The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-04-20 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES APPROVED Iowa City Historic Preservation Comnfission February 12, 2004 7:00 p.m. Emnm J Harvat Hall City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to ordcr at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Paul Sueppel STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: McCafferty said the Commission will need to hold a special meeting in February for a Section 106 Review of a house on Crescent Street that is over 50 years old. She stated that Habitat for Humanity purchased the lot and plans to use federal funds to demolish the house and build a new one. McCafferty said the house is not in a historic district, but because it is over 50 years old and federal funds are to be used, the Section 106 Review is required. Weitzel said the Section 106 review requires an architectural survey, and an archaeological smwey may also be required, depending on what SHPO determines. Smothers asked if the archaeological survey would be waived because of the regrading of Highway Six, and Weitzel said that could be an argument to have it waived. Maharry said that on February 26 at 1:30 p.m. in the PubIic Library in Meeting Room B, Don Longwell would speak on the use of federal h~storlc tax credits for property. He suggested holding the special meet ng on tho 26 so that Longwell could hold a discussion with the Commission. The consensus of the Commission was to schedule the meeting for February 26 at 7:00 p.m. IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK: McCaffcrty said the Handbook was adopted by the City Council. She said the City Attorney had her insert a little bit more language regarding criteria for changing the classification of properties. McCafferty said she would mail out updated copies to Commission members. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1220 Sheridan Avenue: McCafferty said this is an application for the replacement of a window on a house in the Longfellow Historic District. She said this is a kitchen window that is deteriorating on the back side of thc house. McCafferty said this part of the house is actually an addition and not part of the original structure. McCaffcrty said the owners propose to replace the window with a wood, double hung WeathcrShield, metal clad window. Weitzel said this house has an overhang porch that has been filled in, and there has been a mud rootWporch added on in the back, which has another addition added on to it. He said that for those reasons he would not have much ora problem with this. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 2 Weitzel said the owners do talk about blocking down the window, and he would not want to see the window end up to be porthole-sized. He said the owners want to use a standard window instead of a custom size, because of cost considerations. McCafferty said the dimensions of the proposed window are 46 by 49 inches, so this would not significantly block it down. Weitzel said the Commission does not officially consider the back of the house differently from the front, but this window can only be seen from the alley and the house behind this one. Weitzel asked if it is permissible in the guidelines to use a different sized window and then block in the opening with non-standard trim. McCafferty read from the application, "Trim may be slightly wider or narrower than existing trim, as standard size replacement window must be used." She suggested requiring that the trim be no more than one inch smaller or greater than the existing trim. Carlson said this also depends on whether there are any other windows on the back to which people would compare the new window. He said if there is only one window of this kind on the rear fagade, it would not really be a problem. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of a window at 1220 Sheridan Avenue, subject to the reduction in the opening being no greater than one inch on each side and subject to the replacement of deteriorated trim to match the existing. Ponto seconded the motion. Th.__~e motion carried on a vote of 6-0. HISTORIC REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: McCafferty said that Gunn has done a lot of work on this and suggested that he be present before the Commission discusses tbe matter in any depth. McCafferty said there would probably be three people on the subcommittee, possibly one on a permanent basis and two rotating positions. Weitzel said he would like to possibly see the subcomnfittee consist of the chair; an architectural historian, if available; and someone who is very familiar with the guidelines. Maharry said that McCafferty would be present at the subcommittee meetings as well, and she is very familiar with the guidelines. 2004 WORK PLAN: Maharry referred to the list of projects for 2004. Maharry suggested coordinating public hearings or any meetings regarding the neighborhoods to be held during Historic Preservation Week, which is the first week of May. He said there could be discussions about the North Side or Goosetown Districts. McCafferty said she and Burford, who is the Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation, have discussed ways to raise public awareness of Historic Preservation Week. She said that perhaps the Commission could arrange for Marlys Svendsen to discuss the North Side and/or Goosetown, possibly as the keynote speaker for the awards event. McCafferty said another possibility is to hold a College Hill Walking Tour. Burford said that Roger Gwinnup is working on a television program about the Salvage Barn for the library. She said it will be shown during Preservation Week, and the Salvage Barn will also be holding an open house during that week. Burford also suggested opening the Englert Theatre for tours. Maharry said the Commission had discussed asking the City Council to reduce the cost of building permits that would not have to be applied for in other districts for those in historic or conservation districts. He did not know if eliminating the fee altogether would go over but would like to see a 50% reduction in the cost of the pernfit. Maharry said it would be good to announce such a change during Historic Preservation Week. McCafferty said there could be a talk about the Butler House during Historic Preservation Week. She said the City does not intend to spend money on the Butler House at this time. McCafferty said thc National Register nomination Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 3 for the Butler House is not yet complete. She said the nomination still needs historic photographs and comments on issues regarding archaeology. Weitzel said he would help with the archaeology aspect. Maharry asked if it would be possible to have a walk-through of the Butler House during Preservation Week. McCafferty said it would. Weitzel stated that attendance at such an event would be a good gauge of interest in the house. Maharry asked what the next steps are for Goosetown Neighborhood designation. McCafferty said the next step would be to hold a neighborhood meeting. She said the names and addresses have been compiled and the map is completed. McCafferty said that she would coordinate with Marcia Klingaman to hold the neighborhood meeting in early March. Maharry said the step after the neighborhood meeting(s) would be for the Historic Preservation Commission to hold one public hearing. He said there would then be two Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and possibly three to four City Council meetings. Mahmry asked if one of the City Council meetings could potentially coincide with Historic Preservation Week. McCafferty said she would check the schedule. Mahan'y suggested seeing if Svendsen would be in town any time in March and would be able to do a presentation. McCafferty said she would find out. Maharry said it is very helpful to have the presentation done by the person who did the research. McCafferty stated that Michaelanne Widness and Jean Walker have contacted her with their concerns about the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood, specifically the area south of Melrose, just south of the hospital. McCafferty said Widness and Walker would like to do whatever they can to put pressure on the University to save that area. McCafferty said the University has been buying property in the area and has fairly concrete plans to build Hope Lodge, a three-story building, between Melrose Circle and Melrose Place. Weitzel said that during the University's campus-wide meetings held last year, people were invited to bring up concerns and issues, and historic preservation was mentioned repeatedly. He said the University's planning statement says that it will pay attention to historic preservation and stewardship. McCafferty said she asked Svendsen if there was potential for a historic district in the area, and Svendsen thought there would be. Svendsen also informed her that the cost ora survey for the approximately 85 properties in the area between Melrose Circle and Brookland Park Drive would be $15,500. McCaffcrty said she would inform Widness and Walker that the Commission would be in favor of a historic district here but would also tell them not to count on getting money for this from the City. McCafferty said she recommended to Widness and Walker that those in attendance at their neighborhood meeting draft a letter asking the Commission to look into this. McCafferty added that if volunteers do some of the research, it would keep the cost of the surveying down. Maharry said it would be good to have alternatives to recommend to the University. He added that a three-story structure would be out of place south of Melrose Avenue. McCafferty said she would inform Widness and Walker of the Commission's general support. Regarding the brochures, McCafferty said Burford had volunteered to do some of the writing but has not had the time. McCafferty said completing the text is what is holding up the project. Weitzel volunteered to help with the writing. Maharry asked what the timetable is for completion. McCafferty said she wouId like to at least have a mockup prepared in time for Historic Preservation Week. McCafferty noted that McCallum had volunteered to send notification letters to area realtors regarding the location of historic and conservation districts. McCallum said he would be happy to do so. McCafferty said she had a sample letter to provide him. Smothers volunteered to work on Preservation Week planning. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 4 Regarding a potential downtown historic district, McCafferty said the survey and evaluation of the downtown area is complete. She said it has been determined that there is an area of downtown that would be eligible for a nomination. McCafferty said the issue is that there is a SSMID district being formed doxvntown and also a number of different interest groups. Communication with these groups must take place. Maharry asked if three City Council members would have to recuse themselves on a vote on a do~vntown district. Wcitz¢l said City Council members are able to vote on other issues that have financial implications for downtown. McCafferty said she would have to obtain an opinion on this from the City Attorney. McCafferty said that this is a good time for the Commission to do some consensus building and work with the downtown groups. McCafferty said the Commission may want to draft some guidelines to dispel any myths regarding what having a downtown district would meau. Weitzel said the text could probably come right from the CLG grant proposal. Maharry said it xvould be beneficial to have a downtown brochure mockup fairly soon. Regarding the regulations and programs, McCafferty said she needed to work on drafting language for the historic preservation ordinance, economic hardship ordinance, and putting together other infommtion. She added that she would write up a strategic plan of the different steps the Commission needs to take to complete these things, who is responsible, and the target dates for each. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte &ta on cilyn t/pcd/mln u~es/hpc& pc 02-12-04 doc MiNUTES FINALE IOWA CiTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2004 5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFF1CE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKiNG FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Pusack, Brett Castillo, Kimberly Thrower MEMBERS ABSENT: Saul Mekies, Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Andy Matthews, Dale Helling OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Phillips, Josh Goding, Susan Rogusky, Jon Koebrick, Andy Kromphardt RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Koebrick reported that chief operating officer John Pascarelli and regional manager Charlie King were in Cedar Rapids recently and had an opportunity to met with Shaffer and Brau to discuss Mediacom's future plans. At that meeting it was suggested that Mediacom meet with Commissioners for a demonstration of the new services and products Mediacom plans to launch. Mediacom will attempt to set something up for April, probably in Cedar Rapids. A count of the number of non-addressable converters was provided to Shaffer. Information has been developed and made available to the Cable TV Division so that InfoVision can be used to inform subscribers. Subscribers that have a converter that is not being used can return it and that charge will be eliminated. There are about 250 converters out in Iowa City. From some complaints it seems some subscribers are not aware they are being charged for a non-addressable converter. Kromphardt reported that Mike McBride has been hired as the video manager and will have responsibility for U of I TV. Goding reported that PATV's annual report will be ready for the next meeting. The search committee to select a new director for PATV hopes to be able to make a recommendation to the board at their March meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Thrower moved and Castillo seconded a motion to approve January 26, 2004 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and noted that there were 14 complaints, 4 about rates, 2 about technical problems, 3 about poor service, 3 about programming content, and 2 about the need for competition, All complaints that could be resolved have been resolved. MEDIACOM REPORT Koebrick reported that Executive Vice President of Operations John Pascarelli and regional manager Charlie King were in Cedar Rapids recently and had an opportunity to meet with Shaffer and Brau to discuss Mediacom's future plans. At that meeting it was suggested that Mediacom meet with Commissioners for a demonstration of the new services and products Mediacom plans to launch. Mediacom will attempt to set something up for April, probably in Cedar Rapids. The demonstration will include high definition television (HDTV), video on demand (VOD), digital video recorders (such as TiVo), and Internet based phone services. Mediacom representatives met with the Press Citizen to help them understand the things Mediacom is doing in the community that the satellite television service providers do not do such as providing free air time to the City and the community, the amount of property tax paid, and employing people in the community. A count of the number ofnon- addressable converters was provided to Shaffer. Information has been developed and made available to the Cable TV Division so that InfoVision can be used to inform subscribers. Subscribers that have a converter that is not being used can return it and that charge will be eliminated. There are about 250 converters out in Iowa City. VOD and the digital video recorders will be available in Iowa City in the next few months. Cable modem speeds are now about twice what they had been. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT Kromphardt reported that U of I TV recently started cablecasting the student government meetings. President Skorton and Dean Jones will be featured on a program on diversity. Mike McBride has been hired as the video manager and will have responsibility for U of I TV. Kromphardt thanked the staffs of the library channel and the City Channel for providing information on digital playback systems. U of I program listings are included in the Daily Iowan and the University web site. PATV REPORT Goding reported that PATV's annual report will be ready for the next meeting. The search committee to select a new director hopes to be able to make a recommendation to the board at their March meeting. Two production interns are working with PATV this semester. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Rogusky distributed the February Senior Center TV program guide. Rogusky said that the Senior Center building is 100 years old this year and there will be a number of programs on the "100 year" theme. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT No representative was present. Pusack said that the school board meetings technical quality has room for improvement and asked the Community Television Group to offer any assistance they can provide to make improvements. LEGAL REPORT Matthews said he had nothing new to report. Comments on the Rice, Williams contract will be ready soon. LIBRARY REPORT No representative was present. KIRKWOOD REPORT No representative was present. MEDIA UNIT Hardy reported the staff has been working hard on the Avatar program. The new playback system is being tested and will be activated soon. The system should save a significant amount of staff time. The Community Television Service remains quite busy. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer referred to the memo to Council in the packet on the video voter project concerning the Iowa caucuses and the Presidential election. Mediacom provided multiple playbacks across the state. The project was picked up by some access organizations in New Hampshire and were able to build on the effort started by the Division. CSAPN 3, ESPN, CHANNEL PACKAGING The item was deferred. ADJOURNMENT Castillo moved and Thrower seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator MINUTES APPROVED lowa City Historic Preservation Comnfission February 26, 2004 7:00 p.m. Emma J Harvat Hall City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn, Amy Smothers and Paul Seuppel STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Patton PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None SECTION 106 REVIEW: 1501 Crescent Street. McCafferty said that review by thc Historic Preservation Commission is required because CBDG and/or HOME funds will be used to redevelop this property. She stated that the Commission needs to determine if this property is historically significant and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. She said that it is likely that this building was originally an outbuilding, possible a chicken coop, associated with the adjacent historic house. Mark Patton said that this house does not have a basement or appropriate foundation, or a furnace. The house is built on or over the property line and the street is not extended to thc property line. It does not conform to the zoning or building code. Enloe stated that we do not have a proposed historic district in this location. Carlson stated that buildings in this area were mostly constructed or moved to the area in the 1930s and 1940s. Carlson stated that he researched the possibility that this house is significant under National Register Criterion B. He stated that Carter Holt, the former owner of this house, appears to have occupied this property from the late I940s until his death in 2002. No evidence uncovered during the research on Holt suggests that he was sufficiently prominent in any of his activities, including his work as a shoe shiner and later custodian at the university, to meet National Register Criterion B. McCafferty read the National Register criteria. A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. MOTION: Enloe moved that this property is historically significant and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but it does not meet any of the criteria. Ponto seconds the motion. The motion fails by a vote of 0-5. (Weitzel absent) Historic Preservation Commission December 11, 2003 Page 2 Weitzel joins the meeting. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1037 Washington Street The applicant requests that this application be deferred until more commissioners are present. Enloe moves to defer this application until the next meeting. Carlson seconds the motion. Motion carries by a vote of 6-0. APPROVAL OF 2004 WORK PLAN/12-11-04 MINUTES: MOTION: Carlson moved that the 2004 Work Plan be approved. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Minutes subnfittcd by Shelley McCafferty MINUTES Approved PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MARCH 4, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Elizabeth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Benjamin Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, John Yapp, Shelley McCafferty, Steve Nasby OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, Ron Amelon, Jordan Graft, James Clark, Mark Ginsberg, Terri Miller-Chair, Tim Gholson, Jim Clayton, Susan Weinschenk RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended for approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ04-0000:~, an application for rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Service to RM-44, High Density Residential Multi-Family for property located at 302 and 308 S. Gilbert Street. Recommended for approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ04-0000~, a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development Residential, to RS-5, Low-Density Single-Family Residential, for approximately 24.1 acres of properly located on South Sycamore Street east of the Southpoint Subdivision subject to a conditional zoning agreement with conditions related to funding of future Sycamore Street improvements, access, construction vehicle access, and subdivision design consideration, as listed in the Staff Memorandum of 3/4/04. Recommended for approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB04-00005, a preliminary plat of General Quarters subdivision, an approximate 24.1-acre 29 lot single family subdivision located east of Sycamore Street and south of Stanwyck Drive. Recommended by a vote of 4-1, (Anciaux voting no) that the SSMID application for property located within the Central Business (CB-10) zone, generally located between Iowa Avenue, Burlington Street, Gilbert Street and Capitol Street met the eight criteria listed in Staff Report of 1/9/04, but as petitioned did not have merit or feasibility based on the issues of concern enumerated by the Commission. CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. Motion: Chait made a motion to amend the agenda placing item C-2 before E-1 and item E-2 before E-I. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: REZ04-0000~, discussion of an application submitted by James Clark for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) zone for approximately 32,000 square feet of property located at 302 and 308 S. Gilbert Street. Miklo said Staff wished to reiterate their recommendation of two weeks ago to approve this rezoning without any conditions. Public discussion was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 2 Joe Holland, attorney for applicant, said he had not been able to attend the Monday evening informal meeting. It was his understanding that the questions that had arisen at the last meeting of the Commission had been resolved. He was there to answer any additional questions and requested that the Commission pass a favorable approval on the request for rezoning. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chait made a motion to approve, REZ04-0000~, an application for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) zone for approximately 32,000 square feet of property located at 302 and 308 S. Gilbert Street. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ04-00002, discussion of an application submitted by Mike Roberts Construction for a rezoning from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for approximately 24. l-acres of property located on South Sycamore Street, east of Southpoint Subdivision. Yapp said this request for single-family residential zoning was consistent with the South District Plan for this property. Based on public input at the last Commission meeting and Commissio6er's discussion, Staff had added a condition requiring that construction vehicle access be from Sycamore Street and not from Stanwyck Drive and Gable Street. Yapp said based on internal discussions, Staff wished to clarify what that condition would mean. Staff would work with the developer to require that installation of the infrastructure, the utilities, the roads and the initial grading would occur off of Sycamore Street. As individual lots were sold over time, and as individual homes were built and as other streets were constructed it would become very difficult to enforce that condition. In addition, trying to enforce it would not allow the lots adjacent to Sycamore Street to be built on until the remaining lots were built on. Staff wished to clarify that they could apply that condition for most of the heavy vehicles related to the infrastructure, but it would be unlikely they could enforce anything related to the construction of individual homes over time, once Grable Street is open as a public street. Yapp said Staff recommended approval of the single-family residential zoning subject to the conditions as listed in the Staff Memorandum dated 2/27/04 and 3/4/04. Public discussion was opened. Ron Amelon, representative for MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions. Hansen said with respect to the street access off of Sycamore Street, a[ter initial construction had been completed would it be a big problem to keep cement mixers and big trucks delivering to individual houses off Gable Street. Amelon said the only concern the developer had was once there were public streets available, he didn't know how he would enforce or ask people no longer under his direction or working for him to take a different route other than a city street. The developer understood the concern about the access. He would be happy to have all the construction of the subdivision go in and out that access, but he didn't know how he could require people to use that access once there were public streets available. Hansen asked why the developer couldn't just ask them not to do it? Amelon said he'd have to talk to the developer. Chait said pragmatically that was logical. You couldn't make someone not use a public street and if there were no mechanism, if would be difficult. Amelon said the developer could ask, but he didn't know how he would enforce it. Anciaux asked if the public access were maintained after the infrastructure had been completed, would they be traveling over improved curb and gutter off the access to get to the street? Yapp said the farm access that was being discussed that the construction equipment would use was at the northwest corner Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 3 of the property. Once the public streets were constructed, continuing to require use of that access would require access over the cul-de-sac curb and through an individual lot. Jordan Graft, lived on Sycamore Street, said he shared the concerns raised by Hansen about why not continue to have the access be off Sycamore Street after the initial building had been completed. Graft said he and his neighbors appreciated the fact that concerns regarding heavy construction equipment had already been addressed for the sake of children living in that area. They continued to be concerned that as individual lots were developed if Gable Street were developed as currently planned it would be the main access for the 29 lots to be developed. There would be a lot of congestion of traffic coming through Sycamore Street and off Lakeside Drive. He hoped that it would be addressed with the builder why if for initial construction, access would come off Sycamore Street, why couldn't it continue to be a permanent access? He understood that persons couldn't be required to use that access if there were a public street but speaking on behalf of the residents in that area of Stanwyck Drive, they would very much appreciate that there be public access available and encouraged off of Sycamore Street. Chait said the proposed cul-de-sac was not connected to Sycamore Street. To require anyone to travel over something temporary made those two lots in that whole area not developable. Chait said one thing developers did do as required to develop something was to put in the public right of way or public street when an area was developed as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Looking at the second phase of this development, it appeared there was a Iccp street that would connect to Sycamore Street. He asked what would happen if the City built that street and not the developer, and the developer would reimburse the City when that particular area would be developed. It would be the inverse of the developer putting in the public street as part of their CZA to get re-zoned or to develop an area. What was being requested was to protect the existing neighborhood. Without putting the burden on the developer to go to the whole second phase, let the City build the street and the developer would reimburse the City. Behr said he thought this was something that could be done, but there had not been any discussion of that suggestion. It was not in the City's plans or budgets, at best the City constructs arterial streets, not local streets Yapp said one of the recommendations that Staff made was that a connection to Sycamore Street not be made until Sycamore was funded to be reconstructed. A second issue was that the City typically did not construct local residential streets. Chait said the City would be paid back when the area was developed. In this particular situation, if the City was not allowing a connection to Sycamore Street until it was improved, by virtue of the farm access being mandatory, there was in fact a connection to Sycamore Street. Chair said it was a huge catch-22. Miklo said one of the other issues was funding. The City simply didn't have the funding right now to build that part of Sycamore Street. Hansen said during the initial build phase when there would be access from Sycamore Street, the existing farm access would be a culvert and gravel type of access to obtain entry to the field. He asked why couldn't a culvert and gravel type access be constructed at the area that Chair was talking about and let the heavy trucks use that access. Hansen said he was all for not improving Sycamore Street when the SouthPoint additions were being constructed because of all the construction traffic. He suggested to let the trucks beat the road up before it was improved. There were 29 lots to be developed. For a cement truck it would take a couple of trips per house, so that was 60 trips. There would also be delivery of all kinds of building materials and those trucks would drag mud down the side streets also creating additional traffic and hazard to the neighborhood kids. It would make sense to utilize and beat up Sycamore Street. Yapp said he didn't want to give a false promise that as individual lots were sold and people hired builders to build their houses, that they would even know that they were supposed to use that access. Yapp said he felt they could work directly with the developer, but as individual lots were sold over time and persons hired individual builders, it became very difficult to enforce something like that. Hansen said if it were just pickup traffic he would have no problem. Sycamore Street was pretty well beat up now, he couldn't see how it was going to get much worse by bringing the heavy trucks over it. If someone owned the lots right now, when they sold them, they would tell the buyer/builder that they had to utilize a certain access. The enforcement would be up to the police. Behr said the enforcement problem would be in that when a street was dedicated to the public, it was automatically open to all the public. Even if there was a separate provision that would serve as a guide and a suggestion as strong as possible that people use that route, when push came to shove, if the other street was open to the public, it could be used without Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 4 any qualification. Behr said a suggestion could be placed in the legal papers to serve as a guide, but once the street was open, it was open to the public. Chair said it was not going to be feasible to use gravel and come in on a gravel/mud road as a construction site. Once the 29 lots were done, any builder would be required to keep that street dean. The best way to keep a street clean was to come in on a clean street. If they started coming in on the other street, then they were going to have to clean up afl the gravel they just drug in and it would be an annoyance and expense to a builder on a house. The builder would probably opt to use the clean-way instead. Hansen said the builder would have to clean up Gable Street as well. Chair said to force trucks to come in on the temporary gravel access would guarantee mud, to give use of the other access gave them a chance to not have as much mud. The concern, the question and the answer had to do with there could be any type of agreement that they wanted with the developer of the land and the lots. But, when the lots were sold to an individual builder, there was no type of connection to the builder. Hansen said he understood that but if there were a Gentleman's Agreement between the developers and the City could give them the access and ask them to use it in strong terms, it would be better for the neighborhood. If there were no access/culvertJgravel, there would be no chance that those trucks would ever come in from Sycamore. Yapp said they did have the existing access at the north-west corner. He would look to the developer's representative to do the best he could to make sure that vehicles used that access. From Staffs point of view, they didn't want to present a false promise that every construction vehicle would use that access. Hansen said he appreciated the honesty. Amelon said the developer would do what he could do to work with the City as best he could. Graft said he was still unsatisfied with what Staff was recommending to encourage the developer and builders to use that access. He felt in representing himself and his neighbors he was much more comfortable with what Chait had suggested for an access. Temporary would be satisfactory, the permanent access would be better for all concerned. Graft said he couldn't imagine that the builders with their construction trucks and the residents who purchased lots would want to come in off Lakeside Drive, down into Sycamore, around Sycamore, through all the parked cars and all the kids, up and across Gable Street, down and around to their lot. It was a concern to them with the City's restriction on traffic passing a single point in a given 24-hour period. As a physician it concerned him for the risk it posed to the children he had seen in an emergency room that had been hit. Graft said he very much urged and issued a plea that Staff and the Commission look for an alternative that would provide a better access to the new development than putting both construction vehicles and residents through Gable Street for an indeterminate amount of time. Hansen said he appreciated Graft's position on this issue and he liked Chait's idea, but he couldn't see the City putting it in their budget. Chait said even if the street were to be put in as a finished street, they would then be violating the conditions that had been put on Sycamore Street to get to the new street. There might be some culpability on the part of the City for directing traffic onto Sycamore Street, a potentially structurally unstable street, in order to get to the new street. Chait said it was a Catch-22, it was growing pains and they just had to deal with it. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chait made a motion to approve REZ04-00002, an application submitted for a rezoning from ID- RS, Interim Development Residential to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential for approximately 24.1-acres of property located on South Sycamore Street, east of Southpoint Subdivision subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement conditions listed in Staff Repot[ of 2/27/04 and 3/4/04. Brooks seconded the motion. Chair said when these types of things were looked at, they were looked at by very competent developer engineers who worked very closely with Staff who were also very competent. Everything was analyzed and evaluated so that they would end up with the best possible compromises that they could. Concerns were listened to, what they were reviewing was the result of a lot of hard thinking and was the best that could be done given what options there were. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 5 Brooks said he would like to see Staff and the developer work to see if there was some way of addressing or working with the surrounding neighborhood to try to come up with something that perhaps at present couldn't legally bind individual builders right now, but a Gentleman's Agreement had been mentioned. Perhaps one could be worked out to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Koppes said she too hoped that the developer and future individual builders could work out an agreement with the City. She was glad there was a construction easement so most of the heavy infrastructure traffic would not be through the neighborhood. When Sycamore Street opened, a lot of persons who resided in that neighborhood would be very happy. Hansen said he would appreciate any help the developer could give them on this issue. There simply was no legal way to include or attach any kind of clause indicating what actions must be taken by individual builders. He thought it would be a nice development and would add to that part of town. However he was very concerned about the type of heavy truck traffic that would be flowing through that area. Hansen said he thought developers should look at projects and ask themselves, "How can we best not affect a neighborhood?" Hansen said he was willing to go with Amelon's word that the developer would work with the individual builders any help they could provide would be appreciated. Shannon called the question. Hansen reminded the chairperson that Calling the Question required a 2/3 vote per Article Seven, Paragraph 44. Behr said he had been meaning to make a clarification to the Commission When the Question was called, to actually put an end to discussion it had to be voted on. It required a 2/3 majority necessary to end discussion. If a 2/3 majority vote did not result, then discussion could continue. Chait asked if they were going to vote on if they were going to vote? Behr said that was correct unless the request to Call the Question was withdrawn. Shannon withdrew his request. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Anciaux said this issue would come up again before City Council. He encouraged members of the audience to express their concerns before the Council. The Commission didn't have the budget power that the Council had to speed up processes to make improvements, they might be amiable to do so. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB04-0000~, discussion of an item submitted by Mike Rober[s Construction for a preliminary plat of General Quarters subdivision, a 24.1-acre, 29 lot single family subdivision located east of Sycamore Street, south of Stanwyck Drive. Yapp said this was the preliminary plat for the land discussed in the previous item. As the first phase of development, 29 lots off of Gable Street would be permitted to be developed before an access to Sycamore Street was required. The plat complied with all the neighborhood design principles that were based on the South District Plan with a connection to the Sycamore Trail; public frontage along Sycamore Greenway which would ensure that it would continue to be a public resource and not become hidden behind backyards; and a future intersection of Sycamore Street at Dickenson Lane. Public discussion was opened. Jordan Graft, said he would like to suggest as amendment to this plan, a permanent access that would not cost the City nor the developer additional funds. He said they didn't have any promise as to when the permanent access off Dickenson Lane to Sycamore would take place. As concerned residents, they would like to propose an access come permanently rather than a cul-de-sac near proposed lot one as a street access off Sycamore Street. That would alleviate the issues of cost, congestion, the risks to the children throughout Stanwyck and Lakeside areas and would come with a change in the diagram. With no extra concrete, the turn-about in Lot one could become a permanent access off Sycamore Street. Initially it could be made with gravel, then as the lots came in it could be made into a permanent access. It didn't make any major changes to the plan and would not require anyone to use that route, but it would provide Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 6 a relief for the residents of Sycamore and those along the Gable frontage and provide a greater convenience for those in the proposed lots. Anciaux asked Staff to respond to Graft's suggestion. Yapp said Staff recommended that no additional access to Sycamore be approved until the road was funded to be reconstructed for all the properties in this corridor. Chair said development in this particular piece of property was also being limited to 29-lots until that happened. Yapp said their recommendation was based on City wide guidelines for the number of vehicles on residential streets before a second access was required. Miklo said there would also be an additional concern with another access at this point. Because Sycamore Street was an arterial street, Staff tried to control the number and location of access points. There was currently one in the SouthPoint subdivision at Dickenson Lane, ideally with an arterial street design, you'd want the next street to line up with it. Additional justifications for not extending the street on to Sycamore would be: an off-street intersection would not be ideal nor the minimum necessary to provide access to the area. Graft said the other alternative would be to go back to what Chait had recommended, he understood that there might be restrictions and reasons why that would not be possible, but the risk still remained that there would potentially be 450 cars in 24-hours. Chair asked how much of the street being discussed needed to be improved down to Dickenson? Miklo said he thought just north of Lakeside Drive. Yapp said just south of Burns Street. Chair said Windsor Ridge had been required to put in Court Street as part of developing their property. What was the difference between what happened there and requiring the developer to put in Sycamore Street? Yapp said Sycamore is an existing public street and Court Street - there was no street there. They needed to put it in for access. Graft said an additional concern with using Gable Street was that persons in Dickenson and up and around who appreciated using Sycamore Trail and Sycamore Greenway would now have another street crossing the trails. It would mean another potential accident site not only for kids who happened to get off the sidewalk, but now on a trail that they were supposed to be using. It now crossed yet another street. Graft said he could not imagine that it would be any greater expense to the City, if Gable Street was necessary to continue through, cross over the stream, cross over the Sycamore Trail and to have access there, than having a permanent access at the end of the cul~de-sac off Sycamore Street or even a temporary paved access, even if it required some reconstruction there-of when Sycamore Street was finished. Hansen said he thought Gable Street was almost required because of the Comprehensive Plan and the connectivity of neighborhoods. It was in the plan that all neighborhoods be connected. Graft said he felt he should share that collectively as neighbors most felt that this was a great plan and it would be an excellent development. They didn't mean to focus only on the negative but wanted to continue to raise their concerns focusing on their children and the traffic that would be coming through the neighborhoods. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve SUB04-00005, a preliminary plat of General Quarters subdivision, a 24.1-acre, 29 lot single family subdivision located east of Sycamore Street, south of Stanwyck Drive. Chair seconded the motion. Hansen said he would vote in favor of this item. As much as he would like to see an access go to Sycamore n a permanent sense, they had held other developers accountable under these same circumstances and not allowed them access. He said in all fairness to all developers, he could not see them doing that. Chair said to restate what had been previously said, the City Council had a lot more leeway and authority. If the concern was big enough, they could respond regardless of what the Commission said or respond in a different way regardless of what the Commission recommended. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 7 The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER ITEMS: Discussion of Planning and Zoning Commission By-Laws, Section 10 - Conflict of Interest. Miklo suggested deferring this item to the next informal meeting as the item had not been discussed at Monday evening's informal meeting. Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer this item. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Chair said he would recuse himself at this time as he owned property as part of the next rezoning item. With respect to the SSMID discussion, he had been advised by Legal Staff that it was their opinion that he would have a conflict of interest since he owned property in the area. REZONING ITEM: REZ04-00004, discussion of an application submitted by James Clark for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Central Business District, (CB-2), for approximately 1.34-acres located on the east side of Gilbert Street between Burlington Street and Gilbert Street subject to the CZA listed in Staff Memorandum of 2/23/04. McCafferty said this was the second discussion of this particular issue. At the last meeting based upon concerns from area property owners and the public, the Commissioners had directed Staff to look at the parking and traffic circulation issues. Their findings had been outlined in the memorandum dated 2/27/04. Most significant was a revision to StafFs recommendation. Staff was now recommending that this particular piece of property, when rezoned to CB-5, through a Conditional Zoning Agreement would be required to comply with the CC-2 parking requirements. If this condition was included in the CZA, the requirements for the commercial component of this proposed development would be one car for every 200 square feet. McCafferty said based upon discussions with Mr. Clark, he did not wish to provide that much parking. An alternative that could be considered would be to require one space for every 500 square feet or a similar lesser number of parking spaces than would be required in a CC-2 zone. McCafferty said Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to a CZA with the conditions as listed in Staff Report of 2/27/04. Miklo said the question had also arisen if 8-feet of right-of-way would be sufficient for Gilbert Street. Staff had had further discussions with the Public Works Director and the City Engineer, who had determined that eight feet would be sufficient in this area. Public discussion was opened. James Clark., said he was glad to hear about the 8-foot instead of 12-foot requirement as it would make a large difference on the front of the properties. Because of the elevation of the street, to have a 12-foot right-of-way would mean a drop of 6" to l-foot lower. Clark said if they were required to provide one parking space for 200-square feet of office space, they would be required to provide approximately 150 parking spaces on the lot. In order to do so, without having any buildings on the lot, it would require two- tiers of parking space. To comply with CB-5 zoning, all parking had to be behind or under a building. In order to conform with the required parking, three tiers of parking would be needed for each building. That would be somewhat of a problem, especially since parking was approximately $15,000 per space. Clark said he agreed with the parking needed for the apartments. He and Staff both agreed that more parking was needed for residential, the number of spaces required per bedroom was reasonable, if not a little high on the upper end. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 8 Clark said the access onto Gilbert Street would be one-foot lower now, it was going to be fairly steep. Clark asked Staff if they had taken a look at it as he thought it was going to be dangerous. He said a semi coming down there with brakes in the front was not going to be able to stop. The railing on the bridge was going to be a problem for sight distance as well. That had been brought up by Staff, they had said they'd take a look at it and see how it would work out. Clark said the lot itself sloped from south to north 4- to 6-feet and from east to west 4-to 6-feet. It was a rather difficult ~ot to construct on. CB-5 was great for constructing on a fiat lot. On something like this lot, it gave cause for concern as the buildings had to be dropped. When that was done, they had sloping driveways, parking was always an issue. CB-5 required parking under or behind a building so it would require three tiers. There would have to be three tiers for parking, then commercial, then they could put apadments above that, but they were restricted to 75-feet of building height. Clark said that area was already busy. By putting in commercial, they were going to aggravate the problem they already had there with cars. Clark said the configuration of the stoplight there was kind of different, it caused major problems. In order for the bus to turn vehicles had to stay back on Bowery Street. There was no right hand turn lane so there was no way to get rid of the traffic. Clark said he supported the turn lane and the apartment parking heavily. Ralston Creek took away 120-feet of frontage on Gilbert Street, which was over 1/3 of the frontage. If they were going to have commercial, it would have to be behind Ralston Creek, then they had residential across the alley. It was difficult to work with. A large portion of the area was unusable with Ralston Creek going across it. Clark said he had always worked on the basis of less cars, less parking, less traffic. If they went with one space per 200 square feet, he had calculated that they would have 150 cars. An additional 150 cars in that area would not work, especially if there was going to be a lot of commercial in that area. Clark said he and the Planning Staff disagreed on the commercial portion. They wanted commercial in there, he had not figured it out yet how they were going to do that. Clark said they had had a problem with having cars parked on the alley. He didn't think anything he would do on the lot would make a difference, but he thought it would be a good idea to put up signs that said "Right Lane Fire Lane." Students usually obeyed a fire lane. Clark said he wished to build townhouses not flats. They would actually be townhouse, condo-type that could be sold in the future. They would be four bedroom, but the second floor could be converted Clark requested a deferral of this item to April 15, 2004. He said the zoning requested was not a good zoning. He was in favor of the turn lane and would put in parking. He envisioned a 'turn-of the century' look for the townhouses when they were finished. Anciaux asked Clark what zoning he preferred. Clark said he'd defer to Staff. Miklo said CC-2 or CB-5. Miklo discussed development fees which would pay to fund public parking and that east of Gilbert Street, no fees would be assessed. Clark said he would be willing to pay the parking fees, he'd prefer to see parking on his proposed lot. In response to a question by Anciaux, Miklo said in order to comply with what Clark had previously discussed with Staff regarding zoning, it would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for a different zoning. Joe Holland, lawyer for Clark, said he did not think it was necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan in order to have the zoning Clark was requesting. Behr said he would review if an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer REZ04-00004, a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Central Business District, (CB-2), for approximately 1.34-acres located on the east side of Gilbert Street between Burlington Street and Gilbert Street subject to the CZA listed in Staff Memorandum of 2/23/04. Koppes seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 9 The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEM: Discussion of an application for a Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Central Business (CB-10) zone, generally located between Iowa Avenue, Burlington Street, Gilbert Street and Capitol Street. Nasby said the SSMID had been before the Commission in January. At that time, the proponents had asked for a deferral so that some of the discussions that were occurring at the last public meeting between the property owners and tenants could be worked out. A meeting hosted by the Downtown Association (DTA) had been held to which owners and tenants had been invited to attend and discuss their concerns. A memorandum authored by Behr and Nasby had been included in the Commissioner's information packet in response to several questions raised by Planning and Zoning Commission. Nasby said that they had consulted their bond counsel regarding the questions and that information was in the memo. Koppes asked if any petitions against the SSMID had been received. Nasby said not that they were aware of. Anciaux said it had previously been discussed that those who could sign the petitions and actually vote would be the property owners but the taxes would most likely be paid by the renters. He asked if the renters would have any say in this at all? Nasby said per the State Code, the petition could be brought forward by the property owners, there was no provision for tenants to petition in favor of or against a SSMID district. Nasby said depending on how the leases were structured, some of the tenants paid property taxes and some did not. Behr said the State Code allowed only the property owners to make the SSMID petition, primarily because only owners could be responsible for the taxes as a matter of law. As a matter of contract between owner and tenant, it could be passed on. Anciaux asked if there had been any type of notice given to tenants that they could converse with their property owners regarding the proposed SSMID to let their feelings be known; what type of advertisements had gone out on the SSMID? Nasby said there were no notification requirements for tenants laid out in the Code. There was a notice sent out at the last P&Z Planning meeting to the properties and owners of record. There had also been some discussions at the DTA and articles in the newspaper over several months; however, there had been no official notice sent to tenants. Brooks asked for a clarification regarding what type of notice was sent out regarding the 1/12/04 P&Z meeting? Nasby said a mailing had gone out from Planning and Community Development Office to the property owners of record. Brooks asked how notice of the deferral had been communicated to the Commission and to property owners. He said his concern was that property owners knew this was coming before the Commission on 1/12/04. How did they know it was back before the Commission now? How did they know it had been deferred? Members of the Commission hadn't been notified or been aware it had been deferred until they'd received their information packages. Behr said it had been deferred from the 1/12/04 meeting. The request for the deferral had been received before the Agenda had been sent out. Brooks said he didn't remember that that was ever communicated to the Commissioners, so he was wondering if he didn't pick up on it, how did the other property owners know that it had been deferred and was the Agenda for consideration at this evening's meeting? Behr said he didn't know what notice had been sent out as to when and how it was deferred and when it would be back on the Agenda again. Miklo said generally when an item was deferred to a following meeting, Staff didn't send out further notice. The assumption was, if someone was interested they would have been at the first meeting. The fact that no one showed up at the meeting to which it was announced it was deferred was an indication of a lack of interest or the more likely that there was a lot of discussion outside of the Commission's meeting in which it was know this was being deferred for a later date. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 10 Public discussion was opened. Mark Ginsberq, said he was a proponent of the SSMID for the simple reason that he believed they needed a collective voice in the CB-10 district. The SSMID was not intended to penalize those persons within the zoned area. He said they understood the SSMID was less than it possibly could be, and was no absolute, no clear cut answer that everyone would agree with. In an effort to raise awareness of the downtown community, improve it, continue to promote the area in a positive light, grow it they way they would all like to see it grown, and market it beyond just the county or state borders, it was necessary that they have an effective marketing tool. Not just $30,000 which was a bandaid and had been relatively ineffective. Ginsberg said in order for them to get to the next level they had to eliminate the DTA, out of the ashes would then rise hopefully the phoenix, which was the SSMID and from that point they would elect the 15 Board members which hopefully would be representative of all the proped:y owners, the tenants that didn't own property and at-large members as well. As a DTA Board, they did not want and chose not develop exact guidelines because they felt that the people who were being impacted the most would have no voice in that if they were outside the DTA. Their desire was to push the SSMID to the next level, which was acceptance, on to Council, hopefully be accepted and allow them to begin the process of growing this marketing concept and the development of what they felt would be an effective tool for the CB-10 area. Ginsberg said they understood and were sympathetic to some of the concerns. Money was the top concern, "Why should you pay?". Up to this point it had been difficult to get participation, they had tried for all the years the DTA had been in existence to get 100% participation of the businesses and the people who used the downtown. He said the last 17-years that he had been associated with the DTA it had been very difficult. There were people who paid their dues, but didn't voice their opinion. If persons wanted to remain mute on the point, they still had an impact in the fundraising effort in contributing to the SSMID. It was an involuntary participation, but it would be 100%. It would be a needed shot in the arm, especially as the City backed away from funding. A lot of the events that were going to be positive to the downtown area [Friday night concert series, Jazz Fest, Iowa Arts Festivals, improvements in property] could come through the SSMID. There were a lot of things yet to be discussed, he couldn't begin to anticipate all of the discussions at this point. He recognized that every discussion left both sides wanting something that they had missed out on. There were some who didn't want to pay any more in taxes, there were others who owned property and had businesses that as they lost traffic in downtown Iowa City they also lost potential business. A lot of businesses might go away. Ginsberg said he was willing to pitch in and pay what he could, stay vocal, participate in growing the downtown and making it the first place that someone who came in from out-of-town was shown. He felt they should participate as a community, it was their alter-ego, this was their personality. Hansen asked how often did the DTA meet? Ginsberg said once a month. Hansen asked how many people attended? Ginsberg said usually 7 to 10. Hansen asked how many overall dues paying members were there? Ginsberg said approximately 85 dues paying, not all collected with approximately 200 businesses, goods and services, in the CB-10 district. Anciaux said there were several persons at the last Commission meeting who were against the SSMID. He asked if the proponents had done anything to meet with them or allay their fears? Ginsberg said they hadn't contacted each one individually. They had had a general meeting at the Sheraton approximately 2 weeks ago. Those who were in opposition had attended with the exception of Keven Perez from '/26. Ginsburg said he was assuming that since Leah and Roger had attended the meeting at the Sheraton and since they were in attendance at the Commission's meeting, at the end of the meeting at the Sheraton they must have been convinced that it was worthwhile for them to support it, otherwise they would have been at the Commission's meeting. They were aware of it. Joe Holland, representing the Clarks. Holland said he was not necessarily speaking in opposition to the SSMID, but wanted to raise some issues that needed to be considered. Holland said to a certain extent he agreed with Ginsberg that the DTA had not been an effective organization. He had been on the DTA Board for a number of years. Holland said he'd practiced law in Iowa City for nearly 28-years. During all that time his office had been in or on the fringe of downtown. It was interesting to him that there was discussion of the ineffectiveness of the DTA. For a little while the DTA had sent him dues statements Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 11 which he had faithfully paid. Then they quit sending them. He had then received a request to contribute to the Friday night concert series. Every year he had sent them $125, then they quit sending the statements. Holland said to a certain extent, he felt they had no one but themselves to blame if they didn't have the money. If the DTA wouldn't even send out billings or statements to persons who had paid in the previous years and were willing to participate... Holland said he didn't necessarily mean to be critical, but there were other paths to where they wanted to be. Part of the problem with the SSMID was it was a tax, it was based upon payment by property owners, and based upon payments by everyone who fit into certain classifications for tax purposes. Holland said the Clarks owned a large amount of property and large apartment buildings in the CB-10 area. The apartments would be taxed under the SSMID in the same fashion as commercial business would be. A number of the apartments had commercial businesses on the first floor and the Clarks had no problem with contributing to the SSMID based on those commercial uses. The problem was that there were also a lot of apartments. Ginsburg had said the concept was to bring business to the commercial retail downtown, not to bring tenants downtown. It was a marketing effort to market the downtown outside Iowa City, outside the area and to create a retail climate in the downtown. He said he didn't think there was a person in the room who was not in favor of that. Holland said the Clarks didn't own property in Coralville or in North Liberty, they were very committed to Iowa City and to the Iowa City downtown core. They had a huge stake in seeing the downtown core prosper, however they had a problem with paying on the same basis for all the apartments they owned as did the owners of commercial property. The Clarks had not received any notice of the SSMID being on the Commission's Agenda. Holland said items were frequently deferred and there was a built in assumption that because it was deferred the first time, people knew that it would come back on the Agenda at a later date. Holland said he understood the problem Staff had with keeping track of sending out notices, some things were deferred multiple times. The SSMID was a fairly unique animal and there were a lot of people who were very concerned about it. It was almost a guarantee that if the SSMID were imposed, the rents on apartments would go up. Holland said those were some of the items the Commissioners needed to think about. There were some possible remedies, but Staff and Legal Staff should research among themselves if it were possible to create a separate class for apartments and either exclude them or tax them at a different rate. Those issues needed to be addressed to bring some equity to the situation. People were going to be drug in involuntarily into the SSMID because there were people who objected to it. Holland said in fairness as public officials and to all the people along the bell curve who were going to be forced to pay this tax, they needed to look across the bell curve and decide how the burden was going to be distributed when they imposed the tax. It was not a tax that the people were going to vote on. It was a tax that was going to be imposed by the Council based in part on the Commission's recommendation and what the proponents had to say. A little extra care was appropriate to make it equitable however it would emerge. Holland said they were in favor of the SSMID, but not necessarily as it had been proposed up to this point. Staff and some of the proponents needed to be creative in looking at a way to take in to account the mixed use nature of the properties in downtown. Anciaux asked for a clarification as to how apartments would be charged in a SSMID. Nasby said commercial property was included in the SSMID, residential was not. If it was assessed as residential, it was not taxed; if it was assessed as commercial then it would be taxed. If it was divided out for purposes of assessment, then one was exempt and the other was not. Anciaux asked if a property owner received a vote for each parcel he/she owned on the tax rolls? Nasby referred the question to Ginsberg or a member of the Board he'd referred to. That was not part of the SSMID that was before them. Holland said there were some condominiums that were taxed as commercial property. He said the real focus was on the use of those properties. Whether they were taxed as residential or commercial shouldn't be the driving factor in what was a fair allocation of the cost of the SSMID. He said they needed to take into account the real use of properties downtown and not necessarily what was their tax classification. Holland said he realized there were some technical issues within the SSMID that followed property tax classifications because in essence it was a tax. It was not a simple issue. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 12 Terri Miller-Chait, said she and her husband owned a building downtown that had the Galleries Downtown and a business in it. She had attended the previous Commission meeting which was also attended by other opponents of the proposed SSMID district. Miller-Chair said she had just found out this morning from her husband that this item was on the Commission's Agenda, so it was not something she was prepared to speak about it. Miller-Chait said she could also not speak on behalf of the other opponents who had attended the previous meeting at which the SSMID had been on the agenda, but it could be the same case of them either not knowing about it or knowledge at the very last minute. Miller-Chair said she agreed with a lot of the things that Ginsberg had said about the SSMID and what advantages it could have for downtown. It could be a good boost for a lot of downtown businesses. She also believed that not all of the voices had been heard about the issue. Miller-Chair commended the DTA for putting together the 2/6/04 meeting. They had delivered post cards to ensure that a lot of persons knew about the meeting and that persons who didn't know about the SSMID would have the opportunity to ask questions and get knowledge about it. She said the meeting had not been very well attended in light of 200 businesses downtown. The proponents had made an effort to involve more of the people than they had in the past. Miller-Chair said she still believed that a lot of issues remained unaddressed because the DTA of 7-10 people were the ones who were looking at the different issues at this point and that was not being a broadened group to include a lot of other people such as the Clarks to find out what they did or did not need from a SSMID. She said she didn't know if there had been any people other than the DTA who had been very involved in the petition or the by-laws. Miller-Chait said she'd heard the by-laws had been modified, she assumed it had gone through the DTA. Miller-Chair said a lot of people chose not to be involved in the DTA because they believed it was not very effective. She said if it was not effective, the DTA should not be the governing body deciding how the SSMID would be developed. There should be a broader group that included CB-10 members who were making those types of decisions. Anciaux asked for a clarification of the percentages. Nasby said if 25% of the property owners, representing at least 25% of the assessed value, signed a petition against the SSMID would require unanimous Council approval. If 40% of the property owners, representing at least 40% of the assessed value, signed a petition against the SSMID it would 'kill' it. Nasby said the percentages had to be the number of owners and also assessed value. There could not just be one owner with a lot of assessed value. Anciaux said regardless of how the recommendation from the Commission turned out, he strongly encouraged the proponents and the opponents to get out and work for the required percentages. Brooks said bi-laws had been mentioned. There had been no information or documentation relating to bi- laws in the Commissioner's information packets. Nasby said the Commission was just dealing with the petition. Behr said he understood that bi-laws would be a matter of interest, but that would be a matter for the Association. Brooks said this was the first that he'd heard of bi-laws. Behr said he presumed the organization would have some internal operating bi-laws that would govern how it would operate, but they had not been made a part of the petition or known to the City nor did they have to be. Anciaux asked for a clarification as to what the Commission was to consider with respect to the SSMID. Behr said the Commission, according to the Code, was to make a report based on the "merits and feasibility" of the proposed SSMID. Behr said there had been a set of relatively technical criteria set fodh in the Commissioner's information packets that were a starting point for the review. It appeared that they all had been met. Behr said the report didn't simply have to be either it had "merits and feasibility" or it did not. He suggested the Commissioners address the criteria and if they agreed with Staff that they had been met, they would indicate as such. They should hear all of the public speak, have a discussion, reach an agreement, then make some sort of a statement indicating that they felt it did not have "merits and feasibility" for certain reasons or it did have "merits and feasibility" if the following things were demonstrated to the Council. Nasby reminded the Commissioners to keep in mind that the scope for the SSMID petition, as it had been submitted, was for the operation portion of it. That was the only thing that could be done. Behr said they were limited to a review of this particular petition. They were not in a position to say it would have "merits and feasibility" if it included these other provisions. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 13 Behr said in terms of the factors that the Commission wished to set forth, it would be best brought out among discussion amongst them after they'd heard from the public. He said given the "Due Diligence" requirement, that they attempt to reach some agreement as to if they felt it had "merits and feasibility" and if so, if there were additional concerns they wished to tie to that, that they go through them, reach some consensus and authorize someone to sign a report to that effect. Tim Gholson, president of the DTA, said they had hand delivered a postcard about the 2/6/04 meeting to every single business within the CB-10 district. Everyone was notified of the meeting. They'd had 30-35 persons out of 200 show up for the meeting. For what had happened in the past with trying to get things organized in the downtown it was a pretty good turnout. He said most persons who had spoken in opposition before the Commission had attended and several had left in a positive frame of mind thinking they were for the SSMID district. Gholson said they'd heard nothing since then to say that they were against it. Gholson said they'd addressed issues that had come up in the 2/6/04 meeting with some of the large property owners. They had wanted to make sure that because they were the largest contributors in to the new organization that they would have representation. The change in the bi-laws that had been made was that of the top four property owners with more than 9 million dollars, three of those would have a seat on the Board. There would be a fifteen member board: 3 members from the $9M plus category; 4 members from property owners below the $9M level, 5 members from tenants and retail downtown; 3 at- large seats. They wanted to have everyone involved. Gholson said concern had been expressed about only seven persons making this decision. The reason they were doing the petition this way was because seven persons didn't want to speak for all of downtown Iowa City. He said once the SSMID was approved, the DTA would be reincarnated into a new board of directors that would be representative of everyone downtown. They would have a chance to vote for themselves and their peers onto that board. Those would be the people who would then make the decision on how the money would be spent. He said the proponents were there to get the ball rolling so that the SSMID district could be formed so that the work could be done to figure out how all of downtown could come together, to figure out how this money could be spent and how improvements could be made or marketing done to bring people downtown. Gholson said they had since met with the Mall owners who at the last meeting were neither for nor against the SSMID district. He thought they were in the same boat at this point in time. He said the proponents wanted to talk with them about what their issues were. They were willing to talk to anyone who had an issue about the SSMID. They had regularly scheduled meetings but had heard from no one since that time. Gholson said people have had an opportunity should they have chosen to take it to talk to the proponents about it. Gholson said in improving the downtown Iowa City area, it was going to become a much more attractive place to be. Rents might go up, but the property values were going to go up along with them. He said as a property owner, a person was not going to be stuck owning a piece of property that was not going to increase in value as the downtown improved. There would be benefit to a property owner who might not have commercial property in downtown. Jim Clayton, tenant downtown. He said the tax that would be levied against the property owners would undoubtedly be passed on to him as a tenant. He was a member of the DTA, so he paid dues. When the SSMID was in place, the DTA would go away so he would not have to pay those dues any longer. That was a benefit of universal membership, everyone would be paying their fair share, so they didn't need a contributory environment where people had to decide whether to join them or not. Clayton said they had deliberately written the petition they way they had and set up the bi-laws the way they had so that they would not be laying any roadmap that someone would have to follow. The people who would design the roadmap for the SSMID would be the people who were elected after it was in place. Everyone in downtown Iowa City would have a vote, the bigger the property the bigger the number of votes a person would have. That way they could guarantee that the largest property owners who paid the biggest amount would have a voice on the board. For example, Mr. Clark could cast all his ballots for Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Mamh 4, 2004 Page 14 himself or for another representative that he wanted to be on the Board. He said Mark Moen could certainly find someone with his voting power to put them on the board. Clayton said it would be this Board who would make the decisions of where the final outcome would be with the money from the SSMID. That was a very important detail. It left a lot of gray areas but they didn't feel as a Board of Directors for the DTA that they would be capable. They could give advice and counsel and set up a basic framework, but they didn't have the capabilities to run the SSMID. They wanted to hire someone to run this and to have the persons with the biggest stake to be involved. From observation they knew that the downtown was in a decline and eventually if the decline continued, property values would go down. If they could reverse the trend to get the downtown moving forward and upward, property values and demand to be downtown would surely go up. James Clark., said he was unaware that SSMID was on the Commission's agenda for this evening, it bothered him a little. He said there were a number of issues. Clark said in a number of his complexes he did not condo them, it had not seemed important. The City had helped him out in a number of ways, he paid full taxes on them. If they raised the taxes as projected, this would be taxed against people like businesses who had no say so and no representation, against students who had no representation. He didn't think it was fair for an apartment building that had parking below, commercial on the first level which probably would be okay for taxation but then had three residential stories above it. They would pay five- times what someone else would pay, taxes would paid based on the square footage of the building or their tax base. He said 2/3 of it would come from the students and actually it would be 4/5 if they included the parking they used in the basement. He didn't think that was fair to the student. Clark said he had not been notified about the initial Commission meeting, he had received something about the 2/6/04 meeting. He knew there were a number of persons out there against the SSMID. Clark said they were not against it, they just didn't know where the money was going to be spent. The proponents said they couldn't tell them right now, it was not a secret, they just couldn't tell them. That gave him some problems with paying in all the money. Clark said they had only been contacted three or four times, they had been contacted by the Mall. Clark said it seemed like the costs were being shifted from the businesses to the landlords. It had been said they would not have to pay any more DTA dues, he didn't know if that was fair nor not. The landlords were going to have to pick the tax up and if it was the landlords, it would be the students. That was a kind of unfair taxation to them. Clark asked who verified the percentages and how? Nasby said a petition had been filed with the City Clerk. It was a matter of public record. Clark said he was aware that a lot of people disagreed with the SSMID. Nasby said the affirmative petition was approximately 27% of the owners and 38% of the assessed value. Clark asked if any of those had large (3 or 4 floor) apartments above them? Nasby said he didn't have that information. Clark said he didn't have a problem with paying taxation on the commercial, even though it would not be of much value to them. Since all of his apartments were not condos, he would be taxed on all of his buildings. As discussed previously, it would be taxed at five-times as he always put the maximum amount of parking on his lots underground. Clark said he didn't think the people who would end up paying the taxes were being fairly represented. Clark said he also didn't think a number of persons had been notified about this meeting which was a real problem because there was a substantial number of people against the SSMID. He also felt there were a number of questions about the program and how it was going to be directed, they couldn't give them that information so they were grabbing at something that no one knew where it was going. It was a marketing tool, but the wrong people were paying for it and they were not there to represent themselves. Anciaux said he had asked basically the same two questions of everyone who had spoken before the Commission. If it was a proponent, he'd asked them what they were doing to win over the persons who were against it. If they were an opponent, were they willing to go out and get the 25% or 40% necessary to kill the SSMID district petition? He suggested Clark keep the percentages in mind. Clark said he was asking that they modify it so they would pay on the commercial rather than having to pay on all the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 15 apartments that were above. He felt that was an unfair taxation on the students. He said most of the properties downtown had a limited number of apartments above them, not like his buildings which were three or four stories with taxation. Anciaux asked if there was a way to legally eliminate the apartments? Behr said legally this petition did not address that. In a different petition, there might be a way to separate zones within a SSMID. He was not familiar with the specifics and was not sure it could be done in the fashion being suggested but this proposal didn't do it. Nasby said he didn't know the specifics either. State Code said residentially assessed property was exempt, commercially assessed property was taxed. Clayton said the petition had been done the way it was because different sections of the CB district could be divided, but different levels of the buildings could not be divided vertically. The Code that established SSMIDs in Iowa didn't permit that type of thing, as they had read it. He said there was an echo about all the people who were against the SSMID. They had sent a letter and a petition to every single property owner of record in downtown Iowa City in the central business district. Some had signed it 'yes' and sent it back, some had said 'not interested' and sent it back and some had not done a thing. They had not responded to follow up letters or telephone calls. The proponents were trying to build their percentage. The law required 25% and 25% and they had exceeded both of those percentages. Therefore they felt they were entitled to an answer from the Commission to let it go on to the Council, to let them vote. Clay[on said if the opposition wished to rise up, they had until infinity to do so. In the mean time, he requested that the Commission let them 'get going'. Ginsberg said he shared some of Clayton's passion, but he fefi this also had to be a team effort. Clay[on had made some good points that were arguable, but the reason they couldn't define it any more than they had right now without taking some of the voice away from the people who had not participated up to this point. He didn't think that was fair. Ginsberg said he though they had a fragmented voice in the CB-10 district speaking in opposition and in favor of. By getting the SSMID through, it would allow for 100% of the voices to be heard and to have some effect on what went on in the district. Ginsberg said to him it didn't make sense to alienate a large land owner and potential huge contributor. He was referring to emotional not financial. Clark's family had been there, his children were there and their children would be here and he hoped the same thing for his family. Ginsberg said they were talking about generations of future benefits. If the SSMID went away and they didn't do it, that would be the voice of the people and that was what was great about our country. It was the proponent's desire and Ginsberg's personal hope to see something like the SSMID exist in a way that would help everyone participate in the downtown community, which was a little treasure. Ginsberg said he was not saying to stiff the students either. Perhaps there was some type of subsidy back to the students or to back to the residential apartment owners. All of these things were open for discussion. They were trying to make this much more efficient, operationally, marketing wise and capital intensiveness for what they invested in our downtown. He didn't think of it as a tax as much as of an investment, mandatory, but an investment. Susan Weinschenk, DTA Board member. She said one thing they had discussed at the 2/6/04 meeting that had not yet been mentioned was that this was a two-step process. What they were doing right now was simply asking for approval for the district. That was why they hadn't said what they were going to do with the funds. That would be the second step. It would require them to go back through the whole process again once the district was approved and the Board was elected. They would write the bi-laws and they would spell out how all the money was to be spent. They would have to hire an attorney to do 'that, they simply could not do it at this time. They did not have the money. The first step would allow them operationally to hire an attorney to get the actual bi-laws written for the new SSMID. That would go back through all the processes again and be approved before any money could be spent. Weinschenk said in a way it was blind, but at this time they could not come up with the fees for an attorney to write the bi-laws. It was not fair to all of the businesses that were down there, because they could not speak for them. When the Board was in place and they had their say, they could tell the Board how they wanted the money spent, the bi-laws would be written and circulated. At any time 25% of the owners could say "We are done, we are not paying this anymore. You are not effective" and the SSMID would go away. The City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 16 could also at any time reduce the tax rate to zero if they were not satisfied with how the money was being spent. There were some things in place to take care of things down the road. Weinschenk said at this time all they wanted to do was to get the district approved so they could move on to the next part which was how the money would be spent. She said she felt it was very important that everyone understood that, she did not think it had been relayed enough to all the businesses. It was hard to get the businesses to come to the meetings so it was even harder to get this point across to them. Clark said if they (the proponents) were able to fix his problem, getting rid of the four levels, he would be with them. He had read somewhere that segregation of certain levels could be done. His objection was having the student pay for something he was not going to receive and the student was not there to represent him/her self. The students were going to pay the majority of taxes on these buildings. Clark said he had asked 'Chuck' to get back to him on the elimination of the apartment portions and he did not recall receiving an answer on that. Chuck Goldberg, sitting in the audience responded but did not come to the podium. Nasby asked him to present at the microphone or have the conversation with Clark at some other time. Public discussion was closed. Behr recommended that the Commission entertain a motion to recommend that the SSMID had merit and was feasible or that it did not have merit and was not feasible. If the motion was seconded, then there would be discussion about the motion and in the process clarify if there were any additional concerns or issues that they would wish to tie to the merit and feasibility. Those items should be items that could be demonstrated to the Council, they could not be things that would require an amendment to the petition because that was not part of the process. Hansen clarified that it would not be possible for the Commission to amend or for the Council to consider apartments. Behr said the Commission could say they did not think the SSMID had merit and feasibility because it did not do "X", but it would not be a good idea to make a recommendation that the SSMID had merit and feasibility if it differentiated between apartments and otherwise. The petition did not do so. To do so, the petition would have to be amended and start over again. Anciaux clarified that if the Commission reported that they did not find the petition to have merit and feasibility, that the proponents could still take the petition to Council. Behr and Nasby said that was correct. Nasby said the Commission was charged with making a report and submitting it to Council. Brooks asked for a clarification regarding if there was something in the original petition, for example the renewal portion of the petition, the Commission could not say that it was a concern for them. Behr said the Commission could do two things. They could say that they felt the petition had merit and was feasible if certain things were demonstrated to Council. They could go on in addition to those things and state that they had concerns about the following elements of the petition or the lack of the following elements in the petition. Behr said he had checked on the Sunset, and it could be of a different duration. Brooks said they were only talking about operational, yet they way he read the petition there were purposes listed as marketing, parking fee abatement, capital projects and operational. I~ehr said the reason that this petition only served for operational was because all the other items required much more process and additional contents in the petition. What those things being in the petition allowed was that they could come back at a future time, go through P&Z, go through Council and pu~ those things in place. Brooks asked if marketing and capital development were part of the category of operational? Behr said that was correct and asked Nasby if that was also his understanding. Nasby said that was what the City Attorney's office had determined. [Goldberg spoke from the audience in disagreement.] Behr said he did not know if there had been a change in opinion, but it was his understanding that the legal opinion was that the operational included the marketing. Nasby said he believed the City Attorney's office had received that clarification from Mark Cory, the City's Bond Counsel, that the marketing could be included as Code 386.8 said, "And all other expenses reasonably associated with the administration of the district and fulfilling the purpose of the district." Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 17 Anciaux reminded members of the audience were speaking without identifying themselves that public discussion was closed. Behr said it should be limited to discussion among members of the Commission at this point. Practice was, if a Commissioner had a specific question for a member of the public they could ask it but other than that it discussion was limited. Motion: Anciaux asked for a motion to recommend to City Council that there was merit to the SSMID for property located within the CB-10 zone generally located between Iowa Avenue, Burlington Street, Gilbert Street and Capitol Street. The motion died for lack of a second. Brooks said he would be willing to support a motion to get the SSMID into the next phase before the Council where there would be more publicity and more public comment might be heard. He was not willing to put a carte-blanch approval on the current SSMID. Brooks said he wanted to see the Commission's recommendations go with some caveats and some issues that they felt they needed to bring before the Council. Brooks said when he was asked to review something in terms of the merit and feasibility, there were certain 'no brainer' things in terms of had they met certain criteria in the Code. But in his mind, merit and feasibility went beyond those things. What he was seeing in the petition left him with many reservations. In addition to that, what he had heard communicated to the Commission left him with additional reservations. Anciaux said City Council would not hear from the most vociferous until the final meeting. He was trying to get a motion out on the floor so they could discuss it and then vote it up or down stated in the positive, so the petition could get on its way to Council. Behr said this was out of the ordinary and it could be done in a slightly different order than they were used to. Discussion could be had on the general question of whether this had merit and was feasible if certain things were demonstrated at the Council level. If there was agreement among them, a motion could be crafted to include all of those things, entertain that motion, have a second on it and then vote on the motion. Hansen said the question was merit and feasibility. He was sure it had merit and feasibility, it was just very difficulty to put his finger on it the way it was written. Hansen said one of his issues was the apartments. It was not just about one owner, it was the idea of taxing residential dwellings. The only reason that they were in the SSMID was because the owner was taxed commercially and the owner was paying a lot more for that taxation than if they were residential or condos. He was also concerned about the small percentage of persons who were supporting this. On the other hand he understood the apathy in the public today and how hard it was to get people out to do things. Some of the best things happened by just a few people pushing them. Hansen said he felt they could probably get a lot more participation if the SSMID were worded in some way in which people knew what was going to be the end product on which they were actually voting. He understood why they had done what they did, that opened the door for people to discuss, but it also did not give them a goal. Hansen said he'd rather see it with the goals. Hansen said he had to praise the DTA for walking a tightrope on this item. If they dissolved the DTA and the SSMID didn't fly, they wouldn't even have the $30,000 any more. He would like to see some direction as to spending and some part address the apartment issue. It was directed at businesses, it should be the businesses that paid, not the people running apartments. It would be a tax on everyone, he did not know of any voluntary taxes. Koppes asked when would the first money come out of the SSMID to the new Board? Nasby said if it were approved before the end of the current calendar year, it would go on the 2006 assessment. The 2005 assessment would be paid in 2006. Koppes said some of her concerns were vagueness of the use of the money; the apartment taxes; no sunset clause and that it just kept renewing and renewing. Koppes said she knew there were some options for having it set to zero but she would like to have them come back before the Commission in ten years and say do it again. She agreed with much of what Hansen had said. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 18 Shannon said he was not comfortable with the businesses renters downtown not really having any say. Also with Mr. Clark's position, he hadn't realized until this evening that that was the way it was. If it couldn't be resolved he could not see himself being supportive of something where people who were not really involved with the business were paying for it. Brooks said he had problems with the duration and the renewal, the way it was written for ever and ever unless the Councir stepped in and decided to cut the assessment that year or utilize the option of 25% opposing during the process. It seemed when they were taxing people, they should not provide the opportunity for it to go on forever. He said although the 25% criteria had been met, just barely, he really would have liked to have seen a much higher level. He understood the difficulty of getting that, but part of it might be in the selling and marketing the SSMID. Brooks said he found it difficult to believe anyone in business who was approached by someone wanting to develop or have them invest in a venture would be satisfied with what they were seeing here. Brooks said that he really wished the State Code required a business plan be presented as part of this. He also agreed with the other Commissioners on the issue of residential property that was taxed as commercial, there must be some way to give them a break on that. Brooks said another thing he thought he'd heard that troubled him maybe even more than any of the above was the statement that the by-laws being written were going to dictate a certain level of participation by people with a certain amount of property ownership. He said that probably more than anything went against his grain on something where people were being taxed. The City didn't have a City Council that was made up of 'X' number of people who owned property over $9M and 'X' number that owned less. It was equal representation. That type of thinking and approach to this issue was extremely troubling to him. Brooks said he was having trouble with those issues as they related to the feasibility and merit of the petition. Anciaux said his point of view was that they would not hear from all the proponents or opponents until the final meeting of City Council. They were the ones who were going to have to deal with this on a political basis. The Commission was reviewing the petition on its merits of it, whether it was good or bad. He said he saw a lot merit for the program as it was laid out, the proponents obviously felt they needed to have something done to promote the downtown. He'd asked almost every proponent what they had done to bring the rest into the fold. As far as the opposition went, with 25% they would make the City Council vote on it unanimously, 40% killed the petition completely. With respect to the sunset, it could be killed at any time with a 40% petition. Discussion ensued between Nasby and Brooks as to what percentages applied and requirement of super majority of Council as laid out in Code to kill the ordinance versus an amendment. Miklo said he thought the point Anciaux was trying to make was that in two years from now, 25% could trigger an amendment which might be the killing of the SSMID. Anciaux said they'd made a case that the SSMID was needed and that it would be beneficial. He had problems with the taxation of the residential areas. This petition had pitted neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend, he hoped they could get things worked out among them. Hansen said in no way was he against a SSMID. If the current application had had a few of the listed concerns addressed, he would be more than open to talking about it. He felt the downtown needed support and needed marketing, it needed a better plan. Behr said in review, the two main concerns he'd heard raised were: (1) the fact that residential use properties were assessed as commercial and would be taxed just like other commercial and (2) the duration of the SSMID and the fact that it automatically renewed. Behr said those two items were the most problematic because they were not things that Council could fix in this petition. Other concerns were (3) the amount of support for the SSMID among property owners and tenants in the district in general, whether it be lack of support or lack of telling the Commission that they supported it; (4) lack of information regarding and specifics about how the money would be spent; (5) lack of specific information about how the organization would be set up and how there would be representation on that organization. Behr said this being the case, he would suggest a motion to recommend that the SSMID application had merit and was feasible subject to certain conditions to which they could add concerns. Behr advised the Commission that a motion stated as such, if they said that they felt it had merit and was feasible, if the proponents demonstrated more support at Council level and provided more information about spending and more information about the organization, but then the Commission also said that they had concerns Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Page 19 about the taxation and the renewal, there was nothing the Council could do about those two concerns with this petition. Behr said one option was to report that the application had merit and was feasible with those conditions and add their concerns. Another option was a report and recommend that they did not feel it had merit and it was not feasible because of their concerns about the duration of it, the fact that it was automatically renewed and they didn't like the fact that the SSMID taxed residential use properties which were assessed as commercial. Behr said there was nothing to say that another SSMID petition couldn't immediately follow addressing those items or they could do another one to attempt to sway the Commission that they should not have those particular concerns. Behr said any amendment would have to go back before the Commission, so he didn't think there was anything the Council could do to this petition to fix those particular concerns. Hansen said it would be better for the Commission to do a negative motion with a list of the concerns they had to see if Council went up or down. If they said yes, the petition had merit and feasibility it would be going against what they were saying. Brooks said by the same token, he had a hard time saying that it didn't have merit. In general he agreed with the concept and the overriding purpose of what they wanted to do. The way it was presented to the Commission was so incomplete and so vague that it left him with all those concerns and questioned the feasibility of it and to a certain degree, the merit. Behr said the report and the recommendation could be phrased such that to make it clear that they didn't feel there should not be a SSMID district downtown, but that they just didn't feel this was the petition/SSMID district that they wanted to see created. Motion: Hansen made a motion to make a report and recommendation to City Council that they felt that the eight criteria listed in the Staff Report of 1/9/04 pages 3 and 4 had been met with respect to this SSMID petition; the Commission felt a SSMID district in downtown Iowa City might be appropriate and have merit and feasibility; recommended that this particular petition did not have merit and feasibility because of the concerns regarding: taxation of residential properties assessed as commercial; the duration of the proposed SSMID and the fact that it automatically renewed; lack of information regarding and specifics about how the money would be spent; lack of specific information about how the organization would be set up and how there would be representation on that organization. The Commission chairperson would be authorized to review and sign the Commission's report after it was authored by Behr. Brooks seconded the motion. Koppes said she agreed with the motion. Anciaux said he felt a SSMID might be needed and encouraged the proponents to work on winning over the opposition and the opponents to work for obtaining the 25% or 40% necessary to kill this particular petition. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1. Anciaux voted against. CONSIDERATION OF 2/19/04 MEETING MINUTES: Brooks made a motion to approve the 2/19/04 meeting minutes as written and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion p. assed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 pm. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill data on c~t ynl f pcd/min ut e s/p &~'2004/2004 03-04p&z doc MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY~ MARCH 1L 2004 - $:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: P, andy Hartwig, Daniel Clay, John Staley, Carl Williams STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, P, on O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Vice-chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the February 12 and February 20, 2004, Commission meetings were approved with some minor changes. REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES: O'Neil reviewed the check requests for March with the Commission. Hartwig asked about the bill for the 100LL tank. O'N¢il said the main filters £or the 12,000-gallon tank are normally changed annually. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were presented. UNFINISHED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: No items were presented. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Bid opening, roof projeet, Bldgs. B & C - Dar~en Sellers, kom H.P,. Green, was present to review the bids and make a recommendation to the Commission. The Commission received one bid. The engineer's estimate was about $48,000 per building. O'Neil said the grant was for a maximum of $50,000, and required a local match 0£$0%. The total funds available for the project would be $72,500. O'Neil said that if the bid was too high to do both buildings, one building and some hard surfaced floors co. uld be done with the grant and another grant would be applied for to renovate the other building. Sellers read the bid. For bid item #1, hangar building B, the bid was $ 74, 425 and bid item #2, hangar building C, was $ $$,600. Clay asked why Sellers thought the bid was so high? Sellers said he wasn't sure. He said the contractor might have a lot of work already. He said with only one l~id, it is difficult to tell. Sellers said he was surprised there was only one bid. He said ~vo other contractors had expressed interest. Hartwig asked how soon something had to be done with the roofs? O'Neil said there were no major leaks. The reason they were doing the project was because the l~uildings were $5 years old, starting to need additional maintenance and a grant for 70% of the project was available through the Iowa Department of Transportation. Sellers said they have been getting good bids on projects. He said he needs to call the contractor and see why the bid was so much higher than the estimate. Staley asked how many contractors there are in the area that can do the job? Sellers said most roofers would tell you they can do the job, but he would be hesitant to hire just anyone. Hartwig asked what the timeframe was for going out to bid again? O'Neil said he could advertise again and have bids for the April or May meeting. Sellers said he needs to find out why his estimate is so low. Staley asked if there were any elements that could be listed as alternates to reduce the bid price? Sellers said he had done that by listing each building separately. Sellers recommended giving him an opportunity to contact the contractors to see if he needs to revise his estimate. O'Neil said he did not think the Commission could afford to accept the bid. He said if lower bids were not received when the Commission bid the project again, they would have to return the $ 50,000 grant. Clay made a motion to reject the bid. Williams seconded the motion and it passed 4 - 0. Sellers will discuss the project with O'Neil after he has talked to the contractor. He said if it is bid again, he will try to get more contractors to bid. Clay asked O'Neil about a leaky roof on another building. O'Neil said since that was not on the agenda, he would talk to Clay after the meeting. b. Environmental Assessment project - O'Neil said he had circulated a memo to the Commission updating them on the project. The draft report is at the FAA in Kansas City. There are some public notice timeframes that needed to be followed and those time periods for comments from various state and federal agencies are running now. c. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) - (Because of a possible conflict of interest, Williams said he would not take part in the discussion.) Scott Byers, from Iowa Realty, requested to address the Commission. Byers said Iowa Realty has represented the Aviation Commerce Park for over a year. He said a past Commission agreed to extend the leasing part of the agreement. But there are three parties that have to enter into the agreement, Iowa Realty, the Commission and the City Council. He said the listing would be a high priority for his firm. He said they would like to transition new people into the assignment. He said he would like to suggest a 90-day agreement. If the Council and Commission were comfortable with the direction things were going, a longer agreement could be signed. Clay asked if the agreement was for leasing or selling? Byers said it was for both, but the lease option did not seem very feasible. Byers said he likes the project and thinks it is a good location. He thinks it would be a good area for warehousing, general contractors and light distribution. Clay asked if there was a change in marketing strategy? Byers said having new people would offer additional ideas. He said they would see if there are any contractors or local developers that would be interested in the property. There may have to be some creative flexibility in marketing the property. O'Neil said he would recommend the Commission come to a consensus on what they wanted to do and forward that as a recommendation to the Council. There is not a current agreement with anyone to market the property. O'Neil said the Commission could sign another agreement with Iowa Realty or readvertise for another realtor. Staley made a motion to send a recommendation to the Council for a 90-day agreement with Iowa Realty to market the Aviation Commerce Park. After 60 days, the Commission will review the progress to see if a recommendation for a longer agreement should be negotiated. Clay seconded the motion. During discussion, Clay asked Byers if he thought 90 days was enough time to show the Commission they should have a longer agreement? Byers said he thought it was and they would be very aggressive in their marketing during those three months. Clay asked Byers if he could produce an executive summary of a marketing plan to help Clay understand what Iowa Realty planned to accomplish. Byers said he would provide that. Hartwig call for the vote and the motion passed 3 - 0, with Williams abstaining. O'Neil said that on the chance the Commission wanted to go out for proposals, he contacted the Library to see if they had developed an RFP for their new commercial space. They did not put together an RFP. They sent letters to realtors that they thought would be interested in their project and selected from the responses which companies they wanted to interview. O'Neil said he would work with Cook Appraisals to update the appraisal on the property. d. Runway 07 project - Earth Tech O'Neil said he left that on the agenda, in case there was some last minute action for the Commission to take. The FAA recommended not signing a contact until the EA is completed. e. Obstruction mitigation project- O'NeiI said Stanley Consultants had sent a summary of the project for the Commission. O'Neil reminded the Commission this was a State grant and there will not be enough money to reduce all of the obstructions. Hartwig asked if there has been an obstruction mitigation project in the past? O'Neil said there has not been a project that addressed all of the obstructions. O'Neil said the Building Department is more aware of what is required for air space studies than in the past and there is less likelihood than in the past that a building permit would be issued without an airspace study being conducted first. fi Strategic planning - Hartwig said this is on the agenda as a reminder that the Commission needs to continue to move ahead to develop a plan. He said he personally believes it is important for the Airport to have a plan. He thinks a subcommittee should meet before the next meeting to narrow the list of items for the Commission to discuss. Dennis Gordon, from Gordon Aircraft, said he would be willing to help as a representative of tenants on the Airport. He said other tenants and volunteers should be involved. Staley said the information O'Neil gave the Commission at the last meeting would be a good guide for moving forward with the project. He said it points out the advantages of having a facilitator to help get things started. Gordon said he thinks there are facilitators available. He said there are some pilots on the Airport that could facilitate the project. Staley asked O'Neil if there was any money for a facilitator? O'Neil said the Commission did not have any money budgeted. Clay said there ~vould be some merit in having someone that is not connected with the Airport moderate the discussion. Clay said he thinks the plan will be the most important thing the Commission does over the next couple of years. It will be used for planning and public relations with the Council and the people of Iowa City. Clay said he likes of idea of starting with a task force and subcommittee. He questioned who the other participants should be. O'Neil said the most difficult and time-consuming part of the project is the initial information gathering meetings. He said you need to start with a group of about 20 people and a list of basic ideas. The main group breaks into smaller groups, a subject is discussed and then the facilitator is responsible for combining the ideas of each group. You then move on to the next subject. This takes a lot of time. O'Neil said it is important to invite a list of all the community "players" that have an interest in making the Airport successful. The airport is much larger than the tenants of the Airport. After something is drafted, it is taken out for public comment. After that, you have another refinement period. This all takes time. O'Neil suggested constructing a timeline with a target date for the project. O'Neil said that not only should the Commission have a timeline for the Strategic Plan, but also for the recommendations from the ABS report. He said it has been unfairly reported that the Commission hasn't and isn't going to do anything with the report. He said that is simply not true. The Commission went through the entire report, addressed ail of the recommendations and commented on what the intentions were for the actionable suggestions. He said the actionable items should be prioritized. O'Neil said he would review the Commission's comments and have a schedule for them at the next meeting. Staley said the Commission should be thinking about who the stakeholders are in this project. Clay said there should be involvement from someone with marketing experience and someone with experience in media relations. He said it is obvious that the media is presenting a limited view and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission. Staley said it is important to contact the City Manager and ask him what City staff he thinks it would be helpful to include on the task force. Clay said that in the next couple of weeks, the Commission members could send O'Neil a list of whom they think should be included in the list of stakeholders. This would help the Commission decide how they would want to break down the tasks of constructing the plan. O'Neil said Thrower compiled a list of people ABS was supposed to contact for their report. O'Neil said he doesn't know how many they contacted, but it would be a good list to start with. O'Neil said he would suggest having the initial meeting with the facilitator before the summer months because it is more difficult to get people to participate during the summer. Clay asked it the Commission should meet again before their next regular meeting to expedite the process? Staley said that by the next meeting, the Commission should have an idea of the makeup of the group they would like to have participate. At the April meeting, the Commission should decide when they want have their initial meeting with the facilitated group. O'Neil said he is meeting with Atkins tomorrow and O'Neil will discuss the idea ora facilitator with him. He reminded the Commission that the City Manager advocated having a facilitated group instead of hiring ABS. O'Neil said he thought Atkins would still be in favor of having a facilitator. Clay and Staley said the Commission should be looking a facilitator. O'Neil said the initial meeting should be scheduled for about 4 hours. He said he thought the facilitator would be important for the first two or three meetings. After the raw data is collected, it will be up to the Commission to take the lead in completing the project. Gordon said there should be one person responsible for moving the group forward with the project. That could be the Commission chairperson or the Airport Manager. Hartwig suggested that the Airport Manager direct the project. Clay said he would like to see the Commission members develop their list of task force members and list of potential facilitators to discuss at the next meeting. Staley asked if the recommendations from ABS were prioritized? O'Neil said the list was in the Commission's packet and he suggested looking through the list and prioritizing the suggestions. He said if the Commission members would send their prioritized list to him, he will have it for the Commission at their next meeting. g. State AIP and Vertical Infrastructure grant applications - O'Neil said there was a list of grant eligible projects in the Commission packet. O'Neil said he met with some State legislators on March 9 and they did not seem optimistic that funds would be appropriated for the State AlP fund. The application is for projects if money is appropriated. O'Neil said there are three projects he would suggest applying for. One is to move the ASOS equipment from the south part of the field to a more central location. This equipment will have to be moved before Mormon Trek is completed across the south border of the Airport. If a grant can not be secured, it will have to be included as part of the Public Works project. Another project is to move the VASI lights from Runway 18 to Run~vay 30. O'Neil said the VASI lights and the ASOS are FAA facilities and even if a grant is offered, the FAA will need to approve moving the equipment. The third project is to replace some of the signs on the airside of the Airport. In the Vertical Infrastructure grant, O'Neil suggested applying for funds to rehab another hangar building roof. O'Neil said the bid just received for Building B was too high to accept, but H.R. Green will see if there is some way to change the specifications to fit within the budgeted amount. Clay asked if there were any plans to replace the asphalt around the north t-hangars? O'Neil said that area and the tie down ramp were the worst surface areas on the Airport. He said replacing the asphalt around the hangars is not eligible for a grant. It would be a local cost. Clay made a motion for a resolution to support the AlP grant application. Hartwig seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 4 - 0. Staley made a motion for a resolution to support the Vertical Infrastructure application. Williams seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 4 - 0. h. FY 2005 budget revision - Hartwig said he would suggest O'Neil identify some items for the Commission to discuss. O'Neil said he would review what he understood had happened to the budget. The City Council held their public hearing for the City budget. After the hearing, a motion was made by a Council member to reduce the budget by $10,000. The motion passed. O'Neil said the Commission worked as hard on this budget as any that he could remember, knowing that the City budget in general was going to be difficult to balance. Even though there are increases beyond the Commission's control, such as electricity, sewer, water, etc., the Commission still reduced the budget by 8%. O'Neil said it would be difficult to reduce the budget by $10,000. There is no projects to eliminate. Small amounts will have to be taken from several line items. Clay asked if, other than the comment they wanted to send a message, did the Council object to something in the budget or think the Commission was spending money frivolously? O'Neil said he was not at the budget hearing, but it was his understanding that a statement was made that the action was taken to "send a massage". Clay asked if the Council could cut the budget without notifying them they were going to take that action? Dulek said they were dealing with the budget in general and could discuss any department's budget. O'Neil explained the budget process to the Commission. He said the Commission receives a proposed budget from Finance in October. They review and revise the budget and it is returned to Finance. O'Neil said he meets with the Finance Director and City Manager to review the submitted budget. They may recommend some changes before it is sent to the Council. In January, the Council holds a budget meeting for boards and commissions. O'Neil said he attended the meeting and there was no suggestion that the Council wanted additional reductions. O'Neil said it is unusual that a Council would change the budget after the boards and Commissions meeting, without any additional discussion with the Commission. Jack Young said he was at the meeting and the motion was made to reduce the budget to send the message that the Council was unhappy that none of the recommendations from the ABS report had been acted on yet. The Council member that made the motion wanted to give the money to Parks and Recreation. They decided this would take another motion. It was a unanimous vote to reduce the Airport budget by $10,000. Clay said they might have been unhappy that they perceived the Commission was not doing anything with the report, although the Commission has started action on some of the recommendations. Williams asked if the Commission would want to meet with the Council to discuss the budget with them? O'Neil said he would review the budget again to see where the budget can be reduced. He said it would more than likely have to come from several line items, such as reducing the amount budgeted for natural gas and hope we have a mild winter. He said there is a small capital project, but it is not enough to cover the entire amount. It is a project that has been in the budget for the last several years and removed every year. The asphalt sealing has been deferred every year and the asphalt is now near a point where it needs to be replaced. Clay said one of the things in the ABS report was a recommendation to improve direct communications between the Council and the Commission. Cutting the budget to send a message is not improving direct communications. This is a new Commission and there is an opportunity to establish a more positive working relationship. He said he is disappointed the Council chose this way to communicate instead of more positive communication. He said it leaves him with some confusion on how the Council wants to communicate. Williams said that for the Council to arbitrarily cut $10,000 without knowing how that will affect the budget makes it difficult for the Commission. Clay said there was no direction from the Council that the budget was high. Staley asked for the budget to be sent to the Commission before the next meeting so they could review it and make suggestions. O'Neil said he has not received notification that there was to be a cut, but that he has already started to look for ways to reduce the budget or increase the revenues. O'Neil said that when the Commission hired ABS, one of the main objectives was for ABS to use their nation-wide experience to suggest additional revenue sources for the Airport. There is nothing in the report that the Commission had not discussed before they hired ABS. Clay asked about renegotiating the FBO lease? O'Neil said he discussed reopening the lease with Jet Air and they ~vere not interested. O'Neil said he is somewhat puzzled why ABS would even suggest that. From a practical standpoint, why would a company reopen lease negotiations, knowing that the Commission's intention was to try to increase the rent? 6 Clay asked if there was any way to work with the FBO to raise their revenues? This would benefit the Airport in the long mn. O'Neil said he would welcome any new ideas. He said this is basically a new Commission and there could be ideas out there that have not been tried. Clay asked if there was some way to spend $10,000 less? O'Neil said that is what has been done the last few years. He has tried to tighten things up even more with the current budget. Staley said the Commission needs to try to grow the business at the Airport. O'Neil said he had a discussion with a supporter of the Airport that suggested having some type of trust fund. Dulek said the Senior Center has a fund like that. A suggestion was made to see if someone would be interested in having a building at the Airport named after him or her. O'Neil said those are all ideas to incorporate in the Strategic Plan. O'Neil said there is a wealth of history at he Airport because of it's age. The down side of that is that the facility is aging. The runways were poured in 1940 and 1941 and are due for an overlay. These are projects in the Master Plan. Clay said that in the spirit of the ABS report recommendation, he thought there should be more open and direct communication with the Council. O'Neil said that if the Commission wanted him to, he would draft a summary explaining some of the things the Commission discussed, including how they intended to move forward with the Strategic Plan, what they intended to do ~vith the ABS report recommendations, and that they intended to revisit the FY2005 budget. The Commission could also request time on a Council work session or attend Council meetings and present updates at the time allotted for public discussion. O'Neil said that is has been incorrectly reported that he does not have a good working relationship with the City Manager. O'Neil said that he meets with the City Manager on a regular basis at staff meetings and any other time that there is Airport issue that the City Manager can assist with. Clay said he would like to be able to get back to the City Council and say the Commission got their message, they are working to resolve this issue, and the Commission is looking forward and not back, yard. Staley said it is fair to say this is a new Commission. The members are new and the leadership is new. The Commission is ready to take up the challenge and work with it. Gordon suggested documenting every meeting with the City Manager. O'Neil said it would show a lack of trust to have to record every meeting and phone conversation he had with the City Manager. Staley said if there is something noteworthy, the simplest way is to mention it at a Commission meeting and it will be part of the minutes. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Williams made a motion to appoint O'Neil as temporary chairperson to chair the election of officers. Clay seconded the motion and it passed 4 0. O'Neil called for nominations for chairperson. O'Neil said that in the past, the Commission has voted by voice vote instead of written ballots. Thc consensus of the Commission was to use voice vote. Staley nominated Hartwig for chairperson. Williams seconded the nomination. Clay voted to close the nominations. Hartwig seconded the motion. At voice vote, the motion to close nominations passed 4 - 0. The motion to elect Hartwig as chairperson passed 3 - 0, with Hartwig abstaining. Hartwig made a motion to elect Staley as vice-chairperson. Clay seconded the motion. Clay moved to close nominations. Williams seconded the motion and it was passed 4 0. At voice vote, Staley was elected vice-chairperson 3 - 0, with Staley abstaining. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Hartwig thanked the Commission for electing him as the chairperson. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Clay said this would be an important time for the Commission, both in creation of the Strategic Plan and in reviewing the budget. He said a more positive and cooperative working relationship with the Council would be developed. Staley said he agreed with Clay and it was promising that there are volunteers that are willing to help with the Strategic Plan. Williams said he wanted to congratulate Hartwig on being selected as chairperson. He wanted to thank the Mayor and City Manager for giving him the opportunity to be on the Commission. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil reminded the Commission to review the Open Meetings memo that Dulek provided in their information packet. O'Neil said he had a meeting in Ames as part of the State Aviation Advisory Committee. He said the committee is a two-year appointment and he is glad he is on the committee to represent general aviation. On March 9, 2004, O'Neil participated in Aviation Day at the Capital in Des Moines and discussed aviation issues with several local legislators. Although aviation contributes between $8.2 to $8.4 million dollars directly to the State general fund, it will be difficult to get any of that money returned to the airports for capital projects. O'Neil provided the Commission with a memo outlining the days he would be out of the office for vacation and at meetings. Someone has contacted O'Neil about renting the office of the United hangar. O'Neil will bring a lease to the Commission if the inquiry gets that far. A FAA program is schedule at the Airport for the weekend of August 14 and 15. There is very little the Commission will need to do to prepare for the program. O'Neil will work with Jet Air on the details, it is part of the FAA "Wings" program. O'Neil said he has been contacted by a group that would like to use a hangar as a fundraiser for the U.S.A.R. returning home from Iraq. He said the only hangars large enough for what they want to do are leased by Gordon Aircraft and Jet Air. He referred the group to Ron Duffe and Dennis Gordon. The fifth Airport Commission member will be appointed by Council at their March 16th meeting. The Finance Department is installing a new accounting system and O'Neil will attend training on how to access the various reports through the City's lntranet system. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for April 8, 2004,at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Randy Hartwig, Chairperson MINUTES APPROVED Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission March 11, 2004 7:00 p.m. Emma J Harvat Hall City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m 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: Michael Bmnnan, Elsa Feddersen PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 223 South Dodge. McCafferty said this application concerns the replacement of two windows; a double casement and a single casement. She showed photographs of the windows, both of which are on the first floor. Feddersen said she is the house administrator for the property. McCafferty said the casement windows have divided- lights and swing out with screens that swing in. She said the hardware is broken on the windows, and they are drafty. McCafferty said the bedroom window openings are 20 inches wide. She said that if the ~vindow is replaced, HIS would require that the mullion be removed to provide enough space for egress. McCafferty said the applicant has proposed two options for the double window: one would replace the window with a casement window and a fixed window of two different sizes, and the other would replace it with a French casement ~vith both sashes open out, one large screen, and no mullion. Feddcrson provided information about the French casement proposal and said replacing the windows would make the windows easier to operate. McCafferty said she has spoken with Elsa about a third option; having contractor Phil Douglas, who rehabs old windows, to repair the existing windows and provide new hardware. Eisa said she is concerned about having to open the screens to open the windows. Enloe said that window screens are really not the Commission's purview. McCafferty agreed but said she was looking at the screen issue, because it would be beneficial to solve the entire problem here. Maharry said there are therefore three different proposals for replacement of the double window. McCafferty said the Commission could defer this application and wait until there is infon~aation about repairing the ~vindow. She said if Feddersen decides to repair the windows, a permit would not be needed, and her application could be withdrawn. Feddersen said she would like to meet with Douglas regarding the windows, but that would not affect her desire to replace these two. She said she is willing to consider and get estimates to see what the repair person has to offer but would like to see this application approved. Sueppel said that if the new window would meet egress requirements, he would not have a problem with it. McCafferty commented that the mullions are a fairly significant feature of the house fenestration. Sueppel agreed but said the City is requiring compliance with egress requirements. Weitzel pointed out that the City only requires compliance if the ~vindows are being replaced. Historic Preservation Commission March 11, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. Page 2 MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve the application for the replacement of two casement windows, with the double window to be a French casement window per the information provided by the applicant. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel said that as long as the original window is still there, it is nice to preserve it if possible. He said that might not be possible in this case. Ponto said that, independent of whether the window is repairable, the residents would want adequate egress in the event ora fire. McCallum said he agreed with Ponto's comments. Carlson stated that it would be a major change to take out the mullion. Carlson said the egress is a separate issue, and it is not intended for the Commission to consider the egress. He said that for purposes of this project, he would vote against the replacement windows and, if possible, would like to see the windows repaired and the mullion kept. Enloe said he agreed with some of Carlson's comments. He said egress is not the concern of the Commission; historic preservation is the Commission's purview. McCafferty said the guidelines recommend preservation of historic windows and discourage the installation of modem-type ~vindows. She said the issue is the mullion, ~vhich is not addressed in the guidelines. Weitzel said the Secretary of the Interior Standards recommend against retrofitting and favor repair and maintenance. Gunn said the Commission has approved all sorts of egress windows in the past. Enloe agreed that an egress window should be allowed for safety purposes and for that reason, he would not vote against the French casement window. The motion carried on a vote of 7-2~ with Carlson and Smothers voting no. 1037 Washington Street. Maharry said that since he owns this property, it would be a conflict of interest for him to chair the meeting. He turned the chain~anship over to Carlson. McCafferty said that Mahany is rehabilitating the house at 1037 Washington Street. She said there are two issues with regard to the application. McCafferty said that Maharry would like to change the window in the kitchen at the back of the house to raise the sill so that a counter could be added below it. She said the current window is a vinyl window that is broken. McCafferty said the appIication to swap the kitchen window with the window from the second floor has been amended. The applicant plans to keep the second floor window and replace the kitchen window wood double-hung. The sill of this window would be raised to at least 3 feet, 4 inches. McCafferty said the second issue is the removal of the porch that is a nonhistoric addition. She said the door opens in to the stairway. Maharry added that the current landing is unsafe and that he plans to fill in the door using lap siding to match the original wood siding. He said that to return the house to a usable state he will need to add counter space in the kitchen. Maharry stated that for the replacement window, he would like to salvage an old ~vindow, but if that is not possible, he would use a new, wood window. He said it will be in the same style as the current window. Enloe asked what the dimensions of the new window would be. Maharry responded that the current width would be maintained, but he would need the sill to be three feet four inches above the floor to accommodate a counter. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the application for 1037 Washington Street for the removal of the porch, and fill in the door with wood siding to match to original. Weitzel seconded the motion, Maharry left the room at this point of the meeting. Ponto said hc thought the removal of thc porch would be appropriate. Smothers stated that the porch entrance appears to be an afterthought and is an insignificant feature. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Historic Preservation Commission March 11, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. Page 3 MOl'ION: Enloe moved to approve the application for 1037 Washington Street for the replacement of the kitchen window with the sill raised above counter height. The windows must be wood and double-hung, and the exterior trim and siding must match the original. Sueppel seconded the motion. Weitzel said he does not think the change would constitute an alteration of a significant architectural feature of the house. Enloe said there are currently two windows of identical dimensions in the kitchen on different walls. McCafferty stated that to determine if the feature is historically significant, the Commission should consider if the window sill is raised, would it change the interpretation of the style of the house or appear not to fit given the house style. Enloe said he was concerned about how the Commission has treated other applications like this. Smothers said the owner should be able to retrofit this to make this a usable kitchen. McCafferty read from her memo from February 261h; "The Secretary of the Interior defines rehabilitation as the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural value." She compared this to thc sun porch on Grant Street. She said the sun porch was a significant feature of that style of house. In contrast, she feels the kitchen window, its size, location, etc. is not distinctive or unique. Carlson said if this window was a prominent, defining feature, he would be against the change, but he does not feel that is the case here. He said the Commission has approved more significant changes than this, including additions. Enloe said he would not vote against this. He said, however, that his reservations were based on the similarities bet~veen the two kitchen windows. Enloe said the other windows in the house are taller than they are wide, although the front window has a different dimension. He commented that the window proposed for replacement is the only window on that floor on the back of the house. Carlson said the new window would still have dimensions making it taller than it is wide, just not as much so as it is now. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Maharry rejoined the meeting as Chair. BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT: McCafferty said that HIS is working on its annual amendments to the Building Code and has asked if the Commission has any recommended changes. She said she did not have any recommendations for amendments. Ponto asked about including an amendment regarding a change in permit fees for certain projects in historic and conservation districts and historic landmarks. McCafferty said this is not part of the Code Amendment issue. She said she spoke with Tim Hennes about presenting such a resolution to the City Council. She said the Commission has indicated its preference for the City to charge the minimum permit fee for any building permit requested for a property in a conservation or historic district or for a historic landmark if a permit would not be required for the same project elsewhere in the City. McCafferty said Hennes would like to see administrative costs be covered. She said the minimum fee would be $35. Weitzel said that Section 105.9.1 discusses a building with no historic significance. He asked if it were clear anywhere else in the Building Code where that determination is made and asked if the ordinance should specify where the opinion comes from. Enloe suggested that the fact that the building is in a district already means the Commission has purview. Brennan asked if"historic significance" is defined in the code. McCafferty said she did not believe the definition is in the existing ordinance and agreed to add it to her list of items to consider for the ordinance rewrite. Weitzel said he just wanted to make certain there was no loophole - that owners don't independently just decide their properties have no historic significance. Maharry said if the section already talks about the specific areas, then it is a moot point. Historic Preservation Commission March 11,2004 - 7:00 P.M. Page 4 McCafferty said the Commission has no purview except for conservation and historic districts and landmark properties. She stated that all areas designated as districts have already been surveyed and a determination has been made as to the historic significance of individual properties. Carlson stated that a under Section 105.2, 15b, the wording should read, "Property is not located in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark." MOTION: Enloe moved to change the proposed amendment for Section 105.2, 15b to read, "Property is not located in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark." Sueppel seconded the motion. Thc motion carried on a vote of 9-0. PROJECT UPDATES: McCallum said the MLS is proprietorial and therefore ~ve would need permission from the Iowa City Board of Realtors before we could use it to obtain information about listings of historic buildings. McCallum suggested that we make a proposal to the Board that would include the welcome letter. He stated that each realty office should receive a copy of the Handbook and if individual realtors want their own copy, they could request one. He said he would like to propose getting permission to use his access to sold information to identify closing dates in order to generate a letter to send to the new owners. Sueppel said in that case the prospective owner does not get the information until after the sale. McCallum said another possibility is to have a notation on the MLS listing to indicate whether the property is in a district or a landmark. McCafferty said the Handbook is currently available on the web. She suggested sending a letter to all area realtors to let them know the infon~ation is available on the web. McCafferty said that eventually perhaps the Commission could prepare a small brochure for homeowners. McCallum said such a brochure could be included in the standard welcome packet and recommended that McCafferty present information about historic properties to the Board at one of their luncheons. HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK: McCafferty said the week runs from May 3 through May 9. She said she has spoken with Margaret Welting of the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission and Helen Burford of Friends of Historic Preservation to get ideas and see what they might be able to contribute. McCafferty said she is waiting for a response from Marlys Svendsen regarding information on the North Side, scheduling of a neighborhood meeting for Goosetown, and whether or not Svendsen is willing to speak at the awards ceremony. Smothers said that since there is such an emphasis on Goosetown and the North Side, she would check with the Preucil School to see if the event could be held there. McCafferty said she, Maharry, Smothers, Whiting, and Burford would hold a meeting to discuss details of the presentation. She asked other members to keep looking for potential nominations. Maharry asked if there would be a tour of the North Side during Preservation Week. McCafferty said that Burford had been interested but now was not certain that there would be enough houses. McCafferty added that she did not know if the North Side was planning such a tour on its own. MONTGOMERY-BUTLER HOUSE: McCafferty said Carlson and Weitzel would be finishing up the nomination. She said there are some loose ends, particularly with regard to the NRHP nomination relative to the archeology. McCafferty said a sign will be installed at the trailhead going to the property. Weitzel agreed to work on verbage for the sign. BUILDING PERMIT FEES: McCafferty said she will prepare a resolution to go to the City Council. She said the point is to change the process so that projects that require building permits only because they are in a conservation or historic district or are Historic Preservation Commission March 11, 2004- 7:00 P.M. Page 5 landmark properties would only pay the fiat fee of $35 for a building permit so that the o~vner is not penalized because his property is in a district or is a landmark. MOTION: Enloe moved that the Commission propose to the City Council to change the building permit process so that projects that require building permits only because they are in a conservation or historic district or are landmark properties would only pay the flat fee of $35 for a building permit. Weitzel seconded the motion. Brennan suggested that the $35 fee just be ~vaived completely. McCafferty said that Hennes wanted to keep the minimum fee to cover administrative costs. McCafferty recommended voting on this issue after she has drawn up the resolution and consulted with the City Attorney. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION: Enloe agreed to withdraw his motion, and Weitzel agreed to withdraw the INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: McCafferty pointed out the new standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte