The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-09-06 Bd Comm minutes MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 13, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, Ned Wood, Michael Wright (arrived at 5:07) MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Mitch Behr, Jeffrey Banks (planning intern) OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Kalb, Gayle King Zeithamel CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 8, 2005 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC05-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue. Miklo said that the discussion regarding this application was deferred at the last meeting and the applicant was required to submit a site plan and elevation drawings for the proposed changes. Miklo said that the site plan shows the area where the addition will further encroach into the required 20 foot rear yard. He mentioned that there are other additions to the property that do not need special exception. He presented photographs illustrating the current conditions. He also presented the proposed site plan and elevation drawings. Public Hearinq Opened Paul Kalb, 1012 Hudson Avenue, said that he plans on pursuing an extensive renovation. He mentioned that he would like to put on a new roof and would like to add to the corner of his house, and this addition required the special exception. He said that he lived in the property for 12 years, and moved to Dubuque, and in the past 6 years rented the 1012 Hudson Avenue property. However, he said that he had unfortunate tenants, and that explains the condition of the property. He said that he would like to renovate it and make it more attractive with the goal of getting better tenants. Maurer asked what the estimated cost of the project would be. Kalb said that the budget is between $30,000 and $40,000. Wright asked if the entrance to the garage will be from the same driveway that currently exists. Kalb said that the same driveway will be used. However, he said that the garage will be facing south, so the garage door will not be facing the street. Wood asked if the planned roof will be for the entire structure. Kalb said that he plans on replacing the entire roof surface. Kalb said that the property had passed a rental inspection in 1996. He added that the last inspection was last spring, and at that point the roof was leaking due to the fact that there are too many valleys to the roof because of different additions made to the house at different points in time. Wood asked if the vinyl siding proposed in the site plan will be used for the entire house. Kalb said that the house currently has wood siding, and that he plans on replacing it with vinyl siding all over. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 2 Gayle Zeithamel, 429 Douglass Court, said that last time she was in front of the commission she submitted pictures taken from her property to prove that her privacy will be invaded if the addition to the existing property at 1012 Hudson Avenue is approved. She mentioned that a 6-foot fence equals exactly 6 feet of privacy. Zeithamel added that the structure arises approximately 3 times higher than the fence due primarily to the proximity of the structure to the property line. She said that no one would like to live 5 feet from the property when the regulations require a setback of 20 feet from the fence. Zeithamel said that the existing situation of the roof does not exist entirely due to the valleys that exist in the roof, but to the fact that the entire structure of the roof had not been kept up. She said that there are pictures showing garbage bags hanging from the smoke stacks from previous leaks. She said that a great improvement would be to knock off the back of the structure and bring it up to code. She said that she does not believe that the extension of the building would be an improvement. She mentioned that she does not believe that the tenants are responsible for the general maintenance of the building. She said that she strongly objects to the application, and that its approval would be a violation, and that the application does not fulfill the criteria necessary for approval. She said that the approval would cause emotional, mental injury, as well as a loss of enjoyment of the quality of her property. She said that it would not be advantageous to any neighbor or neighborhood to give special treatment to a property owner that has not shown any consideration or concern for his neighbors or property. Kalb said that the house at 1012 Hudson Avenue was built in 1935, 21 years before the house at 429 Douglass Court was built, and 43 years before the current owner of 429 Douglass Court moved in. He said that to say to pick up the house and just move it would not be a feasible option for him. He said that in the long run, the changes made at the property would be an advantage to the entire neighborhood. Alexander asked if the Board would have to decide only regarding the addition to the back of the house. Miklo said that only the addition to the back is the object of discussion. He added that the portion that the proposed addition would be attached to is nonconforming to the current regulations, and the code does not allow expansion of a nonconformity. He said that the only way of making the attachment would be by special exception reducing the yard for the existing portions of the building that are located in the required rear yard, as well as the proposed addition. Alexander said that the Board's job is not making the existing non-conforming property conform. Miklo said that the Board could not tell someone to replace the portion that is non-conforming. However, he said that the regulations say that there should be nothing done to prolong the life of the existing non- conformity. He added that this would be a factor that the Board should consider. Zeithamel said that nobody asked the owner to pack up and move his house. She said that she sees enough of the property in the back, and would not like to see any additions to the back. Public Hearinq Closed. MOTION: Alexander made a motion that EXC05-00010 an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue be approved subject to conformance to the submitted site plan. Leigh seconded the motion. Alexander would vote in favor of the application. She said that it is a peculiar situation. She mentioned that the house sits in a very odd spot on the lot. She said there is some practical difficulty involved in terms of trying to make the proposed improvements. She said that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She said that the extensiveness of the renovations planned will improve the property. The proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. She said that she understands the concerns presented, but does believe that squaring the back of the house would make it a more enjoyable place. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 3 development and improvement of the surrounding properties. She said that she hopes that the aesthetics of the home would improve, and increase the neighbors' enjoyment of the area. She mentioned that there is no change in egress or ingress. She said that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Maurer would vote in favor. He said that the application meets the general standards, and the improvements would make things better. Wood would also vote in favor. He said that it would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfor~ or general welfare, and would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said that he believes that the improvements would make the structure more sound, and it would be a vast improvement. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. He said that there would be no impact on ingress and egress and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Leigh would also vote in favor of the application for the reasons already mentioned. She stated the extent to which the structure is already in violation of the codes would not go away. She said that the addition would make the area much more enjoyable and attractive. Wright would vote in favor. He said that the corner being squared off would not encroach any further towards the fences. He said that this is a peculiar situation, and that the neighborhood is fully developed. He said that he would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Motion passed 5:0. Zeithamel said that she does not understand why a way of providing privacy for her property was not discussed. She mentioned that it is clear from her arguments and the picture presented that the 6-foot fence does not provide enough privacy, and wonders why the owner was not asked to do something about it, like plant some trees. Behr said that with the matter having been closed, and the applicant having left the room, the Board should not add anything to the discussion. EXC05-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in .Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street. Presenting the staff report Banks said that originally the applicant requested a 15-foot reduction in the set-back, but he changed it into the minimum reduction necessary to accommodate the parking lot. He presented images of the location, and revised drawings. He said that the parking lot would provide parking spaces for the surrounding businesses. Discussing the general standards Banks said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that initially the plan submitted had two curb cuts. Staff had recommended that the applicant revise the plan with only one curb cut along Orchard Street. Banks added that the new drawings present only one curb cut. Additionally, he said that the proposed use, while not conforming to the dimensional requirements for a 20-foot setback in the CC-2 zone, does provide sufficient landscaping with a row of arborvitae and shade trees to provide a buffer. Next he said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Banks said that the landscaping with a row of arborvitae and shade trees will provide a buffer between parking and the street and residential area. Additionally, he said that the parking lot has the potential to reduce the spillover parking from commercial uses. Banks continued by saying that the establishment of the specific proposed exception should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. He said that staff does not believe that the proposed use would have a significant impact on the development of the surrounding properties. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 4 He said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He noted that traffic is not expected to change. He added that the initial two curb points presented would have created some conflict, however that issue was corrected. He stated that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located. He mentioned that because the zoning boundary runs down the center of the right-of-way, the requested reduction in the front yard setback would place parking within 50 feet of the residential zone. He said that staff does not see alternate space for commercial parking which is needed in the area. The proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that the Southwest District Plan indicates the area as potential as a mixed use area. The proposed reduction, he said, would benefit the existing commercial uses in the area and therefore appears to be conforming to the Comprehensive Plan. Banks said that pedestrian access is one priority not addressed in the proposed parking lot and staff recommends that the applicant make provisions for a continuation of the sidewalk which runs north/south along the west side of the Orchard Street and currently terminates at the property in question. Staff recommends that EXC05-00013 an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street be approved subject to the condition that they specify the variety of shade trees to be planted on the property. Public Hearing Opened NONE Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Wright moved that EXC05-00013 an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street be approved subject general conformance to the site plan, and that they specify the variety of shade trees to be planted on the property. Alexander seconded the motion. Maurer would vote in favor of the application. He said that the general standards have been met, and it would be an improvement. Wright would vote in favor. He said that it meets the general standards. He said that it should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, and should improve those factors. The proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The landscaping and the addition of the sidewalk will make the area more pleasant. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. He added that the area is fully developed and the effect should be minimal. He said that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that it is across the street from a residential neighborhood, but there is no place for parking in the area. The addition of the landscaping and sidewalk would offer a substantial buffer between the commemial and the residential area. Alexander would also vote in favor of the application for the reason stated. She said that the paving and the landscaping will be an improvement over the current conditions. Leigh would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Wood would vote in favor. He said that the pavement, the landscaping, and the fact that it would provide more parking space would be a great benefit to the area. He added that it will be consistent to the Comprehensive Plan. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 5 OTHER NONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION NONE ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Leigh moved to adjourn. Alexander seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:55. s:lpcdlminuteslBOAI2005107-13-OS.doc Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 01/12 02/09 03/09 04/13 05/11 06/08 07/13 08/10 09/14 10/12 11/09 12/14 Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X X NM X X X Ned Wood 01/01/10 .... X X NM X × X Karen Leigh 01/01/07 X O/E X NM X X X Vincent Maurer 01/01/06 X O/E X NM X X X Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X × NM X × X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED Iowa City Airport Commission July 14, 2005 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 5:45 PM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; John Staley; Greg Farris; Howard Horan Members Absent: Carl Williams, Dan Clay (advisory member) Staff Present: Sue Dulek Others Present: Dave Hughes, Michael Tharp-Intern, Ron Duffe, Harry Wolf, Mike Miller, Robert Downer, Ann Hargrave, Dick Blum DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:45 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Horan moved to recommend to the City Council to extend the Iowa Realty agreement for a 6-month period. Horan moved to recommend to the City Council to extend the Iowa Realty agreement for a 6-month period; seconded by Staley. Resolution A-05- 11 passed 4-0 on a roll call vote. (Williams absent). APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM June 9, 2005 MEETING: Chairperson Hartwig asked if there were any additions or changes to the minutes of the June 9, 2005, meeting. Staley moved to accept the minutes of the June 9, 2005 meeting as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion passed 4-0 (Williams absent). PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: Chairperson Hartwig made the motion to move Items J and H up in the agenda, to be discussed after Item A. Moved by Hartwig to move Items J and H up in the agenda, to after Item A; seconded by Stately. Motion passed 4-0 (Williams absent). A. Runway 07 Project - Earth Tech - Dave Hughes, Earth Tech, was present. He updated the members on what is taking place currently, and stated that things are going to be happening fairly quickly now. He informed the Commission that they recently submitted a permit to the Corp of Engineers and the DNR, and are getting ready to submit to the DOT. Hughes also noted that two projects coming up in August will need to have approval quickly, and the members discussed holding several early-morning meetings to address these issues. The members will meet on Monday, August 1st, at 7:30 AM to address this. The other meeting will tentatively be held on Wednesday, August 24th, also at 7:30 AM. Hartwig will check with Williams to see if these dates work for him, as well. Airport Commission July 14, 2005 Page 2 J. Hertz Corporation & Jet Air, Inc. - Hartwig filled in the new Commission members on what Hertz and Jet Air are proposing. Duffe and Miller gave a brief description of what the plans are. Hartwig noted that the three outstanding items to be covered, from the previous meeting, were: 1) fee; 2) term; and 3) use of parking spaces. Duffe and Miller answered questions from the Commission members; and the discussion then turned to the agreements needed to pursue this. Miller asked about signage in the right-of-way at the road entrance, and Dulek stated that she would check with Public Works on this issue. Staley moved to have Dulek draft an agreement for $1,200/year to run concurrently with Jet Air's lease, and authorized Hartwig as Chairperson to sign; seconded by Farris. Motion passed 4-0 (Williams absent). The related issue was approving a sublease between Jet Air and Hertz. Dulek noted that the Commission could request information of content of the sublease before approving it. Miller showed the members a copy of the proposed Hertz/Jet Air agreement, and members briefly discussed it. Farris moved to approve the sublease; seconded by Horan. Motion passed 4-0 (Williams absent). Hartwig moved to return to Item B at this time, and to return to Item H closer to 6:30 PM; seconded by Staley. Motion passed 4-0 (Williams absent). B. Aviation Commerce Park - Wolf addressed the members concerning the listing that Iowa Realty has had with the Airport. He stated that the Super Wal-Mart project is moving forward. He also noted that City staff is working on a study of the remaining land, and he shared the most recent plat of this. Basically, there is approximately 16 acres left in this project. Wolf also noted that a reappraisal was ordered last week, and he hopes to have that information