide whether they wanted to tear down the hangar or move it. If it were moved, would it be restored for use, or restored back to historic condition? Mascari said he would like to move it. He said the decision should be made on where it could be moved. O'Neil said one possible site would be east of Building H. A new service road would need to be constructed for the hangar and Building H. It would also access the buildings to the south. O'Neil said this location would not affect the two potential commercial lots on Riverside Drive. The FAA would participate in moving the hangar, to include site preparation. Restoration of the building would not be eligible. Thompson asked if there had been any cost/benefit analysis done on moving the hangar as opposed to tearing it down? She asked how much interest there was from the community to save the building and was there local funding to assist in restoration? Blum said H.R. Green has not done any cost analysis. He said Green would be willing to give the Commission a quote on doing a cost/benefit analysis. Blum said that several years ago, someone interested in moving the hangar to the ACP got an estimate of $ 20,000 to move the hangar. This did not include the brick office on the east side of the building. Ellis said this would be on the agenda for the July meeting. g. FY 2004 budget update- Ellis said he is not sure if the Commission wants a general discussion or if there were specifics the Commission wanted to discuss. Ellis said that in light of the cuts at the State level, he thought the Commission should review the budget again. He said they have reviewed the operating budget several times and did not think there was anything left to cut. Ellis said the City Manager had made a couple of suggestions and he would like to wait until the report is received from ABS before addressing his suggestions. O'Neil said he has reviewed the budget. He said because of the concern from Council last summer, the Commission dedicated more time to the budget than would normally be expected. O'Neil said that from an operations perspective, this is one of the tightest budgets he has had in the 15 years he has been at the Airport. Mascari asked how much money was being spent on the vehicle replacement fund? O'Neil said he thought it was about $12,000 a year for all the vehicles. Mascari said he would like to cut that vehicle replacement by half. O'Neil explained how the vehicle replacement 4 system worked. He said if the Commission wanted to reduce the dollar amount, they could amortize the vehicles for a longer time period. He said currently, airport vehicles are not automatically replaced at the end of their amortization schedule. They are assessed at the end of the schedule. O'Neil said he thought it was important that the Commission discuss the budget. He suggested a letter be sent from the Commission to the Mayor, outlining their discussion. He suggested the letter explain that the Commission has ABS looking into both expenditures and revenues. O'Neil said the operations expenditures have not changed dramatically over the years. The problem developed with the drop in revenue that started with the past FBO. O'Neil said Robnett had suggested at an earlier meeting that what needs to be done is that the budget should stay intact and that the Manager watch the expenditures even closer than in past years. Thrower said he has looked at the report from the City Manager and looked to see what other departments were doing to cut budgets. He said that if they can come up with any cuts, even if it is a small part of the budget, it would be helpful. Mascari made a motion to reduce the contribution to the vehicle replacement fund and to remove the line item for window coverings for the second floor of the Terminal building. Thrower seconded the motion and it passed 4 - 0, with Robnett being absent. Ellis said he will sent a letter to the Mayor, offering these cuts. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Ellis said he had nothing additional to discuss. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Thrower reminded the Commission of the open house on June 14. He said Cable TV was going to film the event and run it on the public access channel. Mascari said he wanted to thank Hills Bank and Jet Air for their participation with the open house. Mascari said Mark Anderson told him about an airport he was at that held a city public works day at the airport. Mascari said he would like to look into doing that. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil asked the Commission members if they knew of anyone that would be interested in being a member of the Airport Zoning Commission or the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment. There have been vacancies for a long time. O'Neil said he would be advertising for an engineering firm for phase II and phase III of the Runway 07 extension project. O'Neil said an engineering firm should be selected to be ready to go when a grant is received. The RFP needs to include all projects that the Airport wants the firm to do. Firms know that they will not receive any money unless a grant is received. O'Neil said the FAA has a mobile unit to use for training for aircraft fires. It costs about $ 7000 for the training. He is working with the Fire Department to see where funding could be raised. 5 O'Neil said it would be valuable training for the volunteer departments in surrounding towns. There is no money in the Airport budget for this. O'Neil said he met with Ellis and a developer concerning property west of the Airport. O'Neil told the developer that nothing would be done until the Environmental Assessment is completed. There is some property that may be available for lease. The Commission indicated they would be willing to look at leasing property. O'Neil said he received an application from the national Deaf Pilots Association. They would like to hold their national meeting in Iowa City in July of 2005. O'Neil said the main down side to the convention is that the pilots do not use radios. Duffe, from Jet Air, said he thought it would be a good event for the Airport. The consensus of the Commission was that they would be in favor of the event. O'Neil said he sent a letter to Double Check, explaining they were still responsible for maintenance for another year on the fuel farm system. He has not heard back from them. The bids for the Mormon Trek project were due May 20. The bids were all under the engineer's estimate. O'Neil said the Commission would need to decide what to do about the fuel tank in between Buildings G and H. There are several costs associated with maintaining the fuel tank. This will be on the agenda at the next meeting. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for July 15, 2003,at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Alan Ellis, Chairperson 6 IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FINAL/APPROVED~ EMMA HARVAT HALL FINAL MINUTES 410 E. Washington St. May 27, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Keri Neblett, David Short, Paul Retish, Billie Townsend, Nick Klenske MEMBERS ABSENT: Alice Mathis, Bob Peffer, Rick Spooner STAFF MEMBERS: Anne Burnside, Sue Dulek 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:08. Burnside suggested that Dulek start the meeting by discussing item four on the agenda. 4. REVISED HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE: Dulek explained that the ordinance needed changes and additional detail added to provide guidance for the attorneys in the office of the Human Rights Coordinator and the City Attorney's office. Several meetings were held and Dilkes, Dulek, Shank and Burnside recommended improvements. There were several revisions made and reviewed by Shank and Burnside. Dulek further stated that there were three primary areas involved: 1-Cleaning up, making additions and removing unnecessary material. 