Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-22 Info Packet & - j. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 22, 2005 I IP1 Tentative Future City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Absence IP3 Letter from the City Manager to FAA Central Region Airports Division: Aircraft Viewing Area IP4 Letter from Anthony Gaul and Mike Thompson to the Fire Chief: Thank you for the excellent training provided to the Sergeant Bluff Fire/Rescue Department IP5 Letter from JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner to Kennedy Parkway Residents: Resident meeting to discuss traffic calming on Kennedy Parkway IP6 Police Department Use of Force Report August 2005 IP7 Agenda: The Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group September 28, 2005 I PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES IP8 Public Library: August 25, 2005 IP9 Historic Preservation Commission: September 8, 2005 IP10 Economic Development Committee: September 13, 2005 IPll DeerTask Force: April 26, 2005 ~--~-~T~,~ and ~ ~ City Council Meeting Schedule CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas September 21,2005 www.icgov.org TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p - 8:30p Special Work Session (zoning code) · TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p - 8:30p Special Work Session (zoning code) · MONDAY, OCTOBER 3 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Special Formal (public hearing zoning code) · MONDAY, OCTOBER 10 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall TBA Special Work Session or Formal (zoning code) · MONDAY, OCTOBER 17 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19 North Liberty TBA Joint Meeting · MONDAY, OCTOBER 31 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 2:00p Work Session (Special time 2:00 - 5:00 p.m.) · TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall TBA Special Work session or Formal (zoning code) · MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting Date: September 21, 2005 To: City Council ,~ ,,~/ From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re-' Absence I will be out of the office attending the International Municipal Lawyers Association annual conference during the week of Monday, September 26. Mitch Behr, who handled the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings as the Zoning Code was progressing through Planning and Zoning, will be present at your special work sessions on Monday and Tuesday to discuss the Zoning Code. My staff will know how to reach me. cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager City Clerk eleanor/mern/09-26conference.doc ZITY OF IOWA CITY www.iegov.org September 19, 2005 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Mr. Todd M. Madison, P.E. Airport Planning Engineer- Iowa Stephen J. Atldns FAA Central Region Airports Division, A.C.E.-61 lC City Manager 901 Locust steve-atkins~iowa-city.org Kansas City, MO 64106-2325 Dale E. Helling Assistant City Manager Dear Mr. Madison: dale-hclling~iowa-city.org On behalf of the City of Iowa City, owner of the Iowa City Municipal Airport, I would like to take this opportunity to support the Airport Commission's plan to develop an aircraft "viewing area" in a currently unused area of airport property north of the terminal building. The City of Iowa City understands the primary use of such land is for "aeronautical uses". Further I would like to assure you it is the City's position that such a viewing area will not be considered a City Park and, if you do allow its installation, the City acknowledges this would only be a temporary use of this airport property. If this area of airport property is ever needed for aeronautical use the City will allow the aircraft viewing area to be removed without compensation or mitigation. Thank you for your consideration of the Airport Commission's request. If you feel a more formal assurance from the City of Iowa City is needed, please advice. Sincerely, City Manager Cc: Mayor City Council Members Airport Commission Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5010 Fax: (319)356-5009 IP4 O Sergeant BlUff, IA 401 Fourth Street Sergeant Bluff, IA 51054 (712) 943-4244 Chief Andy Rocca Dear Chief Andy Rocca, I want to thank you for the professionalism that your depart~ment h~ sho.wn md ?r t. he ,e,xcelle.nt training that they haveprovided to the Sergeant Bluff Flre/lxescue iJepartment, uunng m_e past three years members of our department, including myself, have taken numerous courses ii-om your firefighters and officers at both winter and summer fire schools. We have implemented many posi- tive and beneficial changes in our training and operating procedures due to the training we re- ceived. W'nenever a firefighter is questi.oning which course_t.o ta,,k.e at,[ F, ir, e School,in .A[n, es, ,Weone simply check to see what courses are being taught by Iowa C~ty mrengnters ana steer rnem to of those courses. The benefits of our training have also carried over to our training facility. We have built many simple props for our training grounds due to ideas and advice from your firefighters. We keep in touch with members of your department on a regular basis to exchange ideas, with Sergeant Bluff being on the receiving end most times. However, we have recently acquired two forcible entry props that we know both Lt. Dolan and Firefighter Buckman are very interested in. If at any time they would like to come to Sergeant Bluff and view either the forcible entry props or any items in our training facility, we would do anything possible to assist them. It would be a pleasure to repay a portion of the professionalism and training that your department has provided to us. Thank you, ~ss~ih~t GF~rUe1 Chief FMi}ekeZhihe°fmP s °'n Sergeant Bluff Fire & Rescue .'( o D Mayor ~>~_~mc° City of Sergeant Bluff ,~ ~ -- r ..... Cc: Ernest Lehman - Mayor of Iowa City, BC Dan Smith - ICFD Remember the Past, Embrace the Future www. nitvnfs~.ra~.~ nt htHff n~m CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 September 16, 2005 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Kennedy Parkway Residents Re: Resident meeting to discuss traffic calming on Kennedy Parkway Dear Resident: A few weeks ago, the City received a request from the Walnut Ridge Neighborhood Association to have Kennedy Parkway considered for the City's Traffic Calming Program. The City completed an evaluation and determined that this street qualifies for the program based on speed (85th-percentile speed exceeding 5 mph over the posted speed limit). The next step in the traffic calming process is to have a neighborhood meeting to discuss the possible traffic calming measures. At this meeting I hope to develop a neighborhood consensus on a preferred traffic calming measure. If a consensus can be reached, we will then conduct a survey of residences that would be impacted. A meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 4, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at Melrose Meadows, at 350 Dublin Drive (on the corner of Dublin Drive and Melrose Avenue). I expect the meeting to last no more than one hour. Please consider attending this meeting. If you cannot, please feel free to contact me with your comments or questions at 356-5254 or anissa-williams@iowa-city, org. Sincerely, Anissa Williams JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner cc: City Manager City Council Jeff Davidson Karin Franklin Marcia Klingaman Rick Fosse Ron Knoche Bud Stockman John Sobaski jccopt p/It rs/kennedy-pkwy, doc IP6 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ~- USE OF FORCE REPORT August 2005 ~ OFFICER DATE INC ~ INCIDENT FORCE UgED 06,05 080505 05-38159 Intox Arrest Subject was placed under arrest for public intoxication. Subject resisted post arrest search efforts. Officers used control techniques to perform the search. 95,55,30 080605 05-38346 Assist other agency Officers drew sidearms to during the arrest of a subject that was wanted on felony warrants and attempting to hide. Subject was taken into custody without incident. 18 080805 05-38671 Animal Complaint Officer used sidearm to dispatch an injured rabbit. 06,33 081005 05-38975 Vehicle Pursuit Officers pursued vehicle that was refusing to stop. Vehicle did then come to a stop. Officers drew sidearms while removing occupants from the vehicle. Suspects were taken into custody without incident. 02 081005 05-38975 PAULA Subject had been taken into custody for an alcohol violation and was at ICPD. Subject crawled under a desk and refused to come out. Officers used control techniques to persuade the subject from under the desk. 41,84 081105 05-39175 Suspicious Activity Subject resisted efforts to be taken into custody so that they could be evaluated at the hospital. Officers used control techniques to escort the subject to an ambulance. 52 081105 05-39279 Animal Complaint Officer used sidearm to dispatch an injured rabbit. 12 082105 05-41138 Disorderly Conduct Subject was being arrested for disorderly conduct and resisted hand cuffing efforts. Officers used control techniques to place hand cuffs on the subject. 44,34 082205 05-41336 Welfare Check Officers drew sidearms while checking an apartment for a subject who was not suppose to be there. The suspect was not located. 85,25,02,16, 082205 05-41392 Suicidal Subject Officers drew sidearms and other 56,59,30,20, specialized weapons while negotiating 49,51,35,34 with a subject who was threatening to harm themselves and believed to be armed. Subject was taken into custody without incident. 84, 082405 05-41718 Assault Officers used control techniques to prevent a subject from striking another subject. 42 082405 05-41920 PCS Arrest Officer used a control technique to keep a subject from assaulting them. 55 082505 05-41953 Out with subject Subject was being placed under arrest regarding a warrant and fled on foot. Officers caught up to the subject and used control techniques to take them into custody. 51 083105 05-43268 Out with Subject Officer approached a subject regarding a violation. Subject attempted to flee from officers but was stopped with a control technique. Marian Karr IP7 From: Gina Peters [gina.peters@ecicog.org] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:01 PM To: William Voss; William Cooper; Tom Svoboda; ThomasC. Patterson; Terrence Neuzil; Tawnia Kakacek; SteveAtkins; Shelley Allison; Sharon Meyer; ScottGrabe; Sally Stutsman; Rozena McVey; Rod Sullivan; Rick Elliott; Randy H. Fouts; PriorityOne; Paula Freeman-Brown; Paul Pate; PatrickMurphy; Pat Harney; Nancy Beuter; Mike Sullivan; Mike Goldberg; Michael Lehman; MaryK Mitchell; Mark K Kresowik; Marian Karr; MaggieGrosvenor Mowery; Lu Barron; Linda Langston; LesBeck; Larry Dauenbaugh; Kelly Hayworth; JoshuaSchamberger; John Nieland; Jo Hogarty; JeffSchott; Jeff Davidson; Jane Tompkins; JamesHouser; J. Patrick White; IA Environmental Education Project; Howard R. Green; Hills; Gloria Jacobson; GlenPotter; Doug Kamberling; Doug; Don Saxton; Don Gray; Dee Vanderhoef; Dale Stanek; ConnieEvans; Casie Kadlec; Brian James; Becky Shoop; Arnold-Olson & Assoc.; Lee Clancey Cc: . Mary; Chad; Jen Subject: Next Leadership Group Meeting Group Agenda,doc 8 17 2005 8 23 05 meeting notes,doc MAPl.doc (39 KB) sf200.doc (7 NB) (25 KB) minutes.doc (23 KB~inutes.doc (25 KB) (25 KB) Dear Colleague: The next meeting of the Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group will be Wednesday, September 28, 2005, 5:00 p.m., at the Ely Public Library (map attached). In addition to the agenda, summaries of work group meetings that have been held to date are attached. The Infrastructure work group met again today, and the Intergovernmental Services Sharing work group will meet on September 22. Summaries of these meetings will be available at the meeting on September 28. You'll note there is a full agenda for the meeting, including several guest speakers. A copy of SF200 is attached in preparation for Stacie Johnson's presentation. If you are unable tc attend, we strongly encourage you to send another representative from your community to participate. Contact us if you have any questions. Douglas D. Elliott Executive Director ECICOG 108 Third Street SE Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 (319) 365-9941, x22 (voice (319) 365-9981 (fax) www.ecicog.org *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders Agenda Public Leadership Group Ely Public Library 1595 Dows Street Ely, Iowa Wednesday, September 28, 2005 INFORMAL MEETING Work Session 1. Call to order 5:00 p.m. 2. Welcome and Introductions Dale Stanek, Mayor, City of Ely Linda Langston, Chairperson - Linn County Board of Supervisors Sally Stutsman, Chairperson - Johnson County Board of Supervisors 3. Watershed Improvement Fund (SF200) Stacie Johnson, FAIR Water Quality Project 4. Work Group Reports Regional Planning Transportation Intergovernmental Services Infrastructure 5. Regional Updates Mark Kresowik, University of Iowa, Iowa Great Places Proposal Joshua Schamberger, ICCCVB, Richard Florida Visit 6. Future agenda items 7. Next meeting date and location 8. Other 9. Adjournment Linn/Johnson Public Leadership Group Transportation Workgroup Meeting Wednesday, August 17, 2005 Solon City Hall 223 South Iowa Solon, Iowa The following members were present: Pat Hamey, Johnson County Matthew Bahl, City of North Liberty Rick Jedlicka, City of Solon Staff present: Mary Rump Others present: none 1.0 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:10 PM. 2.0 Routine Matters · 1 Approval of Minutes None. 3.0 New Business · 1 Review Previously Identified Priorities The summary of the priorities identified during the strategic planning process was reviewed. A copy of the issues rankings was also distributed. .2 Consider Additional Priorities The group discussed additional priorities, but felt that those identified during the Strategic planning process was sufficient if additional detail is provided. .3 Consider Recommendation to the Leadership Group The group established a list of short-term (to be completed in 3-5 years) priority issues: 1). Establish regional trail network - link existing segments to complete a trail from Cedar Rapids to Iowa City. 2). Work with the Iowa DOT to get regionally significant projects back in the 5 year program, including Highway 30 (Lisbon/Mt. Vernon) and Highway 1 (Solon). 3). Encourage alternative transportation modes (not just rail, but buses as well). Initial phase connects Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Swisher, Eastern Iowa Airport, and Cedar Rapids. Additional phases include links to other communities. .4 Set Regular Meeting Schedule Any additional meetings will be scheduled for the 4th Thursday of the month at 6:00 PM. 4.0 Old Business None. 5.0 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM. Linn / Johnson County Leadership Group Regional Planning Sub-work Group Meeting August 23, 2005 (Agenda) Introductions Meeting Preview 1.0 Review working job description of the Regional Planning Work Group 2.0 Discuss previously identified Regional Planning Issues - 2.1 Review issues - 2.2 Identify 2 or 3 leading issues 3.0 Establish short-term goals / strategies for the leading issues 4.0 Questions / Public Forum Minutes 1.0 Discussion of the working job description yielded the following changes: The charge of the work group is to identify and deliberate the issues of Regional Planning as they relate to the Johnson/Linn County region, and to investigate ways for the city and county governments in the region to cooperate in addressing those issues. The work group should report its deliberations regularly and make specific, measurable recommendations to the Leadership Group for the benefit of the overall work plan. 2.0 The group wished to look at a larger picture than the previously identified Regional Planning Issues. Big picture ideas and higher level planning issues were discussed. Many of the previously identified regional planning issues, while greatly important, are already being done and fit into a more smaller picture concept. The major issues the group wishes to currently consider and deliberate include the following: 1) Prepare an overall Strengths and Weakness Analysis (with challenges and possibilities) for the two counties. 2) Marketing and Image for the two counties 3) Information sharing 3.0 Short'-term goals and strategies were discussed. The following issues should be deliberated and addressed: 1) Define the corridor - How do smaller communities in the two counties fit in? 2) Do other groups need to be at the table? - ICAD, Priority One, etc. 3) Increase entrepreneurialship within the two counties 4) Establish and market core regions within the two counties -Industry - Entertainment - Business 5) Create name for the area for marketing purposes 6) Information sharing ideas: - Utilize ECICOG Board for local issue deliberations on a regional scale more effectively Infrastructure Work Group Meeting notes from August 12, 2005 Exchange State Bank, Swisher Attendance: Linda Langston, Mike Lehman, Scott Grabe, Jennifer Ryan Reviewed and approved the following group job description. The charge of the work group is to deliberate the issues of Infrastructure as they relate to the Johnson/Linn County region, and to investigate ways for the city and county governments in the region to cooperate in addressing those issues. The work group should report its deliberations regularly and make specific, measurable recommendations to the Leadership Group for the benefit of the overall work plan. Discussed and further defined the infrastructure issues as identified by the full Leadership Group. · Unified government communications system · Solid waste management · Water quality mandates · Use of public right-of-ways · Public safety/governmental communications systems · Countywide utilities The group determined that several related issues should be combined and prioritized into the following list: · Cooperative water / wastewater management systems (combination of water quality mandates and countywide utilities). · Communication systems (combination of unified gov't communications and public safety / gov't communications systems). · Solid waste management. Discussed each issue and identified activities / recommendations for the Leadership Group. Cooperative water / wastewater management systems The provision of water and the treatment ofwastewater is an expensive issue particularly in small communities. Increasing DNR regulation is driving the construction of mechanical treatment plants. · Survey communities to determine water / wastewater needs and issues. · Research existing and new state regulation. · Identify opportunities for sharing facilities based on topography and geography. · Investigate the establishment of a cooperative taxing entity such as a water board. Communication systems Discussed the idea of updating, expanding, and consolidating a variety of communication systems at the city and county level of government. Public safety, schools and the general public were identified as potential beneficiaries of a new system. · Review current studies of thc issue and explore the possibility of a regional study. Solid waste management Discussed local waste management issues affecting both counties and the opportunities to continue reducing waste. · Keep lines of communication open between local governments regarding waste management issues. · Evaluate and promote unit based pricing structure of trash collection / disposal to encourage recycling. · Restructure community clean-ups / community credits to encourage waste reduction and recycling. · Evaluate and promote the Keep Linn County Beautiful model for addressing illegal dumping. ELY PUBLIC LIBRARY 1595 DOWS STREET ELY IA ~ '~ . R~op~r~CteekRd Vista Rd ~)200~ NAVTEQ Page 1 of 4 Text: SF~99 Text: SF201 Complete Bill History Senate File 200 PAG 1 1 DIVISION I 1 2 IOWA BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE == 1 3 ELIMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT 1 4 Section 1. Section 169.5, subsection 7, unnumbered I 5 paragraph 3, Code 2005, is ~mended by striking the unnumbered 1 6 paragraph. 1 7 DIVISION II 1 8 MOTOR VE~ICLE FUEL DEALERS == ELIMINATION OF 1 9 VOLUNTARY SAMPLING PROCEDURE J~TD FEE 1 10 Sec. 2. Section 214A,6, Code 2005, is repealed. 1 11 DIVISION III 1 12 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT 1 13 Sec- 3. NEW SECTION. 466A.1 DEFINITIONS. 1 14 As used in the chapter, unless the context otherwise 1 15 requires: 1 16 1. "Board" means the watershed improvement review board as 1 17 established in section 466A.3. 1 18 2. "Committee" means a local watershed improvemenn 1 19 committee as provided in section 466A 4. ] 20 3. "Division" means the division of soil conservation 1 21 within the department of agriculture and land stewardship as 1 22 established in section 161A.4, 1 23 4. "Fund" means the watershed improvement fund as created ] 24 pursuant to section 466A.2. 1 25 Sec. 4. NEW SECTION. 466A,2 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT FUND. 1 26 1. A watershed improvement fund is created In the state 1 27 treasury which shall be administered by the treasurer of state 1 28 upon direction of the watershed improvement review board. 1 29 Moneys appropriated to the fund and any other moneys available 1 30 to and obtained or accepted by the treasurer of state for 1 31 placement in the fund shall be deposited in the fund. 1 32 Additionally, payments of interest, recaptures of awards, and 1 33 other repayments to the fund shall be deposited in the fund. 1 34 Notwithstanding section 12C.7, subsection 2, interest or 1 35 earnings on moneys in the fund shall be credited [o the fund, 2 1 Notwithstanding section 8.33, moneys in the fund that remain 2 2 unencumbered or unobligated at the end of the fiscal year 2 3 shall nor revert, but shall remain available for the same 2 4 purpose in the succeeding fiscal year. The moneys in the fund 2 5 shall be used exclusively for carrying out the purposes of the 2 6 fund as provided in this section. Moneys appropriated to the 2 7 treasurer of s~ate and deposited in the fund shall not be used 2 8 by the treasurer of sta~e for administratIve purposes, 2 9 2. The purposes of the watershed improvement fund are the 2 10 following: http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/de fault, asp?category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&m... 9/14/05 Page 2 of 4 2 11 a~ Enhancement of water quality in the state through a 2 12 variety of impairment=based locally directed watershed 2 13 improvemen5 grant projects. 2 14 b. Positively affecting the management and use of wauer 2 15 for the purposes Of drinking agriculture, recreation, sport, 2 16 and economic developmenn in the state. 2 17 c. Ensuring public participation in the process of 2 18 determining priorities related to water quality including but 2 19 not limited to all of the following: 2 20 (1} Agricultural runoff and drainage, 2 21 (2) Stream bank erosion. 2 22 (3) Municipal discharge. 2 23 (4) Stormwauer runoff. 2 24 (5) Unsewered communities. 2 25 (6) Industrial discharge. 2 26 (7) Livestock runoff. 2 27 Sec. 5 NEW SECTION. 466A.3 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT REVIEW 2 28 BOARD. 2 29 1. A watershed improvement review board is established. 2 30 a. The board shall consist of ali of the following voting 2 31 members appointed by the named entity or entities and 2 32 approved by the governor: 2 33 (1) one meraber of the agribusiness association of Iowa. 2 34 (2) One me~foer of the Iowa association of water agencies, 2 35 (3) One me,lber of the Iowa environmental council. 3 1 (4) one member of the Iowa farm bureau federation. 3 2 (5) One member of the Iowa pork producers association. 3 3 (6) One member of the Iowa rural water association. 3 4 (7) One member of the Iowa soybea~ association. 3 5 {8) One member representing soil and water conservation 3 6 districts of Iowa, ] v (91 One member of the Iowa association of county 3 8 conservation boards. 3 9 (10} One person representing the department of agriculture 3 10 and land stewardship. ~ 11 (11. One person representing the department of natural 3 12 resources. 3 13 b. The board shall consist of four members of the general 3 14 assembly who shall sel-~e as voting Members. Not more than one 3 15 member from each house shall be from the same political party. 