soon. The members then discussed extending the agreement with Iowa Realty. Horan moved to approve a resolution to extend the Iowa Realty agreement for a 6-month period and to recommend Council to approve a 6-month extension as well; seconded by Staley. Resolution A-05-11 passed 4-0 on a roll call vote. (Williams absent). H. Parcel of Land: Consider selling or leasing Parcel No. 1020177001 (The Hagen parcel" located on Highway 1 between land owned by Patricia Wade and Ann Hargrave) - Hartwig noted that in the past, the Commission has always favored leasing over selling. He also noted that they would have to get FAA approval to sell this land, as it was acquired with federal money. Horan noted that he would be open to leasing, but not selling. The topic of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) was also discussed, and how this would impact this parcel of land. Hartwig asked Robert Downer, Attorney for Ann Hargrave, to speak to this current interest. (TAPE ENDS) Downer addressed the RPZ issue and FAA restrictions. The discussion then turned to fair market value of this land, and a need for an appraisal. The members voiced their interest in a lease deal, versus a sale of this parcel. Downer stated that Hargrave would be interested in either - sale or lease. Dick Blum stated that HR Greem had an interested buyer as well. Airport Commission July 14, 2005 Page 3 Hartwig noted that this issue needs to be on the August agenda, at which time they hope to have the cost of an appraisal and any other issues which would needed to be addressed. Staley moved to authorize the Chair to look into having a survey and appraisal of Parcel No. 1020177001, and if the cost is deemed reasonable, the Chair will proceed with having this appraisal done; seconded by Farris. Motion passed 4-0 (Williams absent). C. Strategic Plan-Implementation D. Airport Budget E. Airport Management - (The Commission agreed to addressed all three agenda items in one discussion) Hartwig noted that they are still working on the management of the Airport, and he informed the new members of the decision at the last meeting to continue the arrangement they have with Jet Air, and the development of a part-time position to do the day-to-day operations at the Airport. Horan asked about the current intern arrangement with University of Dubuque, and Tharp responded to questions from the members regarding his internship. Discussion then turned to the job description that Hartwig needs to work on with Personnel. Several ideas were discussed regarding how this position could be filled, whether or not this should be a City position, etc. Horan stated that he would like to formalize their arrangement with U olD so they will be assured of having an intern on the premises. Horan will work with Hartwig on these issues. Horan asked that the Commission.extend Tharp's internship, as it ends the end of this month, and Dulek noted that they could address this issue at the special August 1 meeting. She stated that she will prepare something for this. Next, the budget was briefly discussed. Hartwig noted that this is the year end fiscal year results. He noted that their revenues are better and expenses are less. Staley asked a question regarding "Land Rental" and Hartwig responded he is looking into and resolving some of the shortage. Hartwig next brought up the topic of developing several sub-committees within the Commission to deal with some of the various issues at the Airport. For example, a budget and finance sub-committee that could then report at the monthly meetings. He also noted that a sub-committee on budget and another for Airport infrastructure would also be good ideas. Hartwig noted that he talked to Rick Fosse and has asked him to come to the Airport and look things over, and to give his ideas on what future needs are with respect to infrastructure. The other members agreed that this would be a good idea. Horan then asked about security and fencing, noting that up in front they do not have a 6' fence. Hartwig noted that Williams has been working on security issues for the Airport, and the fencing issue will come up under the viewing area that Clay is working on. F. Obstruction Mitigation Project - Stanley Consultants - Hartwig stated that there is not much left in the Stanley contract as the project will be done shortly. He also noted that there is grant money left from this project and they asked the Airport Commission July 14, 2005 Page 4 D.O.T. a few months ago if they were amenable to using these funds for other projects, i.e., surface patching. He believes they are agreeable to this. G. Airport Viewing Area - Hartwig noted that Clay had been working on this with Intern Elizabeth Freiburger. He noted that they need to get a new estimate on fencing, which will also address the fence issue that Horan raised earlier. (TAPE ENDS) CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Chairperson Hartwig noted that he attended the City Council meeting last month and gave the Council an update on the Airport Commission's progress. He also noted that the Civil Air Patrol is leaving soon and moving to Des Moines. He also updated the members on Hangar K's roof problems. Hartwig ended up with letting the members know about the updated weather system for the briefing room which should be installed by next month. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Staley welcomed the new members. Horan stated that it was great to be in attendance again. He also noted that in regards to the Boeing hangar, he would like to be involved in this and try to put together some sort of celebration of the history of this hangar. Hughes noted that they are working on a history. Farris noted that he was glad to be at the meeting, as well. Tharp mentioned the letter to Darrell Roberts, of which the members received a copy in their packet. Tharp noted that he has also been working on new signage for the Airport, and they should be seeing the new signs in about six weeks. STAFF REPORT: Dulek noted that she was talking with someone who commented on the increase in Airport traffic when they were at Napoleon Park recently. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR AUGUST 11, 2005, at 5:45 PM AND SET (2) SPECIAL MEETINGS FOR AUGUST 1 and AUGUST 24, 2005, AT 7:30 AM. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM. Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/13 2/10 2/16 ' 3/10 4)14 5/12 6/9 7/14 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay (Advisory O/E X X X X --- X O/E Member) Randy 3/1/09 X X X X X X X X Hartwig Michelle 3/1/07 X X X X X O/E ...... Robnett John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X X X X Carl 3/1/10 X X X X X X X O/E Williams Greg Farris 3/1/07 ..................... X Howard 3/I/08 ..................... X Horan KEY: X = Present O = Absent OrE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting .... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 14, 2005-7:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark MqCallum, Justin Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, James Enioe, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Brost, Jr.; Dave Brost, Sr.; Helen Burford; Kerry DeArmand; Pat Farrant; Sue Kemp; Bob Orend; John Roffman; Walter Seaman; Contractor for 420 South Lucas Street (no name given), hereafter referred to as "Contractor" CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 503 Melrose Avenue: Terdalkar said that this is one of the landmark properties in Iowa City. He said the proposed work is for the replacement of wood decking, replacement of gutters and downspouts, and replacement of the screens on the porch. Terdalkar said the applicant has indicated that their goal is not to change the exterior appearance. He said the drawings also show addition of parking spaces to the south of existing lot. Orend, representing the church, introduced his consultants, Dave Brost, Sr.; and Dave Brost, Jr.; and Kerry DeArmand of Merit Construction. Orend said the church has decided not to replace any of the deck or the gazebo, due to costs. He said the church is going to restore the brick and do tuckpointing. Orend referred to his updated plans since they were submitted to the Commission. He said that this work would be done in 2006, but the church wanted to make certain it had preliminary approval for the plans. Weitzel asked what length of time a building permit remains effective for. Terdalkar said it is between six months and a year. Gunn said that the church is not obligated to obtain a building permit right away, even if the Commission issues a Certificate of Appropriateness now. Brost, Sr. said that between himself and Merit Construction, they developed a budget for the renovation of this institution. He said the church has to apply for funds in June so that the funding will be received in January. Brost, Sr. said the church will be doing the tuckpointing of the masonry, the brick and the stone, this year. He said the church is taking bids on this work until August 4th. Brost, Sr. said that the [porch] columns and railing would be done right after the first of the year. Regarding outside work, he said the chumh would like to add eight parking spaces to the end of the parking at the south end of the lot. Brost, Sr. said there is a wood fence on the west end that the church would like to replace exactly as it is now. He said the church also plans to replace the roof of the gazebo because the shingles are in bad shape, and it will be replaced exactly as it is now. Brost, Sr. said the church will be painting all the exterior soffits and the wood windows to match the current color. He added that the skylights over the interior space will be replaced. He said they are steel but will probably be replaced with something better. Brost, Sr. said they would be the same configuration and the same type of glass. Weitzel asked when the skylights were added to the building. Orend was uncertain. Weitzel said he believes that is an addition of later date on that side. Orend asked if a permit is required to do the tuckpointing. Weitzel said he believes that a permit is not needed, as it is masonry repair. Terdalkar said that generally if there are no structural changes, a permit is not required. Weitzel suggested asking HIS to be certain. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 2 Brost, Sr. asked if there are any specific requirements for tuckpointing. Weitzel said the Commission recommends using the least aggressive means of removing the mortar. He said the Commission would recommend that a carbide blade and saw not be used but recommends using a chisel or something else to carefully remove the mortar. Weitzel said this will be soft, mud brick, and it will be very delicate. He said that as carefully as possible, the existing should be removed and then repaired with a like mortar, a very soft mortar, not a commercial mortar. Weitzel said that the Secretary of Interior's Standards provide more information, and the National Park Service has published technical briefs to describe the process. Weitzel said the masonry should be tooled the same way that it is now. Gunn said he recalled that tuckpointing requires a building permit. He said that if it does require a permit, then there are some disallowed items: sandblasting, water blasting, hard mortar, painting or sealing the masonry. Weitzel said the main problem occurs when someone who is used to working with modern, really hard, dense, high fire brick goes in and treats this with a coarse cement mortar in there and tears up the brick. Brost, Sr. said he has a pre-bid meeting with the contractors, and he will emphasize this at the meeting. Gunn asked about the review process for addition of spaces to the parking lot. Terdalkar said the Board of Adjustment will review it when requested for approval as a special exception, because this is a religious institution. He said the Board may ask for recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission. Gunn said the Commission is looking at this application with regard to the tuckpointing, the parking, and the skylights. Maharry said the notes on the drawings refer to replacing the wood railings with composite type railings of the same design. Brost, Sr. said that the reference to composite material should have been scratched. Maharry said that repairs to gutters and downspouts do not require a permit. Weitzel said the Commission has recommendations for gutters and downspouts. He said that the built-in gutters must be left in place; a building permit is not required for replacing or repairing external gutters. Maharry asked if the wood shingle roof would be replaced with similar wood. Brost, Sr. confirmed this and said the replacement would just be on the gazebo. Maharry said the skylights, when looked at from straight on, tend to disappear quite well because of their dark color. Gunn said the Commission could recommend using a dark color for the skylights. Weitzel said the Commission has some guidelines for skylights: but there are mostly recommendations and a disallowance for the new installation of skylights on significant, prominent, historic parts of the building. He said, however, that these skylights are already there so that they can be replaced. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 503 Melrose Avenue for the tuckpointing, following Section 4.2 of the guidelines; parking as submitted; replacement of the skylights with the recommendation of a dark color, bronze or gray, to blend in with the roof; and, if a permit is required for replacement of the gazebo shingles, replacement of the wood shingles with new wood shingles of a similar design. McCallum seconded the motion. Carlson said he did not really have a strong opinion regarding the parking. He said it is nice to have a yard, but this doesn't seem to be taking too much of the yard. Weitzel said that he thinks allowances should be made for an institutional use. Carlson said he would be in favor of that. Gunn said if this involved a retaining wall or something else, he might be concerned, but this is just an extension of the existing lot. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 906 East College Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a key-contributing property in the College Green Conservation District. He said the proposal is to replace the front stairs and railing. Terdalkar said that the proposed materials for the replacement of the stairs are Trex, a composite material, and fiber cement board, and metal pipe for rails. Weitzel said that Trex is not yet an approved material for the Commission, so it will need to be discussed. Roffman said that he is the contractor for the project, and he introduced Kemp, a member of the sorority's board. Roffman distributed a sample of the Trex composite. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 3 Roffman said the sorority has around 55 occupants, and this is the primary entrance to the building. He said that slipperiness is a major issue for both the steps and the porch, and fall protection is a major concern. Roffman said he plans to get rid of the bunkers on either side of the steps, extend the steps out past the outside of the inner columns, and start the railing on the inside of the column to flare on out to the outside of the steps. He said this would also allow more expansive stairs. Roffman said this would replace an eyesore with something that is functional, safe, and easy to maintain. He said the risers would be of fiber cement board and would be painted like the rest of the railing. Roffman said the step itself would be the Trex product. Weitzel pointed out that the Iow sidewalls were built around 1983 and are therefore not original to the house. He said they are concrete wrapped with plywood. Weitzel stated that the Commission approved a ramp for this house for access of supplies on the east side near the rear a couple of years ago, and the ramp did have Trex in it. He said the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) did not find anything with the proposal that was specifically outside the guidelines, except for the new material. Maharry pointed out that the plan approved two years ago used the same material. Weitzel said it was used on a side elevation and on a ramp that is removable, so it was somewhat different. Maharry said that the stairs could be considered removable. Roffman said that what will be seen on the stairs will be fiber cement board, and the flat plane itself will be made of Trex. McCallum asked, regarding the material being so far unapproved, if it could be added to the approved list or if it is unapproved because of national historical standards. Weitzel said the Commission just hasn't looked at it before, and the guidelines require that anything new that is a substitute for wood or a similar, historic material has to be approved prior to its use. He said the Trex is a composite of plastic and wood: polyethylene and sawdust. Weitzel said the material is not vinyl. He said it is actually millable, just like wood; it can be routed and drilled. Weitzel said he thought it could also be painted. Terdalkar displayed the product website, and Weitzel read that it readily accepts paint or stain, although neither is required. Pardekooper said that this is a very good product, and he has used it a lot. He said if he had his choice between Trex and green treated or another painted wood, he would choose the Trex any day. Pardekooper said, however, that it is really about whether the Commission views this as an appropriate material. Carlson read from under the 'Disallowed' column under Wood and then Wood Substitutes, "Substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance, function, and paintability of the original wood." He said the Commission probably has to determine that this is paintable, in addition to appearing to be like wood, which it probably would from a distance. Weitzel said that unlike other plastic materials, this is not that slippery, shiny, glossy stuff. Ponto referred to the website display showing the evaluation of the material by paint companies. He said this is pretty good evidence that the product will accept paint. Weitzel said the Commission could consider allowing it for specific locations, such as for decks but not sides of houses. Maharry said it is essentially recycled material and is a worthy product. Burford asked if this product is similar to Tendura, which is a composite material that was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Gunn said that this application would just approve the product for the stairs. He said that this is not a historic porch floor. Pardekooper said that this would just be used on the tread. Gunn said he thought the Trex would be fine for this project, but he did not want to see every historic porch with six-inch wide, round-edged decks. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project at 906 East College Street, with the recommendation that the Trex material used for the stair treads be of a Winchester gray color. Pardekooper seconded the motion. Weitzel said that approval of this motion would make implicit the Commission's acceptance of Tre× on stair treads. Maharry said that, in his opinion, this would be similar to what the Commission approved a few years Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page4 ago in that the stairs would be fairly removable if someone wanted to do so in the future. Roffman said that, actually, the treads could just be replaced if someone wanted to do so. Carlson said it is important for the Commission to be explicit in the minutes that approval of this would just apply to stair treads and nothing else at this point. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 1050 Woodlawn Avenue. Terdalkar said that this house is a non-contributing structure in the Woodlawn Historic District. He said that proposed work includes the addition of a room and patio on the basement level; a sunroom and screened porch at the first floor level; and a wood ramp as an entry way with a deck, and removal, replacement, and/or installation of new windows and doors. Farrant, the owner of the house, said that not much of the intervention would be visible, as most of the work to be done would be interior work. She said that this is a non-conforming house and is the "orphan child" on Woodlawn. Weitzel stated that Sue Licht, the architect, discussed this project during the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) meeting. He said that Licht's concerns with doing anything but a simple ramp to the accessory door would be the potential cost. Weitzel said that the ramp, door, and window replacement did not get into the original application. He said the proposal is to remove the window, fill it in with material from the planter, and add a door. Weitzel said that this structure is a 1950s ranch but is an architect-designed ranch. He said that it has very strong horizontal architectural features and integral planters and corner windows, which were part of that time period, as well as broad eaves and bow hipped roofs. Farrant said that the carport on the original plans for the house was never finished. She said that is why there are now stairs that go nowhere. Weitzel said then that the area for the door, window, and ramp is original to the house. Farrant said that is true as far as she knows. Weitzel said there are several issues to discuss. He stated that the DRS did not see anything that was specifically out of alignment with the guidelines but did discuss whether the planter was an integral, significant part of the house or whether the window is a significant, determining feature of the house. Farrant said that replacing the window with the door is integral to the plans. She said that this is a small, two- bedroom house. Farrant said that what was planned to be a carport is wasted space, as it is tagged onto the kitchen and is not very warm because it is on a slab. She said the goal is to make an entrance there to a utility room so that part of the kitchen would be more valuable space. Weitzel said Licht had pointed out that for the most part on the house, the windows are vinyl replacements from some time in the last ten years, except for the windows on the back, which are very large, set picture windows. Farrant said that most of the windows are original, which is one of the problems. She said the original windows have lost their seals. Farrant said that there are only two replacement windows and then the large slider. She stated that the original windows have deteriorated and will all be replaced. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1050 Woodlawn Avenue, as proposed, based on the facts that it doesn't further detract from the historic district, it doesn't create a false sense of historic character, and it is compatible with the style and character of the non-historic property. Maharry said this is a non-historic property because it was less than 50 years old when the Woodlawn Historic District was designated. Ponto read from page four of the guidelines, "Non-historic buildings are buildings constructed after a district's period of significance and were less than 50 years old at the time the district was designated." Weitzel said the map lists the property as non-contributing. Gunn said that no one on the Commission thinks this property is contributing. He said that whether or not this is historic is still debatable, but in this case it may not matter. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 5 McCallum seconded the motion. Weitzel said that the points made in Maharry's motion are valid. He said it does not change the district to change this one particular house, as long as it is not such a horrifying ugly obstruction to the rest of the neighborhood that it becomes obvious. Carlson said that, in terms of design, he said he thinks it a little odd to have one wall plane with stone on one side and wood lapped siding on the other. He said that is the only stylistic thing that he might question about the proposed addition. Gunn said that he is comfortable with this application and would be in favor of approving it. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Carlson votinq no. 426 Grant Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the application is to install metal pipe railing for safety. Weitzel reminded the Commission that any steps that are over four risers high have to have a safety railing by code. Seaman said he plans to install a simple, black pipe railing. He stated that the wrought iron railing that he previously requested was disapproved by the Commission several weeks ago. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow a simple pipe railing at 426 Grant Street. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 420 South Lucas Street. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Lucas Governor Conservation District. He stated that the application is to replace the roof on both structures on the property. Terdalkar said the house in the rear has metal roof. He said the certificate of appropriateness requirement was triggered because this is a multi-family structure. Weitzel said that the owners of the property received some misinformation. He said the owner called and found out that a permit was not needed to redo the roof of what was assumed to be a single-family house. Weitzel said it was then determined that this is a multi-family house so that a permit was required. He said that half the work was done by that point. Contractor said that he looked as the association guidelines and paperwork, but it never mentions roofing, although it mentions windows, siding, etc. Weitzel said that apparently a permit is now required for roofing a multi-family structure. Contractor stated that anything with more than two units requires a permit. Contractor said the rear building has a lot of rust problems. He said the front building is asphalt-shingled. Contractor said the buildings are sided alike, and the owners would like to have them shingled alike. He said the owners want to use architectural shingles to make the buildings look better. Weitzel said the DRS took the applicant's word that the existing roof is damaged. He said it is not something the Commission usually covers in the guidelines, except the original material for the house, which is wood shingles, is recommended. Weitzel said the DRS would accept asphalt shingles that look like wood shingles as a substitute. He said the application states that weathered wood is the color, so that would match well with the weathered shingles. Weitzel said that the DRS recommends approval. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the roofing project at 420 South Lucas Street, as proposed. McCallum seconded the motion. Gunn said the guidelines are not clear about whether or not it is okay to tear off one of these metal roofs that were added on on top of a sawn shingle roof and put back on asphalt shingles. He said that at times the Commission has thought it was acceptable, and other times the Commission has thought it was not acceptable. Gunn said he feels it is probably better to tear off an unoriginal, metal roof and put on good asphalt shingles, as opposed to requiring the reinstallation of a metal roof, which is not original anyway. Weitzel said that because this is a deteriorated [as per the applicant], non-functioning component of the house, the Commission will allow it to be replaced; whereas a perfectly intact roof might require more discussion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 6 The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Contractor recommended that it be added to the paperwork [guidelines] that this type of project needs to be brought to the Commission. Minutes for June 30, 2005. Because there were no amendments to the Commission's June 30, 2005 minutes, Weitzel said they would be filed as written. OTHER: Terdalkar stated that the owners of 422 Brown Street want to convert two of the four existing non-operable windows on the enclosed front porch into operable windows for egress. He said the owners contacted him to enquire about this revised proposal after a certificate was issued for windows on the east and west facades as approved by the Commission in the previous meeting. Gunn said he does not really like that idea and that the outside windows of the pairs would then not match the inside windows of the pairs. He said it is actually better and probably no more expensive to put the egress windows on the sides of the porch, because on the front, the owner will mess up one window trying to get the other one out. Weitzel asked Terdalkar to let the owners know that the Commission is leaning toward not approving such a change. Maharry asked if an appeal to the Board of Adjustment has been made regarding the denial of vinyl siding for 946 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that he has not yet received any appeal. Maharry stated that last year the Commission approved a porch reconstruction for a building on the corner of Dodge and Washington. He said the skirting was part of that approval. Maharry said the skirting has not yet been done after one year and is therefore not in compliance with the certificate of appropriateness. Weitzel said the Commission can ask HIS to inspect the property and issue a citation. Maharry suggested that a friendly letter be sent first to remind the owner of his obligation to complete the project and, failing that, that HIS be contacted. Pardekooper said there may be some litigation with regard to that property and also suggested sending a friendly letter. Weitzel asked Terdalkar to look into the matter. McCallum distributed a letter to the Commission. He said that while he is not directing his comments to Terdalkar, he said he expected a little more from planning staff regarding an interactive process between the Commission and planning staff regarding the zoning code rewrite. McCallum said that the zoning code hasn't been submitted to the City Council yet so that the hearing process for the Planning and Zoning Commission to receive feedback is not yet closed. McCallum said that recognizing that he may be the only advocate on the Commission for these changes like what he is calling "the Des Moines model," he is a little frustrated when there is an attempt to not even discuss it. He said that he has the impression that the attempt at stifling debate is not coming from anyone on the Commission, it is coming from planning staff. McCallum said the City website lists the job description of Commission members as making recommendations to zoning. He said it is appropriate for the Commission to do that. McCallum said he was disappointed with what Planning had presented with regard to historic preservation and was expecting more of a consultative type thing. He said he wants to dialogue with representatives of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning staff. McCallum said the hearing is not over until the City Council votes. Maharry said the history of how things work with City government shows that people don't show up at the Historic Preservation Commission meetings, they don't show up at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, but they show up at the City Council meetings. He said he thought that people would line up when it gets to the City Council level and say that's great, but this is what else I would like to do. Maharry said a strategy would be for McCallum to go to pro-preservation City Council members, possibly Regenia Bailey and/or Bob Elliott or others, and have them advocate for his proposal. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 7 Weitzel asked Maharry if he recalled discussing what was going on with the new zoning code at a Commission meeting. Maharry said the Commission didn't discuss everything that was or wasn't going to affect historic preservation. McCallum said that Shelley McCafferty discussed this briefly and alluded that there would be more feedback later. McCallum said the zoning code revision is only done every 20 years, so there should be open dialogue between the citizens and the government regarding how we want to shape the community. He said he did not see much progressiveness in the proposed zoning code. McCallum said he is just asking to hold the local government accountable. He said he would like to have a dialogue. McCallum said his idea is just one of many that could be out there that might answer some questions and issues. He said he did not feel that the Commission has been engaged to address the part of the zoning code that it is concerned with. Gunn asked whether the Commission has formally discussed McCallum's ideas and made a recommendation. He asked if it was discussed at a meeting when he was not present. He asked whether the Historic Preservation Commission has taken a position on McCallum's zoning incentive ideas. Weitzel stated that the Commission has not taken a position on it or discussed it formally. Gunn stated that since the Historic Preservation Commission has not discussed these ideas or taken a position that planning staff cannot be blamed for ignoring the Commission. He asked if the Commission was planning to discuss McCallum's ideas at tonight's meeting. Commission agreed to a discussion of these ideas. McCallum said that the Des Moines model is for all historic districts, but he modified it to just include primarily multi-family zones in historic and conservation districts. He said it would therefore primarily include the College Green District, the College Hill Conservation District, and the Lucas Governor Conservation District but would exempt the single-family residential zones in College Hill. McCallum said he could see this having the most dramatic effect in the College Hill Conservation District. He stated that Iowa Avenue could be an area of opportunity for this type of thing. McCallum said he defines this as multi-family zones only, in historic districts. He said it would therefore apply to RNC-20 and RM-44 zones. McCallum said that if this displaced anything, it would be rooming houses and that type of activity. He said that what he would really like to see is the creation of a balance in these neighborhoods. McCallum said that because this is an ownedoccupied type zoning model, there won't be hundreds of people rushing in to do this. He said it will be specific types of people who are generally not attracted to the downtown area but are looking for something unique. McCallum said that this is really the Peninsula Model in a historic district. Maharry pointed out that the way this is worded geographically, it would favor McCallum geographically, because he is there. He asked McCallum how he would get away from people pointing out that this is proposed by someone who will be affected by it. McCallum said he is something of an advocate, so he would express that bias. Maharry said there will be the impression that this is creating a City policy to suit one person. Burford asked about the potential for defining the boundaries a little differently. She said there are some older buildings that are endangered around the courthouse and down to the railroad tracks. Burford asked if this could be defined to include the new perimeters of the ever-expanding downtown area to include those areas and make it a much more flexible community. McCallum said those are primarily multi-family zones, but they are not in historic districts. Weitzel said it might be just as good to include these other areas, because it would still be an incentive for people to use old buildings to keep them intact, rather than tearing them down. He said that a lot of the designated districts are in smaller zones. McCallum said he restricted this to the historic and conservation districts based on anticipated resistance, to say that the City could try it here first. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 8 Gunn said he thinks there would be a lot of resistance to this. He said he was on the Commission during four rezonings, and the whole pitch was that preservation works best when the underlying zoning is consistent with the amhitecture one is trying to preserve. Gunn said that almost everything this concerns is single-family residences. He said that is the way they were built, and if was a single-family zone, then it would be easier to preserve those districts if it was consistent with single-family dwellings. Gunn said this proposes something that is against the built historic properties. McCallum said that what he is talking about is a live-work concept. He said it is an owner-occupied type business, where one could live upstairs and have a business on the main floor. Weitzel pointed out that a cottage industry is permissible in the RS~8 zone anyway. Maharry said that the type of businesses described are the ones that are open from ten to five. He said they seem to be non-intrusive type businesses. Maharry said that Gunn has a good point about the original use but said that a large percentage of houses is now being used as rentals and not for the original use. He said he would rather have the house be a business than a rental, because then owners will put money into it a little bit more. McCallum said he thinks that the City is ripe for this. He said that a review process could also be incorporated into this so that there is some balance, and it could be more site specific as to whether the business is appropriate to each building setting. Maharry said that doing this on a case-by-case basis would lead toward a potential "playing favorites" bias. He said the Commission has guidelines that are published for everyone to see, and putting guidelines into this idea would be helpful. Maharry said part of the reason staff is reluctant to look at this is that if this went forward, staff would have to think about ramifications. McCallum said if the Commission endorses something, then it would go to the next level, and there would be a lot of hashing out and so forth. Maharry stated that what has gone forward to City Council has been pored over by the lawyers, and this has not been. McCallum said the attorneys have worked this out for the Peninsula Project. Pardekooper asked if there were any examples, besides the Peninsula, of this idea. He said that the Peninsula Project is not working well. Pardekooper asked if there is a good example of an owner-occupied business that actually works well. Pardekooper said that he thinks this is a good idea, but one needs to consider everything that will be brought against it. He said it will be asked if these neighborhoods will be able to support the overflow traffic associated with these businesses. McCallum said that these are primarily multi-family zones. He said that mostly college students live in these areas, with few exceptions. Weitzel said that Commission members are not necessarily against the idea but said that there are real issues here that need to be discussed. McCallum said that is why he brought up having an interaction with planning professionals and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Weitzel said that Karen Howard has pointed out that any time after the zoning code goes through, there will continue to be modifications made to it. Weitzel said that perhaps the Commission needs to work on this but not insist that it happen this year and then develop it over a longer term. McCallum said he is just asking to meet with planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Weitzel said that they are so busy with everything else right now that they may be resistant to this. McCallum said that they are the ones pushing this before the City Council and saying that public comment has to occur now. Weitzel stated that code review is something that happens periodically. Terdalkar said that there will be another review for amendments, and citizens can still go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is still getting comments. Maharry said the other proposal to eliminate what happened on Iowa Avenue, where a bungalow was torn down to make two five-bedroom apartments, and the fact that the zoning code does not change or even address that is more important. He said that could continue to happen throughout the north side, and there is nothing the Commission could do about it. Weitzel said that might be more of an issue right now, even though rebuilding the infrastructure and the interior of the City is a good idea. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 9 McCallum stated that the public hearing is right now, and there is a dialogue going on. He asked if the Commission is going to be part of that dialogue and be interactive as a Commission. McCallum said that apparently the answer from planning is no, and he is disappointed in that. Gunn said that basically, everything the Commission does is in its guidelines; the rest of the code is just procedural. He said McCallum is talking about zoning and is asking the Commission to change rather dramatically what it does. Gunn said that is okay, but McCallum is asking for some pretty significant changes from the Commission's perspective, because everything the Commission has done is by landmark or by district. Gunn said that when a landmark is designated, it is pretty clear, but when a district is designated, the guidelines are written, and that is what the Commission has; the guidelines that it writes. He said that McCallum is now asking the Commission to somehow become zoning people, changing the underlying zoning, rather than doing what it has done in the past. Gunn said this involves an entire new area, and that's fine if the Commission is strongly behind it, but it would definitely be a change in what the Commission is doing. Burford said that the house on the corner of Church Street and Linn Street was demolished for a parking lot. She said there was nothing anywhere to say that the house should be saved. Gunn said the Commission knew about it but had no say, because the property was not a landmark and was not in a district. McCallum said that zoning affects what the Commission does in the sense that it dictates what is going on in the marketplace. Maharry said that McCallum obviously proposed this because he believes it is pro- preservation and will encourage people to keep up their structures. He said that the other way the market could go is if the market drops out of the rental business, people might fix these houses up to be single- family homes again, and that might be the Commission's first priority. Weitzel asked if there is a demand for this type of thing and if people will really take advantage of it. He said that right now this can be done in the RS-8 zone, but there tends not to be too many because of parking requirements. Maharry said that currently, if someone wants to have an owner-occupied business, he can apply for a special exception. McCallum said he believed that the only special exceptions that are allowed are the ones that are defined in the code and specified as a special exception use for the particular zone. Weitzel said that the new code is going away from those rote lists and trying to make it more general so that creative things can be done. He said that using the special exception standards, a lot of what McCallum has proposed would be allowed by the new code. Weitzel said that the special exception language is pretty broad. Pardekooper suggested asking Karen Howard or other planning staff to come to a Commission meeting so that members can ask specific questions. McCallum said that what he really wants is a dialogue with planning staff and someone from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Maharry asked McCallum if he has attended a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Maharry replied that he has attended the meetings and has presented two proposals and now has this one in front of the Historic Preservation Commission. Weitz. el said that the Historic Preservation Commission doesn't do zoning and doesn't know zoning and does not have experts in that. McCallum said that is why he would like to have a meeting. Weitzel said that McCallum has brought up issues that are broader than historic preservation and that are probably applicable to multiple zones throughout the City. He said that makes it difficult for the Commission to be the group that says something has to be done. Maharry agreed that the Commission's main consideration should be whether something will help historic preservation in Iowa City. Weitzel said that McCallum's ideas have a lot of merit and he should pursue them, but the Commission is not the forum for them. McCallum said the Commission's job description on the website says that the Commission should be interacting with other commissions, where appropriate. He said that the zoning code is rewritten once in twenty years and has applications to what happens to historic structures in the City. Weitzel said that the phrase "where appropriate" is the issue here, which the Commission will have to decide, and he would offer that it is not in this case. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 10 Maharry asked if the Commission wanted to consider sending a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission stating that the Commission did not feel like it had a chance to add to the zoning code. Weitzel agreed that would be appropriate if the Commission had specific proposals to discuss. Gunn said that it is good that McCallum is putting these ideas forward, but he did not hear the Commission behind this. He suggested that McCallum propose this as a citizen and as an informed person. Gunn said that he would not be on the bandwagon with this proposal. McCallum said that he appreciated the input but added that there was not a formal presentation or discussion by planning staff of what was going forward. Weitzel said there were four or five public forums for discussion of the zoning code. He said that staff did not go discuss it with every commission, however. Terdalkar said there was a presentation in April, relating to historic preservation issues only, and only ten people came to the presentation. McCallum asked if the Commission felt inclined to ask for a meeting with representatives from the Planning and Zoning Commission to talk about these types of things. Maharry said that he felt that at any time the Commission could go to the Planning and Zoning Commission when the consensus is to ask for change. He said that if the Commission has voted on something and feels it is important to change the code, the Commission could put together a presentation for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Weitzel recommended that the Commission organize its ideas into a presentation. He said that McCallum would need to be willing to have the Commission take his idea and let everyone have input. McCallum said he agreed. He asked if there was a consensus for the Commission to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time it is rewriting the code. Weitzel stated that the planning staff has said that zoning code revisions are always on the table. Maharry said that the preservation awards would be held on Wednesday, August 34 at 5:30 in Meeting Room A of the library. He asked for volunteers to help with replenishing refreshments, and Weitzel and Ponto volunteered. Ponto said, regarding the roof situation, the Secretary of the Interior Standards recommend maintaining roof material: slate, wood, clay, tile and metal and so on, and not recommended is stripping the roof of sound historic material such as slate, clay, tile, wood, or architectural metal. He said the important point is that the metal roof was not original. Terdalkar displayed an e-mail regarding a house on Lucas Street and whether or not their home had been designated a landmark. He said that it was the summer house of General Hoxie, who was an Army Corps Engineer with his wife Vinnie Reams, who was the sculptor for the bust of Abraham Lincoln in the US Congress. Weitzel asked if the Elizabeth Tate house at 914 South Dubuque has been named a landmark. He said that the Curator of the Johnson County Historical Society has said that the building should be a landmark, because of the significance of Elizabeth Tate. Terdalkar said that the structure is a multi-family conversion. Regarding the Hoxie/Reams house, Weitzel asked Carlson for an opinion as to how much alteration would be too much. Gunn said that the porch on the house is gone, it has been sided, and the front stairs are different. Weitzel asked if anyone would be interested in working on the landmark designations for these houses. Carlson said he could work on the designations but could not do so right away. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:lpcdlminuteslHPC/2005107-14-O5.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Terln Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/30 7/14 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X X X X X X O O/E R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X X X O/E X X O X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O X X O O O O/E O/E O/E M. Gnnn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X X .................... X M. MeCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X X O X X X X X X J. Pardekoopcr 3/29/07 O/E X X O O O/E O O O O O X X J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X ......... r ...................... J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E - Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member APPROVED / FINAL POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - June 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Beth Engel, Loren Horton, and Greg Roth MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Williams STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:05p.m.) and Staff Kellie Turtle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer from the ICPD and John Haman from the Daily Iowan. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Engel, seconded by Roth, to adopt the consent calendar as amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 05/10/05 · ICPD General Order #89-04 (Civil Rights) · ICPD General Order #89-05 (Radio Communications Procedure) · ICPD General Order #00-03 (Less Lethal Impact Munitions) · ICPD General Order #00-07 (Police Cyclist) · ICPD Department Memo #05-19 · ICPD Use of Force Report- April 2005 Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed minor changes to the draft of the annual report. Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel to adopt the annual report as amended. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. NEW BUSINESS The two year Council review is coming up. The next two Council meetings are July 5th and July 21st. Horton can not attend and requested Roth to attend. Roth indicated he would be available for the meeting on July 5th. Horton reminded the Board of the two vacancies coming up on September 1Stand that applications need to be turned in by July 13th. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION Barnhill asked Captain Widmer if there should be a Policy Statement on General Order #89-05. Widmer thought that it was just an oversight because it was an older General Order and would check into it. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Not needed. PCRB - Page June 14, 2005 MEETING SCHEDULE · July 12, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room (Meeting Cancelled) · August 9, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room (Moved to August 16th) · September 13, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room · October 11, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room Horton commented that there will be no old business because the annual report had been adopted and the Chief's report is not due until August 3rd, leaving nothing on the agenda for July 12th. Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel, to cancel the July 12th meeting due to a lack of business. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. Horton and Barnhill will not be able to make the August 9th meeting. It is unsure whether Williams will be able to attend. Tuttle will also be out of town on the 9th. The Board agreed to move the meeting to the 16th. Horton and Engel will be out of town. If Williams is unavailable the meeting will be cancelled. The meeting packet will be mailed as usual and the Chief's report is expected to be filed by then unless otherwise notified. If the August meeting is cancelled, a draft report on Complaint #05-02 will be prepared for the Board to review at the September meeting. Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Roth, to move the August 9th meeting to August 16th due to quorum issues on the 9th. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Engel, seconded by Barnhill, to adjourn. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. --FINAL MINUTES- 3~~b~ SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 2005 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 ROOM G09/8 - SENIOR CENTER Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 2:18 PM Members Present: Lori Benz, Jay Honohan, Sarah Maiers and Charity Rowley Members absent: Betty Kelly, Jo Hensch, Nancy Wombacher Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Julie Seal Others Present: Lynn Campbell; Betty McKray; Charlotte Walker Recommendations to Council: None. Approval of Minutes: Motion: To approve the minutes from the June 21, 2005 meeting as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of a 4-0. Rowley/Maiers PUBLIC DISCUSSION None COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS Rowley volunteered to write the web article for today's Commission meeting and report on this meeting to the City Council at the Council's July 19 meeting: Honohan volunteered to report on this meeting to the Board of Supervisors. Wombacher previously agreed to write the web article for the August 16, meeting of the Commission REPORT AND DISCUSSION OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEANOR HUGHES ESTATE-HONOHAN The Senior Center has received $274,222.72 from the estate of Eleanor Hughes. The money has been deposited in the Center's Gift Fund. Motion: To transfer the full amount received from the Eleanor Hughes estate ($274,222.72) to the Iowa City Senior Center Fund Inc. account at Hills Bank and Trust Company. Motion carried on a vote of 4-0. Rowley/Maiers A brief discussion of how to use the money took place. Commission members agreed that a more thorough discussion of what to do with the bequest would be possible at the strategic planning and goal setting session set for August of this year. Therefore, they agreed that the money should be kept fairly accessible until after the August meeting. There was general agreement that if any of the money is spent, it should be invested in capital improvements and not used to support operational expenses. --FINAL MINUTES- SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 2005 Honohan, Kelly and Rowley plan to meet with Kopping prior to the August strategic planning and goal setting session in order to identify several possibilities for properly recognizing the donor. It was noted that Hughes did not have any close family. Public acknowledgement of the bequest was discussed. While some Commissioners felt it would be better to wait until a decision about how to use the funds has been made, others felt that an announcement now might encourage additional donations. Honohan indicated that public acknowledgement of the bequest will appear on the August Commission agenda and can be thoroughly discussed at that time. ADJOURN FORA MEETING OF THE IOWA CITY SENIOR CENTER FUND INC.