HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-14 Bd Comm minutes
MINUTES FiMI/APproWr;
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
July 20,2004
ROOM G0918 - SENIOR CENTER
Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 2:05 PM,
Members Present: Lori Benz, Jo Hensch, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly,
Sarah Maiers (2:20 arrival), Charity Rowley, and
Nancy Wombacher.
Members Absent: None,
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Susan Rogusky, and Julie Seal.
Others Present: Irene Bowers, Bill Gauger, Betty McKray, Jack
Ruth, and Dorothy Scandurra.
Recommendations to Council:
The Senior Center Commission has none at this time.
Approval of Minutes:
Motion: To approve the minutes from the June 22, 2004 meeting as distributed.
Rowley/Hensch, Motion carried on a vote of 6-0,
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
Bowers presented a letter asking Commissioners to consider allowing pool players to
stay in the room after 5 p.rn. on weekdays. Currently, participants in the poolroom are
asked to leave the building when it closes at 5 p.m. on weekdays and the room is not
open at all on weekends. Bowers suggested that on weekdays a staff person could lock
the door at the regular closing time, but leave the door standing open, She indicated
she would be responsible for pulling the locked door closed when the pool players left for
the day.
Bowers noted that this arrangement could be done at no cost to the Center and that
safety should not be a concern because the poolroom is in close proximity to the
exercise room. As Center members the pool players could easily access the phone and
safety equipment in the exercise room if necessary.
Bowers also asked that when funding was available a timed locking and card access
device (like the one on the exercise room) be place on the poolroom door and that the
poolroom have the same weekday and weekend access hours as the exercise room.
Discussion focused on current room use hours, the number of pool players interested in
using the room after 5 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends, security, and expenses
associated with putting a timed locking and card access device on the door. Kopping
estimated that installation of the timed locking device would run about $1,000. Kopping
also noted that other groups were interested in expanded access to certain areas of the
building (e.g. the computer lab and SCTV) and if this request is approved other similar
requests will follow.
Commissioners agreed that this issue had broader implications related to expanded
building access for all interested participants and the desire to increase participation.
Final! Approved
Honohan appointed an ad-hoc committee to explore the issues involved and report their
findings back to the Commission. Hensch, Rowley and Benz were appointed to the
committee.
Motion: To accept the letter written and submitted to the Commission by Irene
Bowers. Kelly/Rowley. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION BREAKFAST REPORT - Hensch
Hensch reported that the 2004 volunteer recognition breakfast was successful with
approximately 90 people attended and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves a great
deal. Attendees commented that the music was excellent, but a little bit too loud for
comfortable conversation. Kopping reported that a floral arrangement from the staff and
Commission had been sent to Dorothy Vorporil to thank her for volunteering her services
in the kitchen the morning of the breakfast. Kopping indicated she would send a thank
you note to Lucy Hershberger at Forever Green for donating the centerpieces/door
prizes.
REPORT ON THE MODEL RAILROADING GROUP SPACE COMMITTEE-
Kopping reported that she and Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek are working on a basic
letter of agreement or understanding that will outline the conditions for the ongoing use
of space by the Railroad Group.
Rogusky reported that Ted and Penny Smith, the original founders of the group, have
resigned. At this time the group is re-evaluating the level of interest and commitment
among potential club members. This evaluation is underway.
Gauger and Ruth questioned the Commission about specific ADA requirements for the
designated room and model railroad layout. Ruth stated he has done some research
and discussed ADA requirements with other railroad groups, but there are numerous
issues that remain unclear. For instance, does the room need to be accessible or just
the facility? Does someone in a wheelchair need to be able to make a complete circle in
the room? Does the display height need to be at a certain level? Clearly, ADA
requirements could have a significant impact upon the layout and adequacy of the size
of the room and these questions need to be resolved prior to design of the layout.
Commissioners noted that questions of accessibility had implications for all programs
offered by the Center. Kopping indicated that she would check with Assistant City
Attorney Sue Dulek about ADA requirements.
Kopping asked Gauger and Ruth about the estimated expense related to participating in
the model railroad group. Gauger responded that the group had not established
participation fees yet, but club participation fees of around $150 along with monthly or
quarterly fees had been discussed.
Rogusky indicated that she had sent Gift Shop volunteers a letter reporting that there is
a plan to move the shop to the second floor when the Model Railroad Group is provided
with space in the Center. In response to this information, staff and Commission
members reported hearing from three participants about the move, two against the move
and one in favor.
FinaV Approved
SENIOR CENTER UPDATE-
Operations- Kopping
Letters recently written to a band participant who refused to purchase a Center
membership and an independent contractor who was delinquent in paying the Center
25% of the gross class revenue for the use of space and equipment were discussed. A
response from the independent contractor also was distributed and discussed.
Commissioners noted that while such correspondence could be unpleasant to write and
receive, it was an appropriate action in light of the violation of current Center policy.
There was no interest in modifying Center policy at this time.
Kopping indicated that she was working with Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek to
update a formal agreement that could be used with independent contractors who are
using Center facilities and space. The agreement will outline the fees and other relevant
issues.
A copy of a thank you card sent by participants in the nutrition program was circulated.
The card thanked the Center for providing temporary space for the Library's grand piano
and encouraging its use and enjoyment by members.
Kopping stated that all visitors to the Center seemed to enjoy the piano a great deal and
noted that it contributed to quality of music and ambiance of the room for all types of
Center sponsored events. She asked for someone from the SCC to join her in
approaching West Music to ask for a donated or discounted grand piano for the Center.
Wombacher volunteered to join Kopping.
Commissioners also suggested that Kopping contact piano manufacturers and see if
they would donate a piano and that the local news media be used to announce that the
Center was interested in acquiring a grand piano.
Kopping distributed copies of the forms from the Community Foundation of Johnson
County documenting the creation of the Iowa City Senior Center Endowment and the
Iowa City Senior Center Charitable Giving Fund.
Programs - Seal
Seal distributed a copy of programs scheduled for August 2004. For a complete listing
of programs see the Summer Program Guide and the August edition of the Post.
Volunteers - Rogusky
Rogusky distributed a copy of the most recent volunteer hours and described her efforts
to increase compliance with reporting of volunteer hours. She also reported on a
successful 1 00 Year event featuring Steve Thunder McGuire that took place in July and
on the recent approval of a University of Iowa grant intended to promote community
outreach by the university through humanities programming. The grant involves the use
of the TimeSlips program to facilitate the use of storytelling, life theater and visual arts to
capture and reflect stories of long-term care residents with Alzheimer's Disease and
dementia. Senior Center participants will be trained and work in several different
capacities as volunteers for the project.
Scholarship Fund Discussion - Rowley
Motion: To establish a designated fund for money to be collected and used to
support memberships and classes for people who need financial support.
Rowley/Hensch.
FinaV Approved
Following a brief discussion of the existing Scholarship Fund, Rowley withdrew her
motion.
Motion: To authorize staff to transfer money from the Center's Scholarship Fund
to the operational budget in order to pay the difference between the established
cost and the amount actually paid for each low-income membership and class
scholarship that is granted. Money transferred from the Scholarship Fund for this
purpose will be counted as operational revenue during the current fiscal year.
Retroactive to July 1,2004. Hensch/Kelly. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Upon questioning, Kopping stated that the Scholarship Fund currently had between
$1000 to $2000. It is hoped that people and businesses will contribute to this account
and thereby maintain an adequate balance.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION-
Rowley expressed concern that expanded programming was creating new stress for
staff members and questioned what the Commission might be able to do to relieve some
of the stress and workload. She asked that the staff contemplate this matter and
communicate their thoughts to the Commission at a future meeting.
Maiers reported on her July presentation to the City Council.
Rowley will prepare the web article reporting on this meeting.
Honohan stated that no report was given to the Supervisors in July.
Kelly, with backup by Rowley, agreed to make a report to the City Council on August 3,
2004.
Honohan agreed to do the web article for the August meeting.
Motion: To adjourn. Kelly/Maiers. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2004
Name Term 1/20 2/17 3/16 4/20 4/30 5/10 6/22 7/20
Expires
Lori Benz 12/31/05 X X OlE X X X X X
Jo Hensch 12/31/06 X X X X X X X X
Jay Honohan 12/31/04 X X X X X X X X
Bettv Kellv 12/31/04 X X X X X X X X
Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X X X X X OlE X X
Charity Rowley 12/31/05 X X X X X X X X
Nancy Wombacher 12/31/06 OlE OlE X X X X X X
Key: x= Present
0= Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- - Not a member
m:
FINAL APPROVED
~ Iowa City
Public Library
BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A
Minutes
5:00 pm
July 22, 2004 - 2nd floor Conference Room
Shaner Magalhães, President
Thomas Dean
Kathy Gloer
Linzee McCray
Linda Pryhil
Pat Schnack, Secretary
Tom Suter
Jim Swaim
David VanDusseldorp, Vice President
Members Present: Thomas Dean, Kathy Gloer, Shaner Magalhães,
Linzee McCray, Jim Swaim, Dave VanDusseldorp
Members Absent: Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, Tom Suter
Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Debb Green, Heidi
Lauritzen, Martha Lubaroff, Hal Penick
Magalhães called the meeting to order at. 5:00 pm.
Magalhães welcomed new Board member Kathy Gioer to the Board.
Public Discussion
None
Approval of minutes
McCray moved approval noting a correction in the date for next month's meeting, Dean seconded.
Minutes were approved as corrected unanimously 6-0.
Executive Session
Per Craig's written request, a motion by Swaim to move into Executive Session was seconded by
VanDusseldorp, All present signified by saying Aye,
A motion to end Executive session and move into open meeting was made by Dean and seconded by Gloer.
All in favor voted Aye and meeting resumed.
Unfinished Business
Craig reviewed the updated Building Project budget. It included FYOO, 01, 02, 03 and ytd 04. There are
stilI some equipment and furniture issues to be completed, Craig hopes to use the surplus to pay realtor's
fees, which would then be paid back in rent. At this point we are approximately $ 156,143 under budget.
