The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-09-09 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT:' MEMBERS ABSENT: Lars Anderson, Frank Gersh, Mike Malkmus, Pamela Michaud Trudy Day, Michaelanne Widness Gunn, Betty Kelly, Dods STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Eleanor Dilkes OTHERS PRESENT: Ruedi Kuenzli, Cecile Kuenzli, George Lance, Eleanor Steele, Donald Macfadane, Garrett Stewart, David Arkush, Helene Lesage, Mike Lange CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Malkmus called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDk Eleanor Steele, said she was at the previous night's City Council meeting and spoke to Kugler after the meeting. She said it appears there is some confusion over what the City Council requested that the Commission act on. Steele-said she believed that one of the things the City Council requested that the Commission coOsider is the release of the document provided to the Commission by the legal department that expresses an opinion on the matter relating to 621 South Summit Street. She said she wanted to make sure the issue was brought up, in case it was not mentioned later. Dilkes said she was at the City Coundl meeting. She said that four of the City Councilors suggested that the Commission consider that, but, even so, she was not sure that it would be a binding request on the Commission. Malkmus asked if the Commission should consider releasing that information to the public. Dilkes replied that the Commission could, but this situation is ripe for litigation, and the memo was sent as a privileged attorney-client communication, which she felt to be appropriate given the situation. She said the Commission is the client, and if the Commission as a body decides to have her release the memo, she would do so. Malkmus said that since this is pertinent to an item on the agenda, it would be addressed when that item comes up. Steele said that although the City Council has no right to make the sort of statement that Dilkes can make as' the Commission's advisor, her interpretation of the City Council discussion was that the members seem faidy clear on the,r desire for the Commission to take the issue seriously. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW FOR 509 BROWN STREET: Steve van der Woude, 730 North Van Buren, said the project consisted of constructing a new garage to replaca the garage that is there. He distributed pictures of the property. van der Woude said the garage sits dght on the property line, and there is some question as to whether he can build back on the property line, although he would prefer not to. van der Woude said the repairs are extensive so that it is more of a rebuilding of a garage than a repair. Histodc Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 2 van der Woude said the new garage would be three feet wider than the present one and about two feet longer. Kelly asked van der Woude if he was putting in a gable roof rather than a fiat roof. van der Woude confirmed this, saying a fiat roof in Iowa is not a good idea. Malkmus asked if the garage was built contemporaneously with the house. van der Woude said there was a carriage bam on the property next door that was demolished by 1918. He said that parts from that, the board bat and the trusses, were used to build this garage. Gunn said Van der Woude had stated he was building dght on the line. van der Woude said he wanted to move it over two feet, but there is some question as to whether the building inspectors will allow him to do so. He said they wanted him to move it over three feet, but he would like to keep as much of his backyard as possible, and the two feet would give him enough room for maintenance of that side. Kugler said the Commission is not involved in that discussion but is looking at the design of the garage. He said the applicant will still have to go through the building offidal to get approval of the setback. Malkmus asked if the garage had horizontal siding. van der Woude responded that it was board and bat. Gunn asked if the garage doors would be the same ones. van der Woude said the garage doors would be just flush. Kelly said there was decorative detail on the side that is not repeated in the frontal upper stoW. She said it is good to be consistent. van tier Woude said the little 'hood ornament' over the window would also be put over the front window in the front gable. - Kugler said the Commission has dealt with and approved new garages in historic districts in the past. He said the Commission has generally looked for the design of the new garage to be generally compatible with the architecture of the house and, in the case of a demolition, made a judgment as to whether the existing garage is signfficant in any way to the district. van der Woude said that putting the gable to the front changes the massing of the view of the front of the lot. He said he tried to keep the outbuilding and the main house separate as far as possible and-still maintain all the lot distances he needed. van der Woude stated that he tried to keep the scale of the garage in line with the 2 ~ stow main house. Kelly asked about the siding and the roof. van der Woude replied that the siding would be bat and board, and the roof would be asphalt. He said the matedal of the garage doors would be flush hardboard. Kugler said that in other reviews the Commission has approved, there was some scrutiny of garage doors that are visible from the street. He said that in one case, a flat fiberglass door was approved, but the Commission required some detailing on it, and in another case, the Commission required a wood door. Malkm~ said the vote would consider the demolition of the existing garage and whether the rebuilding would be in a style appropriate for the Brown Street DistJ'ict and this property. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 3 MOTION: Anderson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a garage at 509 Brown Street. Kelly seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW FOR 223 SOUTH DODGE STREET: Kugler said this involves a situation in which the property owner is replacing the front concrete steps. He said that during the course of construction, the building official saw the work and noted that the new steps would have to comply with current requirements, which req,uire a four- foot flat landing outside of the door, rather than an immediate step as one walks out. Kugler said as a result of that, a handrail is required, and the Commission would be reviewing that handrail. Kugler said the proposal is for a simple .black metal handrail, which would be on both sides of the new stoop and steps. Malkmus asked if this were on the front door center entrance, and Kugler confirmed this. Kugler distributed photographs of the property. Malkmus said this appeared to be faidy standard and would match the railings on the front steps near the sidewalk. She said they would be removable if there would ever be any problem with them. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certfficate of appropriateness for a black metal handrail for the front steps on the property at 223 South Dodge Street. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 730 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET: Kugler said this project is a remodeling of an existing connecting space between the house and the garage. He said the applicants would be reconfigudng the roof, adding skylights, and replacing a door with a window. David Arkush, 730 South Summit Street, said he would answer any questions the Commission had. He said the repairs would be to a part of the house that is not an original part of the house but is a small area between the house and the garage. He said this area was built in 1973. Arkush s.aid the roof and wall need to be repaired there, and so they would like to put a couple of skylights in the roof and replace the door in the wall with a window to put plants in. Arkush said this is on the Sheridan Street side of the house, not on the Summit Street side. Kelly asked Arkush if he had literature on the type of skylights to be used. Mike Lange, the contractor for the project, said they are a Valux brand. He said they will protrude about three inches from the surface of the roof. Arkush said that because the roof has a very low pitch and the house is already elevated from the street, the skylights will hardly be visible. Lange distributed a pamphlet on the proposed-window on the south elevation. Kelly asked how big the window would be. Arkush said it would be 48 inches wide. Lange said the drawings were to scale. Arkush said there are three picture windows on the house, two of them on the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 4 Summit Street side. Kelly asked what kind of siding'would be used. Lange said it would be a five-inch exposed lap. He said the existing house has siding like that but has aluminum over it. Gereh said the window would fit in better with the house if the window were more in the same preportion as the other windows in the house, long and tall, as opposed to square. Kelly asked Arkush why he was putting skylights in the garege, and he said they wanted more light there. Lange said there was originally a gabled roof and a flat portion of roof that came up from it. He said that was a constant problem and when he started working, a lot of the existing roof had been damaged. Lange said at that point, they decided to run a regular 'gable roof there. He said they removed a false ceiling. Lange said that on the Sheridan Street side, the ceiling actually falls at a very low pitch and that is what prompted the skylight. Malkmus asked the applicants if they had considered something in charecter with the kind of turn of the century styling of the district as a whole. Arkush said he had not, partly because he thought it would be very expensive and partly because it is not for an original part of the house. Malkmus said she understood that, but even though there have been modifications to the house, she thought that in an historic district, homeowners should make an effort to bdng the house into keeping with the historic integrity of the district rather than with the modifications that have been so recent. Michaud asked if it would work to have the window flush with the side of the house instead of protruding. Helene Lesage, 730 South Summit Street, said she could not have a regular greenhouse so her idea was to have a room with a lot of light. She said the room is now very dark and there is no use for it because it is very narrow. She felt this would be a good window for gardening uses. Lesage said the other window in the living room also protrudes and is the same shape, although it is not a box window. She said the window they have planned is already very expensive and will cost over $1,000. Gunn asked if the Commission made a distinction in the past between original structures and later structures, as far as design. Kugler said the Commission, in general, has tried to insure that new additions are compatible with the existing structure. He said the Commission has often looked at window types and window structures. Malkmus asked Lange if he would consider putting in a wall of narrow, rather tall windows and perhaps extending them into a box bay with a glass roof, in a way that would look more handmade than the manufactured window. to try to pick up some of the design features of this style house. She asked what such a project might cost the homeowner. Lange said it would depend on the quality of the materials. He said he could certainly look at other options. Kelly said the Commission was concemed with the incompatibility of the manufactured window. Malkmus asked Lange to investigate a couple of designs that would be compatible with the main structure of the house. She said the owners may wish to-take off the aluminum siding some years in the future, which would make the box window even more out of character. Malkmus asked to see designs that would fit the goals of more light and a place to put plants. She said she believed it could be done within the framework of the money that the manufactured window would cost. Lange distributed photographs of other possible windows that he did not think would cost a whole lot more. Kelly said the photographs show construction down below the windows, which would not be necessary. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 5 Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. Kelly said she did not like the windows in the photographs any better, and they were no more compatible than the odginal plan, except they are wood and not vinyl. Gunn asked what was objectionable about the other options. Kelly said they are out of character with the 'rest of the house, where the windows are elongated rather than square. She said they would still be better than the garden window. Michaud suggested having two elongated windows next to each other. She said that because this is a smaller area, there should be a simpler design than the odginal box bay. Kelly said there was an overhang and asked how that would work with the garden window. Lange said the window sets down 12 to 14 inches below the overhang. Malkmus also liked the suggestion of the two long windows side by side and would like to see such a plan. Lesage said they are leaving town soon and was worded they would not have time to get approval and complete the project. Lange said the roof is tar papered and temporarily protected, but it was important to proceed with the plan. Kugler said that if the Commission gave approval to the roof and skylights, the applicant could come back again with a new plan for the windows. Gersh said the Commission could call a spedal meeting to consider the windows. Gunn said the issue is not a window versus a protruding window but is the style of the window -modem versus traditional. Lesage asked if they could put a big picture window there like the one that is on the Summit Street side of the house. Michaud said that if the massing is proportional, it might be acceptable. MOTION: Gersh moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the roof and skylights for the property at 730 South Summit Street and have the owners return to the Commission with drawings for windows that look similar to the rest of the windows on that side of the house. Kelly seconded the motion. Lesage said she was still concemed that the work would not be done before they leave in a month's time. Lange said that a conventional window like what is in the front could probably be done in a month. He said it would probably be a double hung window. Kelly asked the applicants if they wanted a double hung window or a picture window, saying the Commission would probably go along with either one. Kelly drew a picture showing two double hung windows that would be boxed out with supports. MOTION: Gersh amended the motion to Include approval of the windows of the type drawn by Kelly. Kelly said the Commission would still like to see the scale of the windows to approve them. Gersh withdrew his amendment. Histodc Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 6 MOTION: Gersh amended the motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the roof and skylights for the property at 730 South Summit Street and to approve a proposal for a set of two double hung windows in the center of the wall, the proportions to be determined and conveyed to the Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission, Scott Kugler, and Betty Kelly, Vice-Chair of the Commission, at some near date for final approval. Anderson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. SECTION 106 REVIEW: 505 EAST COLLEGE STREET: Kugler said this proposal is for a City rehabilitation job. He said the Commission should look at whether this property is eligible for the National Register and, if so, should look at the proposed work to determine whether it meets the Secretary of the Intedor's Standards. Kugler said the property was included in the College Hill survey and was not identified as an individually significant building that would be eligible for listing. He said it was identified as a potential contributing structure to an histodc district, if an histodc district were to exist in that area. Kugler said that the boundaries for the College Hill District actually stop one block before this property, so a decision was made that this property was not eligible as part of an histodc district. Kugler said the State still requires that the Commission go through this review process, although it seems faidy dear with the available information that this property is not eligible. MOTION: Gersh moved that the building at 505 East College Street be found ineligible for the National Register. Anderson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. DISCUSSION OF CORRESPONDENCE REQUESTING RECONS!DERATION OF DECISION REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FOR 621 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET: Referring to eadier remarks made by Eleanor Steele, Anderson asked which memo Steele was interested in having released to the public. Dilkes said she believed it was the legal opinion issued by Assistant City Attorney Sarah Holecek regarding disability issues. Malkmus said the Commission would like information from Dilkes regarding a request to reconsider the decision on June 22, 1998 to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 621 South Summit Street. Anderson asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to move into closed session, as the discussion concerned possible pending litigation. Dilkes said the Commission could move into closed session but would have to give 24 hours notice. She said that because of the likeliho~:l of litigation, that would probably be appropriate, and the Commission would be entitled to get her advice in dosed session. Dilkes said she could also give her advice in open session but said there is an exception to the open meetings requirement that allows a public body to go into closed session if litigation is pending or imminent, and she would not have any problem going into dosed session. Kugler asked if the Commission decided to hold a dosed session meeting if it would still be appropriate to take public comments at the present meeting or if the entire item should be deferred. Anderson said it would basically result in deferral of discussion of anything related to litigation because that is the only part the Commission can discuss in closed session. Dilkes said she stated her opinion at the City Council meeting with respect to a reconsideration of this item. She said she had some concem about a further delay Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 7 of the whole issue for reasons she had already expressed. Gunn asked why the Commission would want to defer the entire item now. Dilkes said Anderson is questioning whether the Commission should get the advice of its attorney before it moves forward on the issue. Gunn asked if the Commission could still have public input. He said he would not want to defer everything if the Commission can learn something more. Dilkes said she believed that if there should be a motion to reconsider this, it would need to be done at this meeting. She said she believed the motion to reconsider had to come at the meeting following the one at which the derision was made, according to Robert's Rules of Order. Anderson said the advantage of going into dosed session is to keep attomey/dient confidentiality. He said that in making the derision, the Commission would be assessing what kind of risks different dealsions have on litigation. Anderson said the Commission can get that advice in open session, but it would not be confidential. Malkmus said Michaud, who had voted with the majority, had requested a reconsideration of the vote and said that this would be the meeting at which that discussion would take place. Malkmus said that given the possibility of litigation, which was discussed openly at the City Coundl meeting, and that this is an issue that has a certain amount of contentiousness, she would like to discuss the derision of the last meeting to clarify the opinions and the points of reference from the Commission members and to have input from the public. She asked Dilkes to bdng it to the attention of the Commission if at any time it sounded like something that would in fact be pertinent to litigation. Dilkes said the Commission could stad that way and if the discussion got into dangerous territory, she would stop it. She said the Commission was in a bind because any motion to reconsider had to be done at this meeting. She said a dosed session is not an option. Michaud said that when she wrote her comments to the Commission, she believed that a vote to reconsider the plans might be advisable because there was no time for public input of the revised plan. She said that a motion to reconsider is somewhat contingent on data the Commission did not have, because members were pressed to make a derision at that point. Malkmus said that the last ten minutes of the June 22, 1998 meeting were very rushed. She said when she reread the minutes she was also somewhat baffled, even though in her own mind, the Commission was following procedures and practices that were very typical for the Commission when there is no public present. Malkmus said it is true that there was not time and there was not an opportunity for more input from the neighbors regarding the revised plans. She said, however, that the Commission did have its usual and customary discussion with the architect and did talk about plans until there was a sense of some comfort with the architect and the eventual design. Malkmus said that was not conveyed, and she did not believe the Commission's position and reasons for the derision were adequately conveyed. She said she would lik~ members to state why they made the derision they way they did in a effort to have open communication and would like members to state how they would reconsider their vote if they were to reconsider their own individual positions. Dilkes said that if the Commission is going to talk about reconsideration, and if someone is going to make a motion to reconsider, the Commission needed to get that done. She said she did not have a problem with explaining what had already been done. She said she believed a reconsideration at this point would not be advisable and would subject the Commission to a number of legitimate claims for damages by the applicant. Dilkes said that she believes this in large part because there is no procedure set forth in the ordinance for reconsideration, and Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 8 therefore reliance by the applicant on the Commission's decision that occurred some time ago was quite reasonable. She said the best information that she had, that was provided by the applicants, is that the applicants have relied on the issuance of that decision to their detriment. Malkmus said she was not anticipating a vote to reconsider but was asking members to actually establish their reasons for making the decision and wanted to see if a reconsideration is appropriate - if the Commission failed in process or failed in any substantive issues in its discussions. She said the Commission would then be in a more informed position to see if there is any reason for reconsidering, whether or not there is an issue of liability, altho,ugh Dilkes' comments on liability are well understood. Gersh asked who would be sued in the event of a lawsuit. Dilkes said the Histodc Preservation Commission could be sued and would be entitled to representation by the City. She said that any damages would be paid by the City. Dilkes repeated that she had no difficulty reviewing the reasons for the derision, but the difficulty she had was with actually going through a reconsideration process when the Commission was not going to reconsider the decision. Malkmus asked members to discuss the issues that came up at the last meeting. She said that at the special meeting held on June 22, 1998 for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 621 South Summit Street, there were several issues, some of them procedural and some substantive, that were not clarified at the end of the meeting. Malkmus stated that, as everyone knows, the time for discussion was limited because the Commission had a problem in that it felt a quorum would be lost if it did not make a decision by 6:15 p.m. She said that near the end of the meeting, the Commission evaluated some newly submitted plans, and according to the 1990 Procedures and Guidelines, which the Commission was not in possession of and no one on the Commission had any idea of, the discussion of the revised plan should have taken place at the next regular meeting. Malkmus said that, being unaware of that, the Commission acted in a way that was its usual, customary practice in that it talked with the architect and came to an agreement to approve the plans provisionally and to have a further meeting with that architect. Malkmus said at that point, according to the 1990 Procedures and Guidelines, there should have been some opportunity for input from the public, and she felt she would have chosen to do that, if she had been thinking in terms of public input. She said it is not very common to have a lot of people come to these meetings. Malkrnus said the lack of clarity is something that she feels very responsible for, and she regrets that it took place in the way that it did. She added that the rush, rather than postponing, she saw as really out of concern to expedite the process for the homeowner, which is something else that the Commission typically tries to do. Malkmus said the Commission tries to do things in a timely manner so that people are not held up past their coqstruction deadlines. She said the procedural issues for the Commission are that the rush to Qote on the modified plan surprised some of the Commission members, who thought, ,n fact, that the Commission was not in a position to approve the plans at the time that it did. Malkmus suggested that in future meetings, whenever there is a contentious vote, that each member take the time and opportunity to state his or her position before the vote, in the interest of cladty and rationale. Regarding substantive issues, Malkmus said that, according the legal counsel the Commission received, there were three issues: 1 )concems regarding accessibility and habitability under the ADA, 2) issues regarding the size, scale, and scope of the building in terms of its own property, and 3) issues revolving around the size, scale, and massiveness of the addition in terms of the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 9 historic district as a whole. She said she would like to address those issues, speaking for herself and somewhat for other people who voted in favor of the certificate of appropriateness. Malkmus said that, according to legal counsel, the Commission was required to provide access and habitability. She said the Commission is judged as a govemment entity, and as such, is required under Title II to give priority to methods that provide disabled individuals with physical access and habitability to historic properties except in the narrow circumstance where that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the property. Malkmus said this is the information the Commission received from legal counsel before the meeting. She believed that on the Commission, there was almost unanimity that both access and habitability could be achieved with the addition of an attached garage and an elevator to the second floor. Malkmus said that after those two criteda were met, she felt there was a fair amount of agreement that that would have satisfied the Commission's obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Malkmus said that after that was considered, all of the criteria for decision-making on the addition revolved around the Department of Interior Standards for massing, size, scale, and appropriateness. She said that leaving aside any questions of why this addition was being recommended or what its function would be, the Commission started to address the issues in terms of what the characteristics are of this property that make it historically significant. Malkmus said the house is a Georgian house; the facade is from the 1920's; it has columns, balanced windows, a gracious bay and a screened porch. on the two side elevations; it has a slate roof with dormers. She said the characteristics of the lot or the environment are that it has large setbacks on each side and is an extremely large lot that gives it a kind of grandeur and gracefulness that is typical of the Georgian style. Malkmus said, however. that historically, large wings are very appropriate to a Georgian-style residence. She said this is not unusual, and the architect was fairly clear in pointing out the size of additions to Georgian structures. Malkmus said this was persuasive to her as a Commissioner. Malkmus said the placement of the addition in the rear of the house also satisfied the Department of Interior Standards, which state that any additions that are judged to be necessary should be on the rear elevations. Kugler said that would actually be from the 'Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings", not the standards. Malkmus thanked him for the correction. Malkmus said the plans that were submitted by the architect paid careful attention to the Georgian style and were historically appropriate. She said the construction details and the general integrity of the renovated property were carefully attended to. Malkmus said this was important to her sense of the historic integrity of the building, and it seemed to be suitable for the sort of project the Commission would ordinarily allow. She said the plan the applicant brought back, plan A, greatly reduced the silhouette of the original plans that had been submitte~ two weeks earlier. Malkmus said that by lowering the connecting roof from the main ddge of this two-story house to a central bay projection on the rear of the house, the two-story addition was virtually invisible from the street. She said that a central concern of the Commission from the original plan was that the height of the two-story addition gave the addition a massiveness which was out of proportion to the main building and was also extremely visible from Summit Street. She added that, for those reasons, the Commission decided not to accept the odginal plan, as submitted. Malkmus said the new plan also lowered the roof of the addition from I '~ stodes to one story. She said this again reduced the impression of massiveness of the addition, even though it did Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 10 not reduce the footprint area. Malkmus said the revised plans also eliminated a long massive wall which would have faced the neighbors' property where the Kuenzlis live. She said she balanced in her own thinking that the yard was, if not destroyed, at least certainly diminished. Malkmus said the view from the main room of the main building would absolutely have been changed in all of the designs that were submitted. She said she saw this as a negative but decided to balance the negatives with the positive attributes in this decision. Malkmus said, however, the revised plan extended the one-story leg of the-addition to a width that was beyond the southern edge of the main house. She said she saw this as an excess in size of the addition. Malkmus said that except for this excess in size, she felt the plan met: under her standards, the Department of Intedor Standards for massiveness and scale and that this was an appropriate addition for this style of building. However, Malkmus said the extensions of the addition beyond the original width of the main house made it more visible from Summit Street. She said a second point that came up in the discussion was that the issue of mass, size, and scale pertained not just to the original structure but to the other structures, the other sizes of the buildings, in the district. Malkmus said there was a concem that was talked about at great length that the area of the addition exceeded that of many of the houses in the district. She said that concern was heard and weighed by the Commissioners who came up with different conclusions on the basis of that. Malkmus said it was not ignored but was something that was taken into account. Malkmus said the majority of Commissioners were convinced that the size and scale of this house would support a large addition under the Secretary of the Intedor's Standards. She said this raised the third major question upon which the derision would be made. Malkmus said that question is to what extent are additions which are appropriate to the individual properties limited by the characteristics of the other buildings in the neighborhood. She said this house was converted into a Georgian-style mansion in 1928, at which time they took a house that would have been suitable with the rest of the neighborhood and tumed it into a building whose character, size, massing, and scale were out of proportion to the rest of the neighborhood. Malkmus said these alterations would never have been permitted by the Commission as it sits today, but the Commission was not around then, and so Summit Street now has a rather manorial house that is not in character with the rest of the neighborhood. She said, however, that people in the neighborhood have come to see its differences as very unique and part of itself. Malkmus said that if the addition that was proposed were added to this building, it would further distinguish it or differentiate it from the character and style of the rest of the district. She said this contradiction needed to be weighed and its anomalous size and scale somehow had to be harmonized with the rest of the district. Malkmus said she sees that as the central issue before the Commission upon which it had to make its decision. Malkmu~, said that any compromise the Commission would have made would have to somehow minimize the impression of size and scale from the addition from any juxtaposition with the s~ze and scale of the other properties on Summit Street. She said that to do that, she decided that the extent to which the addition intruded itself upon the streetscape became the determining factor for whether or not the Commission accepted this proposal. Malkmus said that to the extent that the addition would give an appearance of massiveness and size out of character with the other district properties from the public right-of-way meant that it would be inappropriate. She said that the extent to which the massiveness of the addition was primarily seen by the individual properties meant that the rights of the property owners to build an historically appropriate addition would be justified, in her point of view. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 11 Malkmus said the Commission tded to convince the homeowners, as the Commission usually does, to adapt the intedor spaces for their uses. She said that when their architect stated, unequivocally, that them was no room to compromise on the square footage of the addition, at that point, the Commission entertained new plans. Malkmus said the new plans would have reconfigured the building so that the extension and the addition did not extend the 14 feet beyond the width of the original house. She said she tried to find a plan that would minimize the size and scale of the addition in the house. Malkmus said that because of that, although the new plans were evaluated briefly, it seemed to her that the Commission could cdunt on the architect and the Calhouns to come up with a very historically appropriate design. Malkmus said that although it was quick, it seemed that the new plans answered her major questions which were, how did the massiveness of this addition affect the neighborhood for people who walk down the pdvate right-of-way and people who ddve down the street, and people who see this as a district. She said the derision followed the Commission's usual practice, although unfortunately, the Commission didn't take time nor have time to get public input about the revised plan. Anderson said he voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness. He said, speaking procedurally, that he did not believe that a lot of the fundamental objections that the neighbors had would have changed from plan to plan. Anderson said that some of the objections are things that the Commission is not supposed to consider, one of the pdmary ones that the neighbors made being what the addition will do to the future use of the property and whether it will remain a single family dwelling. He said that is beyond the Commission's scope and is a zoning concern, so he did not address that issue when he made his decision. Anderson said he voted to approve this because he felt the addition was less visibile from the public dght-.of-way and he felt that was very important. He said that one of the factors that define Summit Street is the large setbacks, and this addition in no way affects that, in keeping with the historic district and in keeping with the rest of the property. Anderson said he was also influenced by the architect's statistics that showed the footprint of other properties within Summit Street and that even with the addition, there was still as much yard space left on this property as there was on several other properties. He said he felt that the plans were historically in keeping with the current house. Kelly said she voted against the addition because of the scale. She said that as an architectural historian, she felt it was too large for the location and too large for the house. Kelly said that one of the things the Commission asked the Calhouns to do after the first session was to come back with a proposal that lessened the mass. She said she refigured the calculations, and they did not. _Kelly said that in both sessions, all that was done was to manipulate the footprint, and the size Was not appreciably decreased. She said she had some very pointed questions about the needs for this addition, and they were not sufficiently answered as far as she was concemed. Kelly said she would not vote on a plan that she had seen for ten minutes, as has been her procedure for all her time on the Commission. She said she needed to look it over, and it was proposed too quickly. Kelly said she would not change her vote if it were proposed today. Michaud said Commission members have not abstained on voting before. Kelly said she had abstained in the past and has sometimes voted against certificates. Kelly said everyone did have the option to do that. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 12 Michaud said the change in plans seemed to be a compromise at the time. She said that what seemed like a significant compromise in ten minutes, a few hours later did not seem like a significant change in plans and still was overly large. Michaud said that given the scrutiny that other people were subjected to at tonight's meeting regarding windows, looking at plan number two, she could see inconsistencies with the rest of the house as far as the windows. She said it would be a concem for finalization of the plan that they need to be the same proportion as on the rest of the house. Michaud said she believed that the Commission ended up tak, ing a hasty vote. Michaud said that since the Commission lost its architect, it is working under a handicap because it does not have a review by a qualified professional when discussing these issues. She added that the Commission is a relatively green board with several new members. Dilkes said she thought this was an appropriate process to respond to the public and explain the derision. She said she wanted to make sure the Commission understood that the threat of litigation is not just from the Calhouns but also comes from the neighboring property owners as well. Dilkes said that comments can be used against the Commission. Gunn asked if there has been an indication of possible litigation from the neighborhood. Dilkes said there has been a notice of an appeal filed tothe City Council by an attomey on the neighbors' behalf, and she felt this was good enough indication of some litigation, perhaps particularly when they are going, she believed, to be denied the right of that appeal. Gersh said he was unable to attend the last two meetings, and so he had no comments. Gunn stated that given that 'anything he said could be used against him in a lawsuit, he wanted to understand that aspect better before he said anything. He added that he voted against the proposal for what he believes are very good reasons. Gunn said that if he says that this should have been approved, one party can find what he says useful in their litigation, and if he says the opposite, another party can find what he says to be useful in their litigation. He asked what the appropriate thing to do would be. Dilkes responded that the best she could tell him, because she could not tell him what to do and recognized the need for this public body to respond to criticism that it has received, was that in litigation, a certain statement could be twisted and used against a person. She said they are called admissions. She stated that if someone says something, they can be questioned about what they said later, and if it is contrary to the position he is taking in litigation, it can be used against him. Dilkes said she cannot decide what anyone will say but can only inform the Commission of the risks. Gunn said it is a matter of public record that he voted against the proposal. He said he stated at the meeting in several different ways that the scale of the addition would be inappropriate for the Summit Street Histodc Distdct. Gunn said that any compliance necessary for ADA could have be~n accomplished with far less. He said that certainly access to the entire house could have been accomplished without an addition of the size it was. Gunn said he suggested that the master bedroom upstairs would have been a very reasonable way to eliminate additional square footage. He said he did not believe the standards require an attached garage, but he was willing to go along with an attached garage because it is a real need. Gunn said he felt he was willing to accommodate the Calhouns certainly in excess of what the ADA standards would require. He said he felt they were proposing something well beyond the scale of the neighborhood, as he stated at the meeting. Gunn stated that the Secretary of Interior Standards oblige the Commission to determine what the character, scale, and size is of the distdct in question. He said that in his opinion, what was proposed was not in keeping with the Summit Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 13 Street Histodc District. Gunn said there is no other body that can determine what the character, scale and size of the Summit Street Histodc District is. He said it is the prerogative and obligation of the Histodc Preservation Commission to determine that. Gunn said he felt the addition was inappropriate for the Summit Street Histodc Distdct and voted against it. Malkmus read from a letter from Ann Cairns, a Commission member who was involved in the derision but has subsequently resigned because she is moving out of Iowa City: "To the Chair of the Histodc Preservation Commission. Bde~y here are my thoughts regarding the, certificate of appropriateness issued to 621 South Summit. I am very comfortable with my vote to approve the plans as we did. I feel there was a lot of information presented to us over the course of the two meetings that while interesting, could not be considered relevant or within the scope of the Commission in regard to approving or denying certificates of appropriateness. I feel we were consistent on approving plans for 621 South Summit in light of our past certificates and awards we have given.' Steele asked if a break could be taken so that the membem of the public could deride if they were interested in making public comments, for the same reasons the Commission had for considering quieting its voice. She suggested. members of the public speak to one another to be sure that this is the right time to voice their opinion. The Commission agreed and took a short recess. Malkmus asked, to move fortNard with public discussion, if anyone on the Commission felt compelled to reconsider the June 22, 1998 vote for a certificate of appropriateness. Dilkes said if there was going to be a motion, it should be put on the table and seconded. She said the Commission could also choose to allow the public to speak without a motion. Gersh said he would like to move to reconsider the certificate of appropriateness. Dilkes said that 0nly someone on the prevailing side could make such a motion. Anderson asked if a second would also have to come from the prevailing side. Dilkes said she did not believe so. No motion was made at the time. Public discussion: Malkmus said the Commission received a letl:er from about 20 families living on Summit Street and wanted to listen to their input on these issues. Kugler asked if the Commission would want to set time limits. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission allows five minutes per person and after everyone has had a chance to speak, people may speak a second time and am limited to three minutes. Malkmus said those limits would be appropriate. George ~_ance, 609 South Summit Street, said he lives immediately north of the property an question. He said that at the City Council meeting on Tuesday when the City Council requested that the Commission reconsider its vote, there was also a suggestion that it might be useful for some of the people in the distdct and Mrs. Calhoun to get together and talk so that points of view could be dadfled. Lance said he believed there was also a hope that there would be some give and take so that they would arrive at something that perhaps might be more agreeable to everyone. Lance said he had a faidy extensive conversation with Mrs. Calhoun the day before, resulting in his having a much better picture of her point of view. He said he hoped she had a much better Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 14 picture of his, and he hoped he presented what he perceived to be the point of view of most of the distdct residents. Lance said that, unfortunately, knowing what someone else's point of view was and agreeing with it are two different things so that there is still an issue here of seriously held points of view that are quite at variance. Lance said there was a tentative meeting set up to get a larger group together that the mayor had volunteered to sit in on. He said Mrs. Calhoun's attomey then advised her that she should not talk to anyone before this meeting so that any possibility of meeting somewhere in between just did not occur. Lance said there are apparently two clear issues, one being the accessibility issue. He said he is headng that the Commission seems to feel that had this proposal been made absent any disability and absent the attached garage, it probably would not have been accepted. Lance said the Commission should consider whether this is the case. He said this issue then becomes that if this is the case, how much should be given up to accommodate the disability. Lance said he believes the neighbors, himself included, and, he believes, all of the district, would be perfectly willing to give up quite a bit to accommodate that beyond the absolute minimum. He said he remained convinced that all of the needs could have been easily met with a much less massive proposal and that we are being constantly tom here by the difference between needs and wants-. Lance said the needs could be addressed satisfactorily. He said the basic wants of the neighbors are not going to be met by any of the proposals, but the neighbors would have been perfectly willing, he thought, to accept something that they felt was reasonable. Lance said the major objection is that the neighbors have been told that the needs cannot be met with any other way but with this size of addition. He stated that he simply did not believe it. Lance said he did not believe there has been professional input that would lead the Commission to the position that this must be so. He said that admittedly the architect said it could not be done, but one simply cannot base all of this argument on the testimony of someone who is an employee of the applicant. Lance said he would not propose to say that the architect would lie to the Commission, but he meant it in the sense that in that circumstance, one would obviously shade his opinions toward his client. Lance said that if the Commission had consulted an expert in rehabilitation or accessibility of'buildings to the handicapped, and that expert had said the same thing, Lance would not argue about it, but he strongly suspected that that kind of input was not available, and it should have been. Lance said there are a variety of things involved other than just simply the fact that the meeting was not held as it should have been, and he felt everyone agreed that there were some problems there. He said this is also made worse by the fact that there was an omission in the odginal regulations that allows for an appeal by an applicant but not by other interested parties. Lance said he believed the vast majority of people who have looked at that issue feel that it is something that should be corrected. He stated that if the Commission feels uncomfortable about the legality of these sorts of things then it seems to be the obvious thing to do for Commission members to vote their conscience and vote what they think should be done. Lance said the applicant can appeal to the City Council. He said to let the City Council handle those kinds of issues because that is the body that should probably be handling them in the first place. Lance said if the City Council does not handle it satisfactorily, then it can still be appealed to the DistJ'ict Court. He strongly urged the Commission to reconsider its decision. - David Arkush, 730 South Summit Street, strongly urged the Commission to reconsider its decision for three reasons. First, he said this is a very important issue in that a massive Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 15 structure is to be built which he feels is quite out of character with the neighborhood. Arkush said the Commission did not give it the consideration that it deserved, and this was a hasty decision. He said that due to the quickness of this decision, it deserves reconsideration. Secondly, Arkush said there were procedural defects in the way the decision was made in that there was no advance notice, and the public was not allowed to discuss the revised plan, which in itself was grounds for reconsideration. Arkush said, thirdly, that the City Council, as he understood it, requested that the Commission reconsider its decision. Donald Macfadane, 620 South Summit Street, said he lives across the street from this house. He said the certificate of appropriateness was issued on a sketch that was presented for about ten minutes. Macfadane stated that the certificate says that it will be subject to further consultation with the architect. He added that the neighbors were told that consultation with the architect is a public matter, which presumably would be placed on the agenda at a later date. Macfadane said this means that although the certificate .of appropriateness has .been issued and may have been filed, it is not operative and the issue is still on the table. He said it gets taken off the table when the architect comes beck with a set of plans which the Commission examines for the twenty windows or other details and then approves the plan. Macfadane said that, in other words, the issue is not gone. He said he believes everyone feels that the decision was made hastily, and everyone he knows feels that the wrong decision was taken. Macfadane said he strongly believes that the decision was taken on the basis of legal advice concerning issues other than historic preservation. He said the Commission's job is very simple and that is historic preservation. He said it is not legal, not ADA, and not any special interest. Macfadane said those issues can all be dealt with up the line. He said the Commission's issue is very simple: to decide if this addition is appropriate for the histodc district or not. Macfadane said there are many bad possible outcomes. He said one bad outcome would be to take the advice of the lawyers, say nothing and do nothing, because this will get into court, which inevitably means this will get into court. Macfadane said that if this goes to court, he imagined it would be 18 months, maybe five years, before this issue is resolved. He said that would be a terrible outcome for the applicant, for the City, for the owners of 621 South Summit, and for the neighborhood. Macfadane said the second bad outcome would be if the building permit is issued and the neighbors decide that their interests have been inappropriately violated and therefore go to court to recoup damages. He said this will probably result in further delays, and quite possib4y injury to the applicant, to the neighborhood, to the Commission and to the City. Macfarlane sa~d these two possible courses of action would be disastrous. Macfad,~ne said a third possible course of action is that this property will be built, in which case the entire nature of the compact between neighbors that results in an histodc district will be broken. He said that, in other words, he would no longer feel constrained to maintain his property because the people across the street have violated the concept. Macfadane said there is a fourth course of action that would be a good course of action. He said that would be for the Commission to reconsider and for members to vote their consciences, which he believed would force the applicant to take further professional advice about making the accessibility requirements to occupy 621 South Summit. Macfadane said he had no doubt that lots of architects would come up with plans that are completely acceptable to Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 16 the needs and, in fact, probably to the wants of the applicant. He urged the Commission to take this course of action. He said that if the Commission does this, the applicants may feel they have a course of action because they have relied on a piece of paper. Macfadane said that if the piece of paper is examined, it says, 'subject to further consultation with the architect'. He said that has not yet happened, and if they have relied on that piece of paper, they have not read it dosely. In other words, Macfadane said, the applicant will not be damaged by the Commission's reconsideration at this meeting, or the damage will be trivial. He said the Commission should do it, and if they fail to act on it, and vadous timelines come into effect, it is quite possible that the applicants will genuinely be damaged, and they will have a' course of action. Macfadane said the Commission should vote on the issue per their consciences, send it up to the City Council, which is where it belongs. if necessary. He said if this is done, he believed the issue would go away. He said he believed the Calhouns will become neighbors and will be welcome and will have a suitable addition to their house, which will be wonderful. Gersh asked why people felt this belongs in front of the City Coundl. Macfadane said the issue here is ADA and not histodc preservation. He said the issues raised are of whether the Commission should make a spedal exception because the applicant has special needs. Macfadane said there is nothing in the by-laws that permits spedal needs, that allows the Commission even to consider spedal needs, and there is nothing in the Secretary of the Intedor guidelines that allows special consideration for spedal needs. He said he believed there should be spedal consideration, but that is not the Histodc Preservation Commission's province. He stated that the City Coundl could get expert opinion about what is appropriate and what is not. Dilkes said that, with all due respect, Macfadane is quite wrong. She said this is a govemmental regulation that the Commission is implementing, and there are also numerous federal and State laws that make disability a protected class. Dilkes said there is therefore some balancing required at this level of the disability issues with the histodcal preservation issues. She said that is not to say how that outcome should come out, but the law definitely compels that type of balance. Ruedi Kuenzli, 705 South Summ!t Street. asked what the procedures are for reconsidering a vote. Malkmus said the City Coundl has encouraged the Commission, and the Commission intends to come up with a process, for an appeal by neighbors. She said that has not been determined. Anderson said Kuenzli was asking for a procedure for reconsidering the motion. Anderson said he believed that someone who voted to approve the certificate would have to make a motion to reconsider, it would have to be seconded, and then voted on by the full Commission. Dilkes said the Commission would then not reconsider at this meeting but would set another meeting to reconsider. Cecile Kuenzli, 705 South Summit Street, said Malkmus had commented that what was convincing for her were the photographs of the other pieces of Georgian architecture that the architect provided. Kuenzli said she recognized some of those examples, and they are from places that are not at all like the Summit Street Histodc Distdct and are therefore historically incompatible. She said they are from large estates in Newport Beach, Rhode Island, from plantations in Delaware, and estates in Connecticut that lead down to the dver and are hardly comparable to the Summit Street neighborhood. Kuenzli said the architect did a wonderful job of convincing the Commission, but she kept in mind that an architect does what the client Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 17 wishes. She said a good architect could find a way, following the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior, which state that additions should be considered only after every possible effort has been made to accommodate the needs in the intedor of the house. Kuenzli said she believed the architect chose not to do that because he works for a client who has wishes. Kuenzli said Anderson commented regarding his vote, that-the size was the same, the mass was the same, but it seemed to be less visible from the street and that passersby in an automobile and pedestrians would not notice this so much. She also said Anderson commented on what the distinguishing characteristics of the Summit Street neighborhood are ~nd agreed that setbacks from the street were characteristic. Kuenzli said that what has been forgotten here is the people who live in the district. She said that for them, the setback is not the major thing although it is part of it, but also the backyards and how the houses sit on the yards. Kuenzli said that considering the effect of the addition on passersby who do not live in the district leaves out those who live in the district. She said that how the neighbors have to live with the addition has not been considered. She said it is not something that affects only the immediate neighbors, she and her husband and the Lances to the north, but affects everyone. She said that they look across four backyards, and it is the whole site that is addressed. Kuenzli said the guidelines and procedures direct the Commission to look at the whole site, the whole neighborhood, and the compatibility and the harmony of the whole neighborhood. She said that means not just windows and chimneys but the whole package. She said she did not think that was really looked at. Kuenzli stated that Anderson also said the Commission could not consider future use. She said that if an historic preservation commission could not examine future use, she wondered who could. Kuenzli said the Commission has to consider what will happen to these propertjes-down the line and is what is done with them now going to guarantee that they even have a future history. Garrett Stewart, 419 South Summit Street, said he wanted to address the point about the binding nature of the certificate as issued and the expectations that there would be future consultation with the architect. He said the architect himself suggested that, and the architect seemed almost as flabbergasted as Stewart about a plan that he presented with apologies, a plan to which one of the City Coundl members reacted that it was far worse than the first plan, by any aesthetic standards. Stewart said he believed the architect was nervous about being boxed into a design he was not really happy with and suggested not only that he would stay until midnight that night, but if the Commission was going to pass on the plan, he wanted permission to come back to do refinements of the plan. Stewart said he left the meeting astonished that it had been passed but counting on further public discussion. Stewart said he assumed that discussion had not yet happened and if not, he completely agreed that the certificate is pending further deliberations. He said he felt that was a very good excuse :for reconsideration without fear of legal ramifications. Stewart added that he also felt reconsideration should be made on the basis of conscience and let the lawyers fight it out or the parties compromise in the near future. Eleanor Steele, 710 South SUmmit Street, said she did not really want to get into all the problems that she had with the meetings that had occurred. She said she had great difficulty with a number of things that went on and spoke to the Chair and the staff person in charge of the Commission after the first meeting and asked them to direct themselves to their adopted procedures. Steele said that was unfortunately misunderstood, and there may have been a better vote, had that advice been followed. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 18 Steele said she had the impression that the Commission was very reluctant to do anything because of potential litigation. She said the Commission needs to keep in mind that litigation between the City and other parties is not that uncommon of a thing. Steele said that for the Commission to correct its vote, if it believes that correction is needed, is probably not a huge deal in the scheme of things when it comes to the operation of the City of Iowa City. She said that if a member believes a mistake was made when casting his vote, this was a perfect oppodunity to rectify that mistake. She said it was also a perfect opportunity to stop, something that would have a negative impact on the Summit Street District and historic preservation in the community, Jim Weston, said he is an attorney with the Tom Riley law firm in Iowa City and represents Judith and Gary Calhoun. He said the Commission has faced a lot of difficult issues and has been required to balance between histodc preservation and the dvil dghts of the Calhouns. Weston said the Commission did the right thing on June 22 when it issued the certificate of approval. Weston said the question the Commission faces is very simple, whether or not the Commission can reconsider its derision. Weston said the answer is no and wanted to discuss the reasons he felt that way. He said that as the Commission's attorney has indicated, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to reconsider its derision because the Calhouns have detrimentally relied on the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. Weston said there are a number of ways in which the Calhouns have relied on that including the fordhie contract for the purchase of a house. He said the sellers position is that the conditions of the contract relating to approval by the Commission have been met. Weston said, in addition, the Calhouns' home in Ann Arbor, Michigan is going to be sold, and it is not easy for Gary Calhoun to find accommodations. Weston said there has been a lot of wasted time dudng which the Calhouns could have been attempting to find alternative housing for Mr. Calhoun. He said the Calhouns have also incurred substantial architect's fees since the time of the appreval by refining the plans and finalizing the plans. Weston said those are just a few of the ways in which the Calhouns have detrimentally relied on the issuance of the certificate. Weston said another reason he did not think it would be proper for the Commission to reconsider appreval, as the Commission's attomey had stated, is that nowhere in the ordinance that establishes the Commission, nor in any of the bylaws or regulations of the Commission, is there any procedure which allows for reconsideration. He said there was a reference to Robert's Rules of Order, but those rules are not incorporated anywhere in the ordinance that creates the Commission or the Commission's bylaws. Weston said this presents a serious procedural due precess issue. He said procedural due process is a legal phrase that, in effect, means that the rules can't be changed after the game is over. Weston said the certificate has been issued, but there was nothing on the books and no notice to the Calhouns that there was even a possibility that this would be reconsidered. Weston said a third reason why the Commission cannot reconsider the approval is that to reconsider would violate federal law, State law, and City ordinance. He said that there are standards set forth by the ADA and the application of those standards to this headng. Weston said his understanding is that the Commission's attorney has provided the Commission with an opinion on that, and he would defer to her opinion. He said there am two laws that have not been mentioned in the discussion, as far as he is aware. Weston said the Iowa Civil Rights Act Historic Preservation Commission July 9. 1998 Page 19 directly applies to the situation. He quoted from Iowa Code Section 216.8aSec3bC1 that defines discrimination as, 'a refusal to permit at the expense of a person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person if the modifications are necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the premises.' Weston said the architect has said these things are necessary and reasonable. He said there has been no evidence presented to the contrary. Weston said this is the law of the State of Iowa, and, contrary to some eadier comments, while histodc preservation is the focus of this Commission, it also must abide by all the laws of the country and the State. Weston added that the City of Iowa City has a human dghts ordinance and in that human rights ordinance. TiUe II Human Rights at 2-5-3 Paragraph El, it incorporates the exact language that Weston read from the Iowa Civil Rights Act. He said the Commission did the dght thing and found in the issuance of the certificate that this was reasonable. Weston said the Commission and its members are representative of the City of Iowa City and are bound to enforce and abide by the laws of the United States, the State of lows. and the ordinances of the City of lows City. Weston said the Commission has heard from a lot of people, but the most important voice that the Commission needs to listen to is its lawyer. He said that he and his colleagues have in excess of 150 years cumulative trial experience, and one thing they have learned is that there is an extraordinary amount of unnecessary litigation that occurs when people get good advice from their lawyers and ignore it. Weston said the Commission should listen to its lawyer. Cedle Kuenzli. said there has been a lot of pressure put on the Commission, including pressure to meet the 6:15 deadline at the last meeting at which time the third plan was pulled out, threat of litigation, and the pressure that Mr. Calhoun will be homeless at a certain date. She said it was her understanding, although she was not exactly certain of the chronology, that the Calhouns have purchased property at the north end of town and have well-developed plans for a large house on that property. so that it is not as if this is the only option out there. Donald Macfarlane. asked to correct an error of fact that there was no indication that the certificate could not be relied upon. Macfadane said that .-was not correct, and Kugler had informed him that the architect would need to retum to a public forum to have the final plans approved, and that approval is not guaranteed. Macfa~ane said that if the client is taking his attomey's advice that the certificate is totally reliable, that advice is probably not correct. Malkmus said she wanted to personally take responsibility for the confusion that occurred at the end of the last meeting to the extent that that was within her control. Public discussion closed. Michaud said she did not hear the City Council discussion of this item but returned from a tdp to find that they recommended reconsideration. Dilkes said there was a lengthy discussion at the City Council meeting. She said her opinion was that the Calhouns have relied upon the Commission's decision and that reliance has been reasonable. Dilkes said the City Council asked for that opinion and also asked if they could make a non-binding request that the Commission take a look at reconsidering, and she responded that they could. Dilkes said she believed that it was quite clear that the City Council was asking the Commission to consider it. but to consider it in the context of the legal advice the Commission was getting. She said the City Council asked the Commission to consider whether it should reconsider the item. Kugler Histodc Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 20 stated he was told that the Council asked the Commission to consider reconsideration, but also consider the input of the City Attorney. Anderson said it was his understanding that the City Council asked the Commission to reconsider it without directing the Commission which way it should reconsider. Dilkes said the City Council has no dght to direct the Commission one way or the other on this matter. She said the Commission's decision was not a recommendation to the City Council, as is often the case with other boards and commissions that make recommendations to the City Council for a final decision to be made by the City Council. Dilkes said this case was quite different. Dilkes said the City Council can make a gratuitous suggestion, but this is not a situation where the Commission is making a recommendation to them. She said some commissions are appointed to make recommendations to the City Council, but the Historic Preservation Commission is not. Dilkes said the Historic Preservation Commission is appointed to actually issue approvals or disapprovals or modifications of certificates of appropriateness that come before the Commission. She said that tonight's certificate approvals were not recommendations to the City Council but were done by the Commission. Anderson said the fundamental issue is whether anyone wanted to move to reconsider. Michaud stated that, given the fact that the Commission has had considerable questions about this, she felt it should be voted on by each member. She said there are very sedous reservations about this and it was written into the certificate of appropriateness that there would be more architectural review in the future. She said it seems that there needs to be a reevaluation. MOTION: Michaud moved that the Commission reconsider its June 22, 1998 decision approving a certificate of appropriateness for 621 South Summit Street. Gersh seconded the motion. Kelly said she believed one of the reasons the Commission might want to reconsider is a procedural one. She said that the Commission did not allow sufficient time before the vote on this plan, and the Commission should have waited until another meeting. Kelly said this was not a modification but was a completely different plan. Anderson said the Commission is now compounding that procedural error in reconsidering the matter, in that there is nothing in the rules that specifically mentions a reconsideration. He said there is only Robert's Rules of Order that are not referred to in the bylaws or procedures of the Commission. Dilkes said the most important part of the fact that Robert's Rules are not specifically incorporated into the bylaws, as they often are, is the issue of reliance and whether that reliance is reasonable or not. She said that because there is no procedure in the ordinance for reconsideration and because Robert's Rules are not incorporated, that just heightens the level of the rdasonableness of the Calhouns' reliance. Malkmus said she thought this decision through for a long time before she made her choice and has thought it through a lot every time she has had a chance to speak to other Commissioners and other people. She said she takes the Commission's obligation both to the Calhouns and to the neighborhood pretty seriously. Malkmus said that, that said, the Calhouns have invested a lot of time, money and effort, and in terms of decisions that make life more complex when one is moving from another place to a new neighborhood, issues of accessibility and habitability are all major issues. She said she would like Commission members to think through the choice to reconsider before a vote is taken and to think about what it will entail in terms of peoples' lives Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 21 and in terms of the character and the histodc significance of Summit Street because that is really the Commission's obligation. Malkmus said that even if there are procedural issues, the members still have to weigh and balance what the moral obligation is to their trust as Commissioners, not just to the neighborhood but to the entire City in terms of their mission. She also said that the Commission had a lot on its agenda besides 621 South Summit Street. She said she was not trying to minimize it but believed the Commission had to reserve its resources for other major issues that are coming up before it. Malkmus said she was not saying this to sway anyone's vote but wa_nted to put this in perspective and try to think about what this will mean to people's lives. Michaud said that she did not see this as voting against this addition but believed the scale was not diminished from the original plan. She said it could be reduced and everyone could still get a large percentage of what they wanted out of the addition without undue delay. Dilkes said that if the motion were approved, the actual reconsideration would have to be at another meeting, which she felt would further compound the difficulty. Malkmus said she thought the Commission would have to have a meeting in a week, according to the 1990 procedures. She said the procedures actually said the reconsideration should come at the next regular meeting. Dilkes said she could not speak to the initial outcome as she was not knowledgeable about historic preservation, but a vote to reconsider this issue is legally in error and will have faidy severe consequences. She said the Commission should do what it wanted to do, but she wanted to make that fact quite dear. Gunn said he felt that the previous vote should have been and was pdmadly a decision about the appropriateness of the addition. He said there was deady disagreement on the Commission on that issue. Gunn said he 'thought there was obviously some legal pressure, but he felt that everyone on the Commission was willing to accommodate in so many ways that the Commission was really not liable for action regarding refusing accessibility. He said he did not feel the Commission was denying anyone any reasonable access. Gunn said the current discussion about whether or not to review that decision seems to be moving from one of a primarily historical nature to one of a palmadly legal nature. Gunn said he wished the Commission had another to chance to fix what, in his mind, was an error at the last meeting but said he was not sure the Commission was going to get that opportunity. Gunn said he wished there were something in the ordinance that allowed the Commission to more gracefully review this. He said that while he disagreed strongly with the proposal, the Commission did vote on it and to open it up again moves into a whole new realm that he had strong reservations about. Gersh said his first take on what happened at the last two meetings came from reviewing the minutes. He said it simply wasn't dear why the decision was made and why people voted the way thi~y did. Gersh said that perhaps the transcription was inadequate, or maybe things happened so quickly that no one said why they did. He said that one reason for reconsideration is to have these reasons come out. Malkmus asked Gersh what he hoped to gain from reconsideration. Gersh said something of the nature of the discussion that occurred at tonight's meeting that did not seem to happen when the vote was taken. Malkmus asked Gersh if reconsideration will give the Commission that and if he expected other points of view to come forth. He said that someone who is an architect who is knowledgeable about the ADA could be invited to come and talk, or other architectural alternatives could be examined. He said he guessed that a lot more information might come out if the Commission reconsidered. Historic Preservation Commission July 9. 1998 Page 22 Michaud said that if the goal is to place the Calhouns in a comfortable setting, that could certainly be done within a reasonable period of tim and would be no farther off than it would be now than by one week. Gersh said the other reason to reconsider is to take into account the opinions of the Summit Street residents. He said that from the minutes, he read that the Calhouns, their architect, and their lawyer presented information, but he did not see a lot of information presented by the dtizens of the district. Anderson said there was a lot of citizen input at the first meeting. Gersh said he was talking about the issue of the third plan. He said the Commission is responsible to the citizens of Iowa City per its charter, as it is part of the charter of any commission. Gunn said that at the first meeting the neighbors did a' fine job of conveying the character and size and scale of the neighborhood. Kelly said the best solution she had heard yet would be for the neighbors and Mrs. Calhoun to get together. She said that unfortunately there seems to be some litigation standing in the way. Anderson said the Commission did not have any control over that. Malkmus asked what would happen in the event of a tie. Kugler said that a quorum, six members, of the Commission was needed to make any decision, and a majodty of those in attendance was needed to pass any motion, which would mean at least four votes are needed to approve a motion. Dilkes asked to take a short break to verify this before the vote. The Commission took a short recess. Upon checking the Commission~s Bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order, Dilkes said six people would comprise a quorum and four would be needed to pass a vote. She said that the seconding of the motion by someone not in the majority was also appropriate. The motion was denied on a vote of 3-3, with Gersh, Michaud, and Kelly votino yes, and Anderson, Malkmus, and Gunn votin~3 Gersh said the Commission should also discuss Steele's request to consider whether to make public the attomey's opinion that was distributed at the June 22 meeting regarding ADA. Malkmus said she was uncomfortable with the idea of getting legal counsel from the City Attorney that is to be held confidential and then being asked to disclose it. She said she was uncertain about where the Commission stands as a public commission in that regard. Gersh said he wondered why it was asked to be kept 'confidential in the first place. Dilkes said that public bodies are clients of the City Attomey's Office. She said that when there is a communication from an attorney to a client, it is a privileged communication and can be kept confidential. Dilkes said that in the context of public bodies, this is particularly appropriate when the_re is a specter of litigation. She said the memo was confidential for that reason. Dilkes said the 'Commission is the client and can choose to waive that privileged if it would like. Dilkes said she has stated in public a number of times what her opinion is about the balancing of the disability issues and the historic preservation issues. She said she can augment the ADA when she referred earlier to a number of federal and State laws. Dilkes said she has said publicly stated basically what is in the opinion, and frankly did not know why it is being asked that it be released. She said she understood that there is likely a copy running around out there anyway. Dilkes said there has been some indication that the neighbors have read that opinion anyway. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 23 Gereh asked Dilkes, as the City Attorney, if she cared if the memo were released. Dilkes responded that there is a reason for the attorney/client privilege. Gereh agreed that there is, in general, but wanted to know about this specltic case. Dilkes said that preacticing law with public bodies is a completely different thing, and the Commission needs to take her legal advice into consideration as well as its other issues which include openness of discussion and that kind of thing. She said she continues to have a concern that this is not the end of this matter. Dilkes said she cannot predict what will be used in litigation in the future, should there be litigation, and cannot predict that that opinion will or will not be used against the Commission. She, suggested Commission membere ask the reasons for wanting release of the memo. Eleanor Steele, said that it was her underetanding that she could get the essence of that document by speaking to someone in the community. She said, however. that what she was interested in seeing happen was for the Commission to act as an open, public body and take less seriously the advice of the attomey not to preovide information that is confidential. Steele said she was asking the Commission to look at her viewpoint as a public citizen and to maintain as open a process as possible. She said she would utilize the document in a way that she found helpful to her but could not say exactly how she would use it in the future. Steele said she would like to be able to review the document and would like the Commission to feel comfortable allowing her to review it. Gunn asked if the City Council had requested that the document be made public. Steele said the City Coundl had asked the Commission to consider that possibility. She asked that the Commission take any comments from the City Council seriously. ' Donald Macfadane, said the City Attomey is an employee of Iowa City. and her client is the people of Iowa City. He said she. when asked, can render a confidential opinion to the Commission to guide it in its deliberation. Macfadane said it is not at all clear to him that the Commission asked for an opinion. He said the Commission was given an opinion in wdting in open session. Macfadane said this body is subject to the Sunshine Law. He said that memo was part of the decision making process. and many of the neighbors feel the contents of that memorandum may have swayed Commission members inappropriately. Macfadane said that since he does not know what is in the memorandum, he cannot make that judgment. Macfadane said it seems that if the architect bdngs in plans and tells the Commission what is appropriate for ADA, information that is available to the public, then if the City Attorney gives an opinion on what is appropriate for ADA, it is public opinion for which his tax dollars have paid, and he should be able to see it. He said the only reason to believe there is pending litigation is because the attorney says so. Macfadane said that if the Commission has seen a piece of paper that states that these are the facts of the law, that should probably be made available to the public. Kugler remarked that the Commission did request the information in the memo from the City Attorney at the first June meeting. He said a request was made to have the attorney look at this and provide the Commission with what it should be considering in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gunn said he believed there was really nothing to hide in the opinion. Dilkes said she would not be particularly bothered if the Commission wanted to release the memo. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 24 MOTION: Anderson moved to release the memorandum from the City Attorney regarding ADA requirements to the public. Gersh seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, Gersh asked what assurances there are that the architect will communicate and if the Commission should put together a letter asking for a communication by a certain date. Anderson said the applicant will not get a building permit until there is final approval of the project because the certificate of appropriateness is subject to further communications. Gersh asked how the appli.cants can say the Commission is holding them up if they are' not rushing back to the Commission to get final approval. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS IN HISTORIC 'DISTRICTS: Kugler said he put this on the agenda to let the Commission know that these existed. He said no one on the Commission, past or present. recalled knowing that these were adopted, and he was not aware of them either. Kugler said some of the procedures have not been the practice of the Commission and some have been. He said he did not think there is anything in the review standards that is any different than what the Commission has been dealing with or that vary from the Secretary of the Intedor's Standards, although some of them get a little more spedtic. Malkmus discussed the section about having an every week regular meeting. She also said the Commission has received .a request from City Coundl to establish some procedures for an appeal process for the neighborhood. Malkrnus said she would like a small subcommittee to look at this and come up with some proposals to deal with certificates of appropriateness and the appeal process and present them to the City Coundl. Kugler said the Commission would have to approve these first before it is sent on to City Coundl. Anderson asked who has the dght of appeal in a zoning change. Kugler said there may not be specific rules in the ordinance, but any City action can be appealed to Distdct Court. Anderson asked about an appeal from someone other than the applicant. Kugler said he would check on it. Anderson said that information would give a good place to start because it is a somewhat comparable situation. He said that another issue is how to define an interested party. Malkmus said the certificate of appropriateness review committee has disintegrated. Gersh asked if the Commission could get an architectural consultant to go along. Kugler said he could look into that. Michaud, Gersh and Gunn said they would be willing to serve on the comrnmee Gunn suggested that with more historic districts and more applications for certificates, the proces~ could become unwieldy. Anderson said the Commission may need to hire someone to make recommendations. Malkmus said the 1990 Procedures state that there should be weekly meetings to discuss the certificates and the monthly meeting to discuss the other issues. Kugler said the Commission needed to discuss the frequency of meetings and that a weekly meeting seemed like a lot. Malkmus asked for someone to look at the issues pertinent to the rules and present them at the next meeting. Anderson and Kugler agreed to do work on a draft. Gunn said the Commission is shod of criteda that establish character, scale, and nature for our Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1998 Page 25 districts. He said that if the Commission had detailed standards reviews would be more dear. He felt there should be very detailed standards for design and review for the Histodc Preservation Commission. Kelly said the City of Galena has very detailed standards. Gunn said the Commission might be able to look at those and then would not have to start from scratch. Gersh said he would write to Galena and Lincoln Park to get information. Kugler said he would put the issue on the Commission's planning session agenda for September. NATIONAL COMMISSION FORUM, DENVER, COLORADO, JULY 31-AUGUST 2, 1998: Kugler said there are four scholarships available for this conference and that Day and Malkmus had already agreed to attend. He said that if only two Commission members are attending, he would be willing to go, but if three people sign up, he would not go. Kugler said the information is probably more valuable for Commission members. He added that the City and state would pay expenses. No other Commission members were able to attend. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 11, 1998 AND JUNE 22, 1998 MEETINGS: MOTION: Gersh moved Preservation Commission, carded on a vote of 6-0. to approve the June 11, 1998 minutes of the Historic as written. Anderson seconded the motion. The motion Regarding the June 22, 1998 minutes, Malkmus said that on page five, in the fourth full paragraph, the third sentence should mad, 'Daining said if garages of other houses were included, they would be large.' On page seven in the sixth full paragraph, Malkmus said she was reading from the memorandum from Sarah Holecek, not the Department of Interior Standards. She said she would fill in the blanks from her literature. MOTION: Anderson moved to approve the June 22, 1998 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Kelly seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Kugler referred to articles regarding the houses on the property that Mercy Hospital would like to use. He said that Mercy Hospital had sent a letter saying the houses will not be retained but an effort will be made to move them. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 9:20 p.m. ppdadminVnin',hpc07-Og.doc MINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1998 - 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, 'Trudy Day, Frank Gersh, Mike Gunn, Betty Kelly, Doris Malkmus, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Andrew Matthews OTHERS PRESENT: John Shaw, Brad Houser, Eleanor Steele, Ruedi Kuenzli, Jeff Shabillion, Mary Ann Madden, Kirk Walther, Ted Heald, Richard Wayne CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Malkmus called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEWS: 803 S. Summit Street Kugler said that this certificate of appropriate is for the construction of a new building on the vacant lot recently created on S. Summit Street. He said the first set of plans was filed on July 31, and those plans were forwarded to the certificate review committee of Gunn, Gersh and Michaud. He said that John Shaw was also involved in that review because the Commission requested that someone with architectural experience help with major projects. Kugler said a number of suggestions were made to the applicant, Brad Houser, 'and the revised plans were submitted and passed out to Commission members. He said that the building is intended to fit with the architectural character of some of the other buildings along Summit Street, and some issues that need to be discussed are the proposed vinyl siding and the fact that the building is sitting on grade rather than on a raised foundation that is found on most of the Summit Street properties. He said the Commission does not typically regulate the application of vinyl siding because one does not need a building permit to apply it, so it does not come before the Commission. Gunn said his concerns with the original plans were that the building was set on the ground instead of on a raised foundation, the absence of a front porch, the chimney was wrapped in siding, the windows had divided lights and were a little wide for historic proportions. He said that the house also appeared a little low to the ground, and the review committee suggested adding height to the ground floor to raise the building up. He said the north building facade had about 20-25 feet without any variations in siding or windows, and the original plan had a shared garage between the two properties that held eight cars and was 80 feet long. (Michaud arrived at 6:40 p.m.) Historic Preservation Commission August 13.1998 Page 2 Gersh said that he thought the roof was supposed to be similar to surrounding properties, and the proposed roof has no gables, few angles and goes straight back, unlike neighboring roofs. Malkmus asked about the front door materials. Shaw said it was shown as steel. Gunn said the committee discussed the siding options of wood and vinyl siding, as well as a fiber cement material called Hardi plank and Hardi panel. Gersh said his concerns with the revised plans were that they still called for v. inyl siding, did not have a foundation showing, had a monolithic roof structure that did not fit with the district and the double garage door faced the street. Kugler said that the garage door standard is that double garage doors are discouraged if they are visible from the public right-of-way. Shaw noted that he is not employed by the Commission or by Houser, and he volunteered his time on this issue. He said it is difficult to see the two doors from the street because the garage is directly behind the main structure. Kelly asked why two-bedroom apartments needed three garages. Kugler said the garage was scaled back from eight spaces to six and divided into two buildings. One will serve the proposed building and one will be for the existing duplex at 803 S. Summit Street. He reminded the Commission that they are only dealing with the proposed design, not the building use. Shaw said six parking spaces are an appropriate number for eight bedrooms. Kugler said that according to the zoning code, Houser needs to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Malkmus asked if any consideration was given to aligning 'the garages so one does not face the street. Houser said the way the lot separation was done, the garages could not be put in parallel to the property to prevent losing.trees. He said that all the neighborhood garages are turned to face the street, and said that some greenspace was added by having two garage buildings instead of one. Gunn said he thought the revised front porch' s appearance and intent was fine, but he wanted construction details clarified to make sure it will be constructed as it is proposed. He said he was concerned that there is no step up to the porch because every house on Summit Street has that, even if it is just a single eight-inch step. He said that Houser responded well to the committe6~ s concerns and adjusted the plan in many respects. Kelly asked what the chimney material was. Shaw said a modified plaster with a stucco finish. and he said that many chimneys on Summit Street are backplastered. Gersh said that They reached a compromise because the original chimney was covered with vinyl. Michaud said that the lack of foundation and vinyl siding were her main concerns. She noted the bay roof above the windows on one side of the roof. Houser said with the roof. they are trying to keep cost conscious, and things that were built in the 1920s are not feasible to build exactly the same today. He said the roof matches the one of the duplex next door. Gersh noted that the new building is supposed to conform to the conforming structures in the historic district, not to the nonconforming buildings. Houser said that they made the garage as small as possible, and the house is built on a slab on grade with no basement because of its intended use of putting his father on the first floor. He said creating a basement for this property would just be creating an expensive storage area. He said that he and Shaw discussed ~kirting" to mimic a foundation, but that would change the front elevations and make the house look like a trailer. He showed samples of the proposed vinyl siding, and noted some of the houses in Iowa City that were built with it. He said there would be a three inch lap, and when it is installed it will come across smooth Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 3 like the houses on Summit Street, and it will actually look more uniform over time. He noted that the Hardi plank has not been tested for 20 years like the vinyl siding. He noted that the properties immediately next door to this one on either side have vinyl siding. Malkmus asked about the color combinations for the siding. Houser said he liked a cr~me- colored siding with a white Hardi-plank accent around the windows. He said that there is a proposed six-inch wide band, which will be a painted detail. He said they are, proposing single hung, vinyl windows, but they have not selected a brand to use yet. Malkmus asked if the front door would have flush face. Houser said that they are open to suggestions, but it will probably be a fiber door. Public headng opened. Eleanor Steele. 710 S, Summit Street, said that the Commission needs to carefully consider this item because it is precedent setting. She said this is the first review of a new building to be constructed in a historic district. She said that as a community member, she was only notified of the issue because a Commission member told her about it. She said that she also has no formal right to appeal this issue to the City Council if she does not like the outcome of the Commission' s vote. She said that she will be looking at this building for a long time, and has a genuine interest in seeing a quality product come out of it. She said she has 20 years of training and advocacy work in historic preservation. She said she thought the original plan was unacceptable and should have been scrapped while the applicant was educated about the Summit Street Historic District. Steele went through the Secretary of Interior Standards and the local guidelines. She said since the plans have no foundation, they already have a weakness in conforming to the rest of the historic district. She said she thought the roof was monolithic, and the bay window does little to help it. She said the vertical emphasis is O.K., but not great because the structure is missing a foundation. She said there is not really a porch proposed, but a covered patio, and the entry level does not match those of other properties in the neighborhood. She said she had a problem with the double set of windows by the roof pitch, that it was inappropriate to have a blank fagade on the back elevation, and that the structure is not compatible with the other buildings in the neighborhood. She said that the Summit Street neighbors are in the process of having the neighborhood downzoned, and after that is complete a duplex could not be built there. She said she also had reservations about the use of vinyl products in a historic district. Jeff Shabillion, said he thought it was difficult to understand why the Commission would find that vinyl siding is appropriate for a historic district. He said there are grants available from the Friends of Historic Preservation for removing vinyl siding and repainting a structure. He said that vinyl siding is not appropriate for this district. Ruedi Kuenzli. 705 S. Summit Street, said that this is the first application for a new primary structure to be built in a historic district. He noted that when the new lot was proposed the staff report said that this would be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how to achieve compatible development on an infill property. He felt the entire proposal is inappropriate, and would be disappointed if this is what we get as a result. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 4 Mary Ann Madden. 428 S. Summit Street, said she and the other neighbors are trying to protect the integrity of their neighborhood. She said if the Commission approves this item, they would be allowing something to occur in an area where it should not. She said that she was concerned that the neighbors had no way to appeal a decision, and wanted to have the all the neighbors notified if a property was applying for a certificate of appropriateness. Shaw said that he i~ not a proponent of vinyl siding, nor is he totally against it. He said it is a reasonable alternative given the economic driving factors of most residential construction and that it mimics the lap siding people are used to seeing. Kirk Walther. 710 S, Summit Street, said that vinyl siding does not belong in the Summit Street neighborhood. Steele explained that when vinyl siding is cut and applied, it must butt up to something. That results in e vertical trim board on the corners of the house. She said that reduces any shadow line, end has technical difficulties in making it look like wood siding. Kuenzli noted the tweaking of the University' s skywalk project, and said that tweaking a project does not always make the results appropriate. He said he was concerned. that Houser is comparing his project to his 1960s duplex on one side and the property at 803 S. Summit Street, and both have little to do with the other properties in the neighborhood. Ted Heald, 812 S. Summit Street, said he thought vinyl siding had no place on Summit Street. He said he would like to see some elevation from grade up to a true porch, and said the Commission should set their standards high for infill properties. At the request of Gunn, the Commission decided to leave this issue and review the Certificate of Appropriateness for 414 Brown Street in the interest of time and the applicant' s need to meet another appointment. 414 Brown Street Gunn said that the roof work will not be visible from the street, and might not be visible from the ground around the property. He said the roof is currently flat, and the work would put pitch where the roof is flat by putting in a series of hip roofs. This would affect the old additions to the house, not the historic building itself, so water does not stand and ruin the building anymore. Public discussion opened. Richard Wayne, said that this would tie the two pitched roofs together. He said currently the water does not run off, it just stands there and causes damage. He said the shingles will be a gray color and whatever is closest to a weathered, wooden material. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Day moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 414 Brown Street. Gunn seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 5 Day moved to amend her motion to include '/ubject to review of plans submitted for a building permit to ensure compatibility with what was presented at the Commission meeting: Gunn seconded the amendment. The amendment carried by a vote of 8-0. The metion carded by a vote of 8-0. Members went back to the certificate of appropriateness for 803 S. Summit Street. Public discussion closed. Anderson noted that the Secretary of Interior Standards allow for economic and technical feasibility, and asked about cost differentials between wood and vinyl siding. Gunn said he priced the different siding options at Nagle lumber, and found that the vinyl siding would cost about $3,500 applied, the Hardi panel would cost $8,250 applied and the redwood material would cost about $12,000, $1,500 to apply and another $3,500 to paint. Anderson asked what the cost of adding the foundation would be. Kelly said while those statements are justified, the Summit Street historic district has been in existence for several years, and the decision should not totally rest on economic feasibility. Anderson asked if the Commission told Houser he could not use vinyl siding, could he add vinyl siding at a later date. Kugler said yes. He said vinyl siding is something the Commission has discouraged in the past, but since it does not require a building permit the Commission has no say over it. He said he spoke with Ralph Christian from the State Historical Society of Iowa, who said they usually do not allow vinyl siding when dealing with historical buildings through the Section 106 program, but they would rarely deal with a new building. He said when it is allowed, some extraordinary factors are present, and they do regulate the colors used. Kugler said he also spoke with Judy McClure, an architect with the State Historical Society, who said vinyl siding should be a local decision. Gersh said that the Secretary of Interior Standards state that new construction and additions in historic districts should use materials compatible with other buildings in the district. Anderson said such regulation may make homeowners hesitant to support future · historic districts if there will be extra cost to them. He said there has to be a balance, and he did not think that the applicant could cost-effectively address every issue brought up by the Commission. Gunn said he thought the Summit Street and Woodlawn districts are different than the proposed Longfellow district will be. He said that what they decide tonight=regarding vinyl siding might not be the plan for the whole City. For example, putting vinyl siding on a house in the Summit Street district is noticeable, but putting siding on a house in the Longfellow district where a lot of the other houses already have siding might not be as noticeable. Gersh said a homeowner who does not have much money might want to put siding on, but this is a rental property that is designed to make money. Malkmus said that issue is not under the Commission' s perrue, and the Commission needs to remember that they are in place to protect the historic heritage of. the entire district. Kugler said there is a recommendation in the Commission' s historic preservation plan to look at incorporating an economic hardship. provision, but the Commission has not yet followed through on that recommended. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 6 Gunn said that vinyl siding could be done to mimic wood. He said if the Commission could, they should not allow the older homes in the district to be covered in vinyl siding. He said about one-third of the older homes on Summit Street are already sided in different materials. He said he did not think this would set a precedent that the Commission had to take all over town; this is an infill property in a particular historic district. Kelly said that in 50 years a vinyl-sided home might fit into a historic district filled with vinyl-sided homes, but it does not fit in the Summit Street district. Michaud asked if there had been technological improvement with the vinyl window treatments. Shaw said it would never look like wood. Day said that she did not think the vinyl siding was the only point of discussion; that there are other issues with the duplex that need to be discussed. Malkmus said she thought the Commission needed to make a clear decision regarding vinyl siding, and present that to Houser. Widness said she did not like vinyl siding in general, and specifically not in the Summit Street district. She said she thought the Summit Street district is a unique one, and the Commission needs to have very high standards for this first infill property. She said if she was going to consider vinyl siding for a project, she would probably consider the material Houser has proposed, but not for something that is going on Summit Street. Day said there are beautiful homes with vinyl siding, but the Commission cannot get away from the fact that this is a precedent setting issue. She said main considerations for her were two things, first what precedent does the Commission want to set in the Summit Street district, and second that she does not want their decisions to constantly be anti- growth, anti-good business and good economics for the City. She said-the Commission needs to understand that their decisions have an economic repercussion. She said she is opposed to vinyl siding in this case. Kelly said she thought vinyl siding looks great on a $400,000 house in a modern addition, but this is not a modern addition. She said the Commission needs to be very careful with this decision because this is the first infill being put into a historic district, and it will set a precedent.. She said she is opposed to vinyl siding. Michaud agreed. Malkmus said in terms of economics, she thought it was made very clear to Houser when he received the subdivision that his house would be held to high standards, and this would not be .a normal, typical subdivision, it is in a historic district, and anything that is done has to reflect especially the historic character. She said for that reason, she is willing to say that vinyl siding as a material is not appropriate in the Summit Street district because the districf s age is generally pre-turn of the century. She said that the Commission needs to follow through with the materials, as well as the style as much as possible. She asked Houser if he was planning to vinyl clad the window trim. Houser said no, they would use the Hardi plank around the windows. Houser said that one thing that needs to be addressed is the cost consideration because that means a big difference for their project and what they can do. He noted that there are a number of properties on Summit Street with siding. Malkmus said that the Commission' s intent iS to see houses in a historic district restored to more original materials, and while they are accounting for how hard this might make the project for Houser, they have a duty to the larger district. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 7 Anderson said that Commission members could look at the proposed siding, the porch and the roof, and probably agree that they are not the best ideas and that members would like to see them changed. He said he thought the Commission needed to look at the project. as a whole, and if they decide that all three are not appropriate they need to look at the big picture. He said the whole idea is to come up with a compromise. Kelly disagreed, and said she did not think the Commission had to compromise with this situation. AnderSon said he was uncomfortable making a decision about vinyl siding by itself. He said that if the Commission decides that vinyl siding in the Summit Street district in not appropriate, that should not necessarily be their decision for all historic districts in Iowa City. Kelly said that the Commission' s decision is to make compatible infill in each district. Members took a straw poll vote about who would turn down the existing plans only on the basis of the proposed vinyl siding. The vote was 8-0. Gersh suggested that Houser go back to the d~awing board and present another set of plans to the Commission. Gunn said that the Commission needs to give Houser some clear direction as to what they want changed. Houser said he tried to adjust the second set of plans to address the review committee' s concerns. He said that this is not a situation where everybody is going to have their way. He noted the economic situation, and said that needs to be considered. He said that while the Council stated this infill would be held to high standards, they also said that this was not supposed to be something that hindered building. He said that they are trying to make something that is not exactly the same as the neighborhood, but that is an acceptable compromise by both parties. He said he felt that they have done a very good job with that. He said the requests to not use vinyl siding, to change the roof and add a foundation were very unreasonable costs, which would add up to $30,000-50,000 extra on the project. He said that they are trying to make a project that is compatible with the neighborhood, but they are also trying to use the technology available today. He said the wood siding used 80 years ago is not better, and the vinyl siding would last longer than the wood. Steele said that she knew she was out of order, but since the Commission is taking comments from Shaw and Houser, and since this is her last opportunity to speak on this issue, she felt the need to speak. She said that she hoped she could make it clear that what was presented to the Commission was a set of plans that showed no knowledge of what was required of a building built in the Summit Street historic district. She said what came out of that was something based on the original plan. She noted that the local guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards call for a structure that is not based on those original plans, so she thought the Commission could not take those original plans and tweak them to a degree that becomes acceptable because it is missing a foundation. She said that economics are part of the Secretary of Interior Standards because those standards were developed for a specific other body of preservationists. She said that economics have to do with the economic feasibility for the owner-occupant regarding additions and changes to a structure. She said that standard does not apply to the development of a property in a district that does not have those economic concerns, so it is not applicable in this case. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 8 Malkmus asked if Houser had considered putting frost footings down and pouring a slab between them. Houser said they could do that, but it would only bring the structure up four to six inches. Malkmus said that it could be brought up higher. Houser said yes, but that would result in a higher cost for no purpose. Gunn said the Commission needed to clarify how much elevation they wanted. He said he was concerned with the lack of a step up to the porch and the lack of a foundation. He said in the Summit Street historic district, the newer properties have as little as six or seven inches of step and the older, structures have anywhere from 13 inches to three-and-a-half feet up to the porch. He said he thought a foot was enough elevation for a porch, even though it was not up to the neighborhood standard. Malkmus asked Houser if he could arrange the front of the house to have a poured slab that was out of the ground 12 inches higher. Shaw said that was structurally possible, and if Houser was willing to do that, he thought it would be an improvement to how the structure looks. Malkmus said that would mean that the sill of the house had to be 12 inches in the front when seen from the street. Houser said that is an area of potential compromise. Malkmus said she sensed that the raised foundation was a bottom-line requirement. Houser said he did not know if there could be a bottom-line because things could not just be one way, there had to be something that worked with both sides. Malkmus said that the Commission could create elaborate conditions that would cost Houser much more money, and the Commission already feels like they are only requiring items they feel are essential. Gunn asked about the garage elevation, and if Houser was going to take the driveway down close to the existing terrain or bring in fill. He noted that the duplex slopes 24 inches from east to west, so there is also an issue of fill or cut. Houser said he would look at that, but this is a give and take situation. He said that if he has to spend $8,000 more to paint something, he cannot do this. Malkmus asked if the front of the house if raised on a frost footing would the back of the house be several feet above the natural grade. Gunn said yes. He said if you go into a sloped property and bulldoze it into a flat plain to build on, it affects the look more than the siding in his opinion. Kelly said the infill cannot mimic the current buildings in the district, but it can be compatible. Gunn said he thought the garages have to be considerably lower than the house. Houser said the problem will be water draining between the garages. Malkmus said that in the older houses the porches are above grade, and told Houser that is what they would like him to achieve that with this project. Shaw n_oted that the sidewalk on Summit Street is higher than the ground the house is built on. Houser said that they are dealing with water run-off on their neighbor' s property. Malkmus said the Commission is not asking Houser to elevate the lot, they are asking him to elevate the house. Houser said he understood that, but there would have to be a little bit of both. Shaw said that they cannot grade away from the area where the house will be built to get exposure, so some fill will have to be brought in to bring the floor up. Kugler reminded the Commission of their options to 1) accept the plans as submitted and approve the certificate of appropriateness, 2) approve the certificate with conditions if the Commission feels the items can be handled in that manner, 3) defer the item until the applicant resubmits plans, but the applicant should indicate his willingness to do so, or 4) deny the certificate with specific reasons why the Commission feels the item cannot be Historic Preservation Commission .August 13.1998 Page 9 approved, He read the following items as a list of concerns that were mentioned with regard to the proposed plans: the need for a break on the north side of the roofline, the material of the front door, painting the wood on back deck and stair rail, appropriateness of the piece of wood trim around the exterior of the stucco chimney, lack of dimensions of the trim around the windows or the cornerboards on the plans, window above the front porch roof as the roof goes into the window trim, lack of dimensions for the column widths, the need for · raised foundation, and the blank facade on the back wall. He said that if the Commission defers this item, they should be ready to schedule a special meeting to revisit it. He said in the past the Commission has always taken the approach that they do not want to delay projects, and with this project they do not want to give the appearance that they are trying to do so intentionally, given the pending Summit Street · rezoning. Gersh said he thought the Commission should defer. the item to another meeting, and have the applicant address those issues. Widness asked why the windows were three different sizes. Shaw said that is very common in the district. Houser said that the reason there is no window on the back facade, because he would have to take a window off the south side, which is the kitchen, to put on there. He said that the stove and refrigerator are located on the inside of that back wall, and one of them would have to be moved to place a window there. Gunn said the back wall is only 10 feet, eight inches wide, so it is not that large of an expanse without having a window. Malkmus said that she was not as concerned with windows on the rear elevation. Michaud said her kitchen has six doors and a window, so she could understand the need for a solid wall. Widness asked if the garage door panels were something seen' on other Summit Street garages. Houser said he had not addressed that yet. Widness said it struck her as something that looked modern. Houser said that they would use an aluminum product or something along those lines. Michaud said she thought a flat panel might look more historic. Kugler said the Commission has dealt with that issue in the past based on visibility of the garage door. Malkmus asked how Commission members' felt about allowing the garages to be sided in vinyl. She said she personally would allow it because the garage is far enough away from the street. Kelly asked why the garages' siding should be different than the house. Malkmus said economics because the two garages are large .in size, and the Commission did permit a vinyl-sided garage next door to this property, Gunn said that he did not have an obje_ctidn to vinyl siding on the garage. Kugler said there have been a couple of other situations on Summit Street where vinyl siding was proposed, and the Commission required a type of hardboard siding. Shaw said he thought the Commission needed to be consistent with what is appropriate for the district. Malkmus said she would withdraw her question. Anderson said the Commission should make it clear to Houser what items on the list that Kugler read are absolutely necessary for the Commission to approve the plans. Malkmus said the six-inch cornerboards are easy to meet. Kugler said the scale of the plan illustrates six inches, but there is nothing in writing on the plan to show that. Gunn asked if four inches for window trim and cornerboard was more standard. Houser said he would rather not specify a number of inches because the Hardi plank comes pre-primed and he would Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 10 rather have the flexibility of four or six inches. Malkmus asked if Houser would be willing to specify wrapped posts on the front porch that are 10 inches on the bottom and eight inches on the top part, that the back porch would be painted to match the trim on the house, that the chimney will not include cornerboards on the plans. He said he would have no problem with that, Shaw said the engaged column of the porch should be pulled back in to the face so only an inch-and-a-half would be sticking out. Houser said that would be fine. Kugler said another concern was the soffitt materials, and if the Commission would be saying yes or no to vinyl on those. He said there is a vinyl product with the appearance of beadboard that could be a possibility. Houser said that he used an aluminum product on his house because the vinyl product expands and contracts, so he would like to use the aluminum product on the soffitts. Malkmus asked if Houser would get a bead design, and if it would run perpendicular to the rafter tails. Houser said yes. Malkmus asked about the doors. Shaw said he had two wooden doors that Houser could have. Malkmus asked about the roof. Kugler said it was suggested to Houser to add a cross gable to break up the north facade or a hip roof in the back. He said there are plans for vaulted ceilings in the upper rooms, which would have caused problems. Shaw read Section B guidelines, number 1, general A. 'Fhe design of new structures need not mimic historical styles. The intent of these guidelines to encourage creativity and design, including contemporary styles." He said the handling of the gable ends on the front is very contemporary. Gunn said at the review committee meeting he said that this detail exists only on a side elevation on Summit Street. He said he was in error because none of this detail faces Summit Street, although he did not find the detail incompatible. Kugler noted that Shaw is not a Commission member, and was not appointed by the Commission to work on this project. He said that Shaw was approached by staff to assist in the review given the request by the Commission at its last meeting. Shaw volunteered his time to do so, even though he was approached about being hired Kugler said in this situation he should be considered a consultant of the Commission and it is appropriate for him to be involved in the discussion. Gersh said that the guidelines are to encourage creativity, and asked if making the roof go straight back was creativity or was it an attempt to make things easier and cheaper. Steele said that often times when discussing creativity, the guideline can be abused. She said roofline js not a creativity issue in this case. Michaud asked why the roof edges flange out. She said that it might save a little to square those off and have a little gable instead. Kelly said Houser has returns on them. Malkmus asked Commission members how much objection they had to the roof as it is proposed. She asked Houser if there was a vaulted ceiling. Houser said that they are going to vault the entire upstairs. Gersh said he could still' do that with a gable coming out to the side, it would just have to go up higher. Malkmus suggested creating a facade gable. Houser said it would not have any purpose there. Michaud said it could provide a skylight. Malkmus said in terms of roofing, it is exactly the same materials. Gersh said the purpose is to make the roof compatible. Houser said he could do some of these things, but he could not do everything the Commission wanted him to. Gunn said the siding, the gable addition and raising the house would be the biggest expenses. Gersh said that he thought economics in that sense were not relevant because it Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 11 is always possible to do something cheaper. He said the issue is if the property is going to fit in with the neighborhood. Gunn said he was not willing to say that economics was not an issue. Malkmus asked members to vote in a straw poll if they would approve the plans if the foundation and the siding were fixed, and the roof was left as proposed. The vote was 7- 1, with Gersh voting no. MOTION: Day moved to defer the certificate of appropriateness for 803 S. Summit Street. Gersh seconded the motion. Anderson asked when the special meeting would be. Kugler said it could be held on Monday, August 17, 1998, if Houser approved. Houser said the only issues remaining are the siding and the foundation. Malkmus said the Commission would insist that the foundation show an exposure not less than 12 inches in the front of the house. She said they would have to approve wood, hardboard or Hardi board at this meeting for the siding. Shaw said Hardi board should actually be referred to as fiber cement siding. Michaud said she has never seen the fiber cement siding on a house or a photograph of it on a house, so she could not see urging someone to put something totally new on a house that is supposed to look historic. Kugler said he has seen its pictures of use, and to his eye it looks wood-like. He said it does not have the extra piece of trim around the windows and there is relief between the windows and the siding. Shaw said the fiber cement siding applies like wood, and once it is painted it is virtually indistinguishable. Houser said the fiber cement siding comes pre-primed, but it needs to be painted. Houser said he wanted it understood that the Commission was setting a precedent that they would not vinyl allow siding on any structure in the district, not just his building. Widness noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over existing houses applying vinyl siding. Gunn said if it not allowed with this item, the Commission should make changes so it is not allowed on other historic buildings in this district. Shaw said that is a code issue. Kugler noted that the applicant can appeal any decision the Commission makes to the City Council. Kuenzli said the fiber cement siding looks less like wood. Gunn said he thought the fiber cement siding looked more like wood than the vinyl siding. Widness asked if Commission members could see the fiber cement siding on a house because she did not feel comfortable approving something she had never seen. Gersh said the Commission did not have to approve the fiber cement siding; Shaw said he had never seen it on a house. but he heard from three people that said it appeared very close to wood. Kugler said after speaking with Shaw, the material he described earlier was not fiber cement siding, but a different material called hardboard. Shaw said hardboard was approved for two secondary structures on Summit Street. Malkmus said she thought the Commission was reluctant to approve the fiber cement siding at this meeting, and asked Houser how that affected his time constraints. Houser said it all comes down to a feasibility issue. Malkmus asked if that would affect HouseK s ability to get the duplex in before the area is rezoned. Kugler said the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the rezoning item at their meeting on Thursday, August 20, Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 12 1998. If the item passes through that Commission at that time, it will go on to City Council, and they are setting a public hearing at their first September meeting. It would be at that time that any new building permit would need to comply with both zoning requirements, so a duplex would not be allowed. Kugler said he thought that Houser would need to have his permit in hand and substantial construction completed by that time. Malkmus said that the Commission would approve everything as stated with wood siding, but they are not in a position to approve the fiber cement siding. Kugler said the soonest the special meeting could be held is Monday, but Houser would have to resubmit his plans and give the Commission time to look at them. Houser said he did not think he needed to change the plans at this point because he had already agreed to everything except for the siding, and he did not know what the Commission expected him to do about that. Malkmus said that if Houser submits plans stating that he will use the fiber cement siding, it will be the Commission' s job to go out and gather information and make a decision whether they will approve it in a historic district. Houser said the building would be about a $120,000 project, and the Commission wants him to spend $20,000 on wood. He said that would limit the project, and he did not think that was fair. He said he was bending over backwards to make accommodations for the Commission, and now they are asking for something else. He said he did not think that was fair. Malkmus said the Commission needs time to evaluate this plan, and at that time they may or may not approve its use in a historic district. Gersh noted that there is a motion on the table to defer this item and reconsider it when new plans are submitted. Kugler said the Commission does not have a specific time limit for action as stated in the ordinance, but usually things are geared toward assuring that an application is handled in a expeditious manner. He said there has always been a concern about historic preservation slowing down the building process. He said if the Commission wants to defer the item, the safe thing to do would be to have the applicant agree and say he will bring back plans that will address these items. He said if the applicant does not agree, Commission members need to decide if they are ready to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions or deny it based on a list of deficiencies. Malkmus asked Houser if he would submit revised plans for a special meeting specifying the small changes previously listed, the foundation and the type of siding proposed. Houser said his options are one of two, and that is not fair. He said the Commission is getting everything they want, and that is not fair. Kugler said the regulations for historic districts are not. set up to require compromise but rather to ensure compatibility. Houser said it comes down to a consideration of cost, and the Commission wants him to spend one-fifth of the house' s total cost for one piece, and that is not fair. Malkmus said the law is clear in that the owner does not have the right to the highest use of their property; that they have a right to a reasonable use. She said in a historic district what is reasonable is established by the surrounding properties, not by the owner's finances. Houser said reasonable, but not inhibiting them and what they want to do. He said this was not supposed to be an unreasonable request, and the Council told him that when they approved the subdivision. Kugler asked if Houser thought the fiber cement siding was reasonable. Houser said yes, but the Commission is telling him that is not possible. Kugler said the Commission is telling him that they are not familiar with the fiber cement siding, and they would like to go out Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 13 and see some examples before they approve it. He said members are asking for a deferral so the items discussed can be addressed on Houser' s plans, and. they have time to go look at the fiber cement siding. Houser asked why he had to change his plans if the Commission is going to look at the material. Kugler said he thought it was cleaner if the plans specified the changes discussed at the meeting, so the building officials can tell what is required when they are looking at the plans. He said that the Commission did not need the plans, and could approve the item with conditions if they chose to. , Malkmus said in light of Houser' s not resubmitting plans, the Commission' s motion will include intending to look at the fiber cement siding and to issue or deny the present plans with wood. Malkmus asked Houser if he would accept a plan that used wood. Houser said no because redwood is cost prohibitive. He said he has not priced siding for the house, but he said he knows that redwood is cost prohibitive because he has priced it for other projects. Kugler said a deferral until the special meeting next week would give Houser time to investigate those prices, and said he could resubmit plans that meet the other conditions if he chose to. Malkmus asked if it would be easier for Kugler to give Houser a list of the discussed changes for the plans he will submit to the building department. Houser said yes, as long as there are no other changes to them. Houser asked if he would need to change the window above the porch roof that was mentioned earlier. Malkmus said the window looks like it is touching the trim~ and said she did not think that was so unusual. Kugler said he has pictures of examples that used a smaller window in that area, but they are probably looking at a closet or bathroom window and not a living room window like this one is. Gunn said that he thought Houser would try to frame the porch in such a way that it did not interfere with the window because it is harder to butt up to a window than not to. Gersh said he thought the Commission should specify. Kugler said if the windows are going to get any shorter, they should also deal with width to keep the proportions consistent. (Michaud left at 8:32 p.m.) The motion carded by a vote of 743. Kugler said that he would gather the addresses of houses that had fiber cement siding, cau Commission members with those addresses, and the Commission would meet on Monday night at _5 p.m. He noted that the siding issue is the only outstanding item. (Anderson left the meeting at 8:37 p.m.) Kugler asked members to go over the list of items that needed to be changed on the plans again. They said the items are following: at least a 12-inch exposed foundation, a wood front door patterned with a window, a minimum corner trim width of four inches, a column width of 10 and eight inches, no trim around the corners of the chimney, use of material with the appearance of beadboard on the soffits, a four-inch to five-inch lap width on the siding material used, a flush garage door and painting the back deck and railing. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 14 Gersh said he thought the roof should still be on the list. Members voted 5-1, with Gersh voting no, in a straw poll to not include the roof in the list of directions. Members decided to save the remaining agenda items for a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT; MOTION: Day moved to adJoum the meeting. Gersh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0, and the roosting was adJoumed at 8:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Traci Wagner. ppdadrnlnbTens'h~,8,-13 .doc MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1998 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Trudy Day, Frank Gersh, Mike Gunn, Betty Kelly, Doris Malkmus, Pare Michaud, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Sarah Holecek CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Malkmus called the meeting to order at 5:09 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 803 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET: Malkmus said this is a continuation of a lengthy discussion from the last regular meeting. She said this discussion would consist of specifically reviewing the Commission's recommendations to Brad Houser and his revised submissions to the Commission in terms of a house for 803 South Summit Street. Kugler said he distributed a copy of a memo to Commission members that he had given to Houser, listing the conditions that were discussed-'at the last meeting. Kugler stated that the applicant did submit a revised set of plans this evening, but he had not yet had a chance to examine them. Kugler suggested that if these conditions ara still what the Commission is looking for, that the Commission still approve the application subject to these conditions. He said some of the conditions may have been addressed on the revised plans, but he did not know for sura. Kugler said that if the Commission does intend to approve a certificate, it should make sum that the conditions in the memo are incorporated into the motion. Kugler said he provided Commission members with examples of some properties in Iowa City as well as surrounding areas that made use of the fiber cement matedal that has been discussed, and he hoped Commission members had a chance to take a look at those properties. He said that the main question that was not answered at the last meeting was whether or not the Commission would approve that metedal as an alternative to wood siding. Kugler said there seemed to be a consensus on Thursday that vinyl siding was not going to he approved as part of this application and that the Commission felt these conditions ware important. He said that if the applicant has any comments to make about the changes or the changes made to the plan, this would be the time to do Brad Houser, said the revised plan provides the twelve inches of exposed foundation as shown on the plan, and changed the door to a wood door with windows. Houser said he didn' t know what the doors offered by John Shaw look like. Houser said they added painted rails and spindles on the back stairs and took the comer boards off the chimney. He said the trim around the windows and coroner boards ara six inches on the plan. Houser said that was basically it, and this addresses even/thing except the wood versus the Hardi-plank (fiber cement). He said the biggest difference there is the cost consideration. Houser said it is $310 a square for red wood siding, which means he would end up by the time he does comers there around $30,000 for the building. It would be about $10,000-$12,000 for the Hardi-plank. Malkmus said Houser mentions shaker siding on the front space above in the gable end. Houser replied you can get that in Hardi-plank Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 2 too. Malkmus asked if they have a standard material or if it would have to be individually cut. Houser responded that they have a fish scale-type product, and it will be a square shape. Malkmus said she thought what Houser was passing around before was vinyl. Houser said yes; they had originally requested to use the vinyl. Widness said, regarding the garage doom, she assumed Houser would do something about the panel. Houser said he did not change the elevations for the garages. He said the memo specifies a fiat panel there and dadfled that it should flat. She asked him if he would do a fiat d~or. Houser said he would rather do an insulated door for heating purposes. John Shaw asked Houser if he would heat the garages there, being detached. Housing said he would like to have that option. Malkmus asked Houser what he would make the front porch deck out of and if it would be resting on concrete or if it would have a wood finish. Housar said it would probably be concrete. Malkmus said she meant the deck of the porch. Houser asked if she meant the stoop; and Malkmus said yes. Houser said concrete. Malkmus said she keeps thinking about what it will look like. Houser said at the last meeting a list was agreed upon and said it was agreed that we aren' t going to add any items to this list after what was talked about. Michaud asked, out of curiosity, if the Hardi-plan. k would be $10,000 to $12,000 for the duplex or did that include the garages. Houser said that includes the garages. He said that in the Hardi- plank he can get by with buying it pre-pdmed but still as every ertide states, that it should be pdmed again before it is painted. He said but he thought he could cut some costs and use just paint instead of having to pdme, like lap siding has to be pdmed and painted and has to have at least one coat of each. Michaud said the Commission was given an article on Hardi-plank but does not have a track record on it. She said Houser would know more about that and go on his own advice. Michaud said she did look at the example buildings, and they looked good. Houser said redwood is not feasible anymore and technology has changed. He said this is not a hard product. He said it all depends on how moist the wood is when sold anymore, and the woods are cut a lot faster and shipped out a lot quicker than they were 20 years ago, when they had more time to dry and were shipped more to local areas. Houser said if it is moist at all it is going to blister and peel. He said fiber cement would not because it is pre-pdmed dght in the factory before it ever gets out in the elements. Michaud asked Houser if he will be able to use two colors on the house. Houser said he did not know what he is going to do at this point. He said it will all depend on where he ends up for costs Houser said that is the. advantage of vinyl siding; he can use multiple colors without any extra costs to him. Michaud said she knew the windows were specified to be vinyl and asked if they would have storms on them. Houser responded that they are combination and thermal, doublepane B no storms. Michaud asked if they would be made distinct, or a darker color from the siding. Houser said they are planning on white and are going to use white trim all the way down the windows and trim. He said he likes a cream color for the house. Houser said you can' t get a vinyl window in a dark color. He said he has not found it in dark, only in white or tan. He said he can' t use dark anyway because of his intedor d6cor. Kugler said there is one other piece of information he had intended to give Commission members. He said the City Attomey,s Office has requested that in making the motion or in discussion involving the vinyl siding, the Commission articulate cleady the reasons that the Commission is Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 3 not apprOving the vinyl siding and deady articulate why this other material, should the Commission find it acceptable, is appropriate. Malkmus said she did not see it specified but knew it had been discussed and asked what the soffit matedal would be. Houser said they would either use the Hardi-plank or, as the Commission had requested, would look at a beaded soffit. He said he has not yet had a chance to look at other houses. He said some will have the flat surface, or they will have beaded. Malkm,us said she thought that, typically on a house of this style with this large of an overhang, one would see at least a groove or a beaded surface. She said, as far as she was concerned, Houser could use either one, but she would like to see something that is not plywood in appearance. Malkmus said if it were a narrow soffit, then one might see a board, historically, because boards were that width. She said she believed that when it was wider than the width of a board, you usually saw some evidence that it is a tongue in groove material. She said the Commission would like to see the soffits looking like a tongue in groove or a beaded. John Sh~w, said he thought something needed to be dadfled here. He said the only synthetic beaded material he was familiar with that actually looks like ceiling bead is a vinyl product. Shaw said the Commission needs to be dear to Houser whether it will allow a vinyl product on the soff'~ or not because his choice is going to be vinyl or wood. Shaw said aluminum would have some lines indicating that they would essentially be bead grooves rather than a beaded appearance, so that the Commission needs to be dear in what it is asking for. Malkmus asked Houser if he were doing this with Hardi-plank if he would be using the 5/16 sheeting without any grooving or is he saying that he can make Hardi-plank look like soffit. Houser said he would prefer to make it fiat. Malkmus asked about the overhang projection. Houser said he believes it is a two-foot overhang. Malkmus asked what Commission members thought about this; she said they am pretty important because you can really see soffits. Malkmus said this was going to be a horizontal soffit, rather than being just laid under the tails of the rafters. Malkmus said she believed if that is done in 24 inches with the solid wood, it would be out of character with the house. She asked Commission members if they wanted 'to allow aluminum bead groove or a beaded vinyl, as Shaw had spedfled these as the only two options. Day said she thought the Commission said at the last meeting that it would allow beaded vinyi. Gersh said it would be kind of contradictory if the Commission were not going to allow vinyl siding on the house, to allow vinyl there. Malkmus said the Commission has an option with the siding but does not have a viable option with the soffit. Gersh said wood is a viable option. He said it is not for the whole house and therefore not that expensive. Day asked how they would match if you have the Hardi-plank one color, the window in another color and another material, and then the soffits a third color. She said if they are not by the same 'manufacturer, they won't be the same color. Houser said the Hardi-plank is painted so that it can be matched to whatever. Public discussion: Donald MacfRd~ne. 6:70 South Summit Street, said that a great deal of what the Commission is discussing escaped those listening because they do not have the plans in front of them but what he perceives here is compromise. He said it is not at all dear to him why there is compromise here. Macfadane said the Commission is now setting a standard for an histodc district, and he thinks that standard needs to be set. Macfadane stated that the reason he says that is because Histodc Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 4 when you am dealing with an existing house and an applicant who lives in the house and has finandal restraints, etc., then the spirit of compromise is very appropriate. Macfadane said that when you are dealing with new construction being built by an out-of-town landlord, it now gets down to the pure nature of the historic district. He said that when he hears vinyl windows, aluminum siding, and something other than wood siding. what he is hearing is that the standards are now being lowered - that he no longer lives in an historic district but lives in the plastic district, in the vinyl district. Macfadane said he does not think this is appnSpriate and actually does not think that Brad thinks it is appropriate either. He said the standard to actually look at is set by the house at 802, the restored house on Bowery and Summit Street which has been done quite beautifully. Macfarlane said that is the kind of building standard that the Commission should set. He said if they don' t set that standard, then the Commission has just lost its guts. Macfadane said the right thing to do is to iell the applicant what the minimum standard is, and that is the standard. He said the standard, as far as he is concemed, is the standard on the streeL Macfadane said those on the Commission all know what that standard is and asked why they were compromising. He asked why they don' t stand up and vote for what they believe in, which is to ask Brad to .put a beautiful house there. Macfarlane said if he doesn' t. it's very simple: vote no. Eleanor Steele, 710 South Summit Street, said she was a little concerned about the discussion related to the cost issues. She said if you are going 'to get into the issue of cost without having a hardship clause in the ordinance, that is very questionable. Steele says that since there seems to be a cost issue in the consideration regarding material, she would like to enter into that discussion. Steele said she found out some things regarding the cost that are faidy interesting. She said Houser has stated that the duplex will cost $120,000 to build. Steele said that is an average cost per square foot of $59.40. She said that anyone who has done an addition recently knows that that is a very, very low construction cost. Steele said she spoke to some local builders and architects to get an idea of what they thought of that cost. She said a local architect told her that average local building costs are probably more in line with $130 per square foot or more. Steele said she spoke to a builder who is known for doing affordable housing. She said that builder averages out costs at $90 to $130 per square foot. Steele stated that a second builder she spoke to said you would need to spend over $100 per square foot to build in this community. She saK:I the City Inspector, having heard those costs cited by the architect and the two developers sa~ that he did not have specific figures to quote, but he believed that over $100 was a realistic figure Steele said the cost of this building is therefore at least 40% less than what you see on average She said that, given that, to discuss lower cost methods of building, such as vinyl soffits. whK:~ she did not think were open for discussion anymore and said she could review the minutes law and hoped the Commission was dear about that, and to discuss materials other than wood for siding, really shouldn' t figure into the discussion here because this is such a low cost building. Steele said there is also the issue of the cost of the lot. She said that ordinarily, you would spend quite a bit of money for a lot to build on in this town, perhaps $40,000. She said he spent in fees to the City between $570 and $980 to subdivide this lot and in addition may have had consulting fees, such as engineering fees, but spent nowhere dose to $40,000 that a lot like this is to be valued at. Steele said Houser's expenses are extremely low, and he is talking about a $20,000 difference between a soft siding matedal and a wood siding material, which she personally does not see as Histodc Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 5 lacking feasibility since she herseft had to replace a third of the siding on her house with redwood siding. She said she found it feasible, and it was not a particularly valuable property. Steele said she really cannot see why the Commission is discussing materials that are not harmonious, not compatible, and not appropriate for a building within the Summit Street Historic District, espedally since the building costs are so low. Malkmus asked Houser to estimate the labor costs. Houser replied that he has not factored anything in, and when he quoted the $120,000 that doesn't include the land or any of the appliances or things like that. The garage is not included bocause it is not an attached garage. Malkmus asked if it included labor for nailing nails and puffing on siding. Houser said yes, but it doesn' t count genarel fees or the land cost. He said the land cost is really arbitrary and does not make any difference. Houser said that what they have spent on land should not matter in this discussion. Steele said her understanding is that Houser is saying that the figure he is reporting to the building inspection department for building costs is $120,000. Shaw said Steele should in faimess note that those average costs are generally going to include the cost of land. Steele said the figures she was using were without land. Henry Madden, 428 South Summit Street, said this whole thing bothers him greatly. and perhaps the Commission does not have any control of it, but this is the second time in the last couple of months that the neighbors have been before the Commission. He said that he presumes that because these people are on the Commission. they are interested in historic preservation. Madden said he did not think members would spend their time here unless they ware, and yet they voted for the addition to the 621 property, which completely destroyed the concept. He said that here the Commission might be between a rock and a hard place because this zoning allows a duplex. He said that all over Iowa City we see the housing deteriorate downward and we see 12 kids living in a home that should be for two or three, and cars parked all over the place. and blaring radios. Madden asked if there were no place that has any restriction that would preserve the neighborhood for families. He asked if there is nothing left in Iowa City. Madden said here goes another house where there has been four bedrooms, and each one will have three kids in them. He said it is within walking distance of the University, and Houser will be able to get a better price for his rooms because it would be living in a nice historic district. Madden said that all of the neighbors contribute and upgrade their houses so that he can buy a piece of property_. slice it in haft, put a duplex in there, and rent it out to twelve students. He said he didn' t understand why Commission members spent their time on this unless they are interested in preserving histodc areas, histodc neighborhoods. Madden said it tears him up to think that maybe, yes, we should go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that maybe you (the Commission) should be drawing better restrictions and presenting to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and saying that we don' t want to argue about these things every month, wheh some guy comes in and buys a cheap lot. Madden asked what if the Champions next door to him decided to cut off the lot next to them because it is fairly narrow and decided to build a duplex there and make a lot of money off of it. He said he did not think that is the intent of an historic neighborhood. John Shaw, said he would readily admit that he had a close, recent association with the Historic Preservation Commission, but as a member of the public, he was tired of hearing the Commission Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 6 savaged about the property at 621 South Summit Street. He said this Commission was placed in a position where it was being told by the legal counsel of the City that it had very little room in which to move, legally. Shaw said that if anyone reads the minutes of the meetings, the Commission was told that it did not have the legal backup and was very dosely coached at what members could and could not say during those meetings. He said there was an ADA issue brought in on that, and he feels this commission has been very firmly placed in the middle where it has taken the heat for things that someone else in the City could have well stood up to say, "We believe this should happen,' and not thrown this commission in the middle of it. Shaw said there are members of this commission that he personally knows called members of the City Council to ask for backing on the 621 Summit Street issue to see if they would be supported if the Commission denied it. He said these members were told that the City was not going to enter a legal baffle on this because there was a feeling that they would be in a tenuous situation. Shaw said this Commission was placed in an extremely difficult position and did not get support from a number of places where they should have had it. He stated that as a result, the Commission sits here meeting after meeting being told what a poor job it did. Shaw said that was not fair to this Commission, and he thinks there are some basic understandings from the people who are making those comments. Shaw said Macfadane asked the question why compromise. Shaw said he feels that if histodc districts are going to be established, you need to establish them with an understanding that these areas are not suspended in amber and will change and should change, and that is part of their character. He said part of the appeal of these areas is the fact that they have changed over time. He said that is one of the things that gives fabdc to the neighborhood on Summit Street. Shaw said to say that we stand and will not allow any sort of cornpromise is a position that in the long run will do harm to the histodc preservation movement because it is going to end up costing people so much to do anything in the districts that there will be a general reluctance to become part of a district. Shaw said he was very tired of headng the public say that the'Commission, whose members are donating their time, is doing such a poor job. Macfadane said he is all in favor of compromise when it is appropriate, but he thinks standards are standards. He said he did not ask Commission members to vote no on this. Macfadane said what he asked the Commission to do was not to compromise its standards. He said that if the standards are met, then the Commission should vote yes. Macfadane said the applicant has a legal dght to build a duplex there; that is the law. He said if the Commission members feel this is histodca_lly appropriate, they should vote yes. Macfadane said that if Commission members feel the construction standards are not appropriate, then they should vote no. He said he believed the Commission' s constitution requires it to compromise with the applicant, but he believes it is inappropriate in this case, purely bocause there is no building there, it is a vacant lot, and the applicant does not have an emotional involvement with this. This is probably the time when the least amount of compromise is required. Macfadane said that in all other drcumstances before the Commission, compromise would surely be appropdate. Houser said that whether or not he lives on the street should not have any effect on the Commission. He said the histodc ordinance does not deal with 'emotional involvement,- whether it is dght or wrong. Houser said the Commission' s job is to look at the plans and say, okay, "is this appropdate." He said there will be change over the years and he asked what will be done when there aren' t as many trees to be cut down and other materials have to be used. Houser H~tor~ Prese~ationCommission August17,1998 Page 7 said the Commission is setting precedence now and even in ten years. He said we don' t know at this poinL Houser said someone may deride you can' t use any more redwood at all, and all these homes am going to have to have somathing done to them. He asked what the Commission was going to do. He said they are setting precedence now that in ten years, they can' t change that. Public discussion closed. Malkmus said there are two things in front of the Commission to deride, and befor~ the actual vote, Commission members should make dear their reasons for not choosing vinyl siding. She said the Commission should then deride to accept or reject a proposal to use fiber cement as the siding material. Malkrnus said she believed the only other issue outstanding is the soffit material, which is an important issue that is pad of the character of the house. Kugler said there are also the conditions that ware suggested and there was soma consensus about at last Thursday's meeting, which if the Commission votes to approve this project, should be incorporated into the motion. He said there should also be some discussion about how this proposal either meets or does not meet the guidelines that are outlined in the 1990 procedures and guidelines. 'Kugler said basically the Commission has guidelines that have been adopted, and this project is to be reviewed under those guidelines, which basically say the new building needs to be harmonious with the district. He said standard A states, ",.r~t mimic histodc styles, however such designs must be harmonious with surrounding structures and must not compromise the histodc character of the district." He said the rest of the standards outline things to look at to ensure that compatible and harmonious design. Kugler said the Commission should relate its derision to those standards as dosely as possible. Gunn said if be was not mistaken, the siding aside and the soffit aside, everything the subcommittee asked for and everything the Commission asked for at the previous meeting between acceptance of this list and the changes he has seen so far has been addressed, and the Commission has received what it asked for. He asked if anyone could think of anything. Kugler said there are some details that probably haven' t been carded over, and that is why he believes it is a good idea to include the list in any mation. Gunn said the list and the plans together accommodate everything the Commission asked for. He said if he was not mistaken, they were down to discussing soffit material and siding. Malkmus asked how many people were in favor of the fiber-cement siding and would accept it as proposed for this projecL Day said she didn' t sea it, so she wanted to hear some discussion from those who did see it. Malkmus said she did see all of the examples. She said she thought the siding with the wood grain was quite tacky and would not be appropriate at all. She also thought they managed to blend it in pretty well on a project where they had to finger old siding with the Hardi-plank and that it was not apparent which was the new and which was the old. Malkmus said it can be done well. She said she also thought there was a certain uniformity to the product that does not look like wood, which kind of has an inherent nature. Malkmus said that for that reason she thought it is possible to distinguish, but in general, it looked good. Malkmus asked if someone wanted to speak to its quality in terms of reliability and lasting in this dimate. Michaud said that the four projects she looked at were done within the last two years and have had maybe one winter. Michaud said she did not think the Commission should really endorse it because it does not have a track record. She said the Commission did not do a comprehensive search on the product for articles and only got a technical article on it. Michaud said that if you' re satisfied that it is a viable material, it is probably a good compromise. She said it looked very crisp on the buildings, and she did see some irregularities so actually thought that Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 8 was good. Michaud said the Commission also needs to think about, if there are certain building materials that it is going to approve, sustainable building materials. She said that is a good point that redwood might not be available forever. Michaud said it is just not ecological to keep cuffing down trees if you can use somathing else that is better and more durable. She said that in that sense the technology has evolved, and it looks very similar. Michaud said this is just not Williamsburg. Anderson said he drove by 1836 G Street. He said it was painted, and he thought it 'looked very good. Kelly asked if he got out and went up to the siding, and Anderson said he did. Gunn said at that property the west side is wood, haft of the south face is wood, and the other half where they added on is blended with the fiber-cement siding. Anderson said when you get up close, you can obviously tell but not from a distance. Gunn said it would have been hard to tell the difference without soma peeling paint on the old house. Gersh said he had to make a case for wood. He said the Secretary of the Intedor Standards said they should try to have the same materials. Secondly, Gersh said the Hardi-board that he looked at had a uniformity to it that wood doesn' t have. He said each piece is exactly the same. Gersh said when a builder constructed his addition, redwood was used, and the builder beveled the edges of the redwood so that it is not just a block of wood with four comers. He said it has a shape to it and it sort of graded on one side 9 thicker at the top and thinner at the bottom. Gersh said it is not just a rectangular block slapped up against the building, which is what this looks like. He said the Hardi-plank does not look like wood to him. Gersh said it doesn' t matter to him whether wood will be around for ten years or 20 years; he said Iowa City might not be around for 50 years. He said we don' t know and can' t talk about the future. Gersh said that is not what we are telking about here; we're talking about fight now. He endorsed the economic arguments made by Steele, saying that $60 per square foot is extremely low for construction. Kelly said she would also support wood and did not believe she would approve anything that is a mixture: vinyl, Hardi-plank, wood. She said it should be one way or the other. Gersh said the whole place, soffits and siding,' should all be the same. Kelly said that is a bad combination bocause they don' t fit together, for one thing, and are not historically accurate, for another. Kelly said she cannot see that the amount of money you would save putting vinyl there would be worth it. She said she tried to do it on her house and was unsuccessful. Malkmus asked if the Commission is willing to think of having beaded ceiling boards on the soffit but Hardi-board on the siding. Kelly said she would stick with the wood. She said the Commission is setting a very dangerous precedent. Kelly said when you get to another district with there is a greater vadety of products, that is a different type of thing. She said she is not saying that anything that is built in an histodc district should be wood but thinks you have to go district by distdct because that is one of .the things the Secretary of the Intedor tries to point out more than anything else. Kelly said the Old Home Journal just did a complete article on what is compatible, and they again repeat how important it is to be historically accurate with the materials. Gersh said wood would not necessarily set a precedent for all of Iowa City, but the Commission is just talking about Summit Street here. Day asked Kugler to reread that standard from the guidelines. Kugler said these are the guidelines adopted in 1990 along with the procedures for handling review. Under item number one, general, item A, it reads, -The design of new structures need not mimic historic styles. The intent of these guidelines is to encourage creativity in design, including contemporary styles. However, such designs must be harmonious with surrounding structures and must not compromise the historic character of the district." Day said that for her that is the crucial issue. She said it is not ecological issues, nor is it to prove that she Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 9 has guts or not or to prove that she is dedicated to histodc preservation. Day said her purpose is to determine if it meets that one critical criterion. Kugler said the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Histodc Building have been mentioned a bit. He said there is a section dealing with histodc districts/neighborhoods, although obviously the preferred solution, if possible, when dealing with a new addition or new building would be to use the materials found in the district. Kugle, r said there is a recommended as well as a non-recommended section to the guidelines. He read from the recommended section on page 50 of the guidelines, "Repairing features of the building, streetscape or landscape by reinfordng the histodc materials: repair will also generally include the replacement in kind-or with a compatible substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts or features when they are surviving prototypes such as a porch, balustrade_" He said they are talking about repladng certain materials with replacement metedais and are not talking about a new building. Under the not recommended section, Kugler read, 'Using a substitute metedal for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving part of the building, streetscape, or landscape feature.' He said there is reference at least in this section to using a substitute material that conveys the same visual appearance of what is there. Gersh said that also goes on to say that the replacement metedal should not be physically or chemically incompatible, so that means not a different metedal. Malkrnus said she suspected what they are talking about is that you would not want to apply a metedal that would degrade adjacent material. She said she did not think that was about mixing two materials, incompatible in a visual or aesthetic sense. Gersh said it is kind of ambiguous. Gunn said you could paint a matedal with' something and the paint could deteriorate the odginal historical material. He said he would take it the way Malkmus has. Anderson said it does not make sense to say using a substitute matedal is ok, and then eliminate all materials that are physically and chemically different. Malkmus said it seems these are the standards the Commission will have to use if it makes a derision not to use vinyl siding, and the Commission will have to distinguish why vinyl is not compatible and why, if approved, fiber-cement siding is. Kelly said vinyl is not compatible because it does not have the same character. She said it is very uniform and if you looked at the last windstorm., it is far more perishable under strong winds than wood. Kelly said she saw many places where it dpped off, so that it may not be as structurally sound. She said that physically it does not have the same appearance as wood. Malkmus said the Commission should try to ensure everyone has a chance to express himself to get a sense of how the vote is going and then move ahead kind of straw polling through the soffit/siding material. She said after that the Commission should make it very dear why it will not accept vinyl siding. Widness (I think) said, going to back the general guideline A that was just read, it talks about that the intent may include contemporary styles to encourage creativity. She said she would have less trouble with this board if this were a contemporary house or something that is not trying to look historic. Widness said when you have a design that is supposed to look like it is going to fit into the district, it is very difficult for her to look past this stuff. She stated that she thought this is a good compromise for some situations but she personally did not think this was the dght situation for it. Anderson said he was comfortable with the Hardi-plank. He said he believes it is visually compatible, and from a distance, certainly from the street, he would be very hard-pressed to tell Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 10 the difference between the Hardi-plank and the wood, which is not the case with vinyl siding. Day said she believes it compromises the historic character of this particular district and that is a sticking point for her. Michaud said she looked at the Hardi-plank dose up and thought it looked woodlike. She said she is not a construction worker so does not know how the windows would look compared to wood. Michaud said she thought she would vote for the Hardi-plank. Gunn said he looked at all of the five homes on the list he was given. He said that appearance of the Hardi-plank is really quite good, although not perfect. Gunn said it is slightly thinner than wood with a square edge, so is a liffie bit thinner on the bottom with the square edge on the top. He said it lays what appears to be a little bit flat on the face, but on the whole, he thinks it is very dose. Gunn said that even on the 1836 G Street house where there was half wood siding and half Hardi-plank, you almost could not tell the dilference. He said if you couldn' t see where the craftsmenship is a little bit shaky in the blending, it would read across the face in the south faring the sun as being the same metedal. Gunn said that on visual grounds, he cannot exclude it. He said there is a possibility that it will hold paint better than redwood but that has been untested, and we won' t know that for many years. Gunn said it is ce'rtainly less expensive and has certain wrought resistance. He said that given all its properties and the fact that it can be painted whatever colors people want to choose, as well as the appearance of it, it is certainly compatible with historic districts.- Michaud said the other point is that if this were a histodc village and every building in the village had four-inch clapboard siding on it, this would stand out. She said there is a vadety of width of siding on Summit Street. even in the most historical houses, so she did not think this little difference in texture with a compatible width plank is going to be at all significant. Malkrnus said she has no problem with what the Commission knows about it. She says she is, however, persuaded that this project, on the whole, is designed for economy and is not designed to be an expensive house or have a whole lot of character. Malkmus said she thinks the Commission' s job is not to judge just the overall price of the project. She said this is discussing a new building in the historic district, not one of costs. Kelly said one thing not to lose site of is that once you begin to compromise, the next time it will be easier to compromise and you end up with a lot of compromises down the road, espedally when there are a lot of chances for infill in a lot of historic districts. She said that is why she believes they have to take this district by district and not think about meldng things blanket right now. Malkmus said she agreed with this. Kelly said this derision is only for the Summit Street District. Someon~ from the public questioned how you can call this wood-like. He said that is semantics. Malkmus said the meeting was not open for public discussion at the present time. Malkmus said the issue comes down to whether Hardi-plank is going to be compatible with the district. She said she does not honestly think this house as conceived as a project, and she believes the Commission has a dght to look at its unity of design, really merits wood siding. Malkmus said it isn' t that kind of a house, and for that reason, she was inclined to say that fiber- cement siding is more realistic for this project. She said that whether this project then fits in the district opens up a discussion that the Commission more or less went through last week when it assumed that this project would be acceptable. Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 11 Anderson asked Kugler how a four to four vote would leave the applicant. Kugler said a majodty of the members present would be required to pass any motion so that if the vote on this material is four to four, the motion would fail. Malkmus said she is headng that there is a potential for passing a certificate of appropriateness with wood siding and wood soffits. Gersh said he would vote for that. Kugler said if the motion is made to approve with the use of Hardi-plank and received a four to four vote, there would be an opportunity for someone to make another motloft with that condition removed. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for 803 South Summit Street and the adjacent lot with the conditions listed in Kugler's letter to Brad Houser and the use of fiber-cement material for the siding and grooved aluminum beaded soffit material. Gunn seconded the motion. The moUon failed on a vote of 4-4. Kugler said there could still be a motion to approve this with different conditions. Holecek said there .could be another motion with different conditions and recommendations or a motion to deny. She said she was not intimately familiar with the application for a certificate of appropriateness and asked what type of matedal was specifically applied for. Malkmus said it was not listed. Kugler said the Commission does have a specifications list that says vinyi. Houser said originally he had asked for vinyl and then the Commission talked about using the Hardi-plank instead. He said his question is when they do this and vote this down, are they setting a precedent for all districts. Houser said he thinks they are. Kelly and Gersh said they are not. Gersh said the Commission is not saying that they are. Houser said that as a Commission, as a whole, they are setting that precedenL Gersh said the standards say they must be applied district by district. Holecek said the response to that is the whole issue of compaUbility so that there are defining characteristics in each histodc district, so that the north side would be different than Summit Street, as opposed to the Moffitt Cottage Historic District. She said the materials are going to be different. Houser said you' ve got aluminum, steel, and vinyi on the street the way it is dght now so how do you define that. He said there is not a building permit required to put siding on what is there, so he is being compatible. He said he even has lap or just straight masonite siding dght next door and vinyl siding in the garage that was approved 18 months ago. MOTION: Gersh moved that the Commission approve a certfficate of appropriateness for 803 South Summit Street and the adjacent lot with the conditions in Kugler' s letter to Brad Houser and with wood to be used for the siding and the soffit material, with the soffit material to be beaded and applied parallel to the side of the house. Kelly seconded the motion.; Holecek requested that the Commission articulate its reasons for their findings with respect to thkS motion. She said she preferred that the Commission do so before the vote. Kelly said the Commission already did that individually. Gunn said he thought the Commission should discuss whether it is setting precedence here. He said that in the Longfellow District, which is next up to be discussed as its implementation as a district, he has real concerns about requiring redwood only. Kelly said that is another district, another group of buildings, and that will be discussed individually. Gunn said the reason there is wood now for the Summit Street property is the bulk of the homes have wood siding. He said that in the Longfellow District, the bulk of the homes have wood siding in a similar fashion. Gunn asked if the Commission would make a differentiation between the districts, and would it be made along Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 12 economic grounds; he did not know if it could be made on appearance grounds. Gunn asked where the distinction was. Malkmus said that, from what she learned in Denver, the question of economics is very subtle in historic preservation, and it really only would come up when the Commission is actually taking value away from someone by restrictions being placed on the property beyond a reasonable limit. She said she did not think that in this case, for example, that Houser is losing that much value by the Commission' s derision. She said she understands that in his mind he sees a $20,000 pdce tag difference and that is very important. Malkmus said, however, that he still has a lot, still has a lot that he could build on. She said he has money he could invest in this property in a single-family house and have a lot more appropdate design for this district. Maimus said in a lot of ways she does not feel the Commission is puffing on a financial burden or any sense of taking away his legitimate property dghts. She said she did not think that is an issue here. Anderson said Gunn's question was that the Commission is basing its decision on that most of the houses are wood so require wood, but that will be true of almost any histodc district, although the Moffitt houses are obviously different. Anderson said a lot of older houses were built with wood so that will be a factor in every district the Commission looks at. He said the question is why require wood in this instance and then not require wood in Longfellow. Kelly said you need to ddve down Summit Street and then tum around the comer and go down to Longfellow and dght there you will see the rationale. She said it is an entirely different district and there is the elegance of Summit Street versus the utilitarian of Longfellow. Kelly said Longfellow was a very pleasant, middle class neighborhood, and that could not be said about Summit Street. Gersh said if you read the surveys for the Summit Street Histodc District and the Longfellow, it definitely becomes clear. Anderson said that has not been articulated; the thing that has been said is that the other houses are wood and this one needs to be wood. Malkmus asked if the Commission is talking about the cost of redwood or the elegance of its appearance, and Kelly responded it was the elegance of appearance. Kelly said she was not going to talk about cost; she was sure there were arguments pro and con for cost. She said she also feels that those are two very different districts and should be dealt with as they coma up, as she was sure they would be. Gersh said in his mind, the Commission has already articulated its justification for the use of wood: 1 ) the other houses on Summit Street have it predominately, and 2) neither the Hardi-plank nor the vinyl look enough like wood. Malkmus asked Gersh if he would require it on any district where wood was the predominant material. Gersh said he was not even thinking about the future. Malkmus said the Commission has an obligation to be consistent and to think of the future, Gersh said there is an also an obligation to make a justification for why, according to the City Attorney, the Commission would prefer wood. He said that is what he is focused on now, and as far as the future goes, the Commi,~ision has to go district by district, just like the standards calls for. Gersh said both the Iowa City standards and the Secretary of the Intedor Standards call for looking at a house in relation to the surrounding houses. He said that maybe there is an area of Longfellow where it is all wood and he would probably say it should be wood there, but if there is an area of .Longfellow where half the houses are vinyl siding or half are some other side of siding, then he would consider the other kind of siding too. Gersh said Longfellow is a huge district and different streets are different there. He said he would have to go by the context of the individual house and cannot really say what he would do dght now because Longfellow is so variable. Malkmus said, using that argument, if Gersh says the context for the Summit Street Distdct is local, then it is surrounded by houses that are much newer and much more modest than any area of Longfellow. Gersh said local but you have to consider the relation to the contributing houses as Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 13 the standards say, contributing to the histodc district. He said those houses around it am not contributing and so the sam would go for Longfellow and he would use the same approach when considering some place in Longfellow sometime in the Mum. Malkmus said it seems dear that them would not be any contributing vinyl houses in Longfellow. Gersh said that is not known. Malkmus said vinyl has only been out 20 years, and the district is an older district. Gersh said he did not notice in reviewing the Longfellow Neighborhood that houses were excluded from being contributing because of their siding. He said they ware mostly exduded because of the shape or remodeling or something like thaL Michaud asked if when he drove by the examples he did not think they looked like wood. Gersh said they don' t look like wood because when you go and do the construction, people plain it down so it is beveled; it is not an exact rectangle of wood that is put up, like the Hardi-plank is an exact rectangle. Gunn said if the Commission votes and it results in a 4-4 tie and the second motion fails, then it doesn' t get approved. He said if it passes, it passes and that is the end of it. Gunn asked what would happen if there ware a four to four tie. Gersh said Houser would then go to the City Coundl if he wants to, or otherwise just let it go. Gersh asked if nonapproval did not mean disapproval. Kugler said the Commission would probably have to tum the motion around and vote on a motion for denial. Holecek said that was one method, or Houser can ask for a deferral when there is a full contingent of the Commission. Kugler said there was a full contingent as there are now two vacant seats. Malkmus said she would like to hear from Day and Widness for the record. Widness said she did not want to repeat that what has been said, but one of the points she made eadier was that the guidelines talk about allowing or not prohibiting creative use of metedais and new styles. She said she would have less problem accepting this matedal on something that was not trying to look like an old house. Widness said when you tn/to have something that is to be integrated into these other old houses, then the material of choice should be the real thing, which in this case is wood. She said the other reservation she had about this fiber-cement board is that we don' t know how it will last or how it will play out in 12 years. Widness said if this becomes the thing the Commission gives its okay to because wood is too expensive and vinyi siding looks fake and we find out in 15 years that this does not tum out to be the material we thought it was, then it won' t be a happy day for a lot of homeowners who came to the Commission and asked for approval to do this. She sa.:l she is not enthusiastic about saying, 'Yes, this matedal is fine. It' s the dosest thing we can get to wood that isn' t wood,- until she knows what its track record will be. Gersh said that would a~so be a precedence-setting thing if the Commission approves the fiber-cement material. Malkmus said that wood is not what it used to be. She said redwood siding is cut on the stump and is not kiln dded. She said there are a lot of problems with modem wood peeling, getting pulpy. and rotting much sooner than it used to. Malkmus said wood siding from 100 years ago is not really the same as wood available today. She said the Commission could say that given what little is known, it could still approve the alternative material, but it does not mean the Commission is recommending this wood for histodc districts. It would mean the Commission is giving its okay to homeowners who wish to use it. Day said whenever you disturb an historical district, either to improve it or cause it neglect, if there is a change, there is a set of gates that must be passed through to approve that disturbance. She said disturbances can be wonderful, and that is not intended as a negative word. Day said the first gate is if it compromises the historical character of the district. She said you cannot go on to the Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 14 other gates until you have passed through that one and answered that question. Day said if you answer yes, then the discussion is over. She said that in this one case of Summit Street, she thinks this does compromise the histodc character of the district, and she cannot get past that first gate, Michaud said she thinks this is a modified Victorian, and she thinks that is the first gate, and after that it is the matedais. Day said the choice of materials immediately forces you into selectjon of several meterials together for the soffits, trim, and siding. She said then you have sevel'al types of materials together that she does not find compatible or reflective of the histodc package. Michaud said this could be a gross distinction and she should be able to see but she wondered if this wasn' t a very parallel situation to going from a tin roof to asphalt shingles. She asked if someone with building or design experience could explain to her the difference. Kelly asked which came firsL Michaud said wood came first. She said she guessed that all changed over time because it was more maintainable. Kelly said she did not think it was a fair comparison. Gunn said he thinks that some number of years ago that people concerned about putting on new- fangled asphalt shingles with green granule faces and red and all sorts of bright colors must have had the same discussion about the proper old material. He said red cedar shingles are extremely expensive and they are no longer visible on all of Summit Street; there is not a single house on Summit Street with a wood roof. He said that is a dramatic change in appearance, and economics simply forced the issue. Gunn said the difference between fibrous cement board and wood siding is almost not even detectable. He said it is not a shoddy material, not pressboard, and is a substantial material used in other places. Gunn said this is not talking about residing an old house but is about the new house that is supposed to contribute something and be compatible with the character of the district. He said he thinks it is and to force the use the redwood is asking a lot. Gunn said vinyl siding could go up on any property on Summit Street, and the Commission would be powerless to stop it. He said the Commission approved vinyl siding on a garage not too long ago and thought it also had approved pressboard siding. Gunn said he thought it sits next to a house with vinyl siding and next to a house with asbestos cement siding. He said he thinks this house fits as proposed better in the district than many other homes that already exist in the district. Gunn said he believes the Commission is making a distinction that cannot be defended with the visual appearance of the product. Michaud said the Commission was also advised by its last volunteer architectural advisor to accept altemate siding, and she thought he was probably aware of the market forces that the Commission members may not all be interested in. Malkmu~' said she agreed in large part, with Gunn, and he put it very well that in terms of appearance, this is difficult to distinguish with wood. She said this is not trying to make an old house but trying to make a house that has visual compatibility with the district. Malkmus said that for those reasons, she would vote for using fiber/cement siding. She said for the same reasons she would vote against using vinyl. Anderson said the motion is to approve wood, and even though he voted to approve the Hardi~ plank, he would vote to approve wood because otherwise there is no option to build. Holecek said the Commission could also put a motion on the floor to approve the application with vinyl siding. She said that would give a definite result that could be appealed to the City Coundl, and the Coundl could then modify it, either allowing the Hardi-plank matedal or the wood, Holecek said, for instance, if there is a four to four tie on the wood, the Commission could go back and do a Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 15 certificate of appropriateness approving vinyl. She said that would not likely pass. Holecek stated that will be the recommendation and the actual action taken by the Commission then, because there is no actual action on a tie vote. The action would be denial of a certificate of appropriateness requesting vinyl siding. She said that would then be what was appealed to the City Coundl. and that could be modffied or approved. Anderson asked about the four to four vote on the fiber-cement material. Holecek said it was a vote taken but was not an action. Gersh said there is a danger in what the City'Attomey is suggesting, because if there is a motion mentioning vinyl, the City Council can overtum that and give the okay to vinyl. He said if the Commission doesn' t even mention vinyl and just talks about wood, that option isn' t as obvious. Holecek said the minutes would be read. Kugler said the application was for vinyl siding, and if one of the conditions is no vinyl, but wood. that derision can be appealed. Anderson said he might vote against the wood then. Holecek stated that the applicant can appeal even a passage and request a modffication of that passage. Anderson said that while he does believe the Hardi.-plank is appropriate, he would go ahead and vote for wood. The motion carded on a vote of 6-2. Kugler said the applicant has the dght to appeal any derision of the Commission to the City Coundl within ten days of the date this decision is filed with the City Clerk. He said he will go ahead and prepare the certfficate of apprepdateness as quickly as possible, however, the applicant can submit an appeal to the City Clerk, if he desires, at any time within that pedod. Houser indicated that he would likely do that. Malkmus asked if anyone was owed any further discussion on vinyl siding, given that it was discussed at length at the last meeting. Holecek responded that if the Commission feels it has made a clear record as to the parameters and criteda for distinguishing appropriate extedor building materials, further discussion would not be necessary. Michaud said they drove around to look at the recent fiber;;cem~nt examples but did not ddve around to see recently applied, in better housing construction, vinyl. Gersh said the Commission looked at examples last time. Michaud noted that those samples were just liffie pieces, and were not applied to the house. DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL REPORT: Kugler said the City puts together a booklet of reports from all of its boards and commissions each year. He said generally this is put together at the end of the fiscal year. Kugler said he typically takes last year's report as well as the report that comes out of the Commission's annual planning session and looks at agendas and so forth to determine what was accomplished over the last year. Kugler said he then puts a draft together for Commission review and have an opportunity to add to or amend the report. He said that by September 1, the Commission has to have a completed report in to the City Manager' s Office. Widness asked about the second paragraph where it says the Commission furthers the efforts of histodc preservation in the City by making recommendations to the City Council. She said that in the minutes from the July meeting, Eleanor Dilkes made it very dear that this was not a Commission that made recommendations. Kugler said the Commission makes the decisions Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 16 regarding certificates of appropriateness and does not make recommendations. He said this would be regarding things like be bdck street program and other such recommendations, like naming Captain Irish Parkway. Widness said that under number one on be bird line where it says certified local govemment, it should read CLG Program, instead of HLG. Kugler said he did make bat change, as well as a couple of other typos. He discussed other changes. Kugler said there were some p, rojects bat were taken care of be previous year, like be designation of be first sedes of Iowa City Histodc Landmarks, developing a plaque program, nominating be College Green and East College Street districts as local districts. He said this year' s report references be National Register listing of bose districts because bat occurred within the last fiscal year. Kugler said the previous report referenced completing a portion of the Longfellow Survey and receiving a grant for the next. He said this report talks about finishing up that project. Kugler said the Dubuque Street/Linn Street corridor survey was finished up in the previous year so it is not referenced here, but it goes on to talk about finishing up the first phase of be Odginal Town Plat Survey, being in be process of Phase II, and be grant application for Phase III of that survey. Kugler said be report talks about the installation of the historic landmark plaques, five of which still need to go up. He says it also references the Mercy Hospital negotiations, and also contains a reference to John Shaw' s work with the Board of Appeals regarding the Uniform Building Code. Kugler said he did not think that has been acted on yet by be City Coundl. He said thcee are the changes he has made, weeding out the things that were taken care of be last fiscal year and no longer need to be taken care of. Malkmus Said she would like to see that the Commission was an advocate for getting be Emma Harvat House nominated for be National Register. Kugler asked for any other suggestions and amendments to be called in to him this week. SCHEDULE ANNUAL PLANNING SESSION: Kugler said be important thing is that everyone attend. The consensus was to hold be annual planning session on Thursday, September 24 at 5:30 p.m. Kelly asked why no one has been appointed to fill Ann Calms' vacant appointment. Kugler said there needs to be a 30-day pedod to advertise the appointment to allow people who are interested to apply. He said the appointment will not be made until be first meeting in September. Commission members discussed naming be new fountain downtown after Emma Harvat. Kugle~ said be Peninsula Plan consultants have tentatively named be main plaza there Emma Hatvat Square. _- MINUTES FROM THE JULY 9, 1998 MEETING: Motion: Kelly moved to approve the minutes with minor amendments. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of 8-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 8:45 p.m. MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY JULY 16, i998- $:4~ P,M. IOWA CITY TRANSIT FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Foster, Rick Masca~HowardHoran, Matk~Tom Benda STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Mitchell, ~ O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: C~hlztsonHorancalledthetncetingtoorderatS:46p~n. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the June 11s, 1998, COmmL~'i_'on ~_mee~i_'n~ were ~ as submitted. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: PUBUC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items w~re .i~c~.~-.4 PUBLIC Hw.&RING- IOWA NATIONAL GUARD t._w. ASE: Horan closed the besring at 5:54 pm 1TEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. ACSG Project: Gt~g I~dg~r lxovidal an update on the land zquis~on izojecL He said the City dosed on the Fitzgaffald laupaty an hour and thirty minntes befotc the windstoxm hit the area, O'Neil tz~om~ the C~.~a~a-~aon pass a resolution ~ Horan and Mascari to ~ a grant for land t~semem as soon as it is offereeL Notification of any grant will be tbtm,gh a congre~onal release. ~ soon as our cong~ or senator releases a grant, the Commi~on can be reimbursed for some of the landsrot easrme~ahudy lxxrchas~ Foster made amotion Airport Terminal Building: Matnice Cohen, from HLM Design, presented a~-vised informalion on raevation ofthe TaminaI Buildin~ He saidhe received alot ofinformalion from Bendaand sOnac cost savings by reducing the scope of services. This would includc reductions in the i~ to the second floor. There was discussion on appolmin_~ a subcemmiUee to see if thore is a possibility of a ]~!scad ~ill lxi lhe subcommittee to tty to see ifthere is sny private funding available. O'Neil said he met with the City lVlnnnga and the Dire~___or of Commttnity p!nnnin_,~ at the Terminal Bu~ding and di.~,~-d the possible uses for the building. O'Neil said Atkins and Franklin had some good mggestions on how to rehab and reuso the buildin~ Alzy factor in making this a community Imilding is to r,~t-~ the _seco__~d floor a comn-mity and/or conference month Mascari said this is an added feature to help promote the Aixport Andenon said it would be bene~cial to low~me pilots who aren't as ~mil~r in dealing with DUATS and FSS. Mascari made a motion to purchase the additional DTN sen'ice. Anderson seconded the motion and it ~m_~_~!__ 3 - 2, with Horan and Fester voting no. Pubik Works site: O'Ncfi said that PW would be starting to develop their new site on Airport property this suaiaier or fall Mitchell will develop a land lease agreement for the Commi-~-~ton to review at the Artist mcctin_~ Somhwest FBO Hangar - Set !mbUc hearing:, O'Neil ixovided the Commission with a site plan for the 120' by 120' hangar. He. has discussed some options with ICFS. They will be the pdncipal tenants ofthe hangar. The plan would include atwo story, 20' by60' office. Ifthe office is enclosed in the building instead of attached to the enCOde, the building may be expanded to 120'by 140'. Thebtfilding will replace space in the United building andthe maintenance shop. O'Neil said that whatever the price of the building, as long as ICFS would pay a monthly rent equal to the loan lmyment, the lxojea could~____ Anderson made amotion to set apublic L k L Nafiona!Guardleas~ This is a three-year lease, The only change fzmn the last lease is an incazaseinthetenL Bender made a motion to accqX the lease with tlm National C, mardforthtee year~ Foster~themolionnditpassedS-0. North Commercial area: O'Neil said PW has received five !xoposals for the design phase of theinfrasmscture. He will meet with Public Wodcs and Milclmll to teview the ixopoeat~ and tnake ix13pctty to be leased to US may have to be rcaljgned to give the Commi-~aien an alternative so~he~mute. Iowa let Services would him to start buildinE at the end of AugusL Bender made a motion to set a public henzing on August 3, 1998 at 12:00 pro. for LIS's FBC) atllication, land lease and FBO lease. F_n~___er seconded the motion and it passed S - 0. TheCommieeieaditectedO'Neilto lily-in breakfast: Thc Commi-~gion tcccivcd an application fzom SERT01VIA to use the ~ for their brcakfast oe Angnst30, 1998. Dictc Bhnn, from SERTO MA,~questions f~om Thcrcwillbcat~.ytowcrsupplicdbyCcdarRapidsFAA. Thcrc was discussion about pub~a~~inaddiliontothctowerfrcqzncy. Safctyptoccdmcswc~ diso,~zlandBlumsaidfiztcisanecdforadditionalgroundpctsonncl. Horanwillwritcaletlcr to the Civil Air Patrol and Univcrsity of lowa ROTC to scc if thcrc is any intcrcst in hdping with ~ withtbcadvcrtisi~t!~sycar. Blum said there ate 1~ media people he!,~ ~ BlumasizdiftbcCommi_m_'onwas~thcpaperaitl~contcst? Blumsaidym_n~'d__ fo~r people to run the contest. Itlastsftom9:0Onm to ll:OOa.m. Foster nnie a motion to slxmsorthecont___e~L ~isecondedlhemotionsnditpassedS-0. Andetson said he would O'Neii said the Commi-e6on bad m~,trsted doing some~Ning to celebrate the g0e year of the Airport. One sugtp~ion was to maiz up some T -shirts with a logo commemorating the 80e year of the AirporL The Commission directed O'Neil to put something mgrdser. WiBow Creek Sewer project: Mitctzllla~scntcdanagrecmcmtlmtacimowlcd~thatthc Commi-eeion was responsible for the lxopetty where part of the Vfffiow Crock Sewer would be instn!!ed alid granted permissiml to ~ the sewer On Ail13ort ptOl~,rty. A mninh-nnnce easclllent for the bicycle trail system. Foster made a motion for a r~solulion to ___scoL, pt_ the agr~-ment. Bender seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion ~m_~_o~d 5 - O. IDOT grant: The Commission received a gram offer from the State IDOT for two controlled access gates. Iris a 90/10 grant, with the State paying for90%of the txoject- O'Neil said one The grant is for$16,538.00. Fostcr madc a motion to accept the DOT grant Mascari seconded the motion the motion passed 5 - 0. Ho~ said he while he was on vacaljon, he visited the SAC amtsemn.. COMMISSION lVlEMBERS' REPORTS: SET NEXT Mm~F-TING: The next regular Airpo~ C~on meeting is scheduled for August 20, 1998, at ~:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meesin.~wasadjomnedat8:30p. m. Howaz~_oran, Chairperson MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1998 - 5 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CIVIC CENTER PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt, T.J. Brandt, Kate Corcoran, William Haigh MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Melody Rockwell, Andrew Matthews, Traci Wagner . OTHERS PRESENT: Joni Kinsey, Claire Sponsler CALL TO ORDFR: Chairperson Haigh called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Board members were present for roll call. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 15. 1998. BOARD MINUTFS: MOTION: L. Brandt moved to approve the July 15, 1998, meeting minutes as submitted. T.J. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion carded by a vote of 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM: EXC98-0017. Public hearing on an application submitted by Steve and Barbara van der Woude for a special exception to permit a single-family residence to be established on a nonconforming lot of record and a special exception to allow a side yard modffication for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 327 Fairchild Street. Rockwell said the van der Woudes are proposing to move and restore the Solomon Gdmm residence, an 1870s vintage house, from its current location at 411 Bloomington Street to a vacant lot that they own at 327 Fairchild StreeL She said the van der Woudes own the ad- joining lots located at 317 and 327 Fairchild Street, and under the City ordinance, when two or more abutting lots come into single ownership, the adjoining lots are considered to be a single lot in terms of the enforcement of the Zoning Chapter. They cannot be legally split or sold unless they meet the lot frontage, width and area requirements for the zone in which they are located. She said the lots meet the lot frontage and area requirements, but not the width requirement because the RNC-12 zone requires a 45-foot lot width and the two lots are only 40 feet wide. Rockwell said the house to be moved from Bloomington Street is 32-feet wide, so to place it on a 40-foot wide lot and have the two required five-foot side yards is impossible. She said the applicants are proposing to have a three-foot side yard on the east side of the house that is adjacent to an apartment house parking lot. Rockwell said moving the 411 Bloomington Street house onto the vacant lot on Fairchild Street would add a residential component to the streetscape. She said the histodc house is likely to fit in with the eclectic mix of residential architecture located in the 300 block along Fairchild Street; it is similar to the size, age and scale of the turn--of-the-century vintage Iowa C~ty Board of A~iustment Minutes August 12.1998 ' Page 2 homes along Fairchild, and would have approximately the same spacing between it and the adjacent residence to the west (12 feet) as the other older residences on the block have between each other. Rockwell said it is interesting to note that the Grimm residence is currently located on a lot that is 40 feet wide. and until downzoning from RM-12 (Low Density Multi-Family Residen- tial) to RNC-12 (Neighborhood Conservation Residential) occurred for much of the North Side Neighborhood in 1995, the lot width requirement for the Fairchild Street lot was only 40 feet. She said the 40-foot lot width is not unusual or incompatible in this older neighborhood in Iowa City. Rockwell said the applicants' site plan indicates that a mature street tree is to be removed so that the Bloomington Street house can be moved onto the Fairchild Street lot. She said staff would encourage the van der Woudes to look for an altemative to move the house without removing the tree. If that is not possible, staff would encourage the Board to require that the applicants plant a comparable street tree that is approved by the City Parks and Forestry Supervisor. Rockwell said the proposed infill development cannot meet the side yard requirements with- out a special exception or minor modification being granted. Rockwell said the peculiarity of the situation involves placing a histodc residence on a nonconforming lot of record. Both the house and the lot were created decades ago, at a time when narrower lot widths and setback distances were considered the norm. Rockwell said the side yard modification would be 40 square feet, or 5% of the 750 square foot east side yard requirement. Rockwell said there should be a substantial, positive improvement for the residential street- scape by introdudng a historic house to an open gap with the neighborhood that can serve as an aesthetic, residential screen of the adjacent apartment house parking lot. Rockwell said the minor modffication of the side yard setback requirement, the overall positive effect for the neighborhood of reloceting the Solomon Grimm residence to this site, and the lack of any viable alternative orientation for the Grimm structure on this site are persuasive factors in favor of granting the requested exception. In looking at the general standards, Rockwell said the proposed relocation project provides a means of saving a histodc Iowa City home, and thereby retaining a part of the commu- nity's eady architectural heritage. There will be an increase in taxes accruing to the City, and from a municipal facilities standpoint, such infill development is an efficient type of develop- ment, because no extension of sewer or water lines, or streets is required. She said the pro- posal is consistent with the neighborhood development principles cited in the City's Com- prehensive Plan for preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the histodc nature of oFder neighborhoods. Rockwell said the applicants have stated their intention to remove the existing driveway to Fairchild Street and have access to on-site parking in a garage off the alley at the rear of the lot. That would'allow for an additional on-street parking space, and increase the amount of green space between the residences. It would also improve the appearance of the residen- tial streetscape. Rockwell said if the Board determines to approve EXC98-0017, a request for a special exception to permit a single-family residence, specifically the Solomon Gdmm house, and accessory buildings to be established on a nonconforming lot of record, and a special exception to reduce the east side yard setback requirement from five feet to three feet for the 20-foot length of the east wall of the residence for property located in the Neighborhood Iowa C~ty Board of Adlustment Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 3 Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 327 Fairchild Street, it may want to consider requiring as a condition of approval that as the applicants have indicated, the existing drive- way that accesses Fairchild Street from the 317 and 327 Fairchild Street properties will be removed and replaced with lawn and landscaping, and the curb cut on Fairchild Street will be dosed. She said the Board may also want to consider requiring the preservation of the existing street tree on the Fairchild Street frontage, and if that is not feasible, requiring that a comparable replacement tree approved by the City Parks and Forestry Supervisor be planted and maintained on that frontage. Rockwell noted the letter received from Edc Rothenbuler and Jane Martin, who live at 419 N. Gilbert Street. She said the letter describes concerns about loss of green space and overcrowding of the structure on the IoL but also concludes that moving the proposed his- todc single-family home onto the vacant lot is not untenable in their view. Rockwell said both Rothenbuler and Martin as well as Susan Futrell and Will Jennings, who live at 311 Fairchild, agreed that if this spedal exception is approved, it should be specific to the Solomon Grimm home, and that if another house is proposed for the space in the future, the public should have the opportunity to review iL Futrell, who had called Rockwell, said she and Jennings were concerned about increasing the neighborhood density by squeezing another house onto an already crowded street, but she feels more comfortable with the situation because of the historic preservation aspect. L. Brandt asked if there would be any legal problems with the Board attaching a condition that limits this to the Solomen Grimm house. Rockwell said no, due to the way the ordinance is written, the Board needs to assure that the house will be compatible with structures on neighboring properties. L. Brandt asked what other types of structures could be built on this lot without a special exception. Rockwell said no dwellings could be built, but accessory buildings for the current house on the lot could be built. Public hearing opened. Joni Kinsev, 325 Brown Street, said she was representing the van der Woudes, is a North Side resident and is the President of the Fdends of Historic Preservation. She said she agreed with the staff assessment. She said the Friends of Historic Preservation Board has met to discuss the houses that Mercy Hospital plans to demolish, and said the hospital has given van der Woude until September 1, 1998, to remove the house in question from Bloomington Street. She said the Friends met to discuss van der Woude's proposal to create a partnership for this project. Kinsey said she understood the neighbors' concerns. She noted that the vacant lot is cur- rently used as public property in a way with apartment tenants hanging out there and ddnldng and generally trashing that land. She said in~ll properly done would be a good con- tdbution to the streetscape. She said the project would save a historic house that otherwise will be demolished. She said all agree the house is wider than ideal, but the house will fill out the lot rather beautifully. She said the house is not currently seen at its best advantage where it is located on Bloomington Street. She said with Steve van der Woude's excellent track record for restoring older, histodc homes, she was sure this home would be considered a gem in the neighborhood once it was moved in and restored. She noted that if this house does not work out, the application may come again to the Board with a less suitable pro- posal than this historic property. Kinsey said van der Woude is open to the Board's suggestions; the curb cut and driveway removal are already a part of the proposed plans. She noted the 40-foot wide lot is the size of many lots on the north side in the Original Town Plat. and it is also the size of or larger Iowa City Board of Adlustment Minutes August 12. 1998 Page -t than many of the lots proposed for the new Peninsula project. She said van der Woude told · her that the side yards could both be four feet instead of one being five feet and one being three feet; whatever the Board would prefer. She said the project was a worthy one that serves several purposes, the most important of which is to save the Solomon Grimm house. Claire SDonsler, 413 N. Gilbert, said she thought moving the house onto the vacant lot on Fairchild Street would cause the loss of the last remaining green space in the neighborhood and add to the appearance of overcrowding in the neighborhood. She said the project would increase the neighborhood density in an area that is already extremely dense, ,and where she feels no more can be absorbed. She said she welcomes the vacant lot as a buffer zone. She said she was concerned with available street parking and the noise that will be created with an additional residence. She questioned whether the residence would be owner- occupied, She said if it was not owner-occupied, it would be turned into a rental property, and she thought it was important to keep a balance of owner-occupied and rental units in the neighborhood. She said if the house is moved in and becomes a rental unit, the home at 317 Fairchild will no longer be desirable for someone to live in and own. She said she needed assurances that the home would be owner-occupied. She said the Gdmm house butted up so dose to the noisy apartment parking lot will not be desirable for owner- occupation. Sponsler said she was concerned about the aesthetics of the proposed garage. She said there is no assurance that the garage will conform to histodc standards. She said it may be a large, pre-fab bam which could diminish the value of the house. She said she must oppose the proposal, because she did not feel she could receive any assurances that her concerns would be addressed. L. Brandt asked what use the house could have. Rockwell said it could be a single-family residence, which could house two unrelated people and two roomers, so no more than a total of four unrelated people or a family of any size could occupy the residence. She said the house could not be convened into a duplex, an apartment building or rooming house. Public hearing closed, MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve EXC98-0017. a request for a special exception to permit a single-family residence, specifically the Solomon Grimm house that is the circa 1870 residence currently located at 411 Bloomington Street, and accessory buildings to be established on a nonconforming lot of record, and a special exception to reduce the east side yard setback requirement from five feet to three feet for the 20-foot length of the east wall of the residence for property located in the RNC-12 zone at 327 Fairchild Street, subject to the condition that the existing driveway that acceSses Fairchild Street from the 317 and 327 Fairchild Street properties shall be removed and replaced with lawn and landscaping and the curb cut on Fairchild Street shall be closed, and subject to the existing street tree on the Fairchild Street frontage being preserved if feasible, and if it is not, a comparable replacement tree approved by the City Parks and Forestry Supervisor shall be planted and maintained on that frontage. Bender seconded the motion. Corcoran said that she saw no problem with the proposal. She noted that some green space would be lost, but unless the city was willing to buy it, the property owner has some dghts to expect to get the highest and best use out of their property. She said this proposal provides a unique opportunity to save the Solomon Gdmm house. She said the house is the type of dwelling that would fit on this lot. She noted that many of the neighborhood lots are narrow. She thought that given van der Woude's track record and his success in working with the Iowa C~ty Board of Adjustment Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 5 Friends of Histodc Preservation, she thinks someone will want to live in the house and maintain it as a single-family dwelling. She said there are no viable alternatives for the applicant. She said the histodc house on this lot should have an overall favorable effect on the neighborhood, it is an eftdent way to establish housing in terms of munidpal radiities, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy to preserve the integrity of an older resi- dential neighborhood, and the situation is peculiar to the property. She said .for all these ma- sons, she would be voting in favor of the application. L. Brandt asked if a person could tear down the existing house in the future and put up a new structure that was not a single-family house on the larger lot. Rockwell said a duplex could be built on be larger, 80-foot wide property. L. Brandt said this is a very dense neighborhood, which admittedly has density and parking problems. At the same time,-the Board needs to balance those issues against the owners' interest in obtaining the full benefit and use of their investment in ihe property. He said be project has be potential to save a historic structure. L. Brandt said he liked the idea of limiting the special exception approval to this particular structure. He bought it would only be fair for be Board to review the spedal exception again if the proposal does not work out. L. Brandt said this proposal is not out of line with the way the area was developed many years ago. The house will be compatible within this neighborhood. He noted that it was a good idea to.take the ddveway out and move the garage and parking to be rear of the lot - consistent with the neighborhood planning pdndples set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. L. Brandt said the conservation zoning of this area and the limitation of the use of this structure to a single- family residence also provides protection for the neighborhood. Bender said when you look at the specific standards for this type of exception and evaluate how substantial the side yard modification is, it seems to be a very reasonable request. She said 5% is a modest encroachment into the side yard. She said there may be a slight increase in residents in be neighborhood as be result of this project, but not for the larger neighborhood. She said preserving the historic structure would have a favorable effect for the neighborhood and the City. She said the structure would ameliorate the effect of the apartment building and parking lot for many of the neighboring property owners. She said she bought bat be house might be more of an asset, and the addition of a parking space might help relieve some of the street parking conditions. She said she did not see another alternative for be applicant for odenting the Solomon Gdmm house on this lot without losing the visibility of the architectural feature and making the house look odd. She said the proposal is consistent with be Comprehensive Plan polides for neighborhood development and historic preservation. Bender said dosing be curb cut will allow for another parking space on the street and will add a little green space between the houses. T.J. Brandt said he echoed the thoughts of his colleagues. He thought it was important to save-'this histodc house. He said be alley access for the rear parking would be a benefit, and would result in an additional street parking space. He said the 5% side yard modificabon is minimal. He said he saw no reason why this house shouldn't be preserved at this location. Haigh noted that the side yard encroachment is modest at 5%, and said that he could think of a lot worse situation than the proposal, something that might not fit into the neighborhood as well as what is proposed. He said to him it seemed a perfect fit. The motion carried by a vote of 50. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 6 OTHER: Review Board of Adjustment Annual Report MOTION: L. Brandt moved to accept the Board of Adjustment Annual Report as submitted. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carded by a vote of 5-0. Discuss Board Schedule Rockwell said the November 11 Board meeting date may need to be rescheduled, because it is the Veteran's Day holiday. The Board members agreed to meet a week later on November 18. Rockwell said in that case, the Board's fall meeting schedule would be as follows: September 16, October 14, November 18 and December 9. She said members would be called to confirm their availability to meet on November 18. BOARD OF ADJUSTMFNT INFORMATION: Rockwell said there is a new policy set by the City Coundl to send notice letters to neighbors within four days of receipt of the application and to send the letters to neighbors who own property within 300 feet of the application probedies. She said this will notify neighbors approximately three weeks pdor to the Board meeting. 'She said this process will stad in September or October of this year. Rockwell said the Board may want to consider incorporating procedures for reconsideration of an item in their procedural rules. She said according to the City Attorney, an applicant is the only party that can currently request reconsideration of a Board decision. She said regarding a special exception from the July Board meeting, the Ponsetis asked if the Board could consider adding an amandmant to say that nothing would be stored between the garage and the shared lot line except for plantings. She said the Ponsetis can appeal the decision to District Court, but the derision cannot be amended by the Board unless the Segars choose to request reconsideretion. The Board members noted other times that it has reconsidered cases. Rockwell said yes, it was at the request of the applicant and following Robert's Rules of Order. It was agreed that spelling the reconsideration protocol out in the Board's procedural rules would be helpful. L. Brandt said he thought the Board needed to revisit the reconsideration procedures. Matthews said parliamentary procedure calls for reconsideration to be done at the same meeting as the odginal consideration. Board members asked Rockwell about enforcement of conditions on past special exception items, and she said she would bring updates to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Bender moved to adjoum the meeting. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carded by a vote of 5-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. William Haigh, Chairperson , Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Trad Wagner. SIo, N IN ~HPirr 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1998 - 5 P.M. Civic Center Council Chambers Phone 33? IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINt,rlF_3 August 24, 1998 Meeting COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Dickerson, Pat Harvey, Joan Jehle, Charles Major, Diane Martin, Art Vincent, Jan Warr~ COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Shires, Mettle Thomopulos, STAFF PRESENT: Heather Shank, Kaei Carolan CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Warren moved to approve the July minutes; Martin seconded. All in favor, no opposed. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. OLD BUSINESS: Update: Amendments to By-Laws: Harvey requested an update on the changes to the by-laws. Shank reported that she needs to determine when the next Rules Committee meeting is and attend same. After that, a resolution must be written to be placed on the agenda for passage by the entire Council. She will keep the Commission updated Iowa Civil Rights Commission Meeting on Fall Retreat: As discussed at the July meeting, the ICRC had agreed to place the issue of adding sexual orientation to the state civil fights code on the agenda for their regular monthly {August) meeting, so the Commissioners could discuss whether this was an issue they wished to consider placing on the agenda for discussion at their Fall RetreaL Shank spoke to Don Grove, who indicated that they intended to take a poll Tuesday to determine how many of the state Commissioners were going to attend the August meeting {scheduled for August 28). Shank reminded the Commission that Flora Lee (state Commissioner) had said she felt this was something the full Commi-qsion needed to discuss. Harvey sent Ms. Lee a letter thanking her for her motion to place this on the agenda, and indicating that the ICHRC hoped the discussion cotrid move forward even if they didn~ have full attendance at the August meeting. Warren asked for a copy of this; Carolan agreed to put it in the September packet. Warren asked when ICRC had last had a meeting with full attendance. Shank indicated it had been over a year. Human Riv. hts Breakfast update: Carolan reported that about 20-25 people have bought tickets already, but we have only one nomination so far. Martin asked for a list of past winners, which Carolan agreed to e-mail to her and Warren. Shank suggested that the Commission might wish to reassess its absolute ban on past winners, and limit the ban to a certain number of years. Warren suggested that in the newspaper articles, we might mention last year's winners so the ~:}mmunity can see that these are real, your-next4oor-neighbor-type people. Shank indicated that all three papers have already run the nominatibns piece. Dickerson and Jehle agreed to talk to Dottie Ray and Roy 3ustice. Dickerson has already done a PSA for the Government Channel. At Warren's request, the flyer posting list of businesses was reviewed and re-assigned among the Commissioners. Shank has a community service person and a volunteer coming in to post ~yers as well. Cawlan provided tickets Human Rights Commission August, 1998 Minutes Page 2 to Commissioners who wanted them at this point She reminded everyone that they need to keep track of not only how many tickets they sell, but to whom. The Commission decided on this year's Nomination subcommittee: Martln~ Jehle, and WinTen. At Warren's request, Shank agreed to provide the Nominations subcommitte~ with the wording from the award plaques, so they can draft wording for the special International A ward. Accessible Caucus Sites: Martin is going to follow up with Mr. Roark (the person who was supposed to l~spond on behalf of the school system). That information represents the lion's share of the data needed. There was some discussion of the most efficient way to assemble the data once we have it all. It will then be disseminated to all the political parties, the newspaper, and a copy placed at the library, along with a cover letter strongly urging the parties to utilize the accessible sites. Harvey stressed that the compilation needs to be 'done by someone other than Shank or Carolan. There was discussion of whether the information for each site could be condensed to one page; Martin said she would do this. Community Outreach: Haxvey asked the Commissioners for suggestions and ideas for public/outreach projects for 1999. Keeping in mind that Shank and Carolan's time needs to be focused on investigations, she asked that Commissioners think realistically about what they want to do. Approach should also be considered should certain projects go into subcommittee, should they plan out a full 12 months of activities, etc. She stressed that the Comnlission needs to be realistic about how much time various projects will take, whether the time commitments are really feasible, and given those limitations, where the Commi-c, sion wishes to expend its efforts. Suggestions for outreach included: movie series; annual display at the library; responsive display/activity to an occurrence (like last year's hate crime display); Awards Breakfast; some sort of joint project with the school system; panel discussions; celebrations (MLK, Gay Pride, Women's History month; Black History month; Cultural Diversity Day; OrgaDiT~tion Day at the Mall; ADA; Native American celebration); informational tables (Major suggested Coral Ridge Mall---even though we don't have jurisdiction out there, it might be beneficial in terms of disseminating information); DiverseCitiesfrown Meetings; update the sexual harassment panel/video. Shank reported that Madan Coleman at ICCSD had expressed interest in doing a project with the Commission and the City. Warren reported that the DiverseCities planning committee is meeting next week to set a date for the next big D-Team meeting. Harvey asked if Shank or Carolan could get a calendar that shows all the various celebration months. Harvey noted that the first time the Commissioners take responsibility for any of these proposed events, it'll probably require a lot of assistance from Shank and Carolan, but subsequent to that, their input should be minimal. SeveraA Commissioners expressed interest in mapping out a whole year's worth of events. In thinking about where eff6rts should be focused, it was discussed that panel discussions reach a broader audience than, say, the film series since the videos of the panels air repeatedly on the Government Channel, whereas the film showings are a one-shot deal. It was also noted that while some of the film showings have drawn huge audiences, others have been very poorly attended although Martin pointed out that this shouldn't necessarily be determinative, given the mission of the Commission. Harvey asked the Commissioners to think about anything else they'd like to see as a category, and then start ranking them, both in terms of priority and amount of time/funds/involvement required. Commissioners should also consider which projects might be best in subcommittee. Warren pointed out that another approach would be to assign subcommittees not by event but by task---a Human Rights Commission August 1998 Minutes Page 3 subcommittee to find and schedule speakers, another to do the PR/advertising. This division could also allow Commissioners to play to their own strengths, and take on the sort of tasks at which they excel. Shank also noted that there is a fair amount of money in the education budget for just these sons of projects. The money we receive fxom the ICRC for case resolution goes into this account. Warren asked if these monies could be used for speaker honorariums; Shank said yes. Harvey requested that this matter be placed back on the agenda for September. NEW BUSINESS: None repo~'ted. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Warren: Asked how everyone felt about her proxy (via Carolan) request that the October meeting be moved up a week. With no objections, the meeting was changed to October 19, 1998. Harvey: Vincent had informed her that he was going to be delayed getting to tonight's meeting, but that he wished to report on his trip to the Regional Civil Rights Conference and discuss his written report (which was included in the packet). Since Vincent was not present yet, Harvey said there couldn't really be much discussion and it would have to be deferred until September. She indicated that personally she wanted to know what Vincent meant when he referred to other "commissioners [who] exercise a greater measure of both authority and responsibility in policy- making and operational areas" than the ICHRC. Maxtin said she thought Vincent might be referring to some of the Commissions in smaller towns who do not have staff, and consequently the commissioners themselves do the actual investigations. Harvey also noted that she had previously questioned, off the record, whether it was worth the time and money to send someone to this conference. Vincent's report noted that he felt it would be more appropriate to send the Coordinator, Investigator, Chair or Vice-Chair. Harvey said she'd like to know why Vincent felt that way. Major concurred in these questions. Harvey requested that this matter be placed back on the agenda for September, and specifically asked Commissioners to bring the written report with them next month. Warren: Noted that in the current PFL~,G newsletter, there's a reference to a web site that lists bible verses to counteract and counterargue those usually cited by the anti-gay contingent. Warren noted that she has not checked out the site herself and was therefore not endorsing it. but merely passing along the information. Dickerson: Shank had asked him for some information on autism, and he provided thai to her. He ~,aid this got him thinking about how so many of the employment cases seem to involv~ employers who simply aren't well educated about racial issues or disability issues, or whatever. Harvey noted that since the majority of our cases are in the area of employment, that perhaps that' s where efforts should be focused in terms of public education. Shank suggested the Commission could sponsor a panel with someone speaking on the new sexual harassment laws, and someone else addressing disability law, especially the areas where Iowa law isn't particularly protective, but federal law might allow a claim. Maior: reported that he heard Bruce Williams' program on the radio, which explored allowable and disallowable questions in job interviews/applications. Major said he had thought he Human Rights Commission August, 1998 Minutes Page 4 himself was pretty sharp on the topic, but he learned a ntunber of things. This could be another topic for public forum. Harvey said she had often thought, while reading cases, that if only there were documentation about performance issues, that would help, and perhaps that subject could be covered as well. Vincent: Commissioner Vincent arrived and discussion about his report followed. In answer to Harvey's question, Vincent confirmed that he had been referring to comrhissioners in smaller communities where commissioners conduct the actual investigations. This particular conference focused on invesfigative and mediation techniques, in which ICHRC doesn't engage. The only portion of the conference where Vincent felt on par with the other attendees was the section where commissioners discussed what's going right with their agencies. Otherwise, he didn't feel that commissioners such as IC's gained that much benefit from attending. Harvey indicated that she had considered this and agreed--that the topics are very important for communities where the commissioners are responsible for investigations, but ICHRC fortunately has staff to handle those responsibilities. Harvey did ask why Vincent thought the Chair or Vice-Chair would be a better choice to attend? Vincent indicated that it was his understanding that the Chair and Vice-Chair worked more closely with the staff than the rest of the Commission. Harvey indicated she didn't believe this was the ease, except for specific issues that required a swift turn-around, like the letter regarding the homophobic assault last month. Individual Commissioners may have more contact with staff in a given month depending on the project the Commissioner is working on, but as a general rule, the Chair has no more contact than anyone else. Vincent said he feels the Commission needs to have someone at this sort of conference, but that it should be someone in a visibly leading position. Harvey said she understood that, but she wouldn't want to sit through a discussion on, for example, intake procedures, since our Commission simply doesn't do that. Vincent said in order to have some effect on a state level, he felt the Commission needed to make it a priority to be in attendance even at those things which aren't within our purview of authority. Harvey acknowledged that view, and suggested that next year we review the agenda with an eye to both applicability and availability. Major disagreed with a sentence in Vincent's report vis-i-vis policy-making authority. Vincent conceded that since the Commission holds sway over the Human Rights Ordinance, perhaps policy-making was an inaccurate term--but certainly in terms of operational aspects, the ICHRC has less responsibility than those commissions who do their own investigations. Vincent asked if anyone in town did employment testing. Shank indicated we didn't do that. Vincent noted that other commissions do. Shank said we've asked for funding for employment and housing testing in the past, and have been turned down. The EEOC provides money to the State for this purpose. Vincent said the facilitator who spoke on this topic at the conference said money is tight everywhere in this area. STATUS OF CASES: There has been one Probable Cause successful conciliation and closure. There were two No Probable Cause closures. There are two investigative summaries pending. There are two cases down in legal. There is one administrative closure awaiting transfer to legal. There were three administrative closures. There were two success~xl mediations. There is one mediation scheduled for next week. One mediation that had been pending broke down, and wilI revert to investigation. One predetermination settlement fell apart, but the parties may still go to mediation. Human Rights Commission August, 1998 Minutes Page 5 Martin asked a question as follows. Most of our cases are in employment. The complainant is always different, but inevitably some of the employers end up with more than one case against them. Where in our various processes is education most likely fo take place? Shank said mediation tends to do more in that regard, since both parties are present and each relates their own version of the events and then engages in discussion. In conciliation, the complainant is not present and there isn't "discussion" per se. In predetermination settlement, the staff is really just conveying set~ement offers back and forth~ Opinion letten certainly set out a great deal of information, but again, it's not the interactive process that mediation is. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING: The September meeting will be September 28, 1998, 7:00 p.m., in the Civic Center Lobby Conference Room. Martin will not be able to attend. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Warren/Dickerson. 08/26/98 transcribed by kkc MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JULY 8, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Endel, Ken Fearing, Judith Klink, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Allen Stroh, Kathy Wallace, Ross Wilburn MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS PRESENT: Bruce Maurer Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Marilyn Kriz William Buss FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Klink, seconded bv Pruess, to aDDrove the June 10, 1998 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Stroh, seconded by Endel, to acce~t dedication of land to meet the .34 acre N.O.S. re~uirement in the form of a 50 foot 'buffer alon~ the Iowa River in the Riverview Place Apartments addition. Unanimous. Moved bv Endel, seconded by Pruess, to accept fees in lieu of the 6,000+ square feet N.O.S. re~uirement in the Green Mountain Meadow addition. Unanimous. ~ Moved bv Pruess, seconded by Stroh, to accept the 1.43 acres required but that it be active, usable neighborhood open space in the PepperwoOd Addition, Part 12, and to inform the developer the Co ...... '~ssion is open to discussions re~ardin~ future open space acquisitions in lieu of this, particularly if would result in lineal crreen space to connect with Wetherbv Park. Unanimous. Moved bv Klink, seconded bv Stroh, to accept the 6.4 acre wooded ravine if offered by the developer, in addition to the 1.43 acres of active usable neighborhood open space. Unanimous. NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE ITEMS Riverview Place ApartmentS. Trueblood noted the location of the proposed apartment complex. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation is to deny the rezoning request because they feel it is not appropriate for the area. Planning staff would like a recommendation from the Commission with respect to neighborhood open space in case the rezoning request is subsequently approved by the City Council. Trueblood noted the neighborhood open space requirement is .34 acres. The Staff Report notes one possibility would be to require a 50 foot buffer along the Iowa River, which could be used for the construction of a portion of the Iowa River Corridor Trail at some point in'the future. Moved by Stroh, secondedbvEndel, to accept dedication of land to meet the .34 acre N.O,S. requirement in the form of a 50 foot buffer alon~ the Iowa River in the Riverview Place ADartanents addition. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission July 8, 1998 Page 2 -Green Mountain Meadow. Trueblood noted the location of the subdivision, and the neighborhood open space requirement of 6,000 square feet. Klink questioned if the undeveloped area immediately to the east of this subdivision is owned by the same developer. She noted the flaw in the N.O.S. ordinance in not allowing the neighborhood open space requirement to be based on the entire development, with developments occurring piecemeal. Trueblood noted there have been some exceptions, such as Galway Hills, where the developer and commission negotiated the neighborhood open space requirement based on the entire development. Moved by Endel, seconded bVPruess, to accept fees in lieu of the 6,000+ scruare feet N.O.S. recmirement in the Green Mountain Meadow addition. Unanimous. Klink stated it would be helpful to know who owns the area immediately east of the subdivision. Trueblood indicated he would work with Planning staff to determine whether or not there would be any possibility of combining the two areas thereby negotiating for a larger parcel of green space. It was noted if this is possible, the Commission would prefer to have further discussions as opposed to simply accepting the fees at this time. Pepperwood Addition, Part 12. Trueblood noted the Commission informally discussed this development at last month's meeting and made a preliminary recommendation to accept usable open space for an active-use neighborhood park in lieu of fees. The neighborhood open space requirement is 1.43 acres. An area this size that would back up to the wooded ravine had been suggested by staff. The developer indicated he is unwilling to do so, but would be willing to dedicate the wooded ravine consisting of 6.4 acres. Trueblood stated this land would not lend itself to an active-use neighborhood park. The developer cannot build in_this area, therefore it would be preserved to a certain extent whether it is private or public property. If it was public property, Trueblood noted there would be more controlOver the area and the City could possibly control "damage" that might occur to the slope as the adjacent area is being developed. This area would provide green space and a natural area, but not a neighborhood park. Pacha questioned the maintenance requirement if the wooded ravine is accepted. Trueblood stated there would not be a great deal maintenance if the area was left natural; if a trail was constructed could require a great deal of maintenance due to the slope and erosion problems which would occur. Pruessquestioned whether or not the PepperwoodNeighborhood Association has expressed its opinion; Trueblood indicated staff has not heard from them, noting Marcia Klingaman generally informs the neighborhood associations of pending developments in their area. Pruess stated he would like the Pepperwood Neighborhood Association's input. PruesS noted at last month's meeting Vanderhoef suggested the future possibility of acquiring open space to the south for a trail tying into the McCollister Farm. Stroh felt the Commission should choose the active-use option, noting the McCollister Farm would remain as a site and an entity unto itself. Endel favored a more active, multi-use open Parks and Recreation Commission July 8, 1998 Page 3 space area. Pruess favored acquiring lineal green space to provide a trail over to Wetherby Park and then connecting into the McCollister Farm. Fearing favored land with less slope instead of the ravine. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Stroh, to accept the 1.43 acres required but that it be active, usable neighborhood open space in the Pepperwood Addition, Part 12, and to inform the developer the Commission is open to discussions re~ardin~ future open space acquisitions in lieu of this, particularly if would result in lineal ~reen space to connect with Wetherbv Park. Unanimous. Klink questioned whether a motion should be made that the Commission would be open to also accepting the 6.4 acre wooded ravine. Wallace stated the City is good at protecting sensitive areas, and questioned why the City would want to acquire it. Klink stated the City would maintain the area better than the developer, noting the developer could remove up to 50 percent of the trees. Moved by Klink, seconded bv Stroh, to accep~ the 6.4 acre wooded ravine if offered by the developer, in addition to the 1.43 acres of active usable neighborhood open space. Unanimous. MILLER/ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD Trueblood referred to an earlier letter from Mary Hitchcock which indicated she had an appraisal valuing the Ruppert property at over $400,000 per acre. William Buss stated an appraisal was completed by Casey Cook in April 1995 which specifically evaluated land zoned RS-8 in the Miller/Orchard Neighborhood. Included in this appraisal was 10 acres of the Ruppert property, and the land was appraised at approximately $30,000 per acre. Various properties in the Miller/Orchard Neighborhood were discussed. Trueblood stated the Commission needs to determine whether or not they want to pursue making a formal offer, how much money it is willing to spend, how much land, and whether or not to have an updated appraisal completed. Pruess indicated the possibility of getting a foothold in the area by purchasing the Southgate property. He noted he would prefer not to go through the procedure of offering to purchase land from the Rupperts in light of what they feel the property is worth. Stroh stated the north area is very hilly, with a lot of traffic along the north edge. He stated the Commission needs to consider who will use the parkland and how they will get to the site - walking or driving. Trueblood noted neighborhood parks are generally within walking distance for area residents. Klink stated the plans must also be related to the plans for the Benton Street widening project. Trueblood asked if the Commission was willing to spend up to $200,000 for property in this area. Pruess indicated he would be willing to pay more than market value in order to get a foothold in this area. Klink indicated she thought the Benton Street widening project included plans Parks and Recreation Commission July 8, 1998 Page 4 for a walking bridge over Benton Street from the Roosevelt School, with Pruess indicating this could connect with the Iowa River Corridor Trail. Stroh noted if this is the case the City will need to purchase land at both ends of the bridge and this may help define the area the Commission should pursue. The consensus of the Commission was to delay action until further information is received. They would like a more detailed map of the Miller/Orchard area, names of respective property owners, topography of area, street right-of-way widths, and more information on the Benton Street widening plans. Pacha suggested sending a similar letter as that which was sent to the Rupperts to Southgate Development. LOW INCOME REPORT A memo setting out statistics on the low income program was distributed to the Commission. Trueblood stated on the first day of summer registration there were extremely 'long lines, with the majority of people registering for private swim lessons. A substantial percentage of those registering for the private swim lessons were doing so as low income individuals. Also, many of them were registering for several sessions. He noted these lessons cost twice as much as the regular swim lessons, which may give the impression that the low income program is not serving the need intended. It was indicated that some of these people qualify for the program due to non-reportable income (i.e. from other countries). Pacha noted the struggle to meet the Recreation Division's 45 percent self-sustaining goal, while trying to offer programs to as many people as possible. Stroh compared the situation to flying first class or coach, with both reaching their destination. He stated he had no objection to adding private swim lessons to the list of non-eligible programs for a low income discount. Endel strongly disagreed, noting these individuals may not be citizens, but they are still community members. She noted that a language barrier may be a problem contributing to their need for private lessons. She felt the current policy should not be changed. Moran stated three to five percent of the low income applications are randomly selected to verify income, with letters being sent requesting copies of their income tax returns. It is noted in the letter that if they do not provide the necessary information, they will no longer be able to declare low income status. Approximately 85 percent do not respond, indicating the possibility that the low income program is being abused. Moran noted the amount of assistance given does not greatly affect the division's revenue, although this season the amount of assistance given was the highest since the low income program was instituted. Trueblood felt it was not a money issue, but more of an issue of principle and equity. Private swim lessons are one of the division's most popular programs and they were filled to capacity the first day of registration, with many people being turned away. Stroh felt staff Parks and'Recreation Commission July 8, 1998 Page 5 should use reasonable prudence in determining if people qualify for assistance. Endel felt it was nora negative outcome in teaching people to swim in a more effective environment. Trueblood queried whether people who were legitimately low income could really afford to pay for a number of private swim lessons. Pacha noted it may be more equitable if the number of private swim lessons a person could register for was limited. Trueblood stated it is an issue that needs to be resolved prior to next summer. Staff will continue to look at various alternatives, bringing them back to' the Commission for further discussion. RIVERFRONT & NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION REPORT There was no report; Fearing was unable to attend last month's meeting,' and would be unable to attend this month's meeting. COMMISSION TIME Fearing asked how low on the priority list tennis courts were. Individuals have stated the Mercer Park tennis nets need replacing, two of the courts are severely cracked, and the back line of the City Park tennis courts should be repainted prior to the Midlands Tournament. Trueblood stated staff will follow up on it. Klink noted she is following the construction of the Willow Creek trail and the Iowa River Corridor Trail with great delight. She stated the weather has been a big problem, but they are working on the trails when they can and they are looking good so far. Stroh noted he was recently in Boulder, Colorado and they have a nice skateboard park. It had a fence around it to control access and it had lights. Wallace asked for an update on the proposed Elks Club driving range on the peninsula area. Trueblood stated the City Council is scheduled to discuss it at its meeting on July 28. Stroh noted the Elks Club has been asked to provide a legal description. On behalf of the Commission, Pacha recognized City staff for their hard work in Eleaning up the damage from the recent storm, and they deserved a "pat on the back". DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Storm D~ma~e. The day the storm hit one complaint was received from a parent about not getting her child, who was in the Summer Camp program, out of danger at City Park. It was determined that her child was in fact at the Recreation Center. There was a group of children at City Park who were taken to the basement of the City Park swimming pool. Parks and Recreation Commission July 8, 1998 Page 6 There ware no injuries. Trueblood felt both full time and temporary staff did a good job in getting the children out of danger. Priority is being given to clearing the streets and sidewalks of downed trees and limbs, with parks being given second priority. There was a lot of damage in City Park, North Hickory Hill Park and Willow Creek Park. Shelter damage was minimal, with only shelter #1 in Upper City Park being destroyed. Another problem encountered is finding contractors to hire to assist with clean up. Selected City staff meets at 11:00 a.m. every day to coordinate clean up efforts. August Co---~ssion Meeting. Trueblood, Pacha and Klink are unable to attend the August meeting. It was decided to tentatively cancel the August meeting, unless an issue arises that needs to be acted on. Hickory Hill West. There is interest on the part of the City Council in finding land for a Hickory Hill West. Trueblood asked members to contact him if they become aware of any potential parcels to acquire in this area, or if. they have any other thoughts on this matter. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. A proposal to complete same will be forthcoming in the next few months. Waterworks/Peninsula Area. One meeting on the waterworks park and two meetings on the peninsula area have been held with the consultants to date. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Fearing, seconded by Stroh, meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to adtoUrn. Unanimous. The MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION' AUGUST 20, 1998 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS :PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson, Dean Shannon, Lea Supple MEMBERSABSENT: Phil Shive STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek, Anne Schulte , OTHERS PRESENT: Cecile Kuenzli, George Lance, Jay Semel, Eleanor Steele, Stephen Bloom, Doug Russell, Betty Kelly, Ted Heald, Jeff Schabilion, Woody Houser, Mike Speer, Tom Anthony, Bob Bums RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of REZ98-0010, an application submitted by Cecile Kuenzli et al to rezone approximately 22 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) for property located in the Summit Street Historic District. Recommended, by a vote of 5-0, that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending that CZ9836, an application submitted by Jerry Eyman, on behalf of property owner Nellie Donovan, to rezone 15.0 acres from Rural (A1) to Planned Commercial (CP-2) for property located along the south side of Interstate 80, west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway, be denied. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of SUB98-0011, a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates First Addition, a 10.82 acre 21-1ot residential subdivision located at the west' terminus of Phoenix Drive. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of SUB98.-0018, a preliminary plat of Prairie Meadow, Part 2, an approximate 16 acre, 74ot residential subdivision located at 2140 Prairie du Chien Rd subject to the right-of-way for Sydl Street being extended from the east property line of Lot 7. to the new alignment of Praide du Chien Road, at the time Lot 7 is resubdivided or developed or at the completion of the realignment of Praide du Chien Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 60, of SUB98-0019, preliminary and final plats of a Resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden Hills, an 8,33 acre, four-lot residential subdivision located at the northweSt comer of Rohret Road and Shannon Drive subject to the approval of legal papers and construction drawings pdor to City Council approval of the plat. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Supple called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Planning & Zoning Commission August 20. 1998 Page 2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Supple said serving on a beard or commission is a privilege and a responsibility for Iowa Citians. She said there are many benefits to living here, and it is a citizen's responsibility to give something back to the City. Supple said anyone interested in serving in this manner could visit the City Clerk's Office to find out what vacancies are available and fill out an application. REZONING ITEMS: REZ98-0010. Public discussion of an application submitted by Cecile Kuenzli et a} to rezone approximately 22 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) for property located in the Summit Street Histodc District. Ehrhardt said she and Supple had discussions concaming Ehrhardrs emotional involvement in this application. Ehrhardt said she appreciated Supple's input, and she had given this quite a bit of thought since those discussions and also talked to Holecek. Ehrhardt said, in hindsight. she probably should have discussed this publicly at the second hearing, the first one she attended. For the record, she said she has lived near Summit Street for almost 30 years and knows most of the applicants. Ehrhardt stated that since the applica'tion was submitted, she has encouraged the applicants she has talked with to bring their ideas before the entire Commission, and she believes they have done so. Ehrhardt said she does not believe she has been inappropriately influenced by any of the interested parties. She stated that she is a strong histodc preservationist and informed the City Council of her philosophies before being appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ehrhardt said she lives in a historic home in a historic neighberhood and feels strongly about this but assumes her feelings would be the same if this application came from Goosetown or the Northside. She said she felt that she was justified in being a part of the discussions and the voting, but was open to what Holecak and other Commission members had to say, if they were uncomfortable with her participation. Holecek said she had discussed this with Ehrhardt and feels this is Ehrhardt's philosophy that is personally held as is any sort of philosophy someone would have. Holecek said that is also considered when the City Council makes appointments to the Commission, and it is not necessarily because she is a near-resident of the neighberhood. Holecek said she did not believe there was a conflict and said there was certainly no technical conflict, that Ehrhardt was just voting as a Commission member interested in the subject. Supple said she brought this up just as something to be considered. Holecek said it was appropdate to put this on the record. Gibson noted that he had a very short conversation with George Lance that amounted to no more than Gib~son's encouraging him to make his comments publicly to the Commission. Supple said she had a discussion last Fdday with Cecile Kuenzli for about 15 minutes regarding the medts of the application and Supple's arguments against the application. Supple said Commission members also received a letter from Kuenzli, and she would provide a copy to staff. Bovbjerg said she received a phone call from Kuenzli discussing the last meeting and how the applicants might want to strengthen their case. She said she believed the letter from Kuenzli embodies that. She said no promises were made either way and added that these applicants have been straightforward in trying to provide information and wanting to know what more should be provided. Chait said he has had conversations with some of the people from the neighborhood, but did not know their names. Holecek asked if anyone had received information that otherwise had not been presented to the entire Commission. The consensus was that they had not. Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 3 Miklo said the question had come up regarding nonconformity and what the dghts are for a nonconforming use in the event it is destroyed by fire or storm. He said staff had a discussion with the building official, which led to agreement as to how the current code is written, which says that the use has to be destroyed up to 100% of its assessed value in order to lose its nonconforming dghts and status. Miklo said that would include any foundation or footings, so if a building is destroyed, the value of the foundation would be considered, and if there is any remaining assessed value, the nonconforming use could be rebuilt to its previous status. Miklo said because there are so many questions about how this is defined, staff feels this needs to be clarified at some p~,int in the future. He said at one point, the threshold was 50%, ~nd the City then redrafted that to 100%, with the intent to be lenient in the event a building was destroyed. Miklo said this should be revisited and since the 100% causes so much confusion, the Commission might want to consider setting this at 90%. Regarding the number of nonconformities that would be created by this rezoning, Miklo said there are 54 proportjes within the area proposed for rezoning, and three of those already nonconforming in that they have an apartment building on the lot or a commercial use. He said that nonconforming status would not be affected by this rezoning. Miklo said there are seven duplex properties that are now conforming to the RS-8 zone that would become nonconforming if this area is zoned RS-5. Ehrhardt asked if the Commission should be looking into the situation with John Shaw's duplex to allow someone in a situation like that to expand an existing duplex. Miklo said when a situation like that comes up, the Commission sometimes passes an additional motion recommending something be put on the .pending list to examine a specific question. He suggested if the Commission wanted to pursue this, it could be put on the pending list. Public discussion: Cecile Kuenzli 705 South Summit Street. stated that at the Commission's August 17 informal meeting, Chait discussed the intensity of his feelings regarding this downzoning request. Kuenzli said she inferred that Chait was questioning her motives for requesting the downzoning by saying that what is seen on the surface is not what is going on beneath the surface. Kuenzli said she has lived in Iowa City for 28 years, 15 of those years in the Longfellow District, and at 705 South Summit for the past 11 years. She said she was President of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association for its first three years, because she felt very strongly that the strength and character of a dty dedves from the strength of its neighborhoods. Kuenzli said the Association came into being in order to further communication between neighbors and to strengthen the sense of belonging to a neighborhood and a connection to the City. She said she believes that has been achieved within the Longfellow Neighborhood. Kuenzli said that. motivated by a sense of service to the neighborhood, she has achieved or participated in the following: worked on the Ralston Street cleanups, hauled rocks and watered grass seed at Longfellow Trail at the ADS site, organized the second Longfellow Neighborhood garden walk, advocated for neighbors on Roosevelt who had concerns about the vacation of an alley on their street, wrote an application for a PIN grant and received it, helped plant at least 30 trees in the Longfellow Neighborhood, advocated for neighbors on College Street when they tded to prevent the demolition of the old house at the comer of College and Summit where an apartment house now stands and has destabilized College Street from Summit to Muscatine, participated in salvaging materials from that old house for the salvage barn, helped reclaim a house on College Street that a pdvate individual bought to save from demolition, painted dump no waste stencils on street drains leading to Ralston Creek throughout the neighborhood. hung a Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 4 banner out for hospice day welcoming runners to the Longfellow Neighborhood, and sat on the steedng committee of the Longfellow Neighborhood Assodation that successfully .applied to downzone the ADS site from an industrial to a residential use. Kuenzli said it is fair to say that she has not just emerged from her. own backyard on this issue to protect her own personal interests, She said all of her efforts for the past six years have been motivated by a sense of neighborhood and community service. Kuenzli said dudng the ADS downzoning efforts in 1992, she first bocame aware of the crucial importance of zoning in neighborhood conservation. She said the committee wanted to request an RS-5 zoning for that property, but was advised by staff that they would probably have better success if they asked for an RS-8 zoning, bocause that was what the rest of the neighborhood was zoned. Kuenzli said they followed that advice, and today they can begin to see the results. She said that on that seven-acre parcel of land, theodginal developer of the site planned to build 21 duplexes but not one single-family residence. Kuenzli said today there are six duplexes and a seventh structure that may be for senior housing squeezed onto the site with a bare minimum of sideyard clearance, although they have met the guidelines. She said developers are maxing out what the zoning permitted them to do there. Kuenzli said she leamed her next lesson on the relevance of zoning to neighborhood conservation last winter when the 90-foot lot at 803 Summit Street was subdivided into two 45-foot lots. She stated that at that time, she argued before the Histodc Preservation Commission that these lot sizes would be completely uncharectedstic, nonconforming in effect, in comparison with the other lots in the block and on the street. Kuenzli said that Commission was sympathetic, but could not oppose the subdivision because the underlying zoning permitted it. She said the Historic Preservation Commission explained that its responsibility extended only to questions of building design, but not to land use. Kuenzli said she argued that the land was part of the design of the histodc character of the street, but nevertheless because the zoning was RS-8, the subdivision occurred. Kuenzli said when the addition at 621 South Summit was applied for and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, neighbors had very real concerns that the Commission had for a vadety of reasons failed to follow the guidelines of the Secretary of the Intedor concerning additions in histodc districts and had failed to follow their own guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness. Kuenzli said that Commission takes some pdde in not having denied anyone's application for an addition. She said neighbors also feared what the future use of such a large structure might be in the future. Kuenzli said in looking around the district, she realized there were a number of other large lots in the histodc district that could incur the same fate as 803 South Summit, and the district was, in effect, vulnerable. She said that 67% of the properties on the street are of a duplexable size. Kuenzli '~aid it was that concem for the future viability of the historic district, combined with her eadier realization of the intrinsic rule of appropriate zoning in conserving neighborhoods, that made her and 27 other applicants request a downzoning. She said that since time, she has contacted all property owners on the street except for one who is on vacation, and of those people, the three protests received by the Planning and Zoning Commission have significantly been from people who own duplexes and do not live in the district. Kuenzli said that because there were no hard questions eadier in the process and because the planning staff had received compliments on the thoroughness of its report recommending the downzoning, she did not speak out before this time to present the case for downzoning. She said she would answer any questions the Commission might have for her. George Lance, 609 South Summit Street, said he wanted to address some issues from the last meeting. Relative to the concerns of property owners whose properties would become Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 5 nonconforming under RS-5 zoning, Lance said he a~sumed that a 100% loss would pdmadly refer to a fire loss. He said he checked with the Housing Inspection Office to determine the numbers of those sorts of losses and was told that there is one building now that has suffered a 100% loss. Lance said he was informed that as far as anyone could remember them, in the last several years there have not been any other 100% losses. Lance said in new construction, there are additional fire safety features in these properties, and it would seem that whatever the probability was before, it would be lessened in any new construction, because of things like fire walls between duplexes. He said in the case of duplexes, the chances would be further reduced because there is a greater probability that someone would be there if a fire occurfed and could therefore tum in an alarm. Lance said the basic conclusion is that the dsk of loss is faidy small. He said there will be some dsk, but it is incumbent on the individuals to look carefully at what those dsks are and take them into consideration. In terms of a sale, Lance stated that the presence of a well kept, well developed, stable neighborhood that does not present any surprises to a potential owner would far outweigh the disadvantage of taking the dsk of 100% loss. He said he suspected that the Summit Street location would be preferable to many other locations for a prospective buyer, rather than the reverse, as was implied at the last meeting. Lance said his second concem was about the protection provided by the Histodc Preservation Commission. He said he believed the recent action regarding the 621 South Summit property to be 100% opposed by the Histodc District residents. Lance said it was also stated at the last meeting that it would be impractical to convert some of the current single-family residences to duplexes because of the costs. He said he examined his own house and discovered that it could be converted to a duplex with very minor changes and at a faidy minimal cost. Lance stated such a conversion would be completely outside the jurisdiction of the Histodc Preservation Commission, because the changes would all be internal. He added that there are probably several other houses in the district that could be converted in the same way. Lance said it is critically important to recognize that the Histodc Preservation Commission guidelines not only deal exclusively with external features of the properties, but are highly subjective, as opposed to zoning. Lance said, regarding the property at 621 South Summit, it was a matter of opinion and interpretation that led to the derision that caused so much constemation among the residents of Summit Street. He said the Histodc Preservation Commission offers some protections, but it is subjective and almost entirely dependent on the current makeup of that Commission. Lance said, therefore, the protection of downzoning is necessary, and the Histodc Preservation Commission cannot provide the same level of protection. He said the impact on owners of nonconforming properties will be minimal and urged the Commission to approve this application. Jay Semel, 331 South Summit Street, asked if considering the fact that Summit Street is currently among the most historic, stable, and loveliest streets in the entire City, anyone could point to other streets and neighborhoods which have had an increase in duplexes on smaller lots and have become even more historic, more stable, or more lovely. He said if Commission members cannot think of any such places, they should do what they can to make sure that this histodc distdct remains histodc in its character, remains stable, and remains lovely. Eleanor Steele, 710 South Summit Street, said she has heard two opinions about the proposed downzoning. She said one is that the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone provides adequate protection for this district. Steele said that is not true. She said she is a past member of the Histodc Preservation Commission and has been involved in histodc preservation for many years. She said Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 6 there are City documents that will support her position. Steele said one such document is the Histodc Preservation Plan that says, 'Local govemment must take a comprehensive approach to preservation of historic resources. It is no longer enough to simply implement a local preservation ordinance. Zoning and other land management tools must be consistent with histodc preservation goals." Steele added that the City planning staff put together a Summit Street Plan, which exists only in draft form, in 1990. She said that plan describes the district as a tree-lined street with large homes, situated on broad lawns. Steele said it goes on to describe the street's park-like setting as individual lawns blend together to form a large, unified open space. She said it is this park-like setting that the plan describes that makes this district unique. Steele said all histodc districts are comprised of a variety of histodc elements that contribute to the overall character of that district. She said the way the space is developed is as important as other additional elements within that district. Steele said on Summit Street, it is dear that open space is an essential character-defining element. She said the histodc streetscape, the relationship of buildings to the street, to one another, and to the surrounding landscape define the district as much as the houses that sit on the land. Steele said it is a mistake to view histodc preservation as a saving of old houses, because histodc districts are so much more than old houses, but little can be done to protect anything else with the histodc preservation overlay zone. She said downzoning to RS-5 will provide the protection that is needed for all of those elements beyond the houses themselves. Steele said she also heard a general concem that could generally be defined as a property rights issue. Steele said there is an absence of significant numbers of people within the district objecting to this downzoning, and there is overwhelming .support from the people who live in the distdct for the proposed downzoning. She said the people who live there are interested in their rights to enjoy the pleasure of living in a histodc district and also take seriously the responsibilities that go with that. Steele stated that the way people respond to living in a histodc district results in activities that are good for the community. She said the people asking for this rezoning want something not just for themselves, but for the good of the community. Steven Bloom, 412 South Summit Street, said he and his wife actually tumed a duplex into a single-family dwelling. He said they live in the oldest house on the street, the small, bdck house on the east side of the street. Bloom said they changed it to a single-family dwelling because they believed in the histodc nature of the street. Bloom said that, block by block, much of Iowa City is being undermined by quick, new, tacky construction. He stated that with additional duplexes o~ Summit Street, there would be increased traffic, and Summit Street already has hon'endous traffic problems. Bloom asked, speaking on behalf of the Longfellow Association, that the Commis.~¢~ grant this downzoning. He said it is the right thing to do to maintain history in Iowa City, particularty on Iowa City's oldest block. Dour I~ussell, 722 North Lucas Street, said he was a former chairperson of the H,stonc Preservation Commission and was a member of that Commission for over nine years. He sa~d he was at the meeting as a historic preservationist. Russell stated that the Commission should know there is city-wide interest in this downzoning, and it is not simply a matter of a selfish interest on the part of the applicants. Russell said all zoning limits personal property dghts and development rights, and all property in Iowa City is zoned. He stated that it is a matter of degree. Russell said this downzoning, together with Historic Preservation Oveday zoning, is important and is the right thing to do. Russell said since 1992 the Comprehensive Plan has included the Historic Preservation Plan. He said the Histodc Preservation Plan, which was completed in 1992, was approved by the City Council, which has made histodc preservation part of its policy preference since 1983, when it Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 7 created the Historic Preservation Commission and approved the first two historic districts, including Summit Street. Russell said it is well known in the preservation community that downzoning is a necessary partner to Histodc Preservation Oveday zone. He said the Histodc Preservation Commission's authority is a limited one and is limited to the extedor appearance of buildings, but does not have anything to do with use or density. Russell said that is the Planning and Zoning Commission's job. He said it is necessary to have the downzoning as well as the Historic District Oveday zoning to preserve the integrity of Summit Street. Russell said the Commission needs to take a long view on this issue, as there are six histodc districts and three dozen histodc landmarks. He said there will be more of beth someClay so that this will be an important issue in the future. Russell said if the Commission does not allow downzoning to accompany preservation district zoning, it will not be able to preserve the preservation plan. He said this particular downzoning is favored by the staff for all the reasons stated i'n their report, is supperted by the ovenNhelming majodty of the neighbors who live there, and is supported by a broad spectrum of Iowa City. Russell said the public interest in this case should outweigh the wish to develop in this area in a particular way, including the higher density that the RS-8 designation allows. Russell said he believes that Summit Street and the other histodc districts are just like the Pentacrest, City Park, a new downtown ped mall, or a downtown relandscaped Iowa Avenue. He said everyone benefits from those things, not just the people who live there. Russell suggested that the infill development in Summit Street and other histodc districts should take place only in downzoned historic districts. He said Summit Street is an extremely attractive area for homeowners and for developers. Russell said if the Commission approves this downzoning, it will limit developers and homeowners to appropriate new development that will not desboy the character of the district that makes it so attractive in the first place. Betty Kelly, 1608 Sunset, stated that she is presently the Vice-Chairperson of the Histodc Preservation Commission. She said the Histodc Preservation Commission does believe in zoning. Kelly said it also follows the Comprehensive Plan, but the Histodc Preservation Commission is very severely limited in what it can do. She said in a way, the Histodc Preservation Commission is dependent on the Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions to protect many of the preservation districts. Kelly said this involves the most beautiful part of Iowa City. As an architectural historian who teaches, Kelly said she frequently bdngs students from many parts of Iowa and other states down Summit Street, and they are amazed that this City has preserved this beautiful, classic neighborhood. She said she would not want to see it desboyed, but it could be, because land is very valuable and density is very popular currently. Kelly urged the Commission to rezone the area from RS-8 to RS-5. Ted He~ld, 812' South Summit Street, said he owns the Summit Street Gallery at 812 South Summit, which is a permitted nonconforming use, as well as the duplex at 818 South Summit. He said he supports this downzoning. Heald said he agrees with all of the speakers about the necessity of preserving Summit Street. Heald said he located an art gallery here because it fits in with the neighborhood. He said that the City should do what it takes to preserve these treasures. Heald said it seems that there are limitations to what the Histodc Preservation Commission can do because it only deals with extemalities, and this rezoning would put teeth in the intention of preserving what is historical about this most historic part of Iowa City. Jeff Schabilion, 431 Rundell, said while he does not live in the Summit Street Histodc District, he is very familiar with it. He said the preservation of that district is of interest, not only to the people Planning & Zoning Commission August20,1998 Page 8 who live them and have made all sorts of financial and emotional involvements, but to many other people in the city. Schabilion said this is an important part of the Longfellow Neighborhood, and there are many people who are interested in histodc preservation and even those who aren't, who treasure a trip down Summit Street and stepping back in time to see the beauty of that area. Schabilion said it is clear that the vast majodty of people who live in that district feel this is important. He said this step, of course, would benefit the applicants' interests, but it will also benefit the interests of the Longfellow Neighborhood, of which he is the associate chair, the interests of everyone who is interested in histodc preservation in Iowa City, and the interests of everyone who has any civic pdde in Iowa City. Schabilion said the Summit Street Histbdc District is a resource for all of Iowa City and asked the Commission not to let it slip away. Schabilion said he had pointed out to someone recently that historically the mansions along College Street were much ~ner and the neighborhood much finer and prestigious than the Summit Street area. He said that a trip down College Street now reveals a very spotty and disappointing street, and although there are a few grand houses left. there certainly is not a feeling for a histodc district of great integrity. Schabilion said the feeling on Summit Street south of Burlington Avenue is still there, and the Commission should not let it slip away. Woody Houser, 803 South Summit, said he and his brother are the developers who split the lot at 803 South Summit Street a few months ago. He said they are not against histodc preservation. Houser said he would like to see an exception granted for the west side of the 800 block. Houser said when the Histodc Preservation Commission was founded, Gary Wede's two properties that are south of his own were considered intrusive to histodc preservation and did not exactly meet the guidelines that were set up. Houser said there are duplexes on that street now that were built entirely for duplexes many years ago when that neighborhood was started, so it is a part of that neighborhood to have duplexes. Houser said he is only asking to exclude the four southem lots on the west side of the street from the downzoning, and he does not see anything wrong with downzoning the rest of the district. He said the properties up at the north end have been excluded because of the sorodty and the ten-room rooming house. Houser said if one looks at the Historic Preservation Commission's odginal guidelines of 1983, the rooming house on the east side is one of the grandest of all, yet there it sits there as a rooming house and will be excluded. He said he does not know if that is necessarily what the Commission really wants. Houser said historic preservation is a part of neighborhood attitude. He said he lived in that neighborhood at one time, and the neighborhood has greatly improved. Houser said that Kuenz)~ and the entire neighborhood have done an excellent job in that regard. Houser said h,stonc preservation is an attitude of a neighborhood and does not have anything to do with downzoning He said the zoning laws that are in place are adequate to handle it. Houser said we should attempt to make the neighborhood look good, and he could put another duplex in that neighborhoed, especially where his is, and make it look excellent and improve the neighborhood. Houser added that the attitude of neighborhood members toward the Commission at the last meeting was that of being on the attack toward Commission members, and some people were owed apologies for that. Houser asked to be included in the neighborhood association and asked neighbors to sit back and consider what they are doing. He said neighbors need to consider the effect on the entire city, including how the potential for closing the Summit Street Bddge that he has heard mentioned lately, would affect the entire town. He stated that the entire picture needs to be looked at. Public discussion closed. Planning &Zoning Commission August20.1998 Page 9 . MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve REZ98-O010, an application submitted by Cecile Kuenzii et al to rezone approximately 22 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) for property located in the Summit Street Historic District. Chait seconded the motion. Gibson said he is not one for half-way measures. He said he does not understand the point of having a histodc preservation district if the City is not serious about preserving it. Gibson said that the case has been pretty well made that downzoning is necessary to perfect that status as a historic preservation district, and he therefore believes this downzoning is an appropriate thing. He said he was somewhat disturbed by soma of the finger pointing about who will benefit from this. Gibson stated there is the implication that if one side benefits, the other will lose. He said if he had to make a choice, he would choose the homeowners who are out to do the kinds of things that will fulfill and extend the intent of the preservation of that district not to benefit those who for personal property dghts are going to attempt to exploit that opportunity. He said he would pick the group that is basically on the side of the ordinances that have previously been passed in the community, and he would vote for this zoning change. Bovbjerg said she previously voted in favor of this and saw no reason to change her mind. She said she appreciated people bringing up their concerns and having the Commission thresh it out, as well as having staff clarify the issues about the fights of people who currently have nonconforming uses. Bovbjerg said these fights have not been lost and will not be lost, and people will continue to keep what they have. She said she agreed heartily that if something is given a historic designation, the underlying zoning that will preserve that particular character should reflect the historic character as it is and as it wishes to be preserved. Ehrhardt said she would be voting in favor of the downzoning. She said the Commission has heard convindng evidence that if the City really wants to protect this unique character of Summit Street, both downzoning and the design review from the Historic Preservation Commission are needed. Ehrhardt said at a previous meeting, there was a concem that mixed housing types were needed. She stated that the Longfellow and Summit Street areas are very mixed, and she did not know if there was another neighborhood with more mixed uses than the Longfellow Neighborhood. Ehrhardt praised the Housers for continuing to talk with the neighbors, and she said that says a lot for both the Housers and the neighborhood residents. Chait said he was very much in favor of historic preservation. He said at the Monday meeting, he stated his concern that what the Commission was dealing with was not really obvious to him and that there were other issues that were an agenda besides simply preserving the neighborhood and attempting to downzone it to do so. Chait said the Commission has had at least three public meetings regarding this request. He said at the second meeting, there were comments about the fact that:some citizens were surprised at the vote in that they had no indication of where the vote would end up. Chait said he was personally offended by any suggestion that he would make up his mind before hearing all of the evidence on any issue that comes before the Commission. Regarding the concem about what the issue really is, Chait said it is not simply downzoning, because in the conversations over the last three weeks and the newspaper articles before that time, there have been other issues that have come to his attention that have to do with the property dghts of individuals who wanted to buy a grand, old Summit Street mansion and make it accessible by adapting it to their needs. Chait asked how the neighborhoed, a neighbor, or anyone else had the fight to tell a property owner what they can or cannot do that serves their need, regardless of the size of the house. He said that was where his biggest concern was, regarding the real issue here. Chait said he would vote in favor of the downzoning out of his commitment to Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 10 preserve the histodc nature of the neighborhood. He said the reason he has had mixed feelings about this is bocause the neighborhood, as it exists, is a very diverse, multi-use neighborhood. Chait said his conflict is in preserving the single-family character of the bigger houses at the expense of what this neighborhood has become. Shannon said he previously voted for the downzoning. He said before the last meeting he had not known that the Histodc Preservation Oveday Zone did not have the power to stop this kind of development and cannot stop a development that is within the zoning. Shannon said that is what convinced him to vote for the downzoning, and he has not changed his mind. He said he grew up in this neighborhood,, and knows that when apartments start coming in, buildings' start to go downhill. Shannon said this would be a poor place to see that happen, and he would be voting for the downzoning again. Supple said it is incumbent on every applicant for a rezoning to show that the rezoning has medt and that it is good for the land, good forthe neighborhood, and good for the city as a whole. She said the applicant should also show that if the rezoning causes any harm to others, that harm is justified because of the bonefits derived from the rezoning. Supple stated that it is no different with a downzoning than it is with a request for a higher zoning. She said that in this case, the harm is, in her opinion, a diminished pdvate property dght. She said that certain zoning allows certain things, and a downzoning diminishes the flexibility and the use of the land, thereby diminishing the pdvate property rights. Supple said she had asked consistently for arguments of substance that would convince her that it would be justified to diminish the pdvate property dghts, not just for the Housers but for everyone who owns property there. She said the argument tonight that impressed her the most was the one that included 'undermine history.' She added that she also appreciated the distinction between property dghts versus property responsibility, as well as the discussion of neighborhood attitude. Supple said that neighborhood attitude would be greatly altered if the number of dwelling units changed dramatically. She said she felt strongly about the property dghts issue, but said she had now seen the justification that she was looking for to diminish those pdvate property dghts, and she would be voting in favor of the rezoning. The motion carded on a vote of 6-0. Supple said the applicant for the next item was Jerry Eyman, who owns a real estate office that she is associated with. She said she would be leaving the room for this item to avoid a possible appearance of a conflict of interest. CZ9836. Public discussion of an application submitted by Jerry Eyman, on behalf of property owner Nellie Donovan, to rezone 15.0 acres from Rural (A1) to Planned Commercial (CP-2) for property located along the south side of Interstate 80, west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway. Kugler said this was a request to rezone approximately 15 acres on the south side of Interstate 80, west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway. He said there have been a few applications to rezone from agricultural to CP-2 in this area. Kugler said that at one point there was an initial request for a rezoning of approximately 29 acres in this location. He said as a result of the first application, the County approved the rezoning of about 14 acres of that property, and at a later time, the applicant requested the additional 15 acres be rezoned, which was also approved by the County. Kugler said that at both times, the City recommended against the rezonings. Kugler said there was also a request to rezone this property in 1996, but it was withdrawn before the County Board of Supervisors took any action on that request. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of that rezoning in 1996. Kugler said the applicant is once again asking for the rezoning of that 15 acres. Planning & Zoning Commission August20,1998 Page 11 Kugler stated that this area lies within Fdnge Area B. He said the Fringe Area B development policy calls for land outside the City's growth boundary to be used for agricultural purposes. Kugler said, however, that rezonings to RS-10, Suburban Residential, basically ten-acre residential lots, will be considered. He said there is no mention within the Fringe Area B policy of commercial zoning, and it is certainly not advocated by the Fdnge Area Agreement. Kugler said staff feels this rezoning would obviously be in conflict with the policies contained in that agreement. Kugler said even if commercial zoning were called for at this location, staff has some concems about the rezoning of this additional 15 acres. He said there are already 29 acres of'commercial zoning there, roughly the size of the Westport Plaza Development, and staff has concerns about the overzoning of that area for commerdal development. Kugler said the plan that was submitted to the County for the 29 acres and the additional 15 acres suggests a sprawling-type commercial development. He said the City's Comprehensive Plan discusses focusing commercial development in commercial centers rather than having such sprawl-type development. Kugler stated that staff also has concerns about the impact this rezoning would have on adjacent properties that are located within the City's growth area. He noted that the far westem edge of the 15 acres is beginning to encroach into the City's growth area, and the property to the south contains some land within the growth area. Kugler said the development plan for this property includes a street that could be extended to the south and also to the west, and there appears to be an intent to expand further, which staff has concerns about in that it would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Kugler stated this property is located with the City's Northeast Planning District, and there have been neighborhood planning workshops in that area, at which both City and County residents have participated. He said the idea of commercial zoning in this district was considered by the participants, and there was generally an interest in providing for neighborhood commercial centers throughout the district rather than any large community commercial type development which would be drawing people in from other areas. Kugler said the draft Northeast District Plan will likely advocate the use of the neighborhood commercial center concept versus community commercial here. Kugler said Herbert Hoover Highway is an entryway into the community, and staff has some concerns about the appearance of this entryway. He said the policies of the Fringe Area Agreement suggest agricultural uses and indicate the need for the preservation of this as an attractive entryway. Kugler said the development plan for this property does not seem to consider aesthetics. He said there is not much room left for landscaping, as there is parking just near the right-of-way line, and the property appears to be planned to be intensively developed without much consideration given to how it will appear from the street. Kugler ,~aid staff did not recommend approval of the initial application for 29 acres for commercial development and cannot support the rezoning of an additional 15 acres. He said staff is therefore recommending that 'the City forward a letter to the County Board of Supervisors recommending that this application be denied. Ehrhardt asked Kugler if he had spoken with Rick Dvorak, the County Planner. Kugler said Dvorak was on vacation, and he'was unable to contact R. J. Moore, the other planner. Kugler said the County had some concems about the traffic generated here. He stated that JCCOG has looked at the plans and is recommending that if the additional rezoning is approved, there would need to be turning, acceleration, and deceleration lanes along Herbert Hoover Highway. Ehrhardt said this seems to be so contrary to what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan and the City's idea for that area. She noted that the County went against the City's recommendation for the first parcel. Planning & Zoning Commission August20,1998 Page 12 Kugler responded that there were a number of conflicts like that in the past that seemed to be just philosophical differences between the City Coundl and the Board of Supervisors. He said staff would hope that with the new Fdnge Area Agreement that was just adopted, the County will continue to follow the polides of the Fdnge Area Agreement. Kugler said this is an oppodunity to comment and recommend on the rezoning, but the City can only make recommendations on this rezoning; the derision is up to the County Board of Supervisors. Chait said he understood that there is currently more solidarity between the City and the County regarding the Fdnge Area Agreement than there was back when the initial rezoning occurred. Kugler said there have not been any situations since the new agreement was adopted where there have been major conflicts. Public discussion: There wBs none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Gibson recommended that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending that CZ9836, an application submitted by Jerry Eyman, on behalf of property owner Nellie Donovan, to rezone 15.0 acres from Rural (AI) to Planned Commercial (CP-2) for property located along the south side of Interstate 80, west of Its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway, be denied. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of S-0. Supple returned to chair the meeting. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB98-0011. Public discussion of an application submitted by S & J Development for a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates First Addition, a 10.82 acre 21-1ot residential subdivision located at the west terminus of Phoenix Drive. (45-day limitation peded waived) Kugler said all technical deficiendes relating to this application have been taken 'care of. He stated that this application is to subdivide a ltle over ten acres of a 110 acre property. Kugler said staff is concemed about a potential piecemeal approach to the development and has relayed those concems to the developer. He said the concam here is that the developer and the City could be backed into poor decisions because of fragmented development. Kugler said the first phase of this development would be consistent with the development of the property to the east of this one. He said this _relatively smell phase could be approved, but the Commission should be cautious about any futuFe phases without a full development plan or a concept plan. Regarding infrastructure for the site, Kugler said Phoenix Ddve would be extended to this property and would be a collector street. He said that would be the only access to the new lots. Kugler said staff is concerned about development occurring from north to south without another connection to Rohret Road, so that such a connection should be looked at eady on. Kugler said Public Works has examined the sanitary sewer capacity and determined that it would be acceptable to approve this phase of development with the 21 lots served by the sewer line. He said that in the future, there will need to be another connection to the trunk to the north and the sewer line for the pool facility will need to be rerouted. Kugler said the capacity would be adequate for the current phase, with the understanding that there will be changes in the future. He said that Public Works has determined that the trunk sewer will need improvements. Planning & Zoning Commission · August 20.1998 Page 13 Regarding the neighborhood open space requirement, Kugler said staff recommends that the .25 acres required for this subdivision should not be dedicated at this time, but that the requirement should be noted in the legal papers. He added that with the full development, it is likely that there are other places that the .25 acres could be taken from to serve the area. Kugler said storm water management is not required with this subdivision, bocause it is in the Old Man's Creek watershed. He said there will eventually be a lake to the south that water will drain into. Kugler said the Board of Adjustment granted a special exception for the club facility with the condition that membership would be limited to members of the Country Club Estates hdmeowners association. He said this will cut down on traffic to the area, because most of the facility's patrons are expected to walk to the building. Kugler said staff had some concerns about the concept plan for the full 110 acres and had made the applicant as well as the Commission aware of them. He said staff is recommending that the subdivision be approved. Bovbjerg asked why there is no storm water management required here. Kugler responded that there is a special exemption in the storm water management ordinance that was enacted because Old Man's Creek doesn't flow through much of Iowa City. He said the storm water runoff will flow into a natural drainage system and then into the Iowa River. Miklo said the exception in the ordinance was enacted because this was thought to be a limited area for development, the creek flowed away from Iowa City, and there was thought to be little potential for development to the west. Bovbjerg said she was concerned about erosion and the destruction of neighboring lots and property. She asked what will happen.to water coming off all of these new impervious surfaces. Kugler replied that this will be built to City standards, but there is no requirement here for storm water detention. He said there will be a street sewer system. Miklo said the drainage water will be directed to the creek, but not retained on the site as in other subdivisions. Ehrhardt referred to the list of issues that staff had with the concept plan. She said that some of them were big issues and asked if staff was confident that the City would not be locked into anything. Kugler said staff did not feel that the approval of the development of ten acres would preclude good neighborhood development here. Holecek said regarding the deferment of the dedication of open space, that the requirement would be entered into the legal papers so that if the current owners divest themselves of this property, that .25 acres can still be extracted from that proparty. Supple asked about a reference to 17.34 acres in the staff report. Kugler said the number of acres in the application had been reduced, and that number should have been changed to 10,82 Public discussion: Mike Speer, 1040 Bryan Court, said he represented S & J Development and was available to answer questions from the Commission. He said he was aware of staff's concerns, and he plans to do the bulk of this site as a planned development. Speer said the reason for developing this initial phase was to sell some of the 21 lots to get some of the money back towards planning expenses in order to plan the rest of the development. He added that this would be a unique subdivision and would contain a trail system and ten acres of lake. Public discussion closed. Planning & Zoning Commission August 20. 