-- HONOHAN Motion: to adjourn the July 19 Commission meeting at 2:30 PM and reconvene for a meeting of the Iowa City Senior Center Fund Inc, Motion carried on a vote of 4-0. Maiers/Rowley RECONVENE THE JULY 19, 2005 MEETING OF THE SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION--HONOHAN The July 19, 2005 meeting of the Senior Center Commission was reconvened at 2:44 PM. REPORT ON ORGANIZING THE MEETING AND COLLECTING DATA FOR UPDATING THE STRATEGIC PLAN--KOPPING The results of the membership survey have been distributed to the Commission, sta~t', City Council, Participant Advisory Committee and Board of Supervisors. In addition, copies are available for review at the receptionist desk in the main lobby and the mezzanine library. The members of the Participant Advisory Committee plan to write a summary of the findings and submit them to the local media. The focus group findings have all been submitted and are being tabulated. The results should be distributed within the next week. Kopping reported that all the members of the Participant Advisory Committee have agreed to participate in the strategic planning/goal setting session. Members of the Curriculum Committee and the Volunteer Advisory Group have also been invited, but their response has not been strong. VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION BREAKFAST REVIEW--KOPPING Kopping reported receiving a great deal of positive feedback related to the breakfast. The event draws a nice cross section of people and the flowering plants, provided by Lucy Hershberger at Forever Green, and the thermal gift bags were very well received. It was a social event--lots of talking and mingling. PARKING COMMITTEE UPDATE--HONOHAN Members of the Parking Committee: Kelly, Honohan, Rae Blanchard, Dawn Rogers and Kopping met on July '18, 2005 with Director of Parking and Transit Joe Fowler and Parking Manager Chris O'Brian. Fowler and O'Brien Indicated they were willing to implement two changes in the near future that they believe will improve the parking situation for the Center. --FINAL MINUTES- SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 2005 Fowler explained that at this point all day parking in Tower Place costs $4.80 while all day parking at the Capitol and Dubuque St. ramps is over $14.00. Fowler and O'Brien indicated that a higher fee for all day parking is likely to lower the number of people who currently do not have permits and use Tower Place for all day parking. In addition, Fowler and O'Brien agreed to add two additional handicapped spaces in the Tower Place ramp adiacent to the skywalk leading to the Center. The committee unanimously supported these recommendations. The committee members now hope to talk with Jeff Davidson about the availability of handicapped parking along Linn St. 28E UPDATE--HONOHAN No report available. Honohan indicated that he has been unable to establish a meeting with the Board of Supervisors. COMMITTEE REPORT ON STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR EVENING AND WEEKEND PROGRAMMING--MAIERS The special committee looking at this issue (Hensch, Maiers, Wombacher) met with Kopping to discuss possible solutions to the evening staffing requirements. The committee decided to wait and see what happens with the strategic planning before taking the next step. Maiers said the committee had several ideas, but felt it would prudent to have some feeling for the direction people wanted to move prior to proceeding. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE OPERATIONS--KOPPING There has been no report on the Envelope Survey that was contracted for the building. Kopping circulated a sample flyer she has been developing with the Gazette. This flyer will be used as an informational piece when people visit the Center and distributed at the Johnson County Fair. The flyer should be printed by next week. The staff has implemented parking permit changes this year. Due to inadequate checking for proper stamps and permits when leaving the parking ramp, parking permits are now being placed on the membership card. Center staff members will ask to see the membership card when handing out parking stamps and will be able to verify the membership and parking expiration dates at that time. This will tighten control of the parking program and limit the number of unauthorized users. A document showing a summary of revenue collected since July 1 for the band, coffee, independent contractor fees, copies, memberships, parking permits, SCTV and non-designated donations was distributed. When the contribution from the Hughes estate is subtracted, the report shows that slightly over $7,000 has been collected in the first couple of weeks of FY06. Kopping indicated that there were around 900 paid memberships at this time. --FINAL MINUTES- SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 2005 PROGRAMS--SEAL Seal provided a list of programs planned for August 2005. She noted that the list includes programs developed by Seal and Rogusky. For a complete list of programs scheduled for August, see the 2005 Summer Program Guide. Seal mentioned that the member appreciation dinner is planned for Thursday, September 8. It is being funded entirely by US Bank and will be held on Linn Street in order to accommodate a larger group. A spaghetti supper is being planned with food provided by Zio Johno's Spaghetti House located in Iowa City. VOLUNTEERS--ROGUSKY -No report available MEMBERSHIP AND FUNDRAISING--BUHMAN--No report available COMMISSION DISCUSSION--HONOHAN Commissioners asked about the progress made in lining up volunteers for the Johnson County Fair and quilt raffle. They recommended using eye catching posters promoting Center events in the fair booth and providing people with an opportunity to register or sign up for the mailing list at the fair. Commissioners also questioned whether or not some type of game would be used to attract people to the booth. Kopping indicated that she didn't think the spinning wheel would be used again this year, but that Susan was investigating other possibilities. Honohan asked Kopping about progress on changes that are being required by the Iowa City Fire Marshall. She responded that she had ordered fire proofing products for the large quilt in the lobby area and the ground floor painting that have been identified by the fire inspectors as problematic. In addition, she is planning to meet with Craig Buhman, Fire Marshall Roger Jensen and Brett Pruitt of Iowa Fire Equipment to resolve some of the remaining issues with the fire sprinkler system. This meeting will take place in early August. Upon questioning, Kopping explained that the quilt and the painting were identified as problems because of the materials of which they are made, their location in an exit area, and the percentage of total wall space each occupies. JUNE MEETING REPORTS--None available ' Motion: To adjourn at 3:30 PM. Motion carried on a vote of 4-0. --Benz/Maiers --FINAL MINUTES- SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 2005 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2005 Name Term 1/24 2/15 3/15 4/26 5/18 6/21 7/19 Expires Lori Benz 12/31/05 O/E X O/E X X X X Jo Hensch 12/31/06 X X X X X X O/E Jay Honohan 12/31/07 X X X X X X X Betty Kelly 12/31/07 X O/E O/E X X X O/E Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X X X X X X X Charity Rowle¥ 12/31/05 X X X X X X X Nancy Wombacher 12/31/06 X O/E X X X X O/E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a member .MINUTES APPROVED Iowa City Airport Commission July 27, 2005 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 7:30 AM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Greg Farris; Howard Horan Members Absent: John Staley, Carl Williams, Dan Clay (advisory member) Staff Present: Sue Dulek Others Present: None DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 7:31 AM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: 1. Hartwig moved resolution setting a public hearing on August 8, 2005 at 7:30 a.m. £or the plans, specifications, form o£ contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 1 Project" within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to construct a box culvert and for Willow Creek improvements upstream of the box culvert, directing the City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the Chairperson to place said plans on file £or public inspection. Horan seconded. Passed 3-0 on roll call vote (Staley and Williams absent). 2. Harris moved resolution setting a public hearing on August 8, 2005 at 7:30 a.m. for the plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 2 Project" within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to construct earthwork necessary for the construction of the runway extension including limited cleating and grubbing, directing the City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the Chairperson to place said plans on file for public inspection. Horan seconded. Passed 3-0 on roll call vote (Staley and Williams absent). ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:39 AM. Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/13 2/10 2/16 3/10 4/14 5/12' 6/9- 7)14 7/27 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay (Advisory O/E X X X X --- X O/E O/E Member) Randy 3/1/09 X X X X X X X X X Hartwig Michelle 3/1/07 X X X X X O/E ..... Robnett John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X X X X O/E Carl 3/1/10 X X X X X X X O/E O/E Williams Greg Farris 3/1/07 .................. X X Howard 3/1/08 ................... X X Horan KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM= No meeting - Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Terry Smith, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik, Don Anciaux STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: John Kammermeyer, A. Pagliai, Dennis Nowotny, Mark Holtcamp, Dan Black, Jason Bradly, Nila Houg, Suzanne Bradly, Peter Yolte, Jill Smith, Cecile Kuenzli, Bill Gilpin, Jeff Salisbury, Charlotte Walker RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, (Anciaux and Plahutnik absent) SUB05-00017, a final plat for Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-1ot, approximately 29.26-acre residential development located on South Sycamore Street, subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: Brooks said the eight rezoning items on the agenda had been discussed at the previous Commission meeting and were being brought back for further discussion and public input. None of the rezoning items would be voted on at this meeting. At the 8/18/05 meeting they would be voted on. The proposed Zoning Code re-write would also be voted on at that meeting. Items REZ05-00014, REZ05-00015 and REZ05-00016 were similar in that they dealt with ~:ezoning requests that were necessary because of the pending Zoning Code. In the interest of time they would be presented together and public comment received as it might be very similar between the three areas. REZ05-00014, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB~5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. REZ05-00015, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. REZ05-00016, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Howard said since most of the audience members in attendance had also been at the previous Commission meeting she would not re-present the entire staff report but would instead address the questions that had arisen at the previous hearing from the public and from the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 2 1 ) How did the Mixed Use (MU) zone compare with the Neighborhood Commercial zone with regard to the land uses and the scale of development that would be allowed? Staff had received a letter signed by a number of property owners along Bloomington Street indicating their preference for CN-1 zoning over MU zoning. CN-1 zoning was intended to be more retail oriented; it allowed a few extra uses that the MU zone did not; it would allow gas stations so Mr. Logan's gas station would remain a conforming use if zoned CN-1. The MU zone would allow both residential and commercial uses. Residential would be allowed on the first floor of any building so a totally residential multi-family building would be an allowed use versus in any of the other commercial zones residential could only be on the upper floors of a building and a commercial use(s) had to be on the first floor. With respect to scale, both zones had similar standards with regard to how tall a building could be; the bulk requirements were very similar. 2) Would CN-1 zoning be appropriate in the area along Bloomington Street rather than the MU zoning? Staff would support either a MU zoning or CN-1 zoning in this area. It was felt that the scale would be appropriate to the area surrounding it. The lower density commercial office zone and the neighborhood to the north were similar uses. If a large majority of the neighborhood property owners preferred the CN-1 zoning versus the MU zoning, either designation in Staff's view would be appropriate. 3) Limit on the size of restaurants in the MU zone and would it affect existing restaurants and how large they could be. Staff had checked the occupancy loads for all restaurants in the North Market Place area. All occupancy loads were less than what would be allowed in the CN-1 zone. Pagliais had the largest occupancy load at 113 persons, most other restaurants had an occupancy load of less than 50. With restaurants, occupancy was determined by the number of restrooms they had, number of exits, size of seating area, etc. 4) Would the change from CB-2 to MU or CN-1 affect the scale of development that could be achieved on a property? Staff had done a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) analysis of the density that could be achieved. They had considered the parking requirements, the tree requirements and things that would take up space on the lot and had tried to maximize the amount of parking that could be achieved. Since the Pagliais' current parking lot was one of the larger undeveloped lots in the area, Staff had used it as a test case. Staff had laid out the maximum parking lot including underground parking and compared the result. A building that was three stories tall could be built in any of the three zones, it would have 8700 square feet of ground floor commercial and two floors of residential above. It would need underground parking to meet the required amount of parking. However, under CB-2 zoning one more apartment could be achieved while still meeting the required amount of parking. With the CB-2 zoning, a taller building could be built and minimize the commercial on the ground floor. (Commercial required, more parking per square foot, restaurants required the most parking at one parking space for every 150-square feet.) The taller building did not take into account the cost to build a structure of that height, generally buildings over 3-floors in height were more expensive to build. The taller building would be achievable if the market ever got to the point where the cost of constructing a taller building with underground parking justified the cost in that particular area of town. Parking requirements were determined by the number of bedrooms. In order to maximize the number of apartments and the number of people who could live in the taller building, building three bedroom apartments would be necessary. Staff felt the CB-5 zoning would be appropriate only if the City was at a point where they wanted to extend the downtown north to that part of town and provide public parking such as was provided in the current downtown area. Staff felt that the taller building would not be a pedestrian friendly area if the design were repeated all the way down the street. Public discussion was opened. John Kammermeyer, 404 E. Bloomington Street, said his property was not involved directly in the areas being discussed but felt strongly enough to make comments. He felt a major problem with the proposed zoning ordinance was the significant downzoning conflicts it created here and there. There were two types of downzoning, where the zone was being changed to a less intensive usage being allowed. There Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 3 was a great deal of functional downzoning potential where the name of the zone was not changed but rules and regulations were. For instance, reducing density limits in a zone so less commercial or residential units or building square footage would be allowed, or density or number of permitted renters in a given building was reduced. Secondly, reducing the height of buildings allowed in a given zone. Thirdly, further restricting parking lots or buildings or where they could be placed on a lot. Finally actually eliminating a usage or making it non-conforming in a zone where it was presently conforming. Kammermeyer said either type of downzoning took away property rights that had been in existence for decades. It also reduced the property value for the owner who had been paying property taxes on the higher value for the property for decades. Either type of downzoning potentially adversely impacted the economics and retirement plans of the property owner, the result could be the same if their IRA or 401K were suddenly reduced. The new proposed Zoning Ordinance added 200 to 250 new pages to the Ordinance, referred to design standards over 500 times and further restricted what property owners could do with their property. Less regulation not more bureaucracy was needed. Kammermeyer said most citizens he knew privately around town and had talked to had no real good idea of what the new regulations were being proposed. In his opinion the City government should be looking out for and paying attention to the needs and wishes of the majority of the citizens. As an overview, he did not feel the proposed Zoning Ordinance did that. Kammermeyer said the new Zoning