Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-09 Bd Comm minutesMinutes: Final Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board June 5, 2003 Attended by: Maryann Dennis, Tammara Meester, Michelle Brandstatter, Kathy Magarrell Staffpresent: Misha Goodman, Matt Johnson Absent: Tom Gill Old Business 1.) Minutes of March 26, 2003 - No minutes available. 2.) Vet Proposal - J. Hankner, DVM, reviewed and edited the RFP document. Currently, shelter staff controls all care for all animals. The amount spent depends on the available funds from FACF, donations, etc. If veterinary care is contracted through a competitive bidding process, then the City is committed to budgeting the contract amount. The Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the ramifications of accepting a bid amount and entering into a contract. To determine if the City wants to proceed and budget the contract amount from the general fund, Board members asked M. Goodman to get a three-year average of medical costs to M. Johnson to present to Steve Atkins, City Manager. The RFP document is ready to be sent if the process continues. 3.) Mail-In Licenses Forms were disseminated with notes from licensing meeting of April 4, 2001. There has been no movement on this issue with no representation from Coralville, and no information regarding Coralville's position on the mail-in licenses. The Shelter issues approximately 7,000 licenses/year. M. Goodman estimates it should be more like 15,000/year. Shelter staff is also still considering a process of licensing by local veterinarians. 4.) Dog Park Update - The proposal is complete and is in the hands of the City of Iowa City. Even with current budgetary concerns, if the City conveys the land, JC Dog Pac is eligible to apply for grants. 5.) Paws in the Park - To be held on September 21, 2003 from noon to 4:00 PM. The categories of sponsors are: a. Major Sponsor - $500 - get their logo on all marketing items and a rugged course sign OR a vendor table. Need 15 major sponsors. b. Contest Sponsors - $300 - will sponsor one of several contests, get a rugged course sign, free advertising in pamphlet and bookmarks. Must have contest judge and provide a prize. c. Vendors - $100 - get two tables, two chairs and limited amount of electrical service to display and sell wares. d. Course Sponsors - $100 - get a rugged course sign and the option to have a picture on the sign. Persons are encouraged to contact M. Goodman is they know of possible sponsors. T. Meester presented a check as a Major Sponsor. 6.) Adoptathon - To be held on Saturday, June 21, 2003 from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM at the Shelter. The theme is a Beach Party and many activities are planned. The City will deliver and remove sand for the event. There will be a huge rummage sale and all items (no clothing) can be dropped at Shelter anytime. Other activities will include limbo, sand castle making. Local businesses have donated money to prepare adoption packets. The goal is to adopt 10 dogs and 15 cats. People will be able to adopt animals that day. New Business 1.) Election of Board Members - Dennis nominated Magarrall, Meester seconded. Magarrall voted in unanimously. Article II. Section 5 of the Bylaws allows for the recommendation of the removal of a Board Member due to a lack of attendance. T. Gill has exceeded the number of unexplained absences as allowed in Bylaws. Moved by Meester, seconded by Brandstatter that the Board ask the City of Coralville to remove Tom Gill from the Board. Motion carried. Meester will draft letter to the City. M. Goodman expressed concern about the lack of a quorum at Board meetings and asked members to consider whether an increase in the number of Board members would help to ensure a quorum. 2.) Budget/Fees Fees may need to be increased due to the budgetary constraints at the City. Possible strategies to increase revenue are: increasing fees, generalizing adoption fees, rent traps, increase license fees, charge for medical services for reclaimed animals. 3.)FACF - Purchased a beautiful new scale for the Shelter 4.) CNWH - Denise Cassidy has taken over and has arranged for more foster homes. Alex Braverman won Runner-Up for the Be Kind to Animals Kids Award from the American Humane Association. Dennis moved to adjourn, Brandstatter seconded. Motion carried, meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM. FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM August 26, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Kennedy, Lyra Dickerson, Jim Anderlik STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Mejia, Karen Jennings, Chief Andy Rocca, Lieutenant Bob Henry, Eric Nurnberg, Erik Meyer OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: Commissioners instructed staff to conduct the promotional process for the Fire Department. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: Chairperson Kennedy called the meeting to order at 8:14AM. The first order of business was the promotional process for the Fire Department. Mejia explained that there was a unique issue with regard to the promotional process this year. In the past employees have been required to meet the requirements for promotional positions by a set date at the beginning of the testing process. The City looked for a natural break in service dates when scheduling past tests to include as many candidates as reasonably possible. This year testing needs to begin in November so that the process can be completed prior to new educational requirements taking effect on January 1,2004. There is one firefighter who will not meet the service requirements for eligibility to take the Lieutenant test until December 3, 2003. If not for the need to complete the testing process prior to the new educational requirements taking effect in January, the test would have been scheduled to begin after the firefighter met the service requirements since there is a significant gap in seniority dates between this individual and the next less senior firefighter. Mejia asked the Commission to consider a one-time exception for this firefighter and that he be allowed to participate in the Fire Lieutenant promotional process. He will meet the service requirement before the promotional testing process is complete. Dickerson expressed concern that this may set a precedent for future requests for exceptions. Mejia explained that it was understood by both the City and the Firefighters that this request was for a one-time exception that would not be considered but for the new educational requirements to take effect in January. Kennedy moved that the requirement for two years of service prior to the beginning of testing be waived for the firefighter in question. Anderlik seconded and all were in favor. Motion carried. Mejia then explained that the promotional process described in the memo to the Commission dated August 20, 2003 was the same process that has been used in the past and that study materials would be provided for use by those taking the Lieutenant test. Dickerson moved that the Commission approve the promotional process as presented. Kennedy seconded and all were in favor. Motion carried. Old Business: Anderlik requested an update on Firefighter Lacy. Chief Rocca indicated that Firefighter Lacy has returned to work on his assigned shift and has completed his required coursework. New Business: None. Kennedy made a motion to adjourn. Anderlik seconded and all were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:25AM. Approved MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003 - 7:00PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, James Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Drew Davis, Connie Webb, Shelley Brighi CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 520 GRANT STREET McCaffedy asked Commission members to review the information packet that had been distributed earlier. She explained the design included in the packet is different from what was previously approved by the Commission. The previous design McCafferty had drawn up as a recommendation had incorporated using casement windows with panels at the bottom similar to the storm windows that area currently on the porch as well as corner boards and trim work. The design variation currently submitted uses wider double-hung windows creating fewer divisions between windows, but does incorporate panels and trim elements to make it look similar to its existing design. McCafferty asked the homeowners, Webb and Brighi, and their contractor, Drew Davis, to please add any comments they may have. Davis said replicating the porch is difficult because the windows there currently are storms and not a true window. He distributed a handout with pictures of various homes of similar style that have a sun porch with double-hung windows. Gunn asked Davis if the double-hung windows have already been purchased and if they are vinyl windows. Davis said the windows had been purchased and they are white, vinyl windows. Gunn asked if the windows were purchased before an application of appropriateness was submitted. Davis said the windows were ordered prior to the issue of a building permit because he had done work in the same general area of this home but was unaware of the changes in the historical district. Maharry asked if the building permit was not flagged when it was applied for. McCafferty said when the building permit was applied for, it was then that she received an application from Housing Inspection Services (HIS), and HIS also informed Davis of the need for a certificate for appropriateness. The building permit application was also accepted as an application for a certificate of appropriateness, however this is no longer the procedure used because of the potential of miscommunication. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 2 Ponto asked McCafferty if there is a photo of the house. McCafferty provided photos of the house to Commission members. Maharry said a couple of points of discussion are if this design detracts from the historic character of the neighborhood and house, and also the window and window opening dimensions. Carlson said the dimensions and appearance of the windows are character defining for this house and because they are the same as in the first application that was rejected, he would not approve. Davis said there is no way to replicate a storm panel and that is not what the homeowner wants anyway, and he feels they should have say in the matter. McCafferty said there seems to be some agreement with the design in terms of the panels, corner boards, trim etc. and the question is with the proportion of the windows. Perhaps the criteria to look at are if the windows detract substantially from the character of the house and neighborhood. McCallum said he appreciates the changes and improvements made from the first submission and feels this is an awkward situation. He said he has a difficult time telling a homeowner to throw away windows that have already been purchased and to further conform to the Commission's desires. This design is OK and something he would be comfortable with approving. Maharry asked if this is a contributing structure. McCafferty said it is a contributing structure. Smothers said she did a deed search and a Sanborn map of 1933 shows the house with a sun porch. The homeowners said the original owners told them the home was built in 1949. McCafferty clarified there is often a discrepancy in information concerning the age of a home and that Smothers is trying to determine if the porch is original to the house. McCallum asked McCafferty if one would see either casement or double-hung windows on a home of this style. McCafferty said that both exist, and both are typical of the time period. Gunn asked what was the original date of the application. McCafferty said it was received from the building department on April 18, 2003. Gunn said if the owners knew then what they know now, they probably would have approached this very differently. The initial application was denied and the owners were not present at the meeting because there was confusion over who knew of the meeting and who was representing the owners. The homeowners then went to the City Council with an appeal and an alternate design but there was some misunderstanding because the Council only determines if the Commission acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner. The Council determined they their decision was not capricious or arbitrary and now the homeowners are before the Commission again. He also said that nothing has been done to the house, windows have been purchased, and the design is one that might have existed. Gunn said he wished there was a graceful way to remedy this issue. Smothers said she is not insisting on complete restoration but believes that what is there is wodh working with. She agreed with Carlson, there is altering of the window openings and therefore would deny. McCafferty said they have processed over 150 applications for certificates of appropriateness. The process has been somewhat casual, but they have been expanding and experiencing some growing pains, and unfortunately this is a case where the informal process did not work. She has been implementing new procedures to ensure HIS sends applicants to her and that they know whom the primary contact is. Because this has been a learning experience for the Commission as it grows, perhaps they may want to take this under consideration. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 3 Sueppel said he would not approve because the homeowners have not been bending or compromising much with their design. Ponto said the window size is very important. By having 3 wider windows verses 5 narrow windows the look of the porch is changed from its original appearance. Smothers asked if the windows that have been purchased could be returned. Davis said the windows were special ordered and could not be returned. He also said the homeowners did not want casement windows because they are longer and would limit privacy. The double-hung windows also replicate what is on the rest of the house. Smothers said the windows on the sun porch are different, it was designed to look tike a sun porch and not like the rest of the house, The sun porch was meant to be different, look different, and be used for a different purpose. Weitzel said the modern casements would match the architectural style of the sun porch and preserve the integrity of the house. McCafferty referenced previous situations that were unique1 but where the Commission had worked with the homeowners, compromised and came up with a solution. Gunn and McCafferty said in these situations there was some action on the part of the City that was not exactly as it should have been. However, this application is not like that because the windows were purchased prior to the application for a building permit. Gunn said if this were an application for an addition, the design would be acceptable. It is a reasonable design but the design does not in any way preserve or restore the existing porch. He noted the Council is looking at this situation. Gunn then said he is inclined to vote to approve the application not because it is the proper thing to do or proper application of the guidelines, but because there has been some financial commitment on the part of the homeowners and some misunderstanding and miscommunication along the way. The situation is like the Vogel house, it is not the purest thing for the Commission to do but considering financial strain, and it makes the most sense. He said he feels somewhat wishy-washy on the issue but would vote to approve. McCallum said he has mixed feelings on the issue also but has some of the same thoughts as Gunn. He also said that as someone who purchases older properties, the porch as it is now would be of more value to him if he were purchasing the home for resale. However, the Commission needs to make compromises at times and this is a situation where the homeowners have made a sincere attempt to move in the direction of the Commission and is uncomfortable denying the application. The solution is not ideal, but not every situation is ideal either, and he would support the applicant. Carlson said there had been some compromise solutions that McCafferty put forward at the last meeting and they are the outer limit of what he feels is within the guidelines. He would vote against the application. Sueppel said he had issue with many of the materials to be used on the sun porch. The moldings and windows should be made of wood and not of poly-type materiais that can melt. He said he doesn't mind the looks of the poly materials if they are done the right way but quality is an issue and he would like to see the product before approving. Smothers said she wished they could begin over and be able to convince the homeowners of the importance of what they have now. She also said there are ways to reduce sound and increase insulation by repairing the existing windows, but understands the homeowners are looking toward the future. Their desire is to accommodate their needs as they grow older, but advised to also remember that nothing is maintenance free. Because the design alters the proportions of the windows, she would vote to deny the application. Ponto said the design looks very nice if it were an addition but because of the way the windows are situated it looks like an addition and not what the original sun porch looks like. He is all for making compromises but this design is too far away from the Secretary of Interiors standards and it is changing the historic characteristics of the home. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 4 Maharry said they have heard form the majority of the Commission and asked for a motion. MOTION: Carlson moved to deny the certificate of appropriateness of 520 Grant Street because the windows on the sun porch are character defining features of the house and the proposed remodel would significantly alter the proportions of the windows and appearance of the sun porch. The proposed windows are specified as vinyl, which is not allowed by the guidelines, and the Commission had previously approved an alternative design plan for the sun porch. Sueppel seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Weitzel noted by denying the certificate of appropriateness they aro preserving the curb appeal and resale value by keeping the home's historical integrity which is the broader goal of the Commission. Maharry said he had originally questioned the appearance of the altered sun porch to the neighborhood. He said he feels the changes would not greatly alter the appearance to the neighborhood. The other issue is if the Commission is being capricious and arbitrary especially when they disallow something. The opinions stated do not appear to be capricious and arbitrary, they follow the guidelines of the Commission and are appropriate. Maharry also said he would vote against the motion because the design submitted would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: Carlson, Sueppel, Smothers, Ponto, Weitzel vote to approve the motion. Maharry, McCallum, Gunn vote to deny the motion. The vote is 5-3, motion is approved. Maharry noted the motion was approved to deny the certificate of appropriateness. The Commission informally discussed the benefits of having a motion made in the positive verses negative. McCafferty said she would discuss the issue with the legal department to clarify. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS McCafferty referred to the handbook revisions that were included in the Commission's packet. She said she is preparing a memo to Council addressing some of their concerns, informing them of what the Commission is doing and the changes they are implementing. She asked for an indication from the Commission if they want to proceed with the substantial changes made in the revised handbook. Specifically, the issue of identifying non-historic properties, adding some flexibility for those and the reformatting of the handbook. Sueppel said the revisions are very good, straightforward and will be a groat reference for any contractor. Maharry and Ponto noted the revised handbook will be good for the novice or for those who don't understand historical properties. The Commission informally discussed various parts of the handbook, including defining factors for non- historic properties, clarifying conservation districts, landmark properties, and guidelines for additions and new construction. McCafferty added that there is work still to be done on the handbook including any spelling and grammatical errors. Maharry asked the Commission to please review the handbook before the next meeting and to also review each of the guidelines and look for exceptions. ADJOURNMENT McCallum moved to adjourn the meeting. Gunn seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. data on cKynt/pcdlm Jn ut es/h pcO7-OS-O3.doc Approved MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Maharry STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Justin Pardekooper Gunn agreed to chair the meeting, as neither the chair nor vice chair was present at the start of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Gunn called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: McCallum said that he recently walked through Brad Houser's house. He said it does have some mission- style doors with original hardware that he may try to salvage. McCallum said there is also siding and oak flooring there. He said there will be a window of five days during which the material will be available for salvaging. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1005 Muscatine Avenue. McCafferty said Pardekooper is the contractor for this project. McCafferty said one of the portions of the project to be discussed is in the packet, and the other has been added since the packet was distributed. McCafferty said the owner has proposed to add a dormer to the back of the house. She said it would be of similar proportions as the previous ones. The applicant is also proposing raising the roof pitch slightly on the dormers. McCaffedy said that in her opinion, the pitch difference would be imperceivable, particularly at the back of the house. She said the property has a lot of trees, and it is difficult to get a good view of the back of the house. McCafferty said the owner also plans to change out the windows in all the dormers using metal clad windows with simulated divided lights to match the existing divided light pattern. Ponto asked if there were already dormers on three sides of the house. Pardekooper confirmed this. He said the homeowners want to utilize the existing attic for a master bedroom. He said the owners have chosen to put a dormer on the back side of the house and use the front half for storage space. Pardekooper said he was going to try to use the existing staircase and did not plan to alter it too much. He said that of course he would need to talk to the Building Department, and, as McCafferty explained, there may be a need to alter the pitch slightly. McCaffedy said the new dormer would be sided with fiber cement board, and Pardekooper confirmed this. McCafferty said the brick is no longer available and is structurally difficult to install. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 2 Gunn said this is an atypical setback addition that meets the criteria of a setback addition. He said that if it were a big setback addition on the back it could be sided anyway. McCafferty said this property is in a conservation district so that larger dormers than what might typically be on the house are allowed, as long as it doesn't detract substantially. Weitzel asked if the dormer roofline should have a profile similar to the original roofline. He said there is a little bit of a sweep at the eave of the existing dormers. Pardekooper said he can do a sweep on the dormer. He said he is concerned about standing water on a sweep like this. He said he can sweep it if that is what the Commission requires. Weitzel pointed out that on the front dormers, especially from where it can be seen, the sweep is a defining characteristic of this architectural style. He said since it is not visible on the back, he did not feel it would need to be exactly 100% the same. Gunn asked if, aside from the sweep, there were any other issues with this addition. Carlson said he was also concerned, because the application says the existing dormers on the north and south would be replaced with 10-12 pitch. He asked if the all dormers roofs would be altered to match the side dormers. Pardekooper said he would need to raise the pitch of the roof a little bit to get clearance for head room in the stairwell, unless there is a way to circumvent that as far as the Building Department is concerned. Carlson asked if then both north and south are necessary for the staircases. Pardekooper said there is not going to be a staircase on the north side, although the owner would like to have a bathroom on the north side. Weitzel pointed out that those are visible from the street. McCallum asked Pardekooper if he is having a problem with ceiling height in the interior so that the pitch has to be raised to meet code. Pardekooper confirmed this. McCallum asked if it is functionally workable the way it is now, and Pardekooper said it is not really. He said he did not know how anyone would be able to move any furniture in. McCafferty said the headroom is clost to that required by code. McCafferty asked Pardekooper if he would leave the sweep pitch as is and raise the pitch of the portion above the sweep. Pardekooper said a lot of that would have to do with NNW's engineering of it. Pardekooper said he has not run the full gamut with the engineer at NNW yet as far as the engineering of it. He said he and NNW wanted to get a lot of feedback from the Commission first to see what he can and cannot do. Gunn asked if the dormer roofs would go above the peak of the roof. Pardekooper said they would not, although the homeowners' original plan called for something different. He said McCafferty informed him that their first proposal did not comply with the guidelines and would likely be denied by the Commission. Pardekooper said he therefore brought the proportions down and tried to use as much of the original profile as he can. Weitzel asked if the walls would be changed on the dormers. Pardekooper answered that just the roof would be changed; the brick and the walls would all stay in place. He said he will be raising the peak of the roof. Pardekooper said that as far as wall height, the brick of the dormer, the friezeboards, and the moldings, he would not be raising those or changing them. He said material that needs to be replaced will match the original. Weitzel said that since he seems to be the only one who is concerned about the sweep, he would say to go ahead with the dormer. Carlson said he was a little concerned about the sweep on the existing dormer but is a little less concerned about the one on the back. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 3 McCafferty asked Weitzel if he is then saying that it is acceptable to raise the pitch of the roof slightly but he would like to see the sweep maintained. Weitzel responded that he would like to see the sweep if there were a consensus that that was the original style. McCafferty stated that, in her opinion, this is likely original, as all the roofs have that sweep, and that is not an unusual detail for a foursquare. Carlson said he is also has a concern that this would be raising the dormer pitch on only two sides of the house. He said if one is looking at it from a cedain angle, it will look strange if the front dormer hasn't been raised like the side ones. McCafferty said this sits close to the street so that the view one will have of it is fairly oblique. She said one cannot get far enough back to get more of an elevational view of it. She said there will always be this perspective so that it is not that noticeable. McCafferty said she did not think that one can ever get far back enough from it to see that the dormer roof is not quite parallel with the roof of the main house. Carlson asked how much higher the peak of the proposed new dormer would be than the current one. Pardekooper replied that the bottom of the ridge will be six to seven inches above the existing. He said he has to alter the ridge anyway, because this has a true one-by ridge, which isn't going to be allowed any longer. Pardekooper said he would like to get half a pitch or a full pitch out of that roofline to get the head clearance coming up the stairwell and to the other side too. Pardekooper said he is trying to make the Building Department happy as far as clearances go, but he is also trying to make it so that he doesn't have to be too aggressive as far as changing this too drastically. He added that the homeowners are warming up to this idea too. McCallum asked what the height is for someone for clearance here. Pardekooper said he thought it was six feet ten inches, and the height here is at about six feet six inches right now. Pardekooper said most people could probably walk through there if they stayed to the right of the stairwell and turned a little bit. He said the real problem is that the majority of the stairwell is really running at an eight, because the ridge and the hip rafters are eights and the dormers are at six. McCafferty said this is intended to meet the building code. She said that to move the stairs, in order to get the clearance with the stairs from down below, would be more difficult than adjusting the roof. McCafferty asked Pardekooper if he had talked the HIS about the building code for the conservation of existing buildings. Pardekooper responded that he has not done that yet, because he was directed to discuss this with the Commission. Sueppel asked how many of these would be altered, and if they are all going to then be altered the same. Pardekooper replied that is not the plan. He said the one in the front will not be touched at all because it will be utilized for storage. Pardekooper said he will alter the other two and then create the new one in the back. Sueppel asked if the new one in the back would then meet the same as these and if they would all be the same height on every one except the one in the front. Pardekooper said the back one will be just a little bit higher, because that is the master bedroom where more room is needed. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal to add a dormer to the rear elevation and for the roof alteration to the house at 1005 Muscatine Avenue, with the conditions that the sweep be kept and that the new windows have the simulated, divided lights to be consistent with the other windows in the house. Sueppel seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 4 Pardekeoper said he plans to use Marvin windows with simulated, divided lights. He said the windows will have the same amount of division, and he will match the windows to the existing windows to the extent possible. Carlson asked if the new dormer on the back would be similar, with four divided lights. Pardekooper answered that the owners would like a larger window, but he can still do the simulated, divided lights. McCafferty said the drawing looks as though this is sort of matching the proportion and size of this (which?) window with the dormer window. Pardekooper said if that is what he needs to do, then that is what he will do. He said he can lay out the parameters specified by the Commission to the homeowners and say that this is the box that they have to work in. Pardekooper said he believed the homeowners would be pretty cooperative and have no problem with that. Carlson said that he is certainly happy to be more flexible on the back, but he wanted to make certain that it doesn't just look out of character with the rest of the building. McCafferty said that the previous proposal was for a big gable in the back covered with stucco and with a large, arched window, so this is certainly more in character with the house. She said that in a conservation district, dormers may be larger than those commonly found in the neighborhood, provided the dormer does not seriously alter the character of the building. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Carlson assumed the chairmanship of the Commission at this point. McCafferty said another issue with this house involves the windows and the door. She said there was a single door going down to the basement steps. McCafferty said the owners have had to finish off the basement to make it habitable space and have had to reconstruct the stairs. She said there were previous changes to the stairway, but it is not really clear what was done and when, although it was obvious that it was not quite original. McCafferty said in order to make this usable living space, have needed access, and get more light into the basement, the owners needed to make this a double door. She said there will be two two-six doors with approximately five-foot openings. McCafferty said one door will be passive, and the other one will be the operative door. McCafferty said there was also a non-original, little canopy. Pardekooper said the canopy had to be removed, because it was fairly loose and presented a safety issue. McCaffedy said the owners propose the double doors and a hipped canopy over the double doors. Smothers stated that because of the asymmetry of this elevation, she did not have a problem with the double doors. She said it shows progress with the house. Weitzel said he appreciates the new canopy in keeping with the style of the house, as opposed to the one that was there at one time. Carlson asked if the doors that were replaced were original doors, and Pardekooper said they were not. Weitzel asked Pardekooper what the plans are for the header course above the door. Pardekooper said that because the landing was sagging, he let a header into that framing and put in a brand new lintel all the way across the new opening. He said that in doing so, he is hoping that with the proposed canopy, he will be bringing it down so that there is really not a lot of space between the actual doorjamb, the trim, and that roofline. Pardekooper said he is really planning to close it all back in. McCafferty stated that she would put the supports under the frieze rather than the eaves. Pardekooper said the homeowners think that they would like both - that both would be fine, so he would go with whichever one would look better period-wise. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 5 McCafferty asked if it would use the dimensions of the existing fascia and eaveboard. Pardekooper said he is trying to, but since it is such a small roofline, he doesn't want to make it beefy. He said it is going to be close. McCafferty said the other item involves an egress window and a scapewell system added on the north side. McCaffedy said it is actually bermed up a little bit around the house with ferns, etc. Pardekooper said the berm is back up, and the landscaper will be transplanting all the ferns around. He said the scapewell is only out of the ground about four inches. Gunn asked if the windows are a pair of casement windows. Pardekooper said there is one Marvin egress window. He said it is an outswinging casement that swings out into the scapewell system. He said there are really two separate windows there. Pardekooper said there is a pair of windows, and one is the egress window. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the door and window at 1005 Muscatine Avenue, while noting that it would have been better if the Commission had been contacted before the work was initiated. Smothers noted that these are egresses that am required for safety reasons and therefore mom flexibility should be allowed to change the fenestration. She said it is different in that the homeowners have presented their reasons very well in terms of needing to get things into the house and get out of the house - basic safety issues. Weitzel added that it does not noticeably change much of the house. McCallum said that plantings could totally obscure that on the north side. Ponto pointed out that there appears to be a window missing on the south elevation. Pardekooper said it was just an error in the drawings, and they intend to keep the window. Cadson said his one concern is that the doors on the south elevation look better with the divided lights so that it is mom circa the 1920 period than what is in them now. McCafferty said the drawing shows it with the divided lights, although the proposal is for doom without the divided lights. Pardekooper said the owners really did not want the maintenance of divided lights. McCallum said he believes it looks better without the divided lights or with something more in line with the windows on the second floor. Weitzel said he believes that any of the options discussed would work. He said it could have a sort of French door look to it. McCafferty said if there are no strong feelings, it could be left up to the homeowner. McCallum said he would rather see the mission style or nothing at all versus the nine lights, because to him that is inconsistent with the windows and the rest of the house. Smothers said that it is an egress to a basement and is therefore modern and perhaps should be left up to the homeowner. McCallum seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 528 COLLEGE STREET: McCafferty said the Commission has looked at this house