The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-09-23 Bd Comm minutesApproved MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2003 -7:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Amy Smothers STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Lange, Alan Smart, Barbara Smart CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 222 Brown Street. McCafferty said this is an application from Alan and Barbara Smart to construct a garage addition to the back of their house. McCafferty showed photographs of the view of the house from Brown Street. She said the house is located up above Brown Street on a hill, and one cannot see very much of the house. McCafferty showed a photograph of the back of the house, pointing out what was apparently an addition at some point. She showed that section of the house on the site plan, stating that the Smarts propose to put a new roof over that section, which will be tied into the garage and appear as a connection between the garage and the house. McCafferty said the Smarts' long-term goal is to eventually remove the aluminum siding from the house. She said the Smarts have found a photograph from a history of Johnson County that shows how the porch was originally constructed. McCafferty said the Smarts want to do the garage so that it is compatible with how the house will eventually be. She said a little bit of siding has been removed to look underneath and determine the size of the clapboard. McCafferty asked if the Smarts intend to eventually restore all the gingerbreading on the house. Barbara Smart said they wanted to restore most of it, but she did not think they would want to restore the railing on the roofline, because of problems with leakage. She said they would like to make it look as close as possible to the original. McCafferty said that from Brown Street, the primary frontage, one cannot see anything in the back. Alan Smart added that the house is probably '15 to 20 feet above the grade of the street at that point. He said someone up on the sidewalk can see a little but probably not even back as far as where the garage would be. Smart added that there are just three houses that use that alley. McCafferty said the Commission is concerned about the entire house, front and back, but this seems to almost be equivalent to a setback addition in terms of what is actually visible from the street. She said that is one thought, but the Commission could view this as a regular addition as well. Carlson said because he thought one really can see this from Brown Street, he would be disinclined to treat this as a setback addition. Maharry said the demolition of a building or portion of a building is checked on the application. Barbara Smart said they would like to take off that side room and replace it with an entry porch. Alan Smart said there is a little bit of a storage room there that they would like to remove. He said the roof over this area would be reconstructed more appropriately to shed water better. He said he thought he would use a shallow pitch and then a steep pitch matching the rest of the house with the garage, with the garage Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 2 having a little bit of a loft for storage. Alan Smart stated that they thought it would give it the look of two buildings connected by the shallow one in the middle. Carlson said this would then be changing the roof pitch of the main rear addition and removing the rear wall but otherwise leaving it unchanged. Alan Smart said the interior would be unchanged. He said he would like to move the entry door over about three feet, as it currently enters directly down to the basement stairway. Gunn said siding would work for an addition or a setback addition. Regarding the roof, he said he did not feel that anything proposed would not work for a regular addition anyway. Gunn asked what the material is for the original foundation. Alan Smart stated that it is brick. He said it is a fairly soft red brick. Alan Smart said he would like to apply the thin brick perhaps to whatever is exposed around the new construction to mock the appearance of what is there. He said he saw a sample of material called a red clinker, and it seemed to be perfect for the type of brick that his foundation is. Gunn said that, as a regular addition, the look of the foundation would be required. He said if this were a setback addition, then it could just be a painted concrete to match the brick. Alan Smart said that with the removal of the one portion on the back of the house, they would need to construct an appropriate foundation and a new wall to support the east side of that existing, single-level portion of the house, so that in that respect, it would replace or connect with the main building. Maharry asked if there are drawings for what is there now. McCafferty said there are not drawings for the existing, but she showed the difference between the shaded in areas, the proposed new plan, and where the drawing is not shaded in, the existing walls. Maharry asked if the little side room to be demolished is original to the house. Alan Smart said he did not think so. Gunn said that the roof pitch is quite different. Weitzel asked if there is a break in the foundation there. Alan Smart said that so little of the foundation is exposed, it is hard to tell. Weitzel asked if the basement extended underneath that section. Alan Smart said it only goes as far as the entry, showing where there is basement relative to the house. Weitzel said that with no basement underneath and a different roof pitch, he would assume it was added on to the house. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 222 Brown Street, as presented. Sueppel seconded the motion. Ponto said that on the end of the garage there are plans to put a lot of neat stuff that appears similar to the photograph. He said some people would argue that the garage should be subservient to the main house and should maybe be simpler in appearance. Ponto said he did not have a strong feeling about it either way. Alan Smart said they were open to suggestions and interpretation regarding this. He said they did not intend to put all this gingerbread on the back of the house and then have it be three or five years before they are able to accomplish much else with the front. Alan Smar~ said they would like to at least have siding with the five-inch lap to approximate what was found under the aluminum and do the corner boards in a manner similar to the original. Carlson said that was also his one concern, that the garage may rival a little too much what is on the house, and he would prefer to see a more subdued design on the garage. McCafferty asked if Carlson would like to see the gingerbread at the gable removed. Carlson replied that he would like to see it removed from the plan entirely or replaced with something very simple on the gable. He said that even the shingles wouldn't be too much just there by themselves. Weitzel said that would look great on the front when it eventually gets done, but he agrees that the garage would look better without the ornamentation. Gunn asked if having brick veneer on the exposed part was part of the motion. He said there is an either/or in the plans. Gunn said it does say applied brick so that the Smarts plan to put the brick on. Alan Smart said he was at the meeting to be educated and did not know how much he would have to specify in the plans. He said they read the guidelines a little and made an attempt to follow them. Alan Smart said if Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 3 the Commission wants to incorporate using applied brick as a requirement, he would not have a problem with that. Gunn said he misread it; the plan actually does say, "red clinker brick applied" so that it is specified in the plans. Alan Smart said the builder has specified a block foundation for that new wall for the existing single-story part and a poured foundation for the garage walls, possibly because of the difficulty in getting forms for a poured wall under that existing flooring if he should try to salvage that portion of that wall. He said that was the either/or on the block. Gunn said what is specified in the plan is exactly what the Commission would want. Gunn asked if it would be applied with a grout or mortar-type product. Alan Smart said that is his understanding. He said he assumed that a standard mortar would be used, and the joints would be tooled. McCallum said that if this was all facing on Brown Street, he would agree with regard to having a brick exterior. He said, however that since it is mostly at the rear, he would be comfortable with a block or poured foundation without a brick veneer. Gunn pointed out that the guidelines specifically say that the masonry units are to match. Maharry said he did not have an opinion either way on the ornamentation. Gunn said it could be left to the owners. He said it looks like a nice project. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. McCafferty said she would have the certificate to the Building Department in the morning so that the Smarts could get their building permit at that time. 511 Clark Street. McCafferty said this is an application to demolish an existing garage in a conservation district and construct a new two-car garage. She showed a photograph of the house and a photograph of the existing garage. McCafferty said she had discussed with Lange adding wider trim to match the house. Lange said there is an existing addition from 1998 on the house. He said the addition matches the existing house, and he plans on doing that with the garage as well. Lange said it is a one by three exterior casing around there for the addition and the existing house, and he would match that with the garage. Gunn stated that the old garage is in pretty bad shade. He said there is no foundation, and it is rotting from the bottom up. Gunn said McCafferty suggested the trim around the garage doors and also the trim at the gable end, the frieze board. He said those were his two concerns about the project. Weitzel asked what the normal treatment would be for things like the vent, if it would or would not have trim on it. McCafferty said she has seen it both ways. Ponto pointed out that the vent on the house does not appear to be trimmed. He said he wouldn't want to see a wide trim on the vent. Lange said that in a garage, ventilation takes care of itself, although aesthetics may be a factor. Sueppel asked what type of material would be used for the garage. Lange responded that he would be using Hardi-plank siding with a smooth side. He said that the existing house and the addition are sided with wood, and he would like to use fiber cement board on the garage and use a paint scheme to match the existing house. Gunn said there is a fairly large drive to the east of the garage. He asked Lange if he just wanted a drive there for extra parking. Lange replied that there is an existing drive from the back of the property to the house. He said in order to get the three-foot setback from the property line and to have enough room to back a vehicle out of the garage, he is proposing to go from the existing drive to the new garage. Lange said the longer drive is intended to give enough space to give the vehicle maneuvering room to back out. Sueppel said he had no objection to the plan, other than the fact that the set of plans does not specify the material to be used. McCafferty said she would make certain that is listed on the certificate. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 4 Carlson asked if there were any concerns about the doors. McCafferty read from the guidelines, "Installing new garage doors that are simple in design, smooth and simple panel-type doors may be used. Openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Two simple doors are preferred to one double door," or "Installing new garage doors that mimic the style of the traditional one." MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the plans for 511 Clark Street, with the specific materials and trim as discussed. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Lange asked if a steel-type overhead door would be acceptable. Gunn said it would have to be paintable. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS: Maharry asked for suggestions for substantive changes. Gunn said the Commission has started to deal with non-historic properties but for the most part, with a couple of exceptions, it's almost buried in there. He said it looks like the Commission is just trying to put it somewhere to say it's in there and then invite not using it. Gunn said non-historic only appears two or three times in the rest of the guidelines. He said the Commission could make it slightly more restrictive or less restrictive and remove non-historic from later in the guidelines. Gunn said he would be inclined to do that, so there are not just two or three places referring to non-historic in the entire thing and then make it moro pronounced somewhero and give some examples of what is allowed. Sueppel said he agreed 100%. He said he likes having places that are non-historic, but if the Commission is making something non-historic, then why is the Commission messing with it. Sueppel said if it is non- historic, there shouldn't even be guidelines for it. Ponto pointed out, however, that it is in a district. Sueppel said he really liked the original draft, and it had the non-historic there and was basically getting houses that have no historic value out of the Commission's hair so that the Commission didn't have to go over those houses. He agroed that this almost seems to have buried everything non-historic now and made everything subject to review. Sueppel said he doesn't want to be doing extensive reviews for properties that are non-historic. McCafferty said the primary difference between the previous draft and the original draft is that the previous draft would have allowed vinyl on any non-historic structure in a conservation or historic district and the original draft restricted vinyl in an historic district to outbuildings on non-contributing, non-historic properties. She said the substantive question for the Commission is whether it wants to go so far as to allow vinyl on any non-historic structure. Gunn said that on pages 18, 19, and 20, there are three places that the term non-historic appears in the guidelines. He said those are the only three places non-historic appears. Ponto pointed out one other section where non-historic appears, on page 30. Gunn stated that there are ways to be more or less restrictive and remove them by saying non-contributing. He said his inclination would be to remove the non-historic exceptions in those places and then make it clearer in Section 3.0 or somewhere else that non-historic may have certain exceptions, and include some examples. McCafferty said she interproted some concerns at the previous meeting as saying that by adding another layer of exceptions for non-historic in particular districts, it would be a layer of confusion. She said the guidelines could certainly state those same exceptions and potentially make one page of guidelines for non-historic properties. Ponto said he thought that would be a good idea. Sueppel said he also liked that idea. He said there could be something in the guidelines to explain more distinctly what a non-historic property is. Gunn said the curront language doesn't give much guidance for the Commission and future commissions to work with. McCafferty said she would work on putting something together for the Commission's consideration. Gunn asked if, on page 29, in the porches section, the porch exceptions would apply to non-historic properties in historic districts. He said it may be a moot point if the non-historic treatment will be changed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 5 Gunn said if it doesn't change on page 20, then page 29 should be made consistent with page 20. He said that if the guidelines expressly include non-historic in historic districts on page 20, then it should be included on page 29. Maharry asked if the Commission wanted to explicitly include guidelines regarding vinyl siding on non- historic, primary structures in historic districts. He said one other thing to consider is the description that was added on page 11, the four items, that discusses guidelines. Maharry said the Commission could consider this with regard to vinyl siding on non-historic structures. He stated that, referring to item four, the Commission could allow people to replace severely damaged or deteriorated historic materials or even non-historic materials. Maharry said for non-historic properties in historic districts, which are going to be less than 50 years old, the Commission can say, if it abides by the four items, that if the siding that is currently there is in deteriorated shape universally around that house, then it can be replaced with vinyl siding. He said it won't be allowed on a whim or for convenience, but following the Secretary of the Interior Standards, then the Commission would allow it if the rest of the siding of the house was deteriorated to such an extent that it would not be possible to replace it with like materials. Gunn asked how that could come from the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He said the Commission obviously doesn't follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards explicitly in this, or the Commission wouldn't have different guidelines. Gunn asked how number four could be read as to accept vinyl. Maharry said it is not there in word but in theory. He asked, if the house is 20 years old and, in theory, if the wood is so deteriorated, does the Commission want to allow it to be replaced with vinyl. Ponto said number four uses the word historic, but if a house is only 20 years old, it isn't historic. Maharry said if the house is 20 years old, it was built during the time when vinyl would have been around. Gunn said Maharry is talking about vinyl as the potential historic material. McCafferty said that would bring about the same thing that was in the last version of the guidelines - that if the synthetic siding was appropriate to that age of the building, then it would be allowed. Gunn said an advantage to using general language with some examples is that it could include windows and doors and other things. He said, for example, where the guidelines refer to using patio doors that were original to the building, it really refers to if they could have been original to the building. Gunn said general language gives flexibility beyond siding to other things. He said there has to be exceptions everywhere to allow some things, unless there is a blanket statement put in. Ponto said he did not think a date needed to be included for vinyl siding, but the Commission could just specify non-historic properties. Carlson suggested adding the phrase, "appropriate to the age of the building." Maharry asked where the blanket statement would be placed. McCafferty suggested, so that non-historic property owners do not have to go through all the guidelines, to have a page up front designating guidelines for non-historic properties. Sueppel said he had no problem with that, but he believes that a perfect place for this would be the section on Exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines. Ponto suggested making it a new 3.3 following the exceptions, bumping the rest of the sections up a number. Gunn said that seems to be the right place, and if it has its own number and is entitled non-historic, then it will appear in the table of contents. McCafferty suggested putting in some general language. Gunn suggested including examples, unless the Commission wanted an all-inclusive list. Ponto said he believed the Commission would want flexibility. Sueppel said even if there is an exception, the owner still has to come before the Commission to get approval. He said if there is a house that doesn't appear to be acceptable to that, the Commission can reject it and still not be arbitrary because the Commission has the right to say it has to look like the five- inch, the three-inch, the two-inch. Sueppel said the Commission doesn't have to cover all of those; all it has to do is know that it is part of the standards and leave the flexibility for the non-historic. McCafferty said the language could hit the major points that there may be lots of questions about and leave less common issues to a blanket statement. Weitzel said that basically the Commission is saying that it is going to leave buildings that are "intrusive" to a district in their context, rather than trying to get everything to progress more towards the context. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 6 McCafferty said her interpretation is that the Commission wants to let them continue to look the way that they looked when they were constructed, which would allow the use of modern materials so that they have some flexibility. Sueppel said the Commission, as stated in the guidelines, does not want to disguise these modern houses to look like historic buildings when they are not. Maharry said if the owner of a 60s ranch wants to put a porch on, would he then be required to put a 60s porch on it. He said the Commission wants wording that won't restrict additions to those of the decade when the house was built. He suggested saying something regarding nothing before the age in which the house was built. Maharry said people own houses that are non-historic, and they don't want to keep them as time capsules to the 60s. McCafferty said she could include language referring to the acceptance of some alternative designs. Maharry said that perhaps the title of the section should not refer to guidelines. He said this is not creating guidelines here but is trying to get rid of guidelines to create flexibility. Carlson said the idea then is to keep the restriction against vinyl siding for new buildings in historic districts. He asked if even though it would be technically appropriate to the age of the building, the Commission would like the building to look like something constructed before vinyl was invented. McCafferty said if one is constructing a new building, he is not restricted to necessarily building one that imitates history, but one that is appropriate to the district whether it is modern or tradition. She said that in theory, given the guidelines, a new building should fit into the district. McCafferty said she would think the Commission would want to maintain a new building so that it has control of the design to ensure that it fits into the district, including the consideration of the quality of the materials. She said the Commission might not be as concerned about buildings that already don't fit into the district. Gunn said this would refer to one building every ten years, as the infill properties are extremely rare. Weitzel said he did not think the Commission wanted to legislate it to death but said it is an interesting concept. He said that over time, a district will erode because of natural causes, deterioration, fire, etc. Weitzel said if the Commission doesn't regulate what is being built, then after 120 years, the district is no longer a district, because it has all gone on the way of time as it would have done otherwise. Sueppel said he agreed, but said McCafferty is saying that this already is in place, that it would be almost impossible to go into one of the historic districts and build a one-story ranch with a walkout basement or that sort of thing. Sueppel said it wouldn't follow any of the other guidelines. He said the Commission is going to be able to restrict that and restrict the vinyl siding because it's automatic since it wasn't made back then. Sueppel said he doesn't think anyone is looking for the Commission to make rules saying that vinyl siding is going to be put on historic houses in that district, other than when there is a house in that district that doesn't have any historic value. He said if that is the case, then he thinks the Commission should take it house by house, which it does with new houses also. Carlson said that to say that something is not allowed on a new house across the board, since any new house in an historic district cannot have vinyl but some houses in the district can have vinyl, seems sort of inconsistent. He said the houses the Commission is saying can't use vinyl are new houses, so vinyl would be technically appropriate for them. Weitzel said them is an inconsistency there on a certain level. He said some buildings in an historic district could have vinyl while others cannot. McCafferty added that technically both types are non-historic buildings. She said, however, that the new building, because the Commission has control over it, will be something the Commission will want to see preserved in the future. Gunn said there was a house on Clark Street, before it was in a district, that was a big, boxy duplex. He said half of it burned down. Gunn stated that it was re-sided in vinyl, and now it is a huge improvement and a little closer to an historic building. He said Carlson is right that this is inconsistent to allow vinyl on non-historic structures but not on new buildings. Gunn said you could build a new house and then turn around and side it with vinyl, according to the guidelines. Carlson said that over the course of time, eventually the ranch houses will fall apart or burn down or whatever. He said, therefore in the long term, this will result in less vinyl. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August14,2003 Page 7 McCafferty said there have only been three infill properties since the beginning of the Commission, one in an historic district and two in conservation districts. Weitzel said that since that time there have only been three infill properties in areas that have since become districts. Carlson said the Commission will eventually be designating more districts. McCafferty said she has kept her eye open for where infill projects might go, and there are not many empty lots left. Weitzel said there are three or four small lots open near Dearborn Avenue. Referring to the house on Summit Street that the Commission disallowed the use of vinyl on, Maharry said the Commission wouldn't be incredibly consistent if it allowed vinyl if all of the siding were in such a state of disrepair that it couldn't be replaced with like materials. He said if the Commission uses that as a standard, it decreases even more the chance that the houses will be covered with vinyl, because on that house, the wood siding was intact and just needed paint; it was not deteriorated in the slightest to the point where it would need new siding. Gunn suggested the Commission allow vinyl siding on non-historic, primary structures in historic districts but not on new primary structures in historic districts. Weitzel said he agreed. Sueppel said he agreed 100%. Ponto and McCallum said they also agreed. Carlson said he also agreed but just wanted to understand why the Commission is doing this, and he believed he did understand after the discussion. McCafferty said she would work on some language to address this and e-mail it to Commission members to get feedback. Gunn said that in Section 3.2 on page ten, Exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines, "...when undertaking projects that do not directly affect the appearance of contributing structures..." should be changed to read, "...when undertaking projects that do not alter the historic character of contributing structures..." since everything directly affects the appearance, or the Commission wouldn't be talking about it. Gunn said, regarding page 16, in the last exception where it reads, "Trim boards shall not be recessed behind the face of the siding," he was not certain how one would apply vinyl siding if one doesn't do that, unless the existing siding is removed. Sueppel said he always blocks it out. He said he just puts wood over the wood and wraps them. Sueppel said on windows and door trim, he shims out % of an inch, and that way it is brought out but the wood is not destroyed. He said he never recommends taking siding off. McCafferty said that would also apply to the second bullet, which says that, "Original architectural features such as window trim, brackets, moldings, rafter tails, columns, balusters, and similar details may not be covered, removed, cut or otherwise damaged." She asked if Sueppel is saying that the wood trim should be painted rather than wrapped in vinyl or aluminum. Sueppel said if it is decorative, he paints it. He said if one is talking about just the wood not being out far enough, he shims it out. Sueppel said he has no problem with that but is saying that he doesn't have a problem with that, since most others do the same thing. Gunn said if the Commission is willing to enforce this, he thinks it is great. He said what he dislikes most is when a contractor covers up the trim, puts the J-channel up against the window, and the trim is gone, and the corner boards are gone. Sueppel said he would like to see this in here because when he is talking to a person about the job, he can say it has to be done that way. Gunn said if that is what the Commission means, then he would like to see it strengthened slightly by saying that windows, door trim and corner boards should be built out. He said the current language is subtle, so he would like to see it beefed up. Weitzel suggested saying that trim boards shall be built out. Sueppel said all of these are leaving, even recessed leaves what is recessed and what is level. Weitzel said recessed is anything that is beyond the plane of the siding. Ponto suggested saying it must protrude from the siding. Gunn suggested just beefing it up slightly. Maharry discussed the first exception, "All sources of moisture that has caused damage to the structure shall be corrected and the damage repaired prior to the application of the siding," and how it would be verified. He said it is very harsh and demanding language. McCafferty said that when someone applies for a certificate of appropriateness, she usually drives by and looks at the house. She said that really is the most important aspect to preserving the structural integrity of the house. Maharry said moisture could start accumulating immediately after siding is applied. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 8 McCafferty said the intent is to catch situations where gutters or soffits leak, and if it is just covered up, it just exacerbates the leaking issue. Gunn stated that the guidelines have a lot of fairly vague language under recommended, and in the disallowed, the guidelines are quite precise and concise. He said the exceptions are like recommended again in that they are vague. Maharry said the one word "shall" could be changed to "should," which just changes the tone of it to be informative. McCafferty said if there was an obvious, glaring issue, the Commission wants to require it to be fixed. Sueppel said the Commission can point that out and make it part of the permit. He said if two years later the homeowners have water damage, they can at least go back to the contractor, because he had agreed to correct any water damage. Ponto said there are "shalls" in other places. Maharry said those things are easier to figure out. Gunn said there are "musts" a lot in the guidelines. Maharry said after discussion, he has less of a disagreement with it, and it can stay in if that is the consensus. Gunn said that on page 20, the clause, "Particularly on Colonial Revival style houses" should be deleted. He said that under Disallowed, Original porches, the third bullet should read, "Enclosing historic porches with permanent windows and/or walls." McCafferty said one of the things the Commission did was wherever it said, "historic," that was changed to "original." Gunn said the argument is then that the sun porch was added ten years after the house was built in 1860 and is not historic then. He said he thought historic was a better term here. Carlson said the term "character-defining" would work for the Commission, although it would be less clear to an applicant. McCafferty asked if there were any other places the Commission would want to see "original" changed to "historic," now that the Commission has distinguished between historic and non-historic. Weitzel said there are those additions that have gained historic validity in their own right. Gunn said the Commission can look through the guidelines to see where it says original instead of historic. McCafferty said that originally the Commission was trying to get this to cover all buildings, historic and non-historic, but now that has been separated out. Ponto said for the disallowed bullet under discussion, the idea of the front would be that it would be seen from the street elevation and side porches visible from the street, but asked what people thought about putting permanent windows or walls on a rear porch. He thought that perhaps the Commission should allow it. McCafferty said one issue regarding enclosing historic porches is that most of the time, they don't have any foundation under them. Gunn suggested the wording read, "Enclosing historic front or side porches..." Maharry said if the guidelines are kept to include historic, this can be considered on a case by case basis, and the Commission can just determine if the back porch is historic or not. Gunn said that most back porches are not historic or character-defining structures. Gunn said that on page 22, in section 4.12 under recommended, in the fourth bullet, he was not sure what was intended by the last sentence and did not feel it would be much of a loss to delete that. McCafferty agreed that the sentence could just be deleted. Gunn stated that on page 27, under Decks and Ramps, under Not Recommended, there are things that are disallowed other places. He said regarding the bullet under Not Recommended referring to leaving balusters and railings unpainted, the guidelines disallow that elsewhere in the guidelines, specifically on page 21, under Disallowed, under New balustrades and handrails. Gunn asked, if it is visible from the street, is the Commission going to allow unpainted, untreated wood. McCafferty confirmed that the first item under Not Recommended on page 27 should be moved up to Disallowed. Weitzel said if a fence comes before the Commission because it is over six feet, the Commission can say that it does have to be painted or doesn't have to be painted; the Commission has jurisdiction over that. He said, however, that a short fence can be left unpainted, and he asked if the Commission wanted to make any recommendations about that. McCallum said a building permit is not required for a short fence, so no building permit is needed. Weitzel said he knew that, but the fact is that there will be some short things that do need building permits that are going to be painted, and then people are still not going to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 14, 2003 Page 9 paint their three-foot fence. McCafferty said one of the arguments for this is that fences are not necessarily permanent structures that are going to affect the integrity of the structure. Ponto said that on page 23, the guidelines discuss fences. He said that even if the Commission doesn't review a particular fence, the recommendations are in the guidelines for educational purposes. Ponto said under Fences, the guidelines could contain a new bullet giving a recommendation that they be painted. Gunn said that on page 27, under Not Recommended, the bullet under Decks belongs under Disallowed. Gunn said that on page 27, under Disallowed, Doors, the first bullet regarding sliding patio doors makes the guidelines less restrictive on historic properties. Ponto referred to the bullet under Exceptions on page 19. Gunn asked if setback additions should be included. He asked if it should be acceptable to install patio doors on the sides of setback additions. Gunn said it actually is consistent, since the bullets both apply to rear elevations. He said it is fine the way it is. McCafferty suggested the language be made a little more consistent. Ponto said on page 29, in the second bullet, under Doors, Disallowed, "should" should probably be changed to "shall." He said since it is in the disallowed, shall makes it a more black and white statement. Gunn stated that on page 30, in the first windows section, it should read vinyl clad wood windows to be consistent. Gunn referred to page 30 and said that the only district not included in the guidelines is Brown Street. He said he tried to find differences between Brown Street and College Hill, and he almost could not find them from the standpoint of guidelines. Gunn said that Brown Street began a decade or two before the College Hill Districts and ended about the same time. He said he can't see any difference in districts and historic styles. Gunn said he thinks the Commission is very close to including the North Side Neighborhood. He said the North Side Neighborhood is basically a copy of the College Hill Neighborhood. Gunn said that then the guidelines would be complete, the only exception being Bella Vista, which belongs with Woodlawn under the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He said that with a cut and paste and five minutes, the guidelines should be done. McCafferty asked if this should list College Hill and North Side Neighborhood together. Gunn said it could be done that way. Weitzel said the heading could be changed and all the College Hill references amended $o that the North Side had a separate section. Gunn said he really just can't find the differences. He said that Goosetown definitely has a different scale and a couple of different styles, but College Hill and Brown Street both have a wide variety of styles from the same time period and with the same scale. Gunn asked what the North Side would be called. McCafferty said the neighborhood association is called the North Side Neighborhood Association. Maharry said the business district calls itself the North Side also, but McCafferty said if there is ever a district there, it could be called the North Side Market. Ponto said that then the North Side Neighborhood Guidelines could contain a sentence that says they would apply to the Brown Street Historic District. Gunn suggested making a map to define the areas and inserting a clause to apply to the North Side, because there will be more than one district there. He said the same social and economic forces that built College Hill built the North Side. Gunn said he thought the only difference is that two stories are required on College Street only in the College Hill District but should not be required on the North Side. Ponto stated that on page 32, under Building Fa(;ade, it reads primary, and it should probably contain primary in the sentences above and below for consistency. Gunn referred to page 33, under College Hill, saying that the Commission made a point to assure the public that if an apartment building burned down, it could be replaced with a larger building, not one that is no more than 800 square feet or 1,200 square feet. He asked if that was in the guidelines somewhere. McCafferty said she would trace back and look for it. Gunn stated that it may be elsewhere in the code but perhaps should be here in addition to the code. Historic Pmservation Commission Minu~s August14,2003 Page 10 Carlson said the Secretary of the Interior Standards were revised in 1995 and now have different wording than what the Commission is using. McCafferty said she would verify that and update the standards. Carlson asked if the standards are in the ordinance. McCafferty said she believed the ordinance refers to the 1990 standards. She said that will be changing, although there is not a substantive difference between the two. Maharry said the wording could be changed to say that the Commission follows the most recent version of the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Weitzel said he had a few things to go over about specific non-historic properties that he could discuss with McCafferty. He said there are some buildings that he felt should be looked at again. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 8, 2003. Carlson said that on page three, in the tenth paragraph, the word "compromised" should be changed to "compromise." MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. July 24, 2003. Carlson said that the phrase "you people" should be changed to "the Commission" wherever it is used. He also suggested editing out some of the comments that were repetitive. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the July 24, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Maharry said a letter to the City Council was included that makes some interesting points and non-points about Goosetown. McCafferty said that after the meeting with City Council, Karin Franklin recommended responding to the Council in September. McCafferty said if there are issues in the memo that the Commission thinks are significant, most of them can be addressed. She said those can be addressed at the time the Commission answers the other questions. McCafferty said she would probably write a memo for the Commission's approval and also do a PowerPoint presentation to elaborate on some of the issues. Gunn said he thought that City Council and many people don't realize that for the small, modest homes, the Commission's effect on price is small and modest. He said if someone has a large, ornate home, the Commission can require expensive things, but most of Goosetown does not contain large, ornate homes. McCafferty said she just received information about TARP, which is a rehabilitation program that uses city funds, instead of federal funds. She said that with city funds, there are not the lead abatement issues as with federal funds. McCafferty said the program identifies areas of town by income and splits the town into several areas. She said then the program overlays the areas where there are income needs and where there is housing that needs improvement. McCafferty said there is a big swath that goes from the North Side all the way down south toward Governor Street, and that area that would be eligible for TARP loans. She said, however, that Goosetown was not identified as having income needs and housing needs. McCafferty said the Commission could recommend that that area be included in the TARP program so that there would be some relief in Goosetown. Weitzel said he believes incentives are an important part of this process. He said the Commission should pursue anything it can in terms of offering people help in paying for their projects. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Lorraine Bowans, Jack Robinson CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: McCafferty said that she has looked at the CLG grant, and Carlson is looking at it to make final corrections. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 510 S. Governor Street. McCaffedy said this application concerns the addition of a front stoop on an Italianate house. She said that the applicant was present at the meeting to answer questions. McCafferty said the illustration shows that Bowans would like to make this look like it fits the house. She said Bowans will also be replacing the sliding patio doors on the second story with a window. Bowans said she can't put in a window that looks exactly like that over the bay, because there is not enough room. She said she has scaled it down equally both ways so that it is still in proportion. Bowans said the window will have a center divider. She said she purchased the window from Knebel, and they are the same windows that they put in the Alpha Phi house. Bowans said they are all wood windows with simulated divided lights, and the dimensions are 35 by 64 She said they are a little bit smaller than the existing window, but they wanted to make sure there would be enough room to put in the top, matching piece. Bowans said she is having chocolate brown storm windows put on to match the existing storm windows. She said it will go in the far north/upper left corner and will line up close to the bottom of the other. Weitzel asked if the trim would match the other windows. Bowans said it would. Bowans showed a sample of the spindles that would be on the railing on the new front stoop. She said that since the house is very tall and rectangular, she did not want to go with a round spindle. She said she thought the spindles she chose have rectangular lines but added dimension. She said they would be painted in the three colors to match the house. Bowans said the posts are very detailed. She said the column will be about seven inches wide, with a four-inch wide handrail. Bowans said the center column will line up with the pilasters in either side of the front door so it's centered. The stoop will be seven feet wide and four feet out. Ponto asked if the handrail will be on only one side. Bowans confirmed this and said it will be L-shaped. She said there are some drainage problems there that will be addressed with the new steps. Bowans said that on the back porch, she is basically just replacing the rotten wood, She said that right now there is just a four by four column, and she is going to get the columns made to be a six by six and a seven by seven. Bowans said she wants to stay with the rectangular look. Historic Pmservation Commission Minutes August28,2003 Page 2 Maharry asked Bowans if she knew when the addition was put on the house. Bowans responded that in 1981, the house was made into a duplex, and that is when the sliding glass door was put in and the roofline was changed. She said she assumed the back porch was changed at the same time. Carlson asked if the porch is part of this application. Bowans said it is not; she said she is just removing the rotten material and having the columns just built bigger. McCafferty asked Bowans if she is going to have to remove wood, and Bowans replied that she is removing wood from the porch floor because it is rotten. McCafferty asked if the structure is okay. Bowans said the roof is fine, and everything is staying. She said there is one rotten joist to be replaced. She said the ceiling is just plywood, and she is having grooved plywood put up. McCafferty said the porch work will therefore not require a permit. McCallum said it appears to be just repair and maintenance, and Bowans said that is basically what this is, except for the floor replacement and the new ceiling. Carlson asked if this would fall under the purview of a repair. McCafferty said that Bowans would be using the same column but would be building a structure of boards around it. She said that there are no structural issues involved, so a permit would not be required. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 510 South Governor Street, as proposed. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 1229 East Burlinf:lton Street. McCafferty stated that Robinson, the owner of the house, was present at the meeting to answer questions. She said Robinson is proposing to take the roof off a one-story garage and add on a second story for storage. McCafferty showed photographs of the alley. She said there are a number of barn-like structures in the alley. McCafferty said the guidelines state that garages and accessory buildings should look similar to what is in the neighborhood. Robinsaon had identified two gambrel outbuildings in the neighborhood. McCafferty proposed a couple of options: a gabled roof configuration or a gambrel roof configuration with a minor modification. She said that will give an extra foot and one-half vertically, which should satisfy the Building Department. Robinson said that would be acceptable; he said his goal is to get more headroom there. He said that if he would be getting the same kind of volume on the inside, he would be okay with that kind of roof. McCafferty said that most of what was driving the gambrel roof previously was trying to keep within the 15-foot height limit for an accessory structure and still have headroom. Robinson said this would actually be simpler for him to do. McCafferty said there would be another option, if Robinson would actually like to have more height. She said the City is currently rewriting the City Code, and one of the changes that staff is proposing is to increase the allowed height of an accessory structure to 20 feet. She said that would give Robinson five more feet if the Code is amended and Robinson is willing to wait until that happens. McCafferty said Robinson has the other option of doing a minor modification right now. She said that basically involves giving notification to neighbors to make certain no one has a problem with it, and then the Director of the Building Department can grant a 10% increase in the allowable height. McCafferty said the first option is to wait for a Code change, although increasing the height a full five feet could result in a building that is too large for the property and neighborhood. Robinson said he would be okay with reconflguring this, and it would probably be easier to put together. Carlson stated that, after walking down the alley, his concern is the scale of this. He said this building has a pretty big footprint and is almost as big as a second house. Weitzel said that some of the outbuildings in that area approximate small barns, in that they were old cardage houses. He said there is a very large two-story carriage house at the end of the alley. Weitzel stated that some of the buildings have a narrower footprint but are very tall, and this would match the character of the neighborhood and be within the range of the others. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 28, 2003 Page 3 Robinson said the barn at the end of the alley is just a monster. He said there are several others in the neighborhood of the same scale. Weitzel said that in other neighborhoods this might be a problem, but this would probably be okay here. McCafferty said that this will have to meet the Code regarding the spacing of spindles on the exterior sair balulster. She said it sounds like Robinson is willing to do the gabled roof configuration. McCafferty said the other question concerns the fact that the barns typically have some windows. She said that on the drawings submitted by Robinson there is a window shown on the gable end. She suggested a door and a window on one end, with two windows to match on the other end. McCafferty said they could just be barn sash windows that could be trimmed out with wider tdm. Enloe asked if there should be size specifications for the windows. McCafferty suggested barn sashes that are double hung windows. Carlson said the proportion of a double hung would be better. McCafferty said the windows could be 24 inches by 42 inches. She said the baluster should also be constructed with a traditional top and bottom rail. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1229 East Burlington Street with the pitched roof, double hung windows on either side, standard wide trim, and spindles as per City Code. Enloe seconded the motion. Sueppel asked if Robinson would be restricted to a certain type of window here. McCafferty said the current guidelines contain a recommendation for metal clad wood windows or straight wood windows. She stated that vinyl would be disallowed. Robinson said that was acceptable to him. McCafferty pointed out that this certificate would require a minor modification. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 842 Rundell Street. McCafferty stated that this application is for the construction of a garage. She said the applicant proposes to use wood, although fiber cement board would be acceptable. McCafferty said the applicant does not want to use synthetic siding but wants the garage to look similar to the house. Enloe asked if the garage could be built that close to the alley. Weitzel said there has to be a distance of at least ten feet. McCafferty said she will bring that to the attention of HIS. Smothers asked if the garage doors would be made of metal. Smothers asked how long the side of the garage would be. She said that there is no fenestration shown on the plans. McCafferty said she had thought the contractor would attend the meeting to discuss the plans. Maharry asked if Smothers had specific recommendations for the contractor. Smothers responded that it is her personal preference to have a break in the walls, especially if the garage is to be 24 feet in length. Ponto agreed that this would be a pretty big blank area. Gunn said the plans show one window on the side opposite the garage doors. He said he also would recommend a couple of small windows on the alley side. Cadson said he would like to see at least one window there. Gunn said the one planned for the end could be used on the side. Weitzel said these plans look just like his garage, which was built in the 1930s. McCafferty stated that cost is probably not a major issue here. Gunn said he did not know if the Commission could really say that this should have windows on the side, but if it looks appropriate and upscale, it could be a recommendation of the Commission to have a couple of nice windows on the side, using barn sashes. Smothers said she is not forcing anyone to install windows. She said it would just be her personal preference, because it breaks up the space and looks better. Enloe said the Commission might make it a recommendation. Ponto said he would support it as a recommendation but would leave it to the owner, because the owner might have security concerns related to having windows on the garage. McCafferty said the four/twelve pitch of the roof would make this a Iow garage, and she would like to see that bumped up to six/twelve. Sueppel asked what the pitch of the house is. Enloe said it appears to be steeper than the drawing of the garage. He asked if the Commission could require the pitch to be the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 28, 2003 Page 4 same as that of the house, and McCafferty confirmed this. Weitzel stated that it looks better when the pitch of the outbuilding matches the house. Maharry asked if there should be a recommendation for window dimensions. McCafferty suggested two by two or three by three windows. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a garage at 842 Rundell, with the pitch of the garage to match that of the house and with the recommendation that two small windows be added to the side of the garage. Enloe seconded the motion, McCaffer[y said she informed the applicant that wide door and window trim would be required. She said she alos discussed the requirement that the doom be paintable and informed the contractor that steel would be acceptable. She said this house is in the Dearborn Street Conservation District so that it doesn't have to match the house but does have to be appropriate to the neighborhood. Weitzel asked if one of the options is to have a brick base with siding. He said in terms of longevity bdck would be better to have than siding to the ground. Gunn said the alley is actually higher than the garage floor, so the block might be to potentially keep the wood off the ground. Ponto stated that the alley elevation shows what looks like block on the alley side. McCafferty said the block won't be visible. Weitzel said he would assume that was for grading purposes. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 528 College Street. McCafferty said there are two items to consider regarding this project. She said that when the property owners, the Budords, removed the porch to repair it, they discovered half-round window wells that they would like to show, instead of covering up. She said the fimt application showed plexiglass here. McCafferty said the Burfords now propose using a metal grate on the porch floor. She said they would like to open it and clean it out. They also ran into issues with HIS regarding the structural strength of plexiglass. McCafferty said, therefore, that the first aspect of the application is to add steel grates to the porch floor when reconstructing it to have access to the window wells. McCallum said that the window wells would indicate that the porch was an addition. McCafferty said that most likely it was. She said it is very likely that this house, given it has Greek Revival influences, probably originally had a small portico porch with columns. McCafferty said the porch was probably later removed to construct the more fashionable Italianate porch. McCafferty stated that the other application involves a hatch, which can hardly be seen, that is on the west side of the roof. She said the location is very obscure, and the owners would like to put in a skylight instead of a hatch. McCafferty said the roof has been redone completely, and the owners need to decide what to do with the hatch. She said it can hardly be seen from the street, as it is far enough to the north. She said the hatch is located over a big attic space. Smothers asked if the Commission would recommend a Iow profile. McCafferty said this would not be a bubble. She said she would recommend a Vellux skylight that would appear similar to the existing hatch. Enloe asked if the skylight would be more visible in the winter. Sueppel commented that if the skylight were done right, it would look like the hatch was still there. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a skylight as designed to replace the hatch on the roof at 528 College Street and the use of a metal grate on the porch floor. Sueppel seconded the motion. Carlson said he thought the grate would be acceptable but said he would like to see the plans for the skylight. Enloe said the skylight would not change the structure. Carlson asked if it will look as it does now and without drawings can that be guaranteed. McCallum said he walks down College Street all the time, and the hatch is the last thing he noticed about that house. Weitzel said he looked for the hatch when he walked past the house but couldn't find it. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August28,2003 Page 5 Sueppel asked when the Burfords would need approval for this. McCafferty said they want to get the project done during this construction season. Sueppel asked if Carlson would be happier if they submit the plans before the skylight is installed. Carlson said he would like to see the plans before the installation. Sueppel said the Burfords have been good about submitting the required information and he did not want to hold them up. He said they have put a lot of money in this project. McCafferty said the guidelines say that a skylight is acceptable on a non-prominent street elevation, which this is. Carlson said this would therefore be acceptable to him. He said he was just a little bit concerned that this family might be receiving special treatment by not requiring them to submit the skylight plans. Enloe said the Burfords still have to submit plans as part of the standard procedure. McCafferty said they would net have to submit plans to the Building Department. Sueppel stated that the Burfords already have a building permit and are just adding to it here. Enloe said he understood Carlson's reticence and agreed on principle that the Commission should not be approving certificates of appropriateness based on vague descriptions and incomplete plans. Maharry stated that if the application is filled out completely, that is what is needed. He said that if more detailed plans might change someone's mind about a project that would potentially not be approvable, that person should vote against the certificate. Carlson said that if the Commission would write into the recommendation that the skylight should not be a bubble and not be whatever else the Commission doesn't want, that would help matters. McCafferty said that unlike most people that renovate old house in Iowa City, the Burfords are having prepared by Doug Steinmetz drawings of this house. Sueppel said he agreed with Enloe's comments and also thought that that all applicants should have the minimum amount of information to McCafferty before the Commission's meeting. Weitzel said the applicants have submitted what is required, and it is up to the Commission to determine if it is enough information to make a decision. He said that in this case, this information is enough for him. McCafferty said she did agree to accommodate the Burfords for this application because they are working hard to get a lot completed this season. McCallum said the Burfords deserve credit for the work they are doing and said they are headed in the right direction. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS: Sueppel said that in Section 2.1 in the Note, the sentence should end with "...these items may not require a permit." Weitzel said that on page six under Conservation Districts, in the second sentence, the State Code should specify the State Code of Iowa. He also suggested that the term integrity be defined in the glossary. Ponte said that on page 32 under Guidelines for Demolition, the section entitled Disallowed should come before the Not Recommended section to be consistent with the rest of the guidelines. He said that on page 28 under Disallowed for Decks, the first bullet reads that "Constructing a deck between the street and the street-facing fa~:ade if it is not compatible with the neighborhood..." Ponte pointed out that the first sentence on the page states that "Decks and ramps are features that are not typical to historic structures" so that of course a deck won't be compatible with the neighborhood. McCafferty said this might be one of the places where the term appropriate was replaced with something more specific. Smothers suggested using a phrase to say that a deck should not detract from the neighborhood. Ponte said he would prefer something like that. McCafferty said people have told her that there is already a deck on a house down the street. She said she tells them that it was constructed before the area was a district, and the goal is to keep the appearance of the neighborhood from being eroded further. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 28, 2003 Page 6 Enloe said that it is a judgment call, so it might as well be left in as compatible to give the Commission some discretion. Maharry agreed. Weitzel said that on page 17 in the second bullet under Exception, the sentence should read, "...and similar details are not to be covered..." He referred to the fifth bullet on page 15 under Recommended, and said that in some instances caulking would not be recommended, for example on the bottom sides of clapboards. Smothers agreed that if everything were caulked, the material would not have a chance to breathe. McCafferty suggested changing the wording to read, "Keep all surfaces primed and painted and apprepdately caulked where needed in order to prevent wood deterioration." Weitz_el referred to the third bullet under Recommended on page 24. He asked if Commission members would like to recommend specific distances from the foundation for plantings, for example15 to 20 for trees, and three feet for shrubs. He said since the goal is to preserve the house, this could be a recommendation. Smother said she would not want to prevent the retention of historic landscapes, such as volunteer trees and cottage gardens that reseed themselves close to the house. Smothers said she thinks it does help to have trees and plantings a certain distance from the house. Weitzel said he did not necessarily want to regulate plantings but thought it could be a good recommendation. Maharry said the Commission could recommend a lot of things, but the majority of the guidelines is supposed to concern what the Commission does and doesn't regulate. Weitzel said the Commission is already making a recommendation here, and he just thought it could be more specific. McCafferty agreed that big trees planted right next to the house could obviously cause severe damage. Weitzel said the Extension Office has a lot of recommendations regarding distances for plantings. Smothers said the Department of the Interior is now switching the other way. McCafferty said the Commission could insert a general statement regarding the damage that can result from planting shrubs and trees too close to the house. Weitzel said that since there was not a consensus, he would prefer to just drop the topic from discussion. Maharry said that in Section 3.3 the word "can" should be changed to "may" in the sentence citing examples, to be consistent with the third sentence in the introductory paragraph. Sueppel said that he had thought that the third bullet in Section 3.3 had been dropped from the guidelines. Ponto said that at one point the Commission had discussed this with relation to the siding having the same width as the original. Sueppel said the last minutes describe the Commission's discussion of non-historic properties and the desire not to have a 60s ranch house continue to look like a 60s ranch house if the owner wants to work on it. He asked if the Commission is going to allow the owner of a non-historic property to make changes, knowing that the Commission can recommend that and stop him from doing it if the siding is too narrow. McCafferty said the guidelines could just refer to the use of synthetic siding on existing buildings. Maharry asked if this would then require someone to make his house look like a 1960s house when he resides it, if he wants to make it look like something else. McCafferty said the Commission doesn't want to try to make it look like it is something it isn't. Sueppel said that is already covered in the first paragraph that discusses not creating a false sense of history. Enloe said his question is at the other end. He asked, for a non-historic property, if (something?) is any more detracting to the neighborhood than the 1960s building that is non-historic. Weitzel said the point made at previous meetings was that the Commission is not preserving the historic character of a nonhistoric house, but the character of the neighborhood. Maharry said the concern about creating a false sense of history is already covered. He asked again about the situation in which the owner of a 1960s house wants to update to something contemporary. Enloe suggested just striking that bullet. He said the Commission does not want to fossilize non-historic properties to whatever era they were built in. McCafferty said the Commission did want to make it clear that the owner could use synthetic siding. Weitzel said it is clear that the Commission can be lenient in Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 28, 2003 Page 7 some cases. The consensus of the Commission was to strike the rest of the sentence after the word "buildings." Maharry suggested striking exception number three in Section 3.3. Ponto agreed that it could be deleted. McCafferty suggested that there may be a better word than compatible, perhaps to say that it should be consistent with the neighborhood. Maharry said that is already covered under item one. Ponto said that number three basically fossilizes non-historic properties by requiring any changes to be compatible with the original. Enloe asked if the intention is to make anything done to non-historic properties within the district acceptable. Maharry said the big thing is that it should not detract from the historic character of the district. McCafferty said the change has to be benign. Maharry recommended deleting number three, as those issues are already covered under one and two. Enloe said they are discussing different things. He said this is all on a case by case basis anyway, so he felt it could be left in. McCafferty said the point of this is to inform the public what can be done to a nonhistoric house. Maharry suggested deleting the word "age" from number three. Ponto and Carlson agreed with that suggestion. Ponto said that on page three, the subsections under 3.0, 5.0, and 6.0 should not be tabbed over so far, so that they would be consistent with the other sections. Maharry suggested that, on page three, the last five subsections under 4.0 could be included underneath the rest of the subsections. McCafferty said that at the next meeting, the Commission would review the rest of the handbook, which discusses styles, etc. She said Cadson is currently reviewing those sections for grammatical corrections. McCafferty said that after that section is reviewed, the Commission would vote on the entire handbook, and then it would proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a vote. Ponto asked if the Brown Street guidelines would be basically the same as those for College Hill. McCafferty confirmed this. She said she would make sure to include the guidelines for the North Side in the next packet. McCafferty added that she intends to make a clearer copy of the maps for the final reproduction of the handbook. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 14, 2003 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: Maharry said that on page seven, in the second paragraph, in the first sentence, the word "inconsistent" should be changed to "consistent," and the second "if" should be deleted. Sueppel said that on page seven, in the fifth paragraph, the third sentence should read, "He said he just puts wood over the wood and wraps them." Sueppel said the sixth paragraph should be deleted. Carlson said that in the next paragraph, the second sentence should read, "She asked if Sueppel is saying that...," and there should only be one period at the end of the sentence. Carlson said that on page one, in the second paragraph, The Johnson County History should be changed to a non-Italicized "History of Johnson County." Carlson said that on page nine, the sixth paragraph should be deleted. Ponto said that on page eight, in the eighth full paragraph, the first sentence should read, "...from the street elevation and side porches visible from the street, but asked what people thought about putting permanent windows or walls on a rear porch." Carlson said that on page ten, in the eleventh full paragraph, "affect" should be changed to "effect." MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 14, 2003 meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 28, 2003 Page 8 INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: McCafferty showed a photograph of the house at 227 North Governor Street. She said that it is just within the boundaries of the proposed Goosetown District. McCaffedy said an ancestor of Irving Weber built the house. She said it would probably never be a landmark property. Weitz. el said it would not be a national landmark. McCafferty said it definitely would contribute to a conservation district. She said the owner is putting out feelers to find out the significance of the property. McCafferty said the owner would like to find out if the Commission would try to landmark the property if he has plans to demolish it. McCallum said the property is on the 1868 Bird's Eye Map. Weitzel said if it is on the map, it would be quite an old house. Maharry asked what the owner intends to do with the lot. McCafferty said the property is zoned RS-8, which would allow a duplex. She said if the owner builds this year, he could build a duplex on the property. She said that each side of a duplex can have four bedrooms. Regarding Goosetown, Maharry said the City had received a petition of signatures for designation of Goosetown as a conservation district. He said it has different boundaries, and the proposed boundaries have now been extended to the west. McCafferty said she did not believe that the boundaries had changed; she said it is just that the Commission has been focusing on the Goosetown survey area. She said the actual recommendation is larger than the survey area. McCafferty said that Marlys Svendsen's recommendation put together all three of the surveys that were done, Phase 1,2 and 3 of the Original Town Plat. Maharry said it now contains a big chunk of property west of Governor. McCafferty said she is getting the maps together for Goosetown. Maharry said that holding a neighborhood meeting would be the next step, and a letter would eventually be sent to area residents. Maharry asked if neighborhood guidelines should be written before the neighborhood meeting in order to answer any questions that come up. McCafferty said it wouldn't hurt but said that most questions would probably involve individual properties. She said that having guidelines before the neighborhood meeting is held would probably not be as critical for Goosetown as it was for College Hill. She said that guidelines would be needed before the public hearing is held. Maharry said there were 23 to 24 signatures on the petition, about 10% of the homeowners. McCafferty stated that she has an intern working on the mailing list. She said the Commission could begin working on Goosetown in October or November. McCafferty said Marlys Svendsen will be in town on September 8TM to begin working on the NHRP nominations for the Northside. McCafferty added that Carlson is currently editing the CLG grant proposal for downtown. Sueppel asked if the owners of 1131 Burlington, 1107 Burlington, and 1055 Burlington had received permits for the work they are doing there. McCafferty said the porch was determined to be of no material effect. Sueppel said that one of the other projects is a major addition to the house. McCafferty said that project was started before the conservation district was established. Sueppel asked about the work at 1055 Burlington, and McCafferty replied that it is a window replacement project that was started before the area became a district. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003- 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baron Thrower, Michelle Robnett, Alan Ellis, Randy Hartwig, Rick Mascari STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ellis called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the June 12, 2003, Commission meeting were approved as submitted. Ellis said he would like an agenda item that would allow for unfinished business to be discussed. O'Neil said he would include that on the next agenda. Mascari said he thought that unfinished business should be included in the Chairperson's report. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Ellis asked what Commercial Towel does? O'Neil said some restroom supplies are bought from Commercial Towel and they also supply the rugs inside the doors in the Terminal Building. Mascari said he wanted to verify that the Chambers Electric bill was part of the Building D rehab project. Mascari made a motion to pay the bills. Hartwig seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were presented. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) - Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, gave his monthly report. He said he spoke with Michael Hodges, from Airport Business Solutions, concerning advertising. Overton said the Commission should discuss what would be needed to connect lots # 1 - # 4 to the taxiway systems. He said it would be good to have that information in the event that there is an aviation-related business interested Jn the ACP. Overton said that in speaking with Hodges, they discussed a company called Airport Property Specialists. He said they are a company that specializes in airport properties. Overton said that it may be possible to have a joint marketing effort with that company and he is trying to contact the appropriate person in their office. Overton presented some information to the Commission on what it would cost to advertise in national magazines. In one of the magazines suggested by Hodges, the ads would cost anywhere from $1800 per month to $3800.00 per month. Another publication charged $4200 per month. Overton said he does not think the price of the national ads would be cost effective. He said he thought it would be more effective to do more local advertising. He said it may be possible to have a Chamber Business PM hosted by the Commission for ! the ACP. Ellis said Jet Air is going to be hosting a PM this fall. There is a waiting list of one to two years to host a PM. Ellis asked if the Council should be involved with helping to fund advertising? Mascari wanted to know if O'Neil knew of any funding source for advertising money? O'Neil said he didn't have any funding source, but since the Commission and Council have a joint agreement with Overton, the Commission may want to discuss advertising with the Council. Mascari said he thought they should take out three $1800 ads, running them every other month. Robnett said maybe they could advertise regionally, instead of nationally. She said that is usually less expensive. Overton said the national ads he looked at were advertising buildings, not undeveloped land. Overton said historically, local advertising has been more effective than national as far as land is concerned. Overton said he would suggest the Commission wait until they receive their report from ABS to decide on advertising. He said ABS might have some views on how the Commission should advertise. Overton said he would follow up with Airport Property Specialists. Thrower asked Overton what he would estimate Iowa Realty has spent on advertising? Overton said it would be difficult to estimate because the ACP is advertised with their other commercial property. He said he would guess it to be $5000 or $6000 over the last two years. Thrower asked Ellis if it was reasonable that Iowa Realty provide an accounting of what they have spent on advertising? Ellis said that when the contract was negotiated, Iowa Realty said that they would probably spend about $5000. The contract did not require an accounting of the advertising. He said it would not be fair to require it at this time. Thrower made a motion to formally require Iowa Realty to provide an accounting of what has been spent on advertising and lay out a plan for additional advertising funds. Mascari seconded the motion. Ellis said he did not think Thrower could make a motion at this point because it was not on the agenda. Mascari said he would like to make a motion to put the marketing issue on the agenda for the next meeting. Ellis said it would be more appropriate for Mascari to bring this up under Commission members' items. After some discussion, it was decided to bring up the issue later in the meeting. Thrower said he would withdraw his motion. Overton said an offer had been received and he would share the offer with the Commission if it moved forward. b, Hangar # 31 lease - Ellis said there was a subcommittee that reviewed the lease with the tenant and was to make a recommendation to the Commission. O'Neil circulated a lease that the subcommittee made final changes to. O'Neil said it was almost identical to the lease he had included in the packet. Robnett asked Dulek if she had reviewed the lease. Dulek said she had not been asked to review the lease. She reviewed the liability and insurance but she has not reviewed the entire lease. O'Neil said the tenant wanted a five- year lease. Dulek reminded the Commission that a public hearing is needed if it is more than three years. Ellis said that ABS said a five-year lease is acceptable, as long as there is some mechanism available to review the rent after three years. He said the lease ABS reviewed is not the lease negotiated by the subcommittee. He thought another subcommittee should look at the lease and the comments supplied by ABS. 2 Mascari made a motion to accept the lease circulated by O'Neil at the meeting, with the exception of making it a three-year lease, with a two-year extension. He said the subcommittee had spent a lot of time and he thought it was a fair lease. Robnett seconded the motion. She said a permanent subcommittee should be appointed to review leases. Dulek asked what the option would include? Mascari said the option would continue the lease on with the same terms. Dulek said it would have to be voted on again at the end of the first three years. O'Neil suggested he contact the tenant and discuss the length of the lease. If the tenant wants a five-year lease, O'Neil will publish the public hearing notice for the August meeting. Mascari said he would withdraw his motion. Robnett withdrew her second of the motion. The Commission requested Dulek review the lease, with the recommendations from ABS. Mascari said he thought the Commission should have a special meeting to pass the lease. O'Neil said he would suggest setting a public hearing at the August meeting. Mascari made a motion to set the public hearing for the lease for hangar #31 for August 14, 2003. Thrower seconded the motion and it passed 5 - 0. Ellis said this is not a lease for just one person. He said it should be uniform for all the commercial hangars. c. Environmental Assessment project (consultant H,R, Green) - Joe Trnka, from H.R. Green, presented information. He said the EA noise contours were revised and would be sent to the FAA by the end of next week. He said they would be smaller. Trnka said he used one aircraft that probably should not have been used in the model and it skewed the results. Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, said using daytime versus nighttime hours also had an effect on the noise study. Blum said the FAA also wanted a more detailed explanation of the alternatives. He said most of that information was reviewed in detail in the 1993 feasibility study. Much of that information will be included in the EA report. O'Neil said the information needs to be sent to the FAA as soon as possible to complete the EA so a grant can be applied for. Blum said the FAA has said that they will not pay for design work to see if Runway 07 could be lowered. Blum said he thinks the runway should be lowered and Green may try to convince the FAA of the cost savings involved with changing the runway elevation. d. Strategy/business plan project (consultant ABS) - Ellis said additional information is being sent to ABS. A meeting has been scheduled with the Council for August 18 for a presentation of the initial draft of the report. The Council would like to see the report in advance of the meeting so they have time to review it. Thrower asked if they have provided anything in advance? O'Neil said the draft report was to be their first document. O'Neil said he has asked ABS to provide the draft in electronic form by August 13. All of the Commission members said to send them the report electronically. e. Obstruction mitigation project (consultant Stanley Engineering) - Mike Donnelly, from Stanley, presented a map of all the obstructions and discussed it with the Commission. He said all of the property owners were contacted. Costs to mitigate the obstructions were assigned to all the obstructions. Three of the obstructions were at ground level on the Airport. Donnelly said their estimator might have estimated high on removing the ground. He said he would do a field survey to more accurately determine how much dirt needs to be moved. Thrower noted that there was a building close to the Airport property by Runway 25 that was considered an obstruction. He wanted to know if an obstruction light could be installed? O'Neil said they would look at that possibility. He said that when the survey work was being done for the ACP, one of the survey marks might have indicated that the building is on Airpod property. He would follow-up with the survey crew. Blum said the obstruction would be worse if a 50:1 slope is approved. O'Neil said it is important where the obstructions are and their height in relation to the runways. He said it would also be important to reduce the number of obstructions. Ellis asked about the flagpole on the Old Capital Building. Donnelly said the architect from the University said they were going to have an airspace study conducted. An airspace study was suppose to have been done before they installed the flagpole. f. United hangar disposition - Trnka presented information on what it would cost to remove, restore or rehabilitate the building. Blum said that there would be additional costs to move the brick office part of the building. He said that them could be a significant cost with replacing the roof on the hangar. Ellis asked when the recommendation to the Council needs to be made? He said the Commission does not have funds to rehab or restore the building. Mascari said he thought there should be at least a 20 % contingency in the budget for removal or restoration. He said surprises in the Terminal renovation project meant they could not do all they wanted to with that project. He said he would not want to move the hangar and end up with a building that did not pay for itself. Blum said that no matter what was done, there would need to be a historical recording of the building. This could cost as much as $20,000. O'Neil said that disposition of the building would be included in Phase II of the runway extension project. He said that the Commission should get some direction from the Council on whether there is any desire to save the structure. There would be substantial local funds needed to restore the building. The FAA would pay 90% of the moving costs. Mascari asked about whether anyone wanted to rent the office space? O'Neil said that there has been some interest in the office, but a new water line would have to be installed. The old line ruptured and was not replaced because of the cost. Ellis asked if there was any interest yet from the Science Center? O'Neil said that he did not know if the Science Center had any funds. They wanted to move the building to the ACP and have the property rent-free for at least five years. O'Neil said that he would not advise moving the building if the Commission did not have the funding available to restore it. He said it would not be productive to the Airport to move it and leave it in the repair it is in now. Mascari said although it is a building with a lot of history, he thought it would have to be demolished. He said that the FAA would pay for 90% of the project. Ellis said the Science Center should be contacted. There was not a consensus by the Commission to contact the Science Center. Mascari recommended having H.R. Green begin the historic review. O'Neil said the Council would have to approve the funding. If the Commission wants to get reimbursed by the FAA, they need to go through a selection process to choose the consultant for the project. Trnka said that it is important to find out if there is any group that is willing to raise the funding to save the building. Mascari suggested inviting members of the Historic 4 Preservation Commission to the next Commission meeting. They may want to take the lead in saving the building. g. Building H underground fuel tank - O'Neil said the Commission is responsible for the maintenance and insurance for the 10,000 gallon underground fuel tank located between buildings G and H. He said that the insurance is $500 per year and the line tightness test is about $500 per year. Every three years, an additional test for cathodic protection is required. O'Neil said the cathodic protection did not pass this year. He said he is waiting for an estimate to repair the tank, but assumed it would be at least $2000. He said there is very little income received from the tank. Thrower asked if the tank could be closed in place? O'Neil said there is a method for doing that, but the question is whether or not the tank should be closed. O'Neil said he would check with the DNR and see if there is some way to temporarily close the tank. O'Neil said he would invite the tenant to the next meeting to discuss options. The tenant was out of town and could not attend this meeting. O'Neil will have more information at the next meeting. h. Iowa City Schools System land lease - The Commission leases one acre of property to the lC school system. O'Neil said this is part of lot #5 in the ACP. O'Neil said he would recommend approving the lease. There is a 60-day out in the lease. The rent was $3886 this year and increases to $4003 next year. Mascari made a motion for a resolution to accept the tease. Robnett seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 5 - 0. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Ellis said the T-hangar leases are due in October. He said he anticipates that there will need to be a significant increase in the rent. He said he met with the Finance Director and he thinks an increase is important. Ellis said a subcommittee should start to review the lease. Ellis and Robnett will be the subcommittee. Ellis said the corporate hangar leases need to be uniform. He said that any additional use of the hangars should probably have separate agreements. Ellis said he would meet with the Mayor and get an opinion on support for the United hangar. He will contact Mr. Larew and see if there is interest from the Science Center. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Thrower said he would like to make a motion to add to the next agenda an item that would require Iowa Realty provide a report on marketing expenses. Dulek said a motion wasn't needed. There just needed to be a consensus of the Commission. Mascari and Robnett agreed with Thrower. Thrower said he agreed with Ellis that the Commission needed to brush up on Roberts Rules of Order to help make the meetings more formal. He said he would like to know how that would apply to administration of the Airport and would not want to see Roberts limit the dialog of the Commission. Hartwig said although it was not aviation related, he would like to congratulate the Englert group in meeting their goal. 5 Robnett said she would like to see the bushes trimmed more at the Airport entrance. Robnett said she went to Fly Iowa in Cedar Rapids and she said it was not very well organized. She thought the Iowa City annual fly-in was better organized. Robnett said she would like to see if there would be a Vision Iowa grant or some other funding to improve the lighting and install sidewalks on Riverside Drive to the Airport. Robnett wanted to know if someone wanted to have a conference at the airport, was there space available in Building F? O'Neil said Building F is leased to Jet Air. He said that is one of the things the United hangar could be used for if it was moved and restored. Mascari wanted to know if the Commission is making monthly presentations to the Council? Ellis said he was not at the last Council meeting, but he planned on going to the next meeting. Mascari said he would like to put on the next agenda how the agenda is formulated. There was agreement of the Commission to review agenda procedures. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said he received a thank you letter from Hills Banks for participation in their Aviation Day on June 14. There will be a temporary tower for the fly-in breakfast on August 24. Dave Larsen, who represents a developer west of the Airport, may be interested in leasing some property. O'Neil told him to present the Commission with a proposal. O'Neil said he received a telephone call from a woman whose father was an airmail pilot in 1927. She has some articles from his estate that discusses the Iowa City Airport in the late 1920's. She said she would send the information to O'Neil. O'Neil said Ross Spitz, from the Public Works Department, is negotiating an agreement to get another 50,000 cubic yards of fill for the ACP. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for August 14, 2003, at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Alan Ellis, Chairperson MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2003 - 5:45 P,M, IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Robnett, Baron Thrower, Alan Ellis, Randy Hartwig, Rick Mascari STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ellis called the meeting to order at 5:51 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There was a page missing from the minutes. O'Neil recommended that the Commission defer approval until the next meeting and he will make certain all the pages are in the packet. Mascari said that he also wanted it stated in the minutes that the money spent on the office in Building D did not have to be paid back. Mascari also wanted it noted that the change to the July agenda was done at the direction of Chairperson Ellis. Ellis said the July and August minutes would be included with the September meeting information packet. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari said he would like to defer payment of the bills until after the discussion about the ABS consultant report. O'Neil said the invoice to ABS has been paid. He said that he has discussed this with the Commission on several occasions that they are not necessarily pre-approving payments. If something has been budgeted for and the product has been delivered, O'Neil said he pays the invoice. The list of expenditures reviewed at the meetings is a "heads-up" to the Commission on ongoing projects and maintenance. Mascari asked about getting weather on the internet instead of Meteorlogix. O'Neil said the Commission had discussed this in the past and decided to stay with Meteorlogix. Mascari made a motion to pay the bills, except for Meteorlogix. Thrower seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Ron Duffe, from Jet Air, reminded the Commission about the open house on August 24. He said on August 28, Jet Air was hosting a business P.M and the Commission was invited. September 3 the Civil Air Patrol was hosting a cookout picnic and the Commission was invited. Dulek reminded the Commission of the State $ 2.99 gift restriction. PUBLIC HEARING - HANGAR # 31 Ellis opened the public hearing at 6:00 p.m. There were no comments. Ellis closed the public hearing at 6:01 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: O'Neil said that if this were to be a regular agenda item, he would routinely review minutes from the previous month and provide a list of follow-up issues. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, said that his report was in the monthly packet. He said he has received an inquiry from a company from the east coast that wanted to locate in Iowa City. He hoped the company would be in Iowa City next week to look at properties. They need about five acres. He will update the Commission when information becomes available. He said an offer was made on Lot #1. He said it was so Iow of an offer that it did not go anywhere. Overton said he spoke with someone from Airport Property Specialists about a joint marketing effort. He said that they wanted to see the ABS report before thinking about any project at Iowa City. Overton mentioned the Commission might be interested in placing an ad in the Chamber's news letter. He said the newsletter goes out to most of the businesses in the Iowa City area. Overton said that in response to questions at an earlier Commission meeting, he had prepared a report on approximate expenditures by Iowa Realty for advertising the ACP. He said it is difficult to have exact numbers because the ACP is advertised with their other commercial properties. He said some of the numbers are quantifiable and some are just the price of doing business. Robnett asked about the budget for signage? Overton said this was for the brokers signs, not the permanent signs for the development. O'Neil said he thought the best place for the sign would be on the north side of the road, at the east entrance to Ruppert Road. The most visible area would be on DOT right-of -way. He said he met with officials from the local DOT office and was not given much encouragement for getting permission to place a permanent sign on the right-of-way. Ellis said there was money in the budget for an entrance sign. Thrower asked if the marketing expenditure report circulated by Overton was up to date? Overton said he thought the costs were current. Thrower asked Overton how much of the typical broker fee is attributed to office costs? Overton said he did not know the exact breakdown of the fee. He said some goes to the broker, some to office costs and some to other brokers that may be involved. Overton said Iowa Realty was never given a specified amount of money by the Commission to use towards marketing. He said he estimated up front that this assignment would cost Iowa Realty an additional $ 5000.00 more than a normal commercial listing. Thrower asked what a typical cost would be for a property such as this? Overton said he could not tell Thrower exactly what those numbers are. Overton said he did not discuss a typical number for this project. He said he expected using their typical marketing strategies. Overton said he could visit with the president of Iowa Realty and see if he could come up with some typical marketing costs. Mascari asked Overton what the average percentage of cost would be for advertising a piece of property. Overton said he does not know that number. He said the company on a whole assumes some of those costs and he has not had an occasion to know that particular cost. Overton said he did not know if there is a clear correlation between the expected broker fees and the cost of advertising the property. b. Hangar # 3'1 lease - Ellis said he would like to use the lease that was reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Mascari asked if the tenant has had an opportunity to review the changes suggested by the City Attorney? O'Neil said the lease the Commission held the public hearing on was the one discussed at the July Commission meeting. No changes have been incorporated since the last meeting. O'Neil said changes could be incorporated without having another public hearing. Mascari said he thought the changes were so minor that he did not think they would be significant to the tenant. Mascari said he would make a motion for a resolution to accept the lease, as amended with the changes from the City Attorney's office. Hartwig seconded the motion. Ellis said there were a couple of policy issues, such as a three-year lease instead of a five-year lease. Mascari said the rent has been adjusted to allow for increases over the five-year period. The motion passed 4 - 1, with Ellis voting no. c. Davis development- water detention easement O'Neil said he met today with Joe Trnka and someone from the Corps of Engineers to discuss what possible impact the proposed development might have on the runway extension project. Dave Larsen, representing the developer, was also present at the meeting. Dulek said that if the developer wanted a permanent easement, it would have to be granted by the City Council. The Commission could grant a temporary easement. Larsen presented information to the Commission. He said the Corps would not be involved in the construction of the storm water detention basin. He said they would be involved when it came to wetland mitigation. Mascari asked if Larsen needed a permanent easement. Larry Schnittjer, from MMS Consultants, said the grading easement could be temporary, but the final easement would be permanent. Larsen said he thought their design would have no effect on the Airport's project and may also be a benefit. Mascari asked why would they want to reroute the creek to their property? Schnittjer said it would help with the water detention. Mascari asked Blum, from H.R. Green, how the proposal by Dane/Davis would affect the runway extension project? Blum said that he would not know until they reviewed the plan to see how it would fit with the Airport Master plan. Mascari explained to Larsen that the Commission has been discussing Willow Creek for the last couple of meetings and have been working on how the creek will work into the runway design. Blum said they are working on a design for Willow Creek as it relates to the Environmental Assessment. Schnittjer asked if the creek would change on the south side of the Airport? Blum said it has not been determined whether the creek will remain in the same place and be put in a culvert or whether it would be routed around the Obstacle Free Area, as shown on the current ALP. Mascari asked O'Neil what his opinion was of Larsen's proposal? O'Neil said he would not recommend approval of anything on Willow Creek until the Commission had their plan submitted and approved by the Corps and the FAA. Larsen said he thought that they could provide assurances that their project would not impact the runway project. O'Neil said he had concerns about phase II of the developer's design, which would mitigate wetlands on the Davis property and move it closer to the Airport. Larsen said it would be a dry-bottom wetlands. He said this would have not impact on the Airport. Mascari asked how you could have a dry-bottom detention area if you rerouted Willow Creek through the detention area? Blum said the real issue is that the Commission does not know how the area will be designed to accommodate the runway project. Thrower said that H.R. Green is currently working on preliminary design of the project in conjunction with the EA. They have not reviewed the Dane/Davis proposal and no plan for Willow Creek has been submitted to the FAA. He said the Commission is not an expert on this and will rely on whomever does the runway design for advice on this project. O'Neil said that when a design for Willow Creek is submitted to the Corps, the DNR, etc., it would take at least 60 days for review. He said it would be somewhere between 2 to 6 months to receive approval. Larsen said he thought the Commission will be having issues with moving dirt for their runway project and he hoped they could work together down the road. Ellis said he is reading that the consensus of the Commission is that they could not make a decision on this issue with the information they have available to them now. d. Obstruction mitigation project- Mike Donnelly, from Stanley Engineering, said a final report will be completed by Monday and given to O'Neil for distribution to the Commission. He said included in the report would be costs for mitigation and a schedule for mitigation. He said code requirements have been considered. The University has been contacted about the lighting on their power plant stacks and the requirements resulting from the air space study for the new flagpole on top of the Old Capital dome. Thrower asked Donnelly if the development directly north of the Airport had any impact as far as obstructions were concerned? Donnelly said he didn't think it did. O'Neil said the apartment building developers were required to have an airspace study done. He said the Building Department does a good job of monitoring projects near the airport and they require an airspace study be completed before a building permit is issued. e. Environmental Assessment project - Joe Trnka, from H.R. Green, said he sent additional information to the FAA and thinks he has answered everyone's comments. He said he met with O'Neil and someone from the Corps today and will address comments in the EA that will assist in the design of the culvert for the runway project. He said a permit would be required from the Corps to relocate or put Willow Creek in a culvert. The FAA has to sign off on the EA. O'Neil said he left a message for Mark Schenkelberg, the FAA Environmental Planner, to get some idea of how soon the EA would be completed. Schenkelberg will be back in the office on Tuesday of next week. g, United hangar disposition - Ellis suggested that since H.R. Green is working on the United hangar as it relates to the EA, the Commission could discuss this agenda item next. Blum said that in order to give a more detailed analysis of the building, the Commission would need to revise the Green contract. 4 Mascari asked O'Neil if he had received any response from the Historic Preservation Commission? O'Neil said he sent a memo to the HP Commission staff planner, inviting them to the Commission meeting to discuss the hangar. He did not receive any response. Mascari asked O'Neil if the Council had been approached about funding to do the historic recording of the building? This would be required whether the building is torn down or moved. O'Neil said that at the last Commission meeting, he had explained that in order to get reimbursed from the FAA for those funds, the Commission would need to advertise the project and go through the FAA consultant selection project. O'Neil said he has advertised for a consulting engineering firm to conduct the runway project. Obstruction mitigation, including disposition of the United hangar, will be included in that project. The RFQ's are due on September 2. Mascari said it is his opinion that the Commission will have to tear the building down. He said the FAA would pay 90% of the cost to tear it down. He said the Commission does not have the money to move and rehab the building. Mascari said he thinks the Commission should send a letter to the Council and inform them of the consensus of the Commission to tear down the building. O'Neil said he would draft a letter for the Commission's review. h, Building H - underground fuel tank - O'Neil said this issue was discussed at the last meeting. It was prompted by the fact that the cathodic protection test failed and it would cost between $ 6000 and $ 8000 to correct the problem. O'Neil said there is an annual line leak detection test that costs $ 500 and a cleanup insurance premium of $ 500. Thrower asked if the tank could be filled with sand and closed in place? O'Neil said he contacted the DNR and discussed this. O'Neil said that current clean-up insurance would still be required even if the tank was temporarily closed. Dennis Gordon, the tenant, said he still expects the tank to be part of his leasehold. Mascari asked O'Neil how much it would cost to make the tank operational. O'Neil said it would be about $ 6500 for the cathodic protection and $1000 for the insurance and line monitoring. Mascari said the hangar is worth more money with the use of the tank. The tenant can buy fuel at wholesale and save money. O'Neil said the tenant before Gordon was paying a premium for the building because they had two aircraft that used Jet A fuel and they saved money by buying their own fuel. Mascari said he thought the Commission should get a second opinion on the cathodic protection. O'Neil said the test passed easily three years ago and he was surprised that it did not pass this time. The cathodic protection test is only required every three years. Ellis said that the Commission has contractual obligations to Gordon Aircraft. Thrower said that there were some unexpected costs with maintaining the tank, especially because the cathodic protection test failed. Gordon said all of the costs of maintaining the tank were discussed when the Commission took over maintenance costs of the tank. Thrower asked Gordon if he has a value associated with the tank and if he wanted to keep the tank operational? Gordon said the tank was pad of his lease and he wanted to keep the tank operational. Gordon said the person doing the cathodic protection seemed to be having a lot of problems when he was doing the testing. Gordon did not think he knew how to test the tank. Ellis suggested having the cathodic protection retested. O'Neil said he would schedule a test with another company. If the second test fails, he will also get a cost proposal from the second company to correct the problem. i, T-hangar leases - The T-hangar leases expire at the end of September. Because Mascari and Hadwig have t-hangars, they did not participate in the discussion. Ellis and Robnett were the subcommittee that reviewed the lease. The Commission discussed several minor changes. It was decided that there should be a distinction between a damage deposit and a security deposit. It will be the tenant's responsibility to have a current certificate of insurance on file. Robnett made a motion to accept the revised hangar lease. Thrower seconded the motion and it passed 3 - 0, with Mascari and Hartwig abstaining. The Commission decided to wait on the discussion of rates until the report is received from ABS. Ellis suggested a 20% increase in the rent or a comparable amount. Thrower asked why the rent is being increased? Ellis said that the Airport needs the money. Thrower asked if the FAA has any say about a surcharge on the fuel? O'Neil said it is a local decision and