HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-28 Info Packet CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOW2, CITY October 28, 2004
www.icgov.org
IP1 City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas
IP2 Memorandum from the City Manager: Cedar Rapids Proposal for Rail Excursion Service
Memorandum from Assistant PCD Director: Cedar-Iowa River Rail Corridor Excursion
Service Proposal [Distributed at 11/1 Work Session]
IP3 Memorandum from the Community & Economic Development Coordinator and the Associate
Planner: Request to Amend FY05 HOME Allocation to Blooming Garden IHA L.P.
IP4 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Proposed 2005 Meeting Schedule and Budget Work
Sessions
IP5 Letter from the Mayor to Leah Cohen and Brian Flynn: Alcohol Advisory Board Proposal
Memorandum from Neighborhood Services Coordinator: Neighborhood Council letter to the
Scattered Site Housing Task Force [Distributed at 11/1 Work Session]
Human services information: Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP) and
American Red Cross [Distributed at 11/1 Work Session]
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
IP6 Memorandum from the Assistant City Manager: Update on Cable Franchise Renewal
IP7 Memorandum from the City Attorney to the State Historical Society of Iowa: National
Register Nomination for Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District
IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development: Historic
Preservation: History and Authority
IP9 E-mail from Parks and Forestry Superintendent to the City Manager: Manville Heights Oak
Wilt Meeting
IP10 Memorandum from the Director of Parking & Transit and the Parking Manager to the City
Manager: Credit Card Usage - Parking Facilities
IPll Memorandum from Project Coordinator- Public Works to the City Manager: Agenda Items
IP12 Memorandum from Administrative Assistant to the City Manager: Deer Task Force
IP13 Agenda Packet for: October 21 PATV Board of Directors Meeting
October 28, 2004 Information Packet /continued/ 2
I PRELIMINARY DRAFT/MINUTES
IP14 Economic Development Committee: October 12, 2004
IP15 Charter Review Commission: October 20, 2004
IP16 Police Citizens Review Board: October 19, 2004
IP17 Public Art Advisory Committee: October 7, 2004
IP18 Public Library Board of Trustees: September 23, 2004
IP19 Historic Preservation Commission: October 14, 2004
IP20 Planning and Zoning Commission: October 7, 2004
IP21 Charter Review Commission: October 26, 2004
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
"~ ~'- --" October 28, 2004
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
IP1 City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas )
IP2 Memorandum from the City Manager: Cedar Rapids Pr for Rail Excursion Service
IP3 Memorandum f~mthe Community & Economic ~ment Coordinator and the Associate
Planner: Request~-~Amend FY0$ HOME AIIocatiol Blooming Garden IHA L.P.
IP4 Memorandum from thb, Clerk: Proposed Meeting Schedule and Budget Work
Sessions
IP$ Letter from the Mayc :ohen and Briar ,nn: Alcohol Advisory Board Proposal
ITEMS
IP6 Memorandum from the Assistant City M er: Update on Cable Franchise Renewal
IP7 Memorandum from the City State Historical Society of Iowa: National
Register Nomination for Gilbert-Li~ District
IP8 Memorandum from the of Planning a~d Community Development: Historic
Preservation: History and
y
IP9 E-mail from Parks and Forestr guperintendent to the Ci~x, Manager: Manville Heights Oak
Wilt Meeting \
IP10 Memorandum from the Dir of Parking & Transit and the Parking Manager to the City
Manager: Credit Card Us~ - Parking Facilities
IPll Memorandum from Project Coordinator- Public Works to the City Manager: Agenda Items
IP12 Memorandum from Administrative Assistant to the City Manager: Deer Task Force
IP13 Agenda Packet for: October 21 PATV Board of Directors Meeting
October 28, 2004 Information Packet /continued/ 2
PRELIMINARY ITES
IP14 Economic )ment Committee: 12, 2004
IP15 Charter Review ission: October 2004
IP16 Police Citizens Review 19, 2004
IP17 Public Art Advisory Cc )ctober 7, 2004
IP18 Public Library Boar¢ 23, 2004
IP19 Historic Preservation Corn ~er 14, 2004
IP20 Planning and Zoning Cc ;ion: OctoberT~004
IP21 Charter Review October 26
~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
c,T~ oF ~OWA C~T~Work Session Agendas October 28, 2004
www.icgov.org
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Council Work Session
· Human Services - Red Cross and Mayors Youth Employment Program
· Planning and Zoning Items
· Agenda Items
· Council Appointments
· Cedar Rapids Request - Excursion Rail Proposal
· Allocation - HOME Funds-Whispering Gardens and Blooming Gardens
· Alcohol Issues
· Council Time
· Council Schedule
· Identification of Priorities for Discussion
· Special Formal Council Meeting
Executive Session - Collective Bargaining
· TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2 Emma Jo Harvat Hall
7:00p Formal Council Meeting
TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I
· THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall
Veterans' Day Holiday- City Offices Closed
· MONDAY NOVEMBER 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00P Formal Council Meeting
· MONDAY DECEMBER 6 Emma J. Ha/vatHall
6:30p Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00P Formal Council Meeting
· MONDAY DECEMBER 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Council Work Session Cancelled
· TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Formal Council Meeting Cancelled
Meeting dates/times/topics subject to change
FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS
Regulation of Downtown Dumpsters
Date: October 27, 2004
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Cedar Rapids proposal for rail excursion service
The City of Cedar Rapids has presented a proposal for a consultant feasibility study of
excursion passenger rail service to be operated between Cedar Rapids, the Amana colonies,
and the Coralvilie/Iowa City area. Attached are materials from JCCOG describing the proposal
in more detail. At the November 10 JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board meeting a proposal
will be discussed which entails Iowa City contributing $10,000 to the total of $36,000 that has
been requested of entities in Johnson County.
The Iowa City representatives to JCCOG are to convey the decision of the City Council to the
rest of the JCCOG Board at the November 10 JCCOG meeting. I have scheduled this for
discussion at your November 1 work session. Jeff Davidson of JCCOG will be present for the
discussion and to answer any questions.
Indexbc\mernos\3-1 CM.doc ~/~~ .,
September 15, 2004
Ron J. Corbett
President & CEO
Cedar Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce
424 Ist Ave. NE
Cedar Rapids,Mike Dexter Iowa 52401
Cedar Rapids Area Convention & Visitor's Bureau
119 1st Ave. SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Kristie Wetjen
Executive Director
Amana Colonies Convention & Visitor's Bureau
39 38th Ave. Suite 400
Amana, Iowa 52203
Joshua Schamberger j~/~-
President
Iowa City/Coralville Convention & Visitor's Buraeu
408 1st Ave.
Coralville, Iowa 52241
Good Day:
It was my pleasure meeting with you the other day concerning the Cedar-Iowa River Rail
project. You all had many good questions and I hope that Doug Wagner and I answered
them as well as possible.
Below I have put together a preliminary scope of work for a passenger rail study. I was
able to get information from existing studies and studies that could possibly come out in
the future. Here is the scope of service:
Cedar Iowa River Rail Proiect Feasibility Analysis/Alternative Definition:
Task 1:
Administrative Offices Parking Violations/Maintenance Monthly Parking
Transit Maintenance Facility 4th Avenue Parkade 3rd Avenue Parkade
427 8th Street N W 349 4th Avenue SE 333 3rd Avenue SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
319-286-5567 319-286 5549 319-286-5566
FAX 319-286-5509 FAX 319-286-5513 FAX 319-286-5504
Refine Alternatives: In this task we will look at all the various alternatives to see which
alternative(s) best fits the make-up of the service area. Essentially we are attempting to
find the alternative(s) that would best guarantee success of the project both short and long
term in regards to routing and scheduling times.
Task 2:
Identify Funding Sources: In this task we will, from a preliminary standpoint, identify all
funding sources both public and private that could be used to finance the acquisition of the
equipment, infrastructure upgrades and ongoing operating revenues that would guarantee
the success of the project both short and long term.
Finally, under this task, we will identify private, local, state, and federal regulations
governing this project and put a plan together to address the regulations to guarantee
success of the project.
Task 3:
Market Identification: In this task we will find out who our potential users of the service
will be, who our potential sponsors are, and who our "biggest fans" are. Then we will
determine strategies for capturing these groups including a potential marketing strategy
along with funding to accomplish this.
Task 4:
Infrastructure Improvements & Costs: In this task we will, along with the Crandic and
Iowa Interstate Railroads, identify the infrastructure improvements, track improvements,
signal improvements, site improvements, where to store, maintain, service and operate the
project from, and where the depots should be. We have proposed a depot in Cedar Rapids
and Coralville. We also want to upgrade the depot in Amana.
Task 5:
Operations Plan/Cost to Operate/Revenue Streams/Subsidies Needed to Operate: In this
task we will put together a preliminary operations plan with operations costs, revenue
streams both public and private including subsidies.
Task 6:
Equipment Requirement: In this task we will determine the kind of equipment needed to
guarantee the success for both short and long term. With the assistance of the two
railroads, we will be helped in getting the most reliable and easiest to maintain equipment
available.
Task 7:
Downtown Access for Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Iowa City and the University of Iowa:
Because the tracks we want to run the passenger rail on are tracks currently used by two
freight railroad companies, we have to determine how to operate the service without
causing problems for the orderly day-to-day operation of these h-eight railroads.
Task 8:
Environmental Justice/Community Outreach: Because this project will likely have federal
funding we will have to spend a great deal of time on environmental justice and
community outreach. The Transportation Equity Act of the Twenty First Century (TEA21)
came out with some very stringent guidelines to follow. See Attachment I at the end of this
correspondence for the guidelines.
Task 9:
RR Access and Operations Agreements: In this task we will get operating authority
agreements with the railroads.
[ do hope that this con-espondence has given you the information requested. Selecting a
railroad consultant to do a study is in itself a difficult task. The key is to get the right firm
on board, one that both railroad companies are comfortable with.
If you have questions or comments, let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.
Kindest personal regards and best wishes for a great remaining 2004.
Sincerely,
William Hoekstra
Transportation & Parking Director
XC: Mayor Pate
Doug Wagner
Guidance for Preparing an Environmental Analysis for
Probable Categorical Exclusions
DATE
Grant NO.
Grantee
Instructions:
Provide a detailed analysis for each of the following areas, which present
may a potential environmental impact. One sentence, stating that there is no
significant impact to the area under consideration, is not acceptable. Provide the
basis for this determination and properly justify your decision. Consult planners,
engineers, ecologists, FEMA, SItPOs, zoning officials, DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Corps of Engineers as necessary to gain supportive information, and
properly document each individual area. The rationale used in making the
determination shah be clearly described.
The Environmental Analysis shall be presented in four sections:
Section 1: State the need for and provide a description of the
proposed action.
Section 2: Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
Section 3: Environmental Impacts.
Section 4: List of Agencies and Persons Consulted
SECTION l:
Provide a concise history and description of the proposed action. The need for and purpose of the
project should be briefly stated. The project description should include a map showing land use,
zoning, and building on the proposed site and in its immediate vlcinRy. All elements of the project
should be detailed and elements that will mitigate or enhance the project's effect should be described.
SECTION 2:
Alternatives to the Proposed Action should be developed and studicd. Reasonable alternatives and
their environmental impacts should be briefly discussed. Alternatives that should be discussed
include alternative locations and designs, alternatives with different characteristics but that may
achieve similar benefits and are preferable from an environmental standpoint, and the do-nothing
alternative.
SECTION 3:
Include the potential impacts of the proposed project, covering all elements of the Environmental
Impact Information Required for Probable CE's listed below.
Page 2
SECTION 4:
Provide a ilst of the governmental agencies and the individual consulted during the assessment
process. Any public information techniques employed should be described in this section. Provide'
coacurrence letters from the Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers, State Historical
Preservation Office and any other office az applicable to the project.
ENV[RO~NTAL IMPACT INFORMATION
REQUIRED FOR PROBABLE CE'S(SECTION 771.117(d)
A. LAND ACQUISTIONS & RELOCATIONS REQUIRED: Describe land
acquisitions and displacement~ of businesses and dwelling units. Describe the
impact on businesses and residences and the relocations required for the project.
Attach a site map or diagram, which identifies the land uses and resources on the
,site and the adjacent or nearby land uses and resource~ This is used to determine
the probability of impact on sensitive receptors (such as schools, hospitals,
residences) and on protected resources.
B. LAND USE AND ZONING: Description of zouing, ff applicable. Attach a map or
diagram, which identifies the Iocatieq of the site and the surrounding land use.
Provide evidence that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and
zoning issues. This is to identify any sensitive noise receptors such as school,
hospital, or residence~ Consistency with proposed site.
C. NOISE/WATER/AIR QUALITY: Describe ff the project will involve
significant noise, water, or air quality impacts and describe the cffeets of each of
these. Provide a basis for ~hia determination and address any increase in noise or
water or air quality issues.
D. IMPACTS ON WETLANDS: Describe the project's impact on nearby wc~lland$
and associated wildlife resulting from both construction and operations of the
project and measures to minimize adverse impacts and to avoid any disturbance of
wetlands and the water resources supplying them. Provide information on location,
type, and extcnt of wctlands that might be affected by thc proposed action. Consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, or the State W~ddldc or
Natural Rcsourees agency as appropriat~ A detailed analysis is required if thc
proposed project is located in or near a wetland.
Page 3
E. FLOODING IMPACTS: Address possible flooding of the proposed project site and
flooding induced by the proposed project site. A detailed analysis is not required if
the proposed project is not located within a floodplain and does not involve changes
in the existing pattern of water runoff. A dctcrmination should be made ff the
project is located within the 100-year flood plain. - If in the 100-year floodplain,
address possible flooding of the proposed project site and flooding induced by
proposed project duc to its taking of floodplain capacity.
__F. IMPACTS ON NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS & COASTAL ZONES: If any of
these are implicated, provide detailed analysis. Provide detailed analysis ff the
project affects navigation or is located within or affecting a navigable waterway.
G. IMPACTS ON ECOLOGICALLY-SENSITIVE AREAS: Describe woodlands,
prairies, marshcx, bogs, lake~ streams, scenic areas, landforms, and geological
formations, and pristine natural areas, which may be affected by thc project.
Consult the local department of natural resources ta determine whether such an
area exists on or near the proposed project site. If present, state the results of
consultation with the state dep:u tment of natural resources on the impacts to these
natural areas and on threatened and endangered fauna and flora that may be
affected.
H. IMPACTS ON ENDANGERED SPECIES: Review the list of threatened and
endangered fauna and flora published by the U.S. Department of Interior and
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, or other appropriate agencies.
L TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS: Describe potential traffic impacts;
including, whether the existing roadways have adequate capacity to handle
increased bus and Other vehicular traffic. Changes to traffic patterns, traffic
volumes, and supply of parking should be cvaluatcd for possiblc negative impacts.
The traffic analysis should evaluate impacts on adjacent streets and thc impact on
Page 4
the total street system. [f parking is being eliminated, an analysis should be
conducted to determine the impacts of such an action.
J. IMPACTS ON ENERGY: Evaluate the impacts to energy consumption and the
possible opportunities to conserve energy.
HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND PARKLANDS: Evaluate the impacts to historic
properties and parklands- Coordinate with the :State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHI'O) and describe any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource
that might be located in the vicinity of the proposed project and if the project will
have a significant impact on the resources. No further action is required if the
SHI?O determines that the project will not affect any sites presently included in the
National Register. However, if the project does have an impact, a detailed analysis
will be required to support the project and FTA, in coordination with the SIfPO,
will make a determination if the project poses a significant risk.
L. IMPACTS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION: Identify the construction plan and
describe impacts due to noise' utility disruption, debris and spoil disposal, air and
water quality, safety and security, access and distribution of traffic, erosion, and
dust control Erosion of soil resulting from construction must be addressed and
measures identified to eliminate or reduce the off-site transport of sediment.
M. VISUAL IMPACTS: Evaluate the visual impacts of the project on the surrounding
community. Identify line of sight impacts, aesthetics, view obstructions, pedestrian
movements, and historical impacts.
N. COMMUNITY DISRUPTION: Identify those areas of the community that have
been disrupted or displaced or those segments of community that have been
isolated. Identify any opposition to thc project.
O. IMPACTS ON SAFETY AND SECIJRITY: Describe the measures that would be
taken to provide for the safe and secure operation of the project after its
construction.
Page 5
p. IMPACTS ON SECONDARY DEVELOPMENT: Describe the secondary
development that may result because of the projecL
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS: The comprehensive plan and other
specific land use plans for the local area should be briefly described as they pertain
to the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Describe the impacts to the local community and
the effects of the PropOSed project.
S. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The public notice should briefly describe the projeCt,
describe the location, and include the opportunity for a public hearing (grant
application stage). Attach a copy of the notice, if available-
Description Location Opportunity for Public HearlnK
TIlE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MUST BE COMPLETED FOR PROJECTS MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR A CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CE) IN ACCORDANCE WITH 23
CFR PART 771.117.
The actions identified in the grant application dated , with the slated
exceptions below, meet the criteria for Categorical Exclusion (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR Part
771.117
Environmental Reviewer Date
Exceptions:
Date: October 13, 2004
To: JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board
From: Jeff Davidson '~/'
Re: Cedar-iowa River Rail Corridor Excursion Service Proposal
On October 12 a group of us met with representatives from the City of Cedar Rapids who
presented a proposal for a consultant study of excursion passenger rail service to be operated
between Cedar Rapids, the Amana Colonies, and the Coralville/Iowa City area. Attached are
materials describing the proposal in more detail. Last spring this proposal was presented to our
congressional delegation in Washington and it received initial positive feedback.
The next step is a more detailed feasibility study for which Cedar Rapids has obtained a
$150,000 proposal from a consultant. The feasibility study would answer many questions about
demand for such an operation, and whether or not it is financially feasible. We discussed with
the Cedar Rapids' representatives the issue of excursion service vs. commuter rail service. The
focus at this time is on special event excursion service that could eventually be expanded to
commuter service. The service would use existing railroad tracks, which would be upgraded.
Cedar Rapids is offering to pay $76,000 for the study and they believe they can get $40,000 in
additional commitments from Linn County and Iowa County. This leaves an amount of $36,000
that they would like to have funded by entities in Johnson County.
At our October 12 meeting with Cedar Rapids officials, representatives were present from
JCCOG, the Iowa City-Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, the City of Coralville, the City
of iowa City, the City of North Liberty, the University of Iowa, and the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors. We agreed that this would be an appropriate matter for JCCOG to consider at the
November 10 Urbanized Area Policy Board meeting. I was instructed to distribute materials prior
to the meeting so that decision making by the individual JCCOG entities can be considered prior
to the November 10 meeting. We would like you to come to the November 10 meeting with
some indication of your willingness to fund the feasibility study.
There are many possibilities for splitting up the $36,000. You will recall on the Silurian Aquifer
study we used a population-based formula. It is my opinion that we might want to consider a
more "benefits-oriented" formula for this study. The Coralville City Administrator suggested that
Coralville and Iowa City would stand to have the greatest benefit, and thought perhaps $10,000
could be funded by each of those entities. The remaining funding might be split up as follows:
Cedar-Iowa River Rail Corridor Excursion Service Proposal
October 13, 2004
Page 2
Coralville $10,000
Iowa City 10,000
University of Iowa 7,000
Johnson County 5,000
North Liberty 3,000
Tiffin 500
University Heights 500
Total $36,000
This is only a proposal for consideration, and there are certainly other funding formulas that
could be considered. Bring your ideas to the November 10 meeting, as well as your overall
thoughts about the proposal. The City of Cedar Rapids would like an answer as soon as
possible following our November 10 meeting.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Attachments
jccogtp/mem/cedar-iowa rail.doc
Cedar-Iowa RiverRail Corridor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE-City of Cedar Rapids
Doug Wagner, Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office
Mian Mehmood Ui Haq-Intern, Mayor's Office (Coe College, Cedar Rapids, IA)
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - DRAFT
Cedar4owa RiverRail Corridor-Draft- 1 -
"(The community) should consider examining rail passenger and interurban bus service
options on a regular basis as a part of their long range planning process. It is
recommended that the corridor be examined after the next census in the year 2000."
Wilbur Smith Associates presented this as its final recommendation from a 1995
feasibility study regarding a passenger/leisure light rail option in the corridor.
The Smith study identified the markets to include in the study should be Cedar Rapids,
the Amana Colonies and the Iowa City/Coralville and North Liberty portions of the
corridor. We have arrived at the place in time where a classic rail project should be
considered for the future of our communities and the future of the corridor.
Past
The proposed Cedar-Iowa RiverRail Corridor project is a classic passenger rail and will
be a stepping-stone in reestablishing the interurban line between Cedar Rapids and Iowa
City. The CRANDIC (Cedar Rapids and Iowa City) Railroad mn a popular line from
Cedar Rapids to Iowa City from 1903 to 1953. Since the study in 1995 the Cedar Rapids-
Iowa City corridor has seen tremendous growth.
Present
Cedar Rapids, Iowa City and the Amana Colonies are already connected by a larger
regional railroad system, which is used for the transportation of goods. In 1995 the East
Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) coordinated the aforementioned study
about the feasibility ora passenger train system between the three cities. This study
indicated that after the year 2000 this plan should be reconsidered. The following
developments have led our community to return to the idea of a classic rail along the lines
of the recommendations of the Smith study:
a) The planned Cedar Bend project; a major recreational, cultural and commercial
development project in the southern portion of Cedar Rapids.
b) The planned intermodal facility in downtown Cedar Rapids.
c) The planned $99 million Federal Courthouse in downtown Cedar Rapids.
d) The planned Iowa Environmental Project, regional hotel and convention center in
Coralville.
e) Amana Colonies, Iowa's largest tourism attraction.
f') University of Iowa Hawkeye athletic and artistic events. .~.