before. She said the owners need a certificate of appropriateness to rebuild the two porches to their original condition. McCafferty said it would depend on the interpretation as to whether or not this would be a certificate of no material effect. McCafferty said that the original columns were boxed in at some point and made fatter. She said if you look at the columns, there are pilasters against the walls that are actually thinner, and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 6 she showed what the columns on the front porch will look like. Carlson asked if they would just be square versions of that pilaster, and McCafferty confirmed this. McCafferty said the owners haven't really decided if they want to leave the baluster across the roof. She said they are working with Doug Steinmetz, and he believes it was probably not original to the house and should come off. McCafferty said that the Burfords are on decided as to whether they want to keep it. McCafferty said the owners would therefore like to have the option of removing the baluster or rebuilding it. Gunn said there are no doors, so he suspects it is not original. McCafferty agreed and said it is simpler and is not consistent with the other spindles and so fodh on the house in either the front or the back. She said she told the owner she thought it should come off. Gunn said it is certainly old enough to be historic, and he asked if this should be the choice of the owner to rebuild it or not. McCafferty said she had told the owners she would run this by the Commission. Weitzel asked if the Commission needed to give its approval to allow it to be taken off. McCafferty said the Commission could approve rebuilding the porch as is or the removal of the balustrade. She showed a photograph from the 1980s of the porch. McCafferty said it is a certificate of no material effect for the back porch, because it is really just repairing it. Gunn asked if the front should also receive a certificate of no material effect. McCafferty responded that she thought that as long as the Commission was holding a meeting, and given the fact that the owners are removing some material to restore the porch, this approval would make sure the project was covered. Carlson said the owners are removing non-historic material, and McCafferty confirmed this. Carlson asked if the material is being replaced with anything. McCafferty replied that they will most likely have to replace podions of this to match the original. Gunn said it seems like the homeowners are trying to do a very good job. Sueppel asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to say that as long as the homeowners are continuing in the same theme that was the original house that the Commission will approve it, so that the owners can make some of these decisions. He said it looks like the owners are trying to make it look as good as it did when it was first built. McCaffedy said that when the owners get to the windows, the Commission would probably want more specifics about what is going in. Sueppel said he is talking about the porches. McCafferty said for the porches, the Commission could approve the reconstruction of the porches, the removal of non-historic material, and the re- creation of any missing material to match the historic material, based on photographs. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction of the porches, the removal of non-historic material, and the re-creation of any missing material to match the historic material, based on photographs, for the house at 528 College Street. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS: Sueppel said he wanted to revisit something from the previous week when he was absent. He said he noticed that the Commission discussed, and being the "vinyl siding expert," the section on siding, 4.5. Sueppel said apparently the exceptions were changed to include, "Synthetic siding may be used on a primary building provided the proposed type of synthetic siding was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed." He said he did not know if the other Commission members know what kind of can of worms they opened up on that. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 7 Sueppel said that that little sentence in there... He asked if anyone knew when aluminum siding first went on. Weitzel said he believed it was in the fodies, and Smothers said it came into use in the forties and fifties. Sueppel said 1946. He asked when vinyl was first put on. Weitzel asked if he meant commonly used. Sueppel said it doesn't say commonly used; it says able. Weitzel said it reads, "...was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed." Sueppel said that was right, but it was put on in 1954. Weitzel said that is past the era the Commission is concerned with, and Carlson stated that it is not much past. Smothers said what this is talking about, within one year, those will be applicable. She said they'll be fifty years old. Sueppel ask if you are saying that all these houses with vinyl siding would have to go back to the siding used then. And Smothers said no. Weitzel discussed the neighborhood behind the Hy-Vee on Muscatine. He said if that became an historic district, the owners could use vinyl siding there, and it would be perfectly appropriate for that time period. Weitzel said they could use aluminum too. He said, however, that on Summit Street, vinyl siding would still be disallowed. Sueppel asked why the Commission has just said that about siding and why hasn't it said that about all other things. He said that Ty-Vek wasn't used back then, and we have nails that are different kinds than were used back then. Sueppel said why is the Commission just saying siding. Gunn said the Commission does say it about doors, windows, siding, baluster design, porch design, and a lot of other things. Sueppel asked if it were changed on all of those things. Gunn replied that it is already in there this way, where it frequently says appropriate to the style, time, architecture, etc. Cadson said it is phrased differently other places, but he believes the Commission intends the same thing here. McCafferty said the language is basically just to clarify. Sueppel said he does not think it clarifies; he thinks it clouds. He said he can say right now, the worst part is that you can get somebody who will fight this son of a gun and probably beat you on the fact that you don't give a date, you don't give a time, you merely say the period in which the building was constructed. McCafferty asked Sueppel what he would recommend. He said to leave that portion out. Sueppel said he doesn't understand why that portion has to be put on. Smothers asked if there is still asbestos siding. Weitzel said there is not much of it left. Smothers said it is still there. She said that is a product from the 1930s, and it will last forever if it is completely sealed. Smothers asked Sueppel for his suggestion when the size and the scale of that piece is to go up on the building, if there is a synthetic siding company that provides an alternative. McCafferty said there is another product made that simulates the asbestos. Smothers asked if it was vinyl. McCafferty said it is not. Sueppel said it is vinyl. Weitzel said it is a concrete and fiberglass product. Sueppel said there is some concrete with fiberglass you can get in vinyl. Weitzel said it is a thin tile and is like Masonite. Sueppel asked why the Commission hates vinyl so much. He asked Commission members what they have against vinyl. Gunn answered that it covers the historic building. Weitzel said it wasn't used during the time periods of the district. Sueppel said it wasn't used when. He said it has been used since 1954. Weitzel said that until 1954 it wasn't used. Sueppel said then so anything after 1954, it can be used on. Ponto said that is what this exception is saying. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 8 Sueppel said but why is the Commission putting these, where people have to look this stuff up. Sueppel said that is exactly why he liked this was it was so easy to read and so easy to look at and say well, yes you can here, no you can't here. He said now you're throwing things in there so you have to look up the age of the house and be sure that you're in the right year, because if it's a 1956 you can't be there, you gotta be 55, you can be here. McCafferty said the exception could be deleted. She said the Commission was just trying to provide a little more flexibility and clarify some issues for non-historic properties in order to give more options. Sueppel said he did not believe that. Gunn said that currently, vinyl is not allowed in historic districts, period. He said it is allowed on all non-contributing properties and new structures in the conservation districts. Sueppel asked what about the older homes that need something done that are non-historic. Gunn said that has never been on the table as far as he is aware of. Sueppel said he thought that was what a non-historic house was was something that is non-historic within that neighborhood. He said isn't that what we're talking about. Weitzel said the Commission wanted to keep things to the period of that neighborhood, so if there are going to be any changes made, they would be to the asset of the time period of the neighborhood, not to the detriment of that. He said then that rather than creating more chaos in that neighborhood, it's going back toward the mean. Sueppel said there are houses on Summit Street that were built after 1955. He asked if the Commission is saying they could have vinyl siding. Gunn said that is what the exception says. Sueppel said what if you've got one next door that was built the year before. He said you can do the one, but you can't do the other one. McCafferty said the line has to be drawn somewhere. Weitzel agreed that the kine has to be drawn somewhere. He said sometimes it is difficult, but it's that way with everything in life. Gunn said there is also a time period of significance for each district. He said the cutoff date is therefore already in place, and he believes the latest period to be 1949. Gunn said still there are pretty clean lines between historic and non-historic. Sueppel said he has no problem with that, non-historic and conservation, he has no problem with that. He said he just thinks that when you put in here, people have to go out and prove when the product was made in order to prove you can put it on a certain house. Sueppel said he thinks that is just something that is just... Carlson said it is the same language the Commission has to say that something needs to be with the age of the building and in character with the building. He said one still has to go out and look to see, for example, would this window have been possible in a 1915 house. Carlson said he does not see that this is really substantially different than what the Commission has already done and what it has actually been doing for some time. Gunn asked if aluminum siding is ever put on any more. Sueppel said it was. He said in this particular case, a good example would be that a person could put aluminum on because it was put on ten years before the vinyl and not put the vinyl on. Gunn said the Commission can specify the period of 1955 or 1960 or later as a further clarification. He said this language is what is commonly used throughout, and it works for styles. Gunn said for example, turned balusters were common in certain neighborhoods in certain times but not in others. He said the Commission can't spell out every single date on every single architectural style; part of what the Commission does here is to make judgments about things. Gunn said if one is talking about vinyl siding, it is basically homes built after, he would say, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 9 1960. He said you could say 1954, and it could be debated, but 1954 is pretty close to Longfellow. Weitzel said he was not certain that it was even common in 1954, although it may have been introduced in 1954. Sueppel said it was introduced in 1954, and the first factory, Byrd, starting making it and producing it, and in 1958 Crane started going nationwide and produced about five different companies were selling it at that time. Sueppel said aluminum however, 1947, is one that he just picked out that he called up Reynolds and said when did you start, and 1946 is when he started up putting aluminum and steel on buildings all over, and he could show where they are and everything else. Sueppel said he