it would be something to coordinate with the FBO. Thrower said he would like to see trying to increase fuel sales and increase flowage fees instead of a hangar rent increase. O'Neil said he would review the language of the FBO lease to see if the FBO is paying the flowage fee or if he is just collecting it for the Commission. Robnett said maybe both options, rent increase and flowage fee, should be looked at. Thrower said he would like to use the flowage fee because those pilots not based here but that use the airport should help pay for it. f. Strategic planning - subcommittee - Ellis said he contacted ABS to discuss a letter the Commission received from a company that does privatization services of airports. He wanted ABS to know about this in case they got questions about privatization. He said he also reminded ABS that information was due to the Commission and Council before the meeting on August 15. He was told that ABS didn't know if they would be done on time. He was told that Michael Hodges was working on the power point presentation for the meeting and Randy Bisgard was working on the executive summary. They did not want information available to the public before they had time to explain their findings. Ellis talked to the City Clerk and was told that the deadline was 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning. As soon as it gets to the Clerk, it is considered a public document. A confidential document was sent to the City Clerk. It was not sent to the Commission or the Airport Manager. It was only an executive summary. The Mayor Pro Tem said that was not acceptable and that the Council was expecting a full draft report. She said because the Council did not have the information needed, the meeting would have to be rescheduled. It th was to be rescheduled to September $ . Thrower said he was concerned that no document was sent to the Commission. Mascari said the Commission had directed ABS to consider O'Neil as the contact and he would be responsible for distributing the information to the Commission and Council. Robnett said the Council received the information and they would likely ask the Commission for their opinion. If ABS didn't send it to the Manager, it would be difficult for him to get it to the Commission. Mascari asked what the time frame was for receiving the initial report. O'Neil said the report was due 90 days from the Notice to Proceed. O'Neil said he sent the Notice to Proceed on April 1. Mascari said the only thing received was an executive summary. Robnett said she was expecting more than a summary report. Ellis said he reviewed the contract and ABS said was supposed to present a draft report at the end of the 90 days. He said the executive summary was a response to the Council for something in writing before the presentation. O'Neil said he has made it very dear to ABS that at least a week before the next scheduled meeting, an electronic copy of the full draft report was due. Second, the Airport Manager was to be the contact person to distribute the information to the Council and Commission. The new deadline for the information is September 2. O'Neil said he contacted Michael Hodges personally and explained whom to contact, what was expected, and when it was due. The new schedule for meeting with the Council is on September 8th. Mascari recommended changing the Commission meeting to September 4 from September 11 so the Commission would have time to discuss the report before the Council meets. Mascari said he wanted to emphasize that the Airport Manager to is to be the contact person j. Agenda procedures and by-laws- Mascari said he would like to see a change in how things can be put on the agenda. Mascari said he reviewed the minutes from a year ago and he thought that the intent for agenda items was to have an item placed on the agenda by the Manager, two Commission members or the chairperson. He said that has not been the way it has been implemented so he would like to change the by-laws to allow two Commission members, or the chairperson or the Airport Manager to place items on the agenda. He said recurring agenda items are not to be changed. He said he feels that the way things are listed on the agenda is the way he prepares for a meeting. Mascari said the Airport is run by the Commission and the chairperson works for the Commission. Ellis said Mascari was not happy with the agenda and kept bringing up an item that had been voted on in the past. Ellis said that because Mascari did not like the outcome of the vote, he continued to bring up the issue. Ellis said he changed the agenda to keep Mascari from embarrassing the consultant and the Commission. Robnett said she thought the motion she had made in the past was as Mascari explained it. She said that there was a question of who was to be able to put items on the agenda. Ellis said the proper way to change the by-laws would be to review the entire by-laws and see if there were changes to be made. The last time there was a total review was 1991. Robnett said the policy could be changed with Rules of Order or through Policies and Procedures. Ellis asked who would define what agenda items are recurring? Mascari said this should be left to the discression of the Airport Manager. O'Neil said the Commission should make sure that they do not develop a policy that is in conflict with their by-laws. Mascari said that he would like to make a motion to revise the by-laws to allow two Commission members, or the chairperson or the Airport Manager to place items on the agenda. Recurring agenda items will not be modified. Thrower seconded the motion. Ellis said that if the Commission were concerned about process, he would remind them of when he wanted to develop a policy for the bulletin board in the Flight Service Room. It was on the agenda, it was voted down, and he did not bring it up again. Dulek reminded the Commission that there was a motion on the floor. She said Mascari needed to amend his motion to define recurring agenda items. Mascari said he would like 7 to amend his motion to include that the Airport Manager would determine what qualified as a recurring item. The motion passed 4 - 1, with Ellis voting no. Thrower said he had another issue for this agenda item. He said he would like to make a motion to amend the by-laws to make it possible to remove an officer of the Commission. He said that was a defect in the by-laws. Thrower circulated an amendment to the by-laws. His motion included several situations that would warrant removal from office. Mascari seconded the motion. O'Neil asked if it would be appropriate to review the entire by-laws, as was suggested earlier? Thrower said he thought the by-laws should be reviewed at some time, but he would like to move forward with his motion. He thought it was an important issue. Thrower said this was to remove someone from office, not from the Commission. The Commission members are Council appointments. There was some discussion on the actual language to be added. Dulek made some suggestions and Thrower said he would amend his motion to reflect Dulek's suggestions. He will send O'Neil a copy of the exact language if the motion passes. Ellis called for the vote on the motion. The motion passed 3 - 0, with Ellis voting no and Robnett abstaining. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Ellis said he heard the Commission loud and clear and that was the end of his report. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Thrower said the video of the June aviation day has began airing on the government channel and he will distribute a copy of the tape to the Commission. He would like the Commission to review it and provide feedback. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said the Commission had asked him to let them know when significant money would need to be spent on the NDB. O'Neil said that time was now. He said the other option was to decommission the unit. He said he would need a $ 500 part just to see what else would need to be fixed. The consensus of the Commission was to see what was needed to decommission the NDB. O'Neil reminded the Commission of the open house and breakfast on August 24. There will be a temporary tower. O'Neil suggested the Commission might want to volunteer working on the serving line for a short time and meet with the people attending the open house. There is a change in the way unemployment is charged in the budget. It will be charged to individual departments. The State Aviation Conference will be in Des Moines on October 16th and 17th. The Deaf Pilots Association has selected a different city to hold their 2005 convention. They may be interested in Iowa City for 2006. They did not want to provide the insurance coverage the Airport requested. O'Neil reminded the Commission of the meeting with the Council on September 8th. O'Neil said he is meeting with Todd Madison, the FAA planner for the State of Iowa, on August 19th. O'Neil said he is trying to get two FAA grants in the next fiscal year. The RFQ's for the Runway 07/25 project are due on September 2®. O'Neil said he contacted several companies that have expressed interest. The lease for hangar # 32 expires in September. This will be on the agenda for the September meeting. He said the tenant is interested in leasing the hangar again. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for September 4, 2003, at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Alan Ellis, Chairperson 9 MINUTES F INAL/APPROV PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Sarah Walz, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Stroh STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Klink, seconded by Walz, to approve the September 10, 2003 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Klink, seconded by Gustaveson, to recommend to the City Council that the park be officially named the Waterworks Prairie Park. Unanimous. PARK TOUR SITES Trueblood indicated the annual park tour was tentatively set for September 10, beginning at 4 p.m. Walz asked if it would be appropriate to invite the people who are running for City Council; Trueblood noted more than 20 people have taken out a packet. She stated it would be an opportunity to educate them on the issues parks and recreation face and to see various parks and their features; Boyd and Gustaveson agreed. Boyd asked if it would be appropriate to wait until October to conduct the park tour, at which time the number of candidates would be narrowed down to eight at the most. Pacha indicated he had mixed emotions, in that he would not want it to change the focus of the tour. Gustaveson felt it would be a great opportunity to show the City Council candidates what the department has accomplished with limited finances, and an opportunity to highlight various areas. Westefeld indicated he was neutral, and suggested setting an agenda which would inform invitees of the park tour's focus. Gustaveson asked if it would be possible to start the tour at 3:30 p.m. if it was conducted after the primary; Trueblood noted it has been difficult at times for people to make it as early as 4:00 p.m. Boyd noted the primary would take place on October 7th. Ostrognai suggested drafting the invitation to successful candidates and City Council members. It was determined to move the annual park tour to Wednesday, October 8 and to invite the successful candidates. Pacha indicated the commission could forego its formal meeting and begin the tour at 4 p.m.; Trueblood noted the commission should at least approve the minutes. Pacha indicated he would like to tour the Waterworks Park, and asked members to e-mail staff their top two choices of areas to tour prior to next month's meeting. Trueblood suggested the peninsula parkland, if accessible, and the Oakland Cemetery Deeded Body Memorial site. WATERWORKS PARK Walz updated the commission on the task force meeting held last month. Several people attended and walked through the park. Questions were submitted to staff as to how people who are interested in volunteering hours to help seed the prairie would proceed. Klink noted there was no consensus on a name for the park, but attendees shared their concerns about the misleading nature of the current name. Two of the suggestions were Waterworks Prairie Park and Prairie Gateway Park. Trueblood stated he asked for suggestions from other city department staff who has been involved with this project. Suggestions were to keep the name Waterworks Park, Butler Park, Iowa River Prairie Park, and Waterworks Prairie Park. Gustaveson noted the park would not be there without the waterworks plant. Moved by Klink, seconded by Gustaveson, to recommend to the City Council that the Dark be officially named the Waterworks Prairie Park. Unanimous.. Parks and Recreation Commission August 13, 2003 Page 2 of 4 BUDGET REDUCTION UPDATE Trueblood reported the Recreation Division's Clerk Typist, Marilyn Bennett, was retiring, with her last day being August 15. In conjunction with this, the Clerk Typist position at the Mercer Park Aquatic Center/Scanlon Gymnasium is being eliminated, with the person currently in this position filling the vacancy created by Bennett's retirement. This is one of the two positions that must be eliminated due to budget cuts. Temporary staff will conduct registration on reduced hours at the Mercer Park Aquatic Center/Scanlon Gymnasium. Also, the brochure will not be mailed; it will be made available at various sites throughout the City, and registration may be done on-line. Information about these changes went out to everybody in the Recreation Division's database, a press release was done, and a notice was included in the City's water bills. Trueblood noted within the next couple of months the commission will be discussing increasing park shelter and cemetery fees, and it may be necessary to review some of the Recreation Division fees sooner than normal. Gustaveson noted that nearly all parkland acquisition funds were eliminated; Trueblood indicated that all but $50,000 was eliminated. Boyd inquired about completion of a master plan; Trueblood stated the funding was eliminated. Pacha suggested using the remaining funds towards completing it. Klink asked if any response was received from the owners with respect to selling us a parcel in the Miller-Orchard neighborhood; Trueblood indicated no. Pacha stated this parcel has been on the radar for more than five years, and it is important that if the owners are willing to sell that the commission approach the City Council for funding. Gustaveson suggested now is the time to ask the City Council to figure out a way to start building the parkland acquisition fund back up in order to be able to purchase potential parkland, especially in areas deficient in parkland. Trueblood suggested it might be possible to include a line item in the CIP budget for parkland acquisition, similar to what has been done in the past, but with a different funding source. Pacha asked what the plans were for the master plan; Trueblood indicated there were no plans to go forward with it unless the commission wants to propose using the remaining funds in the parkland acquisition fund, which would need to be supplemented. Another option would be to include it as a budget request next year. Pacha asked that this matter be placed on next month's agenda for further discussion. NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART PROJECTS Trueblood reported he is on the Public Arts Advisory Committee and for several months they have been working with neighborhoods to get public ad in the neighborhoods. The Nodhside Neighborhood submitted five ideas, with the top two being banners along Dodge and Governor Streets with their logo and the other creating a flower garden in North Market Square, Happy Hollow or Reno Street Park and possibly incorporating a sculpture garden. Another neighborhood's idea included an artistic old-fashioned clock on a pedestal incorporating mosaics in a concrete pad at Wetherby Park. The Longfellow Neighborhood is looking at various projects that do not involve property under the city's jurisdiction, such as a very large portrait of Longfellow on the front of the Longfellow School building. Trueblood stated he would keep the commission apprised of projects that might come to the commission for their feedback. Ostrognai asked who would be responsible for maintaining the artwork. Trueblood stated the issue was brought up, with the neighborhood representatives envisioning volunteers caring for it, especially the flower gardens. He informed them the Parks Division staff would not be able to perform high-level daily maintenance. Trueblood noted the sculpture pad located in the pedestrian mall where "Dorothy" was located, is for rotating sculptures. The committee had hoped that it would attract local artists to display their sculpture, which would provide them with the opportunity to sell it as long as they agreed to keep it Parks and Recreation Commission August 13, 2003 Page 3 of 4 on display for a certain length of time. Unfortunately, the committee is having trouble getting takers. Trueblood asked the commissioners for their thoughts or ideas. Pacha asked how this opportunity was advertised; Trueblood stated they contacted the University of Iowa Art School, local sculptors and put out a call through the internet. Ostrognai noted the Art Institute Sculptor Program at the Minneapolis Art School and also a program in Kansas City. Boyd noted the City of Cedar Rapids has a rotating art sculpture every two months; Trueblood noted the person in charge of this program would be attending an upcoming committee meeting. Walz stated all MFA students have to leave a piece of their work with the University, noting there may be something in their collection that might be appropriate. PROJECT UPDATES Trueblood updated the commission on the following projects. Parkino Lot Proiects. Included in the CIP budget are various park improvements and maintenance projects. Several parking lots in need of resurfacing will be let for bid, and hopefully completed yet this year. Oakland Cemetery Deeded Body Memorial. The project is nearing completion; the annual ceremony is scheduled for August 29m. Waterworks Park. The parking lot by the Butler Bridge is nearly completed. Miller-Orchard Park. The planning process will begin later this fall/winter, with development of the park hopefully beginning next spring. Staff will be meeting with the neighborhood to determine what they would like. Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park. Playground equipment will be installed prior to the fall season, with the Kickers contributing $10,000 towards it. COMMISSION TIME Westefeld asked for clarification as to the area referred to in the Forkenbrock correspondence. Trueblood noted it was near Hickory Hill Park, just off Hickory Hill Trail. Trueblood noted the open space has not been accepted, therefore it is the current property owner's responsibility to maintain it. Loomer indicated she loved what the City did at the Teg entrance to Willow Creek Trail (extended trail out to Aber), noting that it looks nice and staff did a good job. Robinson noted this would not have been possible without the purchase of the land with parkland acquisition funds. Pacha gave kudos to the Sycamore Trail, noting he went bicycling on it over the weekend. He asked the status of the Sand Lake Trail. Boyd stated the commission had asked the City Council to consider TIF revenue for this project; Trueblood noted he had not heard anything back. Boyd noted the City Council is considering giving a considerable portion of the TIF funding to a developer in the Pepperwood area. Trueblood stated he would contact Ross Wilburn or Dee Vanderhoef. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following. Parks and Recreation Commission August 13, 2003 Page 4 of 4 Waterworks Park. Russ Bennett was hired to complete a REAP grant, which was submitted in the amount of $80,000. It was decided after discussions with knowledgeable individuals not to apply for the $150,000 maximum, because they felt the City's chances would improve dramatically with a lesser amount and show the City is also putting money toward the project. The application was submitted to the County REAP Committee, who had very nice comments about the project. Vandalism. There has been a rash of vandalism at the Memer Park Aquatic Center/Scanlon Gymnasium, the Memer Park ball diamonds, City Park and Wetherby Park. Staff has met with the Police Department and School District. The Police Department will be increasing their patrol and the Juvenile Justice Program will be setting up office hours at the Mercer Park facility. City Park Amusement Rides. Revenue through the end of July was $21,600, compared to last year's revenue for the same time period being $7,600. Iowa City Doo Paddle. Staff has met with JC DogPAC to plan a dog paddle fundraiser at City Park pool on Tuesday, September 2. City Park pool closes to the public after Labor Day. Funds will go towards the establishment of an off-leash dog park in Iowa City. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - August 12, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: David Bourgeois, John Watson and Loren Horton; Board members absent: John Stratton.. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Marian Karr also present. Also in attendance was Captain Matt Johnson of the ICPD and citizens Candy Barnhill and Kevin Halstead. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03-01. NAME CLEARING HEARING Officer signed waiver, and no hearing was held. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Bourgeois and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 7/03/03 · ICPD Use of Force Report- June 2003 · ICPD Quarterly Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2003 · ICPD Department Memorandum 03-33 Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. NEW BUSINESS No new business. OLD BUSINESS No old business. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Kevin Halstead mentioned that he had visited the website and that it was very thorough and organized. Captain Johnson had some information regarding in-car recording devices. The Board requested he report that information under staff. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS September 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · October 14, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · November 11,2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · December 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Horton informed the Board that an extension has been granted by Council for PCRB Complaint #03-02 for 30 days until September 15, 2003. Watson stated this would probably be his last meeting since his term was ending September 1 and wanted to give some of his thoughts on the last six years. The first year after the creation of the board was probably the PCRB-Page 2 August 12, 2003 most intellectually stimulating and interesting year since his first year of grad school. The group of 5 individuals was a tremendous group that did a lot of important work that made it a very gratifying and satisfying year. He feels that this is very important work and that the board should continue to give assistance to the Police department. Watson had 3 areas of frustration: (1) high speed chases - there had been a couple of chases recently that he felt were unnecessary and because there is a policy, shouldn't have o¢¢u rred. (2) lack of truthfulness - not only within the Police Department, but includes complainants and witnesses being untruthful and misrepresenting. When it's a complainant that is untruthful you don't like it but you kind of expect it because they feel they've been wronged and want to strike back. He feels that it's frustrating when it seems an officer is untruthful and that the public expects more and deserves more. There's no proof of it but there have been some cases where the credibility is not there. He'd rather see officers admit they made a mistake than explain it away. He is also very frustrated by untruthfulness by complainants because it makes the boards job harder to filter through all the information and try to decide what really happened. (3) Youth/Students interaction (drinking) - some officers are very good with young people when they're intoxicated and others seem to treat them as fair game. He hopes that the department will not allow this attitude towards the younger people because these are the people who are going to be leaders someday and you don't want them to have a bad attitude towards officers. Other than that the Police Department is excellent, they're well trained. Impressed by the Chief and how he runs the department, it's very well run. Horton thanked Watson on behalf of the Board and the public for all his years of service and the many excellent qualities he brought to the PCRB. Bourgeois also thanked him for all the hard work he has put in the past six years. Bourgeois will be leaving the meeting early. Has also approached a friend about applying for the board when there is another vacancy. STAFF INFORMATION Captain Johnson reported on In Car Recording Devices. In 1996 the department secured it's first in-car recording device and it's primary focus of use for the unit at that time was traffic enforcement and the purpose was for documentation of traffic oriented activity. The uses are still very much appropriate for traffic enforcement, but other departments have learned it's an important tool to use for other purposes as well. In 1999 the department secured an additional 16 in car units from a company called Mobile Vision in Bloomington, NJ. The reason the department when with this company was because it was also the vendor that landed the State bid and the City was able to piggy-back onto the State's contract price. Units cost $3450 at that time and still are running about that. The unit consists of the camera itself, a monitor mounted on the dash, a control unit with all the activation buttons such as reverse, fast-forward, PCRB-Page 3 August 12, 2003 record, stop, the general controls you would see on a VCR. In the trunk of the vehicle secured to the deck is the vault itself that holds the video tape and all the recording equipment. It's secured with a lock and in some applications is inaccessible to the patrol officers, some applications meaning other departments. The policy in the general orders allows officers to insert and withdrawal their tape at the beginning and the end of their watch. Activation and use of the equipment is very simple and in most cases is taken entirely out of the officers' hands. With the activation of the emergency equipment or siren in the unit the camera automatically comes on. The officer can disable it by hitting the stop button. In the event that it becomes a situation that should have been recorded, then there should be an explanation as to that action. A wireless mic is worn by the officers. The transmitter device is a leather case that attaches to the belt and in most cases the mic is threaded up through the shirt and clipped on the lavaliere mic. The officer can activate the in car camera remotely with the wireless transmitter. Like any wireless component there are limitations on range, due to power and environment. Officers are encouraged to activate the unit prior to going into a call if they feel it would be appropriate to document that call. The department has started to explore, as the units age, going from VHS to digital. The price however is fairly expensive, approximately $6500. Tapes are issued to each officer and when it is full, the tape is turned in and retained by order for 90 days. The tapes are re-usable, but quality lessons after about 2-3 uses and the tapes are discarded. On average tapes are loaded and unloaded six times per day. With the constant tape changes, many of the components in the vault are plastic and gear driven and tend to fail. A lot of the Iow end maintenance repairs are done by the Police Department. If there is significant damage they do send it to Mobile Vision for repair. There is one backup available when a unit is sent out to be serviced. Most often when they are looking for a tape that doesn't exist, it is because the unit is out of service. Once the tape is turned in, all would have access to the tapes, unless they are turned in to Evidence. The over-all attitude concerning the in car recording device in the beginning was that the officers felt "Big Brother" was watching. Since then, because the tape supported the account that the officer provided, some of those attitudes have went away to a degree. The feeling from the majority of officers is not known. The camera is mounted to the dash of the car, but is on a swivel base and can be moved from the inside of the car to tape different views. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to adjourn to Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a PCRB-Page 4 August 12, 2003 government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried 3/0. Open session adjourned at 7:38 P.M. Stratton absent. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:06 P.M. Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to approve the public report for PCRB Complaint #03-01 and forward to council. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. Motion by Bourgeois and seconded by Watson to approve the Annual Report and forward to Council. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. In response to Watson's earlier comments, the Board directed staff to place on the next agenda "Techniques of objective interviewing". Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to request a 30-day extension for PCRB Complaint #03-02. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Bourgeois and seconded by Watson. Motion carried 3/0, Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 r-~ TO: City Council O5_ Complainant ~ ~ ~n C"- Stephen Atkins, City Manager .-<~ ~, ~ R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police ,~ ~ ~ Officer(s) involved in complaint .~> co C~ FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #03-01 DATE: 7 July 2003 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-01 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise." Section 8-8-7B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence", are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law". Sections 8-8-7B (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 26 February 2003. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due on 27 May 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on 21 May 2003. PCRB # 03-01 Page 1 The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B (1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation, 8-8-7B (1)(b), interview/meet with (~mplair~t, and 8-8-7B (1)(e), performance by the Board of its own additional investigatio _r~c--~_ aTnh~ 1B~,~rudgums~t2t~0c3o. nsid er the Report on the following dates: 27 May 2003, 2 3, Findin.qs of Fact On 23 March 2002 the Complainant was involved in a one-car vehicle accident, to which an officer of the Iowa City Police Department was dispatched. Subsequently the Complainant was arrested on a charge of Operating While Intoxicated. Four allegations were made in the Complaint 03-01, but three of those Complaints exceed the 90-day limit under which the Police Citizens Review Board may consider them. See 8-8-3 (D). Therefore this Report is a consideration only of Allegation # 4, that the videotape submitted in evidence at the subsequent trial was edited, and altered from its original form. In July 2002 the Complainant, on advice from the Judge, changed attorneys. The second attorney was able to have the charges against the Complainant dropped on 8 December 2002. These matters precede the matter of the validity of the submitted videotape, and cannot be considered in this investigation. However, the matter of the edited or altered videotape apparently was on the record during the court headng. It falls within the 90-day limit of the filing of the Complaint, and therefore will be considered. The Complainant's allegation is that the introduction of this edited or altered videotape resulted in the revocation of the Complainant's driver's license by the Iowa Department of Transportation. The Complainant asserts that the ICPD officer started the videotape well after initial contact with the Complainant, and moreover that the ICPD officer deliberately aimed the video camera at the hood of the car which prevented the videotape from showing the interactions between the officer and the Complainant. Under the existing City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the PCRB may consider only those Complaints that are filed within 90 days of the incident, and may consider the Police Chief's Report of his investigation of the Complaint. The Police Chief's Report includes a log of the contacts by the Investigative Officer with the Complainant and witnesses to the incident, copies of documents including the "Call for Service", "Motor Vehicle Accident Report", "Iowa City Police Impound Report", statements by two civilian witnesses, complaint forms by the arresting officer, IDOT form 432013 10.00 H-1102, results of the breath analysis at the U of I, ICPD OWl check list, "Arrest Report", "Rights Sheet", statement made by the driver, results of field sobriety tests, interview with the Complainant, summaries of interviews with the two civilian witnesses and a Coralville police officer who was first on the accident scene, and more extended transcripts of the interviews with the two civilian witnesses. It is relevant to point PCRB # 03-01 Page 2 out here that most of these documents do not deal with the matter of the videotape, the only allegation which the PCRB is able to consider. The investigation by the PCRB included a request to the ICPD for a copy of the videotape for viewing, a copy of the audio interview with the Coralville police officer, and a complete transcript of the interview with the ICPD officer. PCRB received a copy of the videotape and the audio tape on 3 June 2003, but ICPD declined to forward the officer's taped interview because it was a "compelled statement". Members of the PCRB viewed the videotape and listened to the audio tape. On 16 June 2003 members of the PCRB met with the Complainant and consulted documentation, which she produced and also viewed the videotape while she commented. This completed the investigation by the PCRB of Complaint 03-01. Conclusion Alleqation #1: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. ,.~_._~-8 D) and8-8-3(E). ~_3~;~ ~ -TI Alleqation #2: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. ~;:~-8-~D) I-F1 and 8-8-3(E). ,.~ ~.~:~ :z Alleqation #3: Beyond the 90 days deadline for filing. Summary dismissal. ~eee 8-8-~D) and 8-8-3(E). Alleqation #4: Submission of an altered videotape of the arrest at a court hearing. While the PCRB believes that there are valid questions relating to said videotape, we are unable to verify whether or not any portions of the videotape have been edited or altered. These questions will be dealt with in the Comment section of the PCRB Report. Because of our inability to verify whether or not any portions of the video tape have been edited or altered, the Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the video tape was submitted in the same form it was recorded, and there is no evidence of alteration is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation # 4 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENT There are several troublesome elements about the videotape, which we feel ought to be explained. The videotape begins at 19:56, yet the arrest report indicates that the officer arrived at the scene at 19:41, a discrepancy of 15 minutes. The video camera was not aimed through the windshield at the scene, instead it was aimed down at the hood of car thereby excluding the visual evidence. From 21:01 until 21:16, a period of 15 minutes at PCRB # 03-01 Page 3 the Public Safety Office, there is no sound on the tape and the screen is black. Audio/video resume at the Public Safety Office at 21:16. There is no audio/video during the first 15 minutes of the incident or during another 15 minutes while at the U of I Public Safety Office. The video camera angle changed at 21:25. We have no comment on whether or not the videotape might have been edited or altered, and as noted in our response to AIleqation # 4, we accept the Chief of Police's conclusion. Questions remain: why the video tape was not begun when the officer arrived on the scene; why the video camera remained pointed at the hood of the car instead of where the officer was; and why there are 15 minutes unaccounted for when that period of time could be no different than the immediately preceding and following the unaccounted for time. The purpose of having a video camera in a squad car is to document in an audio and visual form the interactions of an officer and a citizen during an incident of record, then certainly the camera ought to be aimed at the interaction that is taking place. When the camera is inappropriately aimed and the audio is not continuous, the value of the recording is severely compromised. We recommend that the department urge its officers to use this resource efficiently and effectively. Quality of the tape is poor and requests the Department upgrading quality of tapes and/or equipment. PCRB # 03-01 Page 4 FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - August 14, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: John Stratton, Loren Horton, David Bourgeois, John Watson; Board members absent: None. Staff Kellie Turtle also present. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh absent. Motion by Watson and seconded by Bourgeois to change the order of the items on the agenda and go to Item #3. Motion carried, 4/0, all present. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Bourgeois to adjourn to Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by State or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Open session adjourned at 4:02 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 4:20 P.M. SETTING NAME CLEARING HEARING Motion by Horton and seconded by Bourgeois to set a name clearing hearing for Complaint #03-02 on August 28, 2003 at 4:00 P.M. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to set the level of review for Complaint #03-04 to 8-8-7-B(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Motion by Bourgeois and seconded by Horton to request a 30 day extension for Complaint #03-04. Motion carried 4/0, all present. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Bougeois. Motion carried 4/0, all present. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED ~ PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2003 - 3:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Barbara Camillo, Chuck Felling, Rick Fosse, Betsy Klein, Terry Trueblood, Emily Walsh Members Absent: James Hemsley Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Others Present: Jerry Hanson, Delayne Williamson Call To Order Felling called the meeting to order at 3:36 PM. Public Discussion of any Item Not on the Agenda There was none. Consideration of the Minutes of the July 7, 2003 Meetinq Felling noted on page 2 the need for capitalization of"Overalls Over All". He also noted on page three, 6 h paragraph, the spelling of capitol should be capital. MOTION: Trueblood moved to approve the minutes as amended. Klein seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 5-0 (Fosse not yet present). The items on the agenda were shifted to accommodate the individuals present for presentation of aA proposals. Presentation of Neiqhborhood AA Proposars Klingaman introduced Jerry Hanson as the Wetherby neighborhood representative and Delayne Williamson as the representative from the Northside neighborhood. They were present to share with the committee some ideas of what their individual neighborhood committees are considering for the neighborhood aA program. Northside Neighborhood Williamson provided a sheet for the Public AA Committee members spelling out 5 different aA projects they have considered, the locations and themes incorporated in the projects. 1. Clusters of 4-6 birdhouses replicating existing architecture in the neighborhood. The birdhouses would be placed on street corners throughout the neighborhood, focusing on the shared areas of Goosetown and Northside. 2. Banners along Governor and Dodge Streets with neighborhood Iogos and/or landmarks. The location of the banners would be on existing streetlights and would help define the borders of the neighborhood. 3. Flower gardens or public plantings emphasizing those typical of early Iowa City and native to Iowa. There are many parks within the neighborhood to place the plantings and they would emphasize the natural history, and incorporate the cultural diversity, of the area. 4. A small stage for performances or movies in the NoAh Market Square, Happy Hollow, or Reno Street, neighborhood parks. 