Craig was pleased to have a surplus at this point. She told Board we were fortunate to have funds in the
budget to allow the purchase of beautiful art work which has received many compliments,
Agenda item 3A
Page No 2
Craig included a memo that required action from the Board, It concerns the completion of City Plaza,
Under an agreement being written by City Attorney staff, we will reduce the Knutson contract by about
$25,000, the cost for restoration of the Pedestrian mall right-of-way. This allows us to close out their
contract. We will then enter into a contract with Plaza Towers, LC. allowing them to use the right-of-way
until November of2005. At that time they will be obligated to restore the right-of-way in the same fashion
as Knutson would have, and they will be paid the amount that would have been paid to Knutson,
Swaim moved to approve and authorize the Library Director's execution of a contract with Plaza Towers
L.L.C. to reconstruct and restore the College Street right-of-way for compensation in an amount not to
exceed $25,000, which amount will represent the amount by which the compensation in the Knutson
contract is being reduced by virtue of removal of the right-of-way reconstruction and restoration work from
said contract. Gloer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6-0,
Approve Board Annual Report
Magalhães suggested adding goal for 2005 about parking, Craig said that a discussion of Park 'n Read
would be included in the budget request for FY06. Swaim recommended adding something about Outreach
and at what point we will look at a satellite branch. A review of additional outreach work should be a goal
for the Board. Craig said it would be part of the Strategic Plan process. Craig suggested a goal that says,
"Study needs for satellite library services", A review of what we do will be included in community
surveys. Swaim moved to accept the report with the addition of the new goal. McCray seconded. All
voted in favor. Motion passed 6-0,
New Business
Director Evaluation
Jim Swaim reported for the Personnel Committee, They met with Craig prior to today's meeting and
conducted her performance evaluation. They reported to the Board in the closed session. They were
pleased to recommend a 2.65% across the board increase, and a one-time bonus of$2500. This increase
will be retroactive to July I, The bonus is recognition for the hard work of the building project this year.
On behalf of the committee to evaluate the Director, Swaim moved acceptance. Dean seconded, Swaim
acknowledged for the record that during her evaluation, Craig gave extensive credit to the staff of the
Library and in particular, many of the key staff people. She also gave credit to Joel Miller. Magalhães
said it's been a pleasure working with Craig and complimented her on her great leadership. He noted that
her colleagues respect her, and she is highly regarded by people throughout the state. He called for vote.
All voted Aye. Motion passed 6-0.
Nominating Committee
With Magalhães resignation effective August I, Vice-president VanDusseldorp moves into that office.
Dean reported on behalf ofthe Nominating committee that Linzee McCray be nominated to fill the position
as Vice-President. All in favor voted Aye and motion passed 6-0,
FY04 Plan
This is a final report on status of goals at the end ofFY04, There was some discussion of the
accomplishments during the past fiscal year and a question about numbers of people in attendance at a few
programs. Those numbers included attendance at the Johnson County Fair which is measured by
gIveaways,
FY05 Plan
This is the plan that was adopted last year and used for budget development. It has been updated slightly
and needs Board approval. A question about the third remote book drop was raised; the drops that were on
Linn Street are currently in storage. Craig reported that the issue is staff time. Maintenance people are the
Agenda item 3A
Page No 3
staff who empty the book drops and she does not recommend adding to tasks that take them away from the
building. Swaim suggested taking one of the drop-boxes to an existing site without adding a site.
Lauritzen replied that the bins would not fit in the van so two trips would still need to be made. Although it
is a service that the public appreciates, we look at costs. We will be repeating the job audit that we did a
couple of years ago. That will be useful in staff planning, When asked about reaction to change in due
date in remote book drops, Lauritzen replied that there was very little. After the 4th of July weekend,
12,000 items were checked in, A special ceremony to finishing the Children's Room mosaic entryway is
scheduled for October 23, Craig hopes to hold a public auction for library furniture late in August. It will
be held in the West Wing.
Magalhães called for a motion, VanDusseldorp moved approval of the FY05 plan and McCray seconded it.
All were in favor and the motion passed 6-0.
Fiscal Year 06 Plan
Fiscal year 06 is the last year of this plan. Facilities may not be the first goal with this plan. It is mostly a
continuation of what we've been doing. Magalhães spoke about parking. He doesn't want Board to wait
until late in 06 to address the issue of parking, Moen's building won't be done until November 05, Swaim
reminded Board about conversations to reinstate Park 'n Read, Craig said she would bring it to Board at
budget time, We will bring requests for short-term parking and Park 'n Read to City Council. Dean moved
that we approve the plan, moving facilities to Goal 5 and adding a reference to Park 'n Read or a similar
service. Gloer seconded motion, Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Adopt NOBU budget for FY05
Craig explained that the Library Board has authority for library's budget however there is not much lee way
in moving funds in the operating budget. NOBU funds are more flexible. They include ongoing items,
such as some salary, reserve for staff costs, and Art Purchase prize, In addition the one-time expenses for
FY05 include costs for planning process, continuing printing and mailing for ongoing grand opening events
and a contingency for the building. These funds earn interest and carryover.
In response to a question, the Art Purchase Prize started out with a $1,000 trom the Board and was raised to
$1500 several years ago. The prize also includes some funds from The Book End as well as from one or
two donors. There was no reason to think that it might need to be increased at this time.
Swaim wants to earmark funds to have in reserve for Park 'n Read, He suggested that if we had to cut
funds that we take them from the contingency for building and furniture, He stated that it allows us to say
we are sensitive to the problem of parking and are trying to be responsive. Craig recommended that it is a
discussion to have for the 06 budget preparation that we begin in the fall. When asked about whether or not
his intention was to include bus passes in this recommendation, Swaim said he would leave that up to the
staff. Swaim then moved that we earmark $5,000 in NOBU budget for Park and Ride 'n Read and reduce
building contingency. There were no seconds. VanDusseldorp said it was worthy of discussion and that
the NOBU budget was fairly fluid, which means funds could be shifted at a later date. Motion never was
seconded.
VanDusseldorp moved approval of the NOBU budget as presented. McCray seconded it. Motion passed
by a vote of 5-1 with Swaim voting nay,
Standard Realtor Al!reement
Hanick's contract expired July 2,2004. Craig recommended approval of extension of the contract for an
additional three months. Hanick presently has a good lead for both first floor and basement space, Dean
moved approval. VanDusseldorp seconded it. After a question was answered that there were no additional
fees involved, the motion was carried unanimously 6-0.
Agenda item 3A
Page No 4
Approve Contract with Johnson Countv
After the numerous meetings of the County's Library Funding Task Force last summer and fall, they have
drafted a new contract for Library Services, Similar contracts will be signed between the County and other
public libraries. It has been reviewed by City Attorney Andy Matthews. He recommended a small
language change in addition to the two new paragraphs that had been added by the county.
The new paragraphs were at the request of the County who wanted an option to get out of the contract if
their budget changed. Craig recommended approval, corrections made. This will be sent back to County
for approval. City Council will also need to approve, Swaim moved approval with the recommended
changes ftom City Attorney and the new paragraphs. McCray seconded, No further discussion and all
voted Aye. Motion passed 6-0,
Staff Reports
A. Departmental Reports: Children's, Systems, Technical Services
VanDusseldorp asked if Circulation Services continued having additional comments about self-checkout.
There continue to be problems with the hardware that necessitated the replacement of some parts in the
units, Initially they had software problems, which seem to be resolved. Asked about how fÌequently it
rejects materials, Lauritzen said not often, With the increased use of self-check, we intend to plan for the
shifting in service points that will come with more circulation and self pick up of holds.
Development Office report
Looking ahead to the hiring of a new Development Director, a copy of the timeline Craig and Curtin put
together had been included.
Johnson County Fair
Board reminded to attend the Johnson County Fair and see the Library booth that all the county libraries do
together. Good giveaways.
Miscellaneous
Commendation ftom Genealogical Society was included in the packet. They were appreciative of the
Heritage Quest software installed on our computers and available remotely and the service it provides for
our patrons.
Craig reviewed the history behind her letter to Riverside City Council regarding a contract for services with
them. The timing was poor to get anything in place for FY05 and the amount they pay Kalona would be
unacceptable to Iowa City. She also explained the change in the state's reciprocal borrowing program
would allow Iowa City to not serve them reciprocally if we choose, She recommended that they consider
the amount they pay for library services and the other issues when they begin their budget process for the
next fiscal year.
President's Report
None
Committee Reports
Nothing to report
Communications
Agenda item 3A
Page No 5
Next Board meeting is set for August 26 with dinner following at McCray's house.
Swaim reported that the County has been given a grant for youth development. He invited interested staff
to participate in a Task Force. They will meet August 31, at SE Jr High fÌom4 to 5:30. It is open-ended
and they want to encourage young people to attend.
Trustees expressed thanks to MagaIhães for an outstanding job as President. We will miss him and we
wish him the best in his career and hope he can continue his contribution to local government.
Overheard, since opening of new library, a young person who was talking on a cell phone and said, "Wow
this is awesome",
Disbursements
Review Visa Expenditures for June
Approve Disbursements for July.
After a motion by Swaim and a second by McCray, Disbursements for July were approved unanimously,
All in favor.
Adjournment
Move to adjourn was made by Dean and seconded by VanDusseldorp. All in favor voted Aye and motion
passed 6-0, Meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm.
Minutes taken and transcribed by
Martha Lubaroff
Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
(Meetin!! Date)
TERM 1/221 2/191 3/251 4/221
NAME EXP. 04 04 04 04
Thomas 7/1/09 x x x x
Dean
Shaner 7/1/09 x x x x
Magalhaes
Linzee 7/1/09 x ole x x
McCray
Linda Prybil 7/1/05 ole ole ole x
Pat Schnack 7/1/07 x x x x
K.Jesse 7/1/05 ole ole x ole
Singerman
Tom Suter 7/1/07 x x x x
Jim Swaim 7/1/05 x ole x x
David Van 711/07 x x x x
Dusseldorp
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
OlE = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
em:
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 5, 2004
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Jerry Hansen, Dean
Shannon, Benjamin Chait
STAFF PRESENT: Tokey Boswell, Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Holtkamp, AI Kleinmeyer, Jean Hogan, Jean Walker, Ann Stromquist,
Teresa Espy, Nicholas Johnson,
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: .
Recommended denial, by a vote of 7-0, REZ04-00019, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) zone to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone for .54 acres of property
located at 211 Myrtle Avenue.
CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ04-00019, discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Medium Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone for .54 acres of
property located at 211 Myrtle Avenue.
Boswell presented Staff report, Currently a large, four-bedroom single-family home sits on the half-acre lot
on Myrtle Avenue which slopes down to Riverside Drive and the Iowa River. The size of the lot would allow it
to be divided into four 5,OOO-square foot separate parcels suitable for single-family homes or three parcels
that would contain the existing home and two 8,700-square foot lots suitable for duplexes under the current
RS-8 zoning, The applicant has requested a rezoning to RM-12 which will allow for construction of up to
eight multi-family units. If approved, the rezoning to RM-12 would allow the number of unrelated occupants
per unit to increase from three to for four.
