Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-05 Bd Comm minutes G[ 4b 1 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 RECREATION CENTER - MEETING ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait, Jerry Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 6:37 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON AGENDA: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: . Recommend approval by a vote 5-0, REZ04-00020, an application submitted by Idyllwild Development II for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Housing Plan (OPDH) for Idyllwild Condominiums, a 20.8-acre development located at North Dubuque Street and Foster Road, subject to staff approval of construction drawings, grading and erosion control plans and stormwater storage calculations approved by Public Works and the detail for the emergency access by a Knox lock rapid-entry-system be shown on the plan prior to Council consideration of the application. REZONING ITEM: REZ04-00020. discussion of an application submitted by Idyllwild Development II for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Housing Plan (OPDH) for Idyllwild Condominiums, a 20.8-acre development located at North Dubuque Street and Foster Road. Miklo said the Idyllwild development plan was approved in 1992 as part of a rezoning of the property. As a planned development, there was a very specific plan which outlined the number of units, location on the site, how they were to be landscaped, and how parking was to be provided. The original plan allowed for 26 buildings (104 units total). To date approximately two-thirds of those units have been constructed in the western part of the development. During the past 11 years Staff have administratively approved minor changes to the approved PDH plan, a provision in the Zoning Code allows that. Once previously Staff had brought this to the Commission and there was a concurrence that the nature of the proposed changes were acceptable and didn't require review before the Commission. Over the years the changes have become more and more significant; there are some proposed additional changes in addition to just changing the footprint size of the proposed buildings. Miklo said Staff feels it is now time to bring this before the Commission to make those changes that have already been done official as well as considering the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the zoning plan are in four different areas: 1) to approve building footprints, which differ from those approved as part of the original PDH plan, 2) relocate the trail shown on the original PDH plan behind buildings 12, 13, 14, and 6,3) revise the landscaping plan to illustrate what has actually been planted to date and to provide a plan for future landscaping to be completed with the new buildings, 4) remove the off street parking spaces from Pentire Circle and 5) document the changes to easements necessary to accommodate the new building placements and other changes to the plan. The original plan called for 4-units per building, approximately 50% were to have one-car garages, the remainder 2-car garages. Many of the units in the original development were stacked flats -one unit was located on the ground floor and the second unit or a part of it would be located above it on the second floor. The developer had indicated difficulty in marketing the stacked flat units and one-car garage units. Buyers expressed a preference for units that did not have another dwelling above them or that had a 2- car garage. Many of the changes previously approved administratively by staff and the proposed plan include 2-car garages in all of the units. As such, the building footprints are larger than the previous plan. The new plan does not include any stacked flats so the proposed units take up more room than the original plan. Miklo showed an overlay of the proposed changes over the original footprints to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August24,2004 Page 2 demonstrate the difference in building footprint size and shape. All of the proposed building designs are either one story units or townhouse units. The actual number of units will not change. It will still be 104-units in 26 buildings but the actual amount of green space as a result of the larger buildings will change somewhat. Staff felt the character of the development also might change as a result of that. It is Staffs view that the change and the reduction of green space must be weighed against the benefits of having more marketable and more accessible units. One-half of the proposed units would be two-story and one-half would be one story - more accessible to elderly persons or persons with disabilities. Staff feels that the 2-car garages more likely reflect the actual demand for covered parking spaces than the 1-car garages approved in 1992. Even though the proposed plan contains less open space than the 1992 plan, the proposal meets or exceeds minimum set backs from public streets and separation between buildings as required by the Zoning Code. Miklo said in Staffs view although the reduction in open space will change the character of the development, the revised plan meets minimum Zoning Code standards and Staff feels it is acceptable, it would be a fair trade off. When the original plan was approved, rather than having sidewalks on all the streets there was a plan for a sidewalk on the main street, Idyllwild Drive and an internal circulation system. Now that some buildings have been built and occupied, the residents have expressed a concern about the pathway being too close to their units, back decks/screened porches and the invasion of privacy that might result. The new proposal includes a walk-way to be provided to connect the sidewalk on Idyllwild Drive to Foster Road. The revised plan also proposes the elimination of the sidewalk adjacent to buildings 12, 13, 14 and 6 and the addition of a sidewalk along Trevose Place connecting Foster Road. The purpose of the sidewalk is for the persons who reside in the development and not necessarily a public sidewalk for persons in the larger city to use. The revised walkway location will provide a link to the Iowa River Corridor Trail which is located on Foster Road just to the west of Idyllwild. Staff feel the proposed sidewalk changes would be an improvement. The original plan included a specific plan for landscaping, much of which has been planted according to the plan. Some areas include fewer trees and shrubs than proposed while other areas include more trees and shrubs than originally required. Miklo said although the proposed plan varies from what was originally approved, in Staffs view there was adequate landscaping in the development and they would endorse the changes. It was noted in the Staff Report that additional landscaping was requested in the cul-de-sac bulbs and along some private streets. The original plan had shown tree-lined streets, the revised plan had left some of those trees off. A revised plan, passed out at the beginning of the meeting, showed trees in those locations. With the addition of those new trees, Staff would endorse the landscaping plan. Miklo said another issue with the landscaping plan was the area between Taft Speedway and the stormwater pond. With the new plan, a construction easement would be acquired along Taft Speedway which would be necessary because at some point in the future if the City were to improve Taft Speedway they would need access to that land for grading and sidewalk installation. Initially Staff felt it would not be wise to plant trees there and then remove them, so they had requested that the applicant pay the City the cost of planting the trees. The City could plant the trees when Taft Speedway is reconstructed. In the latest revised plan, the applicant had shown planting River Birch trees between the easement and the top of the stormwater pond which Staff felt would be appropriate for a wet area like this. They were no longer requesting that the applicant pay for the planting of ten trees. The original PDH plan required 16 parking spaces within the center of Pentire Circle and two additional parking spaces in most of the other circles. A number a residents had expressed concern about the number of parking spaces in Pentire Circle. Staff had also received a number of e-mails and phone calls supporting the change to remove those parking spaces. Staff felt it would be appropriate to remove the spaces that were shown on the original plan. With the addition of the 2-car garages and driveway configuration Staff felt there would be adequate parking; more than required for most developments. Staff agreed with the residents who felt that the addition of the paving would detract from the aesthetics of Pentire Circle and the other cul-de-sac bulbs. The pond was being reconfigured in some areas. The pond was being made smaller in one area and deeper in other areas to compensate for it. Staff felt the actual stormwater capacity of the pond should not change and should still be adequate for the physical size of the pond which would change slightly. There were some erosion control problems with the current pond. Miklo said regardless of the City's actions on Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 24, 2004 Page 3 the proposed rezoning, the developer was responsible for and would have to repair the erosion control problems. The easements were being corrected to show the proposed reconfigurations. Three deficiencies were listed in the Staff Report. The first two had been taken care of. The third was regarding the detail on the plan for an emergency entrance. Because there was only one entrance to the development, the Fire Marshall had requested an emergency access point be installed with a locked gate so it would not be conducive to through traffic. The detail needed to be located on the plan. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ04-00020, a rezoning to amend a Planned Development Housing Overlay (PDH-8) for Idyllwild Condominiums subject to approval of construction drawings, grading and erosion control plans and stormwater storage calculations approved by Public Works and the detail for the emergency access by a Knox lock rapid-entry-system be shown on the plan prior to Council consideration of the application. Freerks asked about open space percentage(s). Miklo said it met minimum requirements. She also asked about the plantings noting that the new drawing indicated quite a few fewer. Miklo said there were at least an equal number of trees but they were dispersed differently. Public discussion was opened. Peter J. Gardner, Meardon, Sueppel, Downer Law Firm, said subject to the recommendations already mentioned by Staff and the answering of additional questions, Idyllwild II requested a vote be taken at this meeting. Joseph Coates, 13 Pentire Circle, asked Staff to talk about the impact of the easements on the future maintenance costs and insurance issues related to the Association taking care of it in the future. Coates asked for an explanation regarding the hatched area on the corner of large condo - if there was a large flood would that building become damaged and did it lead into the flood zone. Miklo indicated which area of the pond would be filled and no longer would be under water. He said it would be necessary to amend the easement to remove that part of the pond in order to build the building as it was being proposed. One thing that needed to be verified with City engineers was that the pond would have adequate storage for the proposed plan and would not result in flooding or water damage. The easement didn't necessarily correspond with the edge of the pond. Coates said he didn't understand the argument that adding 2-car garages would make bigger buildings. His building had a 2-car garage and was the smallest building in the complex. Miklo said some of the new buildings in the complex would be basically modeled after his building. Other buildings would be the same model as building #18 which was recently constructed. It was not only the addition of the 2-car garage but that there would be no stacked flats, the two end units would all be one floor. Coates said it was very good that the developer proposed to created separate units without floors on top of other units. It would make for more privacy. He lived in a two-story separate unit and didn't hear any noise; the sound insulation used between the two units was excellent. Public discussion was closed. Koppes asked if there would be on-street parking. Miklo said technically, no. They were 22-foot wide private streets. Off-street parking areas were provided by the garages and the parking pads where vehicles could turn around or park on. There would be 400+ parking spaces provided for the 104 units; City code generally required only 2 parking spaces per unit. Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve REZ04-00020 with the subject to conditions as detailed by Staff in their presentation and in Staff's Report. Shannon seconded the motion. Freerks said she felt the proposed changes made the units more marketable and accessible. She liked the idea of making a plan to match what would actually be built as opposed to letting it drift. Shannon said he had always liked the neighborhood, it seemed like a very nice development. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 24, 2004 Page 4 Anciaux said based on audience member interactions, it seemed like a very friendly neighborhood. He liked the accessibility of the new units and the marketability of the 2-car garages. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER: None CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 5.2004 MINUTES: Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Brooks made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minuteslp&zJ2004/2004 08-24-o4p&z.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2004 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Exnires OlliS 02/19 03/04 03/18 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 11118 12/02 12/16 D. ADCi3UX 05/06 X X X NM X X X X X OlE X X X X B. Brooks 05/05 X X X NM X X X X X X X X X X B.Cbait 05/06 X X X NM X X 0 X X X 0 0 X 0 A. Freerks 05/08 X OlE OlE NM X X X X X X X X X X J. Hansen 05/05 X X X NM X X X X X X OlE X X 0 E. Konne. 05/07 X X X NM X X X X X X X X X X D.Shannon 05/08 X X X NM X OlE X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Exnires 01112 02/16 03/01 03/15 03/29 04/12 05/03 05/17 05/31 06/14 06/28 07/12 08/02 08/23 08130 09/13 10/07 10/21 11/04 11118 12/02 D. ADCi3UX 05/06 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM B. Brooks 05/05 OlE NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM B.Cbait 05/06 X NM 0 NM NM NM NM X NM 0 0 NM 0 NM A. Freerks 05/08 X NM OlE NM NM NM NM OlE NM X OlE NM X NM J. Hansen 05/05 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM OlE OlE NM X NM E. Konne. 