2-Adding and clarifying the standard operating procedure. The adopted regulations are taken almost verbatim from the state regulations that apply to a public hearing process. This is a simplified version. 3-Concilliation and the ADR or alternative dispute resolution. The staff is now looking for recommendations for changes from the Commission. The changes are to be forwarded to the Council. After the Commission approves of the changes, its recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council. Dulek would like to put the revisions on the Council work schedule possibly at a September meeting, or no later than October as recommended by Dilkes. Retish questioned why the changes were necessary and he asked what criteria was used to make the changes and he wondered whether the changes were needed so that the Ordinance would be in compliance with state law. Dulek said that the Ordinance has to be in compliance with state law but that was not the reason many of the changes were made. She reiterated that some things in the ordinance were unclear, unnecessary or missing. For example, two public hearings were scheduled last year and the ordinance did not provide any specific guidance regarding certain procedures. Retish said that he looked it over and felt that Shank was in control of the decision making process and that it defined and expanded her role. Dulek added that it would be Shank or one her designated investigators. She further added that it is common practice to do this. Burnside explained that all decisions are thoroughly discussed, but it's Shank's job to make the final determination. Burnside felt that it just clarifies the fact that it is her responsibility to see that it gets done. She also added that an ordinance provides internal direction for us in standard operating procedures, plus it gives others a roadmap on how to proceed. Retish felt that it defines what the HR Coordinator is responsible for and possibly added to her workload. Burnside stated that she is unaware of any increase in duties it is just a clarification. Burnside explained that there were basically two major changes in the ordinance. {1 ) How probable cause decisions will be made and (2) the addition of an articulated mediation process. She gave examples of changes in the ordinance by pointing out how much was missing in one section. Dulek added that it is pared back by quite a bit. Retish asked where we could locate the specific role for the Commission. Burnside stated that it on page three, §2-2-1, §2-2-2, §2-2-3 speaks of powers and more. Beckmann felt that this changed the Commission's role and made it much more proactive in education. Townsend asked if we are being taken out of the picture so to speak on cases and she questioned if that was what the Commission really wanted. Beckman said yes, that is the result. Shorr stated that we seem to have a ratification function; sort of to either accept or appeal the findings of the ALJ. Dulek agreed and said that was something that wasn't made clear before. She further explained that the ALJ makes a proposed decision, not a final one. The Commission makes the final decision after reviewing all the materials. She also added that the Commission is only involved in specific decision as to whether it agrees with the ALJ's proposed decision. Dulek said the transcripts would be available to the Commission. Retish asked whether the Commission was to have more of a role under "Powers" on page three? Dulek stated that she believed so. Retish stated that many of the Commission members did not feel they were equipped to make a probable cause decision. Retish indicated that the more appropriate role for the Commission would be in the area of education. Beckmann agreed and also questioned how the Commission could make a decision as to whether the ALJ made the right decision. Dulek indicated that this is a role that is required under agency law. Dulek further added that Commission members would review the written arguments on both sides and indicate why the Commission does or does not agree with it. That role of the Commission under the law cannot be eliminated. Retish asked Dulek to review the role of the Commission. She referred him to page three, section 222 (a). Shorr asked what the Commission function would be before a hearing. Dulek said none. Retish didn't like the conciliation procedure but Burnside added that the revisions are almost a mirror of the state law except that it is a bit less. Retish stated that he would like the role of the Commission to be reexamined and Dulek said that she would. Burnside said that letter (h) would not apply to the Commission either because counseling the Council on the affirmative action policy is a holdover from past practices. Beckmann asked Dulek how the Commission should proceed. Dulek said that it could be put on next month's agenda, there is no rush. She also informed Burnside that a special meeting needed to be scheduled in the next week or two for pending litigation. The litigation discussion meeting was set for May 29th, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Beckmann asked for changes or approval of the past minutes. Motion made by Townsend to approve minutes and seconded by Shorr. Motion passed. 3, RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None 5. NEW BUSINESS: Beckmann announced that the Commission was sponsoring the Pride Festival and we need volunteers to staff a booth. She would like to see just one person at a time. The event will take place June 21st from 12:00-5:00 p.m. Burnside said that the HR office would be responsible for delivering materials to the booth by 11:30. Beckmann asked for volunteers, no one was available. She will call absent members (Spooner, Peffer, and Mathis) to see if they can staff the booth. Beckmann informed members that Peffer couldn't attend Tuesday night meetings for the summer due to a class that he is taking, and wondered whether members would be in favor of changing the Commission's meeting night. Retish and Shorr supported the change. Beckmann will find out what Peffer can do and get back to the group. This will be decided at the May 29~h special meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS: Reports of co-sponsored events attended by Commissioners or staff: "Discovering Dominga"; Building Blocks to Employment: Beckmann asked who had attended the "Discovering Dominga." Shank attended, but was not present to give a report. Building Block to Employment: Retish stated that the first event was overstaffed in comparison to the number of attendees. The June 3"d event will be held at Pheasant Ridge and it will start at 5:30, which is earlier than the previous one. He further added that the needs are different from the citizens at the Broadway area. He felt that the Commission and Education Committee might need to revise what is offered at the program. This can be determined after an assessment of the needs of the individuals the Commission is trying to assist. He believes that the citizens in Broadway are more apt to just fill out an application versus resume building. He will follow up and work with the staff and determine what the needs of the people at Broadway. Retish also stated that the education group would like more volunteers of color and diversity to join them. Retish indicated that he would like to recruit volunteers from a more diverse group. He added that the Education