Additionally, in the past 15 years there has been a significant growth rate in the corridor
of greater than 12%.
Cedar-Iowa RiverRail C~rridor-Draft- 2 -
Future
The Cedar-Iowa RiverRail Corridor project would allow unique access to all the major
attractions in the three communities. This quality of life amenity will be a major reason
why people and their families choose our community to visit and avail themselves to all
the, athletic, artistic, educational, and shopping opportunities, as well as the natural
beauty Iowa has to offer.
The economic growth in this part of the state will be a major factor in the state becoming
more tourist friendly. There will be a simple case of demand and supply as tourism
increases. The incoming tourists will increase the relative demand for goods and services,
leading to the creation of new jobs and services with good wages and benefits. The smart
development of land and related industries will serve as an extra bonus. The Cedar-Iowa
RiverRail Corridor project will encourage more investment in the community, increase
tourism and offer a greater quality of life for residents and visitors alike.
In terms of congestion mitigation, it will help mitigate congestion because the train will
not have to stop at any stoplights. Further, it will take people from single car trips and put
them into mass transit vehicles with a classic feel, which will mitigate congestion and
enhance their experience through freeing them up from paying attention to the road. The
environmental benefit is that the cars will be a hybrid diesel electric. Electricity is a clean
fuel. The diesel portion will nm on soy diesel and alcohol produced from soybeans and
corn harvested from Iowa farmland.
Proposal
The City of Cedar Rapids has applied for Federal Transit Administration funds to begin
this classic rail project. The total Cost of start up is $15,300,000 with 80% or
$12,240,000, coming from federal funds. The remaining 20% or $3,060,000 will come
from local and/or private funds from the investing bodies; The City of Cedar Rapids, The
City of Iowa City, The City of Coralville, the Amana Society, the Linn County Board of
Supervisors, the Iowa County Board of Supervisors and the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors.
Before the project begins, however, the consortium will undertake a study designed to
update the 1995 Smith study. The funding for this $150,000 study wilL. come from the
above entities plus other private and public bodies.
Cedar-Iowa RiverRail Corridor-Draft. 3 -
IP3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 28, 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinator~O~,~l//
Stephen Long, Associate Planner
RE: Request to Amend FY05 HOME Allocation to Blooming Garden IHA L.P.
Two separate legal entities, created by Burns & Burns L.C., were awarded City HOME
Investment Partnership Funds (HOME) to acquire land to be used for affordable rental
housing. Whispering Garden IHA Limited Partnership was awarded $144,303 in FY04
HOME funds and Blooming Garden IHA Limited Partnership was awarded $200,000 in FY05
HOME funds. Both projects anticipate using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for
the construction of the affordable rental housing. At the time of their applications to the
City of Iowa City and Council funding approval, neither limited partnership had identified
sites for either project.
These two limited partnership entities have now identified 11 lots to be acquired for the
construction of 16 units of affordable rental housing for families and persons with special
needs (each unit consisting of 3 or 4 bedrooms). The 1:[ proposed lots are all located in
the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. The Whispering Meadow Subdivision is located in
the Wood Elementary school attendance area.
For the FY05 CDBG\HOME allocation round, a guideline for the location of affordable
housing was included in the application materials approved by the Housing and Community
Development Commission (HCDC). Blooming Garden THA Limited Partnership received
FY05 HOME funds, therefore, the following language from the FY05 Applicant Guide for
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Programs applies:
To encourage the distribution of housing or residentia/ fac#it/es (e.g. permanent housing - rental
and homeownership, trans/tiona/ housing, home/ess she/ters, and speda/ needs housing), HCDC and
the City Counci/ wi// consider potent/a/impacts on e/ementary school districts. Attached is a//sting of
the/ow-moderate income rates of the ICCSD by bu#ding. Housing projects that propose a/ocation
or/ocations w/thin e/ementary school districts that are over the ICCSD average of 20%/ow-
moderate income students may be den/ed for funding or other support by HCDC or the City Counci/.
The Wood Elementary attendance area currently has a student demographic showing that
47% of the students are Iow-moderate income. This demographic is over the Iowa City
Community School District average of 20% Iow-moderate income students; therefore, a
request was made by the two limited partnerships to the HCDC for a review of the
proposed acquisition of the lots.
On October 21, 2004, HCDC voted 4-:[ (Hayek voting against) to recommend approval to
the City Council that the 11 vacant lots in the Whispering Meadows Subdivision Part Two be
October 28, 2004
Page 2
acquired by Whispering Garden IHA Limited Partnership and Blooming Garden IHA Limited
Partnership using FY04 and FY05 HOME funds. Staff has discussed this matter and is not
recommending the approval of the FY05 HOME funds for the acquisition of lots in the
Whispering Meadows Subdivision.
At the November ! work session, staff is requesting Council direction on whether or not to
proceed with a HOME Agreement for the FY05 HOME funds for Blooming Garden THA
Limited Partnership.
If the City Council decides to approve the Whispering Meadows lots for the FY05 HONE
Agreement (for Blooming Garden THA Limited Partnership), the two limited partnerships
have made a second request. To strengthen the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
application Burns & Burns, L.C. is requesting that the City Council approve Whispering
Garden IHA Limited Partnership as the legal entity designated to receive funds for the
acquisition of all 11 lots. Since Resolution No. 04-127 approves a "FY05 Action Plan" that
provides $200,000 to be allocated to Blooming Garden IHA Limited Partnership the City
Council will have to amend this resolution before the HOME funds can be given to
Whispering Garden IHA Limited Partnership regardless of the site of the lots. Staff is
recommending that this request to combine the FY04 and FY05 HOME funds be approved if
the City Council approves the use of FY05 HOME funds for the Whispering Meadows
Subdivision land acquisition.
The HOME Agreement for the FY04 funds has been executed; however, the FY05 HOME
monies are not yet under contract. As such, Whispering Garden IHA Limited Partnership
could proceed with the acquisition of lots using FY04 HOME funds without HCDC or City
Council approval, as site review criteria were not in effect at the time these funds were
awarded.
Regardless of Council's decision on the FY05 HOME funding for Blooming Garden IHA
Limited Partnership, at the November 16 City Council meeting Whispering Garden IHA
Limited Partnership will be requesting a resolution of support for their LIHTC application.
Similar to last year, staff is recommending approval of this resolution as the City has an
executed HOME Agreement with Whispering Garden IHA Limited Partnership. The LIHTC
application is due to the State of Iowa on November 22.
If you have any questions about these projects please contact me at 356-5248 or Steve
Long at 356-5250.
Cc: City Manager
Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
APPENDIX B
Iowa City Community School District
2003 Enrollment Data
by Building
Total Minority Low-Income
West High 1,648 21% 15% District Data
City High 1,527 14% 9% District Data
Northwest Junior High 912 2'1% 15% District Data
South East Junior High 775 20% 21% District Data
Wickham Elementary 492 9% 6% District Data
Weber Elementary 464 34% 18% District Data
Wood Elementary 446 47% 47% District Data
Penn Elementary 437 13% 26% District Data
Coralville Central Elementary 430 26% 25% District Data
Lucas Elementary 383 19% 24% District Data
Kirkwood Elementary 359 33% 36% District Data
Horn Elementary 293 28% 6% District Data
Longfellow Elementary 283 20% 18% District Data
Hoover Elementary 277 14% 9% District Data
Lemme Elementary 275 2'1% '18% District Data
Roosevelt Elementary 273 49% 43% District Data
Mann Elementary 259 42% 4'1% District Data
Hills Elementary 247 t9% 49% District Data
Twain Elementary 242 48% 63% District Data
Lincoln Elementary 24'1 '16% 6% District Data
Shimek Elementary 236 7% 3% District Data
10,499 23% 20% District Data
ppdrehab/Enrollment03APDX-B.doc
DATE: October 28, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk '¢
RE: PROPOSED 2005 Meeting Schedule and Budget Work Sessions
Council should be receiving copies of the proposed budget in December. As you are aware the
budget must be certified to the State by March 15. Typically the City Council has set aside three
work sessions for review of the budget prior to the setting of the hearing. In the absence of
setting special meetings the budget public hearing would be set on February 1 and held on
February 15. The resolution adopting the budget would be considered at your regular Council
meeting on March 1, although could be considered at the same meeting as the public hearing. A
staff proposes schedule is being presented for your deliberation.
Monday, January 3 - Regular Work Session (6:30 PM)
Tuesday, January 4 - Regular Formal (7:00 PM)
Monday, January 10 - Budget Work Session (TBA)
Tuesday, January 11 - Budget Work Session (TBA)
Monday, January 17 - City Holiday
Tuesday, January 18 - Special Work Session (TBA)
Regular Formal (7:00 PM)
Monday, January 24 - Budget Work Session (TBA)
Tuesday, January 25 - Board/Commission/Organization Budgets (7:00 PM)
I have attached 2005 regular meeting schedule (first and third Tuesday) for reference.
In addition I have received some interest from Council to move the December meeting from
December 6/7 to December 13/14. Such a change would not affect the proposed 2005 schedule.
Please bring your personal calendars to Monday's work session for further discussion of this
matter.
Attachment: 2005 Meeting Schedule
U:proposed2005schedule.doc
PROPOSED (10-28-04)
Calendar for year 2005 (United States)
January 2005 February 2005 March 2005
~u Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
16 17019 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
3:~ 10:O 17:~ 25:~ 2:~ 8:0 15:~ 24:~ 3:~ 10:O 17:~ 25:~
April 2005 May 2005 June 2005
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 1 2 O 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 15 16(~)18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 020 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 200 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30
2:~ 8:0 16:O 24:Q 1:~ 8:0 16:O 23:Q 30:0 6:0 15:O 22:Q 28:0
July 2005 August 2005 September 2005
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Er Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 1 O 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
3 ~ ~) 6 ~ s 9 ~ s 9 ~0 ~ ~2 ~3 ~ ~ (~) v s 9 ~0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 O 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
17 18 ~)20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 (~ 21 22 23 24
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
6:0 14:0 21:Q 28:0 5:0 13:0 19:~ 26:0 3:0 11:0 18:~ 25:0
October 2005 November 2005 December 2005
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 (~ 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
2 ~ C) 5 ~ 7 8 6 7 8 ~ ~0 ~ ~2 ~ 5 d~) 7 8 ~ ~0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 ~16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
16 17 O19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 O 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
3:0 10:0 17;~ 25:0 2:0 9:0 16:0 23:0 1:0 8:0 15:~ 23:0 31:0
October 25, 2004
Leah Cohen
Bo James
118 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Brian Flynn
Joe's Place
115 Iowa Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Cohen and Mr. Flynn:
The purpose of this letter is to set forth the City Council's understanding of the effort that the
proposed Alcohol Advisory Board plans to initiate.
We understand it is the Board's intention to make a formal presentation to the City Council in
May 2005 to report on the Board's efforts to reduce binge and underage drinking in our
community. As the City Council has delayed any further consideration of a 21 ordinance
pending a determination of the effectiveness of your efforts, please provide the following as
soon as possible:
1. Specific descriptions of the "informal guidelines for business owners and
operators" that you intend to implement.
2. Reasonable and specific measurements we might use in order to determine
the successes or failures of your effort.
In addition to the information requested above it is important to clarify the following:
1. The proposed Alcohol Advisory Board is not created by or controlled by the
City Council. The Board is independent of the City and responsible for its own
statements and actions and the governance of its affairs.
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009
Ernest Lehman
Page 2
10/25/04
2. Any records provided to the City will be subject to the State open records law.
3. The material you have submitted indicates that you plan to advise the City
Council and Iowa City Police Department when the Board is "unable to obtain
what it believes to be a satisfactory resolution of [the Board's] concerns" with a
particular establishment. Of course, neither the City Council nor the police
department are in a position to enforce the voluntary guidelines and policies of
the Board by either criminal sanctions or license sanctions. The police
department will continue to be guided by the policies of the City Council,
applicable laws, and measurements which we feel are appropriate.
We wish you luck in dealing with this community issue, and hopefully we will have an open
and detailed flow of information between the Council and Advisory Board in order that the
community may be aware of our respective initiatives.
Sincerely,
Ernest W. Lehman
Mayor
Cc: City Council
City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney
Date: November 1,2004
\
To: Iowa City City Council _
From: Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Cooridinator
Re: Neighborhood Council letter to the Scattered Site Housing Task Force
The Neighborhood Council presented the attached letter to the Scattered Site Housing
Task on September 20, 2004. They thought it might be important for the City Council to
review their comments and recommendations regarding the distribution of affordable
housing in Iowa City as it relates to your review of the request to amend FY05 HOME
Allocation to Blooming Garden IHA L.P at your meeting this evening. I have bolded the
language they feel to have direct significance to the subject.
Please feel free to contact me at 356-5237 if you should have questions or need more
information.
Cc: Karin Franklin
Steven Nasby
September 20, 2004
Bluffwood
Steve & Jan Locher
Dear Members of the Scattered Site Housing Task Force:
Creekside
Garry Klein The Neighborhood Associations of Iowa City want to thank you for the
Friendship opportunity to provide our input to the members of the Scattered Site
Alan & Tess Ellis
Housing Task Force. We hope that the following provides the
Galway Hills information you need to understand the neighborhood associations'
Mary Reiman perspective about the impact of assisted housing in Iowa City as well
Goosetown as general feelings about establishing a "scattered site policy" for
Carl Klaus
assisted housing.
Harlocke-Weeber
Bill Graf
Judith Klink AS background information, the Neighborhood Council of Iowa City is
an informal collection of representatives from all of the existing
Longfellow
Tim Weitzel neighborhood associations in Iowa City. The Neighborhood Council
was formed in 1993 when it became apparent to the active members
Manville East
Eveyln Acosta-Weirich of the existing neighborhood associations that many of their interests
and needs were parallel if not identical to other neighborhood
Melrose Avenue
Jean Walker associations and the coordination of their efforts to educate
themselves and then address their issues would be more effective
Miller Orchard
Ruth Baker than addressing them singularly. The NCIC typically meets monthly.
Northside
Steering Committee In 1996, the Iowa City City Council made direct funding available to
the neighborhood associations through the Program for Improving
Penny Bryn
Pat & Jim Knebel Neighborhoods, a grant program designed, reviewed and
Pepperwood implemented by the Neighborhood Council. The Neighborhood
Karen Dawes Council has also, on a number of occasions expressed an opinion or
Shimek encouraged a viewpoint about a particular issue if they found that a
Mary Losch consensus has been reached on that opinion. In determining any
South Pointe consensus viewpoint, all neighborhood associations are invited to
Kevin McCarthy participate in the input process and again in the final review of any
Southwest Estates document expressing a viewpoint. As with this response to the
Jan Bergman SSHTF, unless a neighborhood prefers not to be mentioned on the
letterhead and makes that request, all neighborhoods are included in
Ty'n Cae
Judy Pfohl defining the Neighborhood Council.
Village Green
Melvin Cannon All neighborhood association representatives were notified of the
Walnut Ridge opportunity to provide input into this response. The input received
Mark Winkler from the neighborhood associations regarding assisted housing came
Wetherby Friends more readily from the neighborhoods that are in close proximity to the
and Neighbors downtown or university campus and/or have assisted housing units in
Jerry Hansen their neighborhood already. These neighborhood associations tend to
Windsor Ridge be the most active regardless of the issue, possibly because they
Tim Lehman have more issues than neighborhoods on the outskirts of town and
Neighborhood possibly because of the type of resident these neighborhoods attract.
Services Coordinator
Marcia Klingaman
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5237
From those neighborhoods that did respond, there were several reoccurring comments:
Concentrating assisted housing units in any one area is NEVER desirable;
the Broadway and Lakeside-Hollywood areas were brought up several times as
examples of what NOT to do.
Designing the units to blend in with the existing neighborhood, both in
architectural detail as well as density is always preferred. Requiring the units to
meet Historic District design requirements (where districts occur) is encouraged.
Management/maintenance of the units tends to be a major determinant of the
level of impact on a neighborhood. Continual oversight of property conditions and
tenant activity is considered necessary for all rental units regardless of whether they
are financially assisted or not.
Scattering the units throughout a neighborhood, as specifically referred to by
Northside neighborhood residents has made it difficult to identify these units,
particularly those that had taken existing structures and retrofitted them for such
uses. It was suggested that by integrating assisted housing units into a
neighborhood, it becomes a more diverse and more interesting neighborhood that
will continue to attract young professionals and support a culturally diverse
environment. It encourages a "sense of place" which is often lost in newer, less
diverse subdivisions. It was also brought up the neighborhoods closer to downtown
or work centers provide that additional opportunity to walk/bike to work that more
remote neighborhoods would not, providing even more affordability for lower income
households.
Scattering assisted units throughout the community, or establishing a "scattered site
housing policy" was strongly encouraged although there were limited ideas shared
as to how that policy should be structured. Some suggest that some communities
who have such policies can be considered "heavy - handed". Inclusionary zoning
was supported as an option for some while others supported financial, zoning/density
incentives. Some offered ideas such as creating a public foundation that can be
contributed to by landowners/developers to provide affordable housing or requiring
all multi-unit housing to set aside a certain percentage of units as assisted housing.
There is an appreciation that defining the details of such a policy is a difficult one and
one better left to the "experts".
As suggested above, the high density, large concentration of assisted housing in the
Broadway, Lakeside and Fairmeadows areas has been brought up as examples of
what neighborhoods would NOT like to see in their area. Obviously the management
of these multi-family units can impact the neighborhoods tremendously. Thorough
tenant screening and ongoing property oversight is critical. If not, the impact on the
existing neighborhoods that absorb poorily managed units can be viewed by some
as devastating. Perceived desirability to live in the neighborhood can lead to falling
property values, increase in crime rate and falling safety levels, whether perceived or
real. The health of commercial businesses can be affected as people choose to
shop at some other location and schools feel the impact of increasing numbers of
children with special needs entering their doors. Parks that were safe gathering
places can become threatening places and park amenities can be systematically
removed as they continue to be vandalized or abused.
The neighborhoods south of Highway 6 have, over the years, suggested that they
have born the burden of supporting a larger percentage of and more densely
populated assisted housing units. Whether actual demographic data supports this
notion or not, most cannot argue that there exists a number of higher density, larger
apartment complexes that have caused some of the impacts described above. The
Grant Wood and Mark Twain grade schools have seen the impact of serving the
needs of the increasing number of children coming from the families renting these
units. The police department finds it necessary to spend more time in the area than
most areas of Iowa City.
Most recent assisted housing development in the area is creating single family
homes funded through various not-for-profit entities. Some units are affordable
ownership opportunities while others are affordable single family rental. The area
hosts the most affordable land costs in Iowa City and is the leading motivator for
continued affordable housing development. A number of years ago the Iowa City
City Council informally suggested that they would discourage the continued
development of assisted housing south of Highway 6. Although not a formal policy,
there seemed to be some slow down in such housing for a few years.
A theme of many comments the Neighborhood Council has received is one of public
assisted housing being done with the idea that all neighborhoods do their "fair
share." The Neighborhood Council would like to encourage that the Scattered
Site Housing Task Force recommend to the City Council that a formal policy be
developed that would place a moratorium on development of any publicly
assisted housing in the area south of Highway 6, with the exception of projects
already approved prior to the moratorium. This will require that other locations in
the Iowa City be considered for housing and prompt a more "scattered site" result,
possibly without mandating such a policy. The Neighborhood Council would also like
to encourage the City Council to investigate using CDBG funds for inclusionary
zoning purposes as part of an overall scattered site strategy.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this input. Marcia Klingaman or I
would be happy to answer any questions that you may have this evening or feel free .
to contact any of the neighborhood association contact people listed on this letter.
Sincerely,
Garry Klein
Creekside Neighborhood Association
Representing the Neighborhood Council of Iowa City
Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP)
MISSION:
"Provide advocacy and support to youth and their families who face
barriers to independence."
Fiscal Year FY04 (October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004) served 163
individuals.
MYEP spent over $41,000 on youth wages and fringe benefits
(Subsidized Wages and fringe).
Completed an accreditation process with The Council on Quality and Leadership
during the summer of 2004. MYEP received a 2 year accreditation.
MYEP received $22,030.25 from the City of Iowa City Aid to Agencies Fund.
Youth Wages $15,763.25
Youth Fica $ 1,205.88
Staff Wages $ 4,243.20
Staff Fica $ 324.60
Mileage/payroll/insurance $ 493.32
Total $22,030.25
77% of the money from the COIC Aid to Agencies Fund went to Youth wages and
fringe.
Grant Wood Area Chapter
Highlights of services provided in Johnson County
· Assisted 52 adults and children devastated by a disaster, spending $7,599.
O · Implemented Disaster College format for training new volunteers.
· Disaster clients report the following outcomes from services
received:
89% rate services as very good or excellent
93% responded that the fulfillment of their immediate needs was above
average, very good or excellent
· Trained 7,275 people in lifesaving skills of CPR, first aid, water safety and
1 others.
· Participants in our Health and Safety programs report the following on a
~ post-course survey:
98% rated their overall satisfaction with the course as good or excellent
92% agree or strongly agree that they feel prepared and willing to
respond in an emergency
~ · Relayed 46 between and their
emergency
messages
military
personnel
· I family members.
II · Ninety-one percent of recipients of Armed Forces Emergency Services
state that their overall satisfaction with services was good or excellent.
· Assisted with 4 international tracing requests.
· Collected 804 units of blood for hospital patients.
· Establishment of Johnson County Advisory Committee.
Date: October 27, 2004
To: City Council
From: Assistant City Manager
Re: Update on Cable Franchise Renewal
Attached please find a copy of a memorandum recently provided to the Iowa City
Telecommunications Commission outlining the results of our discussions thus far with
Mediacom. In my update memo of June 23, 2004 I informed you that Mediacom had raised the
possibility of an extension of the current franchise. As we have proceeded with the renewal
process, including two meetings with representatives of Mediacom, we have determined such
an extension to be a viable and probably preferable option.
The attached provides specific detail regarding most of the changes that would be part of an
extended franchise. The Commission will consider the total extension package, once it is
completed, and has expressed its intent to hold a public hearing before deciding on its
recommendation to Council. If a franchise extension can be agreed upon and is satisfactory to
the Commission and the City Council, we would hope to have the process completed by late
winter. The current franchise expires on February 4, 2006
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, or if you would like further
clarification at this point.
cc. City Manager City Attorney
Andy Matthews, Assistant City Attorney
Drew Shaffer, Cable TV Administrator
Date: October 20, 2004
To: Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
From: Drew Shaffer
Dale Helling~.,-~ ~
Re: Franchise Renewal Update
Early in the process of preparing for cable franchise renewal negotiations,
Nlediacom offered to the City the possibility of an extension of the current franchise
as an additional alternative. We have thus had essentially two avenues to consider
during the course of our discussions with Mediacom, extension or renewal. These
alternatives were communicated to the representatives of local stakeholders or
cable access users and producers (including representatives from the Library,
School District, Senior Center, and PATV and local non-profit organizations who
utilize our community programming services) with whom staff and our consultant,
Rice, Williams Associates, met in .July of this year. All agreed that the extension
option was acceptable and probably preferable.
After preliminary discussions with Rice, Williams Associates it became apparent that
extension was a viable option and might be the preferable choice. It is a more
direct and less adversarial process and offers an opportunity to ensure retention of
some of the more favorable provisions of the current franchise, including funding
for local access programming, without having to renegotiate a new franchise
agreement. Tn addition, both staff and our consultant believe that the existing
franchise remains current and adequately addresses the issues that might be
included in a new franchise. There has been no comprehensive federal cable
legislation in the past eight years and the issues addressed by the FCC and
congress have been largely regulatory and interpretative of existing legislation.
Our current franchise includes sufficient language to assure both the City and the
Cable Company that our respective interests and' obligations are preserved to the
greatest extent possible, despite legislative changes that may occur.
The City has discussed with Mediacom many issues that have arisen through the
years, including complaints from subscribers, stakeholders' interests, what was
indicated by the consumer survey, City related problems and requests, etc. It is our
opinion that Mediacom has been both cooperative and proactive in addressing
subscriber complaints and other problems and that they remain committed to a
posture of compliance with the local franchise agreement. In light of the current
circumstances, we have continued to explore extension of the franchise for an
additional ten years as proposed by Nlediacom.
A few issues remain under discussion between Plediacom and the City, all of which
seem to be fairly easily resolvable. However, both parties are in agreement
concerning many of the items that have been discussed in conjunction with the
extension option. Nlost noteworthy among these are:
October 20, 2004
Page 2
· The pass-through fee for funding local access, which is now 50 cents per month
per subscriber will be raised to 55 cents with the completion of the extension,
and further to 60 cents at the conclusion of the fifth year of the extended
agreement.
· Nlediacom has agreed to provide 100 PSAs per month for use by the City and
the access channels.
· The City supplied a list of desired local origination sites that could be used for
live cablecasting of community events. Mediacom has given us cost estimates
for providing such capability to these sites and has indicated a willingness to
assume some of the cost up to a predetermined amount.
· The City had previously requested and received authorization from the company
to make use of commercial music for local access playback and synchronization
purposes. However it is necessary that we have verification that Hediacom's
contracts with ASCAP/BNIZ extend this right to the franchising authority.
Nlediacom has committed to continue its follow-up on this matter.
· The City proposed, and Nlediacom agreed to a 4-hour outage rebate upon
subscriber request (down from 18 hours under the current franchise).
· The City requested a signal quality check of all access channels to ensure they
are optimal. The company conducted such signal checks and will present the
results in a format requested by our consultants.
· The company has agreed to supply a new Emergency Alert System (EAS) and to
train local staff to operate the system.
· Nlediacom has agreed to supply an annual billing stuffer pertaining to its
snowbird policy to be disseminated at a mutually agreeable time.
· The City requested that the company change the size of font type for the
Franchisor information on the bills and also that they improve their web site in
terms of channel lineup, rates and on-line billing capability. The company
responded that these are not currently feasible since they apply to all Mediacom
systems statewide and cannot be modified .individually without substantial cost.
They will attempt to make these modifications at such time in the future as
opportunities may arise. We find this position to be acceptable.
This is where our discussions have taken us to date. There are a few more details
to discuss and work out. Both the franchise agreement and the telecommunications
ordinance must be updated. However, progress to date would indicate that a ten-
year extension of the existing franchise can be successfully negotiated in a manner
favorable to the City and to Nlediacom.
We, along with Andy Matthews and Brett Castillo, have joined ,]ean Rice and Don
Williams in the meetings with lVlediacom. The participating representatives from
Hediacom have been accommodating and helpful throughout the process.
We will be present at your meeting on October 25 to answer any questions or
provide additional information.
October 28,2004
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
State Historical Society of Iowa
600 East Locust Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0290
Re: National Register Nomination for Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District
Dear Dr. Soike:
I have reviewed your letter of October 11, 2004 to Shelley McCafferty, Iowa City Associate
Planner, and the memo to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission from Ralph Christian
enclosed therein. Mr. Christian appears to conclude that the original nomination satisfied all
procedural requirements, and that your office simply agreed to delay the forwarding of the
original nomination to the National Park Service so that the commission would have additional
time for hearings and educational meetings with property owners. It is my understanding,
however, that the delay was necessary because the procedural requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act had not been met.
In July of this year, after the City Council expressed frustration with the process for the
proposed nomination, I reviewed the process and the statutory requirements. As you know, the
National Historic Preservation Act requires that before a state may consider a nomination the
state must notify the chief elected official (in this case, the Mayor) and the commission of the
local jurisdiction. See 16 U.S.C. Section 470a(c)(2)(A). In reviewing the file, I determined that
the Mayor had not signed the CLG National Register Review. Of course, had the Mayor been
given notice of the nomination and not responded within the 60-day review period, the statute
would be satisfied. Finding no official notification to the Mayor, I contacted your office and spoke
to Kerry McGrath. She faxed me a copy of an undated letter to Shelley McCafferty from
Elizabeth Hill of your office, which explained that the state was required to provide Iowa City
with the 60-day review period, and requested, among other things, that the Commission send a
formal invitation to the Mayor to attend the Commission's meeting. A copy of this undated letter
and Kerry McGrath's letter to me is enclosed.
After speaking to Ms. McGrath I contacted the Planning staff and learned that the staff did not
have a copy of the undated letter to Ms. McCafferty. I advised Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, that it
was my conclusion that the procedural steps of the Act had not been satisfied. He thereafter
contacted your office, and it was agreed that we would "back up" to April, schedule another
commission meeting, and assure compliance with all procedural requirements.
As you know, the Commission met on August 10, after notice to required parties, and a revised
nomination was recommended by both the Commission and the Mayor, with approval of the City
Council. Prior to the submission of the nomination, the City's Planning Director, Karin Franklin,
confirmed with you and Beth Foster that the revised nomination would supersede the original
nomination. Mr. Christian now says, however, that the original nomination can stand alone. We
disagree. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the original nomination can stand alone,
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240- 1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009
the local review requirements for that nomination have not been satisfied. I note that under
Section 60.6(0) of the federal regulations the State Historic Preservation officer's signature on
the nomination certifies, among other things, that all procedural requirements have been metz
and that the procedure for nomination appeals in Section 60.12, which Mr. Christian refers to,
requires that all procedural requirements be satisfied.
It is the City's position that after due deliberation before the Historic Preservation Commission
and the City Council, the Gilbert-Linn Historic District nomination to the National Register
forwarded to your office under cover letter dated September 21, 2004 is the only nomination to
be considered at this time. We respectfully request that you forward this nomination to the State
Nominations Review Committee for their February 5m meeting, with any recommendation you
see fit. Presumably the nomination will be forwarded to the National Park Service where it will
stand or fall on its merits subject to whatever objections or appeals may be forthcoming.
I look forward to hearing from you.
~ truly yours,c_D,`
Eleanor M. Dilkes
City Attorney
Enclosures
cc: City Council
Michael Maharry, Chair of Historic Preservation Commission
Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager
Karin Franklin, Director of Planning
Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner
eleanor/Itrs/soike.doc
87/13/2684 18:14 5152828582 SHSI ~ 10/1~
. STATE
HISTORICAL
TSOCIETYof
IOWA
A Division Of Th~ D~partm,nt of C~ltaral Affair~
July 13, 2004
1~. Elc~uor Dilks
City Attorney
410 East Waah/ngton Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
De, ar Ms. D/lks:
Attached please find thc follow/rig items which you requested:
1. A copy of the notification letter that was sent to Mayor Lehm,u, dated May 3, 2004
2. A copy of the notification letter that wa~ sent to the H/arctic Preservation Commission, care of Shelley
McCafferty along w/th the Na~/onal P, ggister Rev/ow form. Please note th~ letter wa~ sent on Ap~] 8,2004.
The miss0ag date was nol/ced after the letter had been. sen: and apparently came ms a result of us/ng mail merge
to produce, what/n Iowa City's case, w~ a letzer with long address and RE: heading.
3. A copy of the relevant sections of the National Itistoric Preservation Act,
· On "page 8" Plea,se note/11 Section C (2)(A) the .~tatemellt that/fthe local government ~. the CLG program
fails to respond to the State H/atoric Preservation off:ice's request for a report with/n 60 days of receipt of
notification, the State may proceed ahead w/th th~ nomination. ! have ~.mderlincd it for your convezfience.
· Also on "page 8",/~ Section C(2)(B) which dascn%as the procedures to follow/fthe the local historic
preservation commission1 and ch/el elected official of the participa//ng CLG disagree.
· Section 101. (a) on page 2 ha~ bccn mluded for your ftle and/nformation.
· On "Page 4", under Owner participation/n nom;-~tion process, there/s a d/scu.saion of the procedures to
follow//'property owners w/~hin a d/strict do ;0.et want it to bo desi~sted. To date, the SHPO has
received 14 objections to the Nat/onal Register nomination of the Gilbert Avenue-L/nh Street D/strict out
ofth~ 80 property eveners/n the District. Foz~:y-on~ are needed to hnwthe nomiuafion.
I ~fill be out of the office ~om Wednesday, July 14, 2004 through Monday morning, 1uly 19,2004. Ii'you have
addit/onal questions or need more/nformation, please co~.taet Elizabeth Fostex-Hiil, our National Peg/stet
Coord/nator. She can be reached at 515/281-4137 or by omail at beth.fosteri~,iow~.gov.
Siuc~rdy; ......
. _ ..............
Ken7 C. McCvmth
Local Governments Coord~m~or
Cc: Lowo]l Soik~, Deputy SHPO
El~zabetl~ l~o~-Hfll, Na~onrd Register C~ordiu~tor
P. mph Ceristian, ~Hstormn
Bsrham i~chcN~ Architectural H~sto~i~n
~;00 ~ LOCVST ~ D&~ MOrN~.~ IA S051.9-0290 P: ($1.$) ~t-~S2~, EM~m
87/13/2884 17:36 5152828582 SHSI PAGE 84/89
_ STATE
I'$OClETYo£
..
A Division of the Iowa Departme~ of Curtal A~its
Shelley McCafferty
Iowa City FIPC
410 E. Washington St
Iowa City IA 52240
RE: ,/Gilbert-Linn Street ]tistorie District, Portions of 200-600 Blocks of hr. Gilbert & N. Linn
Street, Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson Street Historic District, Portions of 100-400 Blocks of East Jefferson Street, Iowa
City, Johnson County
Brown Street Historic District (boundary increase), 500-800 Blocks of East Ronalds Street,
Iowa City, Johnson County
Dear Ms. McCafrferty:
The State NominaTions Review Committee (SNRC) plans to consider t[~e property referenced above for
nomination to the National Register o£Historic Places during their Jtme 11, 2004 meeting. As a
participant in the Certified Local Govermn~nt Program, Iowa City is required to review and corrmaent on
proposed National Regismr nominations of properties with/n its jurisdiction. The State is required to
provide you with. a 60-day period 'for the your review, unless we mutual].y agree to expedite the process.
I am contacting you to ask that you initiate the review process for the Historic Preservation Commission,
Enclosed are copies of the nom~ation, photographs, and the review t~.,wa. The review process will
require thc following:
* The Historic Preservation Commission should schedule the review during one of their meetings.
Send a formal invitation to the Mayor and to the property owner/owners with a copy of the
nomination. If they are not familiar with tl~e National Register, be sure to include an explanation.
-Make sure that a copy of the nomination is. available for public review prior to the meeting. ;For
example, leave a review copy at the courthouse or public library. Indicate in your meeting
armmmcement that a review copy of the nomJ~.ation is available and where the r~v/ew copy can be
found.
* The quesfim~ to answer when reviewing the nomination is whether the nominated prop,err7 meets the
Na~onal Register of Historic Places si. gn~ficance criteria. If the Comrrdssion feels that the
nomination makes the case for meeting sigo.'rficance criteria, the Commission should check the box
recommending that the property be listed. If th.e Commission feels that thc property does not meet
the significance criteria, then cheek the box recommending that the property not be listed. The
Mayor should use the same approach, when reviewing tlxe nomination.
· You might want to invke the individual who prepared the nomination to attend the public meeting
and present the nomination. Keep a record of the meeting (copy of notice, agenda, minutes, list of
attendees). At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission should make a motion regarding their
rocommendation~ The Chairman of the Commission will complete Item #1, the Commission's
6110 E^s~ LOCusT Sq'IIEE'r, D~ MorNIL~, IA 50:3 Ig.0Z90 P: (S15) 281-5t 1 !
07/13/2004 17:36 5152820502 SHSI PAGE 05/09
po~don of the review form. Be sure to fill in the date of the public meeting, sign flie signature. Iinc
and .record any cox~uents that were made. If the Mayor attended thc public meeting, inquire jf
1)e/she is prepared to complete Item #2 on the review rolm.
* r~. the event that thc Mayor was rulable to attend the meeting. The Co~mi~siozl Chah~-n.~ should
forward the Review form to the Mayor for review and comment. Have the Mayor si~z~ th6 fo,~z, at~d
ret'a~, them to the PL~storic Preservation Commission.
~ Itera #3 on the Re'dew form asks for tl~e review and comment of~ prescrvat~oz~ pro£ess{o~al. Ifyou~
commission does not have a pro£essional]y qu~Hfied historiarz or ¢rchitectursj historian who can
oomplet¢ this part of the form, you may ~cave Item #3 h~anl¢ and I will arraz~ge to have a State staff'
member complete ~hat part of'the form.
* After you have completed Items #1 th~-ouEh #2 (through #~ i£a preservation pro£cssional is
available), pJease make a copy office completed review £onns for your file and send thc original
cop~es o£th¢ coz~pleted forms tb mc. The £orms need to be returned at least two weeks be£orc the
State NoroJzaQons Review Com~itte¢ meeting so they may be processed and mailed to the State
Nominations Review Con:~fittce to be reviewed be£orc their ~une 11, 2004 mcctJ, ng.
* The Cornmissioa should keep the nomiz~atio.n and photographs. Fii[e them together in your inventory,
as you v~]! B.eed the in£ormation for ~at~re re£ere~ce. If a State prcservat~ozz professional was
needed to complete J[tem #3 oz~ the revJc~v form, I will ~:etum a copy to thc coL~.rrfission for filing.
.[~th¢ Historic P~¢servat[on Commission a~d the Mayor disagree'with o~e another on thc property's
National Re,stet elJC=dbility, both views will be presemed to SNl~C for their consideration during rev~ev¢
o£th¢ nomination. I£boththe Historic Preservation Cor~z~ssion (by Comr~is.~ioumajoritT) andth¢
Mayor do not consider the property el.igibl¢ for National Re,stet listing, we must halt the nomiflation.
Be advised, that when a nomination is baited, the property owner., the person who prepared thc
aomlnafiorz o~ any interested party may appel! the decision. In addition, the noz~nation wil~ sill! ~o
.fbrward to the National Park Service for an o£ficiaj "Dctc~'.,.~atio~ o£Eliebility."
Please Contact Kerry McOrath at $ I ~/25 !-6825 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Foster Hill
Tax Incentive Program~ Manager/
National. Register Coordinator
I IP8 I
October 28, 2004
To: City Council
From: Karin Franklin, Director,
Re: Historic Preservation: history & authority
The City Council has requested some background on the legislative history of historic
preservation in Iowa City and the scope of authority of the Historic Preservation Commission
and the City Council in this arena.
In 1982 the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a a seven-member Historic
Preservation Commission and providing for the designation of historic districts. The local
ordinance conformed with the enabling language of the State Code, found now in Section
303.34 of the Code of Iowa. State Code requires that such an ordinance or any amendments to
it be submitted to the State for review and recommendation prior to enactment. The decision for
local government to be involved in historic preservation is a local decision reflecting local
values. However, the mechanics of legislative involvement are prescribed by State law and are
subject to oversight by the State.
Similarly the State chose to become involved in historic preservation when it established the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1974 which operates within the structure created
by the Federal government in 1966 with enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The essence of the Federal act was to identify, evaluate and protect national historic resources.
This has resulted in the National Register of Historic Places and certain requirements for the
protection of historic resources when federal funds are used for projects.
The National Historic Preservation Act was amended in 1980 to establish the Certified Local
Government (CLG) program. In 1984, the State of Iowa launched a campaign to enroll local
governments in the CLG program. With the CLG program comes funding for surveying historic
resources, preparing nominations for the National Register, and other preservation education
projects. Iowa City became a CLG in 1985. This put the City in an advisory role to the State on
any National District nominations and enabled access to grants under the CLG program.
National Historic District nominiations: The nomination of districts or properties to the National
Register of Historic Places is set by Federal law and State procedures. These nominations
carry no regulatory measures with them so long as federal funds are not used for a project.
Local governments have no discretion in how these nominations are done. There is discretion
as to whether the local jurisdiction initiates a nomination. However, as in the case of the recent
Melrose neighborhood, nominations may come from any individual or group. Because Iowa City
is a CLG, review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Council is expected but not
required.
Local Historic District desiqnation: Because the ability to designate and regulate historic
properties through local district designation comes to cities through the State within the structure
created by the National Preservaton Act, the regulations adopted by cities must be consistent
with the intent of the Act and the Secretary of Interiors guidelines. Designation of districts must
October 27, 2004
Page 2
be consistent procedurally with State law and the criteria for historic districts set out in the Iowa
Code must be met. The Council has some discretion in adopting local guidelines for the review
of properties within established districts but the guidelines must be reviewed by the State and
must be consistent with the more general guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. The
Council has complete discretion in whether you chose to endorse the designation of historic
districts generally. This goes back to the community value of whether you wish to assertively
foster historic preservation in Iowa City. Councils in the past have identified historic
preservation as a goal of the community by adoption of the ordinance to establish the
Commission, adoption of historic and conservation districts, and adoption of the Historic
Preservation Plan as part of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan.
To summarize, the Council has the authority to determine how many or how few historic and
conservation districts exist in Iowa City. You may set the pace of that designation. You have
the authority to initiate or not the nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic
Places. You have the authority to modify the guidelines used in the regulatory review of
properties in local districts to a point; the guidelines must be consistent with the Secretary of
Interior's Guidelines. Once you have established the guidelines, those guidelines must be
followed in individual cases but can be changed legislatively. You set the policy on historic
preservation and the Historic Preservation Commission and staff follow that direction.
Presently, the policy direction being used is the 1997 Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, including
the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan.
Cc City Manager
City Attorney
Historic Preservation Commission
Shelley McCafferty
Bob Miklo
Jeff Davidson
Steve Atkins
From: Terry Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:45 AM
To: Steve Atkins
Cc: Terry Trueblood
Subject: Manville Heights Oak Wilt Meeting
On Monday October 11, we held a meeting at the Park & Forestry maintenance shop regarding the findings of a recent
investigation in decline of some Oaks in Manville Heights. Eighty Nine residents from the area were present. Chris
Feeley, Iowa State University Extension Forestry specialist, presented findings from the 17 Oak examinations we
completed on August 30th with Mark Vitosh the District Forester for the Department of Natural Resources.
The meeting addressed the concerns of residents regarding the purported presence of two lined Chestnut Borer in many
of the Oaks in the Manville Heights area. Of the seventeen trees sampled only one showed the one time presence of
Chestnut Borer. No established population was found in the tree and no further action beyond monitoring is required. This
tree is growing in the City Right of Way and is our responsibility. Five trees showed positive for Oak Wilt. All of which are
in varying stages of decline, and also are all private trees.
Generally the persons attending were given clear clinical and field research on the prominent insect and disease problems
for Oaks in our area. Our intention was to put to rest some misinformation causing concern among residents in the area,
and provide accurate information that will help them make informed decisions about managing their trees now and in the
future.
If you have any further questions please let me know.
City of Iowa City
M MORANDUM
October 25, 2004 -- --{~
To: Steve Atkins, City Manager ' °-~J
From: Joe Fowler, Director Parking & Transit ~?~-~ ~l~J~
Chris O'Brien, Parking Manager~
Reference: Credit Card Usage - Parking Facilities
We have investigated the use of credit cards in our off street parking facilities and
explored the positive and negative implications. The following is a summary of our
findings.