3 16 Two state senators shall be appointed, one by the majoriEy 3 17 leader of the senate and one by the minority leader of the 3 18 senate. Two sEate representatives shall be appointed, one by 3 19 the speaker of the house of representatives and one by the 3 20 ~inority leader of the ho~se of representatives. A me~er may 3 21 designate another person to attend a board meeting if the 3 22 member is unavailable. Only the member is eligible for per 3 23 diem and expenses as provided in section ~.10. 3 24 2, a. The voting members of the board shall serve Ehree= 3 25 year staggered ter~s commencing and ending as provided in 3 26 ~ection 69 19. Ii a vacancy occurs, a successor shall be 3 27 appointed in the same manner and subjsct to the same 3 28 qualifications a~ the original appointment no serve the 3 29 remainder of the term. 3 30 b. The voting members of the board shall elect a 3 31 chairperson and vice chairperson a£mua]lv from the voting 3 32 memJ0ership of the board A majority of the voting members of 3 33 the board constitutes a quol-um. If the chairperso~ and vice 3 34 chairperson are unable to preside over the board due to 3 35 absence or disability, a majority of the voulng members http://coolice.lcgis,stateJa,us/Coo].lCE/default asp?catcgory=billinfo&Service=Billbook&m,.. 9/14/05 Pag~ 3 of 4 4 1 present may elect a temporary chairperson by a ma30rlty vote 4 2 providing a quorum is present. 4 3 3. The watershed improvement review board shall do all of 4 4 the following: 4 5 a. Award local watershed improvement grants and monitor 4 6 the progress of local watershed improvement projects awarded 4 7 grants. A local watershed improvement grant may be awarded 4 8 for a period not to exceed three years. Each local watershed 4 9 improvement grant awarded shall not exceed ten percent of the 4 10 moneys appropriated for the grants during a fiscal year. 4 11 b. Assist with the development of monitoring plans for 4 12 local watershed improvement projects~ 4 13 c. Review monitoring results before, during, and after 4 14 completion of a local watershed improvement project. 4 15 d. Review costs and benefits of mitigation practices 4 16 utilized by a project. 4 17 e. By January 31, annually, submit an electronic report to 4 18 the governor and the general assembly regarding the progress 4 19 of the watershed improvement projects during the previous 4 20 calendar year. 21 f. Elicit the expertise of other organizations for 4 22 technical assistance in the work of the board. 23 9 Independently develop and adopt administrative rules 4 24 pursuant to chapter 17A to administer this chapter. 4 25 4 A watershed improvement review board member who also 26 serves on a local watershed improvement committee shall 27 abstain from voting on a local watershed improvement grant 4 28 application submitted by the same local watershed improvement 29 committee of which the person :s a member. A member of the 30 general assembly shall abstain from participating on any issue 4 31 relating to a watershed which :s in the member's legislative 32 district. 4 33 Sec. 6. NEW SECTION. 466A.4 LOCAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT 4 34 COMMITTEES. 4 35 1 A local watershed improvement committee shall be 5 1 organized for the purposes of applying for a local wagershed 5 2 improvement grant and implementing a local watershed 5 3 improvement project. Each local watershed improvemenc grant 5 4 application shall include a methodology for attaining 5 5 measurable observable, and performance=based results. A 5 6 majority of the members of the committee shall represent a 5 7 cause for the impairment of the watershed. The com~aittee 5 8 shall be authorized as a not=for=profit organization by the 5 9 secretary of state. Soil and water conservation districts may 5 10 also be eligible and apply for and recemve local watershed 5 11 Improvement gra~ts. 5 12 2 A local watershed improvement committee shall be 5 13 responsible for application for and implementation of an 5 14 approved local watershed improvement grant including 5 15 providing authorization for projec~ bids and project 5 16 expenditures under the grant. A portion of the grant moneys 5 17 may be used go engage engineering expertise related to the 5 ]8 projecn. The committee shall monitor local performance 5 19 throughout the local watershed grant project and shall submit 5 20 a reporu at six=month intervals regarding the progress and 5 21 findings of the project as required by the committee. 5 22 Sec 7. NEW SECTION. 466A,5 ADMINISTP~TION. 5 23 The soil conservation division of the department of 5 24 agriculture and land stewardship shall provide administrative 5 25 support ~o the board. Not more than one percent of the total http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default asp?category=biHinfo&Service=Billbook&ra._ 9/14/05 Page 4 of 4 5 26 moneys deposited in the watershed improvement fund on July 1 5 27 o~ a fiscal yeas or fifty thousand dollars, whichever is less~ 5 28 is appropriated each fiscal year ~o the division for the 5 29 purposes o~ assisting the watershed lmprovemen~ review board 5 30 in administering this chapter~ 5 31 SF 200 5 32 da:rj/cc/26 Text: SF199 Text: SF201 Comp._ete B Hist_o..ry DRAFT Iowa City Public'Library BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A Minutes 5:00 pm - August 25, 2005 2nd Floor Board Room David VanDusseldorp, President Liozee McCray, Vice President Thomas Dean William Korf Thomas Martin Meredith Rich-Chappell Pat Schnack, Secretary Leon Spies Tom Suter Members Present: Thomas Dean, William Korf, Tom Martin, Linzee McCray, Meredith Rich- Chappell, Pat Schnack, Leon Spies, Tom Surer, David VanDusseldorp Members Absent: Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Patty McCarthy, Hal Penick Call meeting to Order VanDusseldorp called the meeting to order at 5:10 pm Public Discussion None Approval of minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of July 28, 2005 were approved after a motion made by Suter and seconded by Martin. All were in favor and the motion passed 9-0. Unfinished Business Leased Space Update: Things are not as far along they were last month.' The interested party did have a second meeting involving Craig and Hanick but decided on another space. The space continues to be shown. Hanick will begin to market the space in another venue based on interest that has been shown to use the space for offices. One issue is the expense of remodeling the area on the first floor if that became necessary. Craig had a conversation with several City employees who are involved in a similar project and there is a model for how the City handles these expenses and charges them back to the tenant(s). Agenda item 3A Page No 2 Parkinq Craig alerted the Board about the ordinance language being considered. This came together quickly and has been approved by Council. Two more Council meetings and the law takes effect once Lhe new signs are posted. It allows us to write tickets more quickly, Will be able to do a ticket every 10 minutes if need be, :~t increases the penalty for parking in the book drop site and gives us tow-away rights, Craig says that option would only be used under extreme circumstances. The daily rate at the Dubuque St. ramp has gone up which pushes all-day parkers to other ramps. A covered walkway from the Hoen building is being built to allow protected movement from the parking ramp to the library. :~t will be available during hours when library is open. We need to insure there are always short-term spaces in this ramp for library visitors. New Business Annual report VanDusseldorp remarked that: the annual report is an amazing collection of statistics. He asked for comments. The numbers of youngsters served during the summer is remarkable. Dean was impressed with how staff pitched in to work harder to handle the increased use. Korf had some questions about part-time staff. Hartin was impressed with the number of people to come through the building. A comment: was made on the large number of items that go out: and then come back. The turn around time for geeing something ordered and in the hands of a patron has been made briefer by technology to help enhance our services. When a book is checked in, the status says, "recently returned" for three days. This fall, Qrc staff will evaluate our average reshelving time, to see if we need to reduce the number of days the catalog says, "recently returned". Craig pointed out two numbers. The reserves placed have gone u 32%. Reserves are very staff intensive. [n-house Tnternet computer uses are up from 40,000 to 112,000. Hore computers have been added. Craig explained how a session on the computer is monitored for time so that: people do not abuse their Tnternet session, i'ncrease in holds is partly due to the ability to reserve a hold on line. The new self-checks and other technology improvements help us absorb the increased use with the same staff. Budget preparation Craig included a memo that outlines a timeline for budget preparation. She has not: received any guidelines from the City yet. The memo was included to allow for a preliminary discussion of expanding hours, a goal of the new strategic plan that begins in FY07 since il: is a very difficult proposal to work with. She asked the Board to discuss expanded hours before staff does the work involved for budgeting. These options came from the surveys and she wants to put a budget request together that the City might look favorably on it. Surer described conversations with Council members who are in favor of expanding hours. He is in favor of it. A question was asked regarding consideration of an earlier than 10 am opening. Craig replied that: according to the survey, the choices were Friday evenings, longer on Sunday and opening earlier in the am. The most popular was more Sunday hours, then Friday evenings and the least favored was 9-10 in the morning. The 8-10 time in the morning is used for meetings by staff because no one is on desk. Also, Maintenance has an opportunity to get certain chores done during that time. The option of staying open on Friday evenings and making Agenda item 3A Page No 3 it seasonal was raised. There was also a question about remaining open until 9 pm instead of 8 pm on Friday. Sunday from 12-5 or 12-6 rather than 1-6 was suggested. Lauritzen replied that logistically 12-6 it is a problem, necessitating lunch breaks, and other issues. Board agreed that budget proposals should consider adding 2 hours on Friday and one on Sunday. They look forward to information about the costs to enable them to make those choices. It will be on the agenda next time. Staff Reports Departmental Reports: Children's, Systems~ And Technical Services Green shared a communication from a family returning to .