hasn't checked with Alcoa or anyone else, but these are the ones he checked, and they are the ones that told him Byrd was the first one and Crane was the second. Ponto said the thought behind this concerned the fact that for the house on Summit Street that ended up going to City Council with an appeal, all the guidelines said there could be no vinyl siding. He said, however, that for the age of that house, it might have been appropriate. Ponto said the Commission was just trying to allow some flexibility in those types of situations. Gunn said that for that particular house on Summit Street, it was built with wood siding, and wood siding is more appropriate to the district. He said it is a pretty good argument to say leave the thing alone and paint it. Gunn said, however, that he is willing to vote in favor of allowing synthetic siding on houses like that, although it is better off to leave it wood and paint it. He said it is more compatible with the district, and it is original. McCallum asked Sueppel if he wanted to see the exception deleted then. Sueppel answered that they already have that in most of the things the Commission does, so why put it back in under the exceptions. Weitzel said one point is that this version is trying to make it clear where the Commission does and does not allow so that the Commission is not putting out a monolithic, "No, you can't do anything to your house." Gunn pointed out that unless it is in the exceptions, it is disallowed. He said synthetic siding is disallowed, with the exception being these cases. Gunn said if the Commission is going to allow it in historic districts, it has to be put in as an exception. He said that still, for the most part, synthetic siding is not allowed in historic districts, except in these particular cases. Sueppel said since these are exceptions, take the house on Summit Street as an example, and on that house, since that is an exception, he would not have to get permission to do that or he would still have to get permission. Gunn said the owner would still have to get a certificate of appropriateness to do the work. Sueppel stated that then why is that paragraph necessary when you have the paragraph above it. Ponto said that the paragraph above it applies to outbuildings. Weitzel said he thinks it is a good statement, but if the Commission wants to take it out, he would survive. Carlson said it also means that any new construction could have vinyl siding. Carlson said it says, "...may be used on a primary building provided..." Ponto said the exception though is for non-historic properties. Carlson said that any modern building is a non-historic building in an historic district. Ponto said that would fall under the new construction guidelines. Carlson said someone could build a building now using hardi-plank, and then the next year go in with this exception and show that this is a non-historic building and put vinyl on it. Carlson said it seems really odd to say that you can't put vinyl on your house, but you can put vinyl on anything older than something built right now. Gunn agreed that it is odd. He said, however, that this whole discussion is over six or eight houses, or ten at the most. Gunn said in all the historic districts, there are very few new homes. He said it is already allowed in Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 10 conservation districts, which is the bulk of it. He said this whole discussion is over almost no properties. Sueppel said yes, except the Commission has revisited it twice now. He said he leaves, and the Commission revisited it when he wasn't here. Sueppel said Gunn's comments were put in, because McCafferty puts Gunn's comments in when Gunn is gone. He said to read the minutes, "Mr. Gunn feels this way. Mr. Gunn feels that way." Sueppel said that is something else he wants to visit, that if Gunn's comments are going to go in, then everyone else should have input when they're not at the meeting. Sueppe[ said all the minutes he has read since he has been on the Commission have had Gunn's comments whether or not he has been present at the meeting, but it doesn't have other people's comments. Carlson said if anyone submits note to McCafferty because they'll be absent from the meeting, she does read them to the Commission. Sueppel said he has never seen anyone else's name but Gunn's. McCafferty said she has Maharry's comments. Sueppel agreed that Maharry's were also in there. McCallum said he understood the confusion, but he thought this phrase was sort of a compromise for the homeowners who were in those unique properties, so he had no problem with it. He said he believes that taking it out would make it less flexible. McCafferty said that exception could just be taken out of the handbook if people feel it is confusing. She said it is not critical but was a compromise for people who live in odd, non- conforming houses. Sueppel said if you look at the first one done and then look at the second one, this just puts more language and more exceptions in there, when it was pretty clear in the first draft. McCafferty said she added the exception with regard to the outbuildings. Sueppel said he had no problem with the exception with outbuildings, but this went into all the buildings and put in another paragraph there. He asked why it is being put in a different place, why it isn't being put all under the same exception. Sueppel said you've got one exception here and one exception there, and to him, it just... McCafferty suggested getting rid of allowing it in historic districts altogether, as that would simplify it. MOTION: McCallum moved to remove from the handbook the second bullet point under Exceptions in Section 4.5 Siding, "Synthetic siding may be used on a primary building provided the proposed type of synthetic siding was commonly used during the period in which the building was constructed." Weitzel said if people think it would be easier to remove the language, he would be in favor. Ponto agreed. Sueppel looked at the first draft and said what was done here was that we took out, over here we had the historical district, non-historic. He said what happened was this was under one paragraph, very easy, have them both under here, just one exception. Sueppel said now we've got something over here that says one, and something over there that says the other. He said it just to him makes it more difficult to read and makes it more confusing for people. Weitzel agreed that that this is for only six or eight houses. Sueppel said one of the things that was told to the Commission members is that they all agree too much. He said now the members get to disagree. McCafferty said what the agreement of the Commission means is that they works things out and makes compromises as a group. Weitzel said if the Commission is actually Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 11 working together as a group, he did not know how that would be incriminating in any way. Sueppel said it might be the best thing for the Commission's notes to show that the Commission does not always agree. McCallum said the Commission doesn't always agree. He said he empathizes with what Sueppel is saying. McCallum said when the average person comes in and reads some of these things, it can be easy to get confused and frustrated. Weitzel stated that if one looks at this and then at what the Commission originally had, you can see that this is going in the right direction. Weitzel said this is 100% better than that, and he has no problem with that. He said he wishes this could be put at least all in one paragraph or on one side of the paper or something, so it doesn't look like we've got recommendations over here and then we've got disallowed over here, and we've got the exceptions, where there are some under this one and some under this one. Smothers said that there have been people who have worked really very hard to put this together, who have spent many, many hours and received suggestions from other individuals and written this all out. She said she did not believe Sueppel was considering how much time has been put into the handbook. She stated that if Sueppel had a suggestion, that would be wonderful; the Commission should be doing positive work. Smothers said the Commission could work on this to Sueppel's satisfaction but stated that this should not be so negative to break this down and say how confusing it is. Smothers said she believes this flows well, and once the reader gets through the first couple of pages, he understands where the recommendations are, where the disallowed things are listed, and where the exceptions are written out. McCafferty said, in looking at this particular paragraph and as she thought about this, it seems that typically vinyl siding came into common use sometime in the 1970s. She said it may have existed prior to that, but in terms of commonly coming into Iowa City as a building product, that might have been in the 1970s. McCafferty said the Commission would need to look at a specific date. She pointed out that aluminum came in much earlier, so the intent of separating this out in historic districts was to, given that those dates varied significantly between aluminum and vinyl, pull that out separately to insure that it is appropriate to the building. McCafferty said that, if in fact vinyl came into common use in Iowa City much earlier than that, then it might be appropriate to simply combine this exception with the other one. McCafferty said it may be helpful to go to the Historic Society and look at building catalogs and other reference information for Iowa City to see specifically if the dates are different enough that it should be pulled out or rolled in or eliminated all together. She suggested that, at this point, the Commission do more research on these materials, as that information is readily available. McCafferty said the Commission might want to look at other options on this issue for the next meeting, and Sueppel could bring any suggestions. She suggested that the Commission move on to discuss the rest of the handbook. Gunn asked if non-historic would be a designation on the maps, and McCafferty confirmed that they would be marked as white with an "X" on the maps. Gunn asked if that would take precedence on the issue of siding, so that if there is a non-historic "X" on the map, then it is a done deal. McCaffedy confirmed this. Gunn said he did not think there had been any change to anything discussed here; this is verbage. He said it is exactly the same guideline that has been talked about for two months or more. Gunn said it is cleaner to just leave it as, "There is an 'X' on the map; it's non-historic; synthetic siding goes on." Ponto said he realizes there are space problems, but from a formatting point of view, every place else the exceptions are in the right hand column. He said that at first glance that might Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 12 cause a little confusion. McCafferty said she would look at formatting that differently, although she did not want to have a lone exception hanging over on the next page as it could be missed. McCaffedy asked for suggestions for the rest of the handbook. Gunn stated that on page 18, in the first exception, the text should read, "Vinyl clad wood windows..." Gunn asked if in Section 4.12 on page 22, in the only exception, if "brick veneer" meant the same thing to everyone. He asked if Z-brick is brick veneer. Smothers said it is brick veneer. Gunn asked if any thin masonry would be the same. He asked if this is to say is this brick or stucco, or is it tooled into plaster and painted colors, or what exactly is this referring to. Sueppel said there are a lot of products out there. McCafferty said there are a lot better products now, including a brick, clay veneer that is actual brick but is thin. Gunn said the Commission just needs to be clear about it. He said that typically when he thinks of a brick veneer building, he thinks of a wood frame building with 3 ¼ inches of brick on the outside; that is a brick veneer. Gunn questioned whether that is what brick veneer is to most people and is that what the Commission is saying. McCallum said that for chimneys, someone wouldn't want that kind of weight on his roofline. McCaffedy said this is to provide a lighter weight option. McCallum said what this is referring to is actually smaller bricks. Weitzel said it is not the same as the specification of brick veneer on a wood frame or a concrete block. Gunn said he is not suggesting anything