Committee would like to provide people what they need and not just what we're offering. Then after Broadway we could possibly do a couple of sites in the city. Listening Posts: Survey: Beckmann and Retish will visit the Senior Center sometime in August, date not set. Neblett will be visiting the United Action for Youth, the GLBTQA group if anyone is interested in joining her. She would like to see how the kids there feel about human rights and their experiences. There is no date set for this event currently. Peffer and Shorr will be going to the Broadway Community Center, possibly next week. Klenske is still in the beginning stages of his project for next year on rental/housing issues. Breakfast: Burnside reported that the keynote speaker is David Skorton and nominees are being sought. Beckmann decided to wait until the August meeting to pick a committee to choose the winners. Educational Outreach- program ideas: Beckmann reported that Klenske will be doing a rental/housing workshop in January or February of 2004 and she believes that it will be very successful. Beckmann added that the Commission should continue coming up with educational ideas since our role will be changed as a Commission. She hopes to be able to do three or four events a year. 7. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Neblett: No report Retish: He felt that the state of the U.S. is still going downhill in terms of leadership and human rights. Shorr: No report Beckmann: No report Townsend: No report Klenske: No report 8. STATUS OF CASES: Burnside stated that cases are continuing to be closed since the Human Rights office is fully staffed and moving forward. Retish asked Burnside if the cases represent "real" problems. He indicated that in many of the cases he has read there doesn't seem to be any reason to go forth. Burnside said that she believes the cases represent real problems. In one of the cases recently read by a team, there was a finding of probable cause and there may be another probable cause case soon. Townsend wondered since the Commission is not reading the cases any longer, how would the Commission know what types of cases are coming in. Burnside said that the Commission staff could develop a broader summary on each case. Townsend felt that the Commission should be informed as to the types of cases being filed. Beckmann offered to have a time set-aside in each meeting where Shank could review specific cases so more information is available. Shorr suggested that since the Ordinance is being revised, the Commission could request this change. Beckmann questioned whether that was really necessary. Burnside didn't know it if has to be in the ordinance, but she will check with Shank and Dulek. Burnside felt that a more detailed report could be provided with or without an ordinance. Townsend doesn't want the Commission to turn into a social committee. Beckmann said that that was why we need to be more proactive and provide more educational outreach or we will not exist in the present state. The city council will not allow us to become a social group. Beckmann stated that last year we offered a lot more programs as opposed to this year. Townsend is unsure whether getting together to meet and pass around literature is enough for her. Beckmann said that we do a lot of important work such as forums and various seminars that are beneficial to the people. She restated that it is for this reason that the Commission needs to get out to the various areas in town and see what the community need. In addition, the Commission needs to show a presence in the community. Beckmann further stated that it is the Commission's responsibility and obligation to come up with ideas for human rights educational programs ideas. 9. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Retish to adjourn, seconded by Shorr. Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION I~ EMMA HARVAT HALL FI NAL/AP P ROVE D FINAL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING 410 E. Washington St. May 29, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Keri Neblett, David Short, Paul Retish, Billie Townsend, Nick Klenske, Bob Peffer MEMBERS ABSENT: Alice Mathis, Rick Spooner STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank, Sue Dulek 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:32 p.m. 2. CONSIDER A MOTION: Beckmann read, "Consider a motion to adjourn to closed session based on {}21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential and pursuant to Chapter 216 of the Code of Iowa and {}2-2-4 of the Iowa City Municipal Code which requires that complaints of discrimination, reports of investigation, statements and other documents or records obtained in the investigations, shall be closed records unless the Human Rights Ordinance specifically permits disclosure, and on §22.5(1)(c) to discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation." Retish moved to consider the motion and Neblett seconded the motion. MOTION: passed unanimously. 3. CONSIDER A MOTION AUTHORIZING CITY A'I-FORNEY TO TAKE ACTION IN JOHNSON COUNTY CASE # EQCVO62668: MOTION by Neblett and seconded by Peffer: If the Judge compels the Commission turn over the complete or a substantial portion of the witness statements to the defendants, (and Shank can use her discretion), the Commission authorizes the City Attorney's office to file an application for an interlocutory appeal. MOTION: passed unanimously. 4. COMMISSION SCHEDULE CHANGES: The Commission decided to cancel the June meeting because there won't be a quorum due to Commissioner schedules. The July meeting was rescheduled for Wednesday, the 23rd. 5. ADJOURNED: 7:20 p.m. Iowa .C. Aty . FINAL/APPROVED Pubhc Library MINUTES IOWA C?TY PUBLIC LI~BRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING - LOWER LEVEL OF TEMPORARY FACILITY June 26, 2003 - 5:10 PM Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Shaner MagalhSes, Lisa Parker, Linda Prybil, Jesse Singerman, (Singerman gone at 6:35 pm), Tom Suter, David VanDusseldorp Staff Present: Barbara Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Others: Joel Miller, Building Project Coordinator CALL TO ORDER: Parker called the meeting to order at 5:10 pm PUBLIC DISCUSSION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of May 22, 2003 were approved unanimously after a motion by Magalh~es/Dellsperger. Executive Session: In response to a written request from the Director, the Trustees moved into closed session for the purpose of evaluating the director. A motion to do so was made and seconded by Singerman and Magalh~.es. All present signified by saying Aye. The executive session ended after a motion by Dellsperger/Suter. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Building Proiect Miller gave a report on the building project: We are now 566 days into the project. Construction is taking place below the ground and steel will be set the second week of July. Pictures included in his report show preparation for building. The roofers started working on new heating and cooling system. The computer for this system will be located in Miller's office so he can control it. Miller thinks work will begin on the Moen project on 64 1 A between July 1 and August 1. The Sheraton Board of Trustees Agenda item 3A Page 2 Hotel will give us access through the alley behind the hotel and then through the Sheraton. The project is on time and on budget. Small change orders have been made but no big adjustments are anticipated. Craig clarified for the minutes that large refrigerators ordered are for meeting room complex. This was at the request of organizations that want to have food catered in the meeting rooms and not for staff use. Report from County Task Force Dellsperger asked for clarification and follow-up on how the Task Force will be designed. Craig responded that they agreed to have four libraries represented in a rotating manner so that three will always have the right to vote while one sits out. What kind of timeline is anticipated for this process? JeffHorne anticipates six meetings over six months. Dellsperger asked if there was an ultimate goal. The goal is to make a recommendation to supervisors about whether or not to change the way they fund the libraries. What is not reflected in the minutes of the Task Force meeting was Craig's comment that all budget issues county people spoke of were from the general fund, not the rural levy which funds libraries and roads. Craig believes that the county has a good arrangement. All four library directors are in agreement. Some committee members also seem to be in favor of the current system, however other members think that in order to find more funds it is necessary to cut library funding. It is tree that ICPL has the only contract. The County Attorney has been asked over the years to get signed contracts with all the county libraries, but they have never been finalized. Dellsperger wondered if our contract could cause divisiveness among other libraries. Singerman asked about potential cuts and what Craig's thoughts are. Craig thinks the best we could hope for is stability. NEW BUSINESS Evaluation Committee The committee, Singerman, Suter, and VanDusseldorp, congratulated Craig on a successful year and thanked her for her accomplishments. A motion was made by VanDusseldorp to increase Craig's salary by 3.83% to the top of her wage scale. Suter seconded. All in favor. There were no questions regarding Craig's FY04 goals and Parker recommended a motion be made to approve them. Dellsperger moved approval, Prybil seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Annual Report: Board reviewed accomplished goals for FY03 and began a list of goals for FY04. Craig will have them ready in drafl version by next month's meeting. FY03 Accomplishments Build a building Kept public informed. Board of Trustees Agenda item 3A Page 3 Ramp situation was changed. Permanent parkers moved out. Freed up parking spaces. Initiated committee for commercial space Formed broader art committee to work with art entries and choose a signature piece for new building. Responded to county issues. Spent time at Council meetings. Goals for 04 next year assist SC with Strategic planning 100% participation in Annual fund Resume planning for commercial space move to new building Continue working with County issues review policies intemet filtering make an effort to get to City Council and be an ICPL presence. Public Relations and Community Relations Policies Staff did not reconmaend any changes to the Community Relations policy and only modest changes to Public Relations policy, which reflects the reality of us not having a PR Department. Our public relations efforts are integrated into every department. Comments: Newsletter Bids are out currently for the newsletter which will have a less frequent publication in order to save money. Staff time as well as the expense of sending newsletter had to be considered. We print flyers, newsletters, etc. A very modest amount is spent for advertising. Singerman felt it would be wise to come up with public relations plan to advertise what we do. Singerman moved approval and Prybil seconded. All present responded by saying Aye. Circulation Policy: This policy review was prompted by the pledge to increase revenue given the City's budget situation. Staff studied options and recommends raising fines for adult book from twenty to twenty-five cents and fines for children's books from five to ten cents. There was some discussion concerning remote book drops. Currently books dropped off after the last pick up are not charged for the extra day. This is because the current policy is that items returned by the time the building closes are "on time". Staff recommend that when we have better access to a library book drop signs will be posted at the remote drops, with pick-up times and fines will be enforced. This will insure that the best choice to return materials is always the building itself. Magalh~es moved approval of the policy. VanDusseldorp seconded it. Has any consideration been given to increasing the $1.00/day for movies and children's DVD/video? This fine was not changed. It is in keeping with commercial rental store's fines. There is a bigger mark-up when turning things over to collection agency. Parker called the question. All present responded by saying Aye.. Board of Trustees Agenda item 3A Page Appointments to Art Committee: Singerman moved to approve the recommendation by staff to re-appointment two members to this committee. Suter seconded. Dellsperger disagreed stating that in a discussion of this issue last year, the Board agreed the process should be advertised to the public in order to give others an opportunity to participate. She expressed disappointment that this did not happen. Prybil agreed. Craig explained that it is our intent to follow those directions next year. These people wanted to stay on since they had worked long and hard on the special project of selecting a signature piece of art for the new library, and wanted to stay until completion. Craig accepted the criticism. If Board denies the request, staff will prepare a process to open it to the public. Staff would review the applications and make a recommendation to Board. This committee begins their work in September so appointments would have to be made in August. It is not only the art piece for the building; they choose art to go and advise on other matters such as gifts of art. Singerman withdrew her motion. It is likely that if these two individuals request appointment as part of the recruitment process, which the staff will recommend that the Board approve their re- appointment. Opening up the process would be a way to develop a pool of candidates who would want to serve on the committee in the future. As a compromise, Suter moved to appoint the two individuals recommended, for a one-year term. Prybil seconded it. VanDusseldorp said he would vote against it in favor of opening it to the public, which he felt is another way to raise awareness. A vote was called for. The motion was two in favor and five opposed. The motion failed. VanDusseldorp then moved that we solicit volunteers for two vacancies on the library's art advisory committee in a public process. Singerman seconded it. Magalh~tes and Suter were opposed. Motion passed five to two. STAFF REPORTS Departmental Reports: Children's, Systems, Technical Services Magalhaes was astounded at the number of items we've tagged so far in the Checkpoint conversion project.. Question: What were the preliminary thoughts about responsibility for the Library newsletter? Craig is planning to have it done through the Adult Services Department. The new librarian will be responsible for editing. Volunteer services will also move to Adult Services. Development Office Report: No questions Patriot Act information. Bills are in the House and Senate to make libraries and bookstores exempt from provisions of the Patriot Act. The library community put a lot of pressure on Congress. There is still considerable community interest in asking City Council to do something. Craig feels that there is more concern with technology issues than books being checked out. Board of Trustees Agenda item 3A Page 5 We do not receive e-rate funding and are in the last year of the National Libraries of Medicine grant and will get no federal funds so the Supreme Court CIPA ruling does not affect us. This can be re- visited. Leif Enger will be coming to Iowa City in October. He is the author of the "All Iowa Reads" book called "Peace like a River" which will be discussed at one of the Community Book Talk will discuss "Peace like a River" Craig enclosed an article about the City's budget. President's Report: The traditional Board dinner in July for incoming and outgoing members was talked about. Schnack has offered to have a potluck at her house. All Board members should bring something and chip in towards some items to grill. The dinner will be held after next month's Board meeting. Craig reminded Board that all e-mail communications to a quorum of Board members are public record and should be copied to Lubaroff so they get put in the public record. Dellsperger and Parker were recognized for their years on the Board. Magalhaes made presentations to both of them in appreciation of their service. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS Dellsperger's resignation letter was included in the packet. A letter from new Board member, Tom Dean, was included. We will meet him in July. Magalh~tes reported on his attendance at the American Library Association meeting in Toronto. He attended many sessions, some of which were of great interest. He felt it was a valuable experience for him as incoming Board President. COMMITTEE REPORTS Art Committee: Met early in June. Discussed materials of which this piece will be made. The committee is one of consensus. They've seen computer generated images of the design and are moving forward. The next time they will meet with artists is when they come to install the piece. Generally speaking a Board member is not part of this Art Committee. Dellsperger served because of the special art piece. She suggested that it might be something to consider. Foundation Board: Magalhaes is pleased that despite recent budget cuts the Development Office had to implement, they have a strong conmfitment to continue raising money to support the library. They recently committed to $60,000 for collections in FY04. VanDusseldorp reported on his participation in a recent telethon fund-raiser. Agenda Item 3A DISBURSEMENTS Disbursements for June 2003 were approved after a motion by Prybil and VanDusseldorp. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR JULY MEETING ADJOURNMENT: A motion to adjourn was made at 7:00 pm by Magalhles and seconded by Prybil Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2003 - 5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Saul Mekies, Jim Pusack, Kimberly Thrower, Terry Smith, Brett Castillo STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Andy Matthews, Dale Helling OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Brown, Rene Paine, Susan Rogusky, Beth Fisher RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Brown reported that Mediacom has upgraded 15 of 45 nodes. All the fiber work has been completed. It is anticipated that the system upgrade will be completed by June 30. 8 of 25 nodes have been reviewed in relation to the drop audit. There has been about an 85% compliance rate. Paine reported that the survey done by the University public relations class on PATV viewership is complete and available for review at the PATV office. Fisher reported that the library meeting room acoustics in the temporary section of the library are very poor and as a result only the Summer Reading Program events will be shot this summer. Shaffer reported that the City's consultants, Rice, Williams, is reviewing Mediacom's recent basic tier rate filing. The City has forwarded a copy of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for refranchising consultants to Coralville officials for their input and is waiting on their response. Regarding the review of the cable TV budget Shaffer said that the Cable TV Division pays about $32,000 per year back to the City's general fund as compensation for services provided the Cable TV Division such as payroll, legal services, and Dale Helling's time. The Cable TV Division will be contributing $100,000 in FY 04 due to the City's budget shortfalls. Pusack said that it is the Commission's responsibility to understand how the funds are being spent and the value and benefit to the subscribers for those expenditures. The Commission needs to monitor how that changes from year to year. Pusack said the Commission needs to discuss if the City Council understands what else could have been done with those funds, what a pattern of using the franchise fees to balance the City budget over a number of years would mean. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Smith moved and Mekies seconded a motion to approve the April, 2003 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Bmtt Castillo introduced himself and said he is looking forward to serving on the Commission. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer referred to the complaint register in the meeting packet. Shaffer reported receiving a total of 15 complaints during the past month. Among the complaints were 2 about being unable to reach the cable company by phone, 1 about not receiving the channel 19 TV guide, 1 about a cable not being buried for three weeks, 1 about not being able to get emergency information on channel 14, 1 about not being able to get on the intemet for three days, 1 about having to wait all weekend to get repair service, 1 about channels that the subscriber thought he was paying for being removed without notification, 2 about a cable company vehicle parking on private property, 1 about unsatisfactory customer service, 1 about frequent outages, 1 about a billing problem, 1 that the subscriber is paying more for less product, and 1 about the need for competition. All the complaints that could be resolved, have been. Thrower asked what area has had the most complaints since 2003. Shaffer said that rates are the most common complaint. The need for competition also generates many complaints. MEDIACOM REPORT Brown reported that 15 of 45 nodes have been upgraded. All the fiber work has been completed. It is anticipated that the upgrade will be completed by June 30. Work is now being done by in-house crews and the duration of outages has been shorter as a result. Castillo said that the local office apparently didn't know where work is being done and did not know that there was a work-related outage in a particular area. Brown said that there is an outage board that keeps track of where work is being done that is available to all customer service representatives at all the relevant call centers. Brown said that 8 of 25 nodes have been reviewed in relation to the drop audit. Them has been about an 85% compliance rate. Noncompliant drops are brought into compliance. Pusack noted that this is a sample and asked what the implications are for the entire system. Brown said that the implications will become more clear after the entire sample has been completed. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT No representative was present. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Susan Rogusky said she had nothing new to report. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT No representative was present. LEGAL REPORT Matthews said he had nothing new to report. PATV REPORT Paine reported that PATV recently hosted a video production class from the University of Iowa. The survey done by the University public relations class on PATV viewership is complete and available for review at the PATV office._The survey done by the University public relations class on PATV viewership is complete and available for review at the PATV office. Three summer intems are working with PATV. A fundraiser will be held in association with the Southside Fest in early September. PATV participated in the alternative high school careers day. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported that the meeting room acoustics in the temporary section of the library are very poor and as a result only the Summer Reading Program events will be shot this summer. The library will have a booth at the Johnson County Fair. Conversion of existing tapes to the DVD format is continuing. KIRKWOOD REPORT No representative was present. MEDIA UNIT Hardy reported that InfoVision has several new categories. One is called "Things to Do in Iowa City" and another provides information about the nonprofit organization Table to Table. The Community Television Service (CTS) is again cablecasting the Friday Night Concert Series. The CTS is also working with the Mud River Music Cooperative on a documentary about the Mill Restaurant and a series of programs for the Community Mental Health Center. The Cable TV Division recently served as a judging site for the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Administrators video contest and viewed tapes of public meetings from around the country. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer reported that the City's consultants, Rice, Williams, is reviewing Mediacom's recent basic tier rate filing. The City has forwarded a copy of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for refranchising consultants to Coralville officials for their input and is waiting on their response. CABLE TV RELATED FINANCIAL REVIEW Pusack asked for an overview of the cable TV budget, including the sources of funds, because the Commission has several new members. Shaffer said all the money in the City Cable TV Division budget is derived from franchise fees and a small amount from chargebacks for services provided to other City departments. There are three accounts corresponding to the source of those funds and how those funds are spent. In addition to the City Cable TV Division fund, 4811.0, there is the pass- through account (4814.0), which is derived from the $0.50 per subscriber per month charge on subscriber's bills. The third fund is the BTC equipment replacement reserve which is an ongoing fund to which the City Fund (4811.0) contributes annually. In the FY 03 budget about $11,000 went to the equipment replacement fund. In addition, the City fund pays about $32,000 per year back to the City's general fund as compensation for services provided the Cable TV Division such as payroll, legal services, and Dale Helling's time. The Cable TV Division will be contributing $100,000 in FY 04 due to the City's budget shortfalls. Pusack said that it is the Commission's responsibility to understand how the funds are being spent and the value and benefit to the subscriber for those expenditures. The Commission needs to monitor how that changes from year to year. In this case, the City does not fund the cable TV activities, it is the cable TV funds that are funding the City. Helling said that the cable TV funds transferred to the general fund under the administrative services category initially had been calculated at two hours per week for Helling and two hours per week for legal services. Later the enterprise funds (such as cable TV) were charged more to better reflect the real level of support provided by the City. The FY 04 $I00,000 cable TV subsidy to the general fund no longer would fall in that category and it is the first time that the City Council made a decision to use cable TV revenue to support the general fund. Shaffer said the budget provided in the meeting packet does not reflect this new $100,000 subsidy to the general fund and the Cable TV Division needs to figure out where to make cuts to balance the budget. Pusack said the Commission needs to discuss if the City Council understands where the money is coming from and if the Commission has the responsibility to inform them what could have been done with those funds. Smith said that there are two main sources of revenues, the franchise fee which generates a little over a half million dollars and the $0.50 pass-through fee that generates about $110,00 a year. The $100,000 transfer to the general fund will have to come out of the $500,000 generated by the franchise fee. A third source of income is the $180,000 for PATV that comes from the cable company and flows through City accounting. Pusack said the Commission needs to consider how other City departments have been impacted by the budget cuts. Is the Cable TV Division seen as a cash cow for the City? At what point would the Commission want to inform the City Council of the impact the transfer is having on subscribers. To best understand these issues the Commission needs to know how the Cable TV Division's operations will change. Pusack said that he is concerned about a pattern of using the franchise fee to balance the City budget over a number of years without mentioning the practice to the City Council. Helling said that it is not anticipated that any funds will be restored by the state. It is unknown when, or if, the financial situation improves to the point that the City could go back to the policy of not using any of the franchise fee to support the general fund, which is now being changed. As of right now the transfer to general fund will continue into the future. Paine noted that more in pass-through funds are collected each year than is spent and asked if the Commission will reconsider how those funds are spent at some point. Shaffer said the pass-through fund was used by PATV and the City Cable TV Office for facilities and that in some years considerable more was spent than collected and in other years more collected than spent. Pusack said the Commission should be provided data on the pass-through fund as well. CTG FUNDING PROPOSAL Paine referred to the proposal in the meeting packet and said that it represents the consensus of the CTG. There were no other proposals other than for cameras for Library Meeting Room A. Fisher said that the requested $17,500 does not cover all the expenses of the upgraded audio-visual equipment to be installed. Mekies said that the funding for the entire package of equipment is not yet confirmed and suggested that the request be submitted after the other funds are committed. Fisher said that the library building budget stipulates that if there are cost over-runs that audio-visual equipment will be the first to be cut. Mekies noted that the pass-through funds were promised to the library by the CTG and that the $17,500 was included in the overall meeting room budget, but the Commission is only now being asked to approve the funds. Mekies said the process for allocating the funds is out of order and questioned why the Commission is being asked to approve the funds at this point. Smith moved and Mekies seconded a motion to approve the CTG funding proposal. Hardy and Smith provided a short history of the process used by the CTG and the Commission to allocate the funds. The motion passed unanimously. FCC MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES Shaffer said that the FCC on a partisan split voted 3-2 to change the media cross ownership roles to permit much more consolidation. During the public hearings on the issue there was more public input urging the FCC not to make the changes than on nearly any other issue in the FCC's history. Matthews said that legislation is being considered to counteract the FCC's decision. Shaffer said that many of the public comments cited the "death