The property is located at the intersection of Olive Street, a dead end cul-de-sac which runs south from
Myrtle Avenue to the Iowa Interstate Railway Line and Myrtle Avenue, an east-west residential street. Olive
Street features a dozen primarily owner-occupied homes on 50-foot wide lots. Myrtle Avenue features single-
family homes and duplexes. Across Myrtle Avenue, directly north of the property, is a large property owned
by the U of I, part of which is currently used for a child-care center and a parking lot. Campus Planning has
indicated that they have not yet developed long-term goals for the property.
This property is located in the Southwest Planning District. The Southwest District Plan land use map,
adopted in 2001, labels this property and all adjoining parcels as "Single-Family/Duplex Residential". The
District Plan was crafted around a series of citizen-generated goals and planning principles that reflect the
priorities of the area residents. Two of those goals are of relevance to the requested rezoning,
Providing a Diversity of Housing in the District, including homes for first time buyers, mid-sized homes,
estate-style homes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments, The appropriate design and mix of housing
types is important to the creation of livable neighborhoods. This goal applies to the entire district which
already includes large areas of multi-family development along Benton Street and other arterial streets in the
district.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August5,2004
Page 2
Preserving and Stabilizing Close-In, Diverse Neighborhoods. Citizens have expressed a desire for better
enforcement of existing zoning and nuisance laws and a re-examination of existing zoning patterns in the
older parts of the District.
Neighbors have expressed a concern about the encroachment of University uses into the neighborhoods
south of Melrose Avenue,
The Roosevelt Sub-area section of the District Plan reiterates in a more specific manner the general goals
for the neighborhoods within its borders. The goals, in the order they appear, are to:
1. Stabilize existing single-family neighborhoods in order to allow households of all types to live close to
the UI and downtown Iowa City,
2. Encourage the development of high-quality multi-family housing that is compatible with surrounding
development to meet the needs of a variety of households including singles, young families, UI
students and elderly populations.
3. Identify and preserve historic properties.
4. Avoid concentrations of high-density multi-family zoning directly adjacent to low-density single-family
zones; facilitate down-zoning where appropriate,
5. Review and apply Multifamily Design Standards to higher-density development.
6, Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Boswell said the combination of the general and specific goals mentioned above indicates to Staff that
redevelopment is warranted only when new structures will help stabilize the neighborhood and are well
designed. Neighbors have expressed a concern to Staff regarding multi-family housing dominance over
single-family residences in the Olive Street / Myrtle Avenue area.
Staff feels rezoning this property for a higher-density use may be an action of illegal "spot zoning", which
occurs when a small area of land in an existing neighborhood is singled out and placed in a different zone
from that of the neighboring properties. This rezoning would create an island of multi-family within the
existing single-family neighborhood. If this particular property were to be rezoned, it would indicate that multi-
family zoning would be appropriate for similarly situated properties in the neighborhood and along Myrtle
Avenue, The requested rezoning is not supported by the Comprehensive or the Southwest District Plan, Staff
feels it would likely fail judicial test.
Some Olive Street residents have indicated that there have been poor relations with past tenants and the
previous landlords of 211 Myrtle Avenue. The house has been cited for over-occupancy and upkeep
violations several times, If the land were rezoned to RM-12, maximum occupancy would be 32 unrelated
persons in the eight units; under the current zoning two new duplex units could be built and the maximum
occupancy would be 15 unrelated people in five units.
Residents have also noted noise and parking problems at this address. The proposed increase in density
would lead to increased traffic in the area. Staff feel access from this property to Myrtle Avenue via Olive
Street should not be a problem, but the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Riverside Drive is approaching the
need for a traffic signal. Staff feels that the increase tenancy under RM-12 zoning may heighten the
problems in the neighborhood already cited by residents.
Staff finds that the current objectionable aspects of the home at 211 Myrtle Avenue are not related to the
zoning designation, but are property management issues. Property upkeep/tenancy regulations are the
responsibility of individual landowners. No change in zoning can guarantee a favorable change in landlord or
tenant behavior.
Rezoning cannot guarantee that the applicant's proposed plan to build a six-unit townhouse would be built or
the exact placement of structures and parking areas on the site. The rezoning would confer on the owner of
the property the right to build up to 8 multi-family units, which would increase the potential occupancy of
unrelated tenants from 3 to 4 persons per unit. The property rights are transferable with the land. A
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2004
Page 3
subsequent proposal may nullify the site plan proposed by the current applicant. Further the City cannot
enforce whether the units are sold or rented; or who would live in the units,
Boswell said in Staff's opinion, the proposed rezoning would not help stabilize the Olive Street neighborhood
and might invite further rezonings for multi-family development. Staff feels the current zoning designation
allows adequate opportunities for appropriate infill development of the sort specified by the Comprehensive
and the Southwest District Plans and may represent an illegal spot zoning. It is Staffs recommendation that
REZ04-00019 be denied.
Public discussion was opened.
Mark Holtkamp, said after he had purchased the property he'd had a couple of meetings with the neighbors
within a two block radius, He'd presented them with possible options as to what could possibly happen to the
site:
1 ) The University was interested in the neighborhood.
2) Addition of two duplexes to the existing site, leaving the existing house on the site.
3) Rezoning and construction six townhouses. He was not interested in building an eight unit apartment
building and was willing to sign documentation that he would not do so,
The existing house was a large house with a lot of rooms in it. From past experience, it was fairly hard to
regulate the number of persons residing in a property. It was a property that he was not interested in keeping
ownership of. If he were to build the duplexes he would sell the house.
With respect to the spot zoning concern, this property was just one property away from the RM-44 units. The
piece in the middle of the two properties would be given to the University. For him it would be financially
more advantageous to sell the existing home and construct the two duplex units, He was confident the
townhouses could sell for over $170,000. If they sold for $150,000 he would lose several hundred thousand
dollars.
Holtkamp gave the Commission a petition signed by the majority of the neighbors on the street who were in
favor of the rezoning and felt the townhouses would be the best fit with the neighborhood, and felt the
townhouses might alleviate some existing problems in the neighborhood. His preference would be to sell the
existing home to an owner occupied buyer, but there would be no guarantee that previous problems wouldn't
recur. One homeowner on Olive Street had expressed an interest in having the existing home movèd onto
her property for restoration at a later date.
Koppes asked Holtkamp if he'd met with persons from the other side of Myrtle Avenue (Oak Park). Holtkamp
said he had not. He'd placed notices in doors of houses down to the Oak Park area and to the Kum and Go
Store, so if persons didn't attend the meetings he'd not met with them,
AI Kleinmever, 530 Olive Street, said they'd met with Holtkamp numerous times. The neighborhood
preference would be the six townhouses, if that didn't occur, their recommendation would be for Holtkamp to
sell to the University. He knew for a fact that the house immediately to the east of the property had been
willed to the University. The house had sat empty for two years, all the utilities had been shut off,
Jean Hoqan, 534 Olive Street, said she'd attended the neighborhood meetings. The ownership component of
the six townhouse units made her feel more confident in that proposal. She'd lived on Olive Street for eight
years. During that time there had never been a single-family owner residing in the house at 211 Myrtle
Street. Since it was so close to the College of Law and the hospital, it had been a prime location for students
to reside in. Further up on Myrtle Avenue there were older multi-family units, she felt having new units on the
Olive Street/Myrtle Avenue corner would be an improvement. She was interested in moving the existing
home onto her property and restoring it.
Jean Walker, 335 Lucon Drive, said she was the Melrose Neighborhood Association representative. She had
already given a letter regarding Holtkamp's proposal to the Commission, the Olive Street neighbors and to
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2004
Page 4
the builder. She was in a very awkward position and had every sympathy for the Olive Street residents. She
too had resided near tenant occupied houses which had had noise problems and other issues. She wanted
something that was best for the neighborhood as a whole. Personally, she felt the best outcome would be to
have the house remain on the lot and to have the two duplex units built. It would be wishful thinking to
believe the rezoning would resolve the problems. The proposed apartment building could have a total of 24
unrelated occupants living in them with 24 cars plus additional visitor vehicles. Parking was likely to spill out
onto Olive Street and increase the traffic flow in that area.
Holtkamp had owned a property directly behind her house. He'd been called to a neighborhood meeting
because of problems in that house. The City's Nuisance Ordinance could now better address those types of
issues. The location of the duplex was too close to the adjoining property, but could be addressed as
suggested in her letter.
Walker felt the neighbors on Olive Street had become totally sensitized to the noise, trash and lack of
upkeep of the existing house, There was a concern if Holtkamp remained in possession of the house as
she'd heard from various persons around town about over occupancy, noise and upkeep issues in other
properties owned by Holtkamp. If the home were sold and the nuisance ordinance enforced, those issues
could be addressed. This would be an opportunity for Holtkamp to become a good neighbor, keep up the
property and take care of problems.
The house move raised concerns. In many instances in the past proposed house relocations had fallen
through due to the unforeseen cost of the relocation and the inappropriateness of the proposed site location,
With this particular site the house was very historic and contained a large porch that would be very difficult to
move. The house's historic value would be greatly diminished if it was relocated to another site.
Walker said under the circumstances she had described in her letter and before the Commission, this
rezoning would be very short sited for the immediate as well as the long term good for the neighbors in that
area as well as for the rest of the neighborhood who were trying to preserve the neighborhood and had
applied for a National Historic designation, to allow the rezoning to proceed.
Ann Stromquist, 316 Myrtle Avenue, said she and her husband had lived in their home for 21-years and
raised three children there. They loved their neighborhood including Olive Street, Myrtle Avenue and Oak
Park Court. In the years that they'd lived there, they'd seen the neighborhood become increasingly fragile for
two reasons: 1) The owner-occupied houses had increasingly become renter-occupied houses and 2) The
University had encroached to the south side of Melrose Avenue, The entire neighborhood was in agreement
that they wanted to preserve their neighborhood and try to keep the University from buying up all the
surrounding properties,
She'd found the Staff report to be very compelling. She felt there were more than just the two options
presented by Holtkamp. It was not a sure thing that the University would purchase the property. She felt they
needed to look at the options as they existed today, one of which was to retain the current zoning. She felt it
was a scare tactic to say that the property had to be rezoned or the University would buy it up.
The Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plans strived to stabilize the neighborhood, She didn't feel
rezoning this property would help to 'Stabilize the Neighborhood', it would have the effect of destabilizing the
neighborhood, Traffic would increase on Myrtle Avenue, which was already being used as an arterial street.