Credit cards can be used in two scenarios in cashiered facilities. In the first scenario the
customer uses their credit card to enter and exit the parking facility. If any component in
the system fails the customer can not exit because the system will not recognize them as
being in the facility. There are various negative results that could occur if this were to
happen. First there could be traffic congestion as the vehicles behind the customer would
have to be directed to back up allowing the person to change lanes and go through a
cashiered exit. Second, disputes could occur between the parker and parking staff as the
City policy is to charge for a full day of parking if there is no entrance ticket. Third, if
the customer challenges the use of the card and the City does not have a signed receipt
the cost to the City is the loss of the parking fee and a $15.00 service charge by the bank
and credit card company.
In the second scenario the parker takes a ticket when entering the facility and then
presents the ticket and a credit card when exiting. The credit card can be processed in
two ways, in both requiring the customer signs a receipt. First is confirmation that the
card is valid, which requires a direct connection to the credit card company before the
customer is allowed to exit. The result is delayed exit time and the additional cost of
installing and renting nine additional telephone lines for the cashier booths as each booth
would require a direct connection. In the second option, the parker presents a credit card,
the cashier processes it and the transaction is held until the end of the day and all
transaction are sent in as a batch. In this scenario each booth is wired to the facility
office and one additional phone line is needed. In this scenario there is no way to know if
the card is valid when the transaction occurs.
As an alternative to using credit cards in our cashiered facilities we recommend
continuing to expand our pre paid debit parking cards. These cards allow users to enter
and exit without taking a ticket or going through a cashiered lane. If there is a failure in
the system there is back up information available when the parker exits the facility. In
addition, parking debit card purchases may be made by a credit card. Currently we have
750 debit card holders.
The non-cashiered parking garages are Chauncey Swan and soon to be Court Street
Transportation Center. They will be equipped with pre-payment machines that allow
users to pay using credit cards. These facilities do not require payment upon exiting
which makes the use of the credit card system simpler. In these facilities the customer
will be able to insert the credit card and then purchase the number of hours of parking
they need. If there is a failure in the system there is not a line of other customers behind
them and no dispute over the number of hours parked.
The use of credit cards in Chauncey Swan and Court Street facilities will be evaluated
after one year of operation. At that time we will evaluate the success/failures in the
system.
City of Iowa City
M MORANDUM
Date: October 21,2004
To: Steve Atkins / ~d/~
From: KimJohnson~¢'~ ~
Re: Agenda Items [~
The following are costs associated with the Capital Improvement Projects being
presented for acceptance at the November 2nd Council meeting:
1) Civic Center North Trane HVAC Project
Contractor: Climate Engineers
4° Project Estimated Cost: $ 47,765.00
o:o Project Bid Received: $ 46,366.00
4° Project Actual Cost: $ 50,173.00
2) 2004 PCC Pavement Rehabilitation Project- Dodge Street
Contractor: All American Concrete, Inc.
o:° Project Estimated Cost: $ 118,500.00
o:° Project Bid Received: $ 113,881.51
4° Project Actual Cost: $ 97,160.35
I 0 WA C I T Y
RANDUM
Date: October 28, 2004
To: City Council
From: Kathi Johansen - Administrative Assistant to the City Manage
Re: Deer Task Force
This is to update you on the work of the Deer Task Force and the possibility of a deer kill this
winter. Initially, there was not going to be a kill this winter. Tony DeNicola of White Buffalo, Inc.
then suggested that instead of a kill every other year, that a smaller kill be done each year. The
costs would be the same. As a result, the Task Force met on October 27 to discuss whether
the City should enter into a contract with White Buffalo, Inc. for a deer kill this winter and passed
a motion unanimously to this effect. Anticipating this possibility, the City Manager had
previously made a request to the Iowa Natural Resources Commission that the City be
established as an "urban deer management unit" which is what is necessary to allow sharp
shooting to kill the deer. This item is on the agenda for the Natural Resource Commission's
November 10 meeting. If approved, a resolution approving a contract with White Buffalo, Inc.
will appear on Council's agenda probably for the November 16 meeting.
Copy to: Deer Task Force
AGENDA
PATV BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday, October 21, 2004
7:00 pm
PATV- 206 Lafayette Street
1. Call meeting to order
2. Consent agenda
3. Approval of September minutes
4. Old business
5. Short public announcements
6. New Business
a. Board recruitment
7. Reports
i. ICTC
ii. Committees
1. Building & Grounds
2. Outreach & Fundraising
3. Refranchising
i. Treasurer
ii. Management- Iowa Shares
8. Board announcements
9. Adjournment
If you have additional agenda items or cannot attend the meeting,
please contact Josh at 338-7035.
PATV Board of Directors Meeting - FINAL DRAFT
Thursday, August 19, 2004
7:00 PM
PATV - 206 Lafayette Street
1. Call meeting to order:
Began at 7:08 PM
Present are: John Carhoff (11/02 - 11/05), Jack Fuller (12/01 - 11/04), Tom Nothnagle (11/01 -
11/04), Steve Newell (11/01 - 11/04), Phil Phillips (11/03 - 11/06), Carde Watson (8~2003 - 2005) and
Dir. Josh Goding
2. Consent agenda:
Consented unanimously.
3. Approval of May minutes:
John C., Jack F. 2nd and approved as amended
4. Old Business:
Final request for contributions to Rene's gift certificate.
5. Short public announcements:
None.
6. New Business:
Discussion of obscenity laws, PATV guidelines handbook and classes occurred. John C. distributed
a copy of Phoenix, AZ's obscenity policy. Board members will research further and subject will be
discussed in future.
Due to excessive unexcused absence and failure to contact board concerning these absences, Brad
Laborman has been removed from the board by a unanimous decision.
PATV is continuing to encourage and accept applications for the Board of Directors. Josh G. will put
a sign up at the station for interested individuals.
7. Reports
i ICTC
Not present.
ii Committees:
1. Buildings and Grounds:
Painting has begun and will continue.
SHAC students will be cleaning the grounds and neighborhood over the next couple weeks.
2. Outreach and Fundraising:
PATV's Open House has been planned for Saturday, September 4th from 6-9 pm. Board
members and staff will serve food and beverages to community members. The Board of
Directors will host a live talk show about PATV from 6:30 - 7 pm. Josh will put up posters,
write a press release and make a jar for donations.
Directors will host a live talk show about PATV from 6:30 - 7 pm. Josh will put up posters,
write a press release and make a jar for donations.
The Chili Supper is the next big project to begin working on, with a date to be announced in
coming months.
3. Board of Directors Handbook Revision Committee
None
4. Refranchising:
None
iii Treasurer
Treasurer's report discussed and update on investment provided.
iv. Management - Iowa Shares:
On August 13th, Josh and Phil refinanced mortgage. The maturity date is 7/20/09. The interest rate
will remain at 5.95% until this date.
On Thursday, August 12th, Senator Chuck Grassley visited PATV to discuss recent award from
NCIL for his work with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He appeared on Live & Local.
Armenians from International Visitors Centerand children from Kindercampus have done tours of
studio in past month.
The IMACs have been updated to O$10 Jaguar and IMovie IV is now being used.
The staff retreat has been set for Friday, August 27th.
Iowa Shares board meeting was on the August 10th. ~p600 worth of tickets were sold by PATV.
Iowa Shares is still seeking a Director.
8. Board announcements:
None
9. Adjournment:
Board adjourned at 8:30.
MINUTES r~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004- 8:00 AM
CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
Members Present: Ernie Lehman, Bob Elliott, Regenia Bailey
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Steve Atkins, Steve Nasby
Others Present: Joe Raso, Terri Morrow, Tim Rypma, Randy Hartwig
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 2, 2004
The committee approved the minutes from September 2, 2004 as written by a vote of 3-0.
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO NORTHGATE CORPORATE URBAN RENEWAL AREA
Nasby said that there is an existing Urban Renewal Area (a.k.a. TIF area) for the Northgate Corporate
Park. He said that there have been several business inquires, in Northgate Corporate Park and the
adjacent parcels, that area that were looking for land to develop offices. Nasby added that Southgate
Development Company owns about 34 acres that is next to the existing platted lots within the Northgate
Corporate Park.
Nasby said that there is a letter in the committee's packet from Southgate Development Company
requesting that the City of Iowa City consider expansion of the Northgate Corporate Park Urban Renewal
Area to include the property they own at the Northern border of Northgate Drive. Nasby stated that by
expanding the Urban Revitalization Area, the City would have the ability to use tax increment financing as
an economic tool if needed. Another possibility, Nasby mentioned, would be to use the TIF to undertake
any capital projects that may be necessary due to the expansion of the area. Nasby also noted that if the
Economic Development Committee is interested in amending the Urban Renewal Area, that it would
make sense if the Urban Renewal Area would be expanded all the way to Highway 1 instead of leaving a
parcel in between the Southgate parcel and the highway.
Bailey asked about the access from Highway 1 to this proposed expanded TIF area. Nasby answered
that there is no direct access at this time. Lehman said that it is a State highway and IDOT would control
access. Nasby said that the future extension of Oakdale Boulevard is a possibility.
EIliott asked if there is more than one entrance access. Nasby answered that there is not a secondary
access point to the Southgate parcel; however, he said that in future Oakdale Boulevard could provide
secondary access.
Motion: Bailey moved to approve the expansion of the TIF district to include the Southgate parcel
and the property between it and Highway 1. Elliott seconded. Motion passed 3-0.
Elliott asked how much of the total property of the City is captured by TIF, and said that he believed it is a
very small percent. He asked if there is a City policy of how much TIF property should be allowed.
Lehman said that this was not an issue in Iowa City as it is rarely used. Elliott said that he likes the fact
that there is only a small portion of property in TIF. He added that in contrast with the popular belief that
taxes go down they actually remain always the same on the existing value and what really happens is
that the City simply delays the tax increase on new development or added value.
DISCUSSION - AVIATION COMMERCE PARK
Lehman said that this would be a good opportunity to confer on the intent for the use of the airport land.
He said that the position of the City, when they invested in the infrastructure, was that this would be an
economic development tool and that it could generate tax dollars that could benefit the entire City. If the
Council was not intending on selling property to non-taxpaying entities, he felt this should be known.
Economic Development Committee Minutes
October 12, 2004
Page 2
Hartwig said that it always envisioned it as an income generation tool for the airport, and City.
Elliott said that he is in favor of anytime when there is an inquiry, telling the people immediately what are
the expectations. Lehman said that this idea would have to be stated as a policy, because in this way it
would give information to anyone interested that the property was intended for the investment made by
the City to create taxes and jobs opportunities.
Bailey said that some non-profits pay taxes. She asked if the City would be interested in considering a
non-profit that is interested in paying some fees in lieu of taxes. She mentioned that she would like to see
more non-profits considering that, because they do have an influence on the City services.
Elliott said that he believes that it is better not to mention non-profits, taking into consideration that the
most influential organization in town is non-profit.
Lehman said that the committee should decide how to verbalize the intentions of the City regarding the
issue. He added that the intention of the City is to see that property developed in a manner that would
provide revenue for the general fund for the operation of the airport and the City.
Lehman suggested that the Committee should make this as a recommendation to the City Council that
the intention is that any development of the airport commercial property is expected to generate funds for
the general fund.
UPDATE- UNIVERSITY OF IOWA ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING CENTER
Nasby said that the entrepreneurial learning center project is moving forward. Nasby noted that he had
met with representatives from the University, ICAD and Chamber to discuss what additional steps or
activities could occur. One idea that exists is to finish the basement of the facility, and transform it into
office space and make it available to the community, to persons not related to the University. He stated
that another idea is that the City could link some of the Community Development Block Grant money to
the businesses that are graduating out of that facility. He said that a promise there would be funding for
them is a large incentive and that if the business succeeds they could repay the money, and if the
business does not make it, then it would simply be a grant. In response to a question, Nasby said that the
Committee would continue to approve them case by case, and determine what type of funding, if any,
they could receive.
EIliott asked if there would be any change in the governance of the entrepreneurial learning center. He
mentioned that if there would be City funding, he believes that it would be appropriate that the City be a
representative part of the governance. Nasby said that a Memorandum of Understanding could be
worked out.
Bailey asked if there was any discussion about taking University services for starting businesses off-
campus, in this way taking the service to the people, not asking the people to always come to the
University.
Raso said that David Hensley at the University of Iowa would make a model process document to include
all information needed. Raso added that having the information on paper would help all parties included
to see what is the process, at what stage is the process now, and what are the future plans for the site.
Bailey asked if there is an emphasis on technology rather than other domains. Raso answered that they
do get a lot more interest from the software development, rather than medical or arts side. He said that
there is more interest in trying to attract other students. Nasby said that he remembered Hensley saying
that there were a couple of students that wanted to start a music therapy business. Nasby added that
everybody also needs to have a small office to operate their business, so the center has to limit their
acceptance to those that can successfully work in the space provided, so industrial uses, for example,
might not be possible in a small place like what is being offered
Bailey said that another idea would be to have services to help artists in the business aspect of their
service. She added that there could be classes offered which would lead to strengthen the community.
She mentioned that it would do a little more than starting a business here and there, and changing in this
way the approach. She mentioned that she would like to have some experts collaborating on the situation
Economic Development Committee Minutes
Qctober 12, 2004
Page 3
Lehman said that it would be nice to have something written up, but also it would be necessary to know
the CDBG limits for funding as what is allowable or not.
Elliott said that whatever could be done to bring and integrate entities into the Iowa City and Cedar
Rapids area into the project should be done, and should be promoted as much as possible. He added
that there should be more cooperation and integration. Elliott said that in the case the City or other entity
would financially support the process of finishing the basement, he would not like to have a totally
University generated government.
Raso said that if this were a requirement the Committee would have to send a memo to layout how the
relationship is expected to work. Elliott mentioned that each entity could help at different steps in the
process. He added that it would have to be determined which combined unit would work better at each
step of the development.
Bailey asked how many graduates are from the program. Nasby said that there are currently seven
groups.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 AM.
s:/pcd/minutes/ecodev/2004/edc10-12-O4.doc
Council Economic Development Committee
Attendance Record
2004
Term
Name Expires 01/26 03/30 07/01 09/02 10/12 00/00 00/00
Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 X X X X X
Bob Elliott 01/02/08 X X X X X
Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 X X X X X
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
..... Not a Member
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004 - 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
Kevin Wemer, Nate Green (left at 8:45 AM), Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing, Co-
Chair; with William Sueppel, Chair (vih teleconference)
Staff Present: Marian Kart, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chairperson Lensing called the meeting to order at 7:03 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 12 and 13, 2004
Lensing asked if anyone had any corrections or revisions to the minutes from the past
three meetings. Kubby stated that on page 2, under "Review Charter," she is questioning
the sentence that reads: Members showed an interest in discussing the City Manager and
Police Chief positions. Kubby felt that this implies that the members were interested in
discussing the City Manager as it related to the potential amendments, and stated she
would like to remove "City Manager and" from this sentence. Novick noted that on page
one, where she and Davidsen were talking about the League of Women Voters, the
addition of the word "not" is needed after and (...and not speaking for the League.)
Sueppel noted that on page three, under Article 2, it shows that the members made a
motion approving all of Section 2.01 Composition. He stated that the only thing agreed
upon was to keep the Council at seven members. The four/three arrangement of districts
was yet to be decided, as is the issue of district representatives being elected at-large. It
was suggested the wording be clarified to show TA to Section 2.01 Composition
referring to the seven members. Members were in agreement with these revisions.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the October 11, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 9-0.
MOTION: 1Novick moved to accept the October 12, 2004, minutes as written;
seconded by Green. Motion carried 9-0.
Kubby asked for clarification on page two, under Section 2.05 Compensation, where a
letter from Rod Sullivan was mentioned. Sueppel noted that on page two, at the top,
under a motion by Kubby, it states, "as written" and he is suggesting it state "as
amended." It was pointed out that "as written" refers to the redline version of the Charter
distributed by the City Attorney. Kubby stated on page four, 9th line where it states, "She
questions why this..." should read as, "She stated why this..."
MOTION: Green moved to accept the October 13, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Garry Klein; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 9-0.
COMMUNITY PROCESS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY MEMBER KUBBY
Kubby started the discussion by saying that she is not particularly attached to the
specifics of how a public process, such as the one she is proposing is run, but that she
does feel that on the most discussed issues that they've had so far, they need to have
some more in-depth conversation with "interested community members." She feels this
will help the Commission move forward on some of the more difficult issues, and will
spark some interest in the community. The discussion turned towards advertising, and
the best way to get this type of public process broadcast to the public. Suggestions of
following up with the media outlets to see if they could do a story, or with certain civic
groups to get more input, were made. Davidsen suggested they invite specific groups,
those with an interest in civic matters. Karr explained the five-week cycle of water bills,
and the timeframe needed to get an ad printed and ready to go. Discussion continued
with members asking Kubby about her proposal, and stating how they would proceed
with the next public hearing. Kubby asked for the members' agreement that they will
have a "highly interactive" public input at the December 1 meeting. With the target date
of December 1 for an "interactive" public hearing, the members decided to set up more
meeting dates between now and the end of November, as well as December dates, in
order to prepare for this type of process.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The following meeting dates and times were agreed upon by the members:
Tuesday, October 26 from 3-5PM (October 27th already scheduled) (TAPE ENDS)
Monday, November 1 from 3-5PM (November 8th & 22nd already scheduled)
Tuesday, November 9 from 3-5:30 PM
Tuesday, November 16 from 3-5PM
Lensing asked that Karr add Kubby's "Community Process Proposal" to the agenda of
the October 26 meeting, as well as ideas for promoting this kind of public hearing.
REVIEW CHARTER (Based on 10/12 redlined version submitted by City Attorney)
Discussion began with 2.08 Appointments. The members started a discussion on this
section at the last meeting, and the issue still being discussed is the appointment of the
Police Chief by the City Council. Members questioned the process as it is currently
done, and what the ramifications would be if the Council did appoint the Police Chief.
Davidsen questioned the members on why this issue was being pushed, and whether any
of them have heard of any dissatisfaction with the current process. Lensing asked how
other communities appoint their Police Chief, and Sueppel outlined the options and
history. The civil service process was also discussed, and how the City uses these tests to
obtain candidates for the Police Chief position. Questions of accountability and
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 3
supervision, as well as termination issues, were further discussed by the members. After
much discussion, members were asked to indicate if they wanted to pursue this change.
The majority of the members stated they did not want to change the appointment process
of the Police Chiefi Therefore, it was decided to keep the process as it is now, which is
appointment by the City Manager, with approval by the City Council. Language to this
effect will be drafted by Dilkes. (TAPE ENDS) The idea of an ombudsman was briefly
discussed, with the majority of the members stating they did not feel it appropriate for
Charter Review discussion. It was stated that the termination process, and any language
change relating to this, is under Section 4.04.
MOTION: Chappell moved to keep the Police Chief appointment with the city
manager, and to have the City Attorney draft the language "with the consent of the
City Council." Motion seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 7-1. Sueppel voting in
the negative, and Green absent.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA (temporarily approve) Section 2.08 A through E;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 2.09 Rules; records - Co-Chair Lensing asked members if they had any
discussion on this section.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.09 as written; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 2.10 Vacancies - Members had no discussion or changes to this section.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.10 as written; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 2.11 Council action - a brief discussion was held on why Dilkes removed B.
from this section. She explained to the members that this section is no longer considered
necessary due to legal changes.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 2.11 as amended by Dilkes; seconded by
Novick. Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Novick gave the members a handout on population numbers that she had asked Karr to
prepare. She asked that Karr send this information on to Sueppel and Green, as well, and
that members review this for discussion later. This information is in regards to the
possibility of changing districts within the city.
Section 2.12 Prohibitions - Kubby started the discussion by asking for clarification of
B, in light of the change made in the language in 2.08. Chappell suggested they add the
language, "except as otherwise provided herein." to address this. The discussion
continued on each specific paragraph in this section, and members agreed to have Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 4
draft language for B and C, with the clarification being needed due to the Police Chief
appointment change in 2.08 and the approval by the City Council, and how this effects
their participation in this process.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.12A; Rowat seconded. Motion carried
8-0 (Green absent).
Dilkes asked the members if they would like a revised edition of the Charter now, or if
they would like to wait until they have gone through the Charter this second time.
Members agreed that they would like to wait until they have gone through the entire
review process again.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 AM; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
DRAFT
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~
MINUTES - October '19, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill (7:05), Beth Engel, Loren Horton, Greg Roth and Roger Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:05) and Staff Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
The Board recommends approval of an amendment to its Standard Operating
Procedures, Section I to clarify the administrative procedures for the complaint
process, and non-substantive changes and formatting issues.
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Engel, seconded by Williams, to adopt the consent calendar.
Minutes of the meeting on 09/14/04
· ICPD General Order #99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits)
· ICPD Standard Operating Guideline #01-03 (Emergency Communications)
· ICPD Department Memo #04-50 (July/August Use of Force Review)
· ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report (Quarter 3)- IAIR/PCRB, 2004
· ICPD Use of Force Report- August 2004
· ICPD Use of Force Report- September 2004
Motion carried, 4/0, Barnhill absent.
REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMII-rEE
Roth and Williams were appointed as the nominating committee at the September 14
meeting. Roth reported that the committee had come up with two scenarios. The first
would be to leave the current Chair and Vice-Chair in place. The second would be to
nominate Roth for Chair and Barnhill for Vice-Chair.
CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING
Motion by Williams, seconded by Roth to prescribe the method of voting by a show of
hands. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Engel, seconded by Roth to use the majority vote
for the basis for decision. Motion carried, 5/0.
NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON
Loren Horton for Chair.
Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel.
Motion carried, 5/0.
NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON Greg Roth for Vice-Chair
Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Williams.
Motion carried, 5/0.
NEW BUSINESS None.
PCRB - Page 2 DRAFT
October 19, 2004
OLD BUSINESS Proposed chanqes to Standard Operating Procedures. The Board reviewed the 2nd draft
of the proposed changes to the Standard operating Procedures. Minor additional
changes were made to the draft.
Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Engel, to adopt the Standard Operating Procedures as
amended and forward to Council. Motion carried 5/0.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
BOARD
INFORMATION Horton revisited the notification for absences. As Chair he would like Board members to
contact him and he will notify staff. If they can not reach him, then they are to call the
City Clerks office Monday through Friday 8 a.m.-5 p.m. and notify staff.
STAFF
INFORMATION Legal Counsel Pugh stated she would not be at the November meeting.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Williams, seconded by Roth, to adjourn into Executive Session based on
Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required
or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a
condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,
and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies
including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5)
police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in
the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are
made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of
government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications
from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons
would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available
for general public examination.
Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 7:37 p.m.
Motion by Roth, seconded by Williams to grant extension to Police Chief to December 6t'
for PCRB Complaint #04-02.
MEETING SCHEDULE
· November 9, 2004, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room (MEETING CANCELLED)
· December 14, 2004, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room
· January 11, 2004, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room
Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Engel, to cancel the November meeting due to lack of
Board business. The next scheduled meeting is December 14th. Motion carried, 5/0.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by Bamhill, seconded by Roth, to adjourn. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting
adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
(Meetin :Date)
TERM 1/13 2/10 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10- 9/14 10/19
NAME EXP.
Loren 9/1/08 X O/E O/E NM X NM X X X X
Horton
John 9/1/04 X X X NM X NM X OE ......
Stratton
Greg Roth 9/1/05 X X X NM X NM X X X X
Roger 9/1/05 X X X NM X NM O/E X X X
Williams
Candy 9/1/07 X X X NM X NM X X X X
Barnhill
Elizabeth 9/1/08 ...................... X X
Engel
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
.... Not a Member
PRELIMINARY
MINUTES ~
IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004, 3:30 P.M.
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Charles Felling, James Hemsley, Mark Seabold, Terry Trueblood, Emily Walsh
Absent: Barbara Camillo, Rick Fosse
Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman
Call to Order
Felling called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.
Public discussion of any item not on the agenda
Hemsley asked for an update on the Benton Hill project. Franklin reported that Joe Prescher was unable
to attend this meeting due to teaching a class on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and had requested that the
November meeting be held on Wednesday. Franklin noted that the committee needs to review color
options, and that Prescher has additional information on construction. Klingaman added that more
discussion with the neighborhood residents is needed to finalize the phrase that will be written on the park
side of the arch.
Seabold could not attend a Wednesday meeting on November 3, and suggested Monday, November 1.
Franklin will consult with Prescher to confirm that date.
Consideration of the Minutes of September 2, 2004 Meeting
A motion was made by Trueblood and seconded by Hemsley to approve the Minutes as submitted. The
motion carried unanimously by those present.
Discussion of use of public art funds for FY05
Franklin distributed handout on budget breakdown, and noted that there is currently $64K available for
use. This figure does allow for encumbrances for Transportation Center, Longfellow, Northside, and
Goosetown projects currently underway, as well as Benton Hill, Pedestrian Mall rotating sculpture, and
the Peninsula Park rotating sculpture. Not included is the Wetherby project, which is in abeyance.
Franklin suggested that Wetherby be considered along with any other projects that may be under
deliberation.
Downtown alley project: Franklin noted that the City Manager had requested the Committee investigate
ways to improve downtown alleys, in conjunction with efforts to clean up and beautify the alleys, and had
worked with former student Zack Scafuri on archway designs. Distributed printouts of proposal, and
added that she received an estimated cost which seems high for the project. Increased complexity can be
achieved on the "Nightlife" piece, if desired. Targeted alleys are in the Pedestrian Mall, between Linn and
Clinton Streets.
"Nightlife" cost was estimated at $19K, and the "Taking Flight" piece was estimated at $13K, which
includes cost of the aluminum, cutting and fabricating the metal archway, one color of paint, bracing, and
fabricating brackets. It does not include silhouetting or cutouts, two colors of paint, engineering evaluation
of wind load, or any over coating, though she expects those additional costs would be minor. Inquired
whether there is interest in supporting the project with Public Art funds. This would be contingent on the
alley beautification project going forward, which will be addressed by the City Manager and the City
Council.
Hemsley inquired what the likelihood is of the alley project going forward. Karin replied it is unknown.
Trueblood asked for confirmation that project is estimated for $32K total. Franklin confirmed that number,
adding that the estimate seemed high. Seabold agreed, noting that the original proposal had seemed
smaller. Hemsley also remarked that this proposal appears flatter than expected, and not as dynamic.
General agreement expressed that the printouts did not meet expectations, based on earlier discussions
with the artist.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
September 2, 2004
Page 2
Franklin clarified that there are aesthetic concerns with the current proposal. Klingaman asked if there
was some known reason for a change in proposal. Franklin did not know, but suggested that the proposal
should go through the evaluation process with the Committee, as some parts of the process may have
been bypassed. Starting over with a new proposal may be an option, though she would need to consult
with the City Manager, as the project is in conjunction with his alley project.
Felling noted that the project has potential to be unique and interesting. Seabold agreed, adding that he
would like something that is not so flat and that engages the alley more fully. Seabold also expressed
concern with the estimated cost. Trueblood inquired how many archways would be involved. Franklin
reported the proposal is for one design at either end of two alleys, totaling four archways.
Seabold confirmed that $32K would be total for all four. Hemsley inquired whether the artist is tied to the
project, and whether changes to the project would require participation of this artist. Franklin replied that
use or alteration of those particular designs would involve this artist, but the project itself is not tied to this
artist. Explained that the artist was a student in a graphics class to which she had made a presentation,
and Scafuri had been developing ideas to enhance alleys for a class project. Then the City Manager
proposed the idea to enhance some of the downtown alleys, so the two projects seemed to work well
together. This could also be a Public Art project independent of other city initiatives as well, which would
allow the Committee to work through the design issues in their usual fashion.
Hemsley asked if the current proposals coordinate with other projects that have specific themes defined.
Franklin replied that they do not. That would only apply if there were a redevelopment in the area. Other
alley activities would involve cteanup, painting, etc.
Seabold asked if there is a specific plan for the alley project. Franklin responded that the project has not
progressed that far. This project was only one possibility to consider for the use of public art funds.
Neighborhood art projects: Franklin noted that the Wetherby project is not active, but may become so at a
later date depending on neighborhood initiative. Creekside is interested in a project. Klingaman added
that Broadway could be solicited, with a note to find out how they would implement the project according
to the Committee procedures in regards to time, resources, and interest. Harlocke also has expressed
interest in a project. Overall, there is interest in the projects in the neighborhoods, though no current
activity. Felling noted that current projects might stimulate interest in other areas. Klingaman agreed.
Rotating sculpture exhibits: Franklin continued by confirming that the Committee will be continuing with
the rotating sculpture projects underway in the pedestrian mall and the peninsula area. Only one
sculpture will be done for the peninsula this fiscal year.
Also suggested taking into consideration doing something else for comparable amount. If Creekside and
Wetherby go forward with ideas at comparable level of expense as other neighborhoods, or
approximately $15K a piece, that would leave $34K available. Inquired whether there are projects the
Committee members are interested in pursuing. Seabold expressed interest in developing the alley
project, perhaps with different ideas.
Trueblood inquired about progress of the project at Waterworks Prairie Park. Was that project put on
hold? Franklin responded that might be an option. She clarified that the project in question was a
sculptural piece at the entrance to the water plant building. She confirmed that it was set aside as a
project that would not be supported with water funds but that it could be a public art project. Felling added
that the project originally conceived for the site was beyond the Public Art budget. Franklin noted that
there are two sites, one in front of the building, as well as a sculpture garden in the park. Trueblood noted
the sculpture garden may still be a possibility, and added that the old downtown fountain is another
option, either as a working fountain or a piece of art. Franklin remarked that turning that into a working
fountain would increase the expense.
Franklin inquired about doing public solicitation of public art ideas, as a way to engage the community
and gain feedback and participation in the art put into the community. Trueblood agreed that might be a
good option, and noted that Riverside Theatre would like to have a Shakespeare Garden by the Festival
Theatre in Lower City Park, though that may not be a Public Art project. Hemsley explained that might be
a garden of plants that were referenced in Shakespearean plays, with plaques showing the play and the
quote.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
September 2, 2004
Page 3
Felling remarked that the Committee had mentioned a public survey previously, and Franklin confirmed
that it had been a goal expressed by the Committee in the past. This would both give ideas for projects,
and give the public an opportunity to get involved in the concept of public art. Seabold agreed this is a
good idea, but not sure how to do it. Hemsley suggested using the newspaper. Interested in getting a
variety of responses from different areas of the city.
Trueblood noted that ideas the Committee would be looking for would be both locations and pieces or
themes. Seabold inquired whether the funds could be used to sponsor an event, something to promote
public art and to involve the public. Franklin answered that it would need to be a Iow-expense event, as
the Committee does not have a large operating budget. One option could be collaboration with another
organization or event such as a gallery walk. There are two per year, and association with that may work
well, and would be an event relatively easy to plan for. Collaboration on an existing event could be more
practical than a solo event. Trueblood suggested the Arts Festival might be an option as well.
Seabold noted that he would like to do a fun event with public participation, sidewalk chalk, for example;
public art done by the public. Trueblood added that this has been done with construction fences, by the
library for instance. Franklin noted that one of the Arts Festivals had a "Paint the Town" event, which had
panels with outlines that people could paint in. Trueblood remarked that Joyce Caroll headed up that
effort down town, with painting parties at certain times and supplies provided.
Seabold inquired whether there would be a place where such a thing could be permanent, perhaps in the
walkway next to the Sheraton. Seabold added that an artist in Des Moines does inclusion projects
periodically. Seabold explained that means they are short-term, site-specific pieces, and people can
watch the project go up over a weekend. Looking for Iow budget options.
Franklin suggested Committee members think about it, and bring ideas to discuss at the next meeting.
Hemsley inquired whether the poetry project is still proceeding. Franklin replied in the affirmative and
reported that is handled through the operational budget because it is not a capital asset. Klingaman
added that ideas could be solicited from the neighborhoods before the next meeting, as well.
Trueblood asked if the Committee should be thinking of ideas for public art, or ideas for public
involvement. Franklin replied both, and continued by saying that the Committee needs to have a plan to
spend the surplus $64K by the end of the fiscal year.
Felling suggested adding some more civic character statues down town, which may be one way to get the
public involved, with a poll to see who they would be. Franklin noted that Tom Mueller suggested a statue
of Paul Engel by the library, and that seeing who is suggested would be interesting. Trueblood inquired
whether Mueller anticipated matching funds for the Engel piece, such as with the Weber project. Franklin
replied that she thinks so, though she has not spoken to Tom Mueller recently. Collaborative projects are
always welcome.
Hemsley asked how many individual neighborhoods have been identified. Klingaman reported 28, with an
estimate of half having had activity within the past year. Trueblood remarked that most associations form
in response to a specific issue, and become inactive when the issue is no longer a factor. Franklin asked
who would be contacted when public art projects are solicited, the Neighborhood Council or other
contacts. Klingaman replied that she contacts all neighborhoods, regardless of their activity level.
Update on Peninsula Park sculpture proiect
Klingaman examined the site recently with Franklin, and then again with the City Engineer, Ron Knoche.
The project has been delayed due to the high water in the river. Preliminary decision based on
consideration of visibility and the feel of Goddard's piece is to place the statue near the pedestrian bridge
after grading is completed. The asphalt trail will meet up with the end of the bridge and the grade will be
raised six or more feet above the current construction access road. As pedestrians walk east towards the
city across the bridge, they should be able to see the piece. There will also be an overlook on the south
side of the bridge where it will be visible.
Grading will not be done for several weeks, so current plan is to install the piece in April or May. Goddard
has confirmed that time is fine, and is already working on the project. Will be working to have the contract
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
September 2, 2004
Page 4
signed so the honorarium can be paid, to allow for purchasing materials. Hoping to have contract signed
at November 2 Council meeting.
Report on Public Art Proqram Network meetin.q, August 2004
Franklin distributed printed summary of meeting. Reported that the Department of Cultural Affairs is
beginning to promote the Public Art Network. Intended to pull together all public art programs in Iowa,
which is good for sharing ideas. Participating communities were Ames, Cedar Falls, Des Moines, Iowa
City, IDOT, and Waterloo. The IDOT is participating because of projects at rest areas.
Noted that there are differences in how and where the programs are organized and situated in the cities.
Ames is very similar to Iowa City. Cedar Falls and Waterloo are administered out of a Department of
Leisure or Leisure and Culture, which is a part of the Parks and Recreation Department in Waterloo.
Those cities have centers for the arts, which have staff people devoted to the arts. They also work in
conjunction with a board or committee, and involve a considerable amount of solicitation of private money
to support their projects.
Des Moines' program is relatively new, now reforming into a Public Art Foundation that is a part of the
Community Foundation. The City Council does not want to have a role in choosing public art, though they
are willing to fund it. Very different from the Iowa City Council, which wants to be involved in the decision
process because it is a use of public funds. Des Moines' program will have a board that will manage and
administer the program.
Composition of Cedar Falls and Des Moines' boards includes both in one case a prior city council
member, as well as residents with connections within their community as art advocates. Encourage long-
time residents and those connected with individuals with money in the city. Profile of the communities are
different than in Iowa City.
Some programs have had brochures created to show some of their collections, which are used to
publicize the programs. Much of Ames art appears to be fiat pieces displayed in the City Hall.
Discussed an artist registry, as it is difficult to keep current contact with individuals. Bruce Williams at the
Department of Cultural Affairs is willing to maintain this on a state level, with the agreement that individual
programs will use and refer only to the state registry. Much more discussion on this topic is needed, as
issues of access and cost need to be addressed. Felling inquired about a fee. Franklin replied that is
unknown at this point, though experience has shown that it has been difficult to access the information,
and has not always been distributed in a useable format. For example, would prefer to have email rather
than postal addresses.
Arts Council does have some grants available, up to $25K, but Bruce Williams reported they are reluctant
to give awards for acquisition. They want money to go to projects at the planning and design stage, and
are interested in process, public participation, and projects that use artists in residence. Suggested that
this would be an option for plans such as the neighborhood projects, which engage an artist over a period
of time. Felling suggested the money could be used for an event. Seabold agreed, such as bringing an
artist in for a short-term project.
Franklin continued by saying that the Network will be meeting annually, with the next meeting in Cedar
Falls, and she would like to have Committee participation in these meetings in the future. The next
opportunity for involvement is the Iowa Cultural Caucus on November 8. Klingaman will be attending this
event, though Franklin will be unable to. The Iowa City program will be showcased as a success story,
and will have materials at the event to be passed out to participants. Registration fee is $30, which would
be covered by the operating budget for those who wish to go.
Register at www.culturalaffairs.org/culturalcaucus. Klingaman registered using a procurement card, and
Franklin suggested that interested people call the office at 356-5230 and tell Janet they wish to attend the
caucus, and they will take care of registration. Klingaman added that the event begins at 8:30 am and
ends at 5:00, so she will be driving there early that morning. Confirmed it is a one-day event, on Monday
November 8.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
September 2, 2004
Page 5
Trueblood asked if website gives more information besides registration. Klingaman replied that there is a
different website with information. Franklin noted that this event stems from Imagine Iowa 2010, and is
looking at local programs' goals, in this case community development and cultural tourism. Will be
emphasizing down town projects and how they contribute to cultural tourism. The neighborhood projects
will be linked to the community development aspect, engaging people in the process of deciding what art
will be a part of their neighborhood.
Klingaman will send the informational website to Committee members, and requested they let her know
whether they will be able to attend.
Committee Time/Other business
Franklin reported on the city's application to the State to be recognized as a cultural district. Displayed a
map of the proposed cultural district submitted to the State, which includes UIHC, Hancher, City Park,
Northside, and Downtown. Cultural and entertainment areas are both included. Josh Schaumberger will
be presenting to the Department of Cultural Affairs on October 28. Lead sponsor of this project is the
Iowa City/Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, in collaboration with the City, the University, the
Downtown Association, and Johnson County Cultural Alliance.
The districts should be announced at the November 8 caucus, though notification to the individual
applicant communities should be received near November 1. This is recognition that there is a cultural
center in certain cities, a fact that can then be used in marketing and other activities. Also includes four
signs indicating this status, to be displayed around the city.
Trueblood inquired whether this might lead to other benefits in the future, such as grant money. Franklin
replied this is possible, though money has not yet been allocated. Also may include tax incentives to
preserve historic buildiings, in addition to current incentives.
Franklin also noted the "Quench Us" proposal not on agenda. Committee expressed general confusion
about the concept, and agreed to wait for the artist to initiate further contact.
Felling confirmed that the next meeting is tentatively planned for November 1 at 3:30 pm. Email
confirmation will be sent.
Hemsley confirmed that Committee members would be considering ideas both for projects and
community involvement for next meeting. Seabold inquired if the project needs to involve an artist, or if
the Committee can produce an idea and hire someone to do it. Is there a process for submitting an idea
for a project? Franklin agreed that the Committee can propose a concept, but a Committee member
cannot be contracted to produce the design or piece because of conflict of interest issues.
Felling suggested that the Committee solicit ideas from the public for the alley project. Trueblood
remarked that an idea might be submitted for a mural. Hemsley noted that someone is painting the
world's largest whale mural on the Great Wall of China. Seabold expressed interest in doing something
big in Iowa City.
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the Committee, Felling moved to adjourn and Seabold
seconded. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
s:/pcd/m~nutes/PublicArt/2004/art I O*O?-04.doc
Public Art Advisory Committee
Attendance Record
2004
Term
Name Expires 01/08 02/05 03/04 04/01 05/06 05/20 06/03 07/01 07/29 08/05 09/02 10/07 11/04 12/02
Barbara Camillo 01/01/05 O X X X X X O/E X X NM X O/E
Charles Felling 01/01/06 X X X X X X O/E X X NM X X
Rick Fosse X X O X O/E X X X X NM X O/E
James Itemsley 01/01/06 O O X X O/E O/E O/E O/E X NM X X
Mark Seabold 01/01/07 X X O X X X X X X NM X X
Terry Trueblood X X X X X O/E X O/E X NM X X
Emily Carter Walsh 01/01/05 O X X X X X X X X NM X X
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
..... Not a Member
IP18
Iowa CiW
Public Library
BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A
Minutes
Soptember 23, 2004 - 5:00 pm
2n" Floor Board Room
David VanDusseldorp, ¥i¢e President
Linzee McCray, Vice President
Thomas Dean
Kathy GIoer
Linda Prybil
Pat Schnack, Secretary
Tom Suter
Jim Swaim
Members Present: Thomas Dean, Kathy Gloer, Linzee McCray (left at 6:00 pm), Linda Prybil,
Tom Suter, Jim Swaim, David VanDusseldorp,
Members Absent: Pat Schnack
Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Heidi
Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Hal Penick
Call meeting to Order
VanDusseldorp called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
Public Discussion
None
Approval of minutes
Suter's name appeared in both Members present and absent. A motion was made to approve the
minutes as corrected, by Suter and seconded by McCray. Motion passed 7-0.
Unfinished Business
Building Report.
Craig reported that we still have $650,000 outstanding as retainage from Knutson contract. We will
pay out as punch list gets completed. Outstanding issues are being checked off. Board members
continue to report hearing very positive comments about the new building.
Leased Space:
Hanick continues to show the space to interested new parties. An earlier client has not been ruled out.
We have not changed our criteria about tenants. A question was raised about how long we are
obligated to work with Hanick. Craig thought his contract was due to be renewed next month.
County Contract
The City Attorney recommended a small change, adding the Library as one of the parties who can
terminate the contract. Action from the Board is required. It is scheduled for the Council's agenda in
September 23, 2004 Agenda item 3A
Page No 2
October. Prybil moved approval. Swaim seconded it. Discussion. Prybil felt that this is a good
contract and reflects everything that had been discussed over the last year. This will automatically
renew each year unless one of the parties decides otherwise. All voted Aye. Motion carried 7-0.
New Business
FY06 Bud.qet
Staff prepared this draft budget. Craig explained that in previous years we had more time to review
and approve at a later Board meeting. However City Hall has moved up their timeline and The
Finance Department has requested numbers by tomorrow. The Board needs to take action on this
budget tonight. Craig said it was helpful that the Finance Department included anticipated projections
and Craig used those numbers, in the past these numbers were not available for the first draft of the
budget. In preparing the budget, staff had a conversation about requesting another permanent staff in
Maintenance Department. Craig does not believe this is the year to ask for it and rather has asked for
another temporary part-time maintenance assistant. We are still getting information about the new
building, supplies and maintenance. She wants to add another $1,000 in building supplies. Another
item is snow removal on the Linn St. side of the building. Parks & Recreation, and Parking staff did
snow removal before construction began on the Moen building. We may have to add money to the
budget for snow removal unless we can make an arrangement with Parks & Recreation. She will
include funds in the budget to compensate for the snow removal if Parks cannot do it as part of Plaza
snow removal.
In response to a question about the usual flow of the budget process, Swaim was concerned about the
lack of time to study the budget and make recommendations in terms of redirecting funds. Craig
explained that she does that routinely during the year within major areas of the budget, but there was
not a lot of wiggle reom since the majority of it goes to fund personnel expenses. In the spring Finance
asks for budget amendments. Swaim is in favor of a longer deliberative process and would like to
explore another option for next year.
Craig asked Board if there were questions about the Project Sheets included in the budget information.
Trustees were happy to see parking reimbursement included as they had requested. Prybil asked
about old equipment; in particular, the replacement of three Microfilm readers and a reader printer.
Logsden replied that in the past we have traded some of the equipment in; have taken pieces off one
reader printer and used it on a newer machine. However these machines are at least 25 years old.
The format for historical newspapers is still microfilm so there isn't another option for complete pages
of newspapers including ads. For historical value our papers start in 1860's and the only way to get
them is on microfilm. Newer equipment allows you to scan articles in from the microfilm and digitally
manipulate them, store them, e-mail or take home on a memory stick.
A question came up regarding the 12% increment of annual maintenance for the WebBridge module.
Black explained that the first year there is no maintenance. With future maintenance contracts, all
upgrades, etc. are provided with no charge.
Swaim moved approval of the FY06 budget. Suter seconded. Swaim reiterated that he would like to
have a bigger window of time. There was an agreement by several Board members that they needed
to be studious and would like more time to see the budget. The intent of the motion is that the
suggestions Craig made be included as part of our approval. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0.
NOBU Budqet
Craig explained that because of new accounting standards, we need to include dollar amounts and
items with this budget. Craig feels that she can come back to the Board this summer if priorities
change although she needs to submit this budget along with the Operating budget. The motion was
made to approve NOBU budget by Gloer and seconded by Swaim. Prybil had a question about the
inventory wand. It was explained that this would allow you to go to a shelf and scan it using the wand.
That information could be dumped into the system, comparing it and giving information allowing us to
know what could be missing. It would allow us to take advantage of a feature that is available.
September 23, 2004 Agenda item 3A
Page No 3
There was no further discussion. All in favor voted Aye. Motion carried 7-0.
Staff Reports
A. Departmental Reports: Adult Services, Circulation, Information
Clark encouraged the Board to come to the Gallery Walk and view the display of the Cimulating art
purchase prizewinners as well as the permanent art collection in the library October 8. There were
some questions about our wireless capabilities as well as our plug in ports. Clark explained that we
would allow patrons to borrow cords to be used at Ethernet pods.
Prybil was pleased to read that the Library is partnering with Kirkwood on an English as a Second
Language program. A display of books was on the Board table representing banned or challenged
books this year. Our Intellectual Freedom Programs are wonderful this year. Board is encouraged to
attend.
Self-pickup of holds started September 1. The system will prevent someone from checking out your
book. That and self-check will allow individuals to pick up their holds and check them out which for
some people is very popular. Self-Check is slowly increasing. In response to a question regarding
what is standard for a mature system, Lauritzen explained that it depends on how you run your library.
Some libraries reduce staff forcing more people to go to self-check. The results are what we hoped
for. We are able to take some of our part-time temporary staff off the desk to do some shelving which
means getting the books back on the shelf faster and we're handling the increased circulation.
Big Brain was awesome this morning. The popular radio show is being broadcast from the library once
a month.
Development Office
Trustees are invite to attend the grand opening of the completed Ellen Buchanan Children's Room
entrance on October 23. Ellen Buchanan and her family including grandkids will be cutting the ribbon.
Curtin will be attending only one more Library Board meeting. The Book End is celebrating their sixth
anniversary. VanDusseldorp remarked that it sure was better than the book sales in the garage.
Board Vacancy
A memo from Lubaroff was included in the packet, explaining the delay in filling the Board with
vacancy.
ILA Conference is being held October 13, 14, 15 in Sioux City. Trustees are invited to attend this
conference.
An article from Library Journal about Innovative Interfaces, Inc. was included in the packet. They are a
top-notch company and Craig wanted to share it with the Board. Newspaper articles about our
promotion of the "Get a Library Card" campaign were included.
We will be doing a users survey. Volunteers are needed and Board members were invited to
participate.
We have a sudden vacancy on the Art Committee. Staff is recommending that that they be replaced
with an individual who did not get on the committee so that we can involve the person in the Art
Purchase Prize. Board agreed that it made sense to solve an immediate problem however they
continue to advocate for an open recruitment that is publicized when terms are up. Action for this item
will take place next month.
President's Report
VanDusseldorp promoted the ability to vote in the Library. He encouraged Trustees to be sure to vote.
September 23, 2004 Agenda item 3A
Page No 4
Announcements from Members
In response to a question, Craig said that December 6, at 5:30 pm is the time scheduled for a meeting
with our State legislators.
Dean described a project he is involved in to get people to write about wildlife in Iowa. An
announcement will be sent out to all libraries in Iowa.
Committee Report
Surer reported that the last Foundation meeting was brief as it was a combined celebratory occasion to
bid farewell to Barb Curtin. Interviews have been conducted for Curtin's replacement and an
announcement will be forthcoming.
The endowment portion of the campaign will be kicked off soon.
For the record Suter thanked Curtin for the wonderful work she's done as Director of Development.
Gloer seconded Suter's praise.
Disbursements
Visa expenditures for August were reviewed.
Disbursements for August were approved unanimously after a motion made by Prybil and seconded by
Suter. All voted in favor and the motion passed 7-0.
Set agenda order for October meeting.
Final budget discussion if there are issues.
Examine methods to involve community in planning process. Craig will talk to consultant Ann Seizer
about the best way to manage that.
Swaim encouraged Trustees to sign up to help with the surveys. He said it is good for patrons to see
Trustees working and good for Trustees to have the experience
Dean moved for adjournment at 6:30 pm. Prybil seconded and all voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0.
Minutes taken and transcribed by
Martha Lubaroff
Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
(Meetin
TERM 1/22/ 2/19/ 3/25/ 4/22/ 5/27/ 6/24/ 7/22/ 8/26~ 9/2~3
NAME EXP. 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04
Thomas 7/1/09 x x x x x O/e x x x
Dean
Kathy Gloer x x x
Linzee 7/I/09 x o/e x x x x x x x
McCray
Linda Prybil 7/1/05 o/e o/e o/e x x x O/e x x
Pat Schnack 7/1/07 x x x x x x O/e x 0/e
K.Je:se 7/I/05 o~ o/e · o/e o/e Oge
Tom Suter 7/1/07 x x x x o x x O/e x
Jim Swaim 7/1/05 x o/e x x o/e O/e x x x
David Van 7/1/07 x x x x x x x x x
Dusseldorp
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
.... Not a Member
MINUTES DRAFT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
CiViC CENTER - EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Jim Ponto, Jann Weissmiller, Justine Zimmer
STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty
OTHERS PRESENT: Ted Chambers, Phil Launspach, Andrew Ives, Larry Svoboda, W. Max Mons,
Mike Haverkamp, Helen Burford, Mike Brennan, Greg Allen
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Public meetin.q: Jefferson Street Historic District.
Regarding notification of owners, McCafferty stated that she reviewed the list of addresses and property
owners, and there had only been one change of ownership. She said that letters were mailed out
according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. McCafferty said that the Johnson County Tax
Assessor's information was used to obtain mailing addresses. She said the notice was sent to 800 2nd
Street, Suite 500E, Coralville.
Public hearing.
Ted Chambers said that he works for a management company and takes care of three properties in this
area: 22 North Gilbert, 24 North Gilbert, and 43 Jefferson Street. He stated that neither he nor the owner
of the properties, Dick Morrissey of Denver, Colorado, received notification of any of the meetings.
Phil Launspach, 136 Koser, said that he owns the properly at 405 East Jefferson and manages the
properties that his mother owns at 431 East Jefferson and 425 East Jefferson. He said his family has
owned the properties since the late 1950S.
Launspach said that all of his neighbors on the south side of the 400 block of Jefferson were opposed to
having their properties included and all sent notarized letters to the Commission to let them know of their
opposition. Launspach said Cindy Parsons, who is on the board of the Congregationalist Church on the
corner of Clinton and Jefferson, also wrote a letter voicing the church's opposition. He said he also met
with Andrew Ives at the University, and Ives told him that the University has no interest in the district and
would like to be excluded from the district.
Launspach said that of the properties on the south side of Jefferson Street, it appears that there is not a
single property owner on the south side of Jefferson Street who is interested in being in this district. He
said that there are a total of 14 properties there, and he counted 38 properties in the entire district.
Launspach said he knew specifically of five properties on the north side who have already written letters
regarding the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District, and they are not in favor as well.
Launspach said that what he is hoping for is a division of this district going right down the center of
Jefferson Street excluding all of the south side properties. He said this could incl0de the north side,
because he knew there were some good neighbors on the north side who want to be included.
Andrew Ives, 1310 Te,q Drive, said that he is the business manager for The University of Iowa. He
respectfully requested that the University be excluded from the proposed Jefferson Street Historic District.
Ives said that he was unaware of this hearing, but he had earlier written a letter indicating the University's
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 2
objection to this matter, because the University had not received notice of the hearing. He said he
received a letter back from the State saying that it was too late to object.
Maharry said that the difference in the notification relates to local district designation versus National
Register designation. He said the present hearing concerns local designation. Ives asked if this is
applying the local ordinance to the nationally designated district, and Maharry confirmed this.
Ives stated that the University still would like to be excluded from the district, although it has no objection
to the Commission proceeding with the district. He said the University does not feel that it lends a great
deal to the district. Ives said that the University has no specific plans with respect to those properties and
has recently invested millions of dollars in three of the four properties but still would like to be excluded
from the district.
Larry Svoboda, 16 Cherry Lane N.E., said he owns property in Iowa City but does not own any property in
this particular area. He said that it seems that there are some very nice, older restored properties that
certainly qualify for historic designation. Svoboda said, however, there are also some propertie.s on the
street that are on the other end of the scale.
Svoboda said he is a landlord in Iowa City and knows about owning property, and even the owner may
not have full control over it because of things like this. He said that some of the property owners are
caught in a straddle position of owning a property that has been dismantled; for instance, in the southeast
quadrant of this area are six houses in a row that have vinyl siding. Svoboda said that any kind of
architectural feature on the house was dismantled some time ago. He said that on the one hand, the
owner cannot really rehab the house because there is not enough income out of it to do what the
Commission expects. Svoboda stated that on the other hand, the landlord cannot really sell the house
because no one will want to buy an income producing property in this condition in a historic preservation
district. He said this will work a financial hardship on certain people.
Svoboda asked what kind of control the Commission would have over churches in the area, and if the
churches would be prevented from printing the Ten Commandments on the front of the church. He said it
seems obvious to him that the Commission is trying to use this as a buffer zone for those houses that are
worthy of the designation so that they are protected from encroachment by people who want to move into
the neighborhood and perhaps tear these other buildings down and put up a different kind of structure.
Svoboda said he believes this is a reactive position to a problem that probably needs to be addressed. He
said he sees historic designation in this type of situation as a reaction to some deterioration in the
neighborhood. Svoboda suggested that the Commission take a proactive stance by trying to provide
some incentive for the other houses in the neighborhood.
Svoboda said that there is a tremendous vacancy rate in Iowa City right now, and a lot of it is close in in
this type of housing. He said that these people are already caught in a financial pinch, and he believes
that the only way it would be supported is if there is some kind of incentive to rehab the properties.
Svoboda said that certainly in this kind of designated area, it's not going to happen, because it is too
expensive and the owner doesn't get a return on his investment.
McCafferty noted that three of the church properties are already listed on the National Register and were
listed in 1996 as local historic landmarks. Weitzel added that one of the churches already has religious
inscriptions on the side of the building. He said the Commission does not tell people what they can or
cannot post on the side of their property.
Launspach asked if the churches have voting power, and McCafferty confirmed this. Launspach said that
in the 400 block of Jefferson Street, every one of the properties is some type of commercial property. He
said that they are all rental properties. Launspach said that none of the buildings are owner-occupied
except for one, which also contains an audio-video store.
McCafferty said that this is a transitional zone, allowing both commercial and residential uses. Launspach
said this area was originally designated as a buffer zone between downtown and residential and was
zoned CB-2 until just recently.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 3
W. Max Mons, 404 East Jefferson, said he represents St. Paul's Chapel. He said that at the last meeting
he objected to the designation on behalf of his congregation. Mons said that the building is owned by the
Iowa District East of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Number 126 Congregation Strong, and the
chairman of the Board of Directors asked him to again voice objection.
Mons asked about the last meeting at which it was stated that if owners of a certain percentage of square
footage objected, then a certain course of action would be available to them. McCafferty said that in the
National Register process, if 51% of the owners object to the State, the district is not listed on the
National Register. She stated that in this case, with local designation, if owners of more than 20% of the
property area within the boundaries of the district object to the City Council, a supermajority vote of City
Council, six out of seven votes, would be required for approval.
Mike Brennan, 1207 Seymour, said he asked at the last hearing about the technical merits of the
Newman Center being included in the district and since then has realized there is a small, older chapel
attached to it. He said that nevertheless it is designated as a non-contributing property, and it is on the
edge of the district. Brennan asked what the technical merits are of including a non-contributing property,
most of which has been built within the last ten years, within a historic district.
Brennan said he knew there was a preference for squaring off local districts, but that clearly doesn't apply
as a rationale to the North Gilbert District and asked why a non-contributing property on the edge would
be included. He stated that federal regulations traditionally exclude religious institutions unless they are
an integral part of the district.
McCafferty said that Brennan's question was relayed to the consultant. McCafferty said the reason the
Newman Center was added to the National Register District was because of the historic structure on the
site. She stated that under National Register regulations, a property cannot be split; one-half of a building
cannot be registered. McCafferty said this would be considered one building because a non-historic and a
historic portion are connected. She said the consultant did not feel it had the merits to be a contributing
building, but it did have the significance of the historic structure and the significance complied with the
National Register regulations in the federal code.
Mike Haverkamp, 109 North Van Buren, thanked those in attendance and said he appreciated the
opposition coming out and being part of this process. He said that those in favor of the local district have
their work cut out for them.
Haverkamp stated that the Congregational Church is already on the National Register and is therefore
already bound by all of the regulations that a local district would be bound by. Regarding questions about
the south side of Jefferson Street and the fact that those are income properties, Haverkamp said he
recently looked at the City website and noted that for the following properties the City allows the following
number of units and residents: 403 South Jefferson-five units and 12 occupants; 405 South Jefferson-five
units and 11 occupants; 409/411 South Jefferson-six units and 19 occupants; 413 South Jefferson-five
units and 11 occupants; 415 South Jefferson-number of residents to be determined; 425 South Jefferson-
six units and 14 occupants; 431 South Jefferson-six units and 13 residents.
Regarding the discussion about owners being saddled with a property that is not in good shape,
Haverkamp said there is no way an owner could demolish one of those properties and build back with
that kind of density. He said that it is in the best interests of the owners to maintain those properties,
because there isn't enough lot space or enough square footage in those properties now to allow them to
have the density that they currently do.
Haverkamp said that he has owned and lived in his house for 18 years. He said he considers himself the
steward of the house, as he did not build it, nor will he be the last one to live there. Haverkamp said some
may say that some of those houses are not in bad shape, but they are not historic. He stated that there
are two houses on the south side of Jefferson Street that were designed by O. H. Carpenter, who
designed the CSPS Hall, the Shambaugh House, the Arthur Hiller Ford House, and many other houses
throughout Iowa City. Haverkamp said that 403 South Jefferson is probably the only house that Carpenter
designed as a rental property. He added that the house at 425 South Jefferson is the Sueppel house,
which was built for an incredibly prominent Iowa City family, although Launspach owns the property now.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 4
Haverkamp said that the boundaries the Commission has drawn on the historic district make sense. He
said the boundaries include historic structures and include a neighborhood that at one time was unified
and still is. Haverkamp said he enjoys living in a mixed-use neighborhood and has no problem living next
to rental properties.
Haverkamp said the Commission has a relatively narrow focus. He said that if the Commission approves
this, it will go on to the Planning and Zoning Commission and three hearings at the City Council level.
Haverkamp said that is the kind of discussion there should be. He said he believes the Commission
should approve this district and realizes there is never a way to make everyone happy. Haverkamp said,
however, that this is a historic neighborhood, and the Historic Preservation Commission owes it to Iowa
City's future to do what it can to designate it as such.
Helen Burford, 604 Ronalds Street, asked the Commission to take into consideration that the City Council
has passed an ordinance to establish a cultural district, and as part of that pledge, to preserve the historic
neighborhoods of Iowa City. She said those neighborhoods add to the complexity of the Iowa City
community, which makes it a cultural epicenter for the State.
Mike Brennan asked for a more elaborate explanation as to how a property designated as non-
contributing forms an integral part of the district in which it is said to be located.
McCafferty said that non-contributing properties are typically historic for local designation; she said that
properties that are non-historic are classified as such and have very loose guidelines. She said that non-
contributing properties often have sufficient form, mass, rooflines, etc. that there is potential for them to
be rehabbed. McCafferty said that rehabilitation and restoration is not forced upon property owners. She
said that there is no mandate that once a district is passed that an owner will have to invest in the
property to do rehabilitation. McCafferty said the Commission does not regulate things such as paint
colors or inscriptions.
McCafferty said the Commission does regulate additions, major changes, windows, and demolition of a
building or portions of a building. She said a non-contributing property may in fact have the potential to
contribute to the district or it may be a property which, due to changes over time, does not quite fit with
the general character of a district. McCafferty said that per State Code, there cannot be doughnut holes in
historic districts.
McCafferty stated that the Commission only regulates projects that require a building permit and change
the exterior appearance of the property. She said she compiled a list of all historic reviews conducted
since the Commission began doing historic review, and the data shows that a property would require
historic review on average once every twenty years. McCafferty said she reviewed Jefferson Street
building permits issued since 1992, and since that time, there have been ten building permits issued for
this area that would have required historic review.
Svoboda discussed the scenario in which a severe hailstorm perforates and cracks the vinyl siding that is
on many of these houses, and the vinyl siding has to be replaced. He said the vinyl was installed because
the old lap siding underneath was rotting away. Svoboda asked what the homeowner could do to replace
that siding.
McCafferty said the guidelines are not ordinances and therefore allow for flexibility for the unanticipated.
She said there is a current case in which she will propose three possibilities so that in the event there are
problems with what is under the siding, there are backups so that the owner can be assured that he won't
be forced into something that his insurance won't pay for.
Svoboda said the insurance company will pay for replacement of the vinyl siding. He said that if there is
damage to only two sides of the house, the insurance policy will have a matching clause that will not allow
the insurance to pay for the two undamaged sides of the house. Svoboda said the owner will be stuck
with the replacement of the vinyl siding with some other kind of siding if vinyl isn't allowed. He said that
when the owner takes off the vinyl, the original siding is now exposed. Svoboda asked how far the owner
will have to go to repair the house and also meet the regulations imposed by a historic district.
McCafferty said that based on the experience she has had with the two insurance inquiries, because the
properties are located within historic districts and the owners simply cannot replace the aluminum siding,
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 5
the insurance companies have allowed the owners to comply with the regulations. She said that if there is
a partial replacement, the owner is allowed to repair or replace portions of the siding.
Maharry said the Commission cannot get into specifics with a hypothetical case. He said that when the
Commission has an application in front of it, and there will be three considered later in the meeting, the
Commission decides each application on the merits of the case.
Brennan said the proposed revision to the zoning ordinance concerning economic hardship was noted at
a previous meeting to not apply to financial conditions but was only upon total deprivation of economic
value that the City would grant exemptions from the historic process.
McCafferty said the financial hardship clause is found in the federal code of regulations. Brennan asked if
the City had those in its ordinance to grant relief under the local ordinance, because the City can have
tighter standards than the federal government might. McCafferty responded that the City does not have
the specific guidelines codified in the ordinance, so that there can be some flexibility. She said there have
been situations in the past in which the Commission has not strictly adhered to the guidelines and the
cost of a proposal or recommendation is considered.
Public hearing closed.
Weitzel said that normally when a district is designated, it should include both sides of the street. He said
that is the national criteria. Weitzel said that is not necessarily the case for a local district; however, the
Commission has tended to stay with that for previous districts. He said if the Commission excludes
properties on the south side, then there will be people on the north side who want to be excluded and
then where will it stop. Weitzel said then it crumbles, and the whole thing erodes away.
Weitzel asked, if any of the buildings are torn down, if it is true that the owner could rebuild at the same
density. McCafferty said the RO zone is intended to be a transitional zone between downtown and
residential neighborhoods. She said the RO zone is intended to allow flexibility for commercial use of old
buildings but also for the construction of smaller scale commercial buildings. McCafferty said that the
dimensional requirements for the RO zone are formatted in a manner similar to other commercial districts,
as opposed to residential districts. She said that residential districts typically have yard setbacks, but in
this zone, there are no yards required. She stated there is a floor area ratio (FAR). She stated that the
FAR is two, which means that new buildings could be constructed to have a floor area that would be twice
the size of the lot. McCafferty said the maximum height for a building is 35 feet, and the parking
requirements for the use would still have to be met.
McCallum said his general impression is that he does not know that this block is at risk for demolition. He
stated that between the parking requirements and the current density of units currently, he did not believe
that there would be any advantage to tearing things down to redevelop the area. McCallum said he thinks
that with its grandfathered status, this is probably at its highest and best use according to the current
zone.
Maharry raised the possibility of excluding the southeast corner of the district. He said that owners in that
area appear unanimous in their opposition to this, and it appears that redevelopment potential is slim.
Maharry agreed that there needs to be incentivization for rehabilitation of historic properties. He said that
with the passage of the National District here, income properties are allowed tax credits for rehabilitation.
He said he has concerns that people may not completely understand the Commission's flexibility and how
it bends over backwards to work with people when they come with designs for their properties. Maharry
said it is a hard stereotype to overcome and encouraged people to stay after the public hearing to see
how the process works.
Gunn said it seems that there is more opposition than just in the southeast corner. He said he has seen a
lot of districts go through. Gunn said that two of them have a substantial number of landlord-owned
properties, but they are primarily residential. He said that in all those districts, even though there was
considerable opposition particularly to Governor-Lucas, there were still a lot of people who came and
argued in favor of the district.
Gunn said that despite some landlord opposition, the districts have been carried by the fact that many
people living in the district wanted them to be historic districts. He said that those were primarily
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 6
residential areas, and this area is commercial in nature. Gunn said he doesn't see the roomful of people
who are supporting the designation as a local historic district. He said that makes the Commission's job of
recommending that it become a district a lot harder.
Gunn said if the southeast corner is removed, there will be a substantial number of people on the north
side who will also want to be excluded. He said he would have to think hard about approving part or all of
this district.
Gunn said that there are different kinds of opposition. He said that if it is primarily a residential
neighborhood and landlords just don't want to go through the hassle of having their applications
approved, that is one kind of opposition. Gunn said he understands that argument but doesn't put a lot of
weight behind it.
Gunn said there is other opposition that deals with use of the property and income potential. He said that
issue is a little more complicated. Gunn said this is a mixed zone district. He said the guidelines say that if
synthetic siding is damaged, it can be repaired. Gunn said the issue is more complicated if the siding is
substantially damaged and has to be removed. He said the question becomes more difficult when the
issue becomes whether something that is not allowed can be reinstalled.
Gunn said that most of what the Commission requires is very reasonable. He said that owners are quite
pleased when their project is done. Gunn said that Brown Street has become a very nice street, in part
because of the local historic district designation. He said that there are now 1,077 properties under design
review by the Commission. Gunn said the Commission doesn't impose significant burdens on people who
are repairing their homes or making additions.
Gunn said most of the districts have gone quite smoothly, but the opposition here is a little different. He
said this is more complicated because of the mixed zoning. Gunn said that historic preservation has done
a lot of good for a lot of neighborhoods, and there are a great many people who appreciate it very much.
He added that at the same time, not every place will become a historic district.
McCallum asked if this area is covered by the infill design guidelines. McCafferty said that within the
Central Planning District, there are guidelines that have to be complied with to insure that the building fits
in with the neighborhood if a developer builds three dwelling units or more. She said that there are also
guidelines within the RO zone to ensure that there is a reasonable transition from downtown to the
residential neighborhoods.
Weitzel said that everyone in a city already has to deal with some level of regulation whether it be a
health and safety code or other building codes. He said that an owner of rental property is already under
a Substantial amount of inspection requirements. Weitzel said that he does not see that the historic
preservation issues, where the Commission specifies just a limited amount of things on the exterior of the
building, could be an undue additional burden. Weitzel said that people want to do the quick and easy
thing, for example putting vinyl siding on a building, but the Commission requires a higher standard.
Weitzel said he would have a hard time taking out what he knows are historic buildings from this district
and would vote on the side of historic preservation and include the entire area.
Svoboda asked if, on a redevelopment of an RO zoned property, the ground floor has to be commercial.
McCafferty confirmed that in this zone, dwellings on the ground floor shall be permitted if the building is
constructed prior to 1993, but any new construction would require ground floor commercial.
Weitzel said there is the issue of if this is self-regulating or if more restrictions have to be imposed to get
the outcome the Commission wants. He said there might not be a problem, but once the buildings are
torn down, it is too late.
McCallum said this is a very pristine area. He said that, as a landlord who owns a historic building, some
of the poorer quality rentals out there are vacant at this time, and the better quality properties are not
vacant. McCallum said he does not think this area is at risk. He added that the pricing of these properties
would make it very impractical for a developer to come in, tear out the whole block, and redevelop it,
because these properties are granted parking exemptions and much higher density. McCallum said any
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 7
developer would have to pay the current market value of those properties, which would make it cost
prohibitive. He said he did not know that the south block is at risk for teardowns there.
M¢Callum said he probably would not support moving this forward, because it seems that the whole south
side of Jefferson Street doesn't want to be included, and he wondered how much of the north side
agreed. He said he does not sense that much support for this.
Smothers said that mixed use and commercial use are part of historic preservation. Smothers said the
consultant gave her professional opinion, and she did a very nice job writing the context, with which
Smothers agreed. Smothers said she grew up in Iowa City and would not entertain the idea of lopping off
a section of the area. She said she agreed with the consultant's definition of the district and would not
vote in favor of excluding property from the work that has already been done here.
MOTION: Weitzel moved to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the
existing boundaries for the local designation of the Jefferson Street Historic District. Smothers
seconded the motion.
Weitzel said he always weighs the evidence, but tonight he is not hearing compelling data or evidence.
He said the owners don't want more regulation, but that does not convince him.
Maharry agreed that those on the south side of Jefferson Street did not have facts and figures, but they
were making an economic argument. He said that argument is not groundless but is in part based on
experience.
Smothers said the burden of proof is placed on those owners. She said that making this a historic district
does not place a financial burden on the owners. Smothers said she knows it is a concern and she knows
there are insurance issues. She said that people are unaware of what their responsibilities will be.
Smothers said she did not want to give the impression that the Commission is asking for higher and
greater expectations than what people could financially provide. She said she did not believe the
Commission would ever vote that way, and it would be irresponsible of the Commission to ignore the
needs of the property owner. Smothers said that just because someone would not like to belong to the
district is not evidence enough to dissuade her to vote otherwise.
Gunn said that he would vote against the motion. He stated that in the past there has been very strong
support for historic districts that have been passed. Gunn said there is very strong support for historic
districts that are currently in the process of being nominated and carried forward. He said they are named
districts because the residents want them to be districts.
Gunn said he does not believe that historic preservation is well served if the majority of people are not
interested in being in a district. He stated that historic preservation designation is a benefit, not a burden.
Gunn said the only thing that could ever be construed as a burden is not allowing the buildings to be torn
down.
McCallum said that he owns a multi-family property in a historic district. He said he has had zero vacancy
for three years, and the owner before him had zero vacancy for ten years. McCallum said, however, that
he likes to see more of the residents support the district. He said it would be good for the neighborhood
but does not sense strong support for this.
Th,e motion failed on a vote of 2-3, with Smothers and Weitzel votin~l in favor.
MOTION: Gunn moved to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of local
designation of the Jefferson Street Historic District with amended boundaries, excluding the
south side of the 400 block of Jefferson Street. McCallum seconded the motion.
The motion failed on a vote of 1-4, with Maharry votin.q in favor.
Certificates of Appropriateness:
721 North Van Buren Street. McCafferty said that this application is to replace the existing wood stoop
with a similar wood stoop. McCafferty said that the proposed balustrade complies with the guidelines, and
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 8
a pipe handrail would be constructed where there is an incline on the sidewalk, although it is not required
by code. She stated that the proposal complies with the guidelines and noted that the contractor and
owners were present to answer questions.
MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness for the
proposal for 721 North Van Buren Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 5-0.
1503 Sheridan Avenue. McCafferty said that this is an application for modifications to a house in order to
improve the ventilation in the attic. She said that the owner would replace the soffit with similar material,
add a continuous soffit vent, and add a ridge vent to the roof. McCafferty said the owner would also be
replacing the attic window with a Pella metal clad wood window.
McCafferty said the owner also plans to construct a garage in the future. At this time, the owner would like
to install the foundation slab to provide an area to park., She stated that the foundation requires a
building permit so that the Commission will want to look at the proposed location for the garage. She said
the owner proposes to locate the garage in the southeast corner of the lot and access it off of the alley.
McCafferty said the proposal complies with the present guidelines.
Weitzel asked if the garage would match the house. McCafferty replied that that is the owner's intent, but
the owner will need to request another certificate of appropriateness before construction of the garage.
MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness for the
proposal for 1503 Sheridan Avenue. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote
of 5-0.
522 South Lucas Street. McCafferty said that this application is for an addition to a contributing structure
in a conservation district. She said that she drew up some alternatives for the owner's and Commission's
consideration.
McCafferty said there is a screened porch on the back that is of questionable value and structural quality.
She said the Commission must decide if it is historically significant and added that historically significant
components and features cannot be removed. McCafferty said the owner, Greg Allen, would like to
remove the porch to construct an addition with two more bathrooms and closets for his rental property,
She said she felt it will be difficult to convert the screened porch for that use. She stated that the
Secretary of the Interior Standards say that rehabilitation does allow for the adaptation of property
provided significant historic features are not destroyed. McCafferty said that in her opinion, this is not a
significantly historic feature.
McCafferty said that if the Commission agrees to approve the demolition of the structure, she has looked
at a couple of options for the addition that she feels would comply with the guidelines and also meet the
owner's needs. McCafferty said the proposed windows did not comply with the guidelines, particularly
with regard to scale and proportion. She also said that the proposed materials do not comply, as Allen
has proposed all vinyl for windows and siding.
Gre.q Allen, 2427 Highway 6 N.W., Tiffin, said that this house is in a conservation district, not a historic
district. He said that the opposition to the conservation district was practically non-existent, but the real
opposition came for the rezoning of this area several weeks before the conservation district was
considered. Allen said that he called at that time and discussed the conservation district with Karin
Franklin. He said he asked her if he would be allowed to use vinyl siding. Allen said Franklin informed him
that if there are other houses on the street that have vinyl siding, then it would be allowed, because it
would be in character with the neighborhood. Allen said he also asked Franklin if additions in the
backyard that could not be seen from the street would be affected by this, and he was told that the
Commission is mostly concerned with the front fa(;ade. He said Franklin told him that stuff that was not
seen from the street would not be affected by that.
Allen said that the handbook for historic preservation has guidelines for the historic district and then it lists
historical, conservation, non-contributing structures, and all structures. He said that basically means that
the historic guidelines are across the board the same for properties whether they are in a conservation
district, contributing, non-contributing, or whether they're in a historic district.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 9
Allen said he wants to try to comply. He said the bedrooms in these old houses have very small closets.
Allen said he can put the windows lined up and placed where McCafferty suggests. He said the hip roof
will probably work out better than the one he had proposed, and he does not have a problem with it.
Allen showed the addition and said that he does not think it was original with the house. He said that the
house has asbestos siding. McCafferty said she thought the porch was probably original but was probably
all screened in. Smothers said she did not think it the porch was original to the house.
Allen said that he liked the hip roof proposed for the addition. He asked if the regulations require double
hung windows. Weitzel said the windows could be single or double hung and should have large single
lights.
Regarding materials, Allen said that he was told that if the other houses on the street have vinyl then it
would be acceptable. He said that the four houses to the right of his have vinyl siding. Allen said that
there is wood clapboard on the front porch.
Gunn said there are two references in the guidelines to siding: one says the new has to match the
existing siding and in another place it says to match the existing wood siding of the house, which in this
case is covered up.
Weitzel said the Commission has approved wood or fiber cement cornerboards filled in with vinyl. Gunn
said that vinyl is only allowed for new construction, and that was the case with the previous approval. He
said that an addition is not considered new construction. Gunn said it is not permitted to apply synthetic
siding to the whole structure on a contributing property in a conservation district.
McCafferty said there are a number of issues that need to be considered with this proposal. She said the
first issue is whether the porch is historically significant. Weitzel said he is not convinced that it was built
with the building. McCallum agreed. Gunn said he also was not certain that the porch is historically
significant. Weitzel said that the porch is in such bad shape that it could be demolished based on its
status in terms of preservation. He said it has so many structural issues that it is not feasible to change
that. Maharry said that he looked at the porch and did not believe it was condemnable.
Smothers said she believed the porch was put up in about 1939. She said it was a fad and trend at that
time. Smothers said she considers this an adaptive reuse for this property. She said that if the
Commission works within the guidelines, she does not see why the owner could not put up a new
addition. Smothers said she has issues with the proposed vinyl and materials but considers this an
adaptive reuse of the property.
McCafferty said the next issue is the mass of the roofline. Allen said he would like the addition to be wider
and the roof to be at a lower pitch than what McCafferty had drawn. Weitzel asked if the Commission
needs to consider whether the window to be removed is a historic feature. McCafferty asked if it is a
character-defining to the house. Weitzel said the window is not an issue for him.
Regarding the siding, Gunn said that for an addition the siding has to match the original siding or the
existing siding on the house. He said that gives two options: using asbestos siding or fiber cement board
that looks like the original siding.
Allen asked if vinyl replacement windows are acceptable in a conservation district. Weitzel said that metal
clad wood windows can be used but solid vinyl windows cannot be used.
Allen proposed using fiber cement board with windows to meet the guidelines. McCafferty said the
another issue is to construct a deck balustrade with a true top and bottom rail as opposed to doing them
as drawn in the proposal.
McCafferty stated that the only other issue is whether there should be windows on the blank north and
south walls. Allen said the windows would be in the middle of a closet. Weitzel said there should be at
least one window there. Allen said that if one is used, then he would prefer to have a window on both
floors
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 10
Weitzel said the door and window trim should match the original. Allen asked if he could do that in
aluminum, because he has aluminum soffit on the front and back. Gunn suggested using hardi-plank.
Allen said he could use the hardi-plank around the windows.
McCafferty said she would draw another sketch and include it with the certificate of appropriateness. She
said she would have the chair approve the final drawing to ensure it incorporates tonight's decisions.
MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for Option A as drawn by
McCafferty, with a hip roof of a six-twelve pitch, small windows on each floor of the north and
south wall, using fiber cement board siding and trim, and wood metal clad double-hung windows
McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
MINUTES: September 23
MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer consideration of the September 23, 2004 to the next Historic
Preservation Commission meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
OTHER:
McCafferty said the Commission would need to hold its annual planning meeting. Maharry scheduled the
meeting for November 13th at 9 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s:/pcd/minutes/hp~2004/hpc10-14-04.doc
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004
Page 11
Historic Preservation Commission
Attendance Record
2004
Terrfl
Name Expires 1/08 2/12 2/26 3/11 4/8 4/22 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/14 7/8 7/22 8/10 8/26 9/2 9/9 9/23 10/14 11/11
A. Smothers 3/29/05 NM X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X
J. Enloe 3/29/06 NM O/E X X X O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M. Gunn 3/29/07 NM O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X X O X X X X X O X
M. Maharry 3/29/05 NM X X X 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 X X X
J. Ponto 3/29/07 NM X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X O O/E
P. Sueppel 3/29/06 NM O/E O/E X X X X X X O X O ........................
J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 ............................................................ O X O/E
T. Weitzel 3/29/05 NM X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X
J. Zimmer 3/29/07 ................ O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O O X X O O O ....
Key:
X - Present
O = Absent
O/E : Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
..... Not a Member
MINUTES DI~FT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 7, 2004 IP20
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Benjamin Chair,
Donald Anciaux, Ann Freerks,
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Shelley McCafferty
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Maharry, Chris Offutt, Jim Buxton, William Lake, Caroline Eldeen,
Ginalee Swaim, Scott Palmberg, Jill Gaulding, Tom Nothnagle, Walter
Kopsa, Bruce Brechtel, Claire Sponsler, Mike Bretten
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ04-00022 a rezoning from General Industrial (I-~1) zone to
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for .33 acres of property located at 6~1 ~1 Holl~vood Boulevard.
Recommended approwl, by a vote of 7-0, SUB04-000~I2 a final plat of General Quarters, a 24.'12-acre,
29-Lot single family subdivision located east of Sycamore Street, south of Stanwyck Drive subject to
approval of legal papers and construction plans.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB04-00029 a preliminary and final plat of Myrtle Ridge
Subdivision, a .54-acre, 3-lot residential subdivision located at 2~1 ~1 Myrtle Avenue subject to approval of a
special exception to allow a shared driveway and parking areas by the Iowa City Board of Adjustment and
approval of legal papers by the City Attorney Office.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairperson Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
NONE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ITEMS
REZ04-00025 Discussion of an application from the Historic Preservation Commission for a rezoning from
Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) and Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-~I2)
to Medium Density Single-Family Residential/ Historic Preservation Overlay (RS-8/OHP) and
Neighborhood Conservation Residential/ Historic Preservation Overlay (RNC-~I2/OHP) on approximately
~14.3 acres located along Ronalds Street between Van Buren and Governor Streets. This rezoning is to
establish the Ronalds Street Extension of the Brown Street Historic District.
McCafferty said that the applicant, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, is proposing the
rezoning of two areas in the north side Neighborhood to Historic Preservation Overlay (OHP) to designate
two new local historic districts; the Ronalds Street extension of the Brown Street Historic District and the
Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District. She mentioned that concern regarding preservation and stabilization
of the north side area has been ongoing, and it began in ~1970's. However, she said that official policies
regarding historic preservation were not established until ~1992, and that was when the Comprehensive
Plan amended to include the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan.
McCafferty mentioned in 1994 areas of the north side were down-zoned to RNC-~I2, to help prevent the
further loss of historic structures, single-family homes, and the neighborhood's general historic quality.
She stated th@t RNC-'I2 zone allows legally nonconforming multi family uses to remain, however it does
not allow the establishment of new multi family uses, nor does it allow the existing multi family uses to be
expanded. McCafferty added that the Preservation Ptan was implemented from ~1996 to 2000 in the
northside when the City Council authorized funds to do four surveys and evaluations, in order to
determine if there were areas eligible for the National Register and the local district designation. She said
that it was determined that the two areas considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission would be
eligible for the National Register. She added that last year City Council authorized funding to prepare
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2004
Page 2
National Registrar nomination for the two specific areas. McCafferty explained that the National Registrar
nominations are not required for the local designation, but are an established means through which to
determine historic significance, and therefore complying with State Code and Municipal Code for Historic
Districts.
McCafferty said that at the September 9th meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission the two areas
in discussion were determined eligible for designation as local districts, and the designation of local
districts requires rezoning of both the Ronalds Street and the proposed Gilbert-Linn Street districts to
Historic Preservation Overlay (OHP).
McCafferty said that according to the zoning ordinance, the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission
is to review historic preservation overlay rezonings based on the relation of such designation to the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, proposed public improvements, and other plans for the renewal
of the area involved. She said that in 1997, when the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted, it
reaffirmed the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, "the City has made
a commitment to preserving its historic neighborhoods, and adopted measures such as historic district
overly zoning as preservation tools. The Historic Preservation Plan provides further details on
neighborhood preservation efforts." McCafferty said that specific goals and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan further support historic preservation. These include:
Art, culture, and human development- document and preserve our cultural heritage; continue
implementation of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan.
Environmental protection - maintain the integrity of scenic and historic vistas; enforce appropriate
elements of the Historic Preservation Plan.
Housing - preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods,
develop neighborhood plans which help to ensure the continuation of a balance of housing types within
neighborhoods, particularly in older parts of the city, and support the Historic Preservation Commission's
efforts to meet its goals.
Land use and urban pattern- protect the historic and natural environment within the city, and continue the
implementation of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan.
McCafferty said that the two proposed historic districts are located in the Central Planning District, and
specifically for this district, the Comprehensive Plan supports preserving the integrity of existing
neighborhoods adjacent to downtown and the University, which includes the North side where the
proposed districts are located.
McCafferty said that although the intent of the RNC-12 zone is to stabilize the neighborhood, the zone
does not prohibit physical alterations to properties that may change the historic character of the
neighborhood. She mentioned that the RNC-12 zone does stabilize the uses within a district, but it does
nothing to protect historic character. The Historic Preservation Overlay zone is used to designate Historic
Districts, and that allows for the management of changes to properties which may affect the historic
character. She added that this is done by the historic review process, implemented by the Historic
Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Overlay zone, she said, does not affect the use of
properties allowed by the underlying overlay zone, it does not require owners to restore their properties, it
does not prevent changes to properties and the neighborhoods, it does not try to fix particular
neighborhood in time, or restore it to a particular era, and it does not prevent compliance with housing
and building codes. However, McCafferty said, The Historic Preservation Overlay zone requires that any
change within Historic Preservation District to the exterior of properties that requires a building permit, be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission through the historic review process. She added that
another part of the review process involves the certificates of no material effect. McCafferty said that
many projects do not require the historic review; they usually require the certificate of no material effect,
which takes two or three days to approve. She mentioned that painting, gutters, reroofing, repairs that do
not require a permit.
McCafferty said that in terms of the rezoning of the Ronalds Street extension of the Brown Street Historic
District, staff believes that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the preservation policies of
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2004
Page 3
the City, and recommends approval of the district. She added that prior to taking any action a
recommendation from the State is required, to confirm that the district is eligible relative to State Code.
Hansen asked when the recommendation from the State would be received. McCafferty answered that
they expect to receive the recommendation from the State by the next Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
Public Hearing Opened
Michael Maharry, 903 East College Street, the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission said that he
has nothing more to add to the staff report; however, he said that he would be in the room to answer any
questions.
Anciaux asked what is the purview for this. Behr answered that it has to be determined whether or not it
is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the general Zoning Ordinances.
Public Hearin.q Closed
MOTION: Freerks made a motion to defer the discussion of Ronalds Street extension of the Brown
Street Historic District to the October 21 meeting. Hansen seconded the motion,
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZ04-00026 Discussion of an application from the Historic Preservation Commission for a rezoning from
Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) and Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12)
to Medium Density Single-Family Residential/ Historic Preservation Overlay (RS-8/OHP) and
Neighborhood Conservation Residential/Historic Preservation Overlay (RNC-12/OHP) on approximately
20.8 acres located along Linn Street between Bloomington and Ronalds Streets, and along Gilbert Street
between Bloomir~gton and Church Streets. The rezoning is to establish the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic
District.