~ordan. They gave a gift to the library of a prayer rug and wrote a poem. VanDusseldorp asked if there were comments on the reports. McCray commented on the incredible numbers of kids in summer reading and expressed concern with the staffing issues. Systems report. VanDusseldorp asked Penick about feedback on the new web page. Penick reported there has not been much, which is good news. Teen page went up today. Kids will go up at the end of the week. McCray had a question about Wikipedia, and WebBridge. Penick explained that Wikipedia is a software program that allows for collaborative editing of documentation. Web Bridge is a module that allows us to provide through the catalog, links that enable the reader to find other, related resources, at the click of a button. Technical Services - E-audio. It is coming. Entire books can be loaded on an mp3 player. The service we are subscribing to eliminates the need to buy multiple copies because any number of users can download the same title at the same time. This service will only be available to our primary users - Iowa City and rural county residents. In answer to a question, we will check out mp3 players. Books on tape will eventually become pass& The future of CD's remains to be seen. Development Office McCarthy is excited about on-line giving. She encouraged Board members to mark their calendars with the special dates included in her report. She said a donor reception is being planned for the end of October. Will get back to Board with a date. VanDusseldorp explained the Book Gala event to Board in response to a question. Iowa Library Association Conference TLA Conference is coming up in October. Board members are invited to attend any or all of the conference. There was some interest and Lubaroff will follow up. There was also some interest in a Trustee workshop being held in October at the Coral Ridge Mall. Fee Cards/Hills Nothing new on fee cards and Hills. Craig has left messages and has not heard back. She believes University Heights has a library Levy on the ballot this fall. This will be confirmed. Lubaroff's job to be posted Lubaroff's job is to be posted soon. She is retiring the end of October. Due to the difficulty in reclassifying a position with an incumbent in it and the need to attract well-qualified people, this Agenda item 3A Page No 4 position will be brought to the City Council for consideration to upgrade. We will be advertising early in September. Financial reports FY05 Year End Receipts Craig said we made 129% of our receipts in fines. Approximately 98% of the budget was spent by the end of fiscal year 05. President's Report VanDusseldorp thanked Board for all being here. He is very appreciative of attendance and involvement. He introduced new Board member Leon Spies, who told the Board about his interest and fondness for libraries. He is the rural county representative. The rest of the Board introduced themselves to Spies. Announcements from Members McCray informed the Board that Lazy Boy and the Recliners would be performing on September 2 at the Friday night concert series. Disbursements Visa Expenditures for July were reviewed. Disbursements for July were approved after a motion made by Surer and seconded by Dean. All voted Aye and the motion passed 9-0. Set agenda order for September meeting. Leased space. Preliminary budget discussion. Expanded hours, Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm after a motion made by Schnack and seconded by Surer. All voted Aye and motion carried 9-0. Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD CALENDAR YEAR 2005 TERM 1/27/ 2/25/ 3/24/ 4/28/ 5/26/ 6/23/ 7/28/ 8/25~ NAME EXP. 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 Thomas 7/1/09 O/e x x x x O/e x x Dean Te~ Bill Korf 7/1/09 x x x x x x x x Tom Martin x x Linzee 7/1/09 x x x x O/e x O/e x McCray Li~ e~!l 0i~ Term Meredith O/e x Rich- Chappel Pat Schnack 7/1/07 x x x O/e O/e x O/e x Leon Spies O/e x Tom Snter 7/1/07 x x x x O/e x x x :Jim Swaim :71t/05 0/e 01~ x ~erni David Van 7/1/07 x x x x x O/e x x Dusseldorp KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting .... Not a Member IP9 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL SEPTEMBER $, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Chris Ackerson, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Bestor, John Cordell, Maria Duarte, Kurt Dyer, Mike Lange, Shelley McCafferty, Owner of 1022 E. College Street, Roger Shultz, Rose Shultz, Jenni Thielen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 520 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the application is for an addition to the back of the house that would be over the existing addition, measuring approximately 24 feet by 18 feet. Terdalkar said that one of the issues to be addressed includes the size and proportion of the new addition in relation to the house. He said that the guidelines specify certain criteria, which are mentioned in the staff report. Roger Shultz said that the preferred way to add on to a colonial is to place the addition to the side or to the rear. He said that the addition involves the rear of his property, to increase the size of the upstairs. Roger Shultz said that the addition would take advantage of the east and south sides to enjoy natural light and enjoy visual access to the oversized rear yard. He said that he does not propose to expand any of the footprint of the existing house, which would keep the emphasis on the main house and simplify construction above an already-made addition. Roger Shultz said that the gabled roof would be perpendicular to the existing gabled roof. He said an eleven-inch extension would be given to the east side to match the existing house. Roger Shultz said that plans show that the roof is actually twelve inches higher than the original roof. He said this was done to maintain the pitch very close to the original roof pitch but still allow an eight-foot ceiling line in the addition. Roger Shultz said he plans to add French doors in the back, a protective railing, and a sunburst window similar to a fan lamp that would be found in a colonial house. He said this would be recessed into the addition by six feet. Roger Shultz said that he would also like to place windows as close as he can to match the existing windows in the house. Roger Shultz said that on the south side, he is looking for a proud vertical stance that is typical of earlier colonials. He stated that adding windows that are as close as he can find to the original home will contribute natural light. Enloe said the owner wants to have an eight-foot ceiling height next to the walls inside the addition. He asked the owner what he has on the front part of the house on the same floor. Lange said that there are approximately five-foot knee walls. He said the owners want to avoid that. Weitzel said that the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) had concerns about the roof ridge that would be taller than the original building, the fact that the fenestration would not match the original building, and the loss of original windows that are somewhat unique on this house. He said the DRS noted that the roof rising above the original height is not in keeping with Standards Nine and Ten of the Secretary of the Interior, which state that the addition should remain subordinate to the original house. Weitzel said that the Commission's Guideline 5.1 recommends that a design professional be consulted to harmonize the structure with the original house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 2 McCallum asked if the roofline was being lifted in order to maintain an eight-foot ceiling height. Lange confirmed this. Ponto said that to still have enough slope on the roof, it would end up being that tall. McCallum asked if this were being done to match the roof angle of the original house, and Lange confirmed this. McCallum asked if there would be any other way to do this. Lange said that the pitch of the roof could be reduced, but it would then not match the pitch of the existing house, which the owners thought would look better. Terdalkar noted that the proposed pitch does not reflect the pitch of the original house. Gunn said that the pitch would be slightly less. Lange said that if he went with the extra pitch of the existing house, it would be that much higher. He said that the rise would be about 12 inches higher than the original. Lange said that typically that would be framed in a triangle in the front that would be proportional to that. Lange said that he could modify the truss design to bring it either to meet or slightly below. Maharry asked where the chimney fits in. Roger Shultz said that the peak comes just to the right of the chimney. Weitzel said that a 7 % foot ceiling is required by code. Lange said it would have a cathedral ceiling effect so that the sidewalls would be eight. McCallum said that if it is then only 7 % feet on the sides then that would probably be functional. Gunn said that he put a one and one-half story addition on the back of his house and had the same problem with the sidewall. He said that he went up to a full eight feet, and his addition was higher by probably 18 inches. Gunn said that he just pulled the angle back so that it was not visible from the street. He said it was the exact same issue, but he pulled the wall back at an angle so that the peak is back behind the line of sight from the street. Gunn asked if there is anything on the north side. Lange said there is one back window on the north side. Roger Shultz said that there are two existing windows that are spaced, and then there would be one more window to the left of the last existing window. He said that farther over there is a closet where they originally put a window but later took it out, although he would have no objection to putting it back. Gunn asked about the current addition. Roger Shultz said that it was added on in 1978. He said that the wall is flush, and the siding runs all the way across. Gunn asked if there are cornerboards on the house. Roger Shultz said that the house has aluminum siding, and there are cornerboards on every corner. Gunn asked about the siding for the proposed addition. Roger Shultz said that he would use hardi-plank and would paint it as close as he could in color. Lange said that if there is an objection to continuing the aluminum on it, he would probably use the hardi- plank on the prior addition as well as the new one so that it would be consistent. Gunn suggested using a full vertical cornerboard, even though the plane doesn't change. He said the huge north face that is all flat could at least be broken up with a vertical rail. Regarding the windows, Lange said he tried to mimic the windows of the addition versus those of the existing house. Roger Shultz said that on the east side, they matched up the window sizes. He said that there are a number of different-sized windows on the house. He said there tend to be more panes on the bottom sash than on the top sash. McCallum said that the trim around the windows on the original house is not really wide. Maharry said that is a good question, whether the second floor should look like the original house when the first floor doesn't whatsoever. McCallum said he agrees with Lange's assertion that what is on the addition should be consistent with what is on the current addition, because it might draw less attention to itself that way. Weitzel said the guidelines are written to recommend that the windows match the historic windows, not the addition windows, with respect to type, proportion, trim, and appearance. Enloe agreed that the guidelines are clear on that point. Weitzel said the language doesn't mandate that the windows match but does recommend it. Gunn said if it were a new addition from the ground up, it would be an easier issue. He said that narrower windows on top of wider windows would look a little odd. Weitzel said that the DRS also looked at the placement of the windows. Maharry said that there is already currently asymmetry on the first floor, as there are two on the south side and one on the north side. Gunn said that on the south elevation, the triple wide windows look out of scale even for the addition below. He suggested that three pairs of windows instead of two triple windows would get a lot closer to the scale, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 3 size and look of the windows of the historic house. Gunn said it would give almost as much light. Roger Shultz said that they would be willing to consider using two or three pairs of windows there. Weitzel said the DRS also had comments regarding the custom window over the door in the back. He stated that one suggestion was a half moon fan light. Roger Shultz said that there are also semi-circles on the side of the house that are vents. Gunn stated that the sharp corners don't really fit. Roger Shultz said that they could change that to more of a fan shape. Lange said that the window is actually set in six feet so that the window would not be the focus of the appearance. He said that there would be six feet of wall, plus a gabled ceiling, and then the window. Weitzel said one would have to be directly due east of the house to see the window. Carlson asked if a wide recess in the middle of an end gable would be an appropriate historical feature. Roger Shultz said that it is a very typical way to modify a colonial to have the opening centered like that on the second floor. Weitzel said that there are actually little balconettes built in the 20s and 30s, but he thought that generally they used a flush wall. Carlson said he had not done any reseamh on it, but that was also his impression. Rose Shultz