5. A sculpture garden, fountain or water play feature in any of the neighborhood parks. Williamson explained the neighborhood committee voted on the suggested projects. The banner idea and combining the sculpture idea with flower gardens were the strongest ideas. The committee is open to suggestion and is aware these ideas all need more work in some way and they are seeking input from the Public Art Committee. Franklin questioned of what materials the banners might be constructed. Klingaman said she the committee's original thought was to construct them out of cloth. She has since been working with the committee and discussing the need for permanency and longevity of the project and what would last for a reasonable length of time. Public AA Advisory Commi~ee Minutes August7,2003 Page 2 Franklin stressed that due to the nature of the program's funding, the need for permanency of the items is important. The funding of the program is from bonds and for capital improvements. The items selected for the neighborhood art program should last at least the length of the bonds and this is something everyone should be cognizant of. Camillo added an idea of combining the garden and birdhouse ideas, putting the birdhouses on poles within a garden space. Walsh said it made sense to focus on the parks, as this neighborhood is unique in that they have more park space than other neighborhoods. This gives them more possibilities and more people could enjoy and experience the art. Felling said he sees the ideas of banners as good because they would be visible on two different streets to people passing through the neighborhood as well as to residents. They are also not very expensive and identify the area. Camillo asked how long the banners would have to last. Franklin said that is a judgment question; the issues to look at are maintenance and longevity. She cited an example that the city of Phoenix, AZ has used with metal cutouts as banner type structures and has more of a sense of permanency. The neighborhood art program is new and she thinks the art should add something to the public space of the neighborhood and should also have an artistic component to it. For instance, if someone were to design the banners and they are made of a material with a longer life to it, that is the kind of investment to be made from general obligation bonds that would be a capital improvement for the city. Felling asked if these items should be free standing items. Franklin said the issue of how and where to put them up could be an issue, but the logistics could be figured out. Camillo added that perhaps the historical markers could be a platform for an art addition to the neighborhood. Franklin asked if the sculpture garden idea would incorporate more than one piece. Williamson said yes. Franklin questioned if there is a possibility of looking within the neighborhood for residents with artistic ability that would be interested in creating the sculptures. Williamson said no one has come forward at this point. Klingaman said the information passed out so far to residents had been just for committee padicipation. Franklin added that if you could have local neighborhood participants, perhaps even MFA students, the costs could be less and thus be able to acquire more than one art piece. Camillo provided several good ideas for art and sculpture ideas for the parks. Trueblood asked if they were to incorporate a flower garden into sculpture or birdhouse idea, do they envision having neighborhood volunteers to help maintain it. He said this addition to the park would be very nice, but depending on the nature of the garden it could be very high maintenance, and unfortunately the parks department doesn't have the time or manpower to do it justice. Williamson responded that their committee had not discussed the maintenance issue and they are looking for direction. Franklin said there are different levels and definitions of maintenance and because our neighborhoods are transitory, she is concerned about getting into projects that do require a lot of maintenance. Over time the garden could be lost due to a lack of interest in the upkeep. Williamson agreed, and said their committee would probably drop the garden idea if maintenance were a concern. Franklin said the sculpture garden is something that would be much lower maintenance. Trueblood added there are some very Iow care plantings that could be used around the sculpture and still be aesthetically pleasing. Franklin asked Williamson if their committee wanted to go forward with just one project or are they interested in more. Williamson responded that she thought the committee would like to have options; there are several people who want to have input and be involved. Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 3 Walsh asked if Northside and Goosetown neighborhoods are two separate areas, doing separate projects, are they still getting the same amount of funding or are they splitting the funding. Franklin said they started this program thinking there would be three neighborhoods involved in the project. But because of money being carried over from last year, they will be able to cover the four individual neighborhood projects. Felling asked how interested Goosetown is in participating in the project. Klingaman said they are coming to the Public Art Committee meeting next month to present ideas. Felling asked Williamson if their committee is ready to proceed given the parameters of permanency and public neighborhood viewing, and can they decide which of the five submitted ideas would fit these best. Williamson responded that having already voted the banner and sculpture ideas as their top two choices, if the final product is something along those lines, everyone would be satisfied. Franklin added that as they proceed, the costs and logistics issues could be refined. Watherby Neighborhood Jerry Hanson presented information concerning their committees ideas for the neighborhood art program. He said the focus in their neighborhood is the park. A few years ago, the park was completely renovated and when choosing items for the park they went with an old-time feel, and they want to keep this theme going. They have tossed around lots of ideas including gardens, water features, and a sensory wall. All of these items were deemed either too expensive or would require too much maintenance. What they have come up with, that is within the budget, is an old time street clock. Hanson presented pictures of the clock they have chosen. Vandalism is an issue and the product manufacturer assured them it could even withstand a gunshot at close range. The base price of the clock starts at $11,000 and some options for the clock are $500 each. With shipping and installation, the $14,000 budget would cover all costs. The group has considered a base for the clock and perhaps a 3-foot base of concrete covered with mosaic tiles would work well. Hanson added the manufacturer of the clock has placed items in several cities across the state including the bells in the dome of the Old Capitol. Fosse arrives. Camille asked if the clock would say Wetherby Park on it somewhere. Hanson responded they wanted the plaque on the top to say Wetherby Park and the face of the clock could say something like, "where neighbors meet" or "for the people of Wetherby". Trueblood asked the size of the face of the clock. Hanson said in this particular clock, the face is 2 feet and the clock itself is about 10 feet 9 inches tall and would be lighted. Hanson added that given all the ideas discussed, this item is Iow maintenance, permanent, and is vandal/bullet proof. Camille asked if the guidelines for the neighborhood art include any parameters. Klingaman said there needs to be neighborhood participation in the process but the program does not define types of art to be used. Trueblood questioned if electricity would be needed to be run the clock. Hanson said yes. Franklin asked about the art component and whether it would be the mosaic base referred to. Hanson replied that he thinks the clock itself is an art piece. Franklin asked if an artist or a company sells the clock. Hanson said the clock would be purchased from a company but it is an artistically designed clock. Trueblood questioned if there would be neighborhood participation in the making of the mosaic base of the clock. Hanson said their goal is neighborhood involvement. He also said they would like to plant some Iow maintenance bushes around the base of the clock. Klein said she thinks neighborhood participation is very important. The people that live in Wetherby want to feel like they have made a difference and there would be a sense of community pride. Hanson said it has been difficult to get people to participate in the project. Their neighborhood is more than half rental and people don't know one another. Camille suggested neighbors could bring something from home to add to the mosaic to add a sense of history and participation. Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes August 7, 2003 Page 4 Franklin explained the approval process of the neighborhood ad program. As projects get developed, they come back through the Public Art Committee, the art committee makes a recommendation to City Council on the project, and the Council would then approve the expenditure of the public art money for the specific projects. Klingaman will continue to work with the neighborhoods to go through the process. Felling thanked Williamson and Hanson for coming and for their good ideas for the neighborhoods. Sculptures Showcase Franklin reported the idea of using the University as a source for a sculpture has not worked out. They don't have any students that are currently working with 3 dimensional materials or materials that could withstand the outside elements. The next step in finding an artist is for the committee to network to help find an artist that would be interested in participating. Franklin also suggested the committee find out why some artists are not interested in the project and what can be done to get them to participate. Klingaman asked everyone to call her if they, or a potential artist, have any questions. Discussion of PAAC Membership Franklin reviewed the subject of changing the composition of the committee. They had previously discussed whether the two staff members that are currently serving on the committee should be replaced with citizen volunteers. The staff members would then be used in more of an advisory role, as projects would warrant. Trueblood said he could see the benefit to having an all citizen committee; it would be like all other boards or commissions that the city has. However, there seems to have been difficulty in the past filling vacancies on the committee. Franklin said this change is not a directive from the Council or City Manager, just something for the committee to consider. Fosse said he has enjoyed participating on the committee, would like to continue but agrees with Truebrood in that if the committee were to restructure, he understands and is not offended. Felling said that because this does not require action and they are having difficulty recruiting members, he would like the committee to remain as it is. Updates · Themed Street Art - Klingaman reported she had spoken with Josh Shaumberger from the Convention and Visitors Bureau who had organized the "Overalls Over All" street art project in Cedar Rapids, and he would be available to attend the September committee meeting and discuss the project. · Irving Weber Day - Klingaman reported the statue would arrive and be installed Friday, August 8, 2003. The press will be present and everyone is invited to attend. The reception is prior to the dedication and it will include several speakers including Chuck Felling. The ice cream social will follow at College Green Park at 5:30 PM. There will also be a time capsule placed inside the statue. Committee Time/Other Business Klein explained that she would be resigning from the committee due to the fact that she and her husband will be working on the Creekside neighborhood art project. They anticipate this project taking a great deal of time and also feels her participation would be a conflict of interest with the committee. Everyone thanked Klein for her participation and work with the committee and wished her luck in the future. Adiournment Motion: Trueblood moved to adjourn the meeting. Klein seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:52 PM. MINUTES APPROVED/FIN~ SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUG. 8, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lori Benz, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Allan Monsanto, Charity Rowley, and Deb Schoenfelder MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Buhman, Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek, Linda Kopping, and Julie Seal. GUESTS: Irene Bowers, Eve Casserly, Pat Ephgrave, William Laubengayer, Ina Lowenberg, Lee McGovern, Leslie Moore, Michael L. Stoffregen, and Charlotte Walker. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Motion: To approve the June minutes as distributed. Rowley/Monsanto. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. Accept proposed Council Resolution outlining the composition and duties of the Senior Center Commission. 2. Accept proposed by-laws related to the composition, duties, and operation of the Senior Center Commission and refer them to the Council Rules Committee for review. 3. Accept the Elder Services, Inc. nutrition program lease as approved by the Senior Center Commission and Elder Services, Inc. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Casserly reported that JCCOG has published this year's directory of services and recommended a copy of the Service Directory be at the main desk in the lobby area. Kopping responded that the Senior Center purchases five copies of the directory every year and distributes them to appropriate staff. Walker expressed concern with the fact that in recent publications the Senior Center has been referred to as The Center. Kopping provided documentation showing that the Senior Center has intermittently been referred to as The Center in advertisements, Iogos, and promotional items for over ten years. Honohan indicated that the Commission intends to create a committee to investigate the feasibility of changing the name later this year. MINUTES APPROVED/FINAL SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUG. 8, 2003 ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE- Honohan Ephgrave Stager Richardson Motion to accept correspondence from Ephgrave, Stager and Richardson. Rowley/ Benz. Motion passed on a vote of 6-0. COMMISSION RESOLUTION AND BY-LAWS- Honohan As of the June 30, 2003, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors terminated the 28 E Agreement with the city. As a result, the Board withdrew the three county appointees to the Commission. This leaves the Commission with the six members appointed by the City of Iowa City City Council. It was noted that the Commission needs to have an odd number of appointments in order to avoid tie votes. Honohan, Kopping, and Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek drafted a resolution and Commission by-laws that was distributed in the Commission packet. These draft documents indicate the Commission will be comprised of seven members; six that are appointed by the Iowa City City Council and one at-large member appointed by the Commission. Honohan stated that the City Council's current policy is that they will only appoint residents from Iowa City to the Commission. However, in some cases, the Council has allowed the Board or Commission to appoint one additional member who does not necessarily reside within the city limits. He suggested that the at-large position described in the draft resolution and by-laws would help the Commission achieve broader representation by allowing for the selection a Commissioner who is not an Iowa City resident. If the Commission approves these draft documents they will be sent to the City Council Rules Committee for review. The Rules Committee will then make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council has the final decision on this matter. Review and discussion of the draft resolution and by-laws followed. Benz asked for clarification pertaining to the "at large" position. The current wording does not state that the at large position will be open to Johnson County residents only. Honohan stated he felt that using that specific language would be restrictive. He believes the at large position should be open to anyone living in Johnson County. This way a qualified Johnson County resident could be appointed to the Commission whether he or she resided in Iowa City or other areas of Johnson County. The Commission could agree to give preference to applicants living outside of Iowa City. Kelly believed that the language of the resolution should limit applicants to someone living in Johnson County but outside the city limits of Iowa City. Cassedy distributed recommended wording for modifying the resolution that establishes the composition and duties of the Senior Center Commission. The proposal recommends a continuation of a nine-member commission with the City Council appointing six members from Iowa City area and three from outside the City limits. This proposal calls for 2/3rds, or 6, of the nine member Commission to be persons who are age eligible user of the Center. MINUTES APPROVED/FINAL SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUG. 8, 2003 Dulek noted that it is not common practice for the City Council to appoint Board or Commission members who reside outside the City limits. Some of the members of the Commission expressed spoke out against restricting future Commissioners by age. This would limit the participation of many community members who have expertise and viewpoints that can be of benefit to the Center. Ephgrave stated she hoped the Commission would consider including members from outside of the City limits. She noted that the growth of the senior population in Johnson County is outside the city limits of Iowa City. Lowenberg expressed support for the larger Commission proposed in the draft resolution presented by Casserly. She believes seven is a very small number for a board and that a nine-member board would provide a broader range of input. Motion: to accept resolution and by-laws as distributed in the commission packet. Rowley/Monsanto Motion to amend the resolution at paragraph one to include a statement following the words additional at larg'e member to state: "who is a qualified elector of Johnson County, Iowa" Benz/Rowley Motion passed on a vote of 4-2. Kelly and Schoenfelder opposed, Motion to accept the resolution and by-laws as amended. Rowley/Monsanto, Motion passed on a vote of 6-0. THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION- Stoffregen, Moore Stoffregen, Executive Director of the Community Foundation of Johnson County, and Moore, a founder and current member of the Foundation's Board of Directors, presented background information on how the Foundation began and gave a description of how it acquires, manages, and distributes funds. Stoffregen and Moore distributed printed materials describing the Foundation. A question and answer period followed. Commissioners decided to review the information for further discussion and possible action at the September meeting. VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION REVIEW- Benz Benz reported that the Volunteer Recognition program was tremendously successful. Many participants gave Commissioners and staff positive feedback about the event. NUTRITION PROGRAM UPDATE- Kopping Motion to approve the nutrition program lease as distributed in the Commission packets. Rowley/Monsanto, Motion passed on a vote of 6-0. The approved lease will be sent to Elder Services, Inc. for signatures. It will then go to the Iowa City City Council for final approval. MINUTES APPROVED/FINAL SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUG. 8, 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS- Kopping Motion to approve the Financial Plan Recommendations as distributed, Monsanto/Benz. Motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Kopping will send the approved financial plan to City Finance Director Kevin O'Malley and request that the appropriate account numbers be assigned. REPORT OF STATUS OF REQUEST FOR A NEW 28 E AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS- Honohan There has not been a meeting to discuss a new 28 E Agreement at this time. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Operations- Kopping Kopping repoded that a letter was sent to local businesses in an effort to obtain discounts that could be offered as a benefit to current Senior Center members. A list of businesses that have agreed to participate in the program was distributed. Kopping plans to contact businesses who have not yet responded to this request later this month. Kopping reported that Barb Coffey and Jill Wenger of the city's Document Services Center spearheaded the coupon and discount program. Kopping and Seal detailed a list of special programs planned the week of Sept. 15, 2003. The programs will celebrate the Center's 22 anniversary as well as the fall class and program kickoff. For a detailed description of these programs see the September Post, Fall Program Guide. Kopping reported that several promotional efforts are in the planning stage. Staff has been working with the Coffey, Wenger and the Gazette to design and purchase several advertisements and a vendor tab that will appear in an upcoming edition of the Gazette. The advertisements will promote upcoming programs and special events. In addition, staff has been working closely with Coffey, Wenger and the Gazette to develop, print, and mail the September edition of the Post. The September edition will be a catalogue of Center classes, activities, and programs occurring from September 1, through December 31, of 2003. The catalogue will be mailed to members and others who request to be on the catalogue mailing list. It will appear on the website and be distributed at several locations throughout town. Kopping circulated a draft of the fall course catalog. Larger editions of the Post, like the one being distributed in September, will be mailed out three times a year--fall, spring and summer. Shorter, four page versions of the Post will be mailed to members only at the beginning of the other nine months of each year. Other community members will be able to pick up the newsletter at a variety of locations throughout town or view it on the website. It is hoped that the new format and mailing will ultimately reduce the overall cost of Post production. MINUTES APPROVED/FINAL SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUG. 8, 2003 Programs- Seal Seal reported on events during August. See the August Post for a full listing of programs. Volunteers- Rogusky No report. Membership and Fundraising-Buhman Buhman reported that as of August 7, 2003: 420 people have registered as Senior Center members. 39 memberships have been sold at the discounted rate. Membership fees have generated $9,769.00 52 people are participating in the Center Contributor program and have contributed $2,971.00 to the Operational Budget. ~' $1,497.00 has been donated to the Gift Fund. A copy of this report can be picked up at the Secretary's desk in the main lobby of the Center. REPORTS COMMISSION VISITS City Council - Benz Reported to the City Council and invited them to the Volunteer Recognition Breakfast. Board of Supervisors- No report. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Honohan will write Post adicle for the August 8*h meeting. Board of Supervisors meeting -Send minutes. Honohan will visit the City Council. Motion to adjourn, Motion carried on a vote of 6-0, Monsanto/Kelly