of localism" as an outcome of the decision and noted that Iowa City is fortunate to have the access channels to provide a degree of localism. Brown said that Mediacom is affected by the ruling in that larger media conglomerates will have greater market power to force cable operators to carry their less popular channels if they wish to have access to their more popular channels. This is being done now by ABC and ESPN. ADJOURNMENT Smith moved and Castillo seconded a motion to adjourn. Adjournment was a 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Draw Shaffer Cable TV Administrator MINUTES Approved ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2003 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chair STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Meardon RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB03-00022, a final plat of Highland Woods, a 6.92-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located west of Cumberland Lane subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0~ SUB03-00023 and SUB03-00025, a preliminery end final plat for Pine Ridge Addition, a resubdivision of Lots t7, t8, 19 and 20 of Meadow Ridge Part Two, a 2.21- ecre, 2-lot subdivision located at the southeast corner of Meedow Ridge Lane and North Dubuque Street, subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. 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 the City would appreciate the help of its citizens. A listing of the current vacancies on the various boards and commissions was posted in the outer lobby. ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: Motion: Hansen made a motion that the agenda be considered in the order of items 2, 3, 1 to accommodate members of the public who were in attendance. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB03-0002~, discussion of an application submitted by John Moreland for a final plat of Highland Woods, a 6.92-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located on Cumberland Lane. Miklo said the Commission had recently reviewed the rezoning of this property from Interim Development to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family and also the property's preliminary plat. Those applications were currently before the City Council. Staff anticipated the rezoning and preliminary plat would be approved at the Council's meeting on Tuesday June 24, 2003. The applicant was currently seeking final plat approval for the 10-lots, the extension of Cumberland Lane and Outlot A, which would be open space and maintained by the homeowner's association. Miklo said as submitted, the plat was in compliance with the subdivision regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and the preliminary plat which was about to be approved by Council. Staff recommended approval of SUB03-00022, a final plat of Highland Woods, a 6.92-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located west of Cumberland Lane subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. Bovbjerg asked if the sewer drainage easement between Lots 7 and 6 was going to be dedicated to a trail. Miklo said that area would be a trail and stormwater easement area. There would also be a trail along the lot line of Lot 245 in Windsor Ridge. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 2 Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve SUB03-00022, a final plat of Highland Woods, a 6.92-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located west of Cumberland Lane subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB03-00023/SUB03-00025, discussion of an application submitted by CJ's Construction for a preliminary and final plat of Pine Ridge Addition (a resubdivision of Meadow Ridge, Part Two) a 2-lot, 2.21-acre residential subdivision located on North Dubuque Street. Miklo said the Commission had reviewed this development several weeks ago and the Council had recently approved the overlay rezoning to allow 13 townhouse style units on the property. At the time the Commission had initially reviewed this item, the applicant had not formally made a preliminary plat application, so Staff was including it the application for the final plat to make the paperwork clear. The property currently contained four lots, Lots 17, 18, 19 and Lot 20 which contained the existing house. In the subdivision, Lots 17, 18 and 19 would be combined into one large lot where the 13 townhouse style units would be built. Lot 1 would be a separate lot containing the individual single family home. The conservation easement would remain in place as illustrated on the plat. Miklo said the plat as submitted was in conformance with the zoning and subdivision regulations. Staff recommended approval of SUB03- 00023/SUB03-00025, subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration._ Bovbjerg asked for a clarification regarding where would the stormwater go. Miklo indicated a Iow area on site map where water would drain to. The property was also close to the Iowa River and water could drain under Dubuque Street and into the river. Bovbjerg asked for a clarification as to how development and construction on the site would be monitored/enforced during the construction phase. Miklo said that was addressed with the planned development which showed the limits of the construction area. As construction occurred, the City Housing and Inspection Department would make inspections of the site to monitor the property and ensure that the conservation easement was adhered to. Hansen asked for a clarification regarding the sanitary sewer and water section. Miklo said the wording of the Staff report would be corrected. No sewer tap-on fee was required, a water main extension fee was required. Freerks said in the north west corner of the property it looked like two trees were scheduled to be removed, but one tree appeared to be outside the lot line. There had been concerns expressed by neighbors about buffers. She asked Staff to check on the trees. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to approve SUB03-00023 and SUB03-00025, a preliminary and final plat for Pine Ridge Addition, a resubdivision of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Meadow Ridge Part Two, a 2.21- acre, 2-lot subdivision located at the southeast corner of Meadow Ridge Lane and North Dubuque Street, subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ03-00017/SUB03-0001~, discussion of an application submitted by K.G. Bird, L.L.C. for a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family and a preliminary plat of Oakmont Estate, an 8.7-acre, 17-1ot residential subdivision located on the west side of Foster Road. Miklo said properties in the general peninsula area had been zoned ID-RS due to the lack of adequate infrastructure including adequate streets, sanitary sewer and water service. With the recent completion of Foster Road, new water lines, recently completed City sewer upgrades to serve the water plant and a lift station that was installed by the Peninsula Neighborhood Development, this area currently contained adequate infrastructure to serve development. The applicant was seeking to rezone the property to RS-5 to allow a 17-1ot subdivision to occur on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan indicated that this property as well as much of the larger peninsula area should be developed as conservation or cluster subdivisions due to the environmentally sensitive areas of the property. Miklo said this particular design was not strictly a conservation design, but Staff felt that with close scrutiny of where the road would be located and of the building sites, many of the objectives of a