McCafferty said that the previously mentioned characteristics of the Historic Districts are applicable to this
case.
Public Hearing Opened
Chris Offutt, 309 Church Street, said that he was a resident of Iowa City for more than fifteen years. He
mentioned that he moved and lived in several neighborhoods, and seen a lot of change, destruction,
construction, and a lot of preservation. He added that he is in favor of the establishment of the Gilbert-
Linn Street Historic District. He said that this will preserve the beauty of the architecture, and increase
integrity of the neighborhoods, particularly those were people want to live with families.
Jim Buxton, 1811 Muscatine Avenue, said that he owns and manage two properties in the district. He
mentioned that he is opposed to the establishment of the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District, because this
is a taking of the property rights. For example, he said, if someone wants to put vinyl siding on his or her
property, that would be strictly prohibited. Buxton said that not everyone in the district was notified about
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He added that he knew at least two owners that were not
notified at all. He also mentioned that all the restrictions that exist in an historic district are mentioned in a
handbook and on the Internet. Buxton said that not everybody has access to a computer, and some of the
elderly people might not even know how to use a computer. He mentioned that the restrictions handbook
is three pages long, and that he brushed on the disallowance of vinyl siding. Buxton stated that if the
owners want to go on record officially as being opposed, their letters have to be notarized. He said that
this requirement was not mentioned in the notice that was sent out. Buxton asked if the Commission is
aware of any letters that were sent in opposition to this, either notarized, or not notarized. Anciaux
answered that the Commission will defer this to the next meeting to give more time for letters. Hansen
said that he believes that the Commission has received all pieces of information that the City has
received on this matter, and that he counts that there are 35 opposed and 7 in favor. Buxton asked if
there are a certain number of people opposed to stop the process. McCafferty said that if owners of 20%
of the property within the district protest with notarized letters, when it gets to City Council, a super
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2004
Page 4
majority is required to pass. Freerks said that that requires supermajority of the Council, not of the
Commission.
Carol Eldeen, 713 South Seventh Street, mentioned that she has three properties in three historic
districts, and had a really favorable experience. The porch on one properties was built in the summer, and
no one forced her to do something she did not wanted to do. She said that she is completely favorable to
this, and that she believes that in the long-term, it is going to preserve the historic areas.
William Lake, Flatiron Avenue, said that his concern is that with the prices of utilities going up, the fact
that they as property owners will not be able to insulate their homes, and put on vinyl siding, will hurt the
students that are renting those homes, who will have to live with limited budgets and pay too much on
utilities. He said that there are improvements that could be done to a house, and with the historic districts,
it would not be allowed to do that.
Ginalee Swaim, 1024 Woodlawn Avenue, said that she lives in a historic district and went to a design
change process, and found it an incredible useful process by which they improved their home in ways
they would not have thought of on their own. Generally, she said, whatever a person is doing to a home,
there is an alternative way of doing it that would benefit the house structurally, and historically, and
therefore this would benefit the neighborhood and the property value of all. She said that the north side
neighborhood is her favorite part of the town. She added that young people that move in the north side
are specifically attracted by the historic qualities. She said that Iowa City should be really proud of having
a very large stock of older houses that speak to the history, and is a privilege and obligation to protect it in
any way we can.
Scott Palmber.q, 322 North Linn Street, said that he is an architect in Iowa City. He said that he is
opposed to the establishment of the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District because he believes matters
concerning private property should remain with the property oWner. He added that it is anti-democratic for
Government on any level to dictate to a homeowner, the manner in which the individual's land and home
are kept. He said that it is a dangerous notion for any community that claims to be progressive and
champion diversity. Palmberg stated that while he agrees with the Historic Preservation Commission that
some homes have historic architectural merit, he thinks that is dangerous to impose the will of a few on all
homeowners. He added that the choices made about each property are their choice and nobody else's.
Jill Gauldin.q, 225 East Davenport Street, said that this is not a discussion between 100% fascist control
of what people do with their properties, and free community. She said that for example the vinyl siding is
a minimum realistic control that deserves thought. She said that minor things like that make a huge
difference in terms of how it feels to live in the neighborhood. She said that she doesn't just live on her
property, she lives in the entire neighborhood, she walks on the streets everyday, brings her kids to
school, walks the dog, picks up trash, and little things help signal that this is a community and not just a
place were people live. She said that they recently organized their neighborhood party, which was very
successful. She said she was very supportive of the proposed district as a way of improving the
neighborhood.
Tom Nothna.qle, Ronalds Street, said that what neighbors do does impact you. He stated that for the last
seven years, he had a construction project going on next-door, and he felt that it is important how the
neighborhood is kept up. He said that unfortunately his neighbor is outside of the historic district, while he
is right at the border. He added that what people do next to you does affect the quality of your life.
Wally Kopsa, 136 Ashwood Drive, owner of 320 and 324 Davenport Street, said that his sense of
community isn't that one group's idea of aesthetics should be the police power to be used to enforce on
everybody else. He said that not everyone in this big area should be forced to conform to one specific
view of how things should look.
Bruce Brechtel, 155 Juniper Court, asked if there is any reason why the Commission would ever oppose
the historic district. Miklo answered that there are situations when areas are not historic districts because
the Comprehensive Plan of the City proposes redevelopment of such areas. He said that the area south
of Burlington Street is an area identified for redevelopment and therefore a historic district would not be
likely in that area. Brechtel said that if that would be the case then that the decision would not even have
to be public, and the staff would decide that. Miklo said that it is up to the Commission to determine
whether or not the proposal meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Brechtel said that he is
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2004
Page 5
opposed to the application. He asked what is the next process. Chair said that the next step is the City
Council. Brechtel asked what does super majority mean. Miklo replied that 6 out of 7 Council members
are necessary to approve a rezoning.
Brechtel said that he was not informed about the meeting, and that he learned about it from a neighbor.
McCafferty said that in terms of notification, the staff uses the Johnson County tax records to determine
who the owners of the properties are and what their mailing address is. She said that if the property was
bought within the past three months, it might not be updated on the property tax records; otherwise,
everybody should have been appropriately notified.
Claire Sponsler, 413 North Gilbert Street, said that she lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, and she
watched families and homeowners move in, struggling to create a sense of neighborhood. She said that
the historic designation is an extraordinary opportunity to stabilize the neighborhood, which is a delightful
place to live. She mentioned that it is a diverse neighborhood, with homeowners, renters, and they all
deserve to live in a vibrant community, with properties that are historically preserved. She said that the
most important thing that the designation would offer to the community is the chance to really protect and
stabilize the community.
Mike Brennan, asked if the public right-of-way counts toward the 20% needed to object the proposal.
Behr said he would check on this. Brennan said after 150 years the neighborhood is still historic. He
asked if the commission can determine that leaving the district as it is, is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He added that if it is not broke, don't fix it.
William Lake said that his notification letter was mailed to one of the properties that he owns, and not to
his own house, and that he was lucky enough to receive the notification.
Maharry said that his comment regarding the notion that if it is not broke, do not fix it is that one reason
that the historic neighborhoods are protected is to protect them for the future. He mentioned that there is
no guarantee that these neighborhoods will be managed in the future as they have been protected in the
past.
Offutt said that Iowa City is a town that has a student-driven economy, and the people who are opposing
this are mainly people who have rental properties. He mentioned that the majority of people in favor are
owners, who occupy the property themselves. He added that if someone lives in the neighborhood he/she
would have a greater investment in the personal level and that should be taken into consideration.
Public Hearing Closed
MOTION: Freerks made a motion to defer the discussion of the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District
to the October 21 meeting. Koppes seconded the motion.
Chait asked how would the staff determine the 20% opposition that needs to be met. Behr said that the
staff will present a report in the next meeting of the commission.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZONING ITEM
REZ04-00022 Discussion of an application initiated by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General
Industrial (I-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for .33 acres of property located at 611
Hollywood Boulevard.
Miklo said that this portion of the town was zoned M1, which is Manufacturing Zone. In 1983 the City
rezoned most of the properties in the area to Cl-1, Intensive Commercial, and CC-2, Community
Commercial zones. Miklo said that the parcel in discussion housed a snackfood factory and was zoned I-
1 due to the industrial use present at the time. He mentioned that it has recently come to the City's
attention that this is the only I-1 parcel in the area, and that rezoning the property would eliminate a spot
zoning. It is for this reason that the City is initiating the rezoning request. Staff recommends rezoning to
CC-2 which would be compatible to the adjacent properties.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2004
Page 6
Public Hearing Opened
NONE
Public Hearing Closed
MOTION: Brooks made a motion to approve the rezoning from General Industrial (I-1) zone to
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for .33 acres of property located at 611 Hollywood Boulevard.
Shannon seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
SUB04-00012
Discussion of an application submitted by Mike Roberts Construction for a final plat of General Quarters,
a 24.12-acre, 29-Lot single-family subdivision located east of Sycamore Street, south of Stanwyck Drive.
Miklo said that this property was rezoned to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential and a
preliminary plat was approved this spring. He stated that the applicant is proposing the final plat for the
northern portion which will have access to Gable Street. He added that there will be a temporary access
for the construction vehicles at the Sycamore Street. Miklo said that the legal papers contain a provision
saying that the construction traffic should use Sycamore Street to the extent possible. The staff
recommends approval subject to approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to the City Council
consideration.
Public Hearin.q Opened
NONE
Public Hearin.q Closed
MOTION: Freerks made a motion to approve subject to approval of legal papers and construction
plans. Brooks seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
SUB04-00029
Discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a preliminary and final plat of Myrtle Ridge
Subdivision, a .54-acre, 3-lot residential subdivision located at 211 Myrtle Avenue.
Miklo said that there was a rezoning application for the property which was not approved by the
Commission, and the applicant is now back with a subdivision that complies with the RS-8 zoning. He
said that the proposed subdivision will divide the property into three lots. Miklo said that lot one will
contain the existing house, lot two which contains sufficient land for either a house or a duplex, and lot
three which also contains sufficient land for either a house or a duplex. He added that the applicant is
also proposing a share common driveway for all three properties, which is considered a good thing
because there will only be one cut up into Olive Street. He mentioned that normally a sidewalk would be
required, but because the grade and the mature trees, the staff believes that it is not appropriate to put a
sidewalk on Olive Street. He said there would be sidewalk between lots 1 and 2 to safely direct
pedestrians to the public sidewalk on Myrtle Avenue. Miklo said that the staff recommends approval
subject to approval of a special exception to allow a shared driveway and parking areas by the Iowa City
Board of Adjustment and approval of legal papers by the City Attorney Office prior to the City Council
consideration of the final plat. This recommendation, as Miklo said, includes a waiver of the installation of
a public sidewalk on Olive Street provided that an alternative pedestrian access route be provided across
Lot 2 from Lot 3 to Myrtle Avenue.
Public Hearing Opened
NONE
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2004
Page 7
Public Hearing Closed
MOTION: Koppes made a motion to approve the final plat of Myrtle Ridge Subdivision, subject to
approval of a special exception to allow a shared driveway and parking areas by the Iowa City
Board of Adjustment and approval of legal papers by the City Attorney Office. Freerks seconded
the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
OTHER ITEMS
Miklo said that a Memo has been written, from the Commission to the Council, outlining the procedures
for the remaining of the Code Rewriting, and if there are any revisions, they could still be made.
Shannon will not be present at the next meeting
CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: Hansen moved to approve the minutes as written. Shannon seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 pm. Shannon seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus
s:lpcdlminuteslp&zJ200412004 10-07-04p&z.doc
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Attendance Record
2004
FORMAL MEETING
Term
Name Expires 01/15 02/19 03/04 04/01 04/15 05/06 05/20 06/03 06/17 07/01 07/15 08/05 08/24 09/02 09/16 10/07 10/21 11/04 11/18 12/02
D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X
B. Brooks 05/05 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
B. Chair 05/06 X X X X X O X X X O O X O/E X X X
A. Freerks 05/08 X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X
J. Hansen 05/05 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X O O X X
E. Koppes 05/07 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
D. Shannon 05/08 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X
INFORMAL MEETING
Term
Name Expires 01/12 03/01 05/17 06/14 06/28 08/02 10/4
D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X X O/E
B. Brooks 05/05 O/E X X X X X X
B. Chait 05/06 X O X O O O O
A. Freerks 05/08 X O/E O/E X O/E X O/E
J. Hansen 05/05 X X X O/E O/E X X
E. Koppes 05/07 X X X X X X X
D. Shannon 05/08 X X X X X X X
Key:
X - Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
N/M= No Meeting
..... Not a Member
IP21
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004 - 3:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Kevin Wemer,
Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Naomi Novick (arrived at 3:08 PM),
Vicki Lensing (arrived at 3:08 PM)
Members Absent: Nate Green
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived at 4:15 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2004
Sueppel asked if members had any corrections, revisions, or amendments to the minutes
as written.
MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the minutes of October 20, 2004, as written;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 6-0 (Novick, Lensing, and Green absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Karr asked the members to accept correspondence from Mayor Ernie Lehman. Rowat
asked if the letter was personal, or official. Karr stated the letter was a personal one and
not from the Council.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to accept Mayor Ernie Lehman's memo dated October
26, 2004; seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
DECEMBER 1, 2004 iNPUT SESSION
Kubby first asked that the members read through the handout they received in today's
packet regarding different voting systems, and that they revisit this item at a later
meeting.
Sueppel then asked Kubby to address her idea for the December 1st public hearing. She
reviewed her handout from October 13th, and gave the members further ideas on how
they could gather more public interest and input. She proposes having three or four main
topics that would be discussed in smaller, more intimate groupings. The object being to
get those in attendance to voice their opinions on the topics decided upon by the
Commission. Davidson raised the question of whether or not those in attendance may
have an agenda of their own - specific issues they wish to discuss, and not the three or
four topics the Commission selects. Kubby stated that the way she is proposing they set
up this public session would deter those with a separate agenda. She suggested those
people either write the Commission with their specific concerns, or attend the final public
hearing. Sueppel asked how they would set up these smaller groups, and Kubby
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 2
explained how the Commission members would act as facilitators in leading the groups.
Kubby reminded the members that the first public hearing was designed to be very open,
and that the December 1st session is meant to address the Commission's highest priorities
at the time. Lensing noted that keeping this session flexible would be a good idea, as
they don't know just how many people will show up. Karr reminded the group that
minutes will need to be taken at this session. Members discussed note taking by them
while in the smaller groups, and then having someone from each group give a report to
the group overall.
The members turned next to time limits for these smaller groups, with most agreeing that
a 20 to 30 minute session should be done. Members also discussed how they would
handle these groups, as far as changing topics, changing facilitators, etc. Rowat stated
that he had been making a list of topics, and shared his ideas: directly elected mayor; 4/3/
or 3/4 district representation; city wide voting for all seven positions vs. the district
elections; who appoints the city manager, police chief, fire chief; council involvement in
compensation; term limits; initiative and referendum; and retention votes. Sueppel noted
that Kubby had asked that the topic of city manager be removed from the previous
minutes, and Rowat reiterated that these were just some general ideas he had been
keeping notes on. Rowat also suggested inviting someone to write a guest editorial, in
addition to having a press release, in order to get word out to the citizens on the Charter
Review's upcoming public session. The discussion continued on various groups in the
community that the Commission could invite to this session.
The discussion turned back to the time frames the evening of this session, and whether or
not they would need to make a final report that evening. Karr stated they would, in order
to meet standards for the minutes, as each individual group will be taking their own
notes. Lensing talked about the use of flipcharts and how each facilitator could use them
to gather input, and then report back to the group as a whole. This would allow everyone
present that evening to be aware of how each group reacted.
Members next discussed the idea of sending a letter or invitation to service organizations
and other service groups in the community in order to promote the December 1st public
session. Karr then asked the group for their input on how they want their meeting room
set up, dependent on how many people they think may show up. She also brought up
open invitations versus limiting the number of people invited to this session. Sueppel
stated that they should have some type of guide for each facilitator to follow. Karr stated
that she could obtain a listing from the library, which lists service organizations in the
area. She will try to bring this list to Wednesday's meeting. The members agreed that
they could then review this list and decide which groups they should target. Lensing
suggested they come up with a draft of the letter they are planning on mailing out, and
they could leave space to add the topics they still need to decide upon. Chappell asked
the members if it would be okay if he went ahead and prepared the draft of this letter
before the next day's meeting, which everyone agreed was fine. The Commission
reviewed the memo from Karr that listed various suggestions for publicizing this public
session. Majority expressed interest in a guest editorial, the city website, posters and
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 3
information in City building and on buses, and a press release. Members wanted to
continue the discussion relative to radio programs, and neighborhood association
meetings. Sueppel asked Karr to report back to the Commission on which of these forms
would be best for them to utilize.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Karr asked the members if they wanted to schedule December meeting dates. Chappell
said that he would prefer to do this at Wednesday morning's meeting.
REVIEW CHARTER (Based on 10/12 redlined version submitted by City Attorney)
Section 3.01 Nomination - The review of the Charter started with this section. Sueppel
asked if anyone had any comments on either A or B of this section. Davidsen asked for
clarification on what is required by state law.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 3.01 Nomination, A & B, as redlined;
seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 3.02 Primary Election - (TAPE ENDS) Kubby stated that some of the things
that are in the handout she gave members (October 26 Different voting systems) may
eliminate the primary, if the members were interested in this issue. Sueppel asked if
anyone was interested in this, and Kubby asked that members be given time to review her
research. Members stated that they would like to HOLD Section 3.02 until they have
time to review the material distributed by Kubby.
Section 3.03 Regular City Election - Sueppel stated that A is one of the major issues
that still need to be decided upon. He asked if anyone wanted to TA 3.03 B, to which
Chappell stated that he felt they should wait and do 3.03 as a whole. Kubby asked if they
couldn't have this discussion now, and the members all agreed. Kubby started the
discussion with the topic of voter confusion, and how difficult it is for people to be
educated each time they vote. The issue of districts and at-large seats was also discussed,
with lengthy discussion about whether or not citizens utilize the Council Member for
their district, and whether they even know who their representative is. Novick gave the
members some statistics on numbers of voters, and how many voted for the district seat
and how many voted for that specific district seat. She noted that it seemed that voters
were either confused as to who all they could vote for, or they just didn't care to vote.
Discussion turned to at-large seats versus district seats, and the perceptions of the citizens
with different types of representation. Rowat stated that he still favors the current 4/3
makeup of Council members. (Dilkes arrived) As discussion continued, Sueppel asked
the members if they were interested in considering a change in the way district council
members are elected in the general election. Kubby stated that yes, she would be
interested. Chappell noted that he feels this should be one of the issues for their
December 1st session. Lensing agreed, stating that she could be persuaded either way on
this issue. Davidsen stated that the original intent of this was to have district
representation that people in a specific district would know, and that this representative
would also have the interest of the city at-large. Sueppel noted that there is a legal issue
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 4
regarding making all seats at-large, as federal courts do not like this. Sueppel asked the
members if they wanted to defer this issue until after the December 1st session. Five
members agreed that this should be one of the topics for the December 1st session.
Section 4.01 Appointments; qualifications - Sueppel asked if there was discussion on
this section.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 4.01 as written; seconded by Chappell.
Motion carried 7-0 (Davidsen out of room; Green absent).
Section 4.02 Accountability; removal - Sueppel asked if there was discussion on this
section. Kubby noted that they had TA'd this section originally.
MOTION: Lensing moved to TA Section 4.02, both A and B, as written; seconded
by Novick. Motion carried 7-0 (Davidsen out of room; Green absent).
Section 4.03 Absence; disability of City Manager - Kubby asked the members if they
remembered what the issue was in previous discussions, whether it was regarding
Council involvement, and also what is considered a "temporary absence." Kart stated
that the Assistant City Manager fills in for the City Manger in case of absence, but that to
date this has not been an issue. Dilkes stated that if both the City Manager and Assistant
City Manager were gone, the City Manager would most likely appoint the Finance
Director, in his absence.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 4.03 as written; seconded by Chappell.
Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 4.04 Duties of City Manager - Dilkes noted that this is the section she will be
modifying due to the Commission's change in the Police Chief appointment wording.
She stated she is considering adding it to A. 3.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 4.04, A and B, subject to the change that
will be proposed on the Police Chief change, as amended; Davidsen seconded.
Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 4.05 Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts -
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 4.05 as written; seconded by Rowat.
Motion carried 8-0 (Green absent).
Section 5.01 Establishment - Davidsen noted that the members had TA'd this section
originally, with no changes. Sueppel agreed. Discussion turned to Section 5.02
Appointment; Removal. Sueppel asked Dilkes to explain the changes in this section.
Dilkes stated that her memo of 10/25/04 explains why the changes were made, and how
the changes relate to State laws and codes. (TAPE ENDS) "Just cause" versus "at will"
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 5
was discussed. Sueppel then turned the discussion to Section 5.03 Rules, and asked
Dilkes for further detail on the "open records" issue, where she noted additional
discussion was necessary. Dilkes stated that records are maintained at the staff level, not
the Commission level. Therefore, she questions the addition of "and open records" to
5.03 A. The discussion turned to how many various Boards and Commissions this would
effect, and how their by-laws would reflect it. It was noted that the members TA'd this
section, with "and open records," the first time through. Sueppel discussed having this
stated, in order to clarify the state law. Dilkes stated that by-laws deal with meetings, and
not records. Chappell asked if board members are told that their notes are considered
open records, and discussion continued briefly on this topic.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA Section 5.01 as written; Section 5.02 as redlined;
and Section 5.03 as redlined; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 8-0 (Green
absent).
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Rowat. Meeting
adjourned at 5:03 PM.