said they thought it would be a nice break and would be a nice focal point. Carlson said the fact that the eave of the addition would not be significantly higher than the eave of the rest of the house seems problematic. Weitzel said Terdalkar had pointed out that it should match. Roger Shultz said there is not an eave problem on the north side, but the eaves would be slightly different on the south side. Weitzel said that bringing the eaves down does bring a certain set of problems, and the best way that DRS could think of to fix that would be to put on an historic large gable on each side. He said there would then be a triangular roof with projecting large shed gables that could run the whole length of the addition and even run into the house roof. Enloe said that seems like a fairly extreme solution to have the roof go to a higher point from starting at a much lower point. Weitzel said that the angle of the roof is determined by the base. He said that to go all the way to the ridge point is pure geometry; there is not much else one can do. Enloe said it seems more extreme than the existing plans. Weitzel said the real roof is really still the shed dormers. He said a gambrel would be another option, but that would add an entirely different stylistic element to the house. Lange said that structurally there may be some problem with the roof load not going over the outside wall. Weitzel said that the side beams would have to be beefed up to carry the load. Lange said that running 20 feet with the TGIs as it is would be quite a lot and would not be very practical. Weitzel agreed that it would be a lot of wood. Weitzel said that the guidelines basically ignore the first addition. Roger Shultz said that in the end, he wants people to look at it and have it look like one house. Weitzel said that the Commission would want it to blend in harmoniously but not want it to look like it was built with the house. Enloe said he is less distressed by the idea of the flat fa(;ade of the original, even though it does not have triangular gables. Regarding the inset, Carlson said there are balconettes that simply would be flush or perhaps slightly recessed. Terdalkar said that a balconette would be similar to what the Commission approved on some non-historic houses, projecting about 18 inches out from the wall. Enloe said that the projection is not the question; the question is the six-foot inset toward the interior of the house. Terdalkar said that balconettes are generally not inset; the door opens right on the plane of the house. McCallum said that the design infill guidelines generally suggest this type of pattern to get balconies recessed versus projecting outward. Lange said that the owners' original thinking was that where it is somewhat of a walkout plus the original addition plus the addition is potentially a flat surface without doing something to break up the back side. Maharry encouraged the Commission to look at whether the proposal is going to be an improvement over what is there now and if it will in general look better than what is currently there. He said that it probably does improve the appearance. Maharry said even though it is a large addition, it moves more toward what the Commission would want than what is currently there. Carlson said he disagreed. He said that what is there now is unobtrusive compared to the proposed plan. He said that he thought it would be overpowering, and not in a particularly historic way. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 4 Gunn said that the detailing maximizes the size of the recess. He said that if it were trimmed more narrowly and with a curve, it could be much more discrete and in a style that is more appropriate to the house. Gunn said that some curves and narrow boards would minimize the size. Weitzel suggested having an arch there instead of the angular peak. Lange said he did not think that would be an issue. Weitzel said that a window and top to match would soften the fa~;ade. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for an addition at 520 Clark Street with the following changes: t) the front of the second story roof addition shall be cut back so that the ridge is not visible from the street, 2) the south elevation on the upper story shall be changed to have two pairs of windows with reasonable spacing in between, 3) the details of the balcony opening shall be changed to minimize the size, with an arch at the top that will be more appropriate to the style of the original house, and 4) a vertical seam shall be installed at the original east corner of the north elevation to visually separate the addition from the original house and a vertical inside corner installed on the south side of the addition as well. Brennan seconded the motion. McCallum said he thought this would be a nice compromise. Carlson stated that even with the minor changes, this will be an overpowering addition and not particularly sympathetic to the original house, so he would vote against the motion. Weitzel said he had some problems with this but thought that the Commission was probably doing the best it could do with this. Gunn said that he would vote in favor of the certificate. He stated that this is a large addition, but the Commission also ran into problems with trying to control the size of the additions. Gunn said that when the guidelines were written, the Commission tried very hard to incorporate language to control the square footage and the scale of the additions, but the legal staff would not allow it. He said that the guidelines only control the appearance from the street and the size of the fa(~ade, because the legal staff said that the square footage cannot be controlled as long as the project meets the Building Code requirements. Weitzel said that he believed the National Trust due process pamphlet would side in favor of the local jurisdiction over the Secretary of the Interior for something of that sort, where it is such a strong codified difference from the Secretary of the Interior Standards and is locally prevalent. Maharry called the question. McCallum seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 6-2, with Carlson and Enloe votin.q no. 1022 East Colle.qe Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a key, contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said that the proposal is to replace the roof on an addition on the back of the house. He said that in the process, the roof pitch will be changed to attain practicality regarding drainage issues. Owner said that the flat section of roof over an addition is buckling in the center. She stated that water is pooling and damaging the clapboards on the original historic section of the house, and there is leaking into the house. She said that she is proposing to pitch it a little bit to allow for proper drainage into the gutter so that the water is not pooling or running back against the wall of the main part of the house. Owner said that because of the overhang of the other part of the addition, it won't be a high pitch, because the roof can only go up about six inches or so anyway toward the back of that. Gunn asked if it would get as high as the eave of the original. Owner said it won't touch that; it would stay beneath the existing addition roof. Weitzel said that the DRS had no problem with this, especially in light of the roof problems. He said the DRS recommends a durable, Iow pitch type of material for the roof, such as EPDM. Weitzel also suggested putting an ice barrier up behind the first two clapboards as a flashing. He said that metal flashing was acceptable. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of a roof and change of pitch at 1022 East College Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 5 1027 East Colleqe Street. Terdalkar said that this is a non-contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He stated that the application is for the addition of a porch on the front; the size would be approximately 25 feet by 10 feet and that the applicant has agreed to provide revised drawings of the porch with balustrade design. Thielen, the owner of the house, said she planned to build the deck first and then later build the roof to the porch. She said that the foundation needs some repair for the winter, so she would like to get started on that now. Thielen provided an elevation of what the porch would look like. She said that it would have a hip roof with a gable right over the entrance. Weitzel told Thielen said that she would also have to have a handrail on the stairs. Weitzel said that if there are four treads or more, a handrail is required by the Building Code. Terdalkar said that it depends on the height of the deck and number of risers required for the stairs. He said that if four or more risers are required for the stairs, a railing will be required. Thielen said that she didn't have a problem with having a handrail. Weitz. el said the first choice would be a simple, black pipe rail. He said it is the simplest and easiest thing to do and has the least conflicting style with the house. Weitzel said the other choice would probably be a wooden balustrade type railing. Thielen said she thought she would prefer that to match the railing [on the porch]. Weitzel said that if the railing matched the drawing, that would be fine. He added that he thought the Commission would suggest a simpler newel post for the base than the large newels posts at the top, but she could probably go ahead and match one of those too. Thielen asked if the newel posts at the deck height were okay. Enloe said they were actually pretty massive. Gunn asked what type of house this is. Weitzel said it is probably an Italianate in the far back but has had some additions. He said that the front wing is an addition. Weitzel said he thought it was probably a Queen Anne and had a wraparound porch at some point. Weitzel asked Thielen if she had scaled back from the plan to have the porch go all the way around. Thielen said that she still plans to extend the porch back to the side door, and the roof would go all the way around to that. Weitzel said that one concern is the short columns, and for the pediment above the doorway, those usually have columns supporting it, because it is a classic revival. He said there is almost always a pediment with two columns beneath. Thielen said she thought that the front elevation needed the pediment. Gunn asked what the dimensions are there. Thielen said that it is 21 feet across to the edge of the house, and the extension to the side door is four and one-half feet. Gunn said that if the column were moved over to have symmetry with the door, then the span shouldn't be too long to get out to the corner. Weitzel showed a drawing with a wider pediment supported by the columns. Gunn said the idea is to center the pediment and the columns in line with the door to make it symmetrical about the front door. Enloe agreed that the pediment should be symmetrical over the door. Thielen said she had the one in the center because the Building Department was looking for a footing there. Gunn said the footing could be under the column, with the column moved over. Weitzel agreed that it could be moved a little bit toward the door. Maharry suggested that the Commission approve the concept and leave the design details to Terdalkar and the Chair for final approval. Weitzel said that because this house is non-contributing, it can have square spindles. Carlson said that the columns look a little wide for both Italianate and Queen Anne, which would have had narrower posts. Enloe suggested eight inches or smaller. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a front porch at 1027 East College Street with the conditions that the posts be placed at the ends of the pediment centered about the door; with smaller posts for the handrail and railings for the stairs, if Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 6 necessary; with lattice or simple vertical bars for skirting; and with final drawings to be approved by the Commission or staff and the Chair, McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 228 South Summit Street #A2. Terdalkar stated that this is a key-contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said that the project involves the replacement of two double hung windows with casement windows for the purpose of having egress windows. Terdalkar said that this alteration would be at the back of the building. Cordell, the owner, said he intends to replace two double hung windows with casement windows for egress. McCafferty, the consultant, said that there are currently no egress windows in the apartment. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that the window replacement made sense, according to the guidelines. McCafferty said that there are other casement windows in the first floor of the building. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 228 South Summit Street #A2. Ponte seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 328 South Governor Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. He said that the application is for the replacement of six inoperable windows in the attic with double hung windows of a slightly larger size. Weitzel said that the DRS noted that the replacement would impact several probably original Queen Anne/Edwardian type windows in this house that are central panels fixed in lead with other small squares around the panel. Dyer said there really needs to be some ventilation up in the attic where living space would be added. He said that on the back he wants to put a dormer and egress window, but that would be the only ventilation. Weitzel said that vinyl or vinyl clad wood windows may be used for replacement of basement windows for conservation districts for historic, non-contributing, but there are no upper-story window allowances. McCallum suggested that skylights would give flexibility and some functionality and would save the original windows. He pointed out that they could be used in the rear elevations. Weitzel said that he would rather see skylights here than the removal of the windows. He said there are some skylights that are pretty flat that have a Iow profile. Gunn said that would also give a lot of light. Weitzel said the skylights could go on the proposed addition on the back. Ponte said that everyone on the Commission would like to save the windows. Dyer said he thought that two skylights would be acceptable. He said that the dormer is only about three feet wide. Terdalkar suggested one each on the south and north end one on the east roof surface of the house. Dyer agreed that would work and added that they would not then be seen from the street. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow two openable, flat skylights for ventilation, one each on the north and south ends of the eastern roof at 328 South Governor Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Weitzel said the Commission would recommend metal skylights because this is a roof component. Carlson asked if the gable was approved as part of this application. Weitzel said it was a separate application subject to final plan approval by the Chair and staff. Terdalkar said the certificate for the dormer was approved subject to the final plan being approved by the Commission or the staff. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. The consensus of the Commission was to review the proposal for the gable. Weitzel read from the memo, "In staff's view, the dormer as proposed would be very large and would not fit in the roofline or mass of the structure. This will effectively add another gable end to the roof changing the roofline significantly. The guidelines allow new dormers that are designed '...such that the face of the dormer is primarily composed of window area.'" Weitzel said that the DRS thought that the size of the plan indicated a gable addition, not a dormer addition. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 7 Terdalkar showed what the Commission originally reviewed and asked if the Commission would approve of the final drawing, the revised proposal. Dyer said that the revised proposal is not much bigger than four feet long and eight feet wide as shown in the original. He said that it is hard to draw it on a computer to go with an eight/twelve. Weitzel asked for the final dimensions for the dormer to be approved. Dyer said that it would be about eight feet high, eight feet from south to north, and would sit on a soldier wall and come out three feet from the roof at the top of it. Carlson said that it looks much bigger than what was approved on June 30th, although it might be just in the way it is drawn. Dyer said that it is only out about three feet. He said that that length of the ridge is only about three feet. Enloe said the Commission still needs design drawings that show the real dimensions. Enloe said that Terdalkar's rendition is more acceptable than the applicant's proposal. Weitzel said that Terdalkar made the drawing because there was no plan. Dyer said it sits on the soldier wall and goes straight up and then comes out three feet. Weitzel said the original plan said four feet long and asked if that was from extending on the ridge four feet and now it would just be three feet. Dyer responded that it would be three to four feet. Terdalkar said his drawing was done to interpret the applicant's drawing and try to find out how to put up a window of egress height. McCallum asked Dyer if Terdalkar's interpretation of what the Commission approved is acceptable to him. Dyer said he is only talking about three to four feet to get level going out. Enloe referred to the soldier wall. Dyer said that the dormer should be standing on that. Enloe said that it is then much more accurate in the second drawing that the Commission has, which appears to make it a lot larger gable than the other rendition, if it comes all the way out to that wall. Dyer said that it is a real little dormer. He said the problem is that the addition goes inside, and then there is a wall there. Dyer said it is hard to visualize, although he knew that Enloe was saying that it has to come way out to hit it. Enloe said the distance from the peak of the current gable to the soldier wall is greater than three or four feet. Dyer said he did not believe so. Weitzel said it would have to be about five feet from the gable top to this point. He said the drawing shows the roof as beginning at a point behind that gable, so that is five feet plus, not three or four feet. Weitzel said the Commission needs a final plan with dimensions. Dyer said that there is a ten-inch overhang too, and the wall is back inside there. Dyer said the Commission wanted the pitch to be at an eight/twelve, so it has to be that big. Weitzel said the preference was for the roofline to match the existing house. McCall.urn asked if the reason for this was to get height for a staircase. Dyer confirmed this. McCallum said then that a big dormer is not really needed, and Dyer confirmed this. Weitzel suggested trying a different kind of dormer to give room over the staircase, perhaps an octagonal dormer. Gunn said that if the Commission knew where the headroom is needed and had dimensions, that would help. He said that this doesn't sound undoable, but the revised drawing seems much bigger than it needs to be, and the other drawing is much less precise than the Commission needs to approve it. Gunn said the Commission needs measurements, including how far in from the gable end is needed for clearance. He said he was sure the applicant didn't need a dormer that is higher than the existing gable. Gunn said it would be below that and would be in a ways, but the Commission can't approve what it is uncertain about. Dyer said that eight/twelve is the existing pitch. Weitzel said that a shed dormer might work, depending on how it was designed and how it looked. Dyer said he thought that what is really needed is a wall on one end as indicated by Terdalkar. (3unn said that would certainly minimize the size. He said that if the wall can be positioned based on where the headroom is needed, then everything else should fall into place. Maharry said the motion passed by the Commission at the other meeting said that the Commission or staff could review the final drawing. He said then, that at any point when the drawings come in, the plans Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 8 can go to staff for final approval. Ponto said that the Commission has already agreed in principle, and the details just need to be worked out. 517 Grant Street. Weitz. el recused himself as Chair and from consideration of this item. Carlson led the meeting at this point as Vice Chair. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said that the application is to cover the built-in gutters on the existing house. Terdalkar said that the proposal is to do it in such a way that the roof slope at the end of the gutters will be changed. Duarte, the owner of the house, said that the main problem is on the south side of the house, where she has been fighting leaks for years. She said that the built-in gutters are very attractive. Duarte said she has tried different ways of fixing the gutters. Duarte said that the awning is the bump out in the dining room, which is the problem area, because there is also a dormer right above that. Duarte said that from the information she has been able to gather, putting some kind of membrane lining there would work for perhaps five years. She said she did not think she should constantly have to worry about whether or not she would have a leaky ceiling because she lives in a historic district. Duarte said that all of the roofing contractors she has spoken with have recommended this as the most practical and secure way to take care of these problems. Duarte said that she would like to also do the north side, for symmetry with the south side. Duarte said she has driven around the neighborhood and does realize that some things were grandfathered in. She said it does seem, however, that this is indeed the preferred method. Duarte said that what she proposes may be against her original structure of the house but is certainly consistent with the historical way of solving a problem. She said that while these gutters may aesthetically be very pleasing, she thinks that functionally it is a design flaw. Duarte said she hopes that common sense overrules strict adherence to a historical artifact. She said that neither Grant Street nor much of the Longfellow District has anything architecturally that is really all that wonderful. Duarte said she would like to have her house not leak and would like to be able to do it in the simplest way. Duarte said that this change is small and is pervasive in the neighborhood. McCallum asked if there would be an endcap, and Duarte confirmed this. Carlson said that the DRS discussed this project, and, unfortunately, it seems very cut and dried. He said that under disallowed, the guidelines include "altering the roof slope near the gutter and uncovering historic built-in gutters." He stated that the Commission actually does not have any leeway to allow this. Carlson said the question for the Commission is what other alternatives it can come up with. Duarte said that if the Commission will not consider any kind of exception, then basically what is there is the fiat solution. Weitz. el said that on the north side of his house, he put in a membrane roof and an ice barrier product sufficiently far up the slope so that there will not be snow or ice damage back up there underneath the shingles on the roof, where he suspected the problem was. He said that before he bought the house, there was a slope put on the south side where snow collects. Weitzel said that snow sits there for three or four days and then all comes off at once. He said that on the north side, where he installed the membrane and ice guard over five years ago, he has never had a leak. Duarte said that her house has the original gutters. She said she also has an avalanche of snow coming off on the south side but does not have one on the north side. Duarte said she was disappointed that the Commission would not make an exception for this. She said she feels her only choice is to enclose them with a flat solution, although she was not convinced that this is not going to continue to create some problems in the long run. Duarte asked, if she were inclined to go ahead with her project, what the consequences would be of her being in violation. Brennan said that technically each day that this is in non-compliance would be a separate violation, theoretically, although he did not know if it ever went that far. McCallum said that if the change were voted down, this could be appealed to the City Council. Weitzel said it could be overturned only if the decision were arbitrary or capricious, and this is clearly in the guidelines. Enloe agreed that the guidelines are very clear on this point. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 9 Duarte said she finds maintaining the gutters that she currently has to be unacceptable and sees this proposal as her best option. She said she should be able to know what the penalty is for continuing with the project. Terdalkar said that the City would impose any penalty, and the Building Department would decide if there would be a penalty. He said he believed that it would be double the price of the building permit, which would depend on the construction estimates. Duarte asked if the fine would be imposed per day. Brennan suggested that Duarte call the Building Department and/or the Legal Department to get information about the fine. Enloe suggested that Duarte consider looking at alternatives. He said that there may be higher technology solutions to the problems that she is currently experiencing. Enloe said there are more options, and the options of flat solutions may be greater than Duarte is currently aware of. He said they might not be so onerous to install and they may be quite effective, so that it would be worth exploring with roofing contractors. Gunn said that his porches have internal gutters and they're fine. He said that the internal gutters have sometimes been covered with a very Iow pitch, essentially flat, and then the external gutter is applied. Gunn said it is not a full internal gutter, but it does retain the roof lines, and there is a gutter applied on the outside. Duarte said that she is certainly willing to consider the idea of a flat cover if it will keep her house dry. She asked if the Commission would approve some kind of flat cover. McCallum said that would not change the appearance of the house. Maharry said that if the appearance is not changed, there is no material effect. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 517 Grant Street, as proposed. Enloe seconded the motion. Enloe stated that it is clear to him that the guidelines forbid this. McCallum said that he did not feel that it was that big of a modification and said he would support it. Brennan said he did see anything wrong with the proposal. He said, however, that the guidelines are clear on this subject, and the City Council adopted them, so he had no option other than to vote against this. Enloe called the question. Maharry seconded. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6, with McCallum votinq in favor. Carlson relinquished chairmanship of the meeting back to Weitzel. 415 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Street Conservation District. He said that the Commission had recently previously approved an addition proposed for this property, with certain conditions. However the applicants have a new proposal and he added that the proposal is, in general, consistent with the guidelines. McCafferty said that the addition has been revised will be detached from the garage to get rid of the roof issue. She said that the eaves may have to be a little deeper than what is on the house in order to get appropriate ventilation but will still generally look similar to the house. McCafferty said the two double hung windows on the south elevation are much wider than the applicants wanted on that side. McCafferty said that there is actually an existing window on the dining room side right in front of the garage. She said the owners would like to have windows of that dimension, but because this will be used for sleeping, it would not meet egress to do a double hung window of that width. McCafferty said the applicants therefore request to install windows of that same dimension as the one in the dining room, but they would have to be casement windows to meet egress. McCafferty said that because of the [revised] roofline, the owners likely won't have to take out the second story dormer window. She said she would ask the Commission to approve an alternative to allow the shortening of the window minimally probably about four inches, if necessary, to accommodate the pitch of the roof on the addition. McCafferty said she would have to change the roof and thought she could get the window in just below, but she wanted that option if things turned out differently during construction. She said that the roof on the existing addition then can get to three/twelve and still get in just below that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 10 window, but she said that it might have to be bumped up. McCafferty said that it would be a minor adjustment. McCallum said that this proposal is very nice compared to any of the ideas previously considered. He said that he would support this as proposed. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that changing the window would be regrettable but that it would be better than losing the whole window. Carlson asked about the south elevation window changes. McCafferty referred to the drawing and said that the windows would be the same size as on the dining room on the north elevation but said they would have to be casement windows for egress. Weitz. el asked why the vent on the new addition is shown off-center. McCafferty replied that it would be aligned with the ridge of the primary roof. Weitzel said that otherwise the whole project is balanced and proportioned well. Carlson asked if there would be a panel above the existing four-pane window on the west elevation. McCafferty said that it would be an arch-head window. She said the truss is such that there would be a tray in the ceiling, and then the arched head would actually extend up into that tray. McCafferty said that this would extend beyond the garage a little bit on the north side. She said the primary reason for that is to get the addition aligned with the new window with the arched head so that there is some symmetry inside. Maharry asked if the owners would still like to keep the original four- paneled windows and would be putting in the muntin bars. McCafferty confirmed this. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 415 Clark Street, as proposed, with the option of raising the upper window up to four inches, if necessary to accommodate the roofiine. Enloe seconded the motion. Gunn asked if the guidelines would allow casement windows here. Weitzel replied that casement windows are allowed where appropriate to the style of house. He said that there are several sun porches and a prairie craftsman style house on Grant Street with casements built into the house from the original construction. Carlson said that a house of this period could have had casement windows, and also, they are not all over the addition but are just on this one facade. Ponto said he is more open to using casement windows, because they are to be used for egress. Weitzel read from the guidelines, "...when they were not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress" and said that all three of the exceptions to disallowing casement windows are met here. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 801 Bowery Street. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Governor Lucas Street Conservation District. He said that the applicant has revised the application to have fewer steps, but the landing will still be required. Terdalkar said that from the application, it looks like this will be over 30 inches to the deck, and if that is the case, a guardrail will be required. He said the application proposes to use pipe rail for the handrails on the stairs with two or four wood newel posts. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that the pipe rail between two newel posts was very unusual and recommended using a compliant piece of wood instead. Terdalkar said that the baluster being used for the stairs handrail would not be required, so the owner can just use four newel posts and a handrail. He said that as long as they are above 30 inches for the deck, a guardrail would be required, and it should probably be something simple. Weitzel noted that skirting may also be required. Terdalkar said that from prior discussions with the owner, he felt that the owner was opposed to the idea of being required to install the handrails and guardrails. Weitzel said that the Legal Apartment has indicated that if the Commission has the applicant's approval, it can modify fairly freely, but if the applicant is not willing to modify his design, the Commission has to vote down the application and cite the reasons per Code, guidelines, or standards, for doing so. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 11 MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 801 Bowery Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Maharry said that the Commission has never approved anything that is not consistent with the historic preservation guidelines, such as this combination pipe and wood. Carlson said that the kind of wood to be used for the project has not been presented in the application, Weitzel ~aid that thi~ i~ therefore an incomplete application. The motion failed on a vote of 0-8. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the design proposed by Terdalkar for the application at 801 Bowery Street, as an alternative to what was submitted by the applicant. McCallum seconded the motion. Maharry asked if skirting would be required here. Terdalkar said that the Building Code requires skirting below a certain height. Maharry said that it turns into a little porch here, and there is skirting on all other porches. Carlson said the guidelines say that consistent materials meeting the guidelines should be used for both the handrails and the guardrails. Regarding the skirting, Ponto stated that the guidelines refer to vertical or lattice. Weitzel said this is clearly a Queen Anne house. Weitzel said he would be happy if the skirting matches the guidelines. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Gunn moved to strike the words "may be" from the proposed drawing; to require the material to be consistent with the guidelines, especially regarding paintability and disallowing untreated, painted wood; and to require the skirting to be consistent with the style. McCallum seconded the amendment. The amended motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 1143 Maple Street. Weitzel said that this is a non-historic house. He stated that the owner wants to change out the basement windows with sliding windows. Weitzel said that there is already a wide variety of windows on this house, and the DRS recommends approval. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 1143 Maple Street, as proposed. Maharry seconded the motion. Carlson said the DRS did not oppose the slider windows because this is a non-historic building, and the windows are at least consistent with the style. He said that the windows will also be below grade and not particularly visible anyway. Weitzel said that slider windows are allowed on non-historic properties in conservation districts. He said that the disallowed statement refers to "...installing modern types of windows, including sliding, awning, and so forth, when they were not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress." Weitzel said that if any of those apply, then the sliders can be allowed, and he believed that they are consistent with the style of this building. Weitzel said he thought that the slider windows would be acceptable because this is a non-historic house, and there are two or three kinds of windows on there right now. He stated that this is the kind of house that the sliding or awning windows were built for. Weitzel said he did not think they would change the appearance that much, because the windows to be replaced are two-paneled windows, and the sliders will have a similar appearance. He said that the house already has awnings upstairs, a casement window upstairs, and a big picture window upstairs. Gunn said that he was okay with this. Carlson said that it meets all the exceptions for non-historic properties in Section 3.3 of the Guidelines. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MINUTES: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 12 MOTION: Enloe moved to defer consideration of the August 15, 2005 and August 25, 2005 minutes to the Commission's next meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. Terdalkar noted that the tape recorder did not work for the August 15th meeting, and Commission members should consider the parenthetical expressions to see if they can fill in the blanks. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Weitzel said that Commission members should refer their comments regarding the RFP to Terdalkar. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcd/minutes/HPC/2005/hpc09-08~5~doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/30 7/14 8/15 8/25 9/8 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X X X X X X O O/E X X X R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X X X O/E X X O X X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O X X O O O O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X X .................... X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X X O X X X X X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O o/m O O O O O X X O O O J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X ............................................ J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/U O/E X X X o/m X X X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member M,.UTES P RE I I M I NARY CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Regenia Bailey, Bob Elliot and Ernie Lehman Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: Dion Baylor CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 8:47 AM. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY BAYLOR CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC FOR CDBG MICRO- ENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE Nasby said that Dr. Baylor is proposing to expand his new chiropractic practice, located at 560 Highway 1, through the hiring of a part-time receptionist. He mentioned that Baylor Chiropractic Clinic is requesting $25,000 in CDBG assistance as a forgivable loan for working capital and to purchase equipment. Nasby added that Dr. Bylor has already received $20,000 from the State of Iowa's Targeted Small Business Program. Elliot said that he would like to know what the personal investment in the Clinic is. Baylor said that as a personal investment he put in his own diagnostic equipment. Baylor mentioned that he still works for the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. Lehman said that the application does not include a complete business plan. He added that there are no financial projections in terms of expenses. Lehman noted that the only income projections included in the information are made on a 'per patient' basis, and indicate the revenues that are expected to be received per patient. He noted that the application stated there are around'55 chiropractors in Iowa City and would like to know how this Clinic's approach towards the community would be different than this competitive market. Bailey asked if Baylor had run a proforma showing cash flow projections. Baylor answered no. Bailey asked if the clinic would be collecting on insurance, and how would the system work. She added that sometimes the process of charging through insurance is very time consuming, and the clinic could expect revenues to come in after 3 months. Baylor said that they will charge through insurance. He added that he does not know how the system will work, due to that this is something new for him, and is in the process of learning the business side of operating a clinic. Lehman said that it is crucial to have income projections. Baylor said that they will need 25 patients for the Clinic to break even, and that he currently has 10 patients. Elliot asked Baylor to describe how his business is different than the other chiropractic clinics in Iowa City. Baylor said that what separates him from other competitors is not only reaching out in community by providing a wellness program, but providing a continual wellness program on a daily basis that help patients in the long run. He added that most of his work will be correlated with the education of the patient. For example, he said that I the case of patients with diabetes, he will help with rehabilitation, and in the same time will make the patient understand what is causing the condition, or help them prepare diet plans that can be followed. Another example is in a case where people that are exposed to strong vibrations in their hands. He said that most people do not know that there are some special anti-vibration gloves that would minimize the impact, and the effect on a person's health. Elliot said that he would like to believe that the Committee does not only serve as a source to authorize funding, but that is also helpful in explaining what it takes in having a successful business. Economic Development Committee Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 2 Bailey said that she is not concerned about the applicant's medical knowledge, but about the cash flow of the business. Lehman said that the clinic's financial condition and expectations needs to be better known. He added that the clinic needs income and expense projections, it needs a financial plan, and a plan to differentiate itself from the other competitors. Elliot said that he hopes that this discussion will help Baylor in understanding how to move forward with his business. Bailey said that she is worried about how will the insurance processing will be done. She added that Baylor might consider paying more for getting the services of an experienced person in insurance processing. Elliot said that he would also be interested in seeing a comprehensive business plan. The Committee agreed that Dr. Baylor could return for further discussions when he had a more detailed business plan and complete financial statements. Lehman asked about the CDBG fund application process and the requirement for financial information. Nasby said that the application form asks for a business plan and financial projections\history. He said that the City application also provides monthly cash-flow and balance sheet templates to potential applicants. Elliot noted that he would like to see the review process start when complete applications were received by staff. Nasby said that he would add language into the application form. SET NEXT MEETING DATE Next meeting was scheduled for September 20, 2005 at 8:30 AM. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 a.m. Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus. s:lpcdlminutes/ecodev/20051edcOg-13-O5, doc Council Economic Development Committee Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 02101 02/17 3/17 3/31 06/21 07/19 08/15 09/06 09/13 Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 x x x x X X X X X Bob Elliott 01/02/08 x x x x X X X X Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 x x x x X X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES FINAL DEER TASK FORCE MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Farrant, Chair; Alan Nagel; Harold Golf; Jan Ashman; Linda Dykstra; Peter Jochimsen; Pete Sidwell; Gene Szymkowiak; Martin Jones STAFF PRESENT: Kathi Johansen, Sue Dulek CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Farrant called the meeting to order at 5:48 PM. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: Jochimsen moved that the bow hunting recommendation documentation be forwarded to the City Council for their review, seconded by Jones. Motion carried 6 to 3; Farrant, Ashman, and Sidwell voting in the negative. APPROVE MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2005: Jones noted that on page 4, top of page where the motion is stated, it should state "Jones" instead of"Martin." It was noted that this is also incorrect on page 1, under approval of minutes. This correction will be made. Jones moved to accept the April 19, 2005, minutes as corrected; seconded by Ashman. Motion passed 9 to 0. REVIEW AND CONCLUDE REVISIONS TO THE 2004-2005 DEER MANAGEMENT REPORT: Farrant noted that she and Johansen were unable to complete all of the updates to this report, but that if the members agreed, she and Johansen would go ahead with the changes previously discussed, and then they would be able to get the final copy to the members. REVIEW AND VOTE ON RECOMMENDATION FOR 2005-2006: Farrant noted that everyone should have received this document via email. Nagel asked Dulek if she was represented correctly in this document. She noted that she does not know if she agrees with the word "inappropriate," and it was suggested they use "unnecessary" instead. Goffnoted that this documentation is not a recommendation so much as it is an elaboration of the recommendation that was made several meetings ago. Goff stated that he would like Council to receive a copy of Coralville's deer plan, along with the Task Force's supporting documentation. Jochimsen noted that he recently became aware that University Heights has bow hunting in place already. Nagel stated that if it is appropriate, they could add University Heights to the list of places that are using the bow hunting method. Golf stated that they could add them to the end of the sentence regarding bow-hunting experiences, stating that University Heights has an active bow-hunting program. Nagel then asked Johansen if this topic is going to be on the City Council's next agenda. Johansen stated that she is not sure of this, but it is scheduled on the Council's work session agenda for May 2ha. She also stated that if the members want to get supporting documentation to the Council for this upcoming work session, she would need to have everything by this Thursday in order to get it in the Council's information packets. Discussion then turned to Nagel asking Farrant if the members are going to see the reports of the minority. Farrant stated that she is not prepared this evening to do this. Nagel then asked if the members who were in the minority were going to be sharing individual reports or not. Farrant stated that this would not be happening. Jochimsen asked if these documents would be open to discussion. Farrant stated that she sees no reason for them to be open to discussion as the recommendation has already passed. Dutek noted that this would be Farrant's opinion, not the opinion of the Task Force. Discussion turned back to the finalization of the supporting documentation for the Task Force's recommendation to Council. Goffsuggested making the following changes: Mention University Heights on page 2. The other change involves Dulek's suggestion of changing "inappropriate" to "unnecessary." Goffwill get the final copy to Johansen by Thursday. Jochimsen moved that the bow hunting recommendation documentation be forwarded to the City Council for their review, seconded by Jones. Motion carried 6 to 3; Farrant, Ashman, and Sidwell voting in the negative. Nagel then asked if they could change the title to "Bow Hunting Rationale" or "Bow Hunting Considerations." Members agreed with "Rationale." It was also recommended to have the current date on this document. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. OTHER BUSINESS: None. SET AGENDA AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: After a brief discussion, the members agreed that there was no need for a meeting at this time. They will await the Council's comments on their bow hunting recommendation. ADJOURN: Jones moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:27 P.M.; the motion was seconded. Meeting adjourned. Deer Management Task Force Attendance Record 2005 1/18 2/15 3/1 3/22 4/19 4/26 J. Ashman X A X X X X L. Dykstra X X X X X X P. Farrant X X X X X H. Goff X X X X X X M. Jones X A A X A X P. Sidwell A X X A X X A. Nagel X X X X X X P. Jochimsen X A X A X X G. X X X X Szymkowiak Key: X = Presem A = Absem NM = No Meeting