Jean Walker had spoken to 'Identifying and Preserving Historic Properties'. 'Encourage the Rehabilitation of
Existing Housing Stock' - the existing house was beautiful. Just because it had not been maintained didn't
decrease its historic value,
She felt the spot zoning should compel them to proceed with caution. It would give precedence to the houses
further to the west to request rezoning. Such a fragile neighborhood would completely fall apart if that started
to happen. Stromquist said she hated to see neighbors pitted against neighbors and hoped they could find
something that they all could agree upon.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August5,2004
Page 5
Teresa Espv. 527 Olive Street, speaking on behalf of her husband and herself. They were very much in favor
of Holtkamp's plan to move the house and construct the townhouse units. Holtkamp had provided them with
three, not two, options. 1) The University would probably purchase the property, 2) Sell the home and build
the six townhouse units, 3) Keep the house on the lot and build the two duplexes. Espy said they'd lived on
Olive Street for almost four years. They loved the neighborhood and intended to reside there for a long time.
She could not imagine anyone wanting to purchase a duplex or single-family home on that lot with the older
home still there.
She was a University employee and was sure that the Fellows who came to town every two years would love
to reside in that location. The townhouses would sell, if they didn't sell, the potential renters every two or
three years would be very good neighbors to have. Vicki and Bob, who resided on the corner, were not able
to be in attendance but had requested Espy to indicate that their preference would be to have the
townhouses as well.
Hansen asked if the duplex units could be zero-lot lines. Miklo said in terms of required frontage and lot area,
it might be possible to put two zero lot lines on the north but only one on the west side of the lot. Staff would
review that option before the next meeting if this item is deferred, It might also be possible to put three zero-
lot lines facing Myrtle and one-single family home while keeping the existing home under the current zoning.
Nicholas Johnson, 508 Melrose Court, had initially moved into his home at this time of year in 1941. He
wished to commend the Commission and the Staff for their planning efforts. In order to have a livable city,
plans were needed and also the courage to stick with those plans. It was his sense that was what the Staff
was encouraging the Commission to do with their thorough and persuasive analysis of what the plans were
that were in place and what the zoning allowed. The Staff was making a Herculean effort against the
University to try to preserve a residential neighborhood that was a valuable asset. The neighborhood had
quite a history from the 1920's to present. He commended the Staff and Commission for their time and
efforts they put into their reports and recommendations, urged the Commission to stick with established
plans and to continue to help the neighborhood residents to build a livable community that they could enjoy
while there was development in the outlying areas as well.
Kleinmeyer said they'd built their home on Olive Street 45-years ago and had resided there since. There was
no parking allowed on either side of Olive Street.
Boswell said staff feels a new multi-family structure on Myrtle could discourage reinvestment in the single-
family neighborhood on Olive Street. There was an expressed goal in the Comprehensive Plan to stabilize
existing single-family neighborhoods. Chait asked if the City had any role in determining whether a dwelling
is rental or owner occupied. Boswell responded that in the Staff Report the point had clearly been made that
the City could not require any new or existing units on this property to be owner occupied.
Walker questioned where 24 vehicles could be parked if there were no parking on Olive Street. If the house
were to be moved she would ask that there be a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring that the house
move and preservation be part of the rezoning. Spot zoning would allow the creeping of the RM-44 zoning
along Olive Street. She didn't think the townhouse building would be an asset to the neighborhood. She felt it
looked like a barracks. Stromquist had not received a notice of the neighborhood meetings, Many persons
were away on vacation that would have attended this meeting and spoken against the requested rezoning.
Anciaux asked if whether the house moved or not was germane to the rezoning, Boswell said the house
could be moved under the current rezoning or it could remain where it was. Behr said he did not believe it
was something that could be required by a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Hogan said she had already
looked into the costs/associated details of having the house moved. It was within her budget to do so and her
plans were to restore and reside in the historic house.
Holtkamp said when he'd purchased the home and held the neighborhood meetings, it had been his intention
to please everyone. It was difficult to please everyone, but the persons in attendance at the neighborhood
meetings had come to agreement on the one option.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August5,2004
Page 6
Kleinmeyer asked if only persons within 300-feet of the requested rezoning were the people who were to be
contacted and to be concerned about the rezoning. Miklo said the City sent a letter to any property owners
within 300 feet of the proposed rezoning. A sign was also posted on the property. Anyone in the public was
able to speak at the Commission meetings, Miklo said the spot zoning would have an implication for a much
larger neighborhood. The Staff, Commission and City were interested in what persons from the much larger
neighborhood thought and had to say,
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Chait made a motion to approve REZ04-00019. a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) zone to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone for .54 acres of property
located at 211 Myrtle Avenue. Shannon seconded the motion.
Chait said a lot of the conversation had been around economics, politics, marketing and maintenance, things
that were not germane to things the Commission had purview over. Generally and most often he was in favor
of redevelopment and higher densities, particularly in neighborhoods like this one. However, with this
particular application he did not see any compelling reason to rezone this particular property and would not
support the requested rezoning. The information that had been provided was adequate so he didn't see a
need to take two meetings to vote. He would vote against the rezoning,
Shannon said after hearing from the developer who had met with the residents of the neighborhood, he
would vote to support the rezoning. It was a very nice neighborhood and he understood why the residents
wished to stabilize it. He would like to see the neighborhood stay the way it was, if this was a way to do so he
would support the neighbors on it. It might be a way to stop the onrush of the University, across the street the
Comprehensive Plan was "out the window". He would support any way possible to keep the neighborhood
the way it was now.
Brooks asked Behr to further define the spot zoning issue. Behr said the Staff report had been written in
consultation with the City's legal department. The Staff report had described the issue very well. In the
opinion of Legal staff, if this zoning were approved it could be subject to challenge as an illegal spot zoning.
There would be a very legitimate possibility that it would be found to be an illegal spot zoning. It had all the
characteristics.
Koppes said she appreciated Holtkamp's efforts to follow the Good Neighbor Policy, that was not seen too
often. She could not support this application based on 'what might happen' to this property or to the property
to the east. It currently was not public property and they didn't know for sure that it would be, there had only
been hearsay. She was concerned about the spot zoning.
Freerks said she would not be able to support the request for rezoning as there was no support for up-zoning
in the Southwest District Plan. That was a document that had had a lot of thought put into it. Good neighbors
could not be zoned for. Mismanagement and poor maintenance of a property were not the result of the
current zoning and wouldn't be fixed by a change in the zoning. It had to do with the care the owners took of
the property and what they wanted to see happen to the property, The current zoning had sufficient space for
additional infill development and if someone wanted to, they could do something that would go along with
and compliment the existing neighborhood. If they spot zoned this area it would set a poor precedent for the
whole community.
Anciaux said the spot zoning was the main issue. If the rezoning were approved, it would not guarantee that
the developer's proposed plans would be carried through, He would vote against the application.
The motion failed on a vote of 1-6 (Shannon voting in the positive),
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2004
Page 7
OTHER:
At the informal meeting, Miklo had requested the Commission to convene a special meeting on 8/23, 8/24,
8/25 or 8/26. Items of discussion could include further Code Review items and an OPDH amendment on
Idyllwild, It was decided the meeting would be held on Tuesday, 8/24/04 at 6:30 pm.
Hansen inquired if inclusionary zoning would be addressed in their review of the Code. Miklo said they could
but Staff had intended to wait to see the results of the Scattered Site Housing Committee and if a proposal
were submitted by the Committee. Hansen expressed a desire to assure that the Commission have a role in
considering inclusionary zoning, Miklo foresaw both the Committee and the Commission as having a role in
the discussion and making a recommendation to Council.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 15. 2004 MINUTES:
Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected, Koppes seconded the
motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 pm. Brooks seconded the motion,
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:/pcd/minutesJp&zI2004/2004 OB-05-04p&z.doc
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2004
Page 8
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Attendance Record
2004
Term
Name Exnires 01115 02/19 03/04 04/01 04/15 05/06 OS/20 06/03 06/17 07/01 07115 08/05 08/24 09/02 09/16 10/07 10/21 11/04 11/18 12/02 12/16
D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X X X X OlE X X X
B. Brooks 05/05 X X X X X X X X X X X X
B.Chait 05/06 X X X X X 0 X X X 0 0 X
A. Freerks 05/08 X OÆ OÆ X X X X X X X X X
J. Hansen 05/05 X X X X X X X X X OÆ X X
E. Konne. 05/07 X X X X X X X X X X X X
D. Shannon 05/08 X X X X OlE X X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present
0 = Absent
OlE ~ AbsentlExcused
N/M= No Meeting
-- -- ~ Not a Member
c::
MINUTES Approved
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2004 -7:00 P.M.
EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim
Weitzel, Justine Zimmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Shelley McCafferty
OTHERS PRESENT: Marlys Svendsen, John Kammermeyer, Darlene Clausen, Dennis Mitchell,
Walter Kopsa, Jill Gaulding, Marc Light, Sarah Buss, Julie McNalley, Paula
Brandt, Mary Ellen Chudacek, Glen Winekauf, Mike Haverkamp, Helen Burford,
Jeff Schabilion
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Eliqibilitv of the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District for listinq in the National Reqister of Historic Places,
Public Hearing:
Maharry introduced Marlys Svendsen as the architectural historian who researched the district.
Svendsen said the process of getting this area on the National Register of Historic Places actually began
nine years ago. She said the first surveying of the Linn Street area began in 1996, the next survey in the
north side area began in 1997, and the surveying of the southern town plat was done in 1998-1999.
Svendsen stated that the NRHP Multiple Property Document Form report was prepared in 2000,
Svendsen said that in 2003 (something here about a certificate for a grant proposal to the State of Iowa
and something about the Historic Preservation Commission qualified as CLGs). She said (something here
about Iowa City qualified to prepare a grant and approved by the City Council in 2003).
Svendsen said she was hired to research this district in September 2003, and on October 13, 2003, the
first public information meeting was held regarding this area, She said that notice of the meeting was
published in the Northside Neighborhood Association Newsletter.
Svendsen said that in April 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission sent out letters to property
owners in the neighborhood to notify owners that the Commission was considering nominating this area
as a historic district. She said that neighbors were invited to a meeting held during preservation week in
May, Svendsen said the meeting focused attention on the area, and she made a slide presentation at the
meeting.
Svendsen discussed what it means for a property to be listed on the National Register, She said the
National Register was established in 1966 as a federal planning tool to help the federal government
expend money and carry out its licensing function. Svendsen said the advantages of being listed on the
National Register include the investment tax credit that gives a 20% tax credit on federal tax liability for
rehabilitation of a historic building, a State tax credit program for rehabilitations of a substantial nature to
National Register properties, and a State grant program.
Svendsen said that owners of National Register properties are not required to open their buildings to the
public, She stated that the federal government cannot tell owners of National Register properties what to
do with their buildings, and in fact the buildings can be torn down the day after being listed, Svendsen
said that, in a very limited way, a National Register property is protected from federal funding
expenditures. She said there is no restriction on the sale or transfer of a National Register property.