05/07 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM D. Shannon 05/08 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting -. -- = Not a Member IJ;[ MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Benjamin Chait MEMBERS EXCUSED: Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB04-00022 a preliminary and final plat of Scott's Fifth Subdivision, a 3.15 acre, 2-lot commercial subdivision located west of Naples Avenue, south of Highway 1 subject to approval of legal papers by Staff prior to City Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB04-00024, a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge Party Twenty One, an 11.16 acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located at E. Court Street and Taft Avenue. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB04-00026, a final plat of a resubdivision of Lot 77 of Walden Wood Part 6, a 2.19 acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at the north end of Jensen Street subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON AGENDA: None DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB04-00022, discussion of an application submitted by Randy Miller for a preliminary and final plat of Scott's Fifth Subdivision, a 3.15 acre, 2-lot commercial subdivision located west of Naples Avenue, south of Highway 1. Miklo presented staff report. The property is located just to the west of Naples on the south side of Highway One; City limits are just to the east of it. The area was developed prior to Escort Lane and the WB Development being annexed to the City. If this were a new development, Staff's position would be that it should be annexed and should comply with City requirements. Because it was already in place and was simply a proposal to divide an existing lot into two lots, Staff recommended approval. The property contains two existing buildings. Miklo said the applicant desires to divide the property into two parcels and sell it as two different properties. Lot one will have one driveway onto Naples Avenue. Lot two will have its own driveway. An access easement will provides access to the Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 2 of 7 loading dock. Staff recommended approval of SUB04-00022 subject to approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration. Public discussion was opened. Glenn Meisner, MMS Consultants, said he was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve SUB04-00022, a preliminary and final plat of Scott's Fifth Subdivision, a 3.15 acre, 2-lot commercial subdivision located west of Naples Avenue, south of Highway 1, subject to approval of legal papers by Staff prior to City Council consideration. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. SUB04-00024, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge Party Twenty One, an 11.16 acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located at East Court Street and Taft Avenue. Miklo presented staff report. He indicated where Court Street currently ended on a city map. Taft Avenue is a county road on the eastern boundary. The property was annexed into the city in 1993 and zoned RS-5. In 1995 a portion was rezoned to RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family; a portion zoned CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial; and a portion was zoned OPDH-8. The property is also subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that Staff would approve a site plan for the RM-12 section showing that it complied with the Northeast District Plan. That would need to be done prior to any construction activity on this site. The subdivision includes two lots, Lot 1 on the west side and Lot 2 at the corner of Court Street and Taft Avenue. Because Court Street is not in place, the developer would be required to construct it in order to allow the development of this property unless they chose to wait until the City installed Court Street. That item currently is not in a Capital Improvements program. The intersection of Taft Avenue and Court Street would also have to be graded out to the eventual elevation of Taft Avenue which the City will build at a later date. Normally the developer would be required to install a sidewalk along Taft Avenue. Because that is going to be constructed at a later date, as in similar situations, the City is asking the developer to pay for the sidewalk upfront and the City will install it with the actual construction of the street. The subdivision design includes Huntington Drive that will extend to the north into the RS-5 property and eventually connect back to Taft Avenue to provide secondary access. A new plan which corrected the previously noted deficiencies had been received by Staff so they recommended approval of SUB04-00024. Shannon asked if the developer had acknowledged that they were willing to pave Court Street. Miklo said they had not voiced an objection. The developer had the choice of waiting until the City constructed the street, they could lobby the Council to put it in a Capital Improvements program or they could construct it themselves. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 3 of 7 Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve SUB04-00024, an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge Party Twenty One, an 11.16-acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located at E. Court Street and Taft Avenue. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. SUB04-00026, discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a final plat of a resubdivision of Lot 77 of Walden Wood Part 6, a 2.19-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at the north end of Jensen Street. Miklo said the Commission had recently recommended approval of a rezoning of this to OPDH-8 and approval of a preliminary plat and OPDH Plan. That recommendation was recently approved by the City Council, the applicant was now seeking final approval. The final plat as submitted complied with what was shown on the preliminary plat and met City requirements. An open space area would be dedicated to the City and there would also be a trail. The City was working on installing a pedestrian bridge over Willow Creek and the storm water detention basin to connect the trail to the Willow Creek Trail on the north side of the creek. Staff recommended approval of SUB04-00026 subject to Staffs approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to City Council consideration. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve SUB04-00026, a final plat of a resubdivision of Lot 77 of Walden Wood Part 6, a 2.19-acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at the north end of Jensen Street subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to Council consideration. Chait seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER: Discussion of a request submitted by Iowa State Bank and Trust Company to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article 0, Sign Regulations, to permit "Changeable Copy/Electronic Message Signs." Miklo said currently the only electronic changeable copy signs permitted by the Sign Ordinance were time and temperature signs. The other changeable copy signs allowed are the kind that gas stations use, manually changing the sign to announce the price of gas or specials. Iowa State Bank and Trust had requested that electronic changeable message signs be allowed so that the message could be electronically changed. Miklo said the Commission had two decisions to make: 1) If they would like to proceed or not; 2) If the Commission wished to proceed with studying to make such an amendment, the timeframe to do so such as right away, the next few meetings or put it in with the rest of the Code re-write. They had already reviewed the Sign Ordinance section of the Code so it would go at the bottom of the list and would come back before the Commission with everything else in late fall. Koppes asked for a clarification as to what could currently be electronically changed on a sign. Miklo said time and temperature could be changed electronically, but not a message. Public discussion was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 4 of 7 Dan Black, Iowa State Bank and Trust Company, said they were in the process of a significant renovation at the Keokuk Street branch. Looking at their whole project, they'd decided they wished to pursue this. They felt the Code was very antiquated in that it allowed changeable signs with the suction cups, with current technology it would be a logical step to allow the electronic messaging. Black said in discussion with some City Staff, Staff were very opposed to animation or flashing signs. He said it would not be a big leap in terms of signage other than just in terms of how you were allowed to change it. They felt it would be a step into the twenty-first century and wished to see it done. The bank was in the process of designing their monument sign now which this would be a part of so they wished to see a decision made as soon as possible. Black said at the suggestion of Staff, they had included some language on Code definition, but it was nothing firm. He'd had a conversation with a couple sign companies and drafted the Code Definition of Changeable Copy Sign I Electronic Message Sign that had been in the information packet. It was a raw definition. Shannon asked Black if the sign companies he had visited with had any similar signs in Eastern Iowa. Black said most of the signage that the Nespers' of the world dealt with were much more sophisticated than this and included animation and flashing lights. Black said he didn't know if they had just an electronic text changing sign or not. Anciaux asked if Black foresaw the sign as just text scrolling across or would include interest rates and CD information. Black said "yes." Anciaux asked how often the text would be changed. Black said their proposal was for once an hour. Other persons had encouraged him to advocate for changing it as often as a mechanical sign could be changed. There were no limitations on those signs now, Le.: Hills Bank on Gilbert Street and Burger King on Hwy 6. Black said he felt the sign needed to be fresh and they needed the ability to change it, however they probably would not change it every hour. They had simply thrown out 'one hour' as a discussion point. Chait said he felt they should pursue it now as the bank was doing the work now. It was a relatively little deal, he didn't think it was necessary to drag it on and wait until the Code review was done. In malls, there were poster type signs that rolled up and rolled down to change the message every couple of minutes. They were not flashing or animated. He felt it would be ok if the sign changed every 15 minutes or so. Chait said what the Commission was trying to avoid with the animation and flashing was the disruption of traffic. To embrace technology was very reasonable. He would like to see Staff facilitate something now to help Iowa State Bank and Trust get this done when their building was done. Koppes said they had put off the Sign Ordinance and now they were going back and changing it. It was a minor change, but the Commission was going away from what they'd previously discussed. There had been some downtown merchants who'd wished to change their signs and the Commission had told them that they were going to wait. Miklo said the Commission would need to look at which zones should this be allowed in; which uses they should be allowed for; how big they should be; and how often they should change. There would be some research and time involvement by Staff. Chait said he was not supporting the specific language, he was supporting that they do this now. If the section which allowed Hills Bank to erect signs could be updated in the Code to something that was electronic that was dumbed-down and not animated; to put technology into the existing Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 5 of 7 ordinance. He said in terms of persons doing more visionary things in other zones, downtown for example, no one had anything specific that they were trying to get done in a timely manner. That was the difference to him. Koppes said there had been a couple of cases where persons had signs up that were not legal so the City had made them take the sign down. They had requested that the Commission change the Code and the Commission had refused. It was her concern as to why the Commission was making this special exception now. She was not for doing this right now given that there was still work to be done on the rest of the Code rewrite. Brooks said he agreed with Chait. As long as it was a fairly narrow adaptation of existing sign zones, size, etc and was adapting those to an electronic format that allowed for changing text. He hoped they'd be able to limit illustrations, animations, etc. It would move into a different century by allowing the electronic changing of a message within the existing sign ordinance. There was an urgency as indicated by Black as to doing this now. He didn't want have to visit the whole sign ordinance at this time. Brooks said he hoped Staff could quickly take a look at how existing Code could be modified to allow a message board that was already allowed by the Code to have electronically changing text. Anciaux, Shannon, Chait and Brooks requested Staff to take the next step and bring back something for the Commission to consider. Koppes asked if this would slow down the Code re-write. Miklo said yes, it would take Staffs time to do. Koppes said that was also why she was concerned about this. She liked the signs but time with respect to the Code was of a concern. Black said they were very hesitant to place any type of order, they were in a bind as to how they could complete the monument sign without some decision from the City. It would be helpful if in the next few weeks they could get an answer. Brooks said once the Commission reviewed this and if approved, it would have to go to Council. They could be looking at 6-weeks to two months. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Chait made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill Pcdlmin/p&zl2004/20049-2-04p&z.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2004 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Exuires OlliS 02119 03/04 03/18 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 11104 11118 12102 D.Anciaux 05/06 X X X NM X X X X X OlE X X X X X B. Brooks 05/05 X X X NM X X X X X X X X X X X B.Chait 05/06 X X X NM X X 0 X X X 0 0 X 0 X A. Freerks 05/08 X OlE OlE NM X X X X X X X X X X OlE J. Hansen 05/05 X X X NM X X X X X X OlE X X 0 0 E. Koppes 05/07 X X X NM X X X X X X X X X X X D.Shannon 05108 X X X NM X OlE X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 01112 02/16 03/01 03/15 03/29 04/12 05/03 05/17 05/31 06/14 06/28 07/12 08/02 08/23 08/30 09/13 10/07 10/21 11104 11118 12/02 D. Anciaux 05/06 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM NM B. Brooks 05/05 OlE NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM NM B.Chait 05/06 X NM 0 NM NM NM NM X NM 0 0 NM 0 NM NM A. Freerks 05/08 X NM OlE NM NM NM NM OlE NM X OlE NM X NM NM J. Hansen 05/05 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM OlE OlE NM X NM NM E. KODDes 05/07 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM NM D. Shanoon 05/08 X NM X NM NM NM NM X NM X X NM X NM NM Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting n -. = Not a Member C[ ~ Iowa City FINAL APPROVED Public Library BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A Minutes 5:00 pm - August 26, 2004 2nd Floor Board Room David VanDusseldorp, resident Linzee McCray, Vice President Thomas Dean Kathy Gloer Linda Prybil Pat Schnack, Secretary Tom Suter Jim Swaim Members Present: Thomas Dean, Kathy Gloer, Linzee McCray, Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, Jim Swaim, David VanDusseldorp Members Absent: Tom Suter Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Martha Lubaroff Call meeting to Order Van Dusseldorp called the meeting to order at 5:05. Public Discussion There was no public discussion. Approval of minutes A motion was made to approve the regular minutes of July 22, 2004 by Swaim and seconded by Schnack. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. Unfinished Business Buildinq Proiect: A certificate of substantial completion was included in the packet for Board approval. Craig reported that we are slowly working our way down a punch list. Craig is hopeful that we will be completed by the end of September. A question was raised regarding a period of "warranty" during the first year. Craig replied that routine upkeep is our job and as warranties expire, service agreements for some items will be put in place. We keep retainage for some time but not for an entire year. Once action is taken on the certificate, warranties kick in. Swaim moved that we accept this certificate and McCray seconded. Swaim stated for the minutes that Knutson had done a fine job and finished the project early. Prybil had some concerns about some of the exterior of the building and Craig said it was on the punch list to complete. VanDusseldorp called for a vote. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Lease Space. Hanick is still in consultation with a company interested in both floors. They haven't made a corporate decision at the national level yet. He has shown it to a new possibility and he said we might have to look at breaking the first floor up into two spaces. Swaim asked about whether or not we might have to settle for some less than desirable tenant in order to rent the space. Craig said she has had no pressure regarding renting this space. In response to a question, Craig said she and Magalhães previously met with Steve Atkins, City Manager and Karin Franklin, Director of Planning, and they were in agreement regarding the type of business we would rent too. The leasing criteria were seen by City Council as well. New Business Approval of FYOS Memo of Understandinq between Friends Foundation Board of Directors and the ICPL Board of Trustees This document has been used for several years and indicates the Friends Foundation agreement to funding a portion of salaries and benefits of the staff of the Development Office. In addition, it states their intention to pay a total of $60,000 to the library for materials. Asked whether or not she anticipated difficulties raising funds, Curtin responded that it would not be. It is the same amount that has been given for the last two years and the hope is to begin working back up to a larger gift. Gloer moved approval. Seconded by Prybil. Motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Annual Report: VanDusseldorp commented on the Annual report. He said it was an upbeat report and Craig said the real story is the amount of people who used the library despite the construction. It was noted that all reports were positive with the lone exception of Building Services, which sounded negative. Craig explained that they are overwhelmed with the size of the building as well as learning all the new systems like HVAC. We did add a full time position in Maintenance. VanDusseldorp asked managers whether or not there was anything in the statistical information we would want to point out to Board. Dean commented that despite the temporary quarters, in the midst of construction, the library has really advanced and things have gotten done. He felt that we did not just been tread water. Good report. Planninq Process Craig said we have funds budgeted to support the expense of a new plan. The facilities have been the number one goal in the current plan and now that we have the facility we can move on. We will do our data gathering phase this fall with a Users Survey and a Community Survey. Craig has begun discussions with Maureen Sullivan, the facilitator of choice, and shared copies of our present Strategic Plan. The early discussion has been about accomplishing the planning process with the staff and the Board as community input. In the past we've had a larger committee with community members. Craig feels that the board is a voice of the community, particularly now with some new trustees. Since Sullivan is planning to be here for the Staff In- service Day on December 10, Craig queried the Board about meeting on December 9 of this year. Gloer asked how Sullivan was selected. Craig replied that we have never used a national library person before and she felt it was time to look towards someone who works nationally with libraries and could bring a broad perspective to Iowa City. Swaim said that both the proposal and the involvement of staff and board seemed to be a good plan. He advocates having some type of community involvement initially. Craig said they talked about focus groups. Dean agreed that the public be included somehow to give input; perhaps a meeting or something on our web site. We have $20,000 allocated and Sullivan's quote is well within that amount. In response to a concern about the expense, Dean spoke in favor of bringing an outside perspective and Swaim said in his experience it is a good price. VanDusseldorp is in favor of an outside expert, particularly if we are shrinking the circle of participants. He feels this experience will help the Board work better as a group. Craig asked for consensus on whether or not Board wanted to have a one-time December meeting for both regular business and working with the consultant, or two meetings in December. The Board agreed that having this conversation in September or October would be time enough to decide. It was suggested that a place be included in the user survey for people to add thoughts. Staff Reports DeDartmental ReDorts: Children's, Systems, Technical Services VanDusseldorp asked for comments. It was noted that we had an impressive number of kids in the Summer Reading Program. October 23 will be the ribbon cutting in the Ellen Buchanan Children's Room to display the completed ceramic tile entrance. Ellen and her family will be present for the ceremony. The Technical Services report described enhancements as a result of the major upgrade to our automated system. This upgrade provides new features in the catalog and has improved staff modules in a variety of ways. Development Office ReDort Curtin was on vacation so no Development Office report in the packet. Staff is working on the Foundation Annual Report. Applications for the Director's position are coming in. Interviews will be scheduled once applications are reviewed. Gloer gave her report on the Foundation meeting at this time. Officers for FYOS were elected. Executive Committee made committee assignments, and developed the Memo of Understanding, which was approved. Hopefully, the new Director will be on the job by November 1. Board members are encouraged to attend the public presentations that will be scheduled as part of the interviews. BookEnd income increased dramatically in July with the Library reopening on Linn Street. ReDort on Auction It went very well. No dollar amount has been received from Sharpless yet. Money will be divided into computer replacement, equipment replacement, building fund. Get a librarv card camDaiqn. American Libraries Association sponsors this campaign every September and we have never participated. Staff felt this is the year to do it. Our theme is "Treat yourself to a library card". The Welcome Window that will go out in early September will have this as a lead article. Posters will go into buses. We will have gifts of Treat baskets, which will be awarded through a drawing. Everyone who gets a new card will get a little gift. Board said this was a great idea. It was suggested that we do a poster in Spanish. Miscellaneous: Newspaper pieces and article by Vanessa Miller. President's Report VanDusseldorp encouraged board to spend time using the library and be listening to users with a different mindset. He encouraged preparation by reading Board packets and attendance at meetings. Announcements from Members Swaim announced that Johnson County United Way would have their kickoff September 2 at 7:30 am at Holiday Inn in Coralville. Swaim encouraged Trustees and staff to participate. Dean thanked Logsden for her work on the recent successful Weber Days. He announced that the celebration would be expanded through the year with a series of programs to celebrate regional and local culture. This will be a cooperative effort to put on three programs a year. December 2 is the first one. It is a celebration of Irving Weber's birthday. A spring event is being planned and the hope is to have some children's events Financial Reports Craig reported that we brought in all the money we budgeted for income. We spent 97.84% of our budget. Enrich Iowa for 2005 will probably remain the same. Disbursements Review Visa Expenditures for July 2004 Approve Disbursements for July 2004. A motion to approve disbursements was made by Prybil and seconded by Dean. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Set agenda order for September meeting. Solicit suggestions from staff on some type of community meeting prior to Strategic Plan. Report from Kevin Hanick Adjournment A motion was made to adjourn by Prybil, seconded by Dean. All voted in favor and motion passed unanimously 7/0. Minutes taken and transcribed By Martha Lubaroff Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 Meetinl!: Date TERM 1/22/ 2/191 3/251 4/221 5/271 6/241 7/221 8/261 9/231 NAME EXP. 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 Thomas 7/1/09 x x x x x Ole x x x Dean Kathy Gloer x x x Linzee 7/1/09 x ole x x x x x x x McCray Linda Prybil 7/1/05 ole ole ole x x x Ole x x Pat Schnack 7/1/07 x x x x x x Ole x Ole K.Jesse ~ øk øk * øk øk GIe SiRgermaR Tom Suter 7/1/07 x x x x 0 x x Ole x Jim Swaim 7/1/05 x ole x x ole Ole x x x David Van 7/1/07 x x x x x x x x x Dusseldorp KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = AbsentJExcused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member I 4°b(i. MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11,2004 -7:30 AM HARV AT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Kevin Werner Members Absent: Nate Green Staff Present: Marian Karr, Sue Dulek CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 29. 2004 Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Davidsen stated that on page 3 of the minutes, middle of the first paragraph, where it talks about the City Manager, and it states the "City Manager does a memo.. .". Members stated they felt this was okay. She then mentioned that the spelling of her last name keeps changing. Novick asked that minutes reflect a change in the first paragraph, from"... so that future Councils. . ." to "so that future Commissions". MOTION: Lensing moved to accept the minutes as amended correcting the spelling of "Davidsen"; changing the word "does" on page 3 to "submits"; and replacing "Commissions" for "Council" in the first paragraph; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT Sueppel noted that the Commission had received correspondence from Jim and Dianne Brenneman, regarding the City Manager position. MOTION: Novick moved to accept correspondence; Lensing seconded. Motion approved to accept correspondence from Jim and Dianne Brenneman. REVIEW CHARTER Chairperson Sueppel stated that per a recommendation from the City Attorney, she would ask that the Commission not discuss Initiatives and Referendums until such time that she is able to attend the meeting. Sueppel suggested they skip this section until the next meeting, and the Commission agreed. Section 4.04, Duties of City Manager (7) was discussed first. Sueppel asked if anyone had any concerns about this section. City contracts were discussed, and Karr explained that she attests (the Mayor's signature) and the City Council approves those contracts over a minimum amount established by State Code. Charter Review Commission August 11, 2004 Page 2 Section 4.05, Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts - Sueppel questions this Section and asked if the City Manger is the "keeper of the records", or if the City Clerk is. Karr stated that Iowa City has not passed a resolution regarding the matter. Sueppel stated they should look at this further, and he questioned its place in the Charter. Article V, Boards, Commissions and Committees was reviewed next. Sueppel asked if the City had a set of adopted procedural rules for Commissions and Boards, and stated that the Charter Review Commission should have these adopted rules. Karr stated that the Charter Review Commission does not have standard operating procedures to follow. She further explained that there is no "blanket rule" for all Commissions. Section 5.01, Establishment - temporarily approved section. Section 5.02, Appointment; Removal- Karr explained that many Boards and Commissions have requirements such as attendance as part of their by-laws, and that a member of a Board must be a resident of Iowa City. Chappell stated that he would like to add the words "and applications" to the second sentence in this section, after the word "nominations". Sueppel questioned the words 'just cause", and what do they mean in this section. Dulek stated this referred to establishing procedures for removals. Sueppel explained a case from Davenport where a member had to be removed, and how the Supreme Court ruled on it. Discussion continued by several members on removals from various boards and commissions, especially those elected to boards and commissions. The term 'just cause" was further discussed and Sueppel explained a recent Supreme Court case that considered "proper cause". Sueppel requested further input from Dilkes. Kubby asked for clarification on "nominations" in this section, and suggested replacing "nominations" with "encourage applications" instead, as these are not nominated positions being discussed. The Commission agreed with this wording change. Section 5.03, Rules - Discussion started with the use of the word "by-laws" and whether "rules" is the same thing. Chappell asked if it would be beneficial to add "and open records", after, ".. . and rules pertaining to open meetings". Sueppel asked questions regarding this, and the Commission agreed to add the wording. Subsections Band C were temporarily approved. Davidsen asked for further clarification on this section. Article VI, Campaign Contributions, and Expenditures - Sueppel asked if all of this is in compliance with Chapter 56, which is the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Rules, which establishes the Iowa Ethics Board and the Campaign Disclosure Board. It was decided to hold this question for Attorney Dilkes' review. Kubby asked about disclosure, and whether candidates would have to disclose to both the state and the city. Discussion continued on the City's rules of disclosure, versus the state law, which is basically what is followed. (TAPE ENDS) Discussion turned to Section 6.03, Definition and whether services should be defined as "professional", or "in kind". Dulek gave further explanation regarding contributions and donations. Discussion turned to the distinction between "professional time" and Charter Review Commission August 11, 2004 Page 3 "personal time", and how this would play into contributions. Sueppel suggested that Dilkes check into the campaign finance rules, and what is accepted as "professional time". Various examples of wording in campaign ads was also discussed. Sueppel stated that they would hold on this matter until the City Attorney's office can review. Article VIII, Charter Amendments and Review -- Section 8.01, Charter Amendments - Sueppel noted that in (A), it states, ".. . and a proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting." In (B) it states again that... "the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting"; and (C) also states the same thing. Sueppel further noted that the three subsections should be consistent. Discussion turned to when the majority vote is determined, date ofthe election versus date of canvas, versus date of acceptance ofthe abstract of election by the City Council. Kubby questioned (C), where it states "ten percent", and notes this is less than the requirement for initiatives or referendums (ordinances). Novick asked ifthe goal is to have it be easier to change the Charter versus changing an ordinance. The majority of the members stated it should be harder to change the Charter. Discussion continued on the charter, how amendments take place, and how the Charter reflects State law requirements for Charter petitions. It was decided to put this section on hold until Dilkes can give the Commission further information. Chappell questioned "special" city election versus city election, and discussion turned to the state code regarding these terms. Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission - Kubby asked for clarification on this section, on whether or not the Commission's recommendations have to be put up for the voters. Discussion continued on the language in this section, with Sueppel stating it needed clarification. Kubby asked about options, and adding wording to the effect that the "Commission recommends" when it comes to approving changes to the Charter. Questions were raised about presenting changes, and how the process could be changed. Sueppel stated that now that the Commission has gone through the Charter once, he suggests they review previous amendments, and then proceed from there. He asked ifthe Commission members could stay for a longer time period so they could get further into discussions as they firm up their recommendations. Kubby asked for further clarification of a "run off' election, and Sueppel explained Iowa law in this area. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Chappell moved for adjournment at 9:10 AM; seconded by Davidsen. All in favor; motion carried. em: MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2004 - 7:30 AM HARV AT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, and Nate Green Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST I L 2004 Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. There were no additions, corrections, or deletions. MOTION: Novick moved to accept the August 11, 2004, minutes as written. Chappell seconded. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT None. REVIEW CHARTER Chairperson Sueppel stated that they would start today's review process with Article VII, Initiative and Referendum. He first asked the Commission members ifthey approve the idea of keeping Initiative and Referendum as part of the City's Charter. The members all agreed that it should be kept part of the Charter. He then asked if anyone had any comments thus far. Kubby stated that she has concerns about the "benchmarks" being used. Rowat asked if other city charters do not have Initiative and Referendum in them, or if there is some other process available that the Commission should perhaps consider. Kubby said she has made up a chart with other cities charters, but she forgot to bring it today. Discussion turned to the type of government that Iowa City has, and how it differs ITom other cities. Discussion concluded that of the four Home Rule Charter cities in Iowa only Iowa City and Clinton have initiative and referendum provisions. Davidsen stated that she recently reviewed the original Charter information, and that this section was considered a vital part of the Charter, even back then. Discussion turned to Section 7.01, General Provisions (A) Authority, and the difference between qualified and eligible voters. Sueppel asked about Initiatives, and how the City handles these when first received. Dilkes stated that she waits until there has been a filing before she gives her opinion on whether she thinks the issue is subject to Initiative or Referendum. Karr gave background on how the process starts, and the time she spends letting the petitioner know the process. She also gave some examples of petitions and affidavits, and she noted that she has a timeline for the members to review, so they can better understand the process. Charter Review Commission August 26, 2004 Page 2 Sueppel then asked if Capital Projects should ever be subject to initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated that the minutes ofthe original Charter Commission show that the model Charter had an exclusion for Capital Projects. Discussion turned to why this was done. Chappell noted that the May 8, 1973, minutes on page 2, third paragraph, explains the thinking at that time. It was felt that Capital Improvements were a controversial issue, and that the Council at that time would have to "prove to the public that their taxes were well spent." He further read the minutes to the members, and various members added their opinions. Dilkes gave an example of a previous issue, where a request to delete a project from the capital improvements plan, a planning project for capital projects, came about. Sueppel asked ifDilkes had any concerns about the present definition ofInitiative, and she stated she did not. Kubby turned the discussion to whether qualified (registered) or eligible voters should be required to sign the petitions. Karr gave history on the request for updated voter rolls, and how without the optional birthdate on a petition, it can be hard to prove someone is eligible. Rowat stated that he feels that if someone wants to participate in the governmental process, there is nothing wrong with expecting them to be registered voters. He further stated that if they have not registered, but want to enter into the process of government, they can easily get a fonn to register. Green noted that many of the University of Iowa population do not become registered voters here, as they want to keep their registration in their home state. Sueppel stated that by requiring people to be qualified voters, it increases the registration of voters. Novick stated that State law says you can be on the ballot without being a registered voter. Chappell indicated he originally was inclined to favor the requirement that those signing be registered (qualified), but noted that State law often requires petition to be signed only by eligible voters. Kubby stated that she feels if people can be part ofthe petition process, it helps to stir their interest in elections, etc. She would like to see the public more involved. The discussion next turned to the process by which the City Clerk knows who is a registered voter, and how someone becomes a registered voter. Sueppel asked if anyone wanted to vote on any of these issues at this time, and the members stated they would like to review further. Sueppel asked if the language ofInitiative is acceptable then to the Commission. He then asked about Referendum, stating it's the same thing. Davidsen asked ifthere's a difference with resolution, and Dilkes explained its inclusion. Kubby asked if just a section of an ordinance can be changed, or if the entire ordinance has to be changed. Rowat asked why there are definitions in this section, as well as at the beginning of the Charter. Discussion turned to the difference between administrative issues and legislative issues. Dilkes gave an example of a Supreme Court case, and how a certain case played out on this issue. Dilkes stated that the question of legislative versus administrative can be very difficult to ascertain. Novick asked if it would be wise to reword this definition, and Charter Review Commission August 26, 2004 Page 3 Dilkes stated that that would be a policy decision for the Commission to make. The suggestion of "ordinance or resolution" was made, and discussion turned to how one change in the Charter can affect the rest ofthe Charter. Novick restated her question, and said that in (I) Initiative and (2) Referendum, they could say they would use this initiative and referendum to allow the voters to delete or add an ordinance, or resolution. Sueppel asked if that clarifies it better. Kubby asked about the CIP plan and if it was adopted by resolution. Dilkes stated that by adding "resolution" she does not feel this gives them any better clarification. Kubby stated that it does get rid oftwo different definitions, and would make it clearer to the "average" citizen. Green asked for an example of what the Commission would be recommending. (TAPE ENDS) Dilkes brought up "measures" and suggested they use this wording, instead of "ordinance" as that would make this section more consistent with the language used in State Code and the definition section of the Charter. Sueppel agreed that this might be a good idea, and he then discussed the differences between motions, ordinances, measures, etc. Kubby asked if this change to use the word "measure" would be a "housekeeping" change, or would it effect any other portions of the Charter. Dilkes suggested that they would need to define what "measure" is, such as "within this article, measure means an action of a legislative measure, however designated." This would then not change the definition at all. Karr asked why they needed separate definitions in the Charter, when "measure" is already in there. Dilkes responded that they need to get the "legislative nature" in there. Sueppel asked the members if they would like to have Dilkes draft what she thinks would be appropriate for this change, and then they could all discuss it at the next meeting. Lensing asked ifDilkes could further clarify "plan" when she does her draft. Dilkes stated that the issue she raised earlier regarding capital projects would be best addressed under the "exclusions" section. The discussion turned to B. Limitations. Sueppel asked if anyone had any questions on this section. Novick questioned (k) Amendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance, except those affecting a tract of land two acres or more in size. She wanted to know if this was State Code or not. Dilkes explained the State Code provisions on zoning, and her feeling that this specific exclusion had big problems with it. Discussion turned to possible problems with this, and Chappell stated that he was trying to find where this specific wording came from. The discussion also touched on State requirements versus City requirements. Lensing brought up emergency ordinances, and asked why it was not in the exclusion list. Chappell stated that the original Charter Review Commission removed this from the list in the model charter, but he is unsure of the reasoning. Discussion turned to the first Charter Review Commission, and whether this issue was part ofthe Charter at that time. Chappell asked ifthey were at the point where they wanted to propose language to change ü) Amendments to this Charter. Sueppel stated that he would suggest wording of "Amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance." Chappell asked if this would cover the Comprehensive Plan also. Sueppel stated that by adding "Comprehensive Plan" he feels it covers these issues. Sueppel asked the members if there were any other discussions on (a) through (k), and Dilkes Charter Review Commission August 26, 2004 Page 4 again noted that clarification as to when a capital project went from plan to execution was necessary. Dilkes then suggested that it might be helpful to have staff from Public Works come and explain the process to the members. The discussion started to wrap up as 9:00 AM approached. Dilkes asked the members if they want further infonnation, and members gave feedback on having staff attend the next meeting. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Future meetings were set for September 8, 27, and 29, starting at 7:00 AM, and running until 9:30 AM. For October, meeting dates are 13,20, and 27, also from 7:00 AM until 9:30 AM. Members were encouraged to let Karr know of their schedules, and any changes that take place. Chairperson Sueppe1 asked that all members come to meetings prepared to review the material so they can continue moving at a good pace. The City Council deadline for this Commission is May 4,2005, with the plan to present to the Council in March. It is hoped to have the public hearings after the first of the year. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Davidsen moved for adjournment ofthe meeting at 9:25 AM; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried. [;[ MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 -7:00 AM HARV AT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green Members Absent: Vicki Lensing Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes, Rick Fosse CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. He noted that Lensing would not be present at this meeting. APPROVE MJNUTES OF AUGUST 26. 2004 Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Chappell noted that on page 3, second full paragraph, nine lines down: "Chappell stated that the original Charter Review Commission removed this [emergency exception] from the list in the model charter..." He asked to clarify this statement by adding that it was a later Charter Review Commission that removed this, as the original Charter did have the provision on emergency ordinances. MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the August 26, 2004, minutes as written. Chappell seconded. Motion carried 8 - 0 (Lensing absent). PUBLIC COMMENT Sueppel stated that there was one public comment from John Neff, which is outlined in a memo from John. MOTION: Novick moved to accept the correspondence from John Neff. Davidsen seconded. Motion carried 8 - 0 (Lensing absent). REVIEW CHARTER - Article VII Initiative and Referendum Sueppel noted that everyone should have received a copy of Dilkes' memo regarding the proposed amendment to Section 7.01 - using the word "measure" in place of "ordinance." At the last meeting, the members had asked that Dilkes review this section, and give them a proposed amendment. Kubby asked ifit wouldn't be better to have Public Works Director Rick Fosse speak with them first about the time-line for capital projects issue that they had previously questioned. Members agreed. Fosse gave some background on the time-line handout that the members had been given. He noted that this is a general guideline for the projects in Public Works. Members asked general questions about projects of this nature. Kubby questioned when the public is aware of capital improvement projects - at what stage do people pay attention. Fosse stated that they now have what they call a pre-design meeting, where they go out and Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 2 meet with neighbors in the area where a project is being planned. This way they can talk with those in the area and get their concerns up front. Sueppel asked where on the time- line does the City Council become involved. Fosse explained that they do not even begin to design a project without a funding source, so this involves the Council, as they must have the funding in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Sueppel asked Dilkes where she draws the line between Administrative and Legislative on these issues. Dilkes gave examples from the First Avenue project, and how she made her detenninations on that particular project. She stated that the Charter's current wording is not clear at all, and that this is a concern. Rowat stated that he feels using "public improvements," instead of "capital improvements," would make this issue clearer. Kubby asked where the first "legislative" issue is, after the property acquisition begins. Fosse stated that the first legislative point is approval of the Capital Programs; secondly, the point where they would go to the Council to start the acquisition process; and the third legislative action begins with the bidding process and public hearings. The final legislative action is to accept the public improvement. Dilkes reiterated her concern on where this line is between legislative and administrative. Sueppel stated that the real question is whether the citizens should have the right to do their own legislation on Capital Projects. Discussions continued on this issue, and whether or not the citizens should be able to stop a capital project once it has begun, and various other related issues. Sueppel asked if members would give their thinking on the present issue, and he asked Chappell to start. Chappell stated that he feels this is a balancing issue, and that it does need to be more clear. He likes the idea of the "property acquisition" being their "line," and is not comfortable with taking this out completely. Kubby and Green both stated they agree with Chappell. Novick stated that she would consider removing capital improvement projects if they are defined in some way, with an exception, although she is not sure yet what that exception should be. Werner stated that he is also in agreement with Chappell. Davidsen noted that she believes the citizens have a right to question capital improvement programs, and that specific projects also need citizen input. She stated she agrees with Chappell, but that this needs to stay in in some way. Rowat stated that public input and the right to question almost anything is very important. He said it seems they are all leaning towards cutting this process off, but that there needs to be perhaps a better way to publicize these issues to the citizens. Sueppel stated that whether there is property acquisition or not in a project, there needs to be some type of time-line, and he feels that the public has the right to vote on these issues of capital improvement by affecting Council. (TAPE ENDS) Discussion continued among the members, with questions being asked of Fosse on the time-line of City projects. Sueppel asked if anyone had anything else to add to the discussion. Davidsen stated that she felt they had had a good discussion, and that she would like to hear what Dilkes thinks about the point of property acquisition being the point of cutting off initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated this does help the line- drawing issue of capital projects, and she gave various examples of acquiring property and how the City Council handles these matters. Karr also gave background on the types Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 3 of calls and questions the City gets from the public on how they go about stopping various projects. Sueppel asked for clarification of the city budget and how the capital improvement plan plays into this. Dilkes and Karr responded that the budget is not the capital improvement plan, but that a lump sum for the CIP is in the budget. Members discussed CIP from the past, such as the First Avenue project, and how the City handled the problems that arose at that time. Chappell stated that he would make a motion to add the exclusion, item (K), and asked that Dilkes give them some language based on his motion. The discussion continued with Dilkes asking for clarification from the members on the wording ofthis exclusion. The Commission agreed that they want to include all projects that would appear on the CIP, regardless of size. MOTION: Chappell moved to add Limitation (K) to exclude from Initiative and Referendum, public improvements after such point that the City has authorized or has acquired property. Kubby seconded. Motion carried 8 - 0 (Lensing absent). Sueppel then asked the members if they were ready to start on (J). His proposal was, "Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance are excluded, deleting the 2-acre exception." Kubby stated that she still feels this issue should be open to the public, and that she does not agree with adding the Comprehensive Plan, as suggested. The discussion continued with various members giving their views on this, and Dilkes stated that she could give them a legal opinion on this issue. Sueppel said an opinion was not necessary. MOTION: Sueppel moved to amend (J) by adding Comprehensive Plan and deleting the 2-acre exception. Rowat seconded. Motion carried 7 - 1 (Kubby voting the negative; Lensing absent). (BREAK) FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Sueppel asked that they skip ahead to discuss future meeting dates as Green and Kubby have to leave early. Meetings have been set for September 27 and 29; and October 13 and 20, with all meetings running 7 AM to 9:30 AM. Sueppel stated that he would be gone on the 20th of October, and wondered if October 11 th would work. Novick asked that they plan a public hearing early in October, so that Davidsen could be part of that process, as she will be leaving the end of October. Rowat asked for clarification of what type of fonnat this public hearing would be. Sueppel stated that they need to make some decisions before they hold this public hearing, so there will be items for public discussion. Some outstanding issues are: today's decisions of increasing or clarifying initiative or referendum limitations; the directly-elected mayor issue; and the district versus at-large seats issue. (TAPE ENDS) Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 4 Discussion returned to whether or not the members could meet on October 11 tho It was agreed to add this date to the October schedule. Sueppel then asked if the members wanted to have the public hearing on the evening of October 13th. Dilkes reminded them that they need to leave plenty of time in order to get packets out, a press release done, and public notification given. Davidsen stated that she feels they should have a less structured public hearing, with this first one being fairly open to whatever discussions come up. (Green left mtg. 8:45 AM) Chappell stated that he recommends that Karr come to the next meeting with a list of potential dates for public hearings, and that they add to the agenda what they want exactly for the public hearing discussion to be, as well as type offonnat for the hearing. Karr asked for some direction from the members, and asked that they give her two or three dates, and time of day as well. After much discussion, the members decided to meet October 11 and 13, from 7-9 AM for their regular review meeting, and to look at October 12, from 7-9 PM for the public hearing. It was also agreed that October 20 and 27th would be regular morning meetings, and if changes need to be made to the schedule, they can always cancel. REVIEW CHARTER (conI.) Sueppel next discussed Dilkes' memo to the Commission, regarding the proposed amendment to Section 7.01 - Ordinance vs. Measure. A brief discussion ensued where members asked Dilkes how this amendment will make the Charter clearer, and which wording changes were made to this section. MOTION: Chappell moved to approve the amendment to the Charter, in accordance with Dilkes' draft of September 1, 2004. Davidsen seconded. Motion carried 7 - 0 (Green and Lensing absent). Sueppel reviewed what has been accomplished on Section B. Limitations, (1) Subject Matter thus far: agreed to add some language (k) to exclude capital projects after property has been acquired and amend G) regarding zoning. Various discussions took place to clarify these amendments, and Dilkes will work with the wording and present it to the Commission. Sueppel next addressed (2) Resubmission and the 2-year date. There were no changes or additions made here. Kubby asked about B (3) Council Repeal, Amendment and Reenactment, and if there was, for example, an initiative that passed, can the Council be inactive on this specific issue, or must they act on it. C. Construction (1) Scope of Power - Chappell asked if the word "voters" should be changed to "electors." Sueppel stated that it would be helpful if the members would make note of language and grammatical errors, versus substantial changes, so that these changes can be adopted by the Council sooner. Discussion next turned to (2) Initiative (a) and Sueppel questioned the repeal part of this section. Novick stated that she has a problem with this one due to the wording. She would like to simplify this and say, "A petition will be valid if it repeals or amends," rather than "no petition will be invalid." Other members noted that this would be a substantive change, and Dilkes gave some examples. Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 5 (3) Referendum - Sueppel stated that he has no problems with this section. (Kubby left at 9:20 AM) The discussion next turned to D. Effect of Filing Petition. There were no additions or changes to this section. E. City Obligations - the next section was discussed, and Dilkes' changes were noted. Discussion of Section 7.01. General Provisions was wrapped up at 9:25 AM, ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 AM. Rowat seconded. Motion carried 6 - 0 (Kubby, Green, and Lensing absent). G[ MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, and Tim Weitzel, MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justine Zimmer STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Barb Pressler, Marcus Pressler CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Historic Review: 1632 Center Avenue. McCafferty stated that since the last meeting at which this application was discussed, Smothers had done some exploration of the porch structure. Smothers said that the Presslers allowed her to drill a small hole in the stucco porch structure in an unobtrusive location and she found that it was constructed of plywood, not masonry. Her findings support the speculation that this is not an original or historic porch. She conduced it may have been added in the 1970s. McCafferty said that after looking at other Moffitt houses in the neighborhood, she thought that maybe the porch may have been originally supported with brackets. McCafferty said she prepared measured drawing of the porch to better illustrate the intentions of the Presslers. She distributed elevation of three sides of the porch. Maharry said that since it has been confirmed that the porch is not historic, he does not have any problem with enclosing the porch as shown in the drawings. He asked the Presslers if they were satisfied with the drawings that McCafferty prepared. Barb Pressler said she was okay with the drawings and that after giving it more thought, she liked the idea of having windows on the side of the porch. Weitzel moved to approve the enclosure of the front entrance at 1632 Center Street as drawn by staff. McCallum seconded the motion. Gunn said he thought that this proposal was fine and would not significantly alter the character of the house. Ponto agreed. Motion passed 6-0. Maharry thanks the Presslers for their patience. He said that the Commission really tries to work with owners to find solutions for their projects. In this case, it was primarily an issue of have additional information. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Minutes submitted by Shelley McCafferty s:/pcd/minutesihpc/2004/hpc09-02·04. doc Historic Preservation Commission August 26, 2004 Page 2 Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2004 Tenn Name Expires 1/08 2/12 2/26 3/11 4/08 4/22 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/14 7/8 7/22 8/10 8/26 9/2 9/9 10/14 11/11 12/09 A. Smothers 3/29/05 NM X OlE X X X X OlE X X X X X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 NM OlE X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M. Gunn 3/29/07 NM OlE OlE X OlE OlE X X X X 0 X X X X M. Maharrv 3/29/05 NM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 NM X X 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 OlE X X X X X X P. Sueooel 3/29/06 NM OlE OlE X X X X X X 0 X 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T. Weitzel 3/29/05 NM X X X X OlE X OlE X X X X X X X J. Zimmer 3/29/07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OlE OlE OlE X OlE X 0 0 X X 0 Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member I ¡~(~) I MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Jann Weismiller, Justine Zimmer STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: David Tingwald, Eric Gidal, Helen Burford, Vicki Struzynski Olson, Doris Houser, Mike Haverkamp, W. Max Mons, Robin Dull, Phil Launspach, Kevin Deets, Julie McNalley, Claire Sponsler, Susan Futrell, Dwight Dobberstein, Susan Buss-Paulsen, Clarence Haverkamp, Walter Kopsa, Jeff Dill, Jill Gaulding CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Public hearinqs for proposed local ordinance historic districts: McCafferty discussed what it means to be a local historic district, the impact that would have on property, and the process the Commission is going through at this time. She said that this hearing concerns designation of a local historic district. McCafferty said that recently there was a hearing regarding a National Register of Historic Places historic district for this area. McCafferty said this is a separate type of district that involves a rezoning. She stated that the National Register nomination plays into this process in that it determines the historic significance of the area and that it meets the criteria established by State and City code for a local historic district. McCafferty said this process began back in 1992 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation Plan, which set out various goals and objectives for historic preservation in Iowa City. She said that since that time there have been four different surveys and evaluations done on various areas in the North Side. McCafferty said the results include site information sheets for each individual property, an overall history of the area done by an architectural historian, and recommendations for where there may be districts and landmarks. McCafferty said the Commission is at the point in the process of historic overlay zoning and added that there is a long process for local designation. McCafferty said the Commission is currently holding the first of at least one public hearings. She stated that following Commission consideration, the Commission will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. McCafferty said the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold two public discussions and then make a recommendation to the City Council. She said that the City Council will usually have three public meetings to consider an ordinance to designate these districts. McCafferty stated that the purpose of establishing a historic preservation overlay zone is not to prevent changes within historic neighborhoods but to manage those changes to ensure that they are compatible with the overall historic character. McCafferty showed examples of changes that have been made in districts. She stated that some changes involved architects, and some involved design assistance from staff and the Commission. McCafferty said that the historic overlay zone is not intended to alter use. She said what it does is put in place a process by which changes to the exterior of a property requiring a building permit are reviewed by the Commission. McCafferty said that the historic preservation regulations are not intended to interfere with building codes. She said that concessions have been made to the guidelines in order to accommodate building codes. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 2 McCafferty said one concern of property owners is the process they will have to go through if their property is in a historic district. She stated that if an owner wants to make a change that requires a building permit to a property and will change the exterior, the owner has to go through the Commission's historic review process. McCafferty said this involves submitting an application, and there is an evaluation with staff. She stated that staff typically works with the applicant to ensure that the application complies with the appropriate guidelines. McCafferty said that if the owner is doing a repair and it will not change the looks of the property, he/she can apply for a certificate of no material effect. She said the certificate of no material effect is reviewed typically in two or three days by the chair and staff. McCafferty said a more substatntial change to the exterior of the property would require review by the Commission and would typically take two weeks in the summer and up to three weeks in the winter. McCafferty said that if the application is denied, it can be appealed to the City Council. She said the City Council will determine if the Commission acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. McCafferty said the City Council cannot reverse the Commission's decision if the Commission was not deemed arbitrary or capricious. McCafferty said the terms non-contributing, contributing, and key are applied to properties. She said that non-contributing buildings typically have been significantly altered but are still historic buildings, and hopefully in the future, their condition may be improved and they may be restored to a historic condition and reclassified as contributing. McCafferty stated that key buildings are buildings that are particularly significant and are usually eligible for designation on the National Register or have particular prominence on the streetscape. Regarding the guidelines, McCafferty said the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook has been prepared by the Commission. She said that by City code, all changes to the exterior of property must comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. McCafferty said the Iowa City guidelines are more specific guidelines compiled by the Commission and deal with issues that are common in Iowa City. She said the guidelines primarily look at making buildings, changes, and additions consistent with the historic structures, but there is some flexibility for more creative solutions. McCafferty said the Handbook is available for $4 from the Planning Department or can be found on the Iowa City website. Ronalds Street Expansion of the Brown Street Historic District. Public hearing. McCafferty pointed out on the overhead map that most of the Ronalds Street expansion is zoned RS-8, medium density, single-family, although there is one small area composed of two properties that is zoned RNC-12, residential neighborhood conservation with a density of twelve units per acre. David Tinawald. 631 North Dodae Street, stated that his property is listed as a key property. He gave a brief history of his property, saying that it was once a residence of a blacksmith, with an addition put on in the 1870s or 1880s. Tingwald said he believes his house is much as it was 125 years ago, in terms of its exterior structure. Tingwald said he supports the expansion of the Brown Street Historic District to Ronalds Street and thanked the Commission for the time spent on this. Eric Gidal. 714 North Johnson Street, said that his property is also a key structure. He said he supports this designation and thanked the Commission for considering it. Helen Burford. 604 Ronalds Street, said her property is listed as a key structure. She thanked the Historic Preservation Commission and the City of Iowa City for efforts to nominate the homes on Ronalds Street to the National Register of Historic Places and for pursuing the annexation of this area to the Brown Street Historic District. Burford said the steps the Commission has taken to recognize this area only underscore the efforts of everyone at the meeting from this area to make the neighborhood a more attractive place to live. She said that she, like others at the meeting, actually cherishes the neighborhood and its proximity to downtown and the University, as well as the homes in the area and the history surrounding them. Burford said we should aggressively recognize this area as a historic district and recognize its cultural significance to Iowa City. She hoped that everyone would be able to work together to save the area for future generations. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 3 Vicki Struzvnski Olson, 2446 260'h Street, Tiffin, said she lives in rural Johnson County but owns property on Ronalds Street. She said she was unfamiliar with the process and the progress made to date and wondered whether the boundary indicated on the map has been predetermined or if it is a solid boundary that needs to be there. Struzynski Olson said the property she owns is 527 Ronalds Street, a non-historic property, and she asked if it could be notched out like the property just south of 630 Dodge Street and the property on Governor Street. McCafferty said that to the extent possible, when the boundaries are drawn the consultant and the Commission try to exclude non-historic properties. She said, however, that the Commission likes to keep boundaries clean and easy to understand, and that is most likely the reason the boundary is drawn as it is. McCafferty stated that there are only three guidelines for non-historic properties to comply with. Doris Houser, 3580 Vista Park, said she is also concerned about how the boundary was drawn. She said she is concerned for her income property at 611 North Johnson. Houser said that because this is primarily an income property, she would not want to go through the bureaucracy for every little repair, and it would also cost a little more. Houser said she is also concerned about keeping the property up and keeping in the context of the historic character of the neighborhood. She said she feels that is appropriate and is her responsibility as an owner of income property, and she certainly will do that. Houser said she would really like to have the Commission notch that back and have the boundary go down the alley, particularly since her property is commercial and not a single-family residence. McCafferty said the Commission received a letter from Houser, and she distributed the site inventory sheet for the property. Houser said her property is a three-plex. Public hearing closed. Ponto said that because both 611 and 614 North Johnson are key properties, that is probably why they are included. He said that because the underlying zoning is different, he is no longer as certain as he once was whether it is appropriate to include those properties. Ponto said he could probably go either way on it. McCafferty said that the other two districts that the Commission would be looking at have multiple zones within them as do some of the existing local districts. Ponto said he understood that but was thinking more in terms of this particular district. McCallum asked about the nature of RNC-12 and if it is primarily single-family residential and not multifamily commercial zone. McCafferty stated that commercial property generally has a business located within it, whereas multi-family, such as 611 North Johnson, has multiple residences within it. She said that none of these properties are zoned for commercial, but there are properties here that are residential income- generating properties. Gunn said that the College Green Historic District and the College Hill Conservation District both have some RNC-12 zoning. MOTION: Ponto moved to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Ronalds Street Expansion of the Brown Street Historic District, with boundaries as shown on the existing map, be rezoned to historic preservation overlay for the purpose of designating a local historic district. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. McCafferty stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would most likely consider this rezoning at its meeting on the third Thursday in October. She said that residents within the district as well as those adjacent to the district would receive notification by mail of that meeting. Jefferson Street Historic District. Public hearing. Mike Haverkamp. 109 North Van Buren, thanked the Commission for recommending this area for designation. He said he has lived in the district as an owner for 18 years. Haverkamp said it is a wonderfully preserved area of town. He said there is a lot of different zoning within it, and there are a lot of different facilities within a very small area. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 4 Haverkamp said this is an area that deserves preservation, and he is very glad the Commission is looking at this area to make sure the original structures and their creative uses that have evolved over the years can be held on to. W. Max Mons. 404 E. Jefferson Street, said he represents St. Paul's Lutheran Chapel. He thanked the Commission for its work and said this is a beautiful neighborhood and area. Mons said he objects to being included in this historic overlay zone, because his is a church that has doubled in its worship attendance over the past four years, and the church is looking at the possibility of adding on to the building. Mons said he was concerned that restrictions placed on the historic building might make an addition cost prohibitive, which would interfere with the church's mission to serve the community and the students at The University of Iowa. Robin Dull, 320 E. Jefferson, said that he supports this proposal. He said his family has lived in their house for 25 years and feels that it is a unique house and a unique and special district. Dull said he hoped the Commission would vote in favor of this. Phil Launspach, 136 Koser Avenue, said he manages some of the properties in the 400 block of Jefferson Street. He asked if this was the first meeting regarding this issue. McCafferty replied that this was the first meeting, and there was the potential for more meetings, depending on the Commission's vote. She said there would also be two Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and three City Council meetings. Launspach asked about the notification process. McCafferty said that all of the property owners were notified as required using records from the tax assessor and rental permit information. Launspach asked what percentage of the properties is commercial and what percentage is residential. McCafferty said that the churches and the University building would be considered institutional uses. She was uncertain if any of the RO zoned properties had commercial properties on the first level. McCafferty said commercial uses are allowed in the RO zone, but they are quite restricted. She added that rental properties are considered a residential use, even though they are income generating. McCafferty said the Planning and Zoning Commission would look at this to determine whether it complies with the Comprehensive Plan and any other land use documents and regulations. Launspach asked what would happen if the owner wanted to tear down his key property and build a new structure. McCafferty said that the demolition of a key property is really only allowed if there are unsafe structural failures that are prohibitively expensive to repair. She said if there is certification from a professional engineer that there are structural issues that would be an economic hardship to repair, then demolition might be allowed. Launspach said that at least in the 400 block of Jefferson Street and at 325 Jefferson Street, the University property, there has been a lot of termite destruction. He asked if the Commission would allow the University to tear down its building, which is a key property. McCafferty said that the University is unique in that as a State entity it is not required to adhere to any municipal laws. She said that for privately owned properties, if the termite damage is so severe that the building cannot be reasonably repaired and rehabilitated, then demolition may be allowed. McCafferty pointed out that new construction would have to be approved by the Commission. Launspach asked if it is beyond his control to have several properties excluded from this zone. McCafferty said Launspach can inform the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council of his wishes. Launspach said he just found out about this meeting regarding this rezoning. Maharry said there was a question and answer session held last month, and all property owners were notified of that session. Several people in attendance said they did not receive notification. McCafferty said the notice was sent in conjunction with the National Register public hearing, which also included discussion of the local designation. She requested any address corrections from those in attendance tonight. Public hearing closed. Weitzel said it was his recollection that the guidelines and the Commission's previous voting record show that the Commission has not restricted people from putting additions on their buildings. He said there are guidelines for the appearance, but the Commission has not stopped an addition from being built. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 5 Gunn said he is in his eighth year on the Commission, and he did not recall any time when a property owner wanted an addition when that addition was not approved. He said there is no restriction against adding to buildings; it's just that the manner in which it is done may need to be adjusted a little. Gunn said there is an idea that a project always costs a whole lot more money once it comes before the Commission, and that is just not the case. He said it can cost more, but sometimes it costs less. Gunn said the Commission does not just automatically add a lot of dollars to what the owner wants to do: sometimes the Commission's recommendation is for something simpler. He said the Commission does have guidelines to follow, and if the guidelines don't allow for the cheapest possible construction, the Commission doesn't feel obligated to allow the cheapest possible construction. Gunn said the guidelines are intended for properties to have additions that are consistent with the character of the property, and that is what the Commission tries to uphold. Maharry asked if the Commission would consider making its decision pending satisfactory evidence that everyone was notified. McCafferty said that an affidavit is filed with the City Clerk giving all the addresses to which letters and notifications were sent. She said she could certainly verify the addresses. Gunn said that since there may be some issue with notification and more input that people want to provide, he would like to continue this to the next meeting for further discussion. McCafferty said she would notify owners of the continued meeting Weitzel said there are a lot of factors in the consideration of a district. He said that keeping people in the district happy is one factor. Weitzel said the consultant's evidence and the benefit to the community are other factors. Regarding opposition, McCafferty said that when the rezoning gets to City Council, if there is a significant square footage, based on area, of objections, then that could require a supermajority decision by City Council. She said the final decision on this is made by City Council, and property owners have a right to object to the rezoning by filing a formal protest at the City Clerk's office. Kevin Deets. 415 Jefferson Street, asked how much square footage is in this area. McCafferty said that would come into play at the City Council stage. She said that at that point, she would map out all the protests and determine the square footage based on maps from the County to see if the threshold has been met for the supermajority. McCafferty said anyone wanting an update could call the City Clerk or her office. She said the information regarding the protest for rezoning in to specific to just this type of rezoning, but applies to all rezonings. Maharry said he is confident that the City has notified people, because this problem has arisen in the past, and the Commission has wanted to make absolutely certain that everyone was notified. He said the Commission could certainly delay a vote on this pending review of the affidavits showing everyone was notified. Maharry said that due process is very important. He said that part of due process is adequate notification. Maharry said he thought it would be of benefit to look into this to see that everyone was notified. Weitzel said that if there are objections, the Commission will want to hear why the house doesn't comply with the historic district. He said the Commission has heard specific complaints about the restrictions, but for a standard, single-family house or a mixed use home with an office or apartment, he did not see what the Commission would be doing that would be changed by just a simple, negative response. Weitzel said that strict use questions are under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. McCallum said he would support a continued hearing. MOTION: Gunn moved to table discussion of the Jefferson Street Historic District to the Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting. Gunn said he did not believe this would not eventually pass, although he said the Commission may make some changes to the district or the guidelines. Gunn said deferral would give people another chance for input. He said that sometimes districts take six to eight months to iron out. He said he thought something would go through here but thought it would take another meeting or two before the vast majority of people within the district are comfortable with it. Gunn said that comfort level takes time and an educational process. McCallum seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 6 Ponto agreed that it is reasonable to hold another meeting at this issue. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Gunn moved to amend his motion to call another public hearing if a public hearing is required to take action. McCallum seconded the amendment. The motion, as amended. carried on a vote of 6-0. Smothers said she would like to move forward at the next meeting and receive positive input about what people want to have happen in their neighborhoods, rather than focusing on the issue of notification. Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District. Public hearing. Julie McNallev. 317 Fairchild, said she supports this proposal. She said that she and her husband think it is a great idea. McNalley said she has lived in the neighborhood for four years and is really excited about this possibility. She said she thinks this would help maintain the neighborhood as a wonderful place to live close to downtown. Claire Sponsler, 413 North Gilbert Street, said that she strongly supports the district and thinks it is a wonderful opportunity for preserving a unique part of the North Side and for making sure the neighborhood stays a viable place. Sponsler said the area has an eclectic mix of people where renters, homeowners, and businesses can thrive. She said there are a number of businesses and property owners already within the North Side that inhabit historically significantly buildings. She said those buildings are being kept up, and those businesses appear to be thriving in these historic buildings. Sponsler said she did not see any conflict between commercial use and historic preservation. She said the historic preservation possibility would be an asset for everyone who is part of the proposed district. Sue Futrell. 311 Fairchild Street, said her property is a key property in the proposed district. She thanked the Commission for moving ahead with this, and she spoke in support of the designation. Futrell said she and her husband have lived in Iowa City for over 30 years, mostly in the older neighborhoods. She said she owns her house in this neighborhood and also owns a single-family rental property in the Longfellow Neighborhood, and she is therefore familiar with the historic designation from both an income- generating standpoint and as a resident. Futrell said she has done maintenance and improvements to both properties and feels it is important to do so in a way that is consistent with the historic style of the neighborhood. Futrell said part of what makes Iowa City a unique and attractive place to live are the unique and unusual older historic neighborhoods in town. She stated that will be increasingly important to Iowa City economically as it tries to attract and keep people in the City. Futrell said there are lots of sections of town that have been expanded and are being built up, and there is a considerable proportion of the City now that has been built in the last 40 or 50 years. She said there are only a few relatively small parts of town that have the possibility of being preserved as historic areas. Futrell said that makes this even more important. Dwiqht Dobberstein, 326 N. Linn, said that he owns a couple of houses other than the one he lives on in the 300 block of Linn Street. He said that he has lived there for over 30 years. Dobberstein said that he is an architect and has worked on quite a few projects that have received recognition for historic preservation. Dobberstein said he is familiar with historic preservation and applauds its use for individual buildings. He said, however, that he finds the whole idea flawed for a neighborhood. Dobberstein said he did not see how one could preserve a neighborhood, because there would be the issue of picking a historic period for preservation. He stated that the neighborhood has been evolving since he has been there. Dobberstein said the neighborhood has changed from single-family to student rentals. He said the neighborhood changed a lot in the 1970s. Dobberstein said that he has made a number of changes to all three of his buildings, and he believed that many of those changes would not have met the guidelines. Maharry said there are many things in the guidelines that the Commission recommends but absolutely does not require. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 7 Dobberstein said the changes he has made to his houses have been solely to make them more livable, particularly the addition of bathrooms and upgrading of kitchens. Weitzel said the Commission does not oversee where bathrooms are or where kitchens are. Dobberstein agreed but said an addition also changes the outside appearance of a building. Weitzel said the Commission usually looks for a compatible way to add on to a building. McCafferty said that there are a number of terms defined under the Secretary of the Interior Standards including preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. She stated that what the Commission deals with in terms of its regulations is rehabilitation. McCafferty said that rehabilitation is defined as, "the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions, while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural value." She said that is very different from preservation, which tries to preserve something as is or restoration which preserves something at a specific point in time. McCafferty said the guidelines are intended to allow changes while identifying the features that are significant to the property and preserving those features. She said there is latitude, however, to allow changes of use. Dobberstein said he is concerned that his next changes will not be approved. He said he would prefer to have his own say when it comes to his property, and that is why he objects to this rezoning. Dobberstein said he favors historic designs on many buildings that should be preserved. He said he did not think this is appropriate for the neighborhood. Dobberstein said he thought it would kill the vitality and creativity of the neighborhood. He said that architecture is an art and should be an expression of what one is thinking and feeling and of the times. Dobberstein asked who is to say that the changes made today will not be historic 50 years from now. He said the neighborhood is evolving, and he would not know what time or period to keep. Smothers said that she would not pick a time period to keep for any property in Iowa City. She said the Commission does believe in the evolution of buildings. Smothers said the guidelines are not to control or stifle creativity. She said it would be good to witness what the Commission goes through when people come for suggestions. Smothers said it is not as controlling as some believe. Dobberstein applauded the members of the Commission for their efforts and time in serving on the Commission. He said that a lot of the guidelines are excellent, and he has followed most of them. Dobberstein said, however, that he did not feel his changes would have been approved. McCafferty said the Commission would be interested in looking at Dobberstein's projects. Weitzel said the Commission works for compromise and solutions that are win-win for everyone. Sara Buss-Paulsen, 416 North Linn Street, said that she and her husband very much support this proposal. She stated that this neighborhood is very important to the vitality of the City, and part of what makes it so valuable is the way it looks. Buss-Paulsen said that everyone wants to have control over decision-making in connection with their properties, but even if this does not go through, there are all kinds of restrictions on what one can do with his property. She said that the issue is which restrictions people want, as a community, to support. Buss-Paulsen said that to answer that question, we have to ask what are our goals as a community. Buss-Paulsen said she is speaking not just as an owner of 416 North Linn Street but as a citizen of this town. She said she would like the town to thrive and continue to be a beautiful place to live. Buss-Paulsen said that if we as citizens don't think about how to make certain that is true, things can get away from us. She said that most of what happens in any organized collection of human beings happens because of a lot of decisions that people make about how they are going to live together and organize themselves; it is not just a fact of nature. Buss-Paulsen said this proposal is a very good one, and from what she has heard, it should not restrict creativity or represent significant limitations that are incompatible with aims that we should all have as citizens who love our city. Phil Launspach asked if there is an appeal process if Dobberstein had wanted to do something the Commission felt was inappropriate and it was denied. McCafferty said the appeals process determines whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary or capricious. Launspach said his family is originally from Dubuque, and he asked if there are historic districts in Dubuque and if this is fairly common throughout Iowa. McCafferty said she could look up and provide more statistics regarding this. She said there are historic districts in Dubuque that are local districts and are regulated. She added that regulated historic districts are not a new phenomena. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 8 Clarence Haverkamp. 619 North Linn Street, said his property is designated as a key property. He said that he has lived in the neighborhood for approximately 18 years. Haverkamp said that during that time, he has seen a shift from landlord/rental type properties to owner-occupied properties. He said he has seen a lot of houses undergoing changes to bring them back to what they perhaps were at one time or to something close to what they were. Haverkamp said he would like to see this become a historic district because, as a single-family property owner, he would like to have some kind of guarantee that the property he is fixing up is going to maintain its value, rather than having the house next to his come up for sale and go back to being a rental property. He said that is very important for this type of neighborhood. Haverkamp said that some rental properties are very good, but some are not. He said that when a property is sold for a rental property, one cannot be certain which way it will go. Haverkamp said he would like to see the Commission vote yes for this because of a guarantee to single-family properties. Walter Kopsa, 330 Ashwood, said he was at the Commission's meeting a couple of weeks ago at which there was significant opposition to a National Register designation. He said he was surprised to find out that before the National Register designation is approved, the Commission is going ahead with the local designation. Kopsa asked if this were standard operating procedure. McCafferty responded that the purpose of the National Register nomination is to determine historic significance. She said that what the Commission has done in the past, as well as in this case, is to take the National Register nomination to the point where the Commission knows it meets the criteria of State and City codes for historic significance. McCafferty said this district has not been officially listed yet, but there is substantial research and documentation that the criteria are met. Kopsa asked if that had been resubmitted to the State because the boundaries have been changed. McCafferty said the proposal was resubmitted to exclude the commercially zoned properties. Kopsa asked if the affected property owners would be re-notified for a chance to send in an objection. McCafferty stated that the National Register nomination for the revised district will be reviewed February 11, and property owners will receive notification of the February 11 th review from the State. Kopsa said he has owned properties in this district since 1982. He said he owns two properties here, and they are both rental properties. Kopsa said he has always maintained his properties and feels they are nice- looking properties, but he has no interest whatsoever in becoming part of a historic preservation district. He said that he does not feel he needs to come before a commission every time he wants to make changes to his property. Kopsa said the City's present regulations are quite enough. He added that, with regard to Clarence Haverkamp's comments, the historic designation has nothing to do with use. Kopsa said the Commission does not really know how many people are for or against this. He said that for something this drastic, it seems there should have to be some kind of census from everyone owning property in the district to find out how they feel about it. Maharry stated that this is a participatory democracy. Everyone is notified of the issue and has the opportunity to participate. It is the responsibility of the community to attend and make their views known. McCafferty said that property owners will be notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. She added that notice will not be sent regarding City Council consideration, but the agenda is published in the newspaper and on the City website.. Jeff Dill. 720 Rosebud Court. Coralville, said he has lived in this area for 15 years, first as a student. He said he recalls thinking what a wonderful and nicely maintained area this was, including the rental properties. Dill said that he now owns a rental property in this area and feels like he takes good care of it. He said he opposes this, because he doesn't feel he should have to go through red tape and have someone tell him what he can or cannot do with his property. Jill Gauldinq, 225 East Davenport, said she is in favor of the district, in part because in the end, it honestly will be the best solution to meet most people's needs most effectively. Gaulding said this neighborhood is a treasure to the community on a number of levels. She said that it is especially beneficial to downtown. Gaulding stated that residents struggle with the character of downtown and would like it to not just be bars but also have stores to shop in. She said that she and her neighbors shop Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 9 downtown, and there is fairly good evidence that it will be hard to maintain downtown unless pedestrians keep flowing through there. Gaulding said that another way in which having this neighborhood preserved benefits the entire community is that having a district is recognized nationwide as a signal of quality, and quality in terms of a community that works together around pleasantness of life issues. She stated that Iowa City is often on lists of best places to live. Gaulding said that one of the factors used to decide whether a town is a good place to live is how many historic districts it has. Gaulding said that she appreciates a neighborhood that looks nice and is well cared for. She said that for her, the most important thing about the historic designation and the zoning that goes with it is an indication that this is a neighborhood that is committed to working together to make this a pleasant place to live. Gaulding said that if only students live there, there won't be the same kind of character. She said that a certain balance is needed. Gaulding said that to get families to live there, there needs to be some sort of signal and a sense of comfort. She said having this historic designation is a signal to people. Gaulding said she appreciates people's concerns about being told what to do. She said that owners are told what to do a little bit anyway, and this is just a tiny layer above that saying that there will have to be some discussion before someone can put a deck on his house. Gaulding said she appreciated the Commission considering this as a district and said that she thought some of the concerns that people have could be worked out. Public hearing closed. Ponto asked people in attendance if they received notification and if that was an issue for this district. Kopsa said that he believes that when people received the second letter, they didn't read it carefully and thought it was something else to do with the National Register nomination. He said that many people apparently were not aware that the Commission was moving ahead with local designation. Kopsa asked if this would go through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council before that National Register designation. McCafferty said that with the way the timing is at this point, it is likely that it will be coincidental with that designation. Gunn said that the Longfellow local historic district was in place before the National Register district. He said there has been some opposition to every district the Commission has passed since he has been a member. Gunn said that he believes that what the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council look at is the public good that comes out of it and the number of people who will benefit as opposed to the few people who are opposed. Gunn said that sometimes there are more than just a few people opposed. He said that once people understand what the Commission does, however, they become more comfortable with the process. Gunn said the Commission does not require all sorts of expensive, ridiculous things. He said there are now approximately 1100 properties under design review, and the process goes on rather smoothly considering how many properties are involved. Gunn said he thinks the value of this will in time convince most people. Maharry said the Commission had also received a packet of letters and for this particular district. Kopsa said that the Commission had received well over 20 letters in opposition to the National Register designation. He said the people who wrote those letters would obviously also oppose a local designation if they opposed the National Register designation, as the National Register designation is much less restrictive. McCafferty said that the letters are all available in her office for anyone who wants to look at them. Maharry said the Cornmission is reviewing whether this is an appropriate proposal for Iowa City. He said that whether this is historic or not was considered in the vote for the National Register District and whether the Commission agreed with the findings of Marlys Svendsen. Maharry stated that this is consideration of whether, after receiving input from the public, this is an appropriate proposal to recommend. McCallum said, regarding the National Register District, the Commission did listen to the public and did make modifications, and that is reflected in the boundary map for the local district. He added that he is an investment property owner of a multi-family building in a historic district. McCallum said this is the second property he has owned in a historic district. He said he has no vacancies and has benefited from this; it has been a good thing for him. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2004 Page 10 McCallum said that people are looking for this type of housing and sense of place. He said that he does not always buy into the economic argument that this will hurt investment property owner per se. McCallum said that he is a realtor, and he is seeing higher property values for conversion to single-family homes right now. He said that in this neighborhood, this is a segmented market, and there are higher property values on small, single-family homes than on some of the investment properties. McCallum said he thinks that with the district, the highest and best use may again become single-family homes in these neighborhoods. He said that the demand is there, and he did not think a district would hurt either investment or single-family property owners in this area. MOTION: Gunn moved to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District, with boundaries as shown on the existing map, be rezoned to historic preservation overlay for the purpose of designating a local historic district. Weitzel seconded the motion. Maharry said there are a lot of arguments on all sides of the issue. He said there appears to be support by residents of the neighborhood for this, and there are also persuasive arguments as far as economic and neighborhood-defining characteristics that make this a good idea. Maharry said he supported this. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. McCafferty urged anyone with additional questions or anyone seeking additional information to contact her. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 26. 2004 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2004 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as written. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 14-5E-19 Responsibilities of Owners Relatinq to the Maintenance and Occupancv of Premises (Demolition bv Neqlect): McCafferty said the information is already in the code under the Housing Code. She said that this ordinance change would emphasize this portion of the code and apply it to commercial use, if applicable. McCafferty said that it currently only applies to residential uses. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Pcdlminuteslhpc/2004/9-9-04hpc.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2004 Tenn Name Expires 1/08 2/12 2/26 3/11 4/08 4/22 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/14 7/8 7/22 8/10 8/26 9/2 9/9 10/14 11/11 12/09 A. Smothers 3/29/05 NM X OlE X X X X OlE X X X X X X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 NM OlE X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M. Gunn 3/29/07 NM OlE OlE X OlE OlE X X X X 0 X X X X X M. Maharry 3/29/05 NM X X X 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 X X X J. Ponto 3/29/07 NM X X X X X X X OlE X X X X X X X P. Sueppel 3/29/06 NM OlE OlE X X X X X X 0 X 0 -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 -- -- -- -- -~ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- 0 T. Weitzel 3/29/05 NM X X X X OlE X OlE X X X X X X X X J. Zimmer 3/29/07 -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- OlE OlE OlE X OlE X 0 0 X X 0 0 Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM ~ No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member