1998 Page 14 MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve SUB98-0011, a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates First Addition, a 10.82 acre 214ot residential subdivision located at the west terminus of Phoenix Drive. Gibson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. SUB98-0018. Public discussion of an application submitted by Mike Dombmski for a preliminary plat of Praide Meadow, Part 2, an approximate 16 acre, 7-lot residential subdivision located at 2140 Preide du Chien Rd. (45-day limitation pedod expires August 30.) Miklo said the staff recommendation had been revised to state that in order for this to be approved, a new condition should be added to make approval subject to the dght..of-way for Syril Street being extended from the east property line of Lot 7, to the new alignment of Praide du Chien Road at the time Lot 7 is resubdivided or developed. Miklo said Syril Street is used for emergency access and is intended to eventually connect to Praide du Chien Road. He said that without this condition, development to the east would be limited. Miklo said staff recommended approval of the application. Bovbjerg said she appreciated the addition of the condition involving Sydl Street and added that it was forward-looking. Supple asked if this approval would be premature since this has to wait for the realignment of Preide du Chien Road. Miklo replied that it would not be, beoausa the realignment will not affect the large area to any great extent. Bovbjerg asked if the extra right-of-way provision had been propedy recorded. Miklo said this is a preliminary plat, but it would be added to the final plat. Holecek said the additional right-of-way was extensive and asked Miklo if that included paving. Mikio said the owners would not be required to pave there, but they should not be allowed to block access to Preide du Chien Road. Public discussion: Tom Anthony, Landmark Surveying and Engineering, said that everything in the staff report was correct. He said Dombroski has already started the ball rolling with the landowners to the east and with Dr. Lang on working on the right-of-way alignment and the acquisition of that. Anthony said the County Engineer does not yet have this set in stone, but he is working closely with the County to work out the alignment of Syril Street so that it will tie into the new Praide du Chien Road alignment at a location that will benefit all the landowners in that area. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to approve SUB98-0018, a preliminary plat of Prairie Meadow, Part 2, bn approximate 16 acre, 74ot residential subdivision located at 2140. Prairie du Chien Rd, subject to the right-of-way for Sydl Street being extended from the east property line of Lot 7 to the new alignment of Prairie du Chien Road at the time Lot 7 is resubdivided or developed or at the completion of the realignment of Prairie du Chien Road. Chait seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of 6-0. SUB98-0019. Public discussion of an application submitted by Robert Bums for a preliminary and final plat of a Resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden Hills, an 8.33 acre, four-lot residential subdivision located at the northwest comer of Rohret Road and Shannon Ddve (45-day limitation pedod expires August 30). Planning & Zoning Commission August20,1998 Page 15 Kugler said this property was rezoned last year and a sensitive areas plan was approved to permit four 30--unit buildings to house 30 eider apartment units each. He showed the final sensitive areas development plan with the proposed lot lines on it. Kugler said a revised final plat was submitted and all de~dendes were addressed; therefore the plat was ready to be voted on. He said legal papers am still being reviewed and construction drawings will be needed for the smell portion of public sanitary sewer that will be located on Lot 1. Kugler said the revised plan indicates that each lot will have 30 parking spaces to provide parking for the 30-unit buildings, which is permissible for this type of residential development. Kugler stated that the portion of the sanitary sewer line that should not be public has been removed from the plat. He said the second leg of the access drive on the property has been added as an easement on the plat, as requested by staff and the Fire Department. Kugler said all defidendes had been taken care of, and staff recommends approval, subject to the approval of legal papers and construction drawings pdor to City Coundl approval of the plat. Kugler said although this property is being subdivided and there is a potential for four individual property owners, the plan that was approved, consisting of the sensitive areas development plan and the final plan that is now being reviewed, will still be in place. He said that even if a different entity owns one lot, they will have to develop in conformance with the plan that is approved, unless the property owner comes back before the Commission and the City Coundl to amend that plan. Kugler said that the development plan as well as the building elevations associated with that plan need to be adhered to, or there will need to be a rezoning to a new plan, in which case the Commission would have to review the changes. Bovbjerg said in a case like this with plans and conditions on the property, if someone bought one of these lots and came before the Commission for changes, the Commission would have the legal dght to deny those changes. Kugler said the Commission could deny those reasons as long as it had good reason to deny the application. Holecek said such a case would be equivalent to a rezoning request. She said this plan is an OPDH and is therefore the zoning for the area. She said the subdivision is merely the division of the lots by metes and bounds descriptions. Public discussion: Robert Bums, said the reason for this subdivision to four lots had more to do with the financing than anything else. He said he expects work to begin on Phase I this year with Phases II, III, and IV to begin in each of the subsequent years. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to approve SUB98-0019~ .preliminary and final plats of · Resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden hills, an 8.33 acre, four4ot residential subdivision located at the northwest comer of Rohret Road and Shannon Drive subject to the approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council approval of the plat. Gibson seconded the motion. Bovbjerg said she thought the discussion about property fights, zoning, and coming back before the Commission was beneficial. She said she was excited about the possibilities here. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission August 20, 1998 Page 16 CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Public discussion of an amendment of Zoning Chapter subsection 14-6L-1A, provisional uses of the zoning code to permit accessory apartments in accessory buildings. Miklo said staff recommends deferral of this item to the next meeting. He said staff would like to propose some further amendments and also. review this amendment with the neighborhood associations. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Gibson moved to defer discussion of an amendment of Zoning Chapter subsection 14-6L-1A, provisional uses of the zoning code to permit accessory apartments in accessory buildings, to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 17, 1998. Chait seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of 6-0. COMPREHENSIVE pLAN ITEM: Planning workshop on the South Central Plan. Gibson left the meeUng at this point because of a conflict of interesL Miklo said most of the previous discussions have dealt with the question of the vadous road alignments. He said a study regarding those alignments is being done and is expected to be completed eady next year, potentially January. He said the Commission had asked if the public headng on this plan could be deferred until the study is completed. Miklo said the Commission could move forward with considering the plan at this time, but if the Commission would like to wait for that study, there is no pressing need to do this at the present time. He said this could be deferred indefinitely until the study is done. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer setting a public hearing on the South Central Plan until after the study on the road alignment is done, provided the study is completed within the next nine months. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of 50. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 6, 1998 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION' MEETING MINUTES: Supple said the minute taker was doing an outstanding job. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve the minutes of the August 6, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission, as written. Chait seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion of Planning and Zoning Work Program Pending List Planning & Zoning Commission AuguSt 20, 1998 Page 17 Miklo said staff would like to divide item number four on the list into subcategories to give Commission members an idea of what they will be seeing in the coming months. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Work Program Pending List. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carded on a vote of 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION: Bovbjerg referred to a memo sent with the most recent water bills from Emie Lehman; the Mayor, thanking City staff for 'cleaning up the City after recent storms. She said she appreciated all the work City staff did after hours to clean things up. Bovbjerg said the idea that all politics are local and making a change in your neighborhood makes a change in the world had some global upsets with embassy bombings and other incidents. She said she thinks about why this country is .subject to bombings as wall as the retaliation and the fact that life still goes on and people still come to meetings to talk about property dghts and rezoning. Bovbjerg said there is something about living in an open society that makes us vulnerable, and something about living in an open society that is good for people. She said she was proud to be a part of that. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 9:45 p.m. Pam Ehrhardt, Secretary Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - August 18, 1998 Lobby Conference Room CALL TO ORDER Chair P. Hoffey called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P. Hoffey, M. Raymond, end J. Watson. Staff preser~t: Legal Counsel D. Russell and Administrative Assistant S. Bauer. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by P. Farrant to amend the agenda to include "Public Discussion* after Item No. 4. Motion carded, 5/0, all members present. Motion by J. Watson and seconded by P. Farram to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended: (1) to include receipt of memo dated 8/12/98 from City Manager Steve Atkins, and (2) to amend the minutes of 8/11/98 as discussed. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None ORDINANCE TIME REQUIREMENTS The issue-of time limitations has been discussed at board meetings on several occasions previously, and it has been agreed that the issue will be included in our discussion of the annual report. COMMUNITY FORUMS Motion by P. Farrant and seconded by J. Watson to approve M. Raymond's draft letter, as amended, to the Chief regarding data collection. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. J. Watson reported that Professor David Baldus is available to speak to the board at the regular meeting of September 8, 1998. October 27, 1998 Community Forum: Issues involving location, mailing list/notices, paid ads, and televising/videotaping were discussed. PCRB Assistant was directed to (1) continue the search for a 2 location, (2) determine if the City would pay for ads in lieu of money spent on mailings, end (3) contact Tony Haughton and Jamie Schweser for ideas regarding publicizing future forums. PUBUC DISCUSSION None PCRB COMPLAINT -FORM Discussion of complaint form draft of 8/10/98 inclu~led {but was not limited to): · Procedurally, the board would like any withdrawal of a complaint in writing, · The complaint form should not include requirements that aren't in the Code. · The complaint may become a public record through action of the board on the advice of its counsel. · Possibility of a brochure to be distributed with the complaint form. P. Farram will implement all suggested changes into another draft to be discussed at the next meeting. Motion by J. Watson and seconded by M. Raymond that the PCRB administrative assistant should not act as the 'neutral City staff person' as referenced in 8-8-5 B.4 of the City Code. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES D. Russell's memo of August 11, 1998, and S. Bauer's 7/24/98 draft of Standard Operating Procedures were discussed. S. Bauer was directed to prepare a second draft appropriating the changes discussed. ANNUAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SESSION Board members P. Hoffey and L. Cohen and administrative assistant S. Bauer will prepare a draft and present it to the board as soon as possible for consideration, with the intent to have e finished product for submission to the City Council by October 1, 1998. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Farrant to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be MEETING SCHEDULE BOARD INFORMATION 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. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Regular meeting resumed at 9:04 P.M. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by M. Raymond (1} to review PCRB Complaint//98-11at level 8-8-7 B.1 (a) in accordance to the Ordinance, and (2) assigned the drafting of the public report to the report-writing committee. Motion carded, 5/0, all members present. · Special Meeting August 25, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 1, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Regular Meeting September 8, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. * Special Meeting September 15, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 22, 1998 - 7:~ P.M. · Special Meeting September 29, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · L. Cohen: Council Member K. Kubby indicated she had been contacted by a citizen who had concern that there are no identifying markers on the black uniforms worn by the S.C.A.T. team. if there is a complaint against a S.C.A.T. officer, there is no way to identify him/her. · P. Hoffey: Had a call from a gentleman relating to the same concern as above - no name or badge number on the S.C.A.T. officers. P. Hoffey also reported contact from Elias Zaharias regarding police traffic stops in the Broadway area, stating 'many of those cars have faulty equipment and many of them are not obeying traffic laws and the police have a perfectly good reason to stop them and there is a lot of drug traffic in the area. That may be interpreted as being discrimination with minorities, 4 but most of the persons are minorities. I don't believe that the police am racists in the stops they make in that area because of the reasons for the stops and the fact that many minorities live there.' Mr. Zaharias has lived in this community for 29 years. * J. Watson: Expressed his desire not to use the media to communicate board feelings; STAFF INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by M. Raymond and seconded by L. Cohen, Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. POUCE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - August 25, 1998 Lobby Conference Room CALL TO ORDER Chair P. Hoffey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P. Hoffey, M. Raymond, and J. Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel D. Russell and Administrative Assistant S. Bauer. · CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by P. Farrant to adopt the Consent Calendar. Discussion followed regarding Case Number 98806503, 7-16-98 in the Use of Force Report. D. Russell was directed to research the legalities when a subject refuses to sign a traffic ticket. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None COMMUNITY FORUM Jamie Schweser appeared before the Board and made suggestions regarding future forums. His written comments were distributed to the Board. The Board continued their discussion regarding the forum scheduled for October 27, 1998, to include: · The Board directed that consideration for amending the PCRB By-laws, V.3 appear on the agenda for the special meeting of September 1, 1998; · There was consensus by the Board that there will be no cablecast or videotape of this forum, however audiotape shall be available; · Suggestions regarding methods of distribution of information continued. S. Bauer was directed to explore graphic-use for a flyer. COMPLAINT FORM Complaint form draft 8/20/98 was distributed. Format was discussed. P. Farrant was directed to bring one final draft back in a format that can be considered at the September 1, 1998 meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by P. Farrant to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(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 conClition 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. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. Regular meeting resumed at 9:30 P.M. Motion by J. Watson and seconded by L. Cohen to review PCRB Complaint #98-11 at level 8-8-7 B.1 (d) and (e) in accordance to the Ordinance, and to forward a letter to the Chief of Police requesting additional information. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. MEETING SCHEDULE Motion by J. Watson and seconded by L. Cohen to review PCRB Complaint #98-14 and Complaint #98-16 at level 8-8-7 B. 1 (d) and (e) in accordance to the Ordinance, and forward a letter to the Chief of Police requesting additional information. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. It was confirmed that the Board is scheduled to meet every Tuesday evening through the end of the year in the Lobby Conference Room. Special Meeting September 1, 1998 - 6:00 P.M. . Regular Meeting September 8, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. . Special Meeting September 15, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 22, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 29, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION ADJOURNMENT P. Hoffey: Recommended to the Board that at all regular meetings there appear an agenda item titled 'Policy Review." D. Russell: Reported contact .by Mayor Lehman requesting a lunch date to discuss the PCRB. Mr. Russell suggested that the Mayor ask Chair P. Hoffey for this purpose, although Mr. Russell could also attend. Motion for adjournment by L. Cohen and seconded by M. Raymond. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -September 1, 1998 Lobby Conference Room CALL TO ORDER Chair P. Hoffey called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: L. Cohen, P.- Hoffey, M. Raymond, J. Watson (arrived at 7:03 P.M.) Board' members absent: P. Farrant. Staff present: Legal Counsel D. Russell and Administrative Assistant S. Bauer. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Hoffey to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended: (1) to include written comments regarding community forums from J. Schweser; (2) to include Sarah Holecek correspondence of 8/28/98; and (3) to amend the minutes of 8/25/98 as discussed. Motion carried, 3/0, Farrant and Watson absent. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL · Receive PCRB Public Report #98-13 Amend the PCRB By-Laws, Article V, Section 3, to read 'Place of Meetin;Is. All meetings shall be held at a place reasonably accessible to the public." The PCRB requests an extension of 45 days to file their public report on Complaints 898-11, #98-14 and #98-16 because the Board is awaiting additional information requested from the police department. BY-LAWS AMENDMENT Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by M. Raymond to request the City Council approve amending the PCRB By- Laws, Article V, Section 3 (as noted above). Motion carried, 3/0, Farrant and Watson absent. COMMUNITY FORUM Discussion continued regarding plans for the October 27 community forum, to include: 2 COMPLAINT FORM If the Council approves the amendment to its By-laws, the location of the forum will be at the Newman Student Center; A person may pre-register if he/she desires. There will also be sign-up at the forum; No specific time limitations for speakers; Discussion continued on complaint form draft 8120/98. S. Bauer was directed to forward additional changes to P. Farrant. Further discussion was deferred to the next meeting. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES The draft of 8/28/98 was considered. After discussion, S. Bauer was directed to prepare a final draft for consideration at its next meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by J. Watson and seconded by M. Raymond to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(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. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M. Regular meeting resumed at 8:45 P.M. Motion by J. Watson and seconded by L. Cohen to approve PCRB Public Report on Complaint #98-13 and forward to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by J. Watson to review the Police Chief's report on PCRB Complaint MEETING SCHEDULE BOARD INFORMATION #98-15 at level 8-8-7 B.1 (a) in accordance to the Ordinance, and to assign it to the report-drafting subcommittee. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by J. Watson to review the Police Chief's report on PCRB Complaint #98-12 at level 8-8-7 B.l(d), and to forward a letter to the Chief requesting additional information. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. , Motion by Leah Cohen and seconded by M. Raymond to request from the City Council a 45-day extension on PCRB Complaints #98-11, #98-14 and #98-16. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. · Regular Meeting September 8, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 15, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 22, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting September 29, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. L. Cohen: Has had three contacts regarding the disorderly house ordinance. S. Bauer will obtain information regarding this from the City Clerk. J. Watson: Was contacted by a citizen asking about an out-of-state pathologist in a recent Johnson County homicide. Was contacted by a Coralville City Councilmember who inquired about any complaints the PCRB has received regarding Coralville police officers. As this is outside the PCRB jurisdiction, complaints of Coralvi!le police officers are not accepted, nor would statistics be kept. P. Hoffey: Reported on his meeting with Legal Counsel D. Russell regarding recent correspondence received from City Attorney Sarah Holecek. After Board discussion, it was agreed that Ms. Holecek's response is reasonable, and it would be appropriate for Mr. Russell to meet with Ms. Holecek to discuss what documents are available to the PCRB and when it will become available. 4 STAFF INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by L. Cohen and seconded by J. Watson. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M. PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL -- ~ . - ~ .~*~-~.:.~- .,~ ......~.~ .......... ......~-~.,. -,..-.~-. ,~, -. . .~,.~.~..~';. -~.~:~:=....'.:,:.~ . :~ ~'~ This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the 'Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-13 (the 'Complaint"). BOARD'.S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ('Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a 'reasonable basis' standard of review to the Report and to 'give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise.' Section 8-8-7 B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make 'findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are 'unsupported by substantial evidence,' are 'unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law.' Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE On July 15, 1998, this Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief completed his Report and submitted it to the Board on August 14, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B(1)(a), which means that it chose to review the matter on the record before it without additional investigation by the Board. The Board met on August 18, August 25, and September 1, 1998 to consider the Report. 2 FINDINGS OF FACT This Complaint arises out of a traffic stop of the complainant. The complainant was stopped because his car did not have functioning taillights. Once he was stopped, the officer conducting the stop believed, based on the complainant's behavior, that he might be under the influence of alcohol. The officer asked the complainant to take a preliminary breath test. The complainant objected to taking the test, asked the officer to smell his breath, and complained that he should not be required to take a breath test if his breath did not smell like alcohol. He contends that he was threatened with arrest and loss of his license if he did not comply with the request to take the breath test, The complainant did take the breath test and his blood alcohol level was zero. The officer issued the complainant a citation for the tail light violation and permitted him to leave. The complainant asserts that the stop of his vehicle was unreasonable, that he was threatened with arrest and loss of his driver's license if he refused to take the breath test, that one of the officers on the scene misidentified himself, that he was harassed when the officer asked him if he used an inhaler or had asthma, and that it was improper to ask him to take a preliminary breath test if his breath did not smell of alcohol. The Chief's investigation included interviews with the complainant and the two officers who had been present at the time of the stop, and consultation with other departmental supervisors. CONCLUSIONS AIle~ation 1. The complainant alle;ies that the stop of his vehicle was unreasonable. The stop was, however, based on the fact that the car was driving without taillights. The stop of the vehicle was proper. Accordingly, the conclusion in the Report that the stop of the complainant's car was based on probable cause to believe he was violating the law is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. This allegation is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2. The complainant alleges that he was threatened with arrest and loss of his driver's license if.he refused the preliminary breath test, and that this violated his civil ri~3hts. The Police Chief found that the complainant was told that, if he refused to take the preliminary breath ,test at the scene, he would be taken into custody and offered an Intoxilyzer test. If he refused that test, he could lose his driver's license. The breath test the officer sought to administer at the scene with a hand-held device is a preliminary test only, one not admissible in court. The test, however, helps an officer determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a person is or is not intoxicated. W. hile refusal to take the preliminary breath test does not result in a driver's license revocation, it can be considered by the officer in addressing whether there is adequate probable cause to believe the person refusing to take the test is under the influence of alcohol. If the officer concludes there is probable cause to believe the suspect is intoxicated, the officer may arrest the suspect. A suspect who has been arrested for OWl and who is asked to take the formal Intoxilyzer test administered at the county jail, but who refuses to take that test, does subject himself to driver's license revocation. Accordingly, the Police Chief's conclusion that the officer properly advised the complainant of the consequences of his refusal to take the preliminary breath test is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 2 of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Alle.~ation 3. The complainant alleges that the officer on the scene misidentified himself by wearing the wrong nametag. The Police Chief concluded that this did not happen. That conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED. 4 _Alle.qation 4. The complainant objected that asking him whether he used an inhaler or had asthma was an attempt to harass or intimidate him. The Police Chief concluded that such questioning was appropriate because such circumstances might create a medical reason for failure to comply with the preliminary breath test. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation ~ is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 5. The complainant argues that it was improper to administer a preliminary breath test to him because he did not smell of alcohol. While the smell of alcohol is one basis for concluding that someone is intoxicated, it is not the only one. The Police Chief's conclusion that the officers' suspicion that the complainant was impaired was properly based on their observations of his behavior is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 5 is NOT SUSTAINED. DATED: September 1, 1998 MINUTES RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION WEDNESDAY. JULY 15. 1998 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Cortney Daniels, Larry Wilson, Joe Kral. Gretchen Gdmm, Tom Riley, Richard Hoppin, David Thayer. Lod Goetsch, Dan Mascal MEMBERS ABSENT: Barb Endel. Lynn Rose STAFFPRESENT: Brad Neumann, Scott Kugler 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Daniels called fie meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was none. 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 17, 1998 MEETING Page 1, item 3 should read, 'Consideration of the Minutes of the May 20, 1998 Meeting.' Page 3. the last paregreph, first sentence, replace 'at night' with 'in the daytime'. Page 3, the last paragraph, second sentence, replace 'lighting will be aesthetic' with 'aesthetic high lighting of the dam will be included'. Page 4. under item 5A. second paregreph, replace 'south of the sewer plan will not be lit' with 'then it will not be lit south of Benton'. Page 4, second paragraph under other business, replace 'has been asked to do' with 'asked that the staff do'. MOTION: Goetsch moved to approve the minutes of the June 17, 1998 meeting as amended. Wilson seconded the moUon. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 4. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discuss and comment on Sensitive Areas oveday rezoning. Scott Kugler from Planning and Community Development said the RNAC was asked to review a rezoning for a piece of properby adjacent to the Iowa River. He distributed copies of a detailed development plan and of the flood plain map. Kugler said the development would consist of two 36-unit buildings. He said that staff is recommending against approval for the development because of concerns about potential lack of access to the property should long-term flooding occur. Kugler said this is an opportunity for the RNAC to make comments about the proposal, because since this is adjacent to the dver, it is within the RNAC Commission's purview. He added that staff is working with the applicant regarding pre-treatment of water runoff, should the rezoning be approved. Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission Minutes July 15.1998 Page 2 Thayer asked how the buffer issues affected this development. Kugler said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer around a wetland. He said that the buffer can be reduced in certain circumstances but cannot be reduced in this case because the wetland is located within a stream cerddor. Kugler said there is also a drainage swale involved. Kugler said this is not the final design for this project. He said there are a number of concerns with the development. Wilson asked if there were a reason why this project should be approved. Kugler said the development would provide affordable housing for senior citizens, something that is ranked high on the list of City needs. He said that funding for the project would involve a block grant. Kugler said there are good arguments for this type of housing but questioned whether this was the appropriate site. He said the applicant investigated nine sites for the development, two in Iowa City and the rest in Coralville. Kugler said the applicant felt this site best met the needs for this type of proposal. Goetsch questioned how this could be built without impacting the wetland. She said that sediment would disturb the wetland before the parking lot is ever constructed. She suggested that the Commission ask for an additional buffer strip. Kugler said a vegetative stdp has been suggested for the buffer area and might contain native and non-invasive plants. Daniels asked who the applicant was. Kugler responded that the developers are from Omaha. Daniels asked about the funding. Kugler said the funding would come from an independent agency, and there has also been a funding commitment from the City and the State. Wilson asked who monitors such a project for compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Kugler said that Julie Tallman of Housing Inspection Services and the Engineering Department do the monitoring. Mascal agreed that sediment from construction would be detrimental to the wetland. Kugler said the applicant must submit an erosion control plan that would stipulate the installation of erosion control measures such as silt fences before the site could be disturbed. Goetsch said that the rise and fall of the groundwater in the wetland could disturb the wetland. She said that has not been addressed in these plans, Goetsch said that even a one-inch change in the groundwater level would result in changes in the species that inhabit a wetland. Wilson stated that if these issues were not covered by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, them was not much the Commission could do about it. Goetsch said that even a developers best efforts in this regard would still impact a wetland on the site. Wilson asked if Itus development would result in any greater impact than any other area within the 100-.year floodplain with the 100-foot buffer. He asked if there was anything unusual about this site to distinguish it from other such areas in the City. Wilson said this was primarily a zoning issue, which is not under RNAC's purview. Neumann asked Kugler how he thought the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote on this issue. Kugler responded that he believed the Planning and Zoning Commission might deny the application based on the access issue. Neumann asked if they would be denying based on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance or other zoning. Kugler said the access issue is an overwhelming safety issue here. Wilson said the zoning code did not contain a mandate that a property should have safe access. Kugler did not believe that was specified in the Code but said that the zoning code cites the need for consideration of health. safety, and welfare issues. Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission Minutes July 15. 1998 Page 3 Thayer said that Taft Speedway is frequenUy flooded. Kugler responded that this demonstrates that it does not take a 100-year flood to block this road. Mascal questioned whether the property would be on a bus line. He said that if there were no access to the property because of flooding, that would cause real problems. Kugler said that after a demonstration of need, bus routes may be adjusted to meet such a need. He said the development may also have a pdvate transit system. Wilson .said he agreed with these concerns but said they are not the RNAC's issues. Daniels said the Commission might have some influence on this issue and suggested sending a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this development. Goetsch said there is no guarantee the wetland will not be affected in spite of the buffer. She said this will change the wetland into a big drainage channel. Kugler said the applicant has provided a letter showing the delineated boundary of the wetland. He said the applicant will have to provide documentation for this delineation. Wilson said that the wetlands regulations do not deal with water table issues and asked what made this property unique from other similar ones in the City. Goetsch said this type of development is one major reason why wetlands are disturbed. Wilson said there is nothing in the ordinance that prevents this. Goetsch said it actually is in the ordinance but is vaguely worded language about a negative impact on wetlands. Goetsch said she had documentation and literature to show cases where similar developments built close to wetlands affected the wetlands. Kugler said this was a good reason to review the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Daniels asked who would be in favor of this development. Members of the Commission were all opposed to the project. Daniels said the RNAC had some influence in this matter. She said the Commission may not have a stdct rationale for its opinion but could still wdte a letter to Planning and Zoning and take a stand. " Kugler said the Planning and Zoning Commission would have its meeting regarding this item on Thursday, July 16 at 7:30 p.m. He added that it would be a public meeting, and it was still unclear as to whether this item would be approved or denied. Kugler stated that even if this were denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is likely that the applicant will request a public hearing on this item at the City Council level. Daniels asked Kugler to discuss the gist of this RNAC meeting with the Planning and Zoning Com~nission. She said she would discuss with Kugler the points that RNAC would like to Make the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 16 meeting. Thayer asked about a discrepancy regarding the number of buildings to be constructed on the site. Kugler said the applicant currently has funding from the State for only one 36-unit building. Kugler said that if the Planning and Zoning Commission defers this item, it would be discussed again at that Commission's August 6 meeting. Discuss Flood Plain Ordinance/Sensitive Areas Review Daniels said the letter regarding the flood plain ordinance had not yet been written, and she asked Goetsch to wdte the letter. She asked Goetsch to put the information from the subcommittee discussions into the letter. The consensus was for Goetsch to send one letter R,verfront and Natural Areas Commission Minutes July 15, 1998 Page 4 to the Planning and Zoning Commission stating why the flood plain ordinance was acceptable and to send a separate letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council regarding the possibility of addressing many other related issues. Regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance,. Neumann said it has been in effect for at least four years and was last reviewed three years ago. Daniels said the Commission that worked on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was a joint commission. Neumann said that RNAC could still review the entire ordinance and make suggestions for changes. Daniels said she wanted to make it a goal of RNAC to review the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the coming year. Neumann said the Commission could look over the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to see where holes need to be filled. Wilson suggested the Commission start by inviting experts to give their opinions. Goetsch suggested Lon Drake as a possibility. Neumann suggested asking Julie Tallman, who implements the SAO for the City, to discuss it and explain how it works. Daniels asked to put Tallman on a future agenda. Update on EIk's Club ddving range proposal Neumann said there is currently nothing going on with this proposal as the EIk's Club has yet to provide information asked for by the City Attomey. Update on Peninsula and Waterworks Park Planning Neumann said the meeting regarding the waterworks park has been delayed until the consultant arrives at the end of the month. Regarding the peninsula park, Neumann said the consultant has made changes to the concept plan. He said the trail system is rather straight and is plotted along township lines. Neumann said the consultants for this project gave a very in-depth presentation and were very knowledgeable. Neumann said them were some problems with the plans and the consultants would bring back another concept. Wilson agreed that the consultants did .an excellent job, although he did not agree with all of the aspects of the plan. Wilson said he would prefer to see the Interpretative Center at the base of the hill rather than way down into the park and stated that he felt the straightness of the trail was too much. Neumann said the consultants seemed to include everything that was asked for ,n the design for this park. Wilson and Neumann discussed the proposed trails. Neumann sa,d there were kiosks proposed for the archaeological site. Mascal asked if the discussKirts were taped. Neumann said they were not, but he could send out copies of the preliminary report, although some items have been changed from that. Daniels asked to be notified when the next set of meetings regarding these projects would be held. Storm Damage Update Mascal said that Willow Creek Trail has lost a lot of construction time due to recent rains. Neumann discussed the storm damage report from the Parks and Recreation Department. He said it was only a preliminary report that did not contain dollar amounts. Daniels said that City Park took a big hit from the storm. Wilson said that The University of Iowa lost 85 trees so far, 24 of those on the Pentacrest, and most of those on the west side. Riverfront end Netuml Aries C~,d"tdllion Minutes Juh/15. ~998 Page 5 Mascal discussed an event ~oonm;red by Lincoln School called a seed bank, whereby people receive a certain number of seeds and then eventually bdng them back with interest. He suggested a similar project could be done with trees. 5. COMMISSION REPORTS Report from JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee (RTBC) Representative Mascal said he was unable to attend that meeting. , 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. RULES COMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 26, 1998 Committee Members present: Lehman, Norton Staffmembers present: Shank, Walsh Human Rights Commission by-law changes. The Rules Committee recommends approval of the changes as attached to the Human Rights Commission minutes of July 27, 1999.