Svendsen added that there is no free money available to owners from the federal government.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 2
Svendsen said National Register listing does not directly affect property tax. She said that, based on
studies that have been done nationally, neighborhoods that have a National Register designation tend to
hold their value or increase slightly faster than the norm or average rate in a community.
Svendsen discussed disadvantages of National Register listing. She said the listing does not affect how
an owner uses, owns, or transfers a building or property, Svendsen said that in 30 years of working with
owners, she has found that they have been pretty satisfied with the result. She said the designation has
given owners tax advantages and a sense of pride and encourages general upkeep.
Svendsen discussed the proposed Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District. She said research began on this
project in 1998. She said she determined how the buildings or potential districts meet the National
Register criteria. Svendsen said there were two criteria that applied to this district: Criterion A, which
discusses the historic significance of properties and Criterion C, which concerns architectural significance,
Svendsen said the next step was to establish an appropriate level of physical integrity for buildings - what
kinds of changes are acceptable for a building to be considered contributing and what kind of changes
would make a building non-contributing. She said the ideas for this district were laid out during the survey
work in 1999. Svendsen said that all the buildings that are at least 50 years old, a requirement of the
National Register, were identified. She said a period of significance during which important buildings were
constructed and historic trends took place was established and was determined to be from 1840 to 1954.
Svendsen said she did a census of the buildings, identifying every building as a primary or secondary
structure, She said a designation of contributing or non-contributing was assigned based on age,
appearance, original builders, architectural style, and vernacular building form.
Svendsen said one of the things that is not looked at is building condition. She said that a building's
condition is not sufficient to affect its National Register eligibility, unless the deterioration is significant
enough to have destroyed its original integrity. Svendsen said the current use is not considered unless it
affects its original integrity. She said that future plans for reuse are also not taken into consideration,
Svendsen said that in the case of a historic district, she looks at parking lots and the location of non-
contributing structures, with the goal being to have as few of those as possible. She said, however, that if
they are located in the center, they must be included, as the district must consist of contiguous blocks.
Svendsen said she likes to have at least 70% or more of the buildings in a district be contributing
properties and have the district contain a high number of key structures. She said that in the Gilbert-Linn
Street Historic District, there are 143 primary and secondary buildings, of which 115 are contributing, and
52 of those 115 are key properties, Svendsen said a total of 28 properties, including just nine primary
buildings, were determined to be non-contributing, so that the total number of non-contributing properties
is less than 20%. She stated that the boundaries include, with one exception, only buildings that had
original residential historic use.
Svendsen said the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District was an irregular shaped neighborhood containing a
mix of single-family and double houses, as originally constructed, She said original and early occupants
included merchants, brewery workers, retired farmers, and widows, University workers, and brewery
owners.
Svendsen presented slides showing historic trends in the district. She said the first trend was the stone
buildings constructed during the military road era. Svendsen discussed one of the next eras concerning
buildings at the south end of the district as it relates to the operation of three breweries in the area.
Svendsen said that at the turn of the century, the area took on a new look with the growth of the
University and the construction of Mercy Hospital. She said that another facet of the district is evidenced
by the pattern book houses and manufactured houses in the neighborhood. Svendsen said she would
answer any questions that those in attendance might have.
Maharry said that at the end of the discussion, the Commission would vote on the proposed boundaries
for the National Register Historic District. He said the Commission would hold a public hearing for the
national district and then later hold a public discussion regarding the local district. McCafferty said the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 3
Commission would determine if the national district, as prepared, meets the criteria for listing on the
National Register.
John Kammermever, 404 E. Bloominqton, said that he represents several commercial property owners,
many of them with properties along North Gilbert Street. He said he understood that as of 4:30, the City
Clerk had received 35 letters from property owners in the proposed district in opposition to the district and
in opposition to listing on the National Register.
Kammermeyer stated that there are two discrepancies between the map and the complete listing of the
plan that was sent to Des Moines, He said that the buildings at 225 North Gilbert and 331 North Gilbert
are shown as key properties on the local map but are not key properties on the national listing.
Kammermeyer said that nine out of 11 of the commercial property owners are strongly opposed to having
their properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the proposed Gilbert-Linn
Street Historic District for several reasons. He said the process was flawed, in that no one in the
commercial district had any notification of the plan last fall or winter and had no chance for input.
Kammermeyer said the commercial owners are a small appendage of the entire proposed district, and
removing the commercial area is a matter of fairness and would show the Corn mission to be responsive
to the concerns of the vast majority of citizens in a small, distinct area.
Kammermeyer said the commercial property owners have no particular interest in the grants and tax
incentives.
Kammermeyer said there is a recent historic precedent for excluding the commercial properties from the
proposed district. He said that in the fall of 2002, commercial properties were removed from consideration
by the Commission as part of the proposed College Hill Conservation District because of concerns
regarding the impact of the district on commercial property and land values. Kammermeyer said that in a
number of cases, the value of commercial properties may drop slightly after listing on the National
Register.
Kammermeyer stated that the most important reason to exclude the commercial area is the development
of a health care core area around Mercy Hospital. He said that when he was on the Planning and Zoning
Commission from 1976 to 1981, the Commission purposely created a commercial belt around Mercy
Hospital to encourage development of a health care core area, Kammermeyer said the goal is to
encourage development of medical offices and allied health care facilities in close proximity to Mercy
Hospital and to encourage Mercy Hospital expansion.
Kammermeyer said that Mercy Hospital is an extremely valuable asset to Southeast Iowa. He said that to
impose any sort of historic preservation district along North Gilbert by Mercy would have a chilling effect
on the continued development of the Mercy Health Care Core Area.
Kammermeyer asked the Commission to remove the commercial properties on North Gilbert from the
proposed district and listing on the National Register. He said that removal of the properties would be the
most beneficial decision for all citizens of the Iowa City area, Kammermeyer presented the Commission
with a list of the commercial property owners that he represents.
Darlene Clausen, 505 E. Bloominqton, said she lives in a commercially zoned area, but her house has
always been a residence. She said her only disappointment in this proposal is that this would not be a
large enough district. Clausen said she would like to see the district extend all the way around Mercy
Hospital to preserve the mix of residential and commercial uses that have been there since the beginning,
Dennis Mitchell. 122 N, Linn St., said he represents H & G Development, a partnership that owns
properties at 214 East Davenport and 420-422 North Linn Street. He requested that those properties not
be included on the National Register or in a local district to the extent possible.
Walter Kopsa. 130 Ashwood Drive, said he owns properties at 320 and 324 Davenport Street. He said he
assumed this is just a first step in creating a local historic district, which would impose restrictions on what
can be done with the buildings. Maharry said that is correct, and the first step will be the next public
hearing.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 4
McCafferty said the purpose of the informal discussion is to determine whether the Commission wants to
pursue a local district. She added that listing on the National Register confirms that the area meets the
criteria of the State Code for a local district, but the Commission is under no obligation to recommend it
as a local district, nor does a local district have to correspond to the National Register. Kopsa asked if
there has ever been a National Register district that has not been followed up by a local district.
McCafferty said that in Iowa City, the districts all correspond at this time. She said that is unusual in Iowa.
She said the ultimate decision would be in the form of a rezoning by the City Council.
Kopsa said he is opposed to a National Register designation and a local historic district in this area.
Zimmer asked Kopsa if he opposed the district because of the restrictions a local district would put on his
ability to change his property. Kopsa said that is his primary reason for opposition. He said he has always
maintained his properties, Kopsa said he pays his property taxes and would like to be left alone.
Mollv Ravmer said she owns a property at 324 Church Street. She asked what the difference is between
a key property and a contributing property. Svendsen stated that a key property has a level of integrity
that is higher or the historic or architectural significance is greater. She said a key property might be
eligible for the National Register as a property in its own right. Svendsen said a regular contributing
property probably would not be eligible individually, She said there is a listing in the National Register
nomination that contains a determination about every property, and McCafferty would distribute copies to
those interested.
Raymer asked what kind of restrictions there would be on maintenance of the buildings in the area.
Svendsen said there are not restrictions on what can be done to a building in a National Register district.
Raymer asked for examples of restrictions in a local district.
McCafferty showed slides of acceptable changes in current districts, She said a local district is a rezoning
process that is considered by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the City Council. McCafferty said the reason for the long process is that local district
designation does impose restrictions on what can be done to a property.
McCafferty said that generally, anything that would affect the exterior of a property that would require a
building permit would require the homeowner to go through a process called historic review. She said that
for a major project, review by the entire Commission is required, McCafferty said that if the project does
not affect the appearance of the property, the chair and staff can review the project and issue a certificate
of no material effect. She stated that the review process typically takes two weeks.
McCafferty said the two most controversial items are windows and siding, She said that within a historic
district, windows cannot be replaced with vinyl windows, and vinyl siding cannot be applied to properties
within a historic district.
McCafferty said the Commission does not review paint color, shingles, or typical repairs not requiring a
building permit. She said the guidelines are not intended to prevent routine maintenance of the property.
McCafferty said the guidelines are intended to manage changes to historic properties to ensure that the
changes are compatible with the character of the district.
McCafferty said that some people are under the impression that the guidelines are intended to fix the
neighborhood in time or that changes have to mimic the historic building itself, which can be more
expensive. She showed four examples of additions. McCafferty said many people are unable to hire an
architect or draftsman, so the Planning Department made a specific effort to hire someone with
architectural expertise so that the planner can assist the owner in ensuring that the project meets the
guidelines prior to going before the whole Commission.
Regarding the guidelines, McCafferty said the guidelines for a historic district are more restrictive than for
a conservation district. She added that most homeowners making substantial changes to their houses
want to do a project in a way that is similar to the existing house. McCafferty said the project should be
sympathetic to the structure but need not necessarily copy all of its details, She said that all the guidelines
for alterations, new construction and demolition are available in the Historic Preservation Handbook,
which is available on the City website or through the Planning Department. McCafferty said the guidelines
mostly deal with more traditional approaches, but there is flexibility for more creative solutions,
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 5
McCafferty said that since the Commission was established in 1986, the Commission has reviewed 198
projects. She said that of those reviews, three of them, 1.5%, were appealed to City Council, and all three
were supported by City Council.
Jill Gauldino, 225 E. Davenport, said that neighborhood homeowners are grateful that people have gone
through this process to try to get this area on the National Register. She said she is very much in favor of
the district.
Gaulding said that for those who are opposed to the district, it might help to know that it is not her intent to
keep property owners, particularly owners of commercial property, from doing what they want to their
properties. She said the whole reason she lives in this neighborhood is that she likes the diverse
neighborhood and likes the mix of residential and commercial properties. She said she has nothing
against people making smart use of those properties that are near Mercy.
