Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-17 Bd Comm minutes FINAL APPROVED {~Iowa .C. ity_ . Pubhc L brary BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A Minutes 5:00 pm - March 24, 2005 2na Floor Board Room David VanDusseldorp, President Linzee McCray, Vice President Thomas Dean Kathy Gloer William Korf Linda Prybil Pat Schnack, Secretary Tom Suter Jim Swaim Members Present: Thomas Dean, Kathy Gloer, William Korf, Linzee McCray, Pat Schnack, Tom Suter, Jim Swaim, David VanDusseldorp, Members Absent: Linda Prybil Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Patty McCarthy Other: Eric Melton, Practicum student Call meeting to Order VanDusseldorp called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm Public Discussion None Approval of minutes The regular minutes of February 24, 2005 were approved unanimously after a motion made by Suter and seconded by Korf. Unfinished Business Fee Card Update Schnack reported on a phone call she received from a University Heights resident who had read Board minutes and was concerned about losing library service. Craig reminded the Board that if they are contacted by residents of University Heights that they suggest they contact their own Council. We responded to their Council's request outlining our terms for an agreement. Had they countered with another proposal, our Board would have welcomed considering it. Coralville Public Library's Board will be meeting and they will consider sending a similar letter to University Heights City Council stating that they will cease issuing fee cards. An information packet about the issue will be prepared. Agenda item 3A Page No 2 Leased Space Hanick has an offer in writing from a specialty shop interested in the first floor. The College of Medicine is currently interested in half of the basement. In response to a question, Craig replied that the party was interested in five-year lease with an option to renew for five years. Swaim moved that the Board President and Library Director be given the authority to negotiate with the realtor and the interested entities. McCray seconded it. Swaim and VanDusseldorp volunteered to be present during negotiations to. City Council is the ultimate body that affirms the lease though Board will make a recommendation. All in favor voted Aye and the motion passed unanimously. New Business Policy Review: Hours of Service. It was noted that the scheduled date for regular review of this policy in FY05 was missed, as were a few others. All policies have now been scheduled for regular reviews. The recommended change includes language from Dean in the purpose statement. Craig explained that she would include the policy each year, as a reminder, when Board has to set the calendars. Craig explained the significance of"floating holiday". City departments may vary their schedules according to their needs. Swaim asked if holiday hours affect the Meeting Room schedules. Logsden replied that in general yes. Swaim moved approval of the policy. Dean seconded. All voted Aye. Motion carried unanimously. With the information available in the policy, VanDusseldorp asked if there was any interest in revisiting the decision about the Building Calendar for FY06. Dean said if he had the policy to see at the time, he might have looked for a different option. Gloer felt that had she known the decision could have been revisited, she might have voted differently. Swaim said the Board tries to balance the needs of the public with a commitment to staff. Suter added that he felt we ended up with the least attractive of the options that were talked about. Swaim said that if there were to be an additional process it could be an issue in future labor negotiations. VanDusseldorp told board members that during the discussion he did not have an understanding of the management and director's position in terms of getting materials in and out when closed for several days. He reminded Board that there is some expertise in the room that should be called upon. He would want to be as supportive of management people as with other staff. Dean reminded the Board of a similar yet different issue that occurred last year regarding the 4'~ of July. Swaim said that if the Board feels uncomfortable about something they can always table a discussion. VanDusseldorp cautioned against setting a precedent. It did not appear a majority were interested in revisiting the FY06 calendar. Appointments to Art Comrmttee Since the deadline for submission of names for the Art Committee was after the packet was mailed, a memo was distributed at the meeting with a staff recommendation to fill two vacancies. Schnack moved that we accept the staff recommendations of appointing Mary Lea Kruse and Dennis Kowalski to fill the vacancies on the committee. It was seconded by McCray and all voted Aye. Motion carried. President's Report VanDusseldorp appointed a comrmttee to evaluate the Director. This needs to be done and a recommendation made by June. Swaim will accept pending checking his calendar. McCray will chair and Korf will serve. Board member recruitment. Gloer was encouraged to re-apply. Swaim will be going off. Prybil, the County representative, is also finishing a term. Staff Reports Agenda item 3A Page No 3 Staff demonstrated some new features available on our catalog system and the library website. They included the ability to pay fines on-line, the new Reading History feature, and some additional links available through the Online Information, including income tax and living will information. Departmental Reports: Adult Services, Circulation, Information In response to a question, Logsden said that The Chess Club owned the chess pieces that we stored here in the past. Currently, we have chess pieces that belong to Iowa City Public library and can be checked out by Iowa City or Johnson County residents. The Board is impressed that staff will be available in the lobby on Friday evening, April 15 until 9 pm to assist people needing tax forms to file by midnight. Park 'n read. The reaction from staff is that people are happy about having the option. We will be able to track numbers after we get information from City Hall regarding cost to us. Dean asked about the yearly check on people's addresses and whether or not we can do it on line. Lauritzen said it is required that we have statistical codes to report use based on where patrons live. When an address is changed, the statistical codes have to be changed and so it would not reflect accurately if people could change their address on line without changing the statistical codes. Development Office Eight hundred invitations went out for the Building the Collection: Celebrating Iowa Authors event. The Annual fund reminder letter brought in more funds since McCarthy's report was written and have raised more than last year at this time. McCarthy talked about a Web site called www.librariesmatter.com. Through it, blue wristbands that say Libraries Matter can be purchased on line or from McCarthy. They will officially go on sale for National Libraries week, April 10. She hopes to see everyone at the authors' event. VanDusseldorp left meeting at 6:00 pm. McCray continued chairing. Inservice Da? report No questions or remarks. Miscellaneous Clippings were included. Wireless Intemet access on Pedestrian Mall. A memo from Craig was distributed at the meeting about extending the library's wireless Internet service to the Pedestrian Mall. This happened quickly due to conversations several entities have had with the City and interest to offer this service. We already provide wireless access in our building and there was a long- range plan initiative to extend the service outside the building. The City Manager asked if library would be interested in extending current service and given the interest, staff moved ahead and will be ready to provide wireless Intemet access on the pedestrian mall in early May. An initial cost of about $6,000 and ongoing expense of less than $100/month to keep this separate from our in-building networks. Some questions and answers that came up: Library does not check out laptops; the antennas will not be very large; people will be informed in several ways and, when they log on, the screen will include our Intemet policy and they will have to accept it. Board was supportive and excited about this project. Some of these issues will be more formally talked about it during the Intemet policy discussion that is up for regular review next month. Craig passed around the winter issue of Library Trends with an article about Consumers Health Services at ICPL. Information librarian Candice Smith wrote the article along with Clark and Logsden. Agenda item 3A Page No 4 Announcements from Members Swaim announced the Safe Place Run, which takes place on Sunday April 3 at City Park. Iowa City Interact Club is sponsoring a ballroom dance April 9 at Old Brick, to support Habitat for Humanity. The new UAY building will open sometime soon and they will have a ribbon cutting ceremony. They are planning youth activities involving dance and music, followed by an open house. Swaim would like to sponsor something for library staff. A" Mothers Day too soon" event is planned for May 4. Activities include a photo essay of teen moms that will be displayed at Mercy's Atrium. A silent auction and dinner will be held on May 7. The Englert is hosting a benefit for Arts Fest on Saturday. Tickets are $16.00. A luncheon is planned for Wednesday to kick offthe Old Capital Cultural District. A discussion will take place on how to market the downtown area. Committee Reports Foundation Gloer reported for the Foundation board, which recently met. The Investment Committee is pleased with the growth shown in the 3rd quarter. The Book End continues to grow their income. The author's event is moving along with plans falling into place. Gloer expressed thanks to all the committee chairs and encouraged the Board to purchase tickets. Disbursements There was no Visa bill paid in the month of February. Disbursements were approved unanimously after a motion made by Swaim and seconded by Korf. All in favor voted Aye. Set agenda order for April meeting. Intemet policy review Personnel policy review Election of officers Leased space update Strategic Plan. Proposed mission statement Adjournment McCray adjourned the meeting at 6:45 pm Agenda item 3A Page No 5 Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 Meetinc TERM 1/2 2/25/ 3/24/ -41281 NAME EXP. 7/0 05 05 05 5 Thomas 7/1/09 O/e X x x Dean Kathy 7/1/05 x x x x Gloer Bill Korf 7/1/09 x x x x Linzee 7/1/09 x x x x McCray Linda 7/1/05 O 0/e Cie x Prybil Pat 7/1/07 x x x Cie Schnack Tom Suter 7/1/07 X X X X Jim 7/1/05 x 0/e x x Swaim David Van 7/1/07 x x x x Dusseldor P KEY: X [] Present O = Absent CIE -- Absent/Excused NM ~ No meeting --- [] Not a Member FINAL APPROVED Iowa Ci~ Public Library BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A Minutes 5:00 pm - February 24, 2005 2nd Floor Board Room David VanDusseldorp, President Linzee McCray, Vice President Thomas Dean Kathy GIoer William Korf Linda Prybil Pat Schnack, Secretary Tom Surer Jim Swaim Members Present: Thomas Dean, Kathy Gloer, William Korf, Linzee McCray, Pat Schnack, Tom Suter, David VanDusseldorp, Members Absent: Linda Prybil, Jim Swaim Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Patty McCarthy Others: Jay Beattie, Terri Byers, Sara Doyle (Practicum student), Linda Dyer, Kathy Mitchell, Paul Show, President of AFSCME 183, and Ardis Sillick Call meeting to Order VanDusseldorp called the meeting to order at 5:04 pm. Public Discussion Library's union steward Byers spoke on behalf of the staff present. They were objecting to the proposed FY06 Building Calendar, which was being recommended for the Board's approval. The recommendation from the Director is that the Library close at 2:00 pm on December 24, be closed on December 25 and be open with' Holiday staffing on December 26 in observance of the holiday, and also open with holiday staffing on Monday, January 2. Byers's objection is that the language in the contract states that ifa holiday falls on a Sunday the holiday is observed on Monday. She said that union employees are requesting the Library be closed on December 26 to give staff more time off. VanDusseldorp asked if Byers had any other information for the Board to discuss when the agenda item comes up. Show explained that although the same situation occurs the following weekend at New Years, they were not advocating being closed January 2, recognizing that it is a heavy return day. VanDusseldorp asked for any other questions. Thanked staff. Approval of minutes It was noted that minutes did not reflect Jim Swaim's attendance at the City budget hearing. Dean moved approval of minutes as corrected with a second from Surer. All were in favor and the motion carried 7-0. Unfinished Business University Heights Update/Fee Card Discussion: Agenda item 3A Page No 2 Craig included a copy of the February 7, 2005 letter to University Heights Council, which contained a proposal for a three-year phased in contract. In response to questions about the meeting of February 15, Craig described reticence on the part of University Heights Council to make any changes in their FY06 budget. The Council will be sending their 2006 budget to the State of Iowa in March. Presently the budget does contain a line item for reimbursing fee cards, as has been the case. There was some interest from their council to solicit information from citizens although there was no distinct proposal to do so. During the last two meetings they have asked what the library is going to do about fee cards. VanDusseldorp informed them that we had an agenda item to discuss fee cards and that we would not treat University Heights any different than any other group that uses fee cards. In a memo dated February 15, to the Board, Craig expanded the report on fee cards and made a recommendation. She points out in her memo her strong belief that libraries should be open to all with no fees and that communities are responsible for providing all residents with basic services. University Heights is currently only supporting library use for those who are able to pay for a fee card. Craig has seen more and more of this type of problem because of budget constraints. Recently we negotiated a new contract with Johnson County for rural residents, and University Heights should be paying at least as much per capita. University Heights is receiving library service for very little. Craig recommends that the Board make a decision to stop issuing fee cards as of June 30, 2006. Schnack moved that we adopt this policy change and that we no longer sell fee cards beginning July 1, 2006. We would sell the last full year fee card at the end of June 2005. Dean feels we need to stress the community aspect of the library service and separate the fee card issue from alternative funding. It is a matter of equity to Iowa City residents. With the present policy in place, we are not letting the community bear the expense, and are enabling communities to do something different from Iowa City residents. Gloer asked about the original contract that would increase incrementally. Craig said initially we would get $10,000, which would be shared with Coralville and give us no more income than we get now. Korf seconded the motion. All in favor of eliminating the fee cards as of July 2006 voted Aye. Motion carries 7- 0. Craig xvill draft a letter for VanDusseldorp's approval. Strategic Plan Update Mission Statement: Craig would like to have some direction from the Board. Staff feels that this is a decision that should come from the Board. There is general satisfaction with the current mission statement. The Board can endorse any of the options provided or set up a process for further discussion. Goals and objectives are a little easier. The draft document is the result of staff working in small groups using the priority areas identified by the Board. Language was drafted and looked at with Coordinators. Gloer and McCray worked on the first draft with several staff members. If Board likes it, staff will go back and begin writing language for specific actions. There was agreement that the goals and objectives could be sent back to the staff for minor editing and development of strategies. The group did not talk about the mission statement. Dean would like to add "community center" somewhere in the mission statement. There was some discussion about the mission statement presented as Alternative 1, which is briefer. Dean, Gloer and McCray will work on the mission statement and bring something back to the Board. New Business: Collection Development Policy Review: Korfmoved approval. Dean seconded. Craig pointed out that this policy is one of the most important the Board sees, it is the heart and soul of what the library does. At this review, only minor language changes are proposed. We are fortunate to live in a community that values intellectual freedom. The ALA documents are included since the Board endorses the principles they document. Librarians review the interpretations against our current practice. The biggest area in which we part from the statement is labeling. We do include the MPAA ratings for movies in our catalog. It was pointed out that the new language in 601.27 was awkward. An editing error was made. It will be corrected. VanDusseldorp called for a vote. All voted Aye and the motion carried 7-0. Theft of Library Materials Policy Review Another routinely scheduled review. Dean moved approval. McCray seconded the motion. All voted Aye and motion passed 7-0. Agenda item 3A Page No 3 Unattended Children Policy Review Schnack moved approval and Suter seconded. Green was asked if there were many instances of kids wandering around with no parents. It seldom happens. The policy is posted clearly in the Children's Room. A vote was called for and all voted Aye. Motion passed 7-0. Approval of FY06 Calendar VanDusseldorp asked for a motion to approve the calendar. He wanted to entertain a motion and then have necessary discussion. Korfmoved approval. There were no seconds. Schnack moved that we approve the calendar with the exception of closing December 26 rather than being open with holiday staffing. Gloer seconded it. Craig wanted to make it clear that the proposed calendar is not in violation of the contract. It would be a violation if people did not get time off or holiday pay. Craig said that her philosophy is to maximize the number of days the library is open to the public. She pointed out that by approving the revised calendar, the library would be closed from 2:00 pm on December 24 until Tuesday, December 27. In her opinion this is too long to be closed. The public perception is that December 26 is not a holiday. Because Christmas falls on a Sunday Schnack recommended that holiday be given to the staff. In response to a question about being closed on the 24th, the recommendation is to be open only until 2:00 pm. The 24mand 26th are not holidays, although the Board can set the calendar. This year the 26th is the observed holiday for the 25th because the 25th falls on a Sunday. People who work that day receive additional compensation. We have a minimal staff. Although the 26th is a City holiday, the busses will run and the Recreation Center will be open. City Hall will be closed. What kind of activity do we anticipate on Christmas Eve day? lt's hard to say because it is a Saturday. Union staff wants to have Monday off. VanDusseldorp called for a vote on the motion to adopt the calendar with the exception of closing on 12/26. Schnack, Korf, Dean, Gloer voted yes. Opposed were Suter, McCray and VanDusseldorp. Motion passed 4-3. Reinstate Park 'n Read Suter moved that we adopt. McCray seconded. With the FY06 budget approval we can start this program again. All in favor voted Aye. Motion carried 7-0. The program will begin on March 1,2005. Staff Reports Departmental Repons: Children's, Systems, TechnicalServices In response to a qhestion, story time kits were described as instant programming aimed at preschool audiences. They are self-contained kits that contain ingredients to provide a story time for kids, childcare centers, etc., including multiple books, some realia and a suggestion for a group activity all relating to a common subject. Question: Lauritzen was asked about catalog message regarding paying fines online. It has been there two days and has already been used. First day there were four or five payments made and the second day it was up to 11. VanDusseldorp thanked staff for informative reports. Development Office McCarthy reported that the Spelling Bee was wonderful. Thanks to all who participated. Library will make a video and DVD copy of the program available and there are already holds on them. It was fun and successful financially. Reminder letters requesting annual fund donations will go out Monday. Foundation report Committees are meeting. Gloer distributed a list of authors who have agreed to be part of the Celebrating Iowa Authors event. There are eleven events to be auctioned this year. If anyone has the names of people to add to the invitation list, forward them to Gloer. Tickets are $40; $30 of which is deductible. Miscellaneous: Agenda item 3A Page No 4 Guest Opinion by Kay Thistlewaite was included. This was printed in the ICPC February 5, 2005 and was titled "In praise of public Iibraries". President's Report VanDusseldorp appointed a nominating committee. Suter will chair. Schnack and Dean will serve. They will prepare nominations for officers for FY06 and present slate in April. VanDusseldorp reported on a recent experience with one of our librarians who escorted him to a location in order to find a particular area of nonfiction videos. The librarian recommended others in the same section and VanDusseldorp felt he was introduced to a genre of videos due to the great assistance. Announcements from Members Schnack said she was very impressed with the young adult activities for teens run by Andrea Clinkenbeard. The teen advisory board is a great way to involve young people. Communication A letter from an unhappy patron who received a parking ticket was included as well as Craig's response. Disbursements Visa Expenditures for January were reviewed.' Disbursements for January were approved after a motion made by Suter and seconded by Kor£. Ail in favor voted Aye. Motion carried 7-0 Set agenda order for March 24 meeting. There was a comment regarding the discussion of the process of approving the calendar. Questions regarding the calendar should be brought to the Board ahead of time so Board would not feel on the spot. ls there a better way to handle the communication? Try to have an update on leased space. Appoint a Committee to evaluate the director. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm Agenda item 3A Page No 5 Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 Meetim TERM 1/2 2/25/ 3/24/ 4/28/ NAME EXP. 7/0 05 05 05 5 Thomas 7/1/09 O/e x x x Dean Kathy 7/1/05 x x x x GIoer Bill Korf 7/1/09 x x x x Linzee 7/1/09 x x x x McCray Linda 7/1/05 O 0/e O/e x Prybil Pat 7/1/07 x x x O/e Schnack Tom Surer 7/1/07 X X X X Jim 7/1/05 x O/e x x Swaim David Van 7/1/07 x x x x Dusseldor P KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2005 5:30 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MEETING ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Hagen, Saul Mekies, Brett Castillo, Kimberly Thrower, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Sue Dulek, Dale Helling SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION City consultant Don Williams gave a short overview of the franchise agreement. Williams said he believes the franchise agreement is a good agreement for the City. The franchise agreement maintains funding for public access, adds local origination points, contains liquidated damages for noncompliance, improves the terms for rate rebates for outages, establishes triggers for implementing new technologies, and increases the number of public service announcements that can be put on the cable system. Three people spoke. One recounted problems encountered with Mediacom regarding a billing problem and the poor communications and unfulfilled promises from Mediacom. Kara Lagsden commented that Mediacom was extremely helpful and accommodating during the remodeling of the library, and one person inquired into the impact the franchise would have on public access. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gayland Burkhardt Mr. Burkhardt said the City should not extend the franchise agreement with Mediacom. Mediacom is poorly managed and incompetent. Mr. Burkhardt recounted his problems in getting service when he moved to Iowa City. The wires to his apartment were defective and arrangements were made for his deposit to be returned. It took 7 phone calls and three weeks before his deposit was returned. He was told to contact a specific Mediacom representative when he was to have service installed at a new location. That representative did not respond to four calls. Mr. Burkhardt was promised a rate of $60 per month for six months. Mr. Burkhardt's bill did not reflect what was agreed upon and he had numerous problems getting it straightened out. Mr. Burkhardt said that Mediacom is terribly mismanaged and nothing will get better by giving them an extension of the franchise. Mediacom is currently working to pass a bill in the state legislature that will curtail a city's ability to establish a municipal utility. Matt Otte Mr. Otte inquired how the franchise agreement would impact Public Access Television (PATV). Don Williams said that the level of funding Mediacom provides PATV for operational expenses will be continued. Kara Logsden Ms. Logsden said that Mediacom was extremely helpful and accommodating during the building of the new library. ADJOURNMENT Mekies moved and Thrower seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2005 HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Maharry, Chair; Tim Weitzel, Vice-chair; Richard Carlson; Michael Gunn; Mark McCallum; Jim Ponto; Amy Smothers STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Kerry McGrath, SHSI Local Government Coordinator; Dan Brookhart; Helen Burford; Kevin Burford; Bryan Clark; Jeff Clark; Cassie Isaacson; Shelly McCafferty; Charles Stanier; Heather Widmayer CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Public discussion of anythinq not on the aqenda; No items for were presented for discussion. Items for consideration (vote required) 1. Certificate of Appropriateness a. 618-622 Iowa Avenue Sunil Terdalkar reported this is a non-historic multi-family apartment structure in College Hill. Proposed alterations include replacing windows with new patio doors and adding balconies. Jeff Clark said the basic plan is to remove living room windows, and now put in patio doors. He said the building would look very similar to its current appearance. Michael Gunn asked why the windows were being removed, as they were recently replaced. Clark said they want to put in a patio and patio doors now. The building was much improved with the new windows, but at this point they would like to add patios. Mark McCalium said the new windows are an improvement, and the changes look fine. He noted it is not an historic structure. Amy Smothers asked about the windows in the entry doors. Clark said the existing windows have the diamonds. MOTION: Weitzel moved to accept the changes as proposed in the application. McCallum seconded, and the motion carried 7-0. Bryan Clark and Jeff Clark left at this point. b. 1227 Sheridan Avenue Terdalkar reported that the building is a non-historic single-family residence in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the applicants are requesting approval for demolition of the garage to replace with a 2- car garage and expansion of the house that includes a family room, and expansion of the kitchen. Applicants have submitted revised plans today. The applicant, Dan Brookhart, had no additional comments. McCallum asked if a current photograph of the house is available. Maharry said no, there is not one in the packet. McCallum asked for clarification of what is being proposed. Terdalkar explained, using the plan to illustrate. The plan includes expansion of the kitchen and garage, addition of a family room. The existing garage is for one car, and will be expanded to accommodate two cars. Alternatives present different configurations of expansion of dining room and a front porch with similar configurations of garage and family room expansion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 2 Tim Weitzel noted that the exterior changes primarily involved the porch. He asked the applicant which plan he preferred. Dan Brookhart said they preferred the plans for the larger expansion, though they do not know yet if it will be financially or physically feasible. Maharry asked if the larger plan was the one originally submitted. Terdalkar said the two alternatives received on March 10, 2005 were revised versions of the original application, and the applicant is requesting approval for both plans. Gunn asked for an explanation of the existing garage. Brookhart outlined the existing garage and the proposed changes, using the diagrams. Richard Carlson said the plan effectively creates one wall with a middle entrance. Brookhart said yes. McCallum asked if the north elevation is visible from the street. Brookhart said from Sheridan, yes, but from the West side, it would be Maggard Street. Maharry asked if the Commission members need more time to review the plans, or have any additional questions for the applicant. MOTION: James Ponto moved to approve both new plans as presented in the revised drawings. Weitzel seconded. Maharry asked if there was further discussion. McCallum asked if the house is a 1950's ranch. Brookhart said yes. Maharry noted that the guidelines are flexible in regards to a non-historic structure. Weitzel asked if the guidelines apply. Maharry read from the guidelines, "it should not significantly detract from the character of the neighborhood." Carlson added, "it should not create a false historic character, and it should be compatible with the style and character of the neighborhood." He suggested that the question is whether the proposed alterations meet those guidelines. Maharry agreed that was the purview of the Commission for this project. Weitzel said the expanded house would be considerably larger than the existing house and the other houses in the neighborhood. Brookhart said he and his wife want to live on one floor. Maharry noted that the house would be larger, but not vertically. It would not dominate the neighborhood streetscape. Weitzel asked if the expanded house fits in to the existing neighborhood character. Smothers said she prefers the newer plans, as the plan included in the packet had no windows. She said that was her only concern with the original plan. Carlson added that he prefers the new roofline. McCailum agreed that the newer roofline has attractive variation. The motion carried 7-0. Brookhart left at this point. 308 S. Governor Street Terdalkar reported this house is a contributing single-family structure in the Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District. The applicant is requesting approval for alterations including replacement of the basement windows, storm door, and addition of handrails to front stairs. Also proposed are addition of shutters, repainting the existing siding, and replacing the fascia and soffit. Isaacson distributed photographs to help explain the proposed alteration color scheme. She said that she did not have a picture of the new storm door, but it will be the same material as the basement windows. The old door was a wooden frame with either glass or screening, which is now gone, and the door no longer fits. She added that she is unsure whether they need permission to paint or add shutters. Maharry asked Isaacson if she was familiar with the house and the current state of the house and stairs. Isaacson said the current concrete stairs are deteriorated, and her father talked to a contractor who has worked on such projects in the city. There would be no change in appearance. There was also an older railing that needs to be replaced, which would match the porch in both color and appearance. Maharry explained that the soffit is the underside of the roof overhang. He asked if the plan is to replace it as it looks now. Isaacson said the plan is not to change the appearance, just repair it. Maharry asked for confirmation that the plan is to repair it the way it looks now. Isaacson said yes. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 3 Carlson suggested that since few details were included in the application, the Commission members should specify exactly what they are approving. Maharry agreed and added that the Commission does not rule on repairs. Ponto said that some parts of the soffit would need to be replaced, as pieces are missing and woutd need to be replaced with material to match the existing. Smothers asked if the replacement basement windows are vinyl stiding windows. Terdalkar confirmed this. Maharry asked for confirmation that the replacement balustrades and handrails on the front porch stairs would look like the balustrade and spindles currently on the porch. Isaacson said as far as she is aware the plan is to replace the current pipe railing with a new one that matches the house. Carlson said that was stated in the renovation plan. Isaacson agreed. Maharry confirmed the plan is to replicate what is there. Carlson asked whether the plan is to re-side the house. Isaacson said they would like to repaint the house and add shutters. McCallum asked if the Commission regulates shutters. Terdalkar said if the shutters were not there historically, they are not recommended. Isaacson asked if the shutters are not recommended. Weitzel said if shutters were not there originally, their addition is not recommended. Adding shutters can create a false sense of history. Maharry said that modern shutters are purely decorative, rather than serving a specific purpose. McCallum confirmed that Isaacson understood the distinction being made between not being recommended and being disallowed. Isaacson said yes. McCallum noted that a building permit is not required for the addition of shutters. Though they are not recommended, shutters could still be added if the owners so choose. Maharry agreed, saying that the purview of the Commission is for the windows, stair rails, front cement stairs, fascia, and soffit. He added that the Commission also could approve fiber cement board siding, if the applicants wanted to have that option. Maharry asked if there is a motion for those five topics. Carlson asked if the basement windows are included. Maharry said yes, or each area could have a separate vote. Carlson said the basement windows do not meet guidelines, since the foundation wall is more than 18" above grade, especially on the south side. He asked for clarification on what is included in the measurement of the foundation wall, whether it is up to the window or the entire foundation wall. Ponto said his interpretation is that it is measured where it transitions from foundation to siding. Carlson agreed, and said only one window conforms to the guideline. Isaacson asked how long the area had been designated an historic district. Weitzel said he believed since 2000. Isaacson said the windows were ordered a few years before, but were not installed. Then recently they installed them without realizing that permission was needed to replace windows in an historic district. Weitzel said it happens from time to time that people order windows without checking beforehand. It is an issue that is addressed on a case-by-case basis, whether they can be allowed or not. Maharry asked for confirmation that Carlson thinks some windows are more than 18 inches above grade. Carlson said he thinks all of the windows are more than 18 inches in height, with the possible exception of a couple on the north side. Gunn asked if there are any additional photographs of the house available. Terdalkar said no. Smothers said that there is a tradition in Iowa City that usually houses of the era have triple-paned windows in the basement. So even a two-pane window would be very different from what is expected. Weitzel asked about the origin of the 18 inch regulation, whether that was contained in the guidelines. Carlson said it is listed in the section under windows, page 19. Weitzel asked what the thought was behind the recommendation, noting that the owners could put three inches of dirt around the house to improve drainage, and make the grade less than 18 inches. Terdalkar said vinyl windows are not mentioned under the Recommended or Disallowed section. But the guidelines state that an exception can be considered for basement windows where the foundation wall is less than 18 inches above grade, to allow for vinyl windows. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 4 Weitzel asked if the current grade is really known. Maharry asked what the dimensions of the windows are, noting that if they are 18 inches high, that can help with an estimate. Terdalkar said the smallest window is 18 inches in height, and the rest are 21 and 22 inches. Maharry said a motion could be made to include all aspects of the application or to review each part separately. Smothers asked when the work would be done. Isaacson said it would be done as soon as a permit is issued. Smothers asked for clarification that all of the work would be done this year. Isaacson said yes. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the replacement windows. Carlson seconded. Weitzel said either the Commission would have to go against the guidelines, or not allow the windows. Ponto said he shares Smothers' concern about the new basement windows having a two-pane appearance. Weitzel agreed that is a change in appearance. Carlson noted that vinyl windows are expressly disallowed. Weitzel said they are disallowed if the grade is less than 18 inches. Ponto added that they are not egress windows. Carlson asked if the interpretation would be different if they had been ordered before the district was designated. Maharry said that if the windows were ordered but not installed, the Commission might have recommended the applicants improve the drainage of their property by adding some dirt around the house, which would make the grade less than 18 inches. The ground slopes away from the house, improving drainage. McCallum said that if window wells were added, they would only have to be a few inches deep. Maharry said the intent would be to have a grade that is less than 18 inches. There is no style recommended at all, if it is less than 18 inches above grade. McCallum said the window wells would help hide the windows as well, along with landscaping. Gunn said increasing the grade might interfere with the door. Miklo suggested sloping the grade away from the door. Carlson noted that it is less of an issue on the north side, since it is almost at 18 inches already. Ponto asked if the motion could be amended to say that the grade should be increased such that the height is 18 inches or less. Maharry said yes, but asked if this will be enforced. Miklo said the Housing and Inspections Department could enforce it. Maharry agreed, if those steps are warranted for these windows. In his opinion, that is not warranted. Carlson said he thinks it is a noticeable feature of the house. He would vote against these windows unless the grade is less than 18 inches. Ponto said that if the grade were such that the height is greater than 18 inches, he would have to vote against it because they would not be in compliance with the guidelines. Maharry said the Commission could vote on the issue that night, one way or another. The applicant could then do alterations to the property and reapply in two weeks, if the guidelines apply to those particular windows. He does not think they would demand the windows be removed immediately. McGrath asked for clarification why Maharry is willing to make an exception to the guidelines in this case. Maharry said following the guidelines would create an economic burden to replace the windows, which outweighs the potential improvement of installing different windows. Miklo asked how this situation differs from Grant Street. Weitzel agreed there is a question of consistency. Maharry said no, these are not prominent windows in his opinion. Ponto agreed, and vinyl could be allowed for basement windows because of moisture at ground level. Gunn said that the Commission is discussing how to make the windows conform to the guidelines. Vin~'l windows are allowed if the grade is less than 18 inches. Isaacson asked for confirmation that if the grade were raised, then she would reapply. Maharry said yes, if the windows are voted down at the current meeting. He added that the other option is to remove the windows from the application, and vote on everything else. Ponto asked if that is allowable. Maharry said that is up to the applicant. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 5 Isaacson asked if it is recommended to remove the windows from the application that night. Maharry said she could ask the Commission to review everything except the windows. Miklo said that the vote could be "subject to" raising the grade. Otherwise, the windows would not be in compliance. Maharry noted for the record that if the grade were not raised, then the windows would not be in compliance, and would be subject to penalty. McGrath asked for a summary of the decision. Maharry said the original motion was to approve the windows, which was then amended to be subject to raising the grade to be less than 18 inches. Carlson seconded. Maharry asked if there was further discussion. Weitzel said he would like to add the clause that if the grade is not raised, the windows are not compliant. Maharry said that could be stated in the certificate. The motion carried 7-0. Carlson said that it is difficult to evaluate the application because there are no plans showing what will be done. There are contractors' estimates, but no indication what the finished product will look like. Maharry said that for the stair rails and soffit, the plan is to construct it of wood to match the existing porch, which includes the spindles and rails. Carlson asked how the post would be constructed. Terdalkar said that information was discussed over the phone, and specific plans were not included in application. Carlson said he approves of the concept of the repairs, but would like some details. McCallum asked for confirmation that the plan is not to reside the house. Isaacson said they plan to paint the existing siding. McCallum said a ruling is not needed for paint. Maharry said the Commission could approve residing, if the applicants want to do that in the future. Gunn asked how the front stairs would be repaired. Terdalkar said there are two sets of stairs. The concrete stairs in front go only about 30-36 inch in height, and are being replaced with concrete with no change in appearance. The conversation with the applicant did not make clear if there was any plan for the wood stairs, but he thought they were going to be replaced, along with an addition of railing, which will be similar to that on the porch. A railing is not required for the concrete stairs. Maharry asked for confirmation that the front cement stairs would be replaced exactly as they are now. Isaacson said yes. Maharry said that would be ruled as 'No Material Effect', and can be approved. He added that the fascia and soffit would be repaired to look as they currently do, so that is No Material Effect and can be approved. Those do not need a full Commission review. Siding and the stair rail still need to be decided. He asked if the application could wait until a plan or drawing for the finished porch railing is submitted. Isaacson said that it could be provided. Shelley McCafferty noted that if only $40 was budgeted for the railing, it is probably going to be a pipe. Maharry asked if a pipe railing was already there. Terdalkar said yes, but he believes that the amount of $40 is budgeted for the railing for concrete stairs. Nothing is stated in regards to the railing for the wood stairs. Gunn said the Commission could request more details or approve and cite the guidelines that need to be followed. He asked which way would be more reasonable and efficient. Maharry asked if there are specific guidelines that apply to the post. The spindle and balustrade would be restored to match the house, but what will the post look like. Terdalkar said there was no estimate included for the repair to the wooden stairs. Maharry said it would be helpful to have additional information, plans, or even a drawing of the finished product for the stairs, railing, and balustrade. Weitzel said if waiting for additional details on the stairs, the rest of the application should be cleaned up as well. Maharry said the windows have already been approved. There is No Material Effect on numbers 7 and 8. Smothers noted that a known contractor is doing the work. She said she is confident he will make sure the post looks appropriate. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 6 MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the fiber cement board replacement on the siding. McCallum seconded. Maharry asked for additional discussion. Carlson said he is not comfortable with approving a wholesale replacement without seeing the current material and its condition. He is concerned with preserving the original material, since the condition of the original clapboard underneath the current siding is unknown. Weitzel withdrew his motion. MOTION: Gunn moved to table the discussion and wait for more details on all points left in question. Weitzel seconded, The motion carried 7-0. Gunn confirmed that City Staff would be available for any further assistance, if necessary. Terdalkar confirmed this. Isaacson left at this point. 528 E College Street Terdalkar reported this is a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. The proposal includes restoration of a porch and shed, after they were demolished without the applicants' knowledge or consent. Maharry asked if the applicants have any comments. McCafferty said there are two changes to the porch from the previous plan. The changes were originally ruled as No Material Effect, as they were to be repaired. The porch was demolished and removed while the applicants were out of town, but several components were saved, such as the columns. However, they would now like to reduce the area of the shed to allow room for the A/C condenser. They would also prefer not to construct the balustrade. It is not required by code, and it appeared not to be original to the porch. Weitzel asked for confirmation that the shed is the structure at the north end of the porch. McCafferty said yes. It was also demolished, but they do have enough clapboards and the door to rebuild it. A door will be added to the west side, so the shed can be a little larger. The additional door will allow the NC condenser to be serviced. Weitzel asked about the spacing of the columns. McCafferty said the columns will be closer together than on the original porch, but it will not be visually noticeable. Weitzel asked for confirmation that it will match the original materials. McCafferty said yes. Ponto asked if the proposal included a window in the shed. McCafferty said no. Kevin Burford said the shed is small and a window would not be very functional. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve the proposal as written. Weitzel seconded. Maharry asked if there were any additional questions for the applicants, or discussion. Weitzel said the changes are reasonable. McCallum said the new plans look nice. Burford said that all other inspections have been passed, so this is the last step to gain occupancy. The motion carried 7-0. Maharry noted that he had considered ruling the project as No Material Effect, but he was not completely comfortable with that and therefore brought it before the Commission. 529 Brown Street Terdalkar reported that the structure is a key-contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. Proposed alterations include repair to the foundation for the kitchen, replacement of three windows on the south side, and installation of two new basement windows. Aisc, the proposal includes a stair replacement. Maharry asked if the applicants had any additional comments or details. Stanier said no; everything was in the application packet. Maharry asked if the Commission had questions for the applicants. If not, he asked if there was a motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 7 MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the proposal as written, Ponto seconded, Maharry asked if there was any further discussion. He noted that the Commission has allowed alteration to windows in the past, to accommodate specialty kitchens. Weitzel added that they currently do not match anyway. Carlson said he would not Pike to see the door in the foundation removed, but also thought that it is not significant. The motion carried 7-0. 2. Approval of the February 10, 2005 and February 15, 2005 Minutes: Maharry asked if there were any changes for the February 10 Minutes. Smothers requested a change to page 9, "Smothers said this structure is a classic Iowa barn." She asked that it be changed to more accurately reflect the intent of the statement. She asked that it be changed to, "Smothers said that she could appreciate their renderings. However, she did not think they looked like they belonged in Iowa." Carlson said that on page 7 after the second paragraph, the Minutes should say that Pardekooper left the room. MOTION: Weitzel moved to accept the February 10, 2005 Minutes as amended. Carlson seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Maharry asked if there were any changes for the February 15 Minutes. No changes were noted. MOTION: Carlson moved to accept the February 15, 2005 Minutes as written. Weitzel second. The motion carried 7-0. Discussion with Kerry McGrath, SHSI Local Government Coordinator Maharry welcomed McGrath to the meeting. McGrath said one reason she attended was to see how the meetings are run. She said she would send feedback and suggestions on that topic via email. She said also that her office does have a number of items that could be useful, such as a video from Maryland about due process. Her office also has videos that talk about design issues, which could be used for educational programming. McGrath said the other reason she attended the meeting was to gather feedback on the lessons the Commission members learned from the events surrounding the designation of the Gilbert-Linn District. McGrath asked for comments regarding the process and controversy, and suggested going around the table and giving everyone a chance to respond. Gunn asked for clarification of what McGrath wants to know. McGrath said another way to view it is to ask what new wisdom people have gained from the experience. McGrath asked if the Commission members would be comfortable with having her offer an opinion. Maharry said yes. Weitzel said there was an uphill struggle with education, especially in educating landlords who owned residential structures, about considering themselves part of the community and not just extracting money from it. The landlords needed to consider the bigger picture, and also consider that it is better for their tenants to live in an attractive building. That message never sank in. McCallum said the Commission tried to anticipate the objections by excluding commercial properties, from prior experience. There is a lot of misperception regarding the market. He said probably the major obstacle to the nomination was that the area has less residential ownership. Maharry invited comments from the audience. McCafferty said that the Commission had great success with Longfellow and other areas, and took Northside for granted. Their guard was down in terms of education and addressing property rights concerns. A lot more preliminary education was needed. Helen Burford added that there was a long history of dissension in the area on record that was not resolved or mitigated. That dissension was used to polarize the community, and made negotiation efforts difficult. The whole concept of being historic and the reasonable idea of preservation in the community got lost, and the issue boiled down to property rights versus community. She noted that it is hard to convince people to respect history. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page $ Maharry said arguments were made for preservation, such as the economic benefits of preservation and the increase of property values, but those issues did not matter to the ones with the votes. It came down to property rights issues. Maharry said the Commission could have given more information about the economic benefits, but preservation is contrary to the goal of extracting profit from a rental property by maintaining it as little as possible. He added that he does not know if even offering economic incentives above their current profit would change that, since it is a question of property rights. The Council supported property rights, and that presented a difficulty. The requirement for a super majority was also an issue; since a majority was in favor of preservation, but only 20% had to be in opposition to overturn it. Maharry noted that the neighbors are considering designation of a much smaller district in the future, with a lower percentage of population owned by absentee landlords. He added that one argument was that properties had been preserved already for 100 years, so why is a change needed. However, two historic properties are already endangered or demolished, in the two months since the decision was reached. Ponto said part of the problem seemed to be that the Council heard all the intense opposition first, so the arguments in support of creating the district seemed like a reaction. If the cases had been presented the other way around, perhaps the outcome would have been different. There were a lot of advocates for the creation of the district. Burford said that Friends of Historic Preservation did make an effort to reach out and educate the community in the summer. They had an historian come and speak to the neighbors about the histories of their homes, and organized a walking tour of the area. Maharry said that opponents to the designation kept combining the local and the national districts. Both the Council and the media in turn supported that view, and the perception was that since there was a possible mix-up with one, the whole nomination was flawed. Maharry asked what the general ratio of staff to the number of properties under their purview is for other commissions in Iowa. Iowa City has one half time position for -1100 structures. McGrath said that Iowa City has the largest number of locally designated structures. She said that there are no staff in other Iowa programs that are fully devoted to preservation. She noted that Iowa City is a very successful program. McGrath noted that McCafferty had asked for feedback on a national listserve regarding how cities handle staffing for support of large numbers of properties. McCafferty said she was not able to analyze the results too closely, but part of the issue is comparing similar programs. Iowa City's staff person provides a lot of technical and design assistance that may not be offered in other programs. McGrath said that it would be helpful to make sure applications are complete and given to the Commission members early enough to review before the meeting. That would help the Commission protect itself, and is very important for the applications. Maharry noted that Terdalkar is new to his position, so is still learning. McGrath agreed, and noted how important it is to have the tangible photographs and drawings. It is also important to be very clear and specific about what is expected for the record when things are approved, so there is no doubt what is involved and how things should proceed. McGrath said that she looked at the objections and the meeting transcript, and it seemed like at some point everyone stopped listening to each other. That included her office. She said her office should have supported the decision for a revised nomination. She added that the feeling was that allowing a public hearing in August was a special case. Her office was naYve not to expect a revised nomination. Everyone learned a lot. The National Register letter for the appeal remanded the nomination back to the state for reconsideration, because there were some items missing from the appeal. McGrath noted that in the objections the point was made that the area around Mercy Hospital was zoned commercial specifically to encourage medical center development. She asked if that was true. Miklo agreed that was the intent in the late 1970's, though that specific goal was not clearly documented. The plan was to convert the existing houses north of Mercy Hospital into medical offices, which did happen to a few of them. The idea was to allow reuse of the buildings, not necessarily to demolish them to make room for new development. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 9 McGrath said that the point on the commercial zoning near Mercy Hospital was not addressed early on, and the possible interpretation was that the nomination could be viewed as contrary to the intent of the zoning. Weitzel said that point was presented in some of the hearings in a very hostile manner. He said that was the first time he had heard about the zoning. McGrath said it is a cardinal rule when pursuing historic designation or conservation districts, to investigate current zoning. Maharry asked if that would be local or national. McGrath said there is no national zoning. Maharry agreed, and noted that what happened was a smaller district was created because of the zoning. Maharry said the National District only determines if it is historic, and does not take into account what Mercy, for example, would do with the properties. McGrath agreed, adding that though the Commission knows that, public perception is that if it is nationally listed, it will automatically become either a conservation or a local historic district. This argues for sensitivity to zoning, and knowing the nuances. Maharry said an architectural historian was hired to create a district. If she did not take zoning around Mercy into account when creating the district, future people need to be informed about that issue. McGrath agreed that consultants should be made aware of zoning issue, when doing National Register districts. Helen Burford said there is an immediate power to a negative idea, whereas a positive idea requires much more effort. The individual leading the opposition misrepresented the value to the commercial properties and owners regarding the National Register. Education requires massive effort in the community. Burford added that there were a large number of people in the community as a whole who supported preservation. However, they were not given any rights in this situation. The response did not leave room for community. Maharry said that part of the issue was due process, and the fact that the Commission should be neutral until a vote is taken. It is not the Commission's place to lobby, but to only take evidence into consideration and decide if designation of a local historic district is in the best interests of the City. However, the opposition has no such restriction. Miklo suggested that at the beginning of the process, sending out a clear and informative letter might have flushed out the opposition earlier, and given time to plan a counter to his tactics. That is something to consider for future nominations. McCafferty said it is relative to the zoning issue, and the perception the City Council has of the district. The College Hill District had very similar components, but played out very differently. The perception was that there was overwhelming support for designation of College Hill, but in reality the people who were opposed had been satisfied. Gunn said that while historic preservation has been successful in the past, it has not been easy. There is a new district that was not there before, with an expanded Brown Street national and local district. Gilbert- Linn is a setback, but there were some gains. That is a tough neighborhood, and more preservation needs to be done. The question is what the Commission is working on now. McGrath said the Commission is at this point in a great position to reduce designation and take action in education. That would include distribution of clarifying materials and gathering friends and volunteers. Educational activities can be more fun for the public, and there is a range of activities that could be organized. She suggested looking into activities that involve children, such as classroom activities, as a way to reach their parents. When children are involved, the parents were also active and involved. For example, children in Mt. Vernon do a project where they researched their own house history, which got parents interested in historic preservation. McCafferty said the Commission has talked about educational initiatives, such as brochures and videos, and updating the website. There are some things happening in the schools as well. However, there is no one to do it. Someone is needed either to plan or coordinate the activities, or to energize and coordinate the volunteers. McGrath suggested using college students and volunteers, and offered to assist. She added that the Iowa Community Cultural Grant and National Trust Grants are available to help fund these things, so there is money available. Maharry noted that homeowners are not generally the issue in regards to education about historic preservation. The issue is trying to change the opinions of property owners who do not live in the homes. McCafferty said that there were a number of homeowners in Goosetown that had some misconceptions, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 10 so it is not solely a question of owner occupied versus rental properties. Maharry said that Goosetown was largely a question of economics. If restoration does not cost more than renovation, then they would be convinced. However, landlords are different, because they do not want to put any money into their properties, and generally do not see value in preservation. McCallum asked if there are any good zoning models available to encourage preservation incentives. He asked if there are any cities that have programs doing things right, to use as an example or for ideas. McGrath said that Dubuque is one city to look at in Iowa. Nationally, Raleigh, NC is a very successful program, though they have far stricter guidelines. Kalamazoo, MI has a strong staff person and has done some good things. She noted, however, that elements of the different programs would need to be evaluated, picking out the good aspects. McGrath offered additional suggestions, such as thinking about different kinds of incentives and what would be feasible. Also, creating committees of volunteers chaired by Commission members might be helpful. They can work on different issues. Friends of Historic Preservation is doing good work. Part of success lies with playing to people's interests. McGrath said that Iowa City is a model program that has accomplished a lot. She said she went through the transcripts of the recent meetings to try to come up with educational approaches to some of the objections made in the meetings. She said she would email her suggestions. She recommended putting the next grant to an educational project and let designation activities rest. Staying on neutral ground may help the controversy settle. Weitzel asked where landlords fall on that spectrum. McGrath suggested that landlords also said things that could be made educational. McGrath suggested doing an economic impact study. Maharry said one was done and given to the parties involved. McCafferty said that was part of a grant. McGrath said it should be a formal study that would be useful especially in terms of evaluating property values, tourism, and there is some consideration of job creation. Across the board, locally designated districts are winners, according to these reports. Maharry said that was done and given to the Council. Gunn noted that the majority supported the nomination. McGrath reiterated that preservation takes time and persistence, but that this event was a small setback. The nomination could be redone. Maharry said it would be reevaluated later in the year. Helen Burford asked how McGrath would overcome the objections of the other extremes of opinion that were being expressed in the meetings. McGrath said she would have to reread the minutes. She added that though the Council voted against the nomination, most members felt compelled to go on record in support of preservation. McGrath suggested having the Commission members meet with Council members, just one on one, to discuss preservation and its goals, as well as to gain some resolution to the events. Listen to what they are saying, hear the misunderstandings and misconceptions, and work on education. McGrath agreed that the decision ultimately is political. She said she would send the comments, and that she would back the Commission in terms of an economic impact study and an array of educational things. Maharry thanked McGrath for coming to the meeting, and said it was good timing since there will be new Commission members at the next meeting. Adiournment MOTION: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Smothers seconded. The motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 11 Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires '1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4~28 5/12 5~26 6/9 6~23 7/14 7~28 8/1 '1 8~25 9/8 10/'13 11/10 R. Carlson 3~29~07 ........ X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X M. Maharry 3/29/05 X X × X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X ' X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/05 O/E O/El X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005 EMMA J HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto MEMBERS ABSENT: Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weism[ller, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: David Arkush, Hope Barton, James Barton, Marsha Berentson, Helen Burford, Jeff Clark, Jennifer Glass, Ted Heald, Shelley McCafferty, Mike McLaughlin, Jeff Nerad, Chris Newhall, Jon Ringen, lan Scott, Tim Weaver, Dan Willis CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness: The following items were deferred to the Commission's next meeting: 807 E. Washington Street, 924 E. Washington Street, 932 E. Washington Street, 806 E. College Street, 917 E. College Street, 923 E. College Street, and 927 E. College Street. 611 Oakland Avenue. Terdalkar said that this is an application for the addition of an outbuilding, a two-car garage. He said the house is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District, and that it was built with style and some influence of 19th century and 20th century American houses. Terdalkar said the applicant proposes the use of vinyl siding and wood windows for the structure, which will be in the back yard of the property. He said the size of the structure will be 30 feet wide and 34 feet long. Enloe said the staff report refers to exceptions for vinyl siding in conservation districts; however, this property is in a historic district, and the property is contributing. He said that vinyl siding is not allowed in this instance. Carlson said that was also his understanding, but in fact under new outbuildings, there is very little in the way of recommended or disallowed. He stated that vinyl is not expressly disallowed, although that is implied because in the exceptions for conservation districts, the guidelines say that synthetic siding may be used on new outbuildings, which implies that it is not allowed in historic districts. Carlson said there is no explicit statement disallowing vinyl on new outbuildings in historic districts. Gunn said that exceptions apply only where they are spelled out, so one can assume that if it is not expressly allowed in the language, it is disallowed. He said the exceptions apply only where they are listed. Maharry asked Weaver, the owner, if he had pursued other thoughts or designs. Maharry provided a drawing of another possibility for the garage. He said that in its current form, the proposed garage does not reflect the style of the primary structure, but the drawing shows the same dimensions and would better reflect the style of the house. Weaver asked if the roof proposed by Maharry would be a hip roof, and Maharry confirmed that it would be a hip roof from north to south. Weaver said that the house has gable ends on it. Brennan asked what kind of siding is currently on the house. Weaver responded that there are two different kinds of siding on the house. He said the siding on the upper story is vinyl siding that he would like to match for his garage. Enloe said the Commission also needs to consider the mass of the structure in relationship to the size of the house. He said the garage would be wider than the house but not quite as long as the house. Weaver Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 2 thought that the Code requires that the garage take up no more than a certain percentage of the yard - perhaps 40%. Terdalkar said the rule is about 30% of the setback and is not about the site of the structure but is about how much of the setback can be covered. Maharry said it is recommended to construct garages and outbuildings that are clearly subordinate in size and orientation to the primary structure. Carlson said this would be clearly subordinate in height. Carlson said his basic feeling is that the design as proposed would not fit in with the craftsman-style house. He said the gable roof does, but the doors don't, the octagonal window doesn't, and the little windows along the side don't. Carlson said the size of the garage is not as much of an issue to him as the design is. He suggested that the windows, the octagonal window, and the shape of the doors be replaced with something more fitting to the structure and that vinyl siding not be used. Weaver asked if the vinyl siding would be grandfathered in, because it is already used on the exterior upper level of the house. Carlson said it would not be allowed for a new structure. Weaver asked about siding for the entire house. He said the original siding was removed, and the tower level is sided with aluminum that has been badly dented by hail. Gunn said that the Commission allows fiber cement board as a reasonable substitute that holds paint for up to 20 years. He said that vinyl siding is disallowed in historic districts, and the Commission has been consistent on that. Gunn agreed with Carlson that the details need work. Gunn said the doors should be trimmed in a little wider trim, like cornerboards. He said that what is drawn as brick mold should be one by four trim instead. Weaver said the design proposed by Maharry shows eaves that are comparable to exposed rafters. He asked if that would be required, as it is difficult to do. Weaver said the exposed rafters on the house are actually aluminum clad, each rafter individually. Maharry said they are original to the house and are therefore a distinctive feature to the house. He said the guidetines discuss the fact that the project should have similar characteristics to the house. Ponto said it should reflect the style but be subordinate in ornamentation. Maharry said that having none would clearly be subordinate. Enloe asked Weaver if he would be willing to change the details of the project. Weaver said he supposed he would. He asked about the side view in Maharry's drawing and if he could have two windows on either side of a central door on the side view. Carlson said that would be fine, as it would still be in character. Gunn added that the windows could be a little smalter than those in the drawing and still be fitting with the historic character. Weaver asked if the exposed rafter ends would be necessary. Gunn and Carlson said they did not feel exposed rafter ends would be necessary. Weaver asked if a Dutch lap cement board is available. Gunn said it is made but was unavailable the last time he looked for it. Weaver said that what the Commission is seeing as an octagonal window is actually a vent. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a two-car garage at 611 Oakland Avenue with the stipulations that the siding must be wood siding or fiber cement board; that the trim for the cornerboards, overhead doors, and walk-door windows be approximately three and one-half inch wide flat trim; that the walk-door be of a panel-type construction and be paintable; that the windows be wood or metal-clad wood windows that appear like historic windows as small, rectangular windows; that there be no cut corners on the garage doors; and that the vents in the gable ends be rectangular. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 732 Dearborn Street. Terdalkar said this property is a contributing structure in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. He said the proposal is for an alteration to the back porch of the house. Terdalkar said the owner plans to enlarge the porch floor and remove the wail siding on the porch. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 3 Newhall, the owner of the property, said the expansion of the porch would be on both sides of the porch but would still fall under the porch roof. She said the little piece of wall to the right, which is not original to the house, would be removed. Maharry asked if the foundation cement block would be reused. Newhall confirmed this. Maharry asked if the skirting would be redone, and Newhall confirmed this. Carlson asked if the actual supports would be treated wood. Newhall said they would be treated wood. She said they would be hidden behind the cement blocks and the skirting. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration of a porch at 732 Dearborn Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Maharry welcomed Michael Brennan as the newest Commission member. 706 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this property is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said that this is a single-family house. Terdalkar said the house reflects the 19th century revival style with some influence of the cottage style. He said the proposal is to demolish the existing garage and replace it with a new, two-car garage. Hope Barton said the person who worked for the second owners of the property informed her that the cupola was not original to the garage. James Barton said the current garage is listing and is rotting at the bottom. He said the floor is two-inch concrete and is not reinforced. Gunn said that from the outside, it appears that there is no foundation or footings, just a slab. He said that one can see considerable settling, sagging, and deterioration of the lower half of the garage. Gunn said the roof appears to be sagging and rotting, and the garage is not in good condition by any means. Enloe asked if the garage is salvageable. James Barton said he did not plan to spend any money on it. Gunn said his opinion is that the garage is not salvageable. He said that anything is salvageable to a degree, but by the time this was salvaged, there would be almost nothing left of the original materials. Cadson said that for a proposed demolition, the Commission is to consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the outbuilding. He said that in this case, he would say that all three are marginal. Carlson said the garage contributes to the property but to a limited extent. Brennan said there is also the consideration that if the Commission requires the preservation of the current garage, two small garages sitting next to each other would look very strange. Carlson said the proposed garage does not look like it would go with a 1940s house. Maharry distributed a drawing of an alternate proposal. Gunn stated that there are a few things ~hat make garages fit in well in many of the older neighborhoods, including: a little higher roof pitch than is commonly used today, using wider, flat trim rather than brick mold; cornerboards and frames on doors and windows; windows that are relatively small and rectangular; and smaller garage doors - single doors rather than double doors. He said he would look for those things in this proposal. Gunn said it would not dramatically alter the project but would just trim things a little differently. He added that vinyl siding is not an issue here, as it is allowed in conservation districts. Enloe said the owner's proposal shows the windows to be wider than they are tall, but they should be oriented the other way. James Barton asked if windows would be required, as he considered not having them for security reasons. Ponto said the guidelines do not require windows on a garage. Gunn said that at least on the side that is approached from the house, the owner would want windows for natural light. He said he thought that architecturally the Commission can say the garage should have windows,' and the Commission would prefer to have some small windows. Weaver asked about the requirements for a steeper roof. Enloe said it should have a six:twelve pitch. Gunn said the garage doors should be smooth or of a simple paneled construction. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a two- ;;ar garage at 706 Clark Street with the stipulations that the roof be of a six:twelve pitch; that there Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 4 be three and one-half inch trim on the corners, overhead doors, walk doors, and windows; that the walk door be of a panel-type construction; and with the recommendation for rectangular, small windows on the three sides without the overhead doors. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the present garage at 706 Clark Street. Ponto seconded the motion. Enloe said he would vote against this, because he felt that while the destruction of this building might not be a great loss, the garage is not falling in on itself. Gunn said he visited the garage earlier in the evening. He said it appears to have no footings, the floor appears to be broken and settling significantly, the bottom half of the garage appeared wet and rotted, the roof was sagging, and the siding was in poor condition. Gunn said he did not feel it was worth saving and would vote in favor of the demolition permit. Carlson said he would have preferred to see more evidence of the garage's condition as part of the application. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2, with Carlson and Enloe voting no. 531 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this property is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the house was built between 1939 and 1941. Terdalkar said the house has influences of Cape Cod cottage and 19th century/20th century revival style. Terdalkar said the proposed alterations include the replacement of windows on the front and the side and installation of a skylight in the rear. Scott, the owner of the house, said he wants to replace windows in the two bedrooms upstairs. He said there is a bedroom where each of the dormers is, and he would like to replace the three windows to each bedroom. Scott stated that the north side windows are actually pretty rotten, with a lot of mildew in them. He said the previous owners used double aluminum screens that catch a lot of water and don't work at all. Scott said he would like to install Andersen windows that have the same mullions as the windows on the first floor, which have already been replaced. Regarding the skylight, he said there is a hallway upstairs with no natural light, so he would like to install a small dome on the rear elevation. McCallum said he installed such a dome, and the Building Department said he did not need a building permit because it would not cut between joists. Maharry asked about the back of the house. Scott said there was an addition to the rear about ten years ago. Carlson asked how many of the windows are in bad repair. Scott responded that the two above the bay on the north side don't get any light and are not in good shape. He said the south windows get more light, which keeps them dryer, but the screens don't function at all. Scott said that some of them have cracked panes, but he was unable to save them. Carlson said the sash there seems to be one of the few original fenestration details on the house. He said the door has been replaced, and the lower windows except in the bay have been replaced. Scott said that the shutters are replacements. He said the dormers on the front do not have original screens. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows and the installation of a skylight on the rear elevation at 531 Clark Street, as proposed. Ponto seconded the motion. Carlson asked if the window replacements would be wood windows. Scott said they are wood on the interior, and on the exterior a polymer would be used, but only a small percentage would be seen, as the contractor will be putting exterior trim around the windows. Carlson said there are a lot of vinyl components in the windows. Gunn said that vinyl windows are acceptable in a conservation district. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 5 The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Carlson votinq no. 330 South Lucas. Terdaikar said that this property is a non-contributing structure in the Lucas/Governor Conservation District. He said the proposed work is to replace the existing siding with vinyl siding. Maharry asked about the plans for the trim around the windows, the cornerboards. Willis, the owner of the house, said he would use a contrasting color of vinyl. Carlson stated that even if a property is non-contributing, the project has to meet four criteria for the Commission to be able to approve synthetic siding. He asked if the source of the moisture that caused damage has been remedied. Willis said the masonite siding that was supposed to hold up did not, and the company that made it has gone out of business. Carlson said that historic, architectural features such as window trim, brackets, moldings, rafter tails, columns, balusters, and similar details should not be covered, removed, cut, or otherwise damaged. Willis said they have mostly been removed or damaged and have been covered with aluminum clad already, which will not be removed. He said the aluminum wrap around the windows will remain the same. Willis said there will not be a J trim right up against it; it will still have the white one-by trim around it. Carlson said staff recommends that the clapboard have an exposure of three to five inches to make it look more historic. Willis said he thought a five-inch would be a more preferable lap but said he was flexible on that. Carlson said the trimboards should extend in front of the face of the siding. Gunn said there should be a four-inch trim around the windows that is exposed. Willis said he would be leaving that. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of siding at 330 South Lucas Street, as proposed. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 720 East Washinqton Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a non-contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the proposal is for the demolition of a garage and the addition of a bedroom to the house. Clark, the owner of the house, said he did not know when the house or the garage were built. Carlson said he believed the house was built in the 1930s or 1940s, but because the garage has a poured concrete foundation, he believed the garage was constructed in the last 40 to 50 years. Carlson said there appeared to be no structural problems with the garage. Clark said this is more of a parking issue and an issue with the addition. He said the garage is in good shape, but it has Iow headroom so that only a Iow-setting car can be parked there. Clark added that this will be a rental and will therefore be student occupied so that there will be more than two cars there. He said that would cause a parking problem if he cannot provide parking in the back. Enloe said that the guidelines state that the Commission makes decisions on a case-by-case basis, considering the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the outbuilding or non-contributing building. Regarding architectural significance, Carlson said it is difficult to make a judgment without going inside. He said that right now there is nothing exposed on the exterior that says that this is anything more than 30 or 40 years old. Cadson said the garage doesn't match the house and in his opinion doesn't contribute to the architectural significance of the property as a whole. He said he is a little leery of voting in favor of demolition without having a better idea of exactly what is there. Maharry said he agreed that the garage doesn't have significant architectural features so that its absence won't detract from the character of the neighborhood or the overall property. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 720 East Washington Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Enloe said he did not want to see a perfectly solid structure torn down for mere convenience. He said that is antithetical to the whole idea of conservation and historic districts. Regarding its architectural significance, Enloe said he does not have enough information to make a judgment on that. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 6 Enloe said that the scale of the garage is not that of a modern, recent garage. Terdalkar said this style of house was popular in the 1930s in Iowa City. He said this house is one of the few examples of this style of architecture. Terdalkar stated that an earlier survey identified the house as eligible contributing structure, but a later survey did not include it as a contributing structure. Miklo said that the Commission should rely on the later survey. Clark said that the garage is not unusual in the interior and looks like a standard garage. He said the addition would have aluminum siding if it is the same as the house. Clark said the garage would be unusable, whether it is torn down or not. Miklo stated that the whole intent of a conservation district is to conserve the general character of a neighborhood. He said that given the nondescript character of this garage, which is fairly small and does not represent any particular style, the Commission will want to look at the big picture. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2, with Carlson and Enloe votinq no. Carlson stated that the shed is also scheduled for removal. Clark said the shed is less than 12 by 12. McCallum said that a permit is not needed to build a shed of this size. Maharry said that if the shed is not mentioned in the survey as important to the property, then it was deemed not important to the property. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the shed at 720 East Washington, Enloe seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 5-2T with Carlson and Enloe voting no, Carlson said he would need more information to vote to demolish the shed. Regarding the proposed new addition, Gunn said the materials appear to be consistent with what is there. Clark said there is actually aluminum siding on the house, and he plans to use hardi-plank on the new addition. He said the windows on the new addition will be wrapped with the one by four. Maharry distributed a drawing for plans with a little more detail on the trim. Clark said he could put cornerboards on the house. He said the two roofs would be tied together with a roofline pitching out to run the water out. Carlson said the hardi-plank siding would be fine. He said that vinyl windows are not permitted even on a non-contributing building in a conservation district. Gunn said that vinyl clad windows are acceptable. Carlson said that was okay for basement windows but not for main windows. Ponto said that the disallowed category includes metal, vinyl clad, or vinyl windows when not original to the building. Carlson said the only exception under windows for all properties in conservation districts is for basement windows, which may be vinyl, so that windows must be wood or wood clad even on non-contributing building in a conservation district. McCallum asked Clark how he felt about the alternative drawing. Clark said that for the roof, he planned to have basically going up to the back side a diamond plane coming out. He said there is really no way to slope it to get the water out of there otherwise. McCallum said the alternative drawing would extend the roof out from the original to give it a nicer, cleaner look, and there would not be an ice dam issue. Clark said he would agree to that plan. Carlson said there was a comment in the paperwork about existing windows being replaced to meet egress. Clark stated that one window in each of the three bedrooms might have to be replaced and made slightly larger to meet egress, although he had not yet had the opportunity to measure the windows. He said if he did have to replace the windows, he would match them to what is there. Clark said they would have the same gridlines, and if they are currently wrapped with the one by four siding, they will be rewrapped. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 720 East Washington Street with the stipulations that it conform to the revised drawing, that the windows be wood or metal clad wood windows, that the siding be wood siding or hardi-plank, and that any Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 7 egress windows that may be required to be installed match the current windows. Gunn seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 1133 East Court Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the proposal is to add an upper deck on the rear side of the house, with material to match the existing deck. Terdalkar said there would also be a railing on the second story, as required by the Building Code. Glass, the owner of the house, said the deck is too small and does not extend across the rear of the house. She said she would like to lower the deck a step or two so that it does not cut off in the middle of the windows. Glass said that other than that, it will be a horizontal extension of what is already there. · Maharry said the current railing is a synthetic vinyl/plastic-type railing. Glass confirmed this and said she would like to use the same material. Maharry asked if there is currently a railing attached to the second floor, and Glass said there is not. Maharry said the Commission might want to use a different material for the railing that is attached to the house. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1133 East Court Street, with the stipulation that the upper story railing be made of an appropriate wood material but allowing the continuation of the non-traditional material on the lower deck. McCallum seconded the motion. Carlson said this would have to meet the guidelines for balusters. He said he was hesitant to approve this without seeing a design but said the Commission could approve something that would involve square spindles. Glass said she wanted to do something on the top that would match the bottom. Gunn said the Commission could site Section 4.10 and state that the railing would have to satisfy the section with regard to balustrades and handrails. Maharry said that language should be included in the certificate. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 1223 Seymour Avenue. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the proposal is for replacing the stairs with wood and installing new railing. Ringen, the owner of the house, said that the current concrete steps are deteriorating because of a ground heave and need to be replaced. Enloe asked what comprised the current railing. Ringen said the railings are iron sunk in the concrete. Maharry said the drawing mostly matches the design, but there is sort of a little inset. Ringen said the contractor actually plans to build the stairs without that, but the drawings were taken from an example on Summit Street. He said he plans to recreate the current column that is there. Enloe said he is a little concerned with the removal of historic balustrades and railings issue. He said the language in the guidelines explicitly disallows this. Miklo said there is a good possibility that those are from a much later period than the house. He said the turned wrought iron was more common in the 1950s and 1960s. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a railing and the replacement of concrete steps with wood steps at 1223 Seymour Avenue, with the stipulation that the newel posts be simple and reflect the porch columns. McCallum seconded the motion. Carlson asked if the Commission would require spindles, because they would historically be on a handrail like this. Miklo said he believed that spindles would be required by the Building Code. MOTION: Ponto amended the motion to require that spindles meet the guidelines if they are required. McCallum seconded the amendment. The amended motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 415 Brown Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. He said the proposal is to enclose a screen porch to make it a habitable room. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 8 Nerad, the owner of the property, said he plans to enclose the existing screen porch, which was added in the 1960s or 1970s. He said he plans to put up walls and windows to match, and this will also give him a chance to restore the roofline a little better on the gables. Nerad said he will use windows that match in proportion and shape and will allow spacing between windows to use the identical trimwork. He said he would like to use Pella aluminum-clad double hung windows. Gunn asked if the old foundation is rusticated block. Nerad replied that it is the original block on the porch, and there are footings in place. He said there is also limestone block. Gunn said the limestone does not blend together well with the rest of it. He said the porch foundation could be painted a base color or maybe a lighter color to match the limestone, if nothing else. Berentson said that the corner there will be landscaped in the future also. Carlson said that since this is a non-historic porch, there is nothing in the guidelines against enclosing it. Ponto asked if it would be compatible with the same trim. Nerad confirmed this. Berentson said the goal is to make it look like it had always been there. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the enclosure of the screen porch at 4'15 Brown Street, as proposed. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, with the admonition of the Commission a.qainst be,qinnin.q a project before receivin,q a certificate of appropriateness. 730 Bowery Street. Terdalkar said this is a contributing structure in the Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District. He said the proposed work includes replacement of windows, storm windows, and exterior doors, and the installation of a basement egress window to add a bedroom to the basement. McLaughlin said he would be using sash kits that come with either wood or metal-clad wood windows. He said that is primarily done in aluminum and asked if that was an acceptable type of metal-clad material. Gunn said that if it is paintable, it would be acceptable. He asked if the sash kits have a vertical track. McLaughlin said there is a vertical track that goes inside the existing frame. McLaughlin said that to fit the basement egress window within the existing frame, it will have to be lowered. He said he would prefer to do that in vinyl, which is an exception for a basement window in a conservation district. McLaughlin said it would be a casement window and would be a double hung window with two sashes. He said the appearance would be similar, because only the top part of the window would be above ground. Gunn said the Commission does not allow snap-in muntin bars on the inside only. He said muntin bars have to be adhered inside and outside. McLaughlin confirmed that the window grills are permanent both inside and outside. Carlson asked about the condition of the current windows. McLaughlin replied that the windows are very worn, old, and drafty. He said the existing framework is loose. Carlson asked if there was a lot of rot - if the windows are reparable. McLaughlin said he has not detected a whole lot of rot, but the windows are not very functional. McLaughlin asked for suggestions for the replacement doors. Maharry said that the current doors are consistent with the arts and crafts style. He said the one McLaughlin suggests doesn't necessarily meet the arts and crafts style, but the staff could provide help in finding a consistent door style. Maharry said the Commission cannot disallow door styles but can recommend particular styles. Gunn said the guidelines do disallow installing flush entrance doors or other modern door styles so that the Commission can ask for something compatible with the architecture. MOTION: Enloe moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows and doors and the installation of an egress window in a basement bedroom at 730 Bowery Street, with the stipulation that the replacement windows and doors match the existing material, style, and appearance. McCallum seconded the motion. Carlson said the very first recommendation under windows is "preserving historic windows by repairing sashes and frames." He said it sounds like the windows are reparable, even though it would be a lot of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 9 work. Carlson said they are not so far gone that they couldn't be repaired so that he would vote against a wholesale window replacement for this house. He said that right now the house is very intact, and he could not approve replacement of all windows and doors without a compelling reason. McLaughlin said the kitchen windows in particular have been painted to the point where it is almost like caulk. He asked how one would repair a window like that to get it back down to the wood in order to stain or repaint it, so it would be functional enough to work in a frame or system that is already loose and worn. Maharry said it can be done but takes a lot of time. Carlson added that the tracks can be readjusted as long as the wood is not deteriorated to the point where it will not take new screw holes and things like that. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2~ with Carlson and Enloe votin,q no. 730 Summit Street. Arkush, the owner of the house, said the proposal is to replace a kitchen window that is less than three feet by three feet. He said that because there is a sink in front of the window on the inside, the window is very difficult to open, and his wife actually broke a rib doing so. Arkush said he would like to replace the window with an awning window, which would be wood on the outside. He said it would be the same width but would be four inches taller and would not have the divider in the middle. Arkush said the window would not be visible from the street. Maharry asked Arkush if he was unable to find a window that simulates what is there now. Mrs. Arkush said it would be much more expensive. She said Knebel Windows suggested a double panel window with a screen on the inside. Mrs. Arkush said that from the outside, it would look about the same but would be a little taller. She said it would not have a storm window, so it would look more like the dining room window. Enloe asked what other kind of window could be installed, other than an awning window, since awning windows are explicitly disallowed in the guidelines. Mrs. Arkush said that the way the window opens is not a problem, but the double hung issue may be a problem. Maharry said if there were a window that replicated the exterior appearance currently, be it awning or casement, that would be consistent with the architectural style. McCallum said he believes that there are awning windows that simulate the look of a double hung window. Gunn said the Commission has approved windows, usually casement windows, that have an adhered horizontal muntin on the inside and outside so that it looks like a double hung window. He said it should not be much more expensive. Miklo stated that, given the proportions, this probably was not an original window. Terdalkar said he thinks it is an original window, because, there exists a similar window with similar size and style on the Sheridan Ave. elevation. Mrs. Arkush said that the window on Sheridan is slightly bigger. Miklo said that given the roofline, it appears that this portion of the house may have been altered at some point. McCallum asked if the four inches of wood around the exterior of the window would remain the same. Mrs. Arkush confirmed this but said it would be lower. McCallum suggested that an awning-style window be allowed if it maintains the look of a double hung. Arkush said he thought the window would look better without the double hung appearance, given the other windows surrounding it. Miklo said that given the proportions of the window, historically one would have not seen a double hung window that square. Carlson said that historically one would not have a single pane of glass this large without any dividing lights. Miklo pointed out that this window is not visible from the street. Gunn said this is not a historically proportioned double hung window. Ponto said that lengthening the window would help the proportions. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of a kitchen window at 730 South Summit Street with an awning-type window that simulates the appearance of a double hung window, with an increase of approximately four inches in depth at the bottom of the window, Ponto seconded the motion, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 10 McCafferty suggested that to make this look more like a fixed, decorative window, it could be done like some of the other windows on the house with a bar up high on the window, above eye level. Gunn said the Commission is looking for away to approve an awning window, which is disallowed. He said that the Commission has to be consistent or it is being arbitrary. Maharry said the guidelines disallow an awning window when it is not original tO the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress. He said that raising the bar on the window woutd make it more consistent with the architectural style. MOTION: Enloe moved to amend the motion to allow for either the appearance of a double hung window or the possibility of a raised bar window that is consistent with the style of the large windows on the front of the house. Ponto seconded the amendment. The amended motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 818 South Summit Street. McCafferty said this is an application for the construction of a small carriage house/garage combination. She showed some photographs of garages and carriage houses on Summit Street. McCafferty said there is a 15-foot height limitation. She said the building will have fiber cement board siding and will have traditional details in terms of the window trim. McCafferty said she does not know what is under the aluminum siding on the house so was uncertain as to matching the house. She said the proposed design is something that would most likely fit with anything found on this style of house. McCafferty said the grade will be raised somewhat. She said there will be double hung windows, and the doors will be carriage style doors with faux hardware. McCafferty said the eaves are different on the front and the back of the house, but the eave detail has been taken from the back of the house. Heald, the owner of the house, stated that the pitch of the carriage house will not be as steep as that of the house, because then it would be too high. Ponto asked if the windows on the main floor will be divided. McCafferty said she thought they would be open, but they could be simple barn sashes with a cross bar in them. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a garage/carriage house at 818 South Summit Street, as proposed. Gunn seconded the motion. Carlson asked if using the faux hardware would be in keeping with the guidelines. McCafferty said the hardware would be made of wrought iron. Carlson said he did not think that it would be in the 1890s style and said that the Commission recommends soiid panel-type doors. Heald said it was okay with him not to use the faux hinges. He said he wanted the structure to look right. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 426 Grant Street. Maharry said this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the application is for the installation of two handrails, simple iron railings with spindles. Enloe said the handrail should either match the porch balustrade or be made of round, steel pipe. Carlson said the wrought iron looks inappropriate. He added that he would not suggest using something that looks like the porch in this case, because it is a very distinctive porch, and the steel pipe railing would be less obvious against this porch. Carlson said he would prefer to see a pipe railing, but matching the balustrade would meet the guidelines as well. Enloe said he could support a pipe railing, but otherwise he would have to see a drawing for the proposed railings. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of two wrought iron metal handrails at 426 Grant Street. Gunn seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 11 Carlson said that wrought iron railings are expressly disallowed. Ponto said that they are disallowed unless they are part of the historic design, which they are not in this case. The motion failed on a vote of 0-7. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a simple pipe railing on the upper and lower steps at 426 Grant Street. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 1121 Seymour Avenue. Terdalkar said this is an application to re-side a garage on a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District, with vinyl siding, the existing siding on the house. Maharry pointed out that the earlier application in 2003 in which the Commission approved vinyl siding for the addition to the house was unique, as the owners did not know what has been under the main house's vinyl siding because the original siding underneath had been removed. Carlson said this property is listed in the staff report as contributing but is shown on the map as non- contributing. Maharry said the property was reclassified at one point. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of vinyl siding on the garage at 1121 Seymour Street, as proposed. McCallum seconded the motion. Enloe stated that he would vote against this, because it does not meet the special criteria of the unique case in a previously approved application in which the commission could not require the siding on a new addition to match the original siding because the original siding was removed. He said that since those conditions do not apply in this case, the guidelines explicitly disallow vinyl siding here. Maharry said the Commission also needs to determine if the siding is sufficiently deteriorated that it needs to be replaced. Enloe said he did not see a case for that. Maharry said the applicant stated that the garage has to frequently be repainted. Terdalkar said the side with the damage is the west side of the garage. The motion failed on a vote of 0-7. March 10, 2005 Meetinq Minutes. MOTION: Enloe moved to defer consideration of the March 10, 2005 meeting minutes to the next meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:lpcdlrninuteslHPCI20051hpcO4-14-O5.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 10/13 11/11 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O X M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O O/E J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X .... J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/E O/E X X X O/E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E - Absent/Excused NM - No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005, 3:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Charles Felling, Rick Fosse, James Hemsley, Mark Seabold, Terry Trueblood, Emily Carter Walsh Members Absent: Emily Martin Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Call to Order Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Public discussion of an,/item not on the agenda No items were presented for discussion by the committee members. Consideration of the Minutes of March 2, 2005 Meeting Seabold asked that a phrase in paragraph five on p.3 in the discussion of activities for Arts Fest be amended to indicate he would bring sketches to the next meeting rather than cost estimates. MOTION: Hemsley moved to accept the minutes as amended. Trueblood seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously. Discussion of activities for Arts Fest Seabold said he met with the architects at Shive-Hattery to discuss ideas to draw attention to Public Art, tied in with the new sculpture on the Iowa Sculptors Showcase near the library. The most promising project involves images of current art projects on Plexiglas plaques placed in the excavated bed. The images would have a number on them that would refer to a larger map, indicating their locations around the city. The bottom of the bed could also be lined with black rubber, then filled with water to make a temporary reflecting pool for that weekend. Lights could be put around the pool, which would reflect up on the images as well as the sculpture. Franklin asked how the light would be powered. Seabold said there is a power outlet nearby. The light would be a Iow-voltage landscaping light. The rubber could be donated from a roofing company, and the architects were excited about helping out with the project. Franklin asked for confirmation that the idea is to put some fill dirt in the bed up to a certain height after the new pad is put in, and then the reflecting pool would be put on top. Seabold said yes, either that or filling the bed could wait until after the festival, because the deeper the pool, the better. It would only be a month to wait, and the bed would be planted afterwards. He added that the point was to use lights to draw more attention to the display. Seabold noted that there will be security on-hand already for the festival, so that should not be a problem. Franklin asked how long it would be in place. Seabold said just the weekend, set up perhaps on Friday night. Klingaman suggested having it set up for the four days of the festival. Fosse said one concern is getting power to the display. The outlet is nearby, but taping an extension cord might not be advisable. Seabold agreed, and suggested using a portable power source. He said that there is also a kiosk element to the display, and the power source could be located in the base of that. The PAAC mission statement and descriptions of each project would be posted there, with the plaques having only the image and a reference number. Trueblood asked if taping down a cord for a few days is really a problem. Klingaman agreed that many cords are taped down during the Jazz Festival already. Fosse agreed that a cord might not be a problem for a few days. He added that a similar reflecting pool idea was used for his prom, using a motorcycle headlight and battery. Seabold said the project should be inexpensive, and also dynamic. Walsh asked if the images would be of past showcase pieces. Seabold said no, they would be of current pieces, the Public Art catalog. He said the volunteer group would do all the printing and fabricating of the Plexiglas, as well as creating the Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 2 wood bases and the kiosk, and supplying the landscape lights. Klingaman said that document services has all the images of the current pieces, which Seabold could use for making the plaques. Fosse said this project could be used annually, changing the images in the plaques. Seabold agreed. He noted that the plaques could be located anywhere. Walsh asked how large the Plexiglas pieces would be. Seabold said 8.5xl 1 or smaller, and they might vary in size depending on the piece that is pictured. Fosse asked if the pool would be a problem. Trueblood said no. Klingaman asked about the risk of electrical shock. Seabold said it would be very Iow voltage. Fosse asked how it would be implemented. Seabold said he has volunteers to help, and he would request that the dirt be removed from the bed around the sculpture pad, or not fully replaced when the pad was replaced this spring. Fosse asked if there was anything growing in the bed. Trueblood said the bed is planted, but he is not sure whether there are any bulbs in it. Franklin noted they would be uprooted when the pad is replaced. Klingaman said the perennials should be relocated. Walsh said she has pictures of the pad in bloom if that would be helpful. Seabold asked to whom he would have to talk to okay the project. Franklin said that is why staff is on the committee, so these projects can be approved right away. Fosse asked how far down the soil should be from the top of the pad. Seabold said the deeper the better, depending on how deep the bed is itself. Fosse said the stone base is four feet deep. Seabold asked how deep the fill material is before the soil is added. He said 18 inches would be a good depth. Fosse said that could be done. Franklin asked who is doing the pad replacement. Fosse said Streets. He asked if topsoil is available to fill the bed. Trueblood said yes. Seabold said the kiosk would have lighting inside it also. The top will be Plexiglas, with a pan of water below, to have the same reflecting effect as the bed around the sculpture. Franklin asked how big the kiosk would be. Seabold said he does not know at this point. He needs to have assistance with getting information for the kiosk, such as descriptions of the piece. Trueblood asked when the pad construction would begin. Fosse said it should cure for a week before the festival, so probably begin the middle of May. Klingaman said Angel would be removed during the first week in May. Fosse said it should be done as close to Arts Fest as possible, so it is not left empty for very long. Seabold said he would check on the depth, because it might not need to be 18 inches. Franklin suggested putting plastic construction fencing over the top of the bed. Fosse said it would be left uncovered. Seabold asked when the sculpture would be installed. Franklin said the week before the festival. Trueblood confirmed that the current pad needs to be removed and rebuilt. Franklin said yes, it was not built thick enough to replace the one that was removed when the library project was done. Seabold said he would bring an example of the project to the next meeting. Franklin said the location of the kiosk needs to be decided, in terms of pedestrian traffic flow and the dedication. Seabold said he thinks it will be located either on the north or south side, out of the main traffic path. Update on Peninsula Project sculpture Seabold passed pictures of the sculpture's current progress around to the committee members. Franklin said the dam project might not happen this fiscal year, because the river needs to stay down at a certain level for a number of days. She said Goddard might finish the sculpture before it can be installed. Klingaman said a temporary location might be needed. Franklin agreed that it might be a location or else in storage. Seabold said Goddard is working full time, and is doing the sculpture on the weekends, so the timing might work out well. Update on Court Street Transportation Center art Franklin said the contract has been amended to ensure that both stairwells are tiled, which involved -$2,000 from the art budget. She said Fosse transported the files to Des Moines, so now it is a matter of the artist's work and the work at the site coming into sync. Portions of the wall are supposed to be done Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 3 that week, so the artist can field measure them for the daycare center fence. Then he can start the actual fabrication. Everything seems to be moving along, and it all is supposed to come together in July or August. Update on Benton Park proiect Franklin said Prescher is arranging the installation of the footings for the arch with Trueblood. Trueblood said Prescher has not called yet, though they have communicated via email. He and Prescher will set up a meeting at the site to pinpoint exactly where the arch will be located. Franklin said to let her know if Prescher has not called within the week. Tour of parks for Art in Parks proiect Franklin said there are two different routes that the committee needs to choose between. One will require getting out and walking around. Fosse left at this point. Seabold asked how long the tour would take. Trueblood said either route will take approximately an hour, depending on how much time is spent walking around the parks. The committee members decided to go to Willow Creek and Hunter's Run parks. Willow Creek Park Trueblood said the park is 27 acres, and any location is fair game for art. There are no new plans for shelters. The north end of the park is near a busy roadway, which would be good for visibility, but there are also secluded areas. There's a hospice memorial in the park as well. Plans are to eventually tie the trail together all the way out to Hunter's Run and Sycamore Greenway. He recommended staying away from the soccer fields. Franklin added that Kiwanis Park is more developed, with a big playground and more landscaping. Walsh said no locations stood out, but there are a number that are very suitable for art. Seabold noted that there are a lot of people in the park already. Felling said he thinks a good location would be in the area of the park by the roadway, in the picnic area. Hunter's Run Park Walsh suggested decorative work on the shelters. Trueblood noted that the field beyond the playground is prairie, and there is a pond next to the other shelter. He said it is not yet as busy as Willow Creek, but it has a lot of traffic passing by on 218. It is currently the only park west of 218. Hemsley suggested a prairie schooner on the hill in the prairie grass. Seabold agreed something rising out of the prairie would be eye-catching. He suggested a maze through the prairie to get to the sculpture. Franklin said that would draw people out further into the park. Adiournment Franklin confirmed that the committee would be visiting the other three parks at the next meeting. There being no further business to come before the Committee, Hemsley moved to adjourn and Walsh seconded. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. s:lpcd/minutes/PublicAr*J2OO51artO4-O7-O5,doc Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2005 TelTfl Name Expires 1/06 2/02 3/02 4/07 5/05 6/02 7/07 8/04 9/01 10/06 11/03 12/01 Emily Carter Walsh 01/01/08 CW X O X Charles Felling 01/01/06 CW X X X James Hemsley 01/01/06 CW O/E X X Emily Martin 01/01/08 CW X O/E O/E Mark Seabold 01/01/07 CW X X X Rick Fosse CW O/E X X Terry Trueblood CW O/E X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting CW = Cancelled due to Weather ..... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND Z. ONING COMMISSION APRIL 21,2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Garry Klein, Caroline Dieterle, Gary Saunders, Kathy Cochran, Larry Schnittjer, Scott Pottorff, Don Hilsman, Jason Hilsman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voted against), to amend the South Central District Plan future land use map to show the Aviation Commerce Park Property, on the north side of the airport, as Retail / Community Commercial, and that the South Central District Plan text be changed to reflect the text changes as shown in the 4/15/05 Staff Memorandum. Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-1, (Shannon voted against), REZ05-00004 a rezoning of approximately 54 acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing: 1) Sidewalks to be installed on Ruppert Road from Hwy 1 south to a sidewalk system in Aviation Commerce Park, including pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the Ruppert Road / Highway 1 intersection. 2) Pedestrian walkways be provided between the principal buildings on each lot and the public sidewalk system, to be identified and reviewed as part of the site plan review process for each lot. 3) A landscaping plan be required as part of the site plan review process, showing how parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters are screened from view, and the landscaping of other areas of the site not taken up by required paving or building areas. 4) The preliminary plat indicating necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road / Hwy 1 intersection and the Ruppert Road / Riverside Drive intersection. 5) A future subdivision of the property indicating other transportation and infrastructure required based on the expected traffic. 6) Design criteria for large retail establishments as listed in the April 15, 2005 Staff Report. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, ANN05-00001, annexation of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road and for the Horton property, the city portion of the property tax levy be transitioned according to what is permitted by State Code. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, REZ05-00006, a rezoning of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road from County Residential to Interim Development - Office Research Park, ID-ORP. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/REZONING: A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the South Central District Plan to change the future land use map designation and plan text to change the Aviation Commerce Park designation from Intensive Commercial to Retail / Community Commercial. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 2 REZ05-00004, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 54-acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road. (45- day limitation: 4/24/05) Yapp said the South Central District Plan identified Aviation Commerce Park as intensive commercial. In 1997 when South Central District Plan had been written, the feeling had been that that property would be appropriate to attract businesses that would have some connection to airpor~ operations and would attract intensive commercial businesses that would not need visibility from Highway 1. During approximately 5- years none of these properties have been leased or sold. The City had recently received a purchase offer for part of the property from a large retailer. For the property to be used for retail development, it would need to be rezoned to Community Commercial. To make the South Central District Plan consistent with Community Commercial zoning, the map would need to be changed. An overhead projection showed the current (1997) South Central District Future Land Use map with the proposed April 2005 version. Yapp said the proposed rezoning would be consistent with all the designation of the commercial proper[les that fronted on Hwy 1 and the commercial properties to the west. The property to the south, airport property, would not have a negative impact from retail development. Improvements recommended in the South Central District Plan for retail development for this area would include pedestrian improvements, landscaping improvements and other appearance related improvements. Yapp said Staff felt these issues would apply to this property as well as to the other retail properties in the area. Text changes would be needed to the Plan which would include removing the specific reference to Intensive Commercial for this particular property and referring to it as General Commercial Development; removal of the word intensive from several places in the Plan; and removal of specific reference to retail commercial to be referred to as general commercial development in this area. Rezoning: The property is also proposed for Community Commercial zoning. As requested by the Commission at their last informal meeting, Staff had prepared some standards for design of any "big box" business. Big box being defined as anything over 50,000-square feet in size. The design criteria would serve a number of purposes including · make sure that the design would be consistent with the Gateway One shopping center plaza · allow such a large building to be easily adapted for smaller commercial uses if the main tenant ever left Staff had done research in addition to the information provided by the Commission chair. The proposed design criteria would be very consistent with other things that had been done nationally. These included: · make sure the fa(;ade had some projections or recessions at least every 100-feet which would allow the facade to be more easily broken up into smaller commercial buildings. · require that any facade that faced a public street or included a public entrance included things that were common in shopping centers such as display windows, awnings, arcades or another entry- way feature. · require that the exterior wall of the building have some details including color change, texture change or other architectural elements at least every 50-feet to add visual interest to the building and to create break-points that might be broken up into smaller buildings at some future time. · make sure that the roof-line had features that would conceal roof-top equipment, would include over-hanging eaves to create visual interest or sloping roofs · require that building materials be brick, masonry, stone, stucco or textured concrete as opposed to being pre-fabricated steel or vinyl panels on at least 75% of the building · make sure that entry-ways had easily identifiable entry-way features such as canopies, over-hangs, arcades, patios, archways, display windows (at least three features to help define the entryway). Yapp said Staff recommended that the rezoning be approved subject to some site design standards that were referenced in the South Central District Plan including: · sidewalk connections from Hwy 1 including a cross-walk at Hwy 1 / Ruppert Road intersection · sidewalk connections to commercial businesses on this property · pedestrian walkways from the Ruppert Road sidewalk to each commercial building Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 3 · landscaping plan required as par-[ of the site plan review process which would show screening of parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters and other areas that are not taken up by required paving or building areas · preliminary plat indicating any necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road / Hwy 1 intersection and the Ruppert Road / Riverside Drive intersection Public discussion was opened. Gary Klein, said with the rezoning they were talking about public land which made it a special case in the first place. It seemed to him that anything that should be done for this instance should be an exception rather than a rezoning issue. Obviously public land could be used a number of different ways including as he'd suggested at the previous Commission meeting a fire station, assisted housing or things that through special exception could have taken place. He asked that the Commission consider that one of their desires was to create a new building that would be allowed to be broken down into smaller retail spaces if the tenant should leave. He wondered if there should be a retro-fitting of the building that will be vacated if the new Wal-Mart was constructed. He asked if Planning and Zoning had any authority to consider that. His second concern was regarding transportation. Klein said the City Council in Winston-Salem, North Carolina had recently had Wal-Mart withdraw a zoning request at a location there, in part, because it had to do with traffic issues. In the Winston-Salem newspaper report that he'd read, the article mentioned that Wal-Mart looked for on a daily basis 25,000 - 30,000 vehicles to visit their shopping center. Klein said he wondered if Ruppert Road access could support that many vehicles trips in addition to the many trucks that went along with that. He said the 1997 Comprehensive Map showed much of the property being considered is no longer agricultural as it was in 1997. The area around the airport itself was significantly different. His point being that land use was being considered; since it seemed to be being used up pretty quickly from 1997 to 2005 one of the things to consider was, was this the best use of public land? Caroline Dieterle, said prior to being on the board for New Pioneer Coop she'd really had no business experience. She's learned a great deal in the time she's been on the board. She was very aware how much store traffic meant to the success of a business. She said considering the investment that is being made into this relocated rezoned spot, she thought what Klein had said about traffic was very pertinent. Traffic had been alluded to very briefly in the Staff report, that there would have to be some changes in the traffic flow. Dieterle said that was probably one of the understatements of the decade. It would make a huge difference to have the amount of traffic there that would make that store a 'successful' store. She was bothered by the land use issue as well. She had been a former member of the Airport Commission during the 1970's. At that time there had been a fight going on about whether or not to continue having an Iowa City airport because of financial issues and "this and that". It had continued to be a struggle ever since. Dieterle said it had always come down to the idea that the airport was needed because of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and serving them. It was true that the majority of the air traffic that went through the airport was commercial aircraft and persons who came to Iowa City for the sports. The overriding idea was you still needed to have the airport there for UIHC. At that time there had been a real concern about trying to keep the area surrounding the airport free from this type of intensive development because in the event that there would be any type of aeronautic tragedy the amount of casualties realized would be obviously greater if there were heavy development around the outside of the airport. Dieterle said she felt that was still true. Even if the airport were never enlarged or runways lengthened, the fact remained that the more people you put around an airport a potentially bigger disaster could occur. Dieterle she would like to reiterate what Klein had said about the use of public land, this was City land. She felt that we would be sorry down the line if the land were not used for more of a public purpose, even for parks. She asked the Commission to deny this rezoning request and send it back to the Council and ask them, "What were they thinking?" Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 4 Gary Sanders, said he had a question regarding the change in the Iowa City Charter which now did not allow a referendum on zoning matters as it had in 1989. He asked if the Office of Mr. Yapp or Mr. Behr had contributed to that discussion or entered into the participation of the discussion of the change of the charter so that it was no longer legal to have a referendum based on a land use change as it had been in 1989 when the City of Iowa City voters through petition had had a referendum on the change of land use for the first Wal-Mart. Yapp said he was not familiar with that change. Behr said there had been a Charter Commission appointed by the City Council that had done that. Sanders said he was very pleased that the Commission was going to pass this item this evening because of the fact that they were going to go by the use and not the user. Sanders said he wished to announce for the public, for the Commission and any media present that he, earlier in the day, had made formal contact with the Lion's Den Corporation. His goal was to bring in the largest pornography palace in the Midwest. He restated his name and said he looked forward to coming before the Commission at a future date where again the Commission could consider the land use and not the land user. Kathy Cochran, said as the Planning and Zoning Commission, she assumed that they looked at sustainable growth and issues in planning. In changing the zoning here, she saw a nightmare on 'our' hands for Iowa City. If the zoning were changed to allow a bigger store or bigger retail there, there would be the issues of traffic which had already been brought up and the issues of the airport which had been brought up. What was growing up around that area now were also the housing developments on the south side of the airport and the commercial properties that had since sprung up along Hwy 1. Cochran said if indeed said suggested retail store went in there, there would be issues of empty buildings. She felt better planning was needed; she didn't know what could/would go in there. Additionally there was Menards that would be moving to a larger location which posed the question of another empty building and what would go in there. Cochran said she felt there would be a snowball effect if the Commission changed the zoning and if big or even little retail stores located there. The resulting snowball effect and chain reaction on businesses already located in Iowa City would not be good for Iowa City or for that area of town. It would change the dynamics of that area of town. Cochran said she was not saying that change was not good but the change that was being suggested with the proposed rezoning was definitely not good. She hoped that the Commission would think this through, nip this in the bud now and have better, perhaps more public uses which had already been suggested. She'd prefer to see more moderate to Iow income housing built there, a definite need in Iowa City, or a fire or police annex station(s) built there. Cochran said there were lots of uses for that land to improve it, it should not be rezoned and built upon just to be using it. Because there was a buyer at hand, she didn't think things should be changed just to help them along. It would be a bad decision. Public discussion was closed. Freerks said there had been some good questions and good thoughts brought up. She asked Behr to address the question regarding empty/vacated buildings. She thought other communities had standards regarding this issue. Behr said if she was asking about a user coming in and what would become of their current (old) building, that would not be something that was tied to the rezoning and would not be germane to the Commission's view at this point. They could not consider it. Freerks asked if that could be a consideration somewhere down the road. Would there be anything that the Commission could do about it? Behr said it would not be. He said the City and buyer could work on that separately, but that would not be something that would come through the P&Z Commission. However, if there would be a change in use, then it would be a separate matter. Freerks asked Staff to address the question(s) of traffic. Yapp said Ruppert Road would have direct access to Highway 1 and Riverside Drive, both of which were arterial streets. Highway 1 carried 25,000- 30,000 vehicles currently. Ruppert Road would need to have some improvement with a large traffic Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 5 generating use. The City would expect to see the design plans for those improvements with the preliminary plat, not at this stage of the process. Yapp said the Chairperson of the Airport Commission had attended the previous formal Commission meeting and had indicated that the Airport Commission was in favor of this rezoning. Brooks asked if as part of the purchase agreement, was the applicant required to do a traffic study or just that they would do improvements as necessary. Yapp said some of the agreements had already been negotiated as par[ of the purchase agreement. Staff would have a better idea of any other improvements when they received the preliminary plat. Because this was City property the City would do its own traffic study, the potential buyer was not required to do one. Brooks requested discussion regarding the Commission's standpoint on the conditions that were proposed. He said his interest with the design standards was that the City faced the potential of vacant buildings in a number of cases around the community. Sometimes a developer stepped forward to redevelop a large facility into a vibrant and viable commercial zone as had been the case with WardWay Plaza. His interest in setting design standards was to make a building more adaptable should it become vacant at some time in the future. Freerks said she was interested in the design standards as well for the reasons that Brooks had just stated. She did not like the idea of vacant buildings, if there was any way at all to make a building more viable for the future it would be a small price to pay for the developer. Koppes said she was also in favor of the design standards as outlined in the Staff Report for the reasons Brooks had stated. Anciaux said his sentiments were the same. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve an amendment to the South Central District Plan future land use map to show the Aviation Commerce Park Property, on the north side of the airport, as Retail / Community Commercial, and that the South Central District Plan text be changed to retlect the text changes as shown in the 4/15/05 Staff Memorandum. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks said she felt the proposed Comprehensive Plan change seemed reasonable, it seemed to fit. It didn't matter whether she agreed with what was going there or not, it met the requirements. The change from intensive commercial to retail / community commercial was reasonable. The Intensive Commercial was a bit of an island surrounded by retail commercial, the proposed change would make for a more viable area to have it all be retail commercial. Anciaux said he felt the change in designation was not all that significant from what it had been. It would improve the ability for the City to sell it and build tax base with it. Shannon said he was not comfortable with the change in the Comprehensive Plan. He had not been in favor when a street had been built down the middle. The plan then was to have businesses that would go along with the airport. In keeping with that thought, it was too bad that it had not worked. Perhaps five years was not enough time for Airport Commercial Park to develop. He could not support the change to the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Shannon said it scared him to have this that close to the airport. Maybe the Airport felt good about it but he did not. Shannon said he'd looked at the map and gone to the site, but couldn't see it as a good fit. If they wanted to sell the property then perhaps they should close the airport. Anciaux said he'd asked the question previously if this met the FAA guidelines and it did. If the guidelines were not met then it would all be a mute point. Since the guidelines were met, the FAA apparently felt this would be safe. Koppes said the FAA would not let them build anything if it were not safe. She would support the Comprehensive Plan change. It would match the rest of the area pretty well and looked like a good commercial area. She would not speak on what was moving there, just consider the land use. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 6 Brooks said he felt the same way but somewhat reluctantly. The Airport Commission had attempted for five years to market the land with the other zoning but it had not materialized. He felt the change would help concentrate some commercial activity in that area. He would support the proposed change. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1. Shannon voted against. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00004, a rezoning of approximately 54-acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing: 1. Sidewalks to be installed on Ruppert Road from Hwy 1 south to a sidewalk system in Aviation Commerce Park, including pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the Ruppert Road / Highway 1 intersection. 2. Pedestrian walkways be provided between the principal buildings on each lot and the public sidewalk system, to be identified and reviewed as part of the site plan review process for each lot. 3. A landscaping plan be required as part of the site plan review process, showing how parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters are screened from view, and the landscaping of other areas of the site not taken up by required paving or building areas. 4. The preliminary plat indicating necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road / Hwy 1 intersection .and the Ruppert Road / Riverside Drive intersection. 5. A future subdivision of the property indicating other transportation and infrastructure required based on the expected traffic. 6. Design criteria for large retail establishments as listed in the April 15, 2005 Staff Report. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said the public had discussed wanting to have the best use for the land, wanting to have parks, police and fire stations. Part of that was having a tax base and having development. She felt right now the best use for this particular piece of land would be commercial. Anciaux said the City was not selling off the whole parcel. If the City wished to install a fire station or other public use they could. Park land could also be developed but it would probably be a step down from what the potential of the land could bear and this was not a good location for a park. He would support the motion. Shannon said what he felt about the changing of the Comprehensive Plan held true about this as well. He was not comfortable with the whole development and felt it was a bad place for it. Shannon said he could not support it. Koppes said what the Commission had previously discussed regarding the Comprehensive Plan was very true. This would be a good commercial use, not talking about who but what. With all the other commercial in the area it would fit in well. Brooks said he hoped who ever the tenants will be in that area would take the hint from the Commission's discussions regarding design criteria and that they were looking for quality, something that would have a future adaptive use if necessary. They wanted the area to be an asset to the community and to this part of the community as well. Brooks said he hoped that the issue with design criteria standards would be helpful in development of that piece of property. Freerks said she was aware that the Commission could do nothing regarding an empty shell, nor tie it to a rezoning but hopefully in the future look into what other communities did in those types of situations. She would be open for ideas as to what had been done with other large buildings that had sat or would have sat empty. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1. Shannon voted in the negative. REZONING/SUBDIVISION ITEMS: REZ04-00017/SUB04-0001~, discussion of an application submitted by Third Street Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 7 Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-1ot residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero-lot line lots) on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Miklo said the applicant had requested that this item be deferred to the 5/5/05 meeting while the drainage issues were worked out. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ04-00017/SUMB04-00017 to 5/5/05. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00001/SUB05-O0003, discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat of MSD Davis Addition, a 14-1ot, 50.04-acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of 218 subject to the Army Corps of Engineers approval of the wetland mitigation plan prior to Council Consideration. (45 day limitation: 5/14/05) Yapp said this was an application for a 14-lot commercial subdivision. Lot 3, the large lot located on the north side of Highway 1 and the west side of an extension of Naples Avenue was proposed for Intensive Commercial zoning. Lots 1, 2 and the lots on the east side of Naples Avenue up to Lot 9 were proposed for Community Commercial. Lots on the north end of the proposed cul-de sac would be Office Commercial that would abut existing residential properties off of Kitty Lee Road. The City Council had voted approval of the annexation of this piece of property and voted their first vote on the rezoning ordinance. The rezoning was still in process at the City Council level, the annexation application would be forwarded to the State which ultimately would grant the annexation. A preliminary plat could go forward at this time, a final plat could not be approved until the property was annexed and zoned into the City. The plat consisted of a new street, Naples Avenue, extending into the property with a cul-de-sac to provide access to the commercial lots. Lots 1 and 2 would have access to Kitty Lee Road, a rural designed road. As part of the CZA the road would need to be improved to City standards prior to the two lots having access to it. Because of the presence of wetlands on the property, it would be a sensitive areas development plan. The applicant had prepared and was working with a wetland mitigation plan through the Corps of Engineers who had federal jurisdiction on wetlands. A portion of the wetlands that would be disturbed as part of the development would be mitigated on the west side of Kitty Lee Road and a portion would be mitigated on this property. All the wetlands and stormwater management would be located on an outlot, a proposed pond would be surrounded by a wetland. Staff felt that the wetland buffer was an issue of concern associated with the plat. City Code required a 100-foot buffer around wetlands, a buffer between any development activity and the wetland itself. Once the new wetland and the buffer were established, no paving, grading or other development activity could occur within the wetland buffer. City Code allowed for averaging a wetland in order to provide more protection to one part of a wetland versus another. A 100-foot wetland could be averaged to as little as 50-feet if the 50-feet were made up in another spot. Yapp showed a depiction of the wetland with the 100-foot required buffer. The buffer would extend onto some of the proposed private property lots which was permitted by City Code but no development activity could occur within the buffer. The applicant had proposed averaging the buffer with an extension along Kitty Lee Road. A gas pipeline easement and set-back area from Kitty Lee Road would not be developed due to the pipeline easement. Yapp said Staff recommended that the applicant's proposed averaging layout not be accepted. What was contemplated in the City's Code was an averaging to accomplish greater protection to one area of a wetland than another. The applicant's proposal appeared to Staff to not be consistent with the intent of a wetland buffer, which was to provide some protection to the wetland between it and any development activities, any paved areas that might have run-off and any immediate impacts from adjacent development. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 8 It was noted in the Staff report that there needed to be at least 50-feet between the wetland and Naples Avenue. The proposal submitted by the applicant provided the required 50-feet, however the issue of concern was the nature of the buffer averaging. The proposed plat was in conformance with the CZA in other ways. Naples Avenue was proposed to have two north-bound lanes and three south-bound lanes for exiting traffic consistent with the traffic study for this develoPment. It had the appropriate access points to preserve queuing space on Naples Avenue and was acceptable in all other respects. Yapp said Staff recommended deferral pending the minimum 50-foot required wetland buffer being shown and Commission acceptance of the buffer averaging for the wetland area. Koppes asked if there were any federal requirements on the buffering or just City Code. Yapp said the Army Corps of Engineers did not require buffering, it was an Iowa City City Code. Public discussion was opened. Larry Schnittjer and Scott Pottorff, MSS Consultants. Schnittjer said they had several issues with the buffering situation. · Staff contended that the drainage channel located in the lineal buffer would probably be filled at the time Kitty Lee Road was improved 'someday.' That was not a know fact · MMS Consultants doubted it because it would entail extra fill over the proposed relocation of the pipelines. There was a considerable drainage area that came down through that space that they felt the buffering would help the impacts to the wetlands. · MMS currently had a permit from the Corps of Engineers approving their proposal. · The Code enforcement agent agreed with their position. Freerks asked if there currently was a wetland along the channel. Schnittjer said there was not. There were two major drainage ways coming from the west that would be incorporated into the drainage channel. Freerks said her concern was, it was a buffer. She didn't see any wetlands along the tentacle strip so it was not buffering anything. Schnittjer said there was no current wetland in that space and there was not proposed to be any in that space. Pottorff said there currently was a strip of wetland that ran in that area, the strip they had shown on the site illustration was MMS' proposed mitigation. They would be filling in the naturally occurring wetland. Freerks said, then it would not be a wetland that would be being buffered later. A wetland buffer was an area that nurtured and supported a wetland. That was why she had concerns. It didn't make any sense that the applicant's engineers were saying that it buffered a wetland, because it did not. Schnittjer said it would be filtering the water that came in from across the road. Freerks said it still was not buffering a wetland. She remembered quite specifically that when the Commission had made the changes and amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, they had discussed this in great deal. She had understood what the purpose of a wetland buffer was for - it was to maintain, help support and nurture the wetlands that are now proposed to be mitigated by the applicant. She was not seeing that; she was seeing strange shapes that to her didn't seem to have a purpose. Pottorff said MMS felt that that particular drainage way was buffering the wetland as far as cleaning the water that would eventually travel to the wetland more than any other area there. There would actually be water flowing in that ditch. Once Kitty Lee Road was improved there still would have to be a ditch. The rest of the area would be just slope adjacent to the wetland. Except in a very large storm, there would never be water flowing through the rest of the buffer area except for where they had illustrated the strip buffer. Freerks said she was trying to be open and listen to them but she felt it set the wrong precedent. She felt it was giving a piece of land so that something else would work. She asked what was the grade and was it a steep grade? Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 9 Schnittjer said the north-south gradient would be relatively steep but it would be sloping the other way. What he saw as the difference between Staff's position and their position was, Staff's was a 'physical' buffer, MMS Consultants were talking about an 'ecological' buffer. Pottorff said the north-south would basically be like a road ditch. Going north would drain toward the blue- line stream MMS was creating as part of the mitigation leading toward the pond. There would be a somewhat steep slope; all of the buffer area would be steep slope but they would have part of the steep slope area coming down to the ditch. To him it was still providing benefit to the wetlands. Pottorff said as proposed, the area was sitting much higher than a lot of the adjacent ground. All the lots sat much higher so there would be slope from those lots down to the pond and wetland mitigation fairly all over. Anciaux asked if Staff had seen the federal permit. Schnittjer said they had not he'd just received it. The permit had basically been issued subject to the owner's signature. Once the permit was signed and recorded, then it would be approved and they could start construction. Miklo said the federal government did not regulate buffering. It was a requirement that had been put into place in 1995 when the Sensitive Areas Ordinance had been written. A committee that had proposed the buffer had consisted of environmentalists and developers who had consulted with the buffer averaging was designed to allow some areas that were more sensitive to have a greater buffer and then some areas that were less sensitive to have less buffering. Miklo said regardless of whether the area proposed by the applicant was approved as buffer or not, it was an easement. It was not going to develop, the benefits of it would be there one way or another. The benefits of a buffer located in the otherwise required location would not be there if the applicant's wetland buffering average was approved. Freerks said the Army Corps of Engineers had signed off on the mitigation plan but it had nothing to do with the City's local standards. They were really talking about two separate things. She'd like to see a revised drawing. Brooks asked how would the lots drain, surface drainage? There was going to be a lot of paving, where would the water be going? Pottorff said MMS was actually not working on the Site Plan, so they were not positive. He guessed that a portion of the front would go out into the street and down to a Iow point and into the pond that way. On the backside he could see the potential of it being piped down into the pond. By standards, it was necessary to pipe 5-year storm to the pond. A larger flow could come down the slope into the back area. Pottorff said he couldn't give the Commission a good answer. Anciaux asked where / which way would the two lots to the north of the large lot drain? Pottorff said he'd like to see them drain off to the street, that was how he intended to grade the lots. There would be more slope going to the north than to the east due to the nature of the ground. He'd like to slope them back toward the street and provide storm sewer in the street for all the lots to bring it down and put the water in the pond. Freerks said she felt Staff's proposed design did what the true spirit of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance asked to do - to buffer a wetlands area, to nurture and help maintain, and give it a little bit of room. Brooks asked what type of area and/or distance to the north property line was being discussed. Pottorff said 20-30 feet and 5-10 feet. Brooks said another concern he had was this was not something that had come up out of the blue, it was something that was part of the ordinance that had been known about when the subdivision was laid out. Especially as it related to the large lot, he hadn't been convinced that the north-south spine along Kitty Lee Road was really serving as a buffer. Brooks said he'd have real reservations about approving the proposed plan. He didn't feel it was following the spirit of what was intended with the buffer zone. It had been know about since the site was being considered for development. Anciaux asked if the Commission had any concerns about the road. Brooks said he was not convinced that the proposal was in the spirit of the intent of what a buffer zone was for. Brooks said he didn't feel it Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 10 was appropriate to give approval of the requested design until he felt that every attempt had been made. A twenty to thirty foot difference in the large lot was insignificant but perhaps became more significant in the smaller lots. However when talking about the amount of watershed coming off the large lot, he didn't buy it. Schnittjer said he didn't wish to get into an argument. He just wanted to be sure he had a clear understanding of where things were and to express his position. He said he didn't think that the "intent" was well defined in the ordinance. They'd worked on the design concepts for this based on meeting the requirements. These aspects had been in their plans for a long time. The other problem they had with bumping the buffer out to the east was it then became actually the property line of this lot. Development could not occur within any required yard, set-back would be based on the buffer line. An additional twenty foot buffer in the required rear yard in addition to that lot in the two smaller eastern lots. Freerks said there had been other areas developed that had had wetland buffers on them. Schnittjer said they had not been commercial property with the dollar value as it is. Yapp said Staff would and did support reducing the buffer for Naples Avenue as long as it met the minimum 50-feet. Schnittjer said they'd met that requirement. They'd modified the design of the wetland and the location of the street to meet that requirement. Freerks said she felt something more could be done. They could all come to a better understanding of what the ordinance was defined as. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, an application for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat of MSD Davis Addition, a 14-1ot, 50.04-acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of 218 subject to the Army Corps of Engineers approval of the wetland mitigation plan prior to Council Consideration. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said to defer would give an opportunity to talk further and come up with a solution. This was a big project and she would like to see it done right. She felt they were close yet very far off in terms of the type of precedent they could be setting by allowing this buffer averaging. The whole idea of a wetland buffer was to buffer the wetland; she didn't see it with the proposed tentacle of land. Freerks said she' d like Staff to work a little harder with the developer for one more try and hoped they could come up with a solution. Shannon said that particular lake didn't even exist until the freeway had been built. He was very sad when the freeway had been built because the lake that had preceded this one had been a dandy lake. It was currently in the middle of the intersection of Highways 1 and 218. The current pond had been established, the previous pond had been much better. Shannon said he had a hard time getting excited about this proposal because he'd tromped down through that area and didn't recall any wetlands being there. He was quite sure it had not been there 20-years ago or it had been very minimal, it had been just a pasture. He had walked down through there many times and didn't recall a pond/wetlands being there. He had a problem with losing natural wetlands and creating them someplace else. Shannon said he was not against wetlands, they were good. However in this particular case he was having a problem with it because it may have been partially created by man. He wanted to do the right thing but had doubts about this particular site. Anciaux asked what was or defined a wetland. Yapp said wetlands had hydrologic soil(s) as well as plant life characteristics. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZONING ITEM: REZ05-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers for a rezoning of ~pproximately 2.22-acres from General Industrial (i-l) zone to Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone for property south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. (45 Day limitation: 5/15/05) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 11 Miklo said the 2-acre site plus a larger 45-acre site had been annexed into the City in 1974. The eastern area of the annexation had been zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, which allowed salvage yards under certain conditions. The frontage had been zoned M-l, Light Industrial, which did not allow salvage yards. At the time a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) had been entered into. It had restricted the salvage yard operation to five acres, a series of conditions had been imposed upon the rezoning. The intent had been to keep a light industrial area between the salvage yard and the highway and there would be a berm with landscaping surrounding the salvage yard so it would hot be visible from the adjacent light industrial lands, from the river or from the highway. That agreement had been a covenant which had been recorded with the property. It had applied to the owner who'd owned it at that time as well as to all future property owners. It had been recorded with the deed. There had been an attempt to build the berm and some of the landscaping but it had been removed by the owner of Ace Auto and had never been replaced. The current salvage operation now exceeded the 5-acres originally approved. The salvage yard now was approximately 14-acres and had been illegally subdivided. The applicant had approached the City building department about repairs or replacement of shop buildings on the site and had been told that because this was in violation of the CZA as well as the current I-1 zoning that had been applied to the property in 1974, a building permit could not be issued for the expansion or the rebuilding of the shop on the property. A General Industrial (I-1) zone was characterized for the most part by manufacturing plants or warehousing. The Heinz Road and Proctor & Gamble areas were good examples of what the intent of the I-1 zone was. It did not allow salvage yards. The proposed zoning, I-2, was a more intense industrial zone that allowed many of the same things an I-1 zone did but also allowed sand & gravel extractions, more heavy industry and by special exception, salvage yards. Miklo said the Staff Report noted several conditions placed on salvage yards if they are approved for an I-2 zone. One of the conditions required that a wall or solid fence be built around the property and that the salvage material could not be seen over the top of the fence. The current salvage yard, did not meet the agreed upon CZA nor the fence requirements of the I-2 zone. The Comprehensive Plan called for this area to be an entrance way to Iowa City. It is the first entrance from the Avenue of the Saints and Highway 218. The City intended to build a 6-million dollar road to the north of this property that would cross the Iowa River. One of the intents of that road was to spur economic development, job creation and improvement of the tax base. One of Staff's concerns with adding to the salvage operation in this area was that it would not foster economic development, it would be less likely that this area would be cleaned up, it would not attract job creating or a tax base increasing industry. One of the reasons that the Comprehensive Plan identified this area as appropriate for industrial was because it was one of the few areas of the city where all the features that industrial users looked for were located, i.e.: access to the highway system including the interstate highway system, access to rail, fairly fiat land. Staff felt that the whole corridor would be conducive to industrial development. Miklo said Staff felt that there should be a place in the community for salvage yards. It was a service that a community of this size needed and that had been the thinking in 1974 when the agreement was reached. A salvage yard that was bermed, screened, landscaped and not highly visible would be a service to the community. If the original agreement had been adhered to and the owner was possibly thinking of adding to the salvage yard in the area located back from the highway, that would be a different situation. Staff felt given that the previous and existing property owner and operator of this salvage yard had not complied with the current zoning or the previously agreed upon CZA, Staff was unable to support the rezoning request and recommend denial. Miklo showed several photographs of the current location and visual impact of the existing auto salvage yard. Freerks asked if the property had been illegally divided. Miklo said the original owner of the property in the area that had been annexed had been Gordon Russell. He'd had an agreement with Paul Paulsen to operate the salvage yard on the property. At some point it had been subdivided with out the City's subdivision review. Public discussion was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 12 Don Hilsman, said Ace Auto Recyclers was owned and was operated by Denny McCaw, himself and their sons. It had been stated that they'd expanded to 14-acres. They'd purchased the original 10-acres and owned an additional 16-acres which bordered currently vacant land. Consistent with the 1974 zoning agreement they were operating 300-feet east of Riverside Drive. Paul Paulson had never owned Ace Auto Recyclers. In 1980 they'd leased 10-acres from Paulson and in December of 1982 they'd purchased the 10-acres that they were leasing. At that time they had been in direct contact with a City Inspector regarding the earthen berm. Hilsman said they'd had permission from the City Inspector to remove the berm and spread it out in a Iow lying area. At that time they'd been told by the City to replace the earthen berm with a chain link fence with slats on it, which they'd done. Hilsman said they would work with the City on a 60-foot by 120-foot building and there would be a solid screen coming off the building on each side. At this time they had cement blocks 8-feet high that did an excellent job of screening. Hilsman said from time to time they'd had to stack cars, it went back to their situation in 1980 when they'd come to town and were processing or recycling approximately 600 to 700 cars/year. In 2004 they'd processed 1700 cars for scrap. Koppes asked Hilsman if he had any documentation regarding the City giving them permission to remove the berm. Hilsman said at that particular time they'd had someone from the City down there. He should have documented names and stuff, it had kind of been like an inspector at that particular time. Koppes asked if the City might have any documentation. Miklo said the City did have some records of the original 1974 agreement and some legal actions that the City had taken in 1987 that had referred to the lack of agreement. Miklo said he didn't know what had been said in 1980. The area adjacent to Highway 218 / Riverside Drive had never been zoned for this type of operation, regardless of what an inspector might have said or might not have said. Miklo said in terms of the screening of this area, it did not comply with the recorded CZA and it didn't comply with the current requirement for salvage yards. Hilsman said they planned on working with the City on this, they wished to do what was right and to get it done. It was not really an expansion of the salvage yard itself, it would be a warehouse and expanded office to update their facility. It went back to the amount of cars they were recycling. Hilsman said he'd provided letters from adjacent businesses that they would go along with anything that was necessary for Hilsman to do this on his property. Hilsman said they wished to install a building and were willing to spend thousands of dollars to make it look pretty as an entrance to the city. As far as screening, with the 8-foot blocks and a building with wings, that would take care of 70% of the problem. They'd discussed with Staff regarding planters with foliage that kept its color year-round or a solid fence in front of their entrance gate. Jason Hilsman, said Ace Auto Recyclers was a family business that he took a lot of pride in. Often times their business was portrayed in a negative view as a junk yard. They are recyclers of auto parts. The business had been called Ace Auto Recyclers from its inception. It had had the same name prior to its relocation to Iowa City in 1980 and for the past 25-years. Recycling was a key word, even more than it had been before. Hilsman quoted the Webster's Dictionary definition of recycle and said that everything their business did reflected recycling. They did two main things at their business. Recycle cars - they had an onsite car crusher that smashed cars after which they were hauled to Wilton where they were processed and reused for other steel purposes. They also offered affordable used auto parts which was another form of recycling. Hilsman said he felt they were a service to the city as they picked up many cars from around the city, for the City and from the local businesses. With the recycling of cars there was also a lot of waste involved. They needed a new facility to handle the waste. Every three weeks they recycled 300-400 tires. Hundreds of gallons of waste oil and transmission fluid was recycled. They had a license to resell anti-freeze, they reclaimed Freon from the air conditioning systems and they disposed of over 1700 batteries annually. They operated under safe environmental guidelines and worked with the Department of Natural Resources, The Iowa Waste Reduction Center, were members of the Iowa Automotive Recyclers Association, and one of their staff was an officer on the IRA Board. They had the appropriate permits to re?ycle, kept up to date on new standards and better ways to run their business. Hilsman said he felt that in all these aspects they were an asset to the community. They needed a new facility to keep up with the city's growth. In 2003 they'd processed 3,804,092 pounds of scrap steel metal Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 13 or the equivalent of 1268 automobiles. In 2004 they'd processed 5,511,180 pounds, approximately 1778 vehicles, a 510 automobile increase in one year's time. Hilsman said he disagreed with the Staff report that said a recycling facility would have a negative effect on economic development and diminish the general character of the area. He felt recycling should be welcome everywhere. If they built a new building with the proper screening, it would be as nice as any industrial building that would locate there. It would also increase the property values of the adjacent businesses. Freerks asked if there had been a limit on the number of autos that could be stored on site. Miklo said it was not the number of autos, but the number of acres - 5 acres. Hilsman said their facility had not changed since 1974. The wind had blown their back shop down in 1998. They had not been allowed to expand or rebuild, the building still leaked today. As any business expanded it needed new facilities to progress. Today was 2005 and they had not been allowed to progress. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to deny REZ05-00005, a rezoning of approximately 2.22-acres from General Industrial (I-1) zone to Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone for property south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. Koppes said her preference would be to defer. Anciaux said he'd prefer to see it deferred. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00005. Shannon seconded the motion. Anciaux said Modern Marvels on the History Channel talked about junk yards and what they were capable of doing. Whether Ace Recyclers could do something like that remained to be seen. He felt they provided a valuable service. He suggested that they provide an elevation that showed the proposed building, it would be helpful. He'd like to see something that would improve the looks of the area. Freerks said she was all for recycling. Under other conditions and if things were different she could support this. What Ace Recyclers did was very important for the community. She'd spoken earlier about setting precedents and she couldn't ignore the fact that they were in violation of their CZA and they were in violation of the underlying zoning. Freerks said she'd have to look at the next person and what they'd do and say. She would not feel right about doing this. The Hilsmans had spoken about doing what was right and spending money, she thought they needed to start with catching up, which probably could not be done it two weeks. It would have to be done over time, then they could come back to the City to try to work something out. Anciaux said he agreed with Freerks. The CZA had been violated, the Hilsman' had an opportunity with this to possibly get it up to snuff and even better. He'd like to give them the opportunity to work with Staff until the next meeting to see if could bring the property into conformance and to screen the property appropriately for an entrance into the City. If it became apparent that things could not be worked out, he would vote against the application. Freerks requested Staff to create a list of things that fit and did not fit in the CZA and in the current zoning. She wished to discuss this again but felt it was a much broader problem. Shannon said this was a bigger problem than what he'd realized. In his mind it was all do-able. He didn't understand why the City had allowed them to continue in violation for this long. Things could be corrected, he'd like to see something worked out to make it the way it could and should be. Koppes said she'd like to see the applicant propose something back to the City. She agreed with Anciaux she would also have to vote to deny the application if progress were not made. She said having an entrance way into the City look good was important. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 14 Brooks said he agreed with what had been said and was perplexed that in 20-years if this had been in non-compliance something had not come to a head before now. He would like to see more effort to come into compliance. It was an importance service that needed to be accommodated in the appropriate way. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Anciaux said with respect to the e-mail letter from Sham Russell regarding water run-off, had Rick Fosse been apprised of the concern. Miklo said the e-mail had just been received and he would follow up with Fosse. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM: ANN05-00001/REZ05-00006, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City to annex approximately 29.7 acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road, and rezoning the property from County Residential to ID-RS, Interim Development Office Research Park (ID- ORP). Yapp said Staff had received voluntary requests for annexation from these two properties. The adjacent properties were zoned ID-ORP, Staff recommended the same zoning for these properties. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve ANN05-00001, a proposed annexation of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road, and for the Horton property, the city portion of the property tax levy be transitioned according to what is permitted by State Code. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve REZ05-00006, a rezoning of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Hwy 218 and Deer Creek Rd, from County Residential to Interim Development - Office Research Park, ID-ORP. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEM: Motion: Koppes made a motion to set a public hearing for April 28, 2005 to discuss the proposed new zoning code. Freerks seconded the motion. Koppes asked regarding time limits. Miklo and Brooks suggested the five minute, two minute rule. Miklo said since this was a public hearing and because the Commission would not be voting, they might just want to take input and not respond or give in to a debate. If the hour became late, the Commission could announce that because they were deferring this item and there would be a future opportunity for public input, they were going to close the public hearing. The Commission Chair should announce that the written comments received would be entered into the record. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Miklo distributed a revised City Council rotation schedule. It would be revised again when a new commissioner was appointed approximately the first week of May. An informational meeting would be held at 5:30 pm on Tuesday for persons who owned properly in the CB-2 zone. It was not a public hearing, Staff was providing an educational program before the public hearing on the zone changes that would accompany the new zoning ordinance. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 7, 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 15 Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 pm. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:lpcdlminutes!p&z1200514-21-05.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2005 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 7/7 7/21 8/4 8/18 9/1 9/15 10/6 10/20 11/3 11/17 12/1 12/1 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X O/E X X B. Brooks 05/10 X X X × X X X X B. Chait 05/06 X O X X O ............ A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X J. Hansen 05/05 X X X X X X O/E O E. Koppes 05/07 OrE X X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 ................................ D. Shannon 05/08 X X X O/E O/E X X X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/16 5/30 6/13 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 10/3 10/17 10/31 11/14 11/28 12/12 D. Anciaux 05/06 CW X X O/E X X B. Brooks 05/10 CW X X X X X B. Chair 05/06 CW X O ............ A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X X O/E X J. Hansen 05/05 CW X X O/E X O E. Koppes 05/07 CW X × X O/E X W Plahutnik 05/10 CW .................... D. Shannon 05/08 CW O/E O/E X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused N/M- No Meeting ..... Not a Member CW - Cancelled due to Weather MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2005, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM IOWA CITY CITY HALL, 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY,IA MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Buckman, Wayne Maas, Anna Buss, Gary Haman John Roffman Tim Fehr and Doug DuCharme recused themselves from meeting due to conflict with Englert Theater appeals case. STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Loren Brumm (Building Inspector), Bernie Osvald (Plumbing Inspector), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: John Shaw, Eric. Kershner, Beth Bewley, Dick Donohue, Tom Rosenberger, Rick Loula, Judy Houghton (Englert Theater) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:02 P.M. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Officers for the Board of Appeals needed to be elected for 2005. MOTION: Maas nominated John Roffman for re-election as chairperson of the Board. Buss seconded. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0 to elect John Roffman as Board of Appeals chairperson MOTION: Haman nominated Wayne Maas for re-election as Vice- Chairperson of the Board. Buss seconded. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0 to elect Wayne Maas as Board of Appeals vice- chairperson. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the December 6, 2004 meeting were discussed. MOTION: Haman moved to accept the minutes. Maas seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Appeal the decision of the Buildinq Official because: a. There are practical difficulties involved in carrying out provisions of the code. (221 E. Washinqton Street - En.qlert Theater) Dulek stated that Tim Fehr and Doug DuCharme had recused themselves from the hearing because they were employees of Shive Hattery, Inc. and the firm had done work for the Englert. Hennes pointed out to the Board the approved design of the handicapped dressing room on the stage level. This design, showing a sink, toilet and movable partition walls, was accepted by the City's building department. He reviewed the accessibility standards that require dressing rooms to be on accessible levels. The stage is an accessible level; the rest of the dressing rooms are in the basement which is not accessible. The original plan check notes at the time of the issuance of the building permit specify the requirement for the handicap dressing room with toilet facilities on an accessible level. When the Englert requested a Certificate of Occupancy in order to open the theater in December, 2004, a temporary C.O. was issued upon receipt of a letter from the contractor and Eric Kershner, Executive Director of the Englert, stating that the stage level dressing room with toilet facilities would be installed or an alternative solution found by March 1, 2005. Hennes stated that everyone involved seems to agree that a dressing room with a lavatory and stool is required on the accessible stage level. The issue is ultimately a plumbing issue in bringing water and sanitary sewer to the fixtures. The Englert is proposing a swing lavatory hooked up to a permanent water source but they want to substitute a chemical toilet in place of a flush toilet connected to the sanitary sewer. Hennes stated that the plumbing code adopted by the City requires a supply of running water to both the sink and toilet (for flushing) and that the toilet be connected to City's sanitary sewer system. Kershner stated that tt~e Englert had met the requirements of accessibility through out the theater with added lifts and an elevator. The problem is that they are dealing with a very old building and trying to make it meet modern building codes. The problem is ultimately one of space. The stage area is very small and if they have to lose part of it to a permanently installed dressing room with a lavatory and toilet, the stage will become unusable. He stated that the first two productions that had been presented at the Englert would not have been possible with permanent fixtures on stage. He reiterated that they are not disagreeing with the City that a handicap dressing room on stage is necessary just how it is achieved. They are asking that a chemical toilet and de-mountable sink be considered as a suitable solution to the problem. Shaw clarified that the ADA standards do not require toilet facilities in dressing rooms but they do require "like" facilities. Because toilets were supplied to the dressing rooms in the basement level, the dressing room on the accessible level must also be provided with similar facilities. Shaw said that although they had understood from the beginning of the project that a dressing room would have to be provided on stage, they did not think that plumbing fixtures would have to be provided because the ADA does not require specifically plumbing fixtures in dressing rooms. It is only because of the requirement for "like" facilities that makes the plumbing fixtures necessary in this case. Kershner stated that the fixtures would in all probability be visible from the audience. Loula (theater consultant from Hancher Auditorium) said again that the problem was one of space. Because of the age of the building, the stage was built even smaller than current high school auditoriums. Space needed to be provided for fire safety lanes and if you combined that space with permanently installed fixtures, the space for productions would be severely limited. This limitation would have an adverse effect on what companies could be booked for the theater which could create an economic hardship for a new theater. He stated that even Hancher uses portable dressing rooms and chemical toilets are used quite often for outdoor productions. They are very stable and usable by a handicapped person. Shaw stated that in speaking with the person in Washington DC who counsels builders and municipalities on ADA standards, Marsha Mazz, he was told that the better argument for the Englert would have been not to provide any dressing room at all on the accessible stage level and claim technical infeasibility. Shaw said that the Englert chose not to do that because they felt that being able to provide a dressing room to a handicapped person was important. Kershner stated again that the issue was not whether the fixtures should be provided but if they could be portable. Discussion occurred about other situations where temporary fixtures are allowed such as building sites. Roffman asked that, if the permanent connections to a water supply and sanitary sewer were supplied, could the fixtures themselves just be installed on an "as needed" basis. There would be a plate in the floor that the toilet could be dropped into and connected and the same with the lavatory. Discussion occurred as to whether the required piping and venting could be supplied to that area of the stage. Consensus among the contractor and theater personnel was that the problem could be solved. Various details concerning actual installation were discussed such as how the grab bars could be installed. Again, it was determined that with creativity, a solution could be found that met the requirements of the code. Buckman asked what type of motion was necessary. Hennes stated that a motion to deny the appeal on the agenda was in order since another solution was determined. He did state that the fixtures would have to be installed on the final inspection and that some sort of assurances would have to be made, such as information in promotional material for the theater, that the fixtures would be available to companies if needed. Kershner asked what time frame the City would require in order to have the required fixtures installed. Hennes stated the temporary Certificate of Occupancy expired March 1, 2005 and there were other projects to be finished at the Englert as well that are scheduled for the same time frame. All of these projects should be finished by that time. Discussion occurred as to whether the portable wall panels needed to be stored on stage or could they be stored elsewhere with the plumbing fixtures when not being used. Roffman stated that seemed reasonable. Brumm wanted to make it clear to the Board that in his discussions with Marsha Mazz, she informed him that portable fixtures did not meet ADA standards. So if a complaint was issued, this Board action did not absolve the Englert of any liability. MOTION: Haman moved to deny the motion to allow the substitution of a chemical toilet in place of a permanently installed fixture connected to the City sanitary sewer. Maas seconded. DISCUSSION: Donohue asked if the City needed to inspect every time the fixtures were removed and replaced. Hennes said no - that action did not require a permit so no inspections were necessary. He also stated that he did not feel comfortable with the concept of removable fixtures and that the Englert would be removing and replacing the fixtures at their own risk. He re-iterated that on final inspection, the fixtures would be installed and in place. Buckman suggested that some sort of signage be placed on stage stating the storage location of the fixtures again to make it clear that they were available. Roffman wondered if there needed to be some sort of written fixture policy so future City inspectors and theater personnel would always be aware. Hennes stated that the Board record should be sufficient. VOTE: The Board voted 5-0 to deny the motion. OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting was scheduled for February 7, 2005 if there is an appeal. Hennes stated that work on the 2005 National Electrical Code would be starting in the next few months. ADJOURNMENT: Buss moved to adjourn the meeting. Haman seconded. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chair Date FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - March 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Bamhill, Beth Engel, Loren Horton, Greg Roth and Roger Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:08) and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer from the ICPD. Horton congratulated the Police Department on getting a new dog and asked about the pronunciation of the name and the breed of dog. Widmer said the dog's name was Naton and that he is a Belgian Malinois. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #04-02 (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #04-03 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Engel, to adopt the consent calendar as amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 02/08/05 · ICPD General Order #01-01 (Racial Profiling) · ICPD General Order #01-05 (Officer Involved Shootings/Lethal Incident Investigations) · ICPD Department Memo #05-03 · ICPD Use of Force Report- January 2005 Motion carried, 5/0. OLD BUSINESS Policy/Procedure for extension requests - Barnhill wanted to continue discussion regarding the timeline of extension requests. One option would be to call a special meeting to address the extension request if a regular meeting is not scheduled. Pugh stated that there were two sides to the situation. One problem is not getting the extension request in time to make a decision at a regular meeting. The Board could give some 7, 5, or 3-day notice before a deadline so they can meet and act, but to keep in mind that the Board could be subject to the same requirements for their extension requests to Council. There would be no requirement to change anything if the Board chose to call special meetings to deal with the requests, the Board could just agree upon it. Barnhill made a motion to discuss a policy/procedure that would be specific and part of the Standard Operating Procedures, no second was made. Horton agreed to consider a motion to adopt a policy that a special meeting be called when an extension request from the Chief is received and there is no regular meeting scheduled before the deadline. Engel moved the motion and Barnhill seconded. Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Widmer will relay to the Chief the imposition it puts on the Board when an extension request is received with little or no notice before the deadline date. And will also relay the importance of meeting deadlines and being timely with requests. PCRB - Page 2 FIN~IL~APPROVED March 8, 2005 BOARD INFORMATION Barnhill asked Widmer to go back to the discussion of the February 8th meeting when she asked him about the Iowa Code and what an officer must do during the course of an arrest. The Iowa Code stipulates during the course of arrest that the reason for the arrest must be given; she asked, does each municipality base all of it's criteria on the Iowa Code and then can it also make it's own departmental policies more stringent? Widmer agreed that each department must follow Iowa Code but can also make its own departmental policies more restrictive, but never less. Barnhill also asked Widmer to interpret Iowa Code (804.14 Manner of making arrest) which states "The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest the person, the reason for arrest, and that the person making the arrest is a peace officer, if such be the case, and require the person being arrested to submit to the person's custody, except when the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or attempt to commit an offense, or escapes, so that there is no time or opportunity to do so." Widmer deferred to Pugh and said that she could do a better job articulating what the Iowa Code said. If it was a policy and procedure question or what the Code says on how they operate in Iowa City he would be able to answer those questions. If it's dealing with the letter of the law and what the Iowa Code says and what the City would ultimately be governed by he thought Pugh would be able to answer those questions. Pugh then stated that it is ultimately up to the Board on whether they agree that the law was followed and that Captain Widmer can only say what is expected of the officers and the department. Barnhill then asked Widmer if an individual is placed under arrest and they ask why they've been placed under arrest, is it the Iowa City Police Departments policy to try if the situation allows to tell the person? Widmer replied that under normal circumstances he couldn't imagine that an officer would not tell that person. What happens many times is that they tell the person and for some reason the person doesn't hear the officer, and they ask again and later on claim that they weren't told and maybe for whatever reason the officer gets tired of talking to the person and doesn't say anything. Widmer said that he could not imagine that an officer would arrest someone and not tell them what they were being arrested for, that it is a natural course of events for an officer. Also the person being arrested receives papers stating what they are being arrested for. Horton mentioned that two Board members terms end in September of this year, Roth and Williams. He would like to see them reapply and wondered when the vacancies would be announced. Tuttle stated that the announcement would probably be made in June or July depending on the Council summer schedule. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board that there were a couple of students working together doing a paper on the Board. Horton said that one of them had contacted him and they were supposed to be setting up a meeting sometime so he could answer some questions. Widmer added one more thing in case the Board hadn't heard. Chief Winkelhake has announced his retirement effective July 1, 2005. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Roth, seconded by Williams, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are PCRB - Page 3 FIN,4L/APPROVED March 8, 2005 made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:45 p.m. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:46 p.m. Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel, to approve the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #04-02 and forward to City Council. Motion carried, 4/1, Barnhill voting no. Motion by Roth, seconded by Williams, to approve the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #04-03 and forward to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. MEETING SCHEDULE · April 12, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room (MEETING CANCELLED) · May 10, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room · June 14, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room · July 12, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room Motion by Engel, seconded by Barnhill to cancel the April meeting. Motion carried, 5/0. Horton informed the Board that they should be starting to look at the annual report in either May or June. Tuttle said that she would put a draft in the May packet. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel, to adjourn. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 (Meetinl TERM 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/14 7/12 8/9v 9/1~3 10/11 11/8 12/13 NAME EXP. Candy 9/1/07 NM X X Barnhill Elizabeth 9/1/08 NM X X Engel Loren 9/1/08 NM X X Horton Greg Roth 9/1/05 NM X X Roger 9/1/05 NM X X Williams KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting .... Not a Member FINA L/A PPR 0 VED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA, 52240-1826 /319) 356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #04-02 DATE: March 8, 2005 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #04-02 {the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's iob 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 8-8-7B (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 these 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 The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 8, 2004. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for Investigation. The Chief's Report was due January 07, 2005 and was filed with the City Clerk January 07, 2005. On February 8, 2005, the Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), on the record with no additional investigations. PCRB #O4-O2 Page 1 FINAL/APPROVED The Complaint was filed on July 8, 2004. PCRB received the Chief's Report as filed on January 7, 2005. The Chief's Report was due to PCRB on October 10, 2004, an extension was granted to December 6, 2004, and an additional extension was granted to January 7, 2005. The PCRB report was due February 21, 2005, but PCRB held no January meeting (no quorum because one member was out of state, one member had to work, one member had to care for a sick spouse, plus there was an ice storm the evening of January 11, 2005.) Considerations of #04-02 were postponed to the regular February meeting date for PCRB. PCRB requested a 45-day extension from City Council. PCRB met to discuss this Complaint on February 8, 2005, and March 8, 2005. Findinqs of Fact On the July 7, 2004, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Officer A stopped the Complainant for speeding 39 mph in a 25 mph zone; Officer A observed two children in the vehicle who were not restrained as required by law; the Complainant then became upset and began to use loud and abusive language. Officer B then placed the Complainant under arrest, removed her from her vehicle and transported her to jail. The Complainant alleges that Officer B forcefully removed the Complainant from her vehicle by grabbing/snatching the arm, leaving fingerprints. The Complainant also alleges that Officer A failed to inform the Complainant of the charge for arrest. The investigators reviewed the charges, the radio traffic and the written complaint from the Complainant. The investigators also interviewed the Complainant. During the interview the Complainant admitted to speeding, and as Officer A observed, the children in the back seat were not restrained as required by law. The Complainant stated that she was very upset with Officer A and was using loud and profane language. Officer B, who was involved working radar at the site, heard the language. The Complainant stated her belief that the mothers of the children, who were with the children at the time, ought to receive the ticket. Officers A and B explained that the law imposes responsibility for the use of child restraints on a vehicle operator. Officer B recalls telling the Complainant numerous times to get into the vehicle and place the feet inside the vehicle so the door could be closed. Officer B explained the reason to place the feet inside the vehicle and explained why the Complainant could be arrested for interference with Official Acts if the order was not followed. Officer B said the Complainant continued to refuse numerous requests. After writing the citation, Officer A returned to the Complainant's vehicle, and based on the continued refusal to comply, Officer B placed her under arrest for interference with Official Acts. Officer A then asked the Complainant to stand, and placed his hand under PCRB #04-02 Page 2 FINAL/APPROVED the elbow to assist and he handcuffed the Complainant before transporting to the County Jail. The Complainant was placed in the squad car driven by Officer A. Both Officers A and B recall informing the Complainant that she was under arrest, but neither officer recalls informing the complainant of the specific charge after the arrest. The Complainant was transported to the County Jail and turned over to the jail staff by Officer A. Officer C heard the traffic stop called in to the Emergency Communications Center, realized that he had stopped the car within the last week and had problems with the driver. Officer C contacted Officer A by radio to inform him of the problem he had encountered when dealing with the Complainant. When Officer A keyed the radio to respond, Officer C could hear the Complainant being loud and abusive in the background. Officer C drove over to the location of the incident. When Officer C arrived at the location of the incident the Complainant was out of the vehicle, standing near the driver's door, yelling and screaming at Officers A and B. Officer C recalled that both Officers A and B were very patient with the Complainant. CONCLUSION: Officer A lawfully stopped the Complainant for speeding (39 in a 25-MPH speed zone). The Complainant was directed into the Hy-Vee parking lot on First Avenue. All the parties interviewed agree that the Complainant was upset and directing loud, abusive language towards the Officers. The witnesses that the Complainant provided did not respond to the investigator's request for interviews. Officer B told the Complainant to get into the vehicle a number of times or be arrested. The Complainant failed to heed the warning and admitted to understanding what Officer B was asking but chose not to comply. ALLEGATION #1 Excessive use of Force - not sustained PCRB finds in the original Complaint two references to Officer B "snatching" and one reference to "grabbing" Complainant by the right forearm during removal from the vehicle to be handcuffed. Two witnesses refused to testify about the incident. Officers A and C do not report observable evidence to support a finding of excessive use of force - at the County Jail the Complainant noticed a possible slight bruising of the right forearm and after release claimed to have photographs of them, but no photographs were ever produced as evidence. PCRB #04-02 Page 3 FINAL/APPROVED ALLEGATION #2 Failure to inform - not sustained PCRB finds that there is insufficient evidence to support this allegation. In the original complaint, the Chief's report, and the interview with the complainant there is agreement that the complainant was warned that if she continued her uncooperative behavior she would be arrested. There is agreement that the behavior continued. Both officers recall that she was told she was under arrest but couldn't recall stating the specific charge. The Board finds prior notification was sufficient. COMMENTS: PCRB finds that the ordinary procedures specified in ICPD general orders and standard operating guidelines for use of force and for explanation of reason for arrest were adequately followed during the incident, which occurred July 7, 2004. PCRB encourages the continued training of officers in each of these matters, and counseling of officers to inform a person under arrest of the criminal charges, except when the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or attempt to commit an offense, or escapes, so that there is no time or opportunity to do so. PCRB #04-02 Page 4 FINA L/A PPR 0 VED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washin9ton Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J, Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #04-03 DATE: March 8, 2005 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #04-03 (the "Compla'nt'). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), 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 8-8-7B (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 these 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 The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk, November 8, 2004. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaints were referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due on February 7, 2005 and was filed with the City Clerk on February 1,2005. PCRB #04-03 Page 1 FINA I_/A PPR 0 VED The Board voted to review the Complaints in accordance with Section 8-8-7B(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on February 8, 2005 and March 8, 2005. Findinqs of Fact in the fall of 2004, the complainant was stopped for a traffic offense by Officer A of the Iowa City Police Department. Officer A stated the complainant was observed operating a motor vehicle in the 1900 block of Broadway Street and Officer A knew that he did not have a valid license to operate motor vehicles in Iowa. Upon approach to the vehicle, Officer A observed that the complainant had put something into his mouth. Officer A believed this was done in an attempt to conceal an item. When Officer A asked the complainant what was in his mouth, the complainant fled from Officer A. After a foot pursuit of approximately 1-2 blocks, the complainant was apprehended and taken down by Officer A. The complainant stated in his complaint that he had stopped fleeing and surrendered to Officer A prior to being apprehended and taken down to the pavement. After being physically apprehended, the complainant continued to resist the lawful attempts of Officer A to control him. Iowa City Police Department Officer B came to assist Officer A in controlling the complainant. Officer B stated that the complainant was already taken down to the pavement by Officer A prior to his arrival and that the complainant was resisting Officer A. Officer B helped Officer A control the complainant through control techniques applied to the back and back of head areas of the complainant's body. Extensive written training documentation was supplied to the Board as to the control techniques utilized during this apprehension. The complainant, through his written complaint, stated he believed the use of force applied against him during this incident was excessive. He stated he repeatedly told the officers involved that he could not breathe. An Interview Report, supplied to the Board, supported the claim that the complainant expressed his concern of his inability to breathe to the officers. In the interview conducted by the Iowa City Police Department, a witness stated he heard the complainant telling the officers he could not breathe. The complainant believes his inability to breath during the incident was due to the force used by the officers. The complainant also stated he had sustained superficial injuries to his face during the arrest. Although the Officer's identification numbers used in this complaint and report were not on the copies of the Use of Force Reports received by the Board, it is believed by the Board, through reasonable deduction, that the Use of Force Report of Officer B stated that both Officer A and the complainant sustained "superficial" injuries. This is supported PCRB #04-03 Page 2 FINAL/APPROVED on the first page of the report in the fact that under "Suspect Injuries" there is an "x" in the box next to, and to the left of, "Superficial". In the same report under "Officer Injuries", the box next to, and to the left of, "Superficial" also has an "x" in it. The Use of Force Report deduced to be completed by Officer A supports the observations of Officer B by also indicating that both Officer A and the complainant had sustained superficial injuries. This information was indicated on the first page of the Use of Force Report of Officer A by the x'ing of the same boxes for injuries to the suspect and to the officer. On the second page of Officer A's Use of Force Report, the officer states in the written "Circumstances surrounding the use of said force" area of the report that abrasions to one of the complainant elbows and to the right side of his forehead were observed. In an Incident Report, also believed, written by Officer A, it is stated in the narrative of the report that Officer A received "... cuts on my knuckles..." Also on the second page of Officer A's Use of Force Report, included in the "Effects/Results of said use of force" the officer states that "Defendant was arrested with only superficial injuries to the def. and officer." This statement not only documents what injuries occurred during the arrest but also suggests that officer A did not believe these injuries to be inconsistent with the type of incident since the officer referred to the injuries as "only superficial". Conclusion By unanimous vote, the Board set the Level of Review for this complaint at 8-8-7(B)(1 )a, believing there to be enough information in the Chief's report, and other attached materials, to allow the Board to come to an informed conclusion. The Board finds that the use of force and all control techniques utilized by Iowa City Police Department Officers A and B, during this apprehension and arrest, to be appropriate and consistent with the training of the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy and the Standard Operating Guidelines of the Iowa City Police Department in regard to use of force and control techniques. The use of force was "reasonable" as perceived by a reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20/20 vision of hindsight as per Section 702.18 of the Code of Iowa and OPS-03.2 of the Iowa City Police Department operational guidelines. The Board concludes that there is nothing, in either the Chief's Report to the Board or the complaint from the complainant, that would lead to the conclusion that force above what was reasonable, given the situation, was utilized by either Officer A or B. The Board concludes the findings of the Chief of Police are supported by substantial evidence, are reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and are consistent with Police Department policy and practice, and any Federal, State or Local Law. PCRB #04-03 Page 3 FINA L/A PPR 0 VED Alle.qation # 1: Use of excessive force - not sustained The Board has no cause to suspect or believe that Officer B used excessive force in this apprehension. Allegation #1 against Officer B is not sustained. Comment It was noted by the Board that the two complaints originally made by the complainant were contained in one allegation in the Chief's report. The Board found this condensation of allegations to be consistent with the complainant's original complaint and concerns. PCRB #O4-O3 Page 4