Ordinance potentially created economic injustice for citizens; was too complex and detailed and tried to dictate aesthetics; needed to be greatly pared down and streamlined; and every effort made to not downzone any citizen's property either directly or functionally. He also wished to bring to attention the injustice that was potentially being imposed on several long standing business people with properties near his office in the CB-2 business zone. He did not see any good reason for abolishing the CB-2 zone which had been in place for at least 25 years. If it was to be eliminated none of the existing old areas should be downzoned to create financial hardship for the property owners. Mr. Pagliai owned ¼ block of undeveloped land currently in the CB-2 zone, if it were rezoned to CN-1 then the density regulation would be reduced and the property value reduced by up to 1/3. The MU zoning should not even be considered. He felt the potential reduction was unfair and unjust and would treat a long standing local businessman in a shabby manner. The gas station and garage John Logan had purchased last year had been a conforming use for approximately 50 years and had been an immense help for people on the north side, for Kammermeyer's patients and staff, and the patients at Mercy Hospital and their families, friends and visitors. The original proposed MU zoning would make Russ' gas station and garage non-conforming while the Handi-Mart just three blocks away would be upzoned to CB-5. Again this would hurt a local businessman. Economically it was unfair and unjust. Kammermeyer said ¼ of the CB-2 zone along Market and Linn Streets was proposed to be upzoned to CB-5. If that was done, he felt very strongly the only fair and just thing to be done for the local business men involved would be to upzone the entire CB-2 zone to CB-5 or leave the CB-2 zone as it was. A. Pa.qliai, asked if he built a new building would the proposed MU zoning limit his restaurant seating capacity to 125 people. Howard said that was correct, in a MU or CNol zone the occupancy load for a restaurant was 125 people. When Staff had done the FAR analysis they had included a larger restaurant (3,000-square foot) on the first floor which required the most parking. The larger the restaurant the more parking that was required and the fewer apartments that could be built above. Howard said it would depend on which use he wished to maximize, parking would have to be distributed amongst the uses. Restaurants and commercial required more parking than residential. Smith asked what was the current occupancy limit on restaurants in the CB-2 zone. Howard said there was no occupancy limit, it was controlled by how much parking could be provided on the lot. Dennis Nowotny, 517 E. Washington, said he basically fully agreed with Kammermeyer's arguments. The CB-2 area seemed as if it was being chopped up into six different pieces, he didn't feel that was simplifying. With respect to the memorandum dated 7/28/05 regarding the abutting issue, he didn't feel there was a problem with CB-5 abutting RM-12 or RNC-12. Staff had apparently said that CB-5 abutting RNC-12 on Bloomington Street was ok. He had property on Bloomington Street and agreed it would be ok. Nowotny said he felt there were no issues/problems with respect to differing zones abutting each other. He and his wife owned property at 517 E. Washington Street, which was literally 100 feet closer to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 4 the Chauncey Swan parking ramp than any other commercial entity that was uptown, yet they were being kept away from the parking. A barrier was being established and he didn't understand why they were being separated from the parking ramp. Mark Holtcamp, 506 E. College Street, said he agreed with everything that had been said so far regarding any downzoning. His company felt the same way, everyone should be CB-5 across the board instead of upzoning some spots and downzoning others. There was plenty of parking in the parking ramp that was not being used for the areas being rezoned. If the area would be rezoned to CB-5 he felt the city would see some development and use would be gotten out of Chauncey Swan parking ramp. He owned a residential property that was next to a proposed CB-5 upzoning. He had no problem with that change and felt the abutting issue was non-existent. Holtcamp said he felt more development could be spurred by rezoning all the area to CB-5. Dan Black, Iowa State Bank, representing AMC Properties located at 127 N. Gilbert and 323 - 327 Market Street. Black said he'd attended the previous Commission meeting but had been hesitant to speak because he found it a confusing type of issue. They had pulled information from the internet on the proposed Zoning Code which made many references to other parts of the Code or other articles or sub- articles and it was easy to miss something. Black said the proposed Code was pretty confusing and he didn't know if it was really simplifying anything at all. Black said if they had theiF druthers they'd prefer to remain zoned CB-2 or go to the CB-5, which was adjacent to their property. In the memorandums, it seemed part of the reason for rezoning from CB-2 to CN-1 was because no development had occurred in that area in years, perhaps argued due to parking requirements. Black said for the area he represented, the reason there had been no development was due to the age of the owners, however they were in a transition period from older owners to younger owners. He felt the younger owners would have a much larger appetite for redevelopment than the older owners. It was important to keep their options open and let economics determine the development of that ground as opposed to zoning. If the economics of the development and the economics of an owner dictated that they could go underground with parking and do that type of development then they should have the opportunity to do so. Black said he hoped they were looking and thinking far enough ahead to get to see some of the changes, to grow the community and to grow the tax base. He hoped as a community they were looking at this with the opportunities of redevelopment in mind. If they didn't have the availability or the options to do some of these types of things it would obviously never happen. What would drive some of the commercial development and redevelopment would be the density of the apartments and their availability as the commercial development would not be able to carry it alone. A commercial only building would not work very well unless the economics of it could be supported with some of the apartments above it. Jason Bradley, 505 E. Washington, said he represented the young property owners. He agreed with the comments made by the previous speakers. He had spoken with his fellow property owners and their general consensus had been to leave the CB-2 zoning as it was or upzone everything to CB-5. The term simplification kept coming up but he didn't see the proposed changes as simplifying at all. They should be considering only CB-2 or CB-5 zoning. Nila Houq, 517 E. Washington, said she agreed with the comments of all the previous speakers and wished to reiterate the comments she'd made at the previous Commission meeting. Staff had mentioned several times at the previous meeting regarding the necessity of parking and if they were going to redevelop their properties then they probably would not be able to provide the required parking due to the lot sizes. It had also been mentioned by Staff that if it were possible why had the properties not been redeveloped yet. Houg said they had not been able to redevelop, their properties before now. She had worked a lot, they had all worked in, lived in, planned including parking requirements and built up equity in their properties, not to make a fast buck but to enhance their investments. Now that they had the inherent equity the City employees wanted to take it away from them. The young people who were purchasing the properties were doing so for the purpose of going on and being able to do something with their properties. If that was taken away by the downzoning, by the size requirements and the number of people allowed in the units it would ruin their retirements. Houg said as far as she knew all the neighbors in the affected areas were against the downzoning. They had maintained their properties in an excellent manner, they had been good neighbors and an asset to the community and they deserved to be treated fairly. They were asking the Commission to vote against the downzoning. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 5 Kammermeyer, said he had a copy of the petition that had been submitted to Staff and wished to reiterate that the property owners had stated several times in the petition that their preference if rezoned was to be rezoned to CB-5. He also wanted to make the point that the proposed Zoning Ordinance was incredibly complicated and did not simplify anything at all. He had had a lawyer review the document who'd given his opinion that it would be an extremely good legal document because it was very involved and intricate. For the average citizen the new draft would be very difficult to figure out what they could and could not do with their property. Howard said Mr. Black had made some good points, it was confusing and hard to determine with any zoning designation what was allowed on your property in any city. When a person wished to redevelop, all requirements on a piece of property needed to be assessed. With respect to the issue of parking, all most all the properties currently built in 'this' area were non-conforming because they did not have any parking at all. The properties that were there now, including the property mentioned by Black, were non- conforming. If the existing building(s) were torn down it would be questionable whether they could even achieve the size of the building they had today. If the building(s) was torn down and the property redeveloped then the parking requirements would kick in. If persons kept their same property and continued the same use, the parking requirements gave ghost parking which encouraged persons to continue to use existing resources and existing building. For example, if Pagliais' restaurant were torn down what could probably be achieved on that lot would be a smaller restaurant. Because of the lot size, with a CB-2, CN-1 or MU zoning it made no difference for the potential for redevelopment because of the requirements for cars that the City currently had that hadn't been in existence when the buildings had originally been built. Hoag said Howard had just made an excellent argument for upzoning to CB-5, there were no parking requirements. In her particular situation, they were within 100 feet of the parking ramp. She didn't feel that it was being taken into consideration that if there were contiguous properties side by side, they would not be torn down and redeveloped one-by-one. The property owner would tear down all the existing structures and redevelop the whole thing. The parking requirements would change from a simple lot, if upzoned to CB-5 then parking didn't have to be worried about. Freerks said parking was not free, someone had to pay for it. The Chauncey Swan parking lot was almost full in terms of permits, she thought some had been transferred to the new ramp. She requested Staff to provide further information regarding the number of available spaces in the City's ramps. She encouraged property owners not just to consider themselves but to consider their neighbors as well. Bradley said he'd spoken with Chris O'Brien who'd said the Chauncey Swan parking lot was "grossly underutilized." He was not sure who O'Brien was or what his duties were but had been directed to O'Brien when he'd been looking for more parking for use with his building. Howard said Freerks' point regarding if all the properties were redeveloped would the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp be able to provide parking for all the properties was a question that needed further investigation. For the area new Market Street there were no public parking lots in the area other than the 52 public spaces on the north side of Market Street. Howard said in the future if it got to the point where the market was there for a CB-5 level of development and the City could provide a public parking ramp such as was provided downtown, it would be appropriate to upzone these areas to CB-5. The concern regarding the north side was that the parking was considerably congested due to all the uses by the neighborhoods. Suzanne Bradley, 505 E. Washington, asked if any weight was given to the fact that the areas being discussed were highly pedestrian bicyclist friendly Freerks said when considering appropriate zoning, the Commission looked at those issues and more. Ideally pedestrian friendly was not tall buildings with huge parking lots going down an entire street. Howard said a CB-5 zone did not require parking for commercial space but it did require parking for apartments/residential. Miklo said in the CB-5 zone south of downtown, developers paid a fee when ever they built which went toward building public parking so that there would be public parking available. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 6 Hoag said there was a big flat parking lot attached to the City Hall that could accommodate building a parking garage. Public discussion was closed. Freerks requested Staff to provide a clarification regarding parking availability around town in the public ramps. Smith said his view was if property owners came to Staff and the Commission and were looking to develop their property and develop it in a manner for a business that would require a rezoning, they would consider the rezoning request based on all the criteria that the Commission normally did. As long as they were able to provide for all the specific criteria, the Commission would strongly consider the request. He was seeing a lot of existing property owners at this meeting who were lobbying for that and for a rezoning to CB-5 or for no zoning change. He felt strongly with their convictions. If what was driving the change from CB-2 was simplification of the Code or elimination from the Code, he was not sure they were gaining significant value and should look at inclusion within the Code. If they wished to simplify the Code perhaps there were other areas that could be simplified. He would support maintaining the CB-2 or upgrading to CB-5. Shannon said he had been listening for direction at the meeting and had heard some. He would like to hear something positive about how the whole area could be made CB-5 rather than just the negatives or leave it zoned CB-2. Freerks said she was not interested in CB-5 because of the parking issues. She was trying to think of the type of community they were trying to build and what they wanted to have there. Right now they were working on trying to get the downtown extended south of Burlington Street; a lot of lots there had redevelopment potential. She didn't see CB-5 covering the whole area being discussed tonight, she didn't feel it was appropriate to have CB-5 next to the neighborhood areas. Freerks said she would need to consider the requested parking information before she could consider if CN-1 or staying at CB-2 would be appropriate. Brooks said he pretty much agreed with Freerks' comments. He was not in favor of CB-5 but felt they needed to look at CB-2 and possibly consider leaving it as a zone. Clarification of the parking issues was also needed as the public and the Commission had been given mixed information regarding what was available and what was not. Motion: Shannon made a motion to defer REZ05-00014, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street and defer REZ05-0001,% an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. and defer REZ05-00016, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Miklo said some of the reasons this rezoning was being proposed was because the proposed Zoning Ordinance would remove the possibility of duplexes being built on interior lots which were not at the intersection of two streets in the RS-8 zone. Duplexes would still be allowed on corner lots, any existing Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 7 duplexes which were legal now and conforming in terms of the zoning requirements could continue as conforming uses. Because some subdivisions had recently been platted and designed for duplexes, the proposal was to rezone those RS-8 areas in the Longfellow Place area to OPDH-8. It would basically be a lateral move which would allow what was already planned for the lots at the end of Longfellow Place to continue to be built but it would not allow density to be increased from what had already approved. The one elder housing unit would not be affected. It had been approved by a special exception which had allowed the clustering of units if they were occupied by elderly persons or persons with a handicap. A single family home just to the north was outside of the area suggested for rezoning. Miklo said a letter had been sent out to notify the public when the original proposal had been to rezone this to RS-12, High Density Single Family. Staff had since revised the proposal to include just the southern lots to be rezoned to OPDH-8. A revised map had been distributed to the public in attendance. Peter Yolte, 907 Rundell Street, asked for a more detailed description between the two zones. Miklo said an RS-8 zone would allow single family lots of 5,000-square feet in lot area. On corner lots if they were 8,700-square feet in floor area, in lieu of a single family lot it could be a duplex lot. The OPDH- 8 would waive some of the requirements of the underlying zoning ordinance and would allow the vacant lots in the Longfellow Place to develop with duplex units on them. Freerks said the OPDH-8 zoning would not allow several lots to be joined to create a row of townhouses on those lots. The OPDH-8 would help to maintain the character of that street and what had originally been planned for. Jill Smith., 610 Oakland Avenue, said she lived on Oakland Avenue, the street that the Longfellow Place dumped out onto. She asked what were the notification requirements for a rezoning and why had no signs been placed? She requested to be notified of the next meeting this item would be discussed at. Miklo said letters were sent to people within 300-feet of a property being rezoned, there were no signage requirements. No further notices would be sent out, the next action on this proposed rezoning would be on August 18, 2005. J. Smith asked what would happen if an existing house in the development but not in this area burned or blew down Miklo said the proposed rezoning would apply to the vacant lots. An existing structure could be rebuilt under the existing RS-8 zoning or the proposed RS-8 zoning if the new Zoning Code were adopted. If a lot had a duplex on it now, a duplex could be rebuilt on that property. J. Smith asked Staff to prepare a Comparison Chart Analysis for the proposed rezoning including square footage of the lots that would be impacted, a general flow chart of the processes and important dates. Did any of the vacant lots already have building permits applied for, who owned the lots and who had initiated the rezoning. Miklo said some of the lots were owned by the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, the Iowa City Housing Authority and private individual. He was not sure if permits had been applied for for all the vacant lots. The City had initiated the rezoning. J. Smith asked if the proposed rezoning went through, would it change the potential of the large apartment complex in the RM-12 zone to redevelop. There was a large green strip behind that unit that if parking could be found, the unit would have the potential to expand. Miklo said this rezoning would have no effect on the adjacent RM-12 property. There would be no increase in density allowed, only single-family or duplex units would be allowed. There would be no possibility for townhouses. The City only controlled the number of bedrooms that could be rented, not the number that could be built. J. Smith said when the ADS factory had been torn down, a rezoning had occurred. The neighborhood had applied for and negotiated an RS-5 zoning. She asked if the Commission and the Council had been provided with the back-ground history of why it had become RS-8. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 8 Miklo said Staff had recommended the RS-8 designation because all of the surrounding properties had been zoned RS-8 with the exception of the RM-12 property to the west. The area had previously been zoned industrial, there had been an initiative to rezone it to residential, RS-8 being the most appropriate. With the proposed zoning change from RS-8 to OPDH-8 there would be no change in density, no more and no less could be done. Brooks said the OPDH designation was basically a planning process, it did not change much in terms of what was there now, just the way of getting there. Cecile Kuenzli, member of the founding group for the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. Their initial group effort had been the downzoning from industrial to residential. Their goal had been to try to create another residential area that would reflect the housing characteristics of the neighborhood. They'd originally asked for RS-5. Karen Franklin who had been the Senior Planned had advised them that RS-5 probably would not fly because most of the neighborhood had been zoned RS-8 which allowed duplex and single-family housing units. They Association had agreed to RS-8. They'd had no idea that a builder would build 23 duplex units one after another. What was there now did not reflect the character of their neighborhood, it was a kind of anomaly or curious spot zoning in the neighborhood. Kuenzli said from the original intent of rezoning the neighborhood to reflect the true character of the neighborhood, it would be better to keep the current RS-8 zoning even if it meant that there would be no more duplexes. There were a lot of duplexes now, maybe they would get some single family homes on the remaining properties. She was glad there could be no change in density but was concerned that the letter from the City mentioned RS-12 zoning, which was an example of spot zoning. Kuenzli said she'd found out about this rezoning by an e-mail, it would have been preferential for the City to post signs since the rezoning would affect the entire neighborhood. Freerks said this was a good example of why some zoning changes were being proposed in the new Zoning Code. What the RS-8 would be was something that would reflect the neighborhood, it truly would be a small lot single family zone and the RS-12 would then be what was being seen there now. Staff and the Commission had seen problems occur from what was the original intent of a zoning to what was actually built sometimes due to development potential and they were trying to modify the new Zoning Code to address some of those problems. Bill Gilpin, said he owned a lot in the Longfellow Manor and his daughter owned a duplex right next to his lot. He thought the duplexes were nice, they faced both sides of the street. From the street they looked just like a house, it was a very good use of the land and there was a creek nearby that had a cart path running along it. He thought his lot was the only privately owned undeveloped lot and didn't understand why so much hassle was occurring over one lot. He hoped if someone purchased his lot that they would not build a single family home on it as it would be out of place amongst the duplexes. Gilpin said he also owned the commercial building on the corner of Gilbert and Market Streets, which was a nice place too. He hoped it would be rezoned to CB-5. Jeff Salisbury, 869 Rundell Street, said he'd received a letter from the City. Would Miklo explain paragraph 2 of the letter and why the proposed zoning designation had changed to OPDH-8. Miklo said the letter had been mailed prior to the July 21st meeting to give notice to the public. After further discussion by Staff and public input, it had been decided that changing the proposed zoning to OPDH-8 would better meet the original intent of the zoning and allow the undeveloped lots to develop as had originally been planned. The OPDH-8 zoning would prevent the lots from being joined and subdivided to build townhouses unless someone came back before the Commission and the City Council and proposed an amendment to the zoning plan. There would be no increase in density allowed, it was basically to maintain status quo. Salisbury said he felt the lots were way overpriced and it would not be possible to build single family homes there. The only way to make it economically efficient to build there would be to build duplexes. Smith said they also wished to keep the lot area to 8700-square feet or below. J. Smith asked why the neighborhood had to pay for its own rezoning costs. When the ADS factory had been torn down their neighborhood had begged the City to rezone but the City had said no they would not. They had been dinged several hundred dollars that the Neighborhood Association had had to pay. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 9 Now that the City wished to rezone and there were two government groups, Housing Authority and Housing Fellowship, being affected. Why had they not stepped up to the table? Her tax dollars were promoting something that she did not agree with. Were there any rules regarding when the City initiated rezonings and when citizens had to come up with the costs? Howard said the rezonings were being triggered by the new requirements in the proposed Zoning Code so everything was going through as a package. It was to hold harmless those who had already invested in their properties. This would change RS-8 zones all over the City to prevent duplexes from being built on interior lots. Public discussion was closed. Motion: T. Smith made a motion to defer REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerks requested Staff to compile a brief timeline, a note about process and a Zoning Comparison Analysis as requested by the neighborhood, but not to do an in-depth time consuming research as time did not permit. The information should be given to Marcia Klingaman for distribution to the neighborhood. The motion passed on vote of 5-0. REZ05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Miklo said the proposed Zoning Ordinance proposed the elimination of the RFBH zone. It was Staff's proposal to rezone the existing manufactured housing parks to OPDH-12 which would basically be a lateral move and allow them to continue as is. If there would be significant amendments such as addition of additional lots or units it would require review by the Commission and City Council. Charlotte Walker, 320 S. Dubuque Street, said the trailer parks were in different parts of the City. Why were they being rezoned to a designation that would allow construction of condominiums/various types of housing on that land and then state basically there would be no change in the status of the trailer parks. Miklo said the reason for the OPDH, called a Planned Development, was because any change from the plan would be a rezoning. For someone to convert the existing manufactured home parks to condominiums, apartments or townhouses would require the applicant to come back before the Commission and City Council just as they would be required to today even if it remained RFBH. Walker said they needed a separate zoning for mobile home parks, there was a lot of different requirements for a mobile home park. It would be a mistake to remove it. Low income housing was needed for people who could not afford the rest of the housing in Iowa City. At minimum they needed what they already had, they needed protections. In the past she had resided in a mobile home park and knew the value of manufactured housing as an alternative for Iow income people or start up families. Walker said she seriously doubted that the residents of the mobile homes had been notified, the property owners maybe. Those people owned their homes and would be worried. They might come but Iow income people tended to be afraid to address "you people". She was afraid for them. The mobile home parks with the smaller units needed a separate part in the Code, separate codes, separate restrictions. Walker said she would check the Cedar Rapids Code because that community allowed the good development of mobile homes for their Iow income people. Public hearing was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ05-00017, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 10 Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. REZ05-00012, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. REZ05-00013, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Miklo said Staff had no new information to add to the Staff Report given at the 7/21/05 meeting. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to defer items: REZ05-00011, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. REZ05-00012, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. REZ05-00013, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB05-0001-~, discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli for a final plat of Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-1ot, approximately 29.26-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, south of Wetherby Drive, and north of Dickenson Lane. Miklo said Staff recommended approval subject to construction drawings and legal papers being approved by Staff prior to Council consideration. Koppes asked if there were any duplexes in the subdivision that the Commission needed to worry about. Miklo said assuming the lot size was large enough, duplexes could be built on corner lots. In conversations with Staff the applicant had said he proposed to build single-family lots. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve SUB05-00017. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 6 AND JULY 21, 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 11 The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEMS: Smith said at the Tuesday evening City Council meeting there had been considerable discussion regarding the Cardinal Ridge subdivision and the Dodge Street Court redevelopment. There had seemed to be a lot of confusion on Council's part as to what the Commission had intended and approved. Was there a way to improve the process? The note placed on the final plat regarding access for construction vehicles had caused some concern as well. Behr said developers did not have to sign a Conditional Zoning Agreement (Conditional Zoning Agreement) until the close of public hearing at the City Council. There were times when a developer agreed to conditions in a CZA at the Commission level but when the CZA was put into writing and the developer asked to sign it before the close of the Council meeting, they would claim disagreement with the conditions of the CZA. Per State Code, when there was a CZA with conditions imposed the developers had until the close of the public hearing at the Council to sign it. Brooks requested that the schedule for which Commissioner was to attend the City Council work session be included as part of the Upcoming Meetings section on the information package agenda from Staff. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:lpcdlrninuteslp&zi2OOSlOS-O4-O5.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 6/16 6/27 7/6 7/21 8/4 D. Aneiaux 05/06 X X X X X OrE X X X X O/E X X O/E B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 .............................. X X X X O/E O/E D. Shannon 05/08 X X X O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X T. Smith 05/06 ................................ X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/4 4/18 5/2 6/13 7/18 8/1 D. Anciaux 05/06 CW X X O/E X X X X X O/E B. Brooks 05/10 CW X X X X X X X X X A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X X O/E X O/E X X X E. Koppes 05/07 CW X X X O/E X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 CW ................. O/E X O/E O/E D. Shannon 05/08 CW O/E O/E X X X X X X X T. Smith 05/06 ............................ X X X I I Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting MINUTES APPROVED Iowa City Airport Commission August 8, 2005 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 7:30 AM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Grog Fards; Howard Horan, John Stalcy, Carl Williams Members Absent: Dan Clay (advisory member) Staff Present: Suc Dulck Others Present: None DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 7:31 AM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: 1. Runway 7/25 Project-Box Culvert a. Public Hearing-Hartwig opened the public heating. No public comment. Hartwig closed the public hearing. b. Williams moved the resolution approving plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 1 Project" within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to construct a box culvert and for Willow Creek improvements upstream of the box culvert, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing city clerk to publish advertisement for bids, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Seconded by Staley. Resolution A-05-14 passed on a roll call vote, 5/0. 2. Runway 7/25 Project-Earth Work a. Public Hearing-Hartwig opened the public hearing. No public comment. Hartwig closed the public hearing. b. Williams moved the resolution approving plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of"Phase 2 Project" within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to construct earthwork necessary for the construction of the runway extension including limited cleating and grubbing establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing city clerk to publish advertisement for bids, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Seconded by Farris. Resolution A-0-15 passed on a roll call vote, 5/0. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:38 AM. Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/13 2/10 2/16 ' 3/1~' 4~14 5/12 6/9 7/14 7/27 8/8 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay (Advisory OrE X X X X --- X O/E O/E O/E Member) Randy 3/1/09 X X X X X X X X X X Hart*vig Michelle 3/1/07 X X X X X O/E ............ Robnett John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X X X X O/E X Carl 3/1/10 X X X X X X X O/E O/E X Williams Greg Farris 3/1/07 .................... X X X Howard 3/1/08 ................... X X X Horan KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM= No meeting - Not a Member FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington Street Tuesday, July 26, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Scott I~ing, Paul Retish, Sara Baird, David Short MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend, Jim McCue, Bev Witwer, Geoff Wilming STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank, Marcia Hams ALSO PRESENT: Dale Helling 1. CAI.L TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. APPROVAl. OF MINUTES: Motion to approve minutes of May 24, 2005 by Retish and seconded by Short. Motion passed unanimously. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. 4. NEW BUSINESS: a. New Human Rights Investigator. Shank introduced the new investigator, Marcia Harris, to the commission. b. Opinion of administrative law judge: Kelly v. Advanced Auto Parts. Shank distributed copies of the judge's opinion, which was received today by e-mail. The commissioners also received a one-page summary of the opinion. Shank will mail copies of the decision and opinion to commissioners not present at the meeting. Refish and Short inquired regarding hearing procedure. Shank informed the commission that as a matter of procedure, the administrative law judge does not review the investigation file, but makes a decision based upon evidence presented by the attorneys at the hearing. It is the judge's job to apply the law and make an independent decision based on wimess credibility and the evidence presented, similar to a court trial proceeding. Comissioners need to read the opinion and decide ~vhether to accept or reject the ALJ's decision. The commission needs to discuss the opinion at a special meeting. Anne Burnside will coordinate the meeting to discuss the opinion. Heather provided Anne's work number in the event that commissioners have questions. If the commission decides to reject the opinion, they ~ need to read the entire hearing transcript and review all evidence presented at the hearing to determine whether damages should be awarded and decide upon the proper amount of damages. Commissioners may not review the human rights investigation file in making the determination. Commissioners who made the decision to go forward to public hearing (Victoria Garr and Short) may not participate in the commission's decision whether to approve the ALJ's opinion. This is because of separation of functions. Those commissioners reviewed the confidential memorandum prepared by Sue Dulek and participated in a different level of the decision-making process. They may read the ALJ opinion, but cannot discuss the decision with other commissioners during the current phase of the decision-making process. c. Shank resignation. Dale Helling reported that the City has advertised for the Human Rights Coordinator position and received 23 or 24 applications. Hellmg, the City Attorney, Beckmann, and potentially someone from Human Resources, will interview 4 candidates who have been chosen from the written applications. Interviews will hopefully be completed either the week of August 15m or 22"< depending on when schedules can be coordinated. Filling the position is a high priority for the City. Current staff persons will keep cases moving and take care of commission business until the position is filled. d. Open Meetings Law refresher. Shank provided a refresher regarding the open meetings law and public information. Confidential information should not be put in an e-mail, because e-mail may be considered a public record. If information is sent to all commission members via e-mail, it could be a violation of the open meetings law. Therefore, information cannot be distributed via group e-mail to all commission members. Commissioners were reminded that discussing commission business at gatherings outside of regular public meetings may be a violation of the open meetings law, so commission members should take care not to discuss agenda items when together in a non-meeting setting. Beckmann stated that it is advisable to err on the side of caution. 5. OLD BUSINESS. a. Human Rights Breakfast. Shank has created a chart to keep track of ticket payments. Tickets were distributed for sale by commissioners. Anne Burnside's e-mail address is listed as contact. Billie Townsend was to check on parking; however, Shank has not heard from her. Retish expressed a desire that attendees not have to eat cold eggs. Shank will follow up on the food and parking issues. Retish expressed a desire that law enforcement attendees not wear guns to the breakfast. Shank and Helling indicated that officers in uniform must wear their guns. Shank will e-mail the nomination form to individual commission members. Beckmann expressed concern about how to instruct nominators in completing the nomination form. Instructions are on the form and the website, but are not always followed. Retish raised the possibility of holding a public forum and completing a videotape for cable providing tips on how to complete a winning nomination form. Shank advised that Jerry Nixon is the cable contact. As September 1 is the deadline for nominations, completing a forum and video in time for this year's breakfast is unlikely. Retish and Short will coordinate. Beckmann asked ~vhether more city council members can be expected to attend the breakfast. Shank indicated that last year attendance was low due to illness and a conflicting event that involved several council members. b. Discussion of U of I Center for Human Rights. Ken Carniel is currently the head of the group. Retish indicated he was one of the four people who helped start the group. He believes the change in attitude will provide an opportunity for collaboration with the center as equals and foster coordination of issues common to the City and University. The commission is still seeking a member willing to take Shorr's place on the executive board. c. GSA video created by students at City High. Baird reported that students advised they were going a different route with the video and were not interested at this time in City sponsorship. d. Building Blocks for Education. Retish reported that October 18 is the date for building blocks and the job fair. The first couple of hours are usually the busiest. Gary I~ein of ACT has volunteered to coordinate employers to come with available jobs and will send a letter seeking participation from other employers. The commission discussed logistics and participation. Shank indicated that all materials have been prepared and are stored in Anne Burnside's office. 6. READING CASES. Commissioners were not provided with cases to read, because they will need to read and review the 53-page ALJ opinion. 7. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS. Baird and King reported on the pride festival. Shank received an award at the festival. Turnout was very good. Beckmann and others expressed gratitude and accolades for Shank upon her retirement. Our work will not be done as long as discrimination still exists. Beckmann brought a cake to honor Shank and to help her celebrate her retirement. 8. STATUS OF CASES. Shank reported that two scheduled public hearings did not take place, because the cases had settled shortly before the hearings. The lawsuit against the City and coordinator is still pending. Shank reported that the department has been working hard -- an extraordinary amount of cases have been closed due to completed investigations and settlements. Therefore, the new coordinator should not have to deal with a backload of cases. 8. ADJOURNMENT. Approximately 7:55 p.m. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TER 1/2 2/2 3/2 4)2 5]~ 6)2 7/2 8/1 8/2 9/2 10/ 11/ 12/ NAME M 5 2 2 6 4 I 6 7 3 7 25 22 27 EXP. Lisa 1/1/0 x X X YA O/ NM X X x Beckman 7 E NQ Paul 1/1/0 X X X YA O/ NM X O x Retish 7 E NQ Geoff 1/1/0 X X O/ YA X NM X x Wilming 7 E NQ Sara 1/1/0 X O/ X YA X NM X X x Baird 5 E NQ David 1/1/0 X X o/e YA X NM X O/ o/e Short 6 NQ E James 1/1/0 X X X YA X NM X x McCue 6 NQ Billie 1/1/0 X x X YA X NM X o Townsen 6 NQ d Bev 1/1/0 X X X YA O/ NM X x Witwer 5 E NQ Scott 1/1/0 X X X YA X NM X X x King 5 NQ KEY: X = Present NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = NotaMember 4 FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington Street Wednesday, August 17, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Scott Kdng, Sara Baird, Billie Townsend, Jim McCue, Bev Witwer, Geoff Wflrning MEMBERS ABSENT: David Short, Paul Retish STAFF MEMBERS: Anne Burnside, Sue Dulek 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. NEW BUSINESS: Review and discussion of proposed order by Administrative Law Judge in Kelley v. Advance Stores Co., Inc. Dulek stated the role of the Commission in this phase of the litigation is to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's decision and whether the decision contained errors of law. Dulek stated she has read the decision and did find it was supported by substantial evidence and did not fred it contained errors of law. Dulek reviewed the process followed during the heating in which the Complainant was ably represented by AttorneyJulie Pulkrabek. Both parties had a full opporttmity to present all evidence they thought relevant during the 2 1/2 days of hearing. After the hearing, both parties provided a brief to the Administrative Law Judge. Dulek stated she had concurred there was probable cause to support the constructive discharge claim but had advised Short and Garr the claim was not strong. Dulek stated the evidence regarding Complainant's claims of failure to promote and retaliation had been stronger. Commissioners confmned they had read the decision and agreed with Dulek's assessment. Motion by McCue to accept and adopt the Administrative Law Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Proposed Decision and Order. Seconded by IGng. Motion passed unanimously. 3. ADJOURNMENT. Approximately 7:40 p.m. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 Meeting Date) TER 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/1 8/2 9/2 10/ NAME M 5 2 2 6 4 1 6 7 3 7 25 EXP. Lisa 1/1/0 x X X YA O/ NM X X x Beckman 7 E NQ Paul 1/1/0 X X X YA O/ NM X O x Retish 7 E NQ Geoff 1/1/0 X X O/ YA X NM X x Wilming 7 E NQ Sara 1/1/0 X O/ X YA X NM X X x Baird 5 E NQ David 1/1/0 X X om YA X NM X O/ o/e Short 6 NQ E James 1/1/0 X X X YA X NM X x McCue 6 NQ Billie 1/1/0 X x X YA X NM X o Townsen 6 NQ d Bev 1/1/0 X X X YA O/ NM X x Witwer 5 E NQ Scott 1/1/0 X X X YA X NM X X x King 5 NQ KEY: X = Present NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not aMember Agenda item 3A~ FINAL APPROVED (~ Iowa Ci~ Public Library BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes 5-'00 pm -July 28~ 2005 2"d Floor Board Room David VanDusseldorp, President Linzee McCray, Vice President Thomas Dean William Korf Thomas Martin Meredith Rich-Chappell Pat Schnack~ Secretary Leon Spies Tom Surer Members Present: Thomas Dean, William Korf, Tom Martin, Meredith RichIChappell, Tom Surer, David VanDusseldorp, Members Absent: Linzee McCray, Pat Schnack, Leon Spies Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Martha Lubaroff, Patty McCarthy, Hal Penick Others: Rob Daniel, IC Press Citizen Call meeting to Order VanDusseldorp called the meeting to order at 5:01 pm. Public Discussion None Approval of minutes lvlinutes of the regular meeting of June 23, 2005 were approved unanimously after a motion made by Korf and seconded by Suter. All voted Aye and the motion carried 6-0. Unfinished Business Renewal of Realtor Agreement and Rental Property Update. Agenda item 3A 2 The agreement with Hanick expires this month. After meeting with Hanick and VanDusseldorp, Craig presented an update to the board. Two potential tenants currently are the best possibilities for an agreement. Each of these is interested in renting the entire space. They are also each interested for leasing arrangements of three years or more. The businesses are consistent with what we have set as guidelines. Hanick believes we are in the best position since beginning the process. VanDusseldorp recommends extending the contract based on this information. Craig said that she has not experienced any pressure from City Council or City Manager to get this done. The City Manager wants us to have a good long-term tenant, and administering space for one tenant will lessen the expense to us. If we wanted to attract other tenants who might require dividing the space, the expense would be ours. Suter moved to extend the contract. Martin seconded motion. All in favor voted Aye. Motion carried 6-0. The contract was extended to February 23, 2006. Approve Board Annual Report This was drafted after the Board meeting last month. Craig clarified the meaning of Tier :L status and how it impacts our accreditation. Board felt that the FY06 goals reflect Library's continued commitment to provide service. No action was necessary, the report will be in the annual report. New Business: Planning Review FY05 report on year that just ended. Korf commented on library staff's attendance at the ,1CCA regular meetings, which has been sporadic lately due to a busy summer at the library. FY06 showed the changes made since Board approved this plan last July. As plans evolved, some of the technology and partnership strategies were revised. Question about qualified patrons for interlibrary loans. This is a labor-intensive service and patrons requesting this service must be ]~owa City or rural Johnson County cardholders. Martin asked if we've ever considered doing a survey. Craig explained that as part of our planning process this past year, we engaged a professional and did an extensive community survey. We also did a user survey. Lubaroff will provide new Board members with a copy of surveys. Martin made a motion to accept the changes in FY06. Rich-Chappell seconded the motion. All in favor voted Aye and the motion carried 6-0. The new strategic plan that begins in FY07 was approved last month for the accreditation process. There have been no changes. Adopt NOBU Budqet for FY06 Questions: NOBU Budget. NOBU stands for Non Operating Budget Undesignated. Craig explained these funds include state aid, gift accounts, and interest from other accounts. The board has discretion over those accounts. By history, the Board has chosen the projects in July for the coming fiscal year. Although we are required to submit a budget to the City, the Board has some discretion on how the funds then are used, within the parameters of the budget. Craig has created placeholders for particular items. ];t is not always possible to know exactly how much money will be in the funds. For example, we have a larger carryover since we set aside money for the building and did not need it. None of that has been spent, but there may yet be Agenda item 3A 3 unexpected expenses concerning the rental property. There are ongoing expenses and then one- time projects. Craig addressed the amount requested for security for collections. The number of not returned DVD movies and some music CD's has grown. The self-check company is now marketing additional equipment that can sit next to self-check machines. We do not have cost estimates yet. Craig would like to have funds set aside to purchase the equipment and the cases if after study, staff recommends and Board approves. Tn response to a question, Craig replied that we could lose up to 500 discs in the course of a year. The solution has not been determined yet however having the money set aside for this project is necessary if we want to fund this year. Another one-time request is for funds to use for start-up expenses for a [CPL Book Cart Drill Team. This is a growing practice in public libraries. Tt promotes the library to the community; gives staff and others an opportunity to work together, and can be used as a fund-raising tool. Continuing education, another one-time project, does not typically get funded well from the operating budget and we need to send our librarians to quality continuing education programs. The Public Library Association Conference is next spring. The Foundation is gearing up to improve the Endowment Fund. A recommendation for an amount to be used as a matching staff gift challenge grant is included in the budget Rich-Chappell moved approval of the FY06 NOBU budget with a second from Korf. All in favor voted Aye. Motion carried 6-0. Penick gave a demonstration of the new web page which will be debuting Monday, 8/1. In response to a question about responsibility for decision-making, it was explained that different individuals and departments have responsibility for certain areas. How will we announce? Penick will write a press release. The single most used thing on the web page is the catalog. Congratulations from VanDusseldorp. Staff Reports Departmental Reports: Adult Service$/ ¢irculation~ and ~nformation Questions or comments: There were comments on the incredible growth in Circulation in one year. Development Office report: The Development Office ended the fiscal year on a great note, raising more than $100,000 for the Annual Fund. Friends Foundation Board of Directors agreed to sponsor the book cart drill team entry fee for the Homecoming parade. McCarthy said that the new online donation option on the recently developed website is awesome. Surer added that the Friends Foundation Board meeting was an informative one. Craig explained the history and relationship between the two boards. An orientation was conducted for new members Library Booth at the .lohnson County [CPL played a large part in organizing and helping staff the Public Libraries of .lohnson County booth. Agenda item 3A 4 ICPL Book cart drill team The library is forming a book cart drill team to debut at the UI Homecoming parade on September 30. This is a growing trend among libraries and is used as a public relations and fund-raising strategy. Craig saw a book cart competition at the recent American Libraries Association meeting in Chicago and is enthusiastic about ICPL forming one. Parking issues. This may be an agenda item next month. Sue Dulek is drafting some language to change the ordinance. Parking spaces have been working well because Maintenance Staff is out there throughout the day marking tires and giving tickets. There are issues, which Craig addressed in her memo to the Board. She wanted to give the Board a heads-up that there may be changes. Miscellaneous Gazette article on the Art Purchase Prize was included. The Library encourages artists to compete, rewards those that are judged winners and then acquires some lovely pieces, which then become part of the circulating art collection. There was some comment on the somewhat negative opinion article in the Press Citizen regarding the leasing of library's rental space for offices. It seems they are saying having a bar is better than having empty space. President's Report VanDusseldorp used this opportunity to ask new Board member Rich-Chappell to introduce herself. She has been interested in the library since 1992 when she came to University of Iowa as a student. She also volunteers at The Book End. All Board members took the opportunity to introduce themselves. Announcements from Members Korf announced a feature on "Live from Lincoln Center" being telecast that evening Dean reminded Board that next week is Weber Days. He encouraged people to participate. This program promotes local history and culture. Disbursements Review Visa Expenditures for .lune Approve Disbursements for June. Disbursements were approved after a motion by Suter seconded by Dean. All were in favor and the motion passed 6-0. Set agenda order for August Leased space, financial report, parking, fee card, and annual report. Reminder about August dinner at Schnack's house. Reminder about Board photograph. Agenda item 3A 5 Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm after a motion by Rich-Chappell, seconded by Martin. Minutes taken and submitted by Martha Lubaroff Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD CALENDAR YEAR 2005 Meetim TERM 1/2 2/25/ 3/24/ -4/28/ 5~26~ 6~23~ 7/28/ 8/25/ NAME EXP. 7/0 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 5 Thomas 7/1/09 O/e X x X x Cie x x Dean Bill K~rf 7/1/0@ x x x x x x x x Tom x x Martin Linzee 7/'1/0~ x x x x O/e x O/e x McCray Meredith Cie x Rich- Chappel Pat 7/1/07 x x x Cie Cie x Cie x $chnack Leon Spies O/e x Tom Suter 7/1/07 X x x X Ole x x x J m ~/~0~ x o!e ~ ~ Oi~ x David Van 7/1/07 x x x x x Cie x x Dusseldor P Agenda item 3A 6 KEY: X -- Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member