Gaulding said she hoped this could proceed in a cooperative spirit and that people will have some good
faith that a district would not mean the end to all financially beneficial uses of these properties. She said
she hoped the Commission would vote in favor of this.
Marc Lioht. 225 E. Davenport, said he believes strongly in having residents living downtown. He added
that it is a big benefit for the businesses downtown. Light said one of the advantages is the historic
buildings, and if people want a vibrant downtown, maintaining the historic nature of the residential areas
is crucial. He said he supports this process.
William Lake said he and his brother own a key property at 404-404 1/2 East Davenport. He said he is
opposed to the National Register designation, He said he doesn't plan to do anything to the property, but
the prohibitive costs to paint a property versus side a property, or whatever the case may be, should be
the owner's decision, Lake said that some of the older buildings have to be painted much more often than
newer properties. He said the owners should make the decisions about their buildings and no one else,
Sarah Buss, 416 N. Linn, said she supports this proposal and said she is grateful for the hard work that
has been done. She said she enjoys living in this neighborhood precisely because of the interesting mix
of commercial and residential and families and students living there.
Buss said there is a certain amount of fear that control over decision-making regarding how houses are
changed will be taken out of the hands of those who should have it. She said citizens always have to get
permits for various things in any case, so that as a community, we have agreed that there are standards
and limits, Buss said this all has to be in a context of what kinds of guidelines and what kinds of control
should be imposed.
Buss said that it would be beneficial to hear from some representative sampling of those who have gone
through the process, including the people who appealed to City Council. She said that there is a degree
of uneasiness about what the guidelines would mean, and that information would be helpful to those who
are opposed to this proposal.
McCafferty said that what the Commission will decide at the meeting is a determination of the eligibility of
this district. She said that because the primary concern is restrictions and eventual local designation, the
Commission chose to put on its agenda the opportunity to discuss local designation. McCafferty said this
is only the first of several meetings at which a local designation will be discussed, if the Commission
chooses to proceed with that.
Maharry said that in April he began asking applicants, after the Commission had made its decision on
their applications, to freely give their opinions about the process. He said that information is available in
the minutes of the Commission's meeting. McCafferty said she is currently preparing a survey to send to
those applicants who went through the process.
Julie McNallev. 317 Fairchild St., said that she and her husband absolutely support this process and this
designation. She said one of the things that comes to mind when thinking about this is all of the work that
is going into the Peninsula right now to try to replicate the neighborhood she lives in. McNalley said it
makes perfect sense to do what we can to preserve the existing neighborhood so that we don't have to
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 6
raze it and then try to rebuild it. She said it seems normal and natural to continue to support the North
Side and its integrity, since it is the original version of the Peninsula Neighborhood.
Paula Brandt. 824 N. Gilbert, said she walks through this neighborhood every day. She said she is
supportive of this. Brandt said that historic districts, whether national or local, are gifts that the City gives
to the residents and community of Iowa City.
Brandt asked why Pagliai's Pizza was not in the district. Svendsen responded that the building is
obviously individually eligible for the National Register and would be a key structure if it were in a historic
district. She said that in this initial effort in looking at the North Side, the goal was to look at buildings that
were originally constructed as residential properties, not commercial.
Mike Brennan, 1207 Sevmour, asked if there was any follow up to his question at a previous meeting
regarding potential adverse income tax consequences of National Register designation. McCafferty said
she received an e-mail from the IRS' specialist in historic preservation. She stated that the provision
Brennan questioned, Title 36 of the CFR 62.2C is an outdated National Park Service regulation that has
not been amended to keep up with the Internal Revenue Code. McCafferty said the Internal Revenue
Code will prevail, and the cited regulation is of no practical effect.
Holecek said the provision is a National Park Service regulation that refers to tax code provisions that
have not been updated. She said the updated tax code provisions have eviscerated any distinctions that
were made by that particular regulation so that in effect, that regulation has been done away with.
Brennan said that for some of the tax credits and benefits available, the treasury regulations talk about
the functional equivalent of granting easements or restrictive covenants in order to receive the benefits of
those tax credits, and those would be restrictions on property rights in order to get the tax benefits,
Svendsen agreed that there are strings attached. She said the Internal Revenue Code establishes
provisions for owners of National Register listed properties to grant a preservation easement or
preservation covenant. Svendsen said the language in those covenants is very specific, and they
generally relate almost exclusively to the exterior features of a building unless the building has important
interior public space.
Svendsen said that when that easement is granted, the owner of the property gets a tax benefit based on
the value of the donation. She said that value is determined by subtracting the value of the property with
the easement from the value of the property without the easement. Brennan asked if the local property
assessment would be reduced accordingly with the value of the easement that has been lost. Svendsen
said she could not answer because property tax values are based on what local municipalities choose to
do, but she said she could not imagine that an owner could not sustain an appeal that would reduce the
value of the property based on the granting of an easement.
McCafferty added that under Iowa state law, counties can exempt properties from the increase in value
from a substantial rehabilitation on a National Register property, She said the increase is not taxed for a
period of four years, and the value is then increased until during the seventh year the owner would be
paying taxes on the full assessed value, Svendsen said that one of the tests of that requirement is that
the rehabilitation cost has to be an amount greater than or equal to the adjusted basis of the property,
She said that may be more difficult in Iowa City than in other communities in the State.
Marv Ellen Chudacek. 34 Bedford Court, said her family owns the property in the 200 block of Gilbert
Street. She stated that a lot of these properties are not owner-occupied. Chudacek said she grew up in
this area, but now that she is a landlord/owner, she is trying to maintain and upkeep the property. She
said the idea of having more restrictions won't work.
Chudacek said that a lot of the private landlords won't be able to maintain their properties because they
won't be able to afford it. She said that by having a commercial property that she doesn't live in, the
landlord can't afford to upkeep the property the way it should be if this passes,
McCafferty stated that if this goes forward to the local ordinance process, property owners will receive
notification of the public hearing and any meeting before the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as
the Planning and Zoning Commission, and it will also be advertised in the paper.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 7
McCafferty said that she researched how many building permits were issued within the residential portion
of this area that would have required historic review and also how many houses have vinyl siding or vinyl
windows, which would also have required a permit in a district. She stated that in a 12-year period,
considering 85 different properties, approximately 34 of the projects would have required review by the
full Commission and about 20 more projects would most likely have received a certificate of no material
effect and could have been approved by the Chair.
Chudacek said she would not now need a permit to install vinyl siding and windows on her property, but
she would if this were a district. McCafferty said a permit would be required for this in the future if this was
designated a local district.
Glen Winekauf said that he represents Mercy Hospital. He stated that Mercy Hospital is both directly and
indirectly affected by the proposed Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District. Winekauf said it is directly affected
to the extent that the boundaries of the district have been drawn to include the most western portion of
Mercy Hospital's campus, involving property that is currently used as the emergency room parking lot. He
said that the parking lot is considered a non-contributing property to the historic district.
Winekauf said that Mercy Hospital is indirectly affected by the historic district to the extent that it
incorporates properties that are immediately adjacent to Mercy Hospital's campus. He said that Mercy
Hospital greatly respects the purpose and the mission of the Historic Preservation Commission and the
community benefits that can be gained by preserving historic structures,
Furthermore, Winekauf said that Mercy Hospital understands that Mercy Hospital's campus is located
near a residential area, and Mercy Hospital wishes to be both a good neighbor and respectful to the
historic structures. He said that Mercy also has a very important and critical community health care
mission to perform and believes that being a good neighbor, respecting historic properties, and
performing its community health care mission are not incompatible.
Winekauf said that in the present circumstances, the boundaries of the proposed district incorporate
principally residential zoning uses and a very limited number of commercial use properties. He said that a
district crossing use boundaries might have been anticipated to have created different concerns among
the different constituents. Winekauf said that while on one hand, including properties on the National
Register would appear to be beneficial, on the other hand, it is a likely outcome that the federal district will
become a local district, where benefits to some may become restrictions to others.
Winekauf said that, unfortunately, the district incorporating both residential and commercial uses has
resulted in a somewhat adversarial response, because the owners of the properties have different views
as to the importance or the significance of the federal classification. He said that Mercy believes that it is
awkward to place the owners of commercial properties and the owners of the residential properties in this
situation. Winekauf suggested that the Commission consider drawing districts that do not cross over from
residential to commercial uses, and in this instance, the Commission could have proposed two separate
districts: one incorporating all of the residential properties and the second incorporating all of the
commercial properties. He said that had that been done, the residential owners and the commercial
owners would not have taken sides but rather each of the districts could have been evaluated on its own
merit by the owners having the same or similar permitted uses.
Winekauf said that if in this instance the opposed district had been bifurcated into two, he suspected that
the residential district may have been acceptable to a large majority of the residential owners and that the
commercial district would not have been acceptable. He said that while at first glance it may appear that
the purpose of historic preservation has not been served in the commercial area, this is not necessarily
the case, Winekauf said that two of the key properties within the commercial area are already on the
National Register and/or designated as local landmarks. He said this also would not preclude any
individual property from being designated either nationally or locally.
Winekauf said that Mercy Hospital's general position regarding its campus and surrounding commercially
zoned properties is that it would like to avoid imposing any new restrictions that are not already inherent
in the current zoning classification, He said the community is growing, and the demographics of the
community are such that health care needs will continue to grow. Winekauf said therefore allowing
maximum flexibility of use on Mercy's current campus is very critical.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 8
Winekauf said it has been a long-term objective of the commercial zone around Mercy to create not only
an opportunity for goods and services to be provided within walking distance of the residential
neighborhood but also to support the use of properties around Mercy for allied health care purposes. He
said that imposing restrictions that could limit such use seems to be inconsistent with the broader
community interests and the long-term planning for this area.
Winekauf said Mercy wishes to be a good neighbor to the immediate surrounding commercial properties
as well as to the broader neighborhood while fulfilling its important community responsibilities. He
proposed that the historic district should not place one group of neighbors, for example the commercial
property owners, against another group of neighbors, such as the residential owners, Winekauf said it is
incumbent on the historic preservation to look for solutions that are acceptable for all good neighbors.
Mike Haverkamp. 109 N. Van Buren St., said his parents own the property at 619 North Linn Street. He
said that as residents and business owners in the north end, his parents are delighted with the idea of a
National Register district and strongly believe this is a good thing for the neighborhood.