other than that the Commission should be clear about this. McCafferty said one of the confusions is that under recommended for new chimneys it says, "If a new chimney pipe penetrates the roof structure, it may be boxed and finished with brick veneer or stucco." Weitzel said that veneer is not whole bricks. McCallum said that is understood by him. McCafferty said Gunn said there is not really the need for an exception here, as that is already covered under new chimneys. The consensus of the Commission was to delete the exception. Smothers suggested that in Section 4.12, in the fourth bullet under Recommended: Original chimneys, the text be changed to read, "If an original chimney is no longer needed, it should be repaired and capped in a manner that prevents vermin from entering the chimney, but allows air circulation. If not vented, chimney tar and creosote can emit gases resulting in toxic fumes in the house." Sueppel said this is in the building code, but Smothers said she felt it would be a good reminder for people. McCaffedy agreed. Gunn stated that in Section 5.1, on page 25 under Not Recommended, the "and" should be changed to "or." Ponto pointed out that in Section 6.1, on page 29 under Not Recommended: Porches, "the" should be changed to "it." Ponto referred to Section 7.0, on page 31, in the second bullet under Disallowed and said he totally agreed with disallowing the removal of defining original architectural features for an historic house. He asked if that should be in effect, however, for a modern house, since he would not have a problem with that. Gunn said that a modern house would never be contributing to the district. The consensus was to add an exception to make non-historic properties exempted. Smothers suggested, for Section 2.1, on page seven, in the note, changing the word "require" to "requires." Weitzel asked McCafferty if she had found out whether there would be the same fee structure for building permits that are required for things are only in historic districts. McCaffedy said she Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 13 has not yet found out that information. She said the fee structure is usually amended on an annual basis. Regarding the guidelines for ramps, Weitzel stated that people keep asking him why the Commission forced the people on Oakland Street to take down their ramp. McCafferty said it was not initiated by the Commission but was initiated by complaints from the neighbors. She said a ramp is sort of in a gray area in terms of building permits. McCaffedy said if there is no complaint, the Building Department will generally let it go. She said since there were complaints, the Building Department has to address the issue, which means the owners have to get a building permit, which means the Commission has to review it. Sueppel referred to Section 8.1, page 32, and said that in the Summit Street paragraph, the requirement of 750 square feet for a new building would prevent a garage from being built. McCafferty said that should actually read, "...not less than 750 square feet for a new primary building." Weitzel said he believes the Commission is going in the right direction with these guidelines, and he believes they will be helpful. McCaffedy said the guidelines are not substantially changing but are being clarified. Weitzel agreed and said he thought that is what people are asking the Commission to do. Ponto said Commission members did not purposefully talk about something because Sueppel was absent. Weitzel said there isn't an agenda against Sueppel or against vinyl siding. He added that the Commission may, however, be dancing around the issue where Sueppel thinks vinyl siding is okay, and some members don't think it's appropriate preservationally. Weitzel said the Commission may need to get some data both ways on this issue. Sueppel said, regarding any of the houses on Summit Street that the Commission talks about, that he has no problem with that. He said he has no problem with most of the houses. Sueppel said that in fact the owner of 921 E. Burlington wants him to do a house, but he's waiting to talk to McCafferty to tell him what he can do, because he knows the house is in the district. McCafferty stated that the house is in the Summit Street Historic District. 2004 CLG GRANT: The consensus of the Commission was to apply for a CLG grant to nominate downtown to the NRHP. Carlson said there is only about a week before the deadline for a draft of the grant. McCafferty said it is just a draft. She said that mostly it's a matter of informing the State about what the Commission is doing and that it is reasonable. Weitzel volunteered to help work on the application. REVISED BY-LAWS: McCafferty said the by-laws are the recommendation of the Legal Department. With regard to ex parte contact, Gunn said it should be acceptable, according to the by-laws, to inform McCafferty at the meeting before she gives her report. He said when members actually talk to someone, that runs counter to what the Commission is normally supposed to do, according to State law. Gunn said the Commission has to be able to work in such a way, however, that members can tell people what they want to know. He said this was written in so that members can talk to people before it gets to the Commission. McCafferty said the nature of the Historic Preservation Commission is very different from that of other boards and commissions. She said the Commission is basically told by the State how it has to perform and what it has to do. McCafferty said that for that reason, the Commission tries Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 14 to work things out to a common goal to come up with a solution. She said this is more of a solution-based commission. Gunn said the ex parte contact provision just states that a member has to inform McCafferty of any contact with an interested party before McCafferty gives her report. Sueppel said that, in his position, he feels that he has to refer people to McCafferty. He said he is safer doing that, especially since he is selling a product. McCafferty said the ordinance to establish the Design Review Subcommittee would be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Gunn asked if all of this information is going together as a package. McCafferty said she would like to send the by-laws, the handbook, and the Design Review Subcommittee ordinance all together for consideration, and perhaps even issues regarding fines and deterrents to not abiding by the guidelines. Gunn stated that these things have come a long way, but the Commission should take a little extra time to get it as right as possible so that it isn't proposing more changes six months after the passage. Weitzel said McCafferty had mentioned that the maps are kind of set in stone, because they are passed as an ordinance. He said that now they will need to be altered. McCafferty said she needed to discuss that with the Legal Department. She said that identifying non-historic properties may not be an issue, because it actually gives more flexibility to those properties. Weitzel pointed out that the by-laws allow no vote by proxy - that only those present at the meeting may vote. Ponto said by proxy refers to the actual vote, but the Commission really doesn't have a policy one way or another regarding comments from someone who is absent. McCafferty said she is glad to pass along any feedback and comments from someone who can't attend a meeting. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROVISION ORDINANCE: McCafferty stated that in the Code rewrite, this is the proposal for additional language to provide some exceptions for historic properties. McCallum said he is encouraged but is curious as to what community service use means. McCafferty responded that there is a definition for that, and she would provide it to McCallum. McCallum said that for Section 2a, where it says the exception is necessary, he wondered what the standard for determining that would be. McCafferty said she would ask the Legal Department for specifics. She said that currently in the RM-12 zone, there is an exception similar to this. McCafferty said that, as the Commission has discussed wanting to encourage the re-use of historic buildings, it seems to make sense to have an exception for historic buildings in all zones. McCallum said that his only other concern was that this might encourage more paving, for example for a retail use with high parking requirements. McCafferty said that when an application goes before the Board of Adjustment, there is a whole list of other criteria to be met. She said if it is determined that the use is actually going to be detrimental to the neighborhood, or the parking will detract from the property, or some other criterion is not met, the application can be denied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 26, 2003. Carlson said he had typographical corrections to submit. He added that on page five, in the eighth full paragraph, the third sentence should be deleted. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 15 MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. July 10, 2003. Carlson said that on page three, in the first full paragraph under Historic Preservation Handbook Revisions, in the second sentence, "context" should be changed to "content." He said that on page six, in the eighth paragraph, the second sentence should end with, "...and calling them conservation districts." He said he also had typographical corrections to submit. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte da*a on ci[ynt/pcd/min ut es/hpc07-24-O 3 doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner DATE: August 8, 2003 RE: Comments on selected August 14 agenda items and requested information 511 Clark Street: This is an application to demolish a small existing garage and construction a two car garage. The contractor has indicated that he will be using fiber cement board. I also recommended that the trim match the trim of the house. Handbook Revisions: With this revision of the handbook, I have deleted particular exceptions for nonhistoric properties that may be confusing. This included exceptions for not only Siding, but Balusters and Handrails, Doors, and Chimneys. In lieu of these exceptions is a broad statement under Section 3.0 states that the HPC has discretion to allow additional flexibility for nonhistoric properties and other unique situations. The disadvantage to this is that it does not communicate to a property owner the specific exceptions so they can plan their project accordingly. This change eliminates the exception to add synthetic siding to a nonhistoric primary buildings in a historic district but does allow it on new outbuildings on noncontributing properties. I feel we have nearly completed this project, so please review it carefully. I would like someone from the commission to review the properties that have been classified nonhistoric to ensure that this information is correct. Minutes: At past meetings we have had questions regarding minutes. Please find enclosed a memo from the City Clerk stating the format, content and timeliness of minutes. The intent of the minutes for Boards and Commissions is not to be a transcript of the meeting. Rather it a record of the decision-making process. Statements that are not pedi0ent to the agenda item, cannot be clearly understood for reasons of context or volume, or are repetitive will likely not be recorded in the minutes. If you are concerned that pertinent information has been edited from the minutes, the tape of the meeting is kept for three months and may be purchased from the City Clerk for $3.00. I recommend that you try to speak clearly and loud enough to be audible on the tape. Moreover, keeping your comments pertinent to the agenda items is also helpful to the minute taker, as well as to completing the meeting in a timely manner. If you have a comment that you would specifically like to have recorded in the minutes, please feel free to request that it be included during the discussion. Motions: The City Attorney's office recommends that all motions be made in the positive. If you make a motion, but plan to vote against the motion, state your reason for voting no after you have made the motion. AugustS, 2003 Page 2 Bob Thompson memo: This is a memo that was sent to City Council from contractor Bob Thompson. He makes some good points, however there are also a number of misconceptions. We can discuss this further at the meeting. Siding Information: I have included information regarding siding historic buildings since this seems to be a pertinent topic. The Vinyl Siding institute did have a information on the web that presented their point of view on the issue, however, this web page appears to no longer be available. I have additional information on this issue, if you would like to read more about this topic. Minutes APPROVED Iowa City Board of Adjustment Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall, Civic Center Members Present: Carol Alexander, Eric Gidal, Vincent Maurer, Mike Paul Members Absent: Dennis Keitel Staff Present: John Adam, Sarah Holecek Others Present: Marcia Mackay Call To Order Paul called the meeting to order at 5:01 PM. Consideration of the May 14, 2003 Board Minutes Motion: Gidal moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Special Exceptions EXC03-00007 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by David and Karen Long for a special exception to allow parking on a lot separate from the use served in the Medium-Density Single Family (RS-8) zone at 927-29 North Dodge Street. Paul noted the letter from the applicants attorneys, Holland and Anderson LLP, asking for the matter to be deferred to the August meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The attorney's had just recently met with Dave Long regarding the property and pending application and ask for time to prepare for the hearing as the site plan and documentation are not yet available. MOTION: Gidal moved to defer the hearing on EXC03-00007 until the August 13 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Other Business None. Adjournment Motion: Alexander moved to adjourn the meeting. Gidal seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:04PM. NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -AUGUST 13, 2003 data on c~tynt/pcd/min ut es/boa07-09-03.doc Iowa City Public'Library MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING - LOWER LEVEL OF TEMPORARY FACILITY JULY 24, 2003 5:00PM Members Present: Dean, Singerman, Suter, Magalh~es, VanDusseldorp Staff: Black, Craig, Clark, Curtin, Green, Lauritzen, Lubaroff, Nichols Others: Joel Miller, Construction Project Manager CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm PUBLIC DISCUSSION None For the benefit of our new Board member, Magalh~es asked Trustees and staff to provide brief introduction. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Surer moved approval of the minutes. Singerman seconded. Some minor corrections were noted. Minutes were approved as amended. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Building Project: Miller distributed the monthly progress report. He feels that the project continues to be ahead of schedule. He expects that in the next month they will know if it is possible to phase in the move by getting some public areas relocated sooner. Miller asked for questions or concems and then took Trustees on a tour of the East wing. Project Budget: Craig prepared the end of the year project budge update. She told Board she would do this on a more regular basis since we are beginning to get closer to building completion. She pointed out that we have an unspent contingency of $439,000 and are still operating under budget. Singerman asked what we might do if there was a balance in the building ICPL Board Minutes page 2 budget at the end of the project. Craig said funds would be held for "after opening" needs of furniture and equipment and she would make recommendations to the Board. Board Annual Report A draft of the report was included based on suggestions from last month's Board meeting. Singerman asked about the FY03 goal of considering taking action regarding the Patriot Act. Craig responded that this issue will be on next month's agenda. Craig asked for comments on the FY04 goals: Magalh~tes suggested that we include Board's involvement in any planning for a grand opening event. Magalhhes asked to have a goal relating to regularly bringing Library related issues to City Council meetings. Craig said she would draft language and Magalh~es will approve for inclusion. Singerman recommended a language change in goal three. Singerman moved approval of the report. VanDusseldorp seconded. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0 County Funding Task Force Questions Craig explained that she has a better understanding of the issues after attending two meetings of the Task Force. She understands what motivated the County Board of Supervisors to look seriously at library funding. She recognizes their concerns over being tied to a contract that they have no money to support. They are looking at potentially yearly increases to the library portion of their budget and are examining methods to control escalating costs. They would like to find a better way to address these concerns and would like to tie it to some factor other than circulation. Craig has a fundamental problem with the fairness of equity between urban residents and rural residents. Those in the county now pay about half per capita what Iowa City residents pay and nothing for the new building. Magalh~es said the issue at hand concerns questions that the Task Force has posed to Library Boards. He suggests putting together a small group of Board members to review the questions and formulate some responses. Perhaps a more formal association than exists now with the libraries of Johnson County would allow us to look at some cooperative arrangement that would allow for some activities that would benefit all the libraries. We don't want our funding reduced. Craig will draft a response and Board members will get any ideas or strategies to Magalh~tes, who will, along with Swaim and perhaps Singerman or Prybil, formulate a response. ICPL Board Minutes page3 NEW BUSINESS Planning Review: FY03 Asked for questions or comments. A question was raised about the use of the new Web Event booking on line. Logsden said that as people call to book rooms, they are walked through the process. It is increasing in popularity and has been a good tool. Singerman remarked that it has been an impressive year with a lot getting done. A question was raised about the Community Relations goal and utilization of the media. We need to educate people aggressively about what we are and what we're doing. Magalhies suggests that the Board needs to play a role in that. FY04 Plan Needs Board approval because of minor changes to the document approved last year. Craig explained that some changes were made and the original language left in with a strike through. For the Board's information, Reaching For New Heights appears in 04 because there is still some soliciting to be completed. VanDusseldorp moved approval. Surer seconded. Motion passed 5-0. FY05 Plan Craig said it will be a great year during which we will see the reward of the new building project. She will try to protect the collection budget. Next winter we will begin talking about FY06 and a new plan. FY05 plan gives us guidelines to be used in preparation of the FY05 budget. A motion to approve the FY05 plan was made by Singerman and seconded by Suter. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0 FY04 NOBU budget Craig explained to Dean that our operating budget does not carry over. We have some limited funds, primarily gilt dollars and money from the State that can be placed in separate accounts that are not part of operating funds. It is a small but significant amount for which we have some discretion. The Finance staffnow wants to see this budget along with the FY05 budget, which means it will come to Board earlier for approval. The ability to amend is always there. The proposal for '04 continues to fund a half-time person in the Development Office, art purchase prize, and building items. Singerman moved approval of the budget with a second from VanDusseldorp. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0 ICPL Board Minutes page4 STAFF REPORTS A. Departmental Reports: Circulation, AS, Information Lauritzen was asked what she would anticipate happening in Circulation when we opened in the new building. She expects to see a 10-15% increase in our circulation. Once circulation goes up, it usually remains. Clark said we have increased our Intemet service for the public. We now have wireless service for laptops. Remote access to the web has gone up. Number of users coming in has gone up. Up to over 400 million hits to varied web pages. Development Office They are looking for opportunities to raise the remaining $75,000 to reach their total fund raising goal for the Reaching for New Heights campaign of $1.2 million. Payments to the City will begin in June 2004. Art Advisory Committee It is hoped that applications will be available for review and approval by next meeting. PRESIDENT'S REPORT Magalhaes will follow-up with Schnack about hosting the Board dinner next month. He informed Board that the Iowa Library Association annual conference takes place October 16-17, in Cedar Rapids this year. He encouraged Board members to attend. Magalh~es announced Irving Weber Days August 9 and 10. Highlights are dedication of the Weber statue and former director Lolly Egger's lecture. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MEMBERS None COMMITTEE REPORTS None COMMUNICATIONS None ICPL Board Minutes page 5 DISBURSEMENTS Review Visa Expenditures for June. Approve Disbursements for June. Suter moved approval of June disbursements. VanDusseldorp seconded. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR AUGUST MEETING ADJOURNMENT Suter moved for adjournment at 6:45 pm. Dean seconded. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0. Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff MINUTES FINAL ~ IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 28, 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, Dale Helling OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Phillips, Rene Paine, Beth Fisher RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Paine reported that PATV recently held advanced workshops in light and sound. A grant writing workshop will be offered in the near future. A Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) was received to fund a part of the cost of an automatic door for the Conner Center. Fisher distributed the Library channel annual report. Hardy reported the political season is starting to accelerate and that requests to the City Channel for coverage of candidate forums are increasing. Pusack asked about the Rice, Williams basic tier rate analysis. Shaffer said that while the final figure determination on what the rate should be will be coming shortly from Rice, Williams it appears will be significantly less than that determined by Mediacom. Beginning August 1 Mediacom will start charging the rate they calculated which will be subject to refund if on appeal the FCC agrees with the City. The FCC typically does not decide appeals within a years time or more. Shaffer reviewed the cable TV-related revenues and expenditures. The cable TV fund FY 03 projected revenues are about $560,000 and the FY 04 projected revenues are about $580,000. This is a 4% increase. Shaffer reviewed the FY 03 and 04 expenditures and noted that between FY 03 and 04 all budget categories have been decreased with the exception of the general fund subsidy and support to the library. Smith noted that one salary line has been moved from the cable TV fund to the pass-through fund. Shaffer said that was necessary to balance budgets and was in keeping with the purpose of both funds. Shaffer said that contributions to the reserve fund will not be made in the immediate future because of lack of revenue. Pusack said that major enterprises such as building purchases would probably not be possible in the future and that is an area of concern. In addition, there may be no funds to hire refranchising consultants in about 10 years when that franchise would likely be expiring. Helling said the subsidy to the library is based on an agreement with the library and subject to a CPI escalator. Pusack said that an agreement based on a set amount when a large portion of the funds are going out to subsidize the general fund distorts the picture. For example, the percentage the library subsidy consumes of the cable TV budget remains steady, but all the other areas, with the exception of the general fund subsidy, have been reduced. The Commission may need to re-evaluate these old agreements in the light of the large increase in the general fund subsidy as they were made under a city council policy that the franchise fees would not be used to subsidize the general fund. Smith moved and Meikes seconded a motion to approve the revised FY 03 ICTC annual report. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Smith moved and Thrower seconded a motion to approve the corrected June 2, 2003 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer referred to the complaint register in the meeting packet. Shaffer reported receiving a total of 20 complaints during the past month. Among the complaints were 3 about cable modem technical problems, 3 about poor phone-related problems, 4 about cable TV technical problems, 1 about adult programs being added to his service without notification, 2 about generally poor service, 1 about an unburied line, 3 about billing problems, 1 about no notification of an outage, 1 about inappropriate customer service representative demeanor, and 1 wanting competition. Shaffer noted that there were three instances of subscribers complaining about their calls being handled by customer service representatives in other cities who were unaware of previous calls they had made. This may be due to the implementation of a new phone system that has a few bugs to work out. Thrower said that Mediacom needs to be asked about this problem area. Pusack said this area needs to be addressed before the students return to town and the system is taxed. All the complaints that could be resolved, have been. MEDIACOM REPORT Shaffer said that Brown and Koebrick informed him that they would likely be unable to be present at the start of the meeting but will try to make it after another meeting. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT No representative was present. PATV REPORT Paine said that the Cedar Rapids Gazette is not providing accurate listings for the access channels, with the exception of PATV. It is also listing the Iowa City Community School District channel as being on channel 11 rather than 21. Hardy said he will look into this problem. Paine reported that advanced workshops in light and sound were offered in July and a grant writing workshop will be offered in the near future. A Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) was received to fund a part of the cost of an automatic door for the Conner Center. Paine attended the Alliance for Community Media (ACM) national convention and has a written report available at PATV. Two children's summer day camps were provided tours and workshops. The Commission will send representatives to PATV's board meetings on a rotating basis. Castillo will attend the August 21 meeting. SENIOR CENTER REPORT No representative was present. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT No representative was present. LEGAL REPORT No representative was present. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher distributed the Library channel annual report. With the move into the new library the channel was forced to reduce productions to a single camera set-up and reduced the number of events covered. Playback capacity has been greatly enhanced by using DVDs and a large DVD playback system. KIRKWOOD REPORT No representative was present. MEDIA UNIT Hardy reported the political season is starting to accelerate and that requests for coverage of candidate forums are increasing. The local American Association of Retired Persons is trying to arrange forums with presidential candidates and the Community Television Service (CTS) will cover them if the forums are held. Chey Ness has been hired as the Special Projects Coordinator for the Avatar Project and is working hard to move the project forward. InfoVision is preparing for focus groups to reassess how InfoVision can better serve the community. Members of the Commission may be asked to participate. Digital playback systems are being explored and new primary cameras will soon be purchased. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer reported that the drop audit is finished and a report will be provided by Mediacom at the next Commission meeting. The city has been working on a public right of way ordinance. CABLE TV-RELATED FINANCIAL REVIEW Pusack asked about the Rice, Williams basic tier rate analysis. Shaffer said that the final figure determination on what the rate should be will be coming shortly from Rice, Williams. It appears Rice, Williams will propose a rate significantly less than that determined by Mediacom. Beginning August 1 Mediacom will start charging the rate they calculated which will be subject to refund if on appeal the FCC agrees with the City. The FCC typically does not decide appeals within a years time. Pusack noted that this results in a backlog with a rate appeal upon rate appeal over several years. Shaffer said that rate analysis typically cost $3,000-4,000. Pusack said that in preparation for refranchising that a better understanding of cable TV revenues is very useful. Shaffer referred to the materials included in the meeting packet. Shaffer said there are three basic funds, the cable TV fund (the franchise fee), the pass-through fund ($0.50 per sub per month collected on each bill) and the PATV fund (an annual payment from the cable company). The total in charges to subscribers for those funds are $44.14 per year. The cable TV fund FY 03 projected revenues are about $560,000 and the FY 04 projected revenues are about $580,000. This is a 4% increase. Shaffer reviewed the FY 03 and 04 expenditures and noted that between FY 03 and 04 all budget categories have been decreased with the exception of the general fund subsidy and support to the library. Smith noted that one salary line has been moved from the cable TV fund to the pass-through fund. Pusack noted that the decline in benefits and salaries also reflects a decrease in part-time temporary employees. Pusack said that a clearer picture may be gained by pulling the large increase in the general fund subsidy out and look at percentages for each budget area. Shaffer said that the cable TV fund balance serves four main areas: equipment replacement, refranchising and consultant costs, one quarter year's operating expenses, and reserves, which are used for lawsuits, rate regulation, and special projects such as the local access survey. Shaffer said that contributions to the reserve fund may not be made in the immediate future because of a revenue shortage. Pusack said that as a result major enterprises such as building purchases would probably not be possible in the future and that is an area of concern. In addition, there may be no funds to hire refranchising consultants in about 10 years when that franchise would likely be expiring. Shaffer said that the pass-through fund has a balance of $218,000 and was originally established for three purposes: the purchase of a joint telecommunications facility, the funding of the community programmer position and to support the access channels through the CTG-allocated funds of about $17,500 a year. PATV's building and the City Cable TV Office were partially funded with this fund. Thrower asked if the Commission needs to review the purpose of the pass-through fund. Shaffer said the Commission may wish to discuss this. Smith said that that there has been a change in the use of the fund by moving the Avatar position to this fund. Shaffer said that the Avatar job position and the memos to city council on the Avatar project were included in the materials to demonstrate how this position contributes to the community programming effort. Helling said the subsidy to the library is based on an agreement with the library and subject to a CPI escalator. Pusack said that an agreement based on a set amount when a large portion of the funds are going out to subsidize the general fund distorts the picture. For example, the percentage the library subsidy consumes of the cable TV remains steady, but all the other areas, with the exception of the general fund subsidy, have been reduced. The Commission may need to re-evaluate these old agreements in the light of the large increase in the general fund subsidy as they were made under a city council policy that the franchise fees would not be used to subsidize the general fund. That has now changed. Helling said the city could continue on the present path for a couple years while refranchising is taking place. When a new franchise is in place the revenues will come into clearer focus. Smith noted that right-of-way fees are replaced by franchise fees by uses of the public right-of-way that pay them. As such, the general fund subsidy reflects reimbursement to other city departments involved in right-of-way management. IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT Smith moved and Meikes seconded a motion to approve the revised FY 03 ICTC annual report. The motion passed unanimously. REFRANCHIS1NG Shaffer said that Mediacom has sent the City a letter initiating the refranchising process. The City has received responses from consultants to the consultant RFP and will be reviewing them. Thrower suggested that a refranchsing project plan be developed so Commissioners will have a better idea for what areas they will be able to volunteer. It was decided Pusack would represent the ICTC on the consultant selection team.. It was requested by the ICTC that the selection criteria be reported back to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Thrower moved and Castillo seconded a motion to adjourn. Adjournment was a 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator RULES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES August 21, 2003 11:00 AM Committee Members Present: Lehman, Champion Staff Members Present: Karr, Dilkes Others Present: Pfab BOARD OF APPEALS BY-LAW CHANGES The Rules Committee recommends approval of the changes as recommended in the Board of Appeals minutes of August 4, 2003, and outlined in the proposed changes attached to the minutes. SENIOR CENTER BY-LAW CHANGES The Rules Committee reviewed the attached changes as recommend in the Senior Center Commission minutes of August 8, 2003, and recommend approval with the following amendments: Section 2.5 Resignations Delete Council notification of a resignation of the at-large member. Section would read: "If any member is unable to continue candying out the duties of membership for any reason, the member, if appointed by the City Council, shall send a letter of resignation to the City Council with a copy to the Commission. The at-large member of the Commission shall send a letter of resignation to the Commission. The appointing body shall then appoint a person to fill out that term." Section 2.6 Unexpired terms Wording should be consistent with other Boards and Commissions concerning remainder of terms of less than six months. Section would read: "Vacancies occurring on the Board, other than by expiration of term of office, shall be filled for the unexpired term unless the remainder of the term is six months or less in which case a replacement would be appointed for the remainder of the unexpired term plus one full term." Rules Committee Minutes August 8, 2003 Page 2 Section 4.1.1 Notice and Agenda (Regular Meetings) Section 4.2.2. Notice and Agenda (Special Meetings) Delete existing language, and combine into a new Section 4.3, Notice and Agenda, and read as follows: "The meeting agenda and notice of meeting time and place shall be sent to the Commission members and the media at least three (3) days prior to the meeting. Special meetings may be called not less than 24 hours before the meeting, and notification shall be by mail or hand delivery. Additionally, both notice of the meeting and the agenda shall be posted in the Senior Center a minimum of 24 hours prior to the scheduled beginning of the meeting. Emergency meetings may be called on less than 24 hours notice in accordance with State Code." Renumber subsequent sections as follows: 4.4 Quorum 4.5 Proxies 4.6 Public Discussion 4.7 Minutes 4.8 Meetings with the City Council of Iowa City 4.9 Attendance at Related Meeting Section 4.8 (previously 4.7) Meetings with the City Council of Iowa City City Atty. Dilkes voiced concern that the Commission should not rely on this provision as a general rule, and felt that section was intended to address "unintended meetings" and not regular joint meetings. Additional Comments In addition the Rules Committee recommends: · Age not be a specific requirement for appointment · At-large appointment by the Commission should be limited to a non Iowa City resident and need not be a qualified elector