conservation subdivision could be achieved, if this property were to be a conservation or cluster subdivision, it would have to be a planned development, meaning narrower streets and smaller lots, which was not being proposed in this particular case. Miklo said the overall density of the area west of the Idyllwild development should be no more than 5- units per acre because the only access to this part of the City was Foster Road with some secondary access provided by Taft Speedway which had the potential for being under water in times of flooding. The policy of the Comprehensive Plan was to allow some areas to develop more intensely as long as the gross density did not exceed 5-units per acre. Miklo said in the peninsula neighborhood, much of it was set aside as open space so the gross density was 5-units per acre but portions of the development would actually be 10-units per acre. A new street, White Oak Place, was proposed to run east/west off Foster Road. There would be an extension of Swisher Lane which would connect to allow both pedestrian and vehicular traffic from the new development Oakmont Estates, to travel to public parks and neighborhood open spaces in the peninsula without having to travel back onto Foster Road. Staff had requested an additional sidewalk or trail to connect to an existing alley in the peninsula. The applicant had agreed to place a sidewalk on a revised plat. Outlot A, to be dedicated to the City as an addition to the peninsula parkland, contained protected slopes, steep and critical slopes and the river corridor frontage. It was regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Miklo said having Outlot A dedicated to the City assured for the most part that the sensitive areas would be protected. There would be some grading in the area of the bulb of the cul-de-sac in order to allow the cul-de-sac to be built. The property also contained a woodland, which according to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was a wooded area of over 2-acres in size which contained forest trees. The woodlands area on this property represented approximately 5.8-acres of the property. The property also contained a grove of large oak and hickory trees. There had been an attempt to design the lots around the trees to protect many of them from development activity that would occur when the road was built as well as when individual houses were built. The City Forrester had reviewed a tree protection plan for this development. Miklo said at this point, it was not clear to Staff that the applicant had achieved compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance which required 50% of the woodlands be preserved or protected. Although the plan showed 50% of the woodlands being set aside it did not show the required 50-foot buffer from the edge of the trunks of trees in those woodlands. The 50-foot buffer was required because grading up to the edge of the trees and of their root systems would cause them to die back. It would be necessary to revise the plan to show in addition to saving 50% of the woodlands on the site that there was a 50-foot buffer around those woodlands. Staff would work with the applicant to try to achieve that. Miklo said in the event that 50% of the woodlands could not be preserved, the Ordinance would allow the City to approve a reduction of the 50% provided that replacement trees were planted at a ratio of one tree for every 200- square feet of woodland area that was disturbed. Those trees could be planted in a public right-of-way or public park however the Ordinance encouraged those trees to be on the site itself. Miklo said Staff were looking at other options such as possibly saving more trees on Lot 1 or shifting the portion of the street to the south to move the building sites away from the woodlands. There was a requirement for neighborhood open space for this subdivision. 1.5-acres of open space had been dedicated in Outlot A, but was too rugged to meet the requirements of the Ordinance, so the subdivision would require the payment of fees equal to approximately 8,942 square feet of open space. Staff would work with City Parks and Recreation staff to determine what portion of the dedicated open space could be counted toward the requirement. Miklo said in terms of stormwater management, there would be no retention required, water would be directed toward the Iowa River. It was possible that there would need to be some improvements or rock dams installed over the path that the water would take to assure that no erosion would occur in that area. The City Engineer was working with the applicant's engineer to resolve that issue. Miklo said Staff found the plat as designed and the rezoning to be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan provided that a solution could be reached for the woodland protection on the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 19, 2003 Page 4 property. Staff recommended that REZ03-00017/SUB03-00019 be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies. Hansen asked if Lots 1 and 17 accessed the property from White Oak Lane and not Foster Road. Miklo said that was correct, a note had been added to the plat prohibiting access onto Foster Rd. Bovbjerg said she had some non-engineered re-drawings that she would give to Miklo to review. Bovbjerg said she had some real concerns about Lot 1 being built on at all. She had personally toured the area which seemed a very difficult place to build, and it would be a very lovely entrance to the whole development. She asked if it would be possible to shift the road to the south and change the cul-de-sac to pull Lots 9 and 10 away from the slopes at the end. She was pleased that it would connect Swisher Lane and that there would be a connection with the alley in the Peninsula Neighborhood. Public discussion was opened. Charles Meardon, 122 S. Linn Street, representing K.G. Bird L.L.C., said he was there to answer any questions the Commission might have. They were working to resolve the tree issue. Bovbjerg requested the applicant to take into account the points she had made earlier to Staff regarding Lot 1 and its beauty as an undisturbed piece of property. Meardon said when they had met with Staff earlier in the day, one of the possibilities they had explored was dropping Lot 1 as part of the subdivision. He was not sure that would happen, but it was a main area of focus and Bovbjerg's point was a good point. Freerks said she agreed with Bovbjerg as well. It looked like a difficult lot to develop and it would be nice to have it as an entrance to the neighborhood, if possible. Meardon said the tree issue was a very hard one to resolve. He was appreciative that Bovbjerg had taken the time to visit the site, make drawings and would welcome any suggestions as they needed some creative ideas. Meardon said they felt the trees were one of the more attractive features of the subdivision and everyone present had an interest in protecting as many trees as possible. Bovbjerg said a former applicant used to say, "Trees sell lots." Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer REZ03-00017/SUB03-00019, a rezoning from ID-RS to RS-5 and a preliminary plat of Oakmont Estates, an 8.5-acre 17-1ot residential subdivision located on the west side of Foster Road. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Koppes said she would be absent July 3, 2003. CONSIDERATION OF 6/5/03 MEETING MINUTES: Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as printed and corrected. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 pm. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill da~a on cityn~pcd/minutes/p&z06-19-03.doc