Haverkamp read from a book published by the Chamber of Commerce in 1926, Iowa City, Iowa's Ideal
Home City: "With its broad avenues, shady lawns, and attractive residences, Iowa City may be accurately
characterized as a city of beautiful homes. Unlike many cities of its size, its tine residents are not merely
confined to a few mansions but include hundreds of medium-sized houses of modern architecture and
well-kept appearance. Rigid building restrictions prevent commercial enterprises from invading residential
districts,"
Haverkamp said, considering the history of development, residential and commercial always go hand if)
glove. He said the Commission will face the hard decision in how to put that together, but he hoped that in
taking a look at the history of the area as well as future needs, the Commission would come up with the
right decision,
Helen Burford. 604 Ronalds, said she lives in the north side but not in this district. She asked that when
the Commission considers whether to proceed with the nomination for National Historic Register, it
consider how important the cultural history is and how at this moment in time Iowa City is about to
consider this area as being part of the cultural district of Iowa City. Burford said it seems that celebrating
the history of the area, be it commercial or residential, is important, and having it on the National Register
would only enhance Iowa City as a whole,
Public hearing closed.
Rezoninq of the proposed Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District. or portions of the proposed district. for
desiqnation as a local historic district.
Public discussion:
John Kammermever said that as a commercial property owner, he would be totally and unalterably
opposed to any local district over his property, and he said there are eight other commercial property
owners who feel the same way.
Maharry said the boundaries for the local district would not have to be the same as those for the National
Register district. He said the Commission would receive and consider all input from residents regarding
desired inclusion or exclusion of their properties.
Maharry asked Kammermeyer if one of his reasons for opposition was the possibility of devaluation of
commercial property, Kammermeyer said that is the case even with the national designation. He said
these commercial properties are pending redevelopment within the next five to ten years, when they will
become possible office spaces or part of Mercy expansion.
Kammermeyer said he has had offers from several sources to purchase his property. He said as soon as
those sources heard there could be a National Register designation, the developers said they were no
longer interested in the properties.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 9
Kammermeyer said he does not plan to make any changes to his property. He said his office site is not of
any contributory value as far as he is concerned, He said it is a wood frame building with stucco siding,
Kammermeyer said it has been seriously, radically altered since it was built. He said he does not want
anyone interfering with what he can do with the property. Kammermeyer said that if the residential
property owners would like to have their properties as part of a district, that would be fine with him, but the
commercial property owners just want out.
McCafferty said that City staff is currently working on rewriting the entire development code, She said that
once that is complete, the City Council has directed staff to work on the Central District Plan, which would
incorporate this older area of Iowa City.
Kammermeyer said the commercial owners have been operating for 27 years on the basis that this is a
medical health care core area and commercial office area for redevelopment. Maharry said that is a very
important item for consideration with regard to the future of the north side,
Ponto said that one option would be to draw the boundary along the zoning line between the commercial
and residential areas. He said that key contributing structures to the south could always be considered for
stand-alone landmark consideration,
McCafferty showed a graphic relating the process of creating a local historic district. She said that the
architectural surveys of the neighborhood and recommended districts are completed as necessary to
substantiate that this meets state code, which has also been done.
McCafferty said the rezoning process then begins. She said the maps and district guidelines have been
prepared. McCafferty said that the Historic Preservation Commission will hold a public hearing, and there
may also be public information meetings before the public hearing. She said the Commission votes to
recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission a particular district proposal. McCafferty said that
property owners are notified by mail of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings.
McCafferty said the Planning and Zoning Commission typically holds two meetings on this issue, She
said if the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends this to the City Council, the City Council holds
three meetings before the City Council votes to adopt this or reject the district.
Gunn said that the last district that was passed was College Hill, and it took approximately nine months to
do the local district. He said that during the process, changes were made to both the guidelines and the
district outlines. Gunn said that process tends to ease a lot of concerns about what a district is and what
the restrictions are,
Gunn said the National Register nomination comes as a bit of a surprise to some people, but it does not
contain the regulations, He said he sees the National Register nomination as something that does not
produce any harm but is only beneficial. Gunn said he was therefore never concerned about the
commercial property being included in that.
Gunn said that as a local district, however, there is a significant difference when it comes to the
regulations. He said there is a very legitimate concern about what could happen in a local district, but he
can separate it pretty clearly from a national district. Gunn said there is a long process to get to a local
district, and at the end of that process, then some authority is given to the Historic Preservation
Commission, but not until the end of that process. He said the Commission hasn't even really started that
process yet. Gunn said that for the local district, the concerns generally fall away as the meetings and
changes proceed.
Maharry said he would like to discuss recommending the district without including the commercial areas.
He said there is not support locally from the commercial owners for a district in that area, and the
Commission needs to be responsive to that.
Weitzel said he agreed but said the Commission needs to decide what it will do with key properties, He
said the Commission has the responsibility to make sure it isn't losing valuable historic resources. Weitzel
said it is important to point out that the National Register nomination was not an attempt to push through
a local district.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 10
Chudacek said, regarding the key properties in the commercial area, that in the half block where the
Foxhead is located there are four buildings on three lots, and two of those buildings are non-conforming,
She said it can only remain that building as long as the current business owner runs the business.
Chudacek said that when the current owner stops owning the business, the building will have to be torn
down, because it is too small of a building to be anything according to zoning.
Holecek said, with regard to non-conforming uses, they do not attach to a particular person, She said it
goes with the use so that the use could survive the person or be conveyed to another person to continue
to operate that use.
Brennan asked if there was any overlap between the proposed district and the north side district that was
proposed 15-20 years ago. Svendsen said that in the early 1980s an analysis was done and a National
Register proposal was done for a much larger area than this. She said that since then, based on the
comprehensive historic preservation plan approved in 1991 by the Historic Preservation Commission, the
whole area was resurveyed. Svendsen said it was determined that there are historic districts within the
North Side, but it would be better to approach them based on more consistent and cohesive historic
trends and building qualities. Brennan suggested that a comparison be done on the overlapping areas to
see how the area has changed in the last 20 years to see what resources have been lost and what
resources have been gained.
Public discussion closed.
Svendsen said that the Commission has the purview to comment for submission to the State on anything
in the 38-page document. McCafferty said the Commission is making a recommendation to the State, and
the chief elected official also makes a recommendation. She said the State mayor may not agree with the
recommendations. McCafferty said that if both the chief elected official and the Commission were to
recommend that this is ineligible, then the nomination would not proceed to the State unless someone
within the district would appeal that decision. She said then it would proceed to the State, and if the State
Review Committee recommended the proposal, the State would then send it on to the National Park
Service for its opinion and potential listing.
Weitzel said, clerical errors aside, the proposal is a professionally prepared document. He said Svendsen
is a professional and is trained to do this. Weitzel stated that this is as close to a scientific document,
when it comes to history, that one can get.
Gunn asked about the number of owners who have opposed the district in writing, as far as the State
process is concerned. McCafferty said she did not have updated numbers because letters to the
Commission and the City Council were still coming in late today, and she had not had up-to-date contact
from the State regarding its numbers. She said that any protests sent to the State have to be notarized,
and at last count, the State had 14 to 15 notarized letters of protest. McCafferty said what is required is
51 %, and by her count, there are 80 different property owners, and 41 letters of protest would be
required.
Gunn stated that historic preservation isn't very well served if this district fails to get National Register
listing. He asked what the likelihood of that is at this point.
McCafferty said the City has received 35 un-notarized letters. She said that if the State receives letters of
protest from 51 % of the property owners, the State Review Committee would proceed with reviewing this
to determine whether it is eligible for the National Register. McCafferty said if the State decides to
recommend this to the National Park Service, the State requests from the National Park Service a
determination of eligibility. She said that if the National Park Service determines the area is eligible, all of
the tax credits and benefits would be available to the property owners within the district; however, the
district would not actually be listed with the keeper of the National Register.
Svendsen said, however, that the requirements for receiving investment tax credits require that within 30
months of completing the tax credit project, the building has to be listed on the National Register. She
said that if the property has the status of a contributing structure but not a key structure, the chances of
getting the building listed are not high.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 11
Maharry said the other variable is, if there were some reassurances about areas that will not be
considered in a local district, whether those people would send notarized letters to the State. He said it
appears that local control of design review is the concern, and if there is a certain number of properties
where there is concentrated opposition and those people are assured that their properties would not be in
a local district, perhaps the next step of sending the letters to the State would not happen. Kammermeyer
said the nine commercial property owners oppose both National Register listing and local designation.
Gunn asked Svendsen how to weigh two possible outcomes: 1) the Commission cuts out the
commercially zoned properties for the National Register listing and in all likelihood it passes or 2) to have
it go forward and the State receives enough notarized opposition that the district will not be listed.
Svendsen said there are other possibilities but said that the State Nominations Review Committee
(SNRC) is on record as having approved the boundaries as proposed. She said that SNRC looked at all
the information provided in the nomination and reviewed it and found the nomination eligible. Svendsen
said the State staff examined the boundaries and added that a number of them have lived in Iowa City
and are familiar with the area.
Svendsen said that SNRC was persuaded that this is an eligible district by the National Register
nomination. She said that if SNRC receives a nomination with different boundaries, she recommends that
the Commission articulates in its recommendation what it is about those boundary changes that would
better serve National Register criteria and requirements, Svendsen said that SNRC will say, despite local
concerns, that issues of use, alteration, and design review are to be handled by a separate ordinance
known as a local preservation district designation process,
Svendsen said there are always factors that go into this. She said Kammermeyer is correct in that there
are many potential buyers who see the phrase National Register and have a response that may not be
consistent with the facts,
Svendsen stated that if this is submitted with boundary amendments, SNRC will look at the logic behind
the reasons, and if there are reasons that are related to National Register criteria, then the Commission
should go forward. She added that the National Register process is a federal program, and that is why the
notification process is administered by the federal agent, which in this case is the State Historic
Preservation Office, which is housed in the State Historical Society in Iowa. Svendsen said the first time
owners get legal notification is from the State, which is what happened in this case.
Svendsen said that if the Commission does not want to offer a reason for boundary changes, that would
be its prerogative, but she did not know what the result would be. McCafferty said that if the Commission
and the Mayor are undecided about this, the proposal will proceed as is.
Maharry asked, if there is consideration for drawing the line at the alley between Bloomington and
Davenport, is there is a way to do that which is consistent with National Register standards, He
suggested that the Mercy Hospital parking lot at 230 Gilbert Street be eliminated from the district.
Svendsen said the justification could be made for removal of the parking lot in that the surface of the
street would keep the district contiguous. Weitzel said there is also the reason that there is not a structure
there.
McCallum said some of the Commission members are looking for compromise. He said the Commission
has a history of accommodating the concerns of the commercial property owners on the local level.
McCallum said he believes the concern about the National Register designation is misunderstood.
Svendsen said she was unaware of the upcoming planning process for the Central District. She said
there was always an understanding that the buildings constructed for commercial purposes should be
dealt with in a different fashion, because there is a different dynamic to their significance. Svendsen said
one possible compromise would be to adjust the boundaries and state that although the Commission
believes there may be eligibility for an area south of that particular alley, because community planning is
going on for that area right now and the potential is there for evaluating an area adjacent to that area for
National Register eligibility at a future date, the Commission would like to draw the boundary in a slightly
further northern location and study the area to the south and make a recommendation about that area at
some future point.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 12
Svendsen pointed out, however, that there is a property owner in that area that fully supports designation,
and right now that owner stands to have his property designated and receive an approximately $2,500
value, which would be the cost of preparation for individual nomination for the building. She said that
would be the Conrad-Graff house, and it would be individually eligible for the National Register. Svendsen
said that property owner could move to appeal to the State any decision to sever that area from the
district, as could any property owner in that district.
Maharry asked if it would be possible to consider incentives for commercial property owners whose
properties are individually eligible for National Register listing to have the costs of such listing covered by
the City.
Smothers said she would have a problem with changing the boundary and cutting off the southern end,
as there would be key, contributing buildings that are part of this context off by themselves. Weitzel said
that all but two of the properties are contributing and almost all of them are key.
MOTION: Zimmer moved to recommend to the State the approval of the Gilbert-Linn Street
Historic District for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the document as
prepared by Svendsen for submission to the State, subject to the correction of typographical
errors and removal of the parking lot at 230 North Gilbert from the district. Smothers seconded the
motion.
McCallum said he was looking for more of a compromise, and he would therefore not support the motion.
Zimmer suggested making any compromises in the local district. McCallum said he has seen that happen
based on prior experience, He said the State still has the authority to send this on as it was originally
proposed anyway.
Weitzel said he believes the Commission has an obligation to the property owners who stand to not only
lose the fee to register their properties individually but also would lose the tax incentives for rehabilitation
if their properties are not listed.
Zimmer agreed and said she did not think the proper education regarding the tax incentives is out there,
especially for commercial properties, She said she would like to have the time to present that to people
and said that just being on the National Register allows that discussion to take place and the possibilities
to exi sl.
Maharry said he would oppose the motion, because he would like to see Svendsen's proposal
considered. Maharry said that if there is really going to be a discussion about the Central Business
District and its future use and future use around Mercy Hospital, then the Commission does not need to
act as hastily. He said that if that future use determines that there is indeed an area for a national district
at that time, then the Commission can certainly make a proposal to extend the district.
Gunn said he would oppose the motion on the table, He stated that if and when the local designation is
done, he does not think the commercial properties will be included. Gunn said he thinks they will not be
saved from destruction if the owners choose to sell them or tear them town. He said there is some
calculated risk to getting the rest of the district in place. Gunn said he would like to move forward with
Svendsen's suggestion. He said there is a lot of property that definitely should be protected and the
majority of people want it protected, so the Commission should make sure that happens.
Ponto said he opposes the current motion, Weitzel said he also opposed the motion.
The motion failed on a vote of 2-5. with Smothers and Zimmer votin!! ves.
MOTION: Weitzel moved to recommend to the State the approval of the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic
District for listing in the National Register of Historic Places with the modification that properties
south of a boundary of the alley between Davenport and Bloomington Streets at the 300 block on
either side of Gilbert Street be excluded, with the understanding that this area is under further
study and that the Commission will attempt to compensate through grants or other sources those
property owners who would like individual listing and subject to the correction of typographical
errors in the document to be submitted to the State. McCallum seconded the motion.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 13
McCafferty said this motion would exclude only the commercially zoned properties. Maharry said this
seems to be a favorable outcome, as long as the Commission tries as hard as possible to incentivize
those who wish to have their individual structures nominated.
The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. with Smothers and Zimmer votina no.
CONSIDERATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
431 Rundell Street. McCafferty said that there are not specific guidelines for this unusual project so that
the Commission must look to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. She read from guideline number
nine: "New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property, The new work will be differentiated from
the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment." McCafferty read from guideline
number ten, "New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment will be unimpaired."
McCafferty showed some slide photographs of the property. She stated that this is a stone Moffitt house.
McCafferty said the house is quite obscured from the street.
McCafferty showed a walkway to the rear of the property. She said that the entire back of the property is
new construction. McCafferty showed where the new wall would be located, saying that the wall would
not be attached to the structure. She said the proposal is to use salvaged ashlar stone and limestone as
well as a number of salvaged cut stone pieces.
Jeff Schabilion. 431 Rundell Street, said he was available to answer questions. Gunn asked Schabilion if
he had spoken with the Building Department. Schabilion said he had not yet proceeded to the Building
Department, as he was waiting for the okay from the Commission and for the engineer's drawings. He
said he did not need a special exception for this project.
Schabilion said there are two elements involved with this project. He said one element is a 44-foot long
fence that cannot exceed eight feet and runs along the property line. Schabilion said the other element is
the accessory structures that cannot touch the fence and are allowed to be 15 feet high, He added that
the doors will be made of cedar and will not be functioning doors. Schabilion said the neighbors are
aware of the plans and are supportive of the project.
McCafferty said in her opinion this project complies with the two criteria from the Secretary of the Interior's
guidelines. She said the back of the property has been substantially altered so that there is no issue with
loss of integrity.
MOTION: Gunn moved to approve the application for the project at 431 Rundell Street, as
presented. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0.
Maharry asked Schabilion for his perspective on the application process. Schabilion said it has not been a
problem for him. He said getting a building permit and following the aspects of the building and zoning
codes are much more difficult. Schabilion said this is part of the process one assumes in becoming part of
the district, so he had no problem with it. He added that McCafferty has been very helpful.
Maharry asked if there were extra costs for Schabilion to go through the process. Schabilion said that,
technically, the $500 for the architect was an additional cost that he would not have incurred had he not
wanted to make a good presentation to the Commission. He said he probably could have gotten along
without the architect's work but is glad to have it and is not objecting in any way.
724 Clark Street. McCafferty said the application is incomplete and should be deferred.
MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a project at
724 Clark Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion to defer carried on a vote of 7-0.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 14
CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 22.2004 MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer consideration of the July 22, 2004 Historic Preservation Commission
meeting minutes to the next meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-
º.
OTHER:
Maharry said the City Council has directed the Commission to proceed with the Ronalds Street extension
of the Brown Street District and the Jefferson Street District. He said he would like to begin question and
answer sessions for these two districts, and the Commission could discuss those two districts at its next
meeting.
The consensus of the Commission was to hold a second August meeting on the fourth Thursday in
August.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10: 18 p.m,
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s:/pcd/minuteslhpcl2004/hpc08-1 0-04. doc
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 10,2004
Page 15
Historic Preservation Commission
Attendance Record
2004
Tenn
Name Exnires 01/08 02/12 02/26 03/11 04/08 04/22 05/13 OS/27 06/10 06/14 07/08 07/22 08/10 08/26 09/09 10/14 1lI11 12/09
A. Smothers 3/29/05 NM X OÆ X X X X OÆ X X X X X
J. Enloe 3/29/06 NM OÆ X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M. Gunn 3/29/07 NM OÆ OÆ X OÆ OÆ X X X X 0 X X
M. Maharry 3/29/05 NM X X X X X X X X X X X X
M. McCaUum 3/29/06 NM X X X X X X X X X X X X
J. Ponto 3/29/07 NM X X X X X X X OÆ X X X X
P. SueDDel 3/29/06 NM OÆ OÆ X X X X X X 0 X 0 -- --
T. Weitzel 3/29/05 NM X X X X OÆ X OÆ X X X X X
J. Zimmer 3/29/07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OÆ OÆ OÆ X OlE X 0 0 X
Key:
X = Present
0 = Absent
OÆ = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
-- -- = Not a Member
c::
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
August 30, 2004
Committee Members Present: Champion, O'Donnell
Staff Members Present: Karr, Dilkes
Planning & Zoning Commission By-Law Change
The Rules Committee acknowledged the August 10 memo response rrom the Planning &
Zoning Chair on their request for clarification regarding the language" . . . shall not
participate in the discussion... "; and agreed to recommend approval of the by-laws page
3, Section 10, as presented and attached.
3
a public meeting with an interested party shall reveal the contact prior to staff report, naming the
other party and sharing specifics of the contact, copies if in writing or a synopsis if verbal.
Section 10. Conflict of Interest. A member who believes they have a conflict of interest on a
matter about to come before the Commission shall state the reason for the conflict of interest,
leave the fOOffi panel of Commissioners before the discussion begins, shall not participate in
the discussion and may return to the panel after the vote.
Section 11. Votinq. A majority (but not less than three) of votes cast at any meeting at which a
quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election. A two-thirds vote of the members of
the Commission' present or not less than four votes shall be required in consideration of a
substantial amendment to the Zoning Chapter and the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or
part or amendment thereof.
Upon request, voting will be by roll call and will be recorded by yeas and nays. Every member of
the Commission, including the Chairperson, is required to cast a vote upon each motion. A
member who abstains shall state the reason for abstention.
Section 13. Roberts Rules of Order. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules of
Order as amended shall be used where applicable.
ARTICLE VI. POWERS AND DUTIES:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission, in addition to the powers conferred by Chapter 414 of
the Code of Iowa, possesses the following powers established by Section 14-4A, City Code, City
of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section 1. To make such surveys, studies, maps, plans or plats of the whole or any portion of the
City and of any land outside thereof, which in the opinion of such Commission bears relation to
the Comprehensive Plan, and shall submit suclh plan to the Council with its studies and
recommendations and it may publish the same.
Section 2. To make recommendations for the location of public buildings, bridges, viaducts,
street fixtures, public structures or appurtenances and the sites therefor, and the location or
erection of statuary, memorials or works of art in pUblic places.
Section 3. To m¡:¡ke recommendations upon plans, plats, or replats of subdivisions or
resubdivisions in such city which show streets, alleys or other portions of the same intended to be
dedicated for public use.
Section 4. To make recommendations for street, park, parkway, boulevard, traffic way or other
public improvements, or the vacation thereof.
Section 5. To carry on comprehensive studies of present conditions and the future growth of
such city in order to guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development
of such city in accordance with the present and future needs thereof to the end that the health,
safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare may be promoted.
Section 6. To conduct public hearings upon the adoption of such comprehensive plan or any
amendment thereto.
Section 7. To prepare a zoning ordinance regarding the height, number of stories and size of
buildings and other structures; the percentage of ground that may be occupied; the size of yards,
courts and other open spaces; the density of population, and the location and use of buildings,
structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes and to this end shall prepare