Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-16 Bd Comm minutesHOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 SENIOR CENTER, LOWER LEVEL CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Lucia-Mai Page, Jayne Moraski, Kathleen Renquist, Bob Elliott, Gretchen Schmuch, Rick House, Bill Stewart, Denita Gadson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Steve Nasby, Linda Severson, Angela Willjams OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Berg, Theresa Kopatich, Christine Pegsley, RJ Hora, Jay Honohan, Terri Miller Chait, Bob Burns, Carole Conner, John Watson, Danielle Thompson CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Moraski called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC/MEMBER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2000 MEETING Stewart moved to approve the minutes with a second from Coleman. The minutes were approved on a 9-0 vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 17, 2000 MEETING Schmuch moved to approve the minutes with a second from Coleman. The minutes were approved on a 9-0 vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2000 MEETING Schmuch asked for a change on page 5 at the bottom of the page. She said what she meant was that the priorities would be straightened out. Schmuch moved to strike the statement. Renquist seconded the motion. On page 2 with the discussion on the ISED Micro-Enterprise Development proposal Moraski had a clarification. She said she meant that she would like to see the project do the daycare training only. On page 3 under Hillcrest Family Services, Moraski clarified Renquist's statement which meant that the outcome really meant the measurements on the ranking sheet. Elliott moved to approve the minutes with the amendments. The minutes were approved on a 9-0 vote. DEVELOPMENT OF FY01 CDBG/HOME BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL In response to EIIliot's question Nasby spoke about the different funding scenarios that were provided in the packets. Scenario number one shows the average allocations. When the ranking sheets were turned in by the HCDC the levels of proposed funding was calculated using the committee members' ranking. In scenario number two the projects were funded by a fixed percentage based on their ranking. The funding requests were separated into thirds (high, medium and low). High scores received eighty percent of their request, medium scores received seventy percent and low projects received fifty percent of their request. In scenario number three the applications were divided into Economic Development, Public Service, Public Facility and Housing. Each one of the categories had an estimated amount that could be spent Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 2 according to the five-year CITY STEPS Plan. The projects were taken in priority order (using average scores) within the categories with funds being spent by category. The final scenario is a straight allocation of funds based strictly on the rankings. The first nine projects are fully funded with the tenth project getting a small portion of their request. Renquist spoke about scenario four. She indicated that she would like to spread the funds out more than this one allowed. Elliott concurred. Stewart said he felt number two would make no one happy. Coleman stated he would like to use scenario three. Several members said they had used a system similar to scenario number three when doing their rankings. MOTION: Coleman motioned to not discuss applicants scoring sixty points or below. Page seconded the motion with it passing on a 7'-2 vote. Elliott and Stewart opposed. Schmuch stated that Public Services is capped by the program regulations, so it is very easy to see the Public Services in scenario three. She suggested to deal with it first and then move any unused funds to the other categories. MOTION: Schmuch moved to fund Successful Living Support Services for the full amount of $18,000 since it was the highest ranked project. Stewart seconded the motion. The motioned carried on an 8-1 vote with Elliott opposing. MOTION: Elliott motioned to fund the DVIP Furniture project in the full amount of $13,725 with Page seconding the motion. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote. MOTION: Coleman moved to fund the Free Medical Clinic in the amount of $21,275 with a second by Stewart. The vote passed on a 7-2 vote with Renquist and Page opposed. Schmuch stated that she really wanted to see the Mayor's Youth Employment Project and Consumer Credit Counseling get funding since the Free Medical Clinic had stated they could not get by on less than a part-time position. She said she would like to see them run on a part- time basis for the first year to see if the project could really work. Coleman said that he did not think it was wise to fully fund at the top and then get to the middle and have to squeeze funds for projects. He said that the question of funding should not arise when getting to lower rated projects. He pointed out that only three people out of the nine allocated funds for the credit counseling project. Moraski noted that Mayor's Youth would get no funding even though there was not a significant difference in scoring between them and the Free Medical Clinic. The average score was less than two points apart. Renquist said that for her the problem with the Free Medical Clinic request is that the patient population targeted is only about three percent of the total patient population. She said this concerns her. Moraski noted that the application stated that 153 people would be served. Coleman pointed out that the Free Medical Clinic person stated that they had plans for other funding. Schmuch said that Free Medical and Successful Living are both prevention programs. Coleman suggested taking $2,000-$3,000 from the two other projects previously voted on and give the money to the Mayor's Youth project. Then the medical clinic would be funded at about half of the request. EIliott suggested partially funding the Goodwill project by cutting the painting of signs and landscaping. This would bring the project amount to about $104,500. Moraski agreed with this suggestion. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 3 MOTION: Coleman motioned to give full funding to Successful Living SRO Rehab, Goodwill and DVIP security. Seconded by Stewart. The motion failed on a 3-6 vote. Those opposed were Schmuch, Page, Elliott, Gadson, House and Renquist. Kopatich was asked if Successful Living could do the project for less than the $200,000 on the housing acquisition request. She said the house only has the capacity for eight people. It would be very difficult to carry a loan payment on it. The request, in her opinion, was very necessary to purchase the home. MOTION: Stewart motioned to fund Successful living Transitional Housing Acquisition in the amount of $200,000; with a second by Schmuch. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote. MOTION: Coleman moved to fund Iowa City IHA II in the amount of $275,000 with second by Stewart. The motioned carried on a 5-4 vote. Those opposed were House, Schmuch, Gadson and Renquist. Coleman pointed out that there were five housing projects which stated they could not proceed with partial funding. Since this one was rated high he felt that the Commission should move ahead with the project approval. Schmuch commented that she would like to see the funds go towards housing that would accommodate families as opposed to single individuals. Schmuch said she did not think the tax credit program should make this a priority. Moraski noted that elderly housing was lowered from a high to medium priority in CITY STEPS. The next project discussed was MECCA Transitional Housing. Coleman noted that there are three transitional housing applications with Successful Living being fully funded and HACAP, which HCDC is required to fund. Even though MECCA is higher ranked, it is a large request. sum. The project application did not indicate if they could accept partial funds. It seemed too much to him for the project. MOTION: The motion was made to not fund Iowa City IHA III by Elliott with a second by Schmuch. The motion carried on a 7-2 vote with Coleman and Stewart opposed. MOTION: The motion was made to not fund Iowa City IHA IV by Coleman with a second by Schmuch. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote. Coleman inquired as to why Commission members were opposed to funding Phase III. Elliott stated that projects were divided up to give partial funds where it appeared they would be beneficial. Moraski stated that her position was that when an applicant comes in asking for over $500,000 it is difficult to consider. She views it as the amount going to one person and the amount of dollars available is an issue. MOTION: Elliott moved to not fund the SRO Rehab with a second by Stewart. The motion was approved on 5-4 vote, with Page, Coleman, House and Schmuch opposed. Elliott commented that these decisions are not easy and Stewart concurred. Coleman noted that this project was the highest ranked public facilities proposal and it is significantly higher than the next closest public facility project. In other categories Commission members had argued that the top ranking project should get full scoring. Coleman said he was concerned with this. Renquist felt Elliott's idea had merit. Keeping this in mind Renquist felt quite a bit had been done for Successful Living. Elliott said he felt purchasing the home was the most important and perhaps appliances could be obtained from some other source. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 4 MOTION: Schmuch moved to fund Elderly Services for $25,000. Ellloft seconded the motion with it passing on a 9-0 vote. Schmuch commented that she chose the reduced amount as they always make an application for funding; however she did note that it is a worthy program. This amount is what was funded last year. Elliott agreed with this since it is a project that can function with partial funding. MOTION: Elliott moved to fund Goodwill Industries for $104,500 with a second from Stewart. The motion passed on an 8-1 vote. Moraski voting no. Moraski stated that the property purchase amount was $23,500. Gadson commented that she came up with her figure of $90,000 by deducting some of the landscaping and painting expenses. She said she felt that the program needed the larger expenses. Elliott said that he thinks that the intersection is a tragedy waiting to happen. MOTION: Motion was made by Elliott to fund Hannah's Blessing at $236,300 with a second by Schmuch. The motion was revised to a $200,000 loan. The motion passed on a 6-2 vote with Coleman and Stewart opposed. Gadson abstained. Elliott noted that he cut nearly $19,000 from rehab and start-up funds. Coleman commented that he gave them two-thirds of their request; which is close to the average allocation. This also takes into account the fact that they have no other funding sources. He also felt that it would be a large act of faith on the part of the Commission to grant funding. Coleman supported $170,000. Elliott commented if significant reduced funding is the issue due to lack of experience it would further hamper the project. This emphasizes the negative in his opinion. Gadson abstained from voting on this project as she belongs to the church. She went on to say that the request is a loan amount. She felt the Commission should consider this fact. In her opinion they are not looking for a hand out; rather a hand up. Moraski said she was more in line with Coleman's thinking. The purchase price for the facility was $185,000. She felt less than $200,000 would be adequate. Stewart felt that by giving the program the purchase amount for one-third of the building this could be a complicated matter. Elliott felt that the City legal department could handle the division of the building issue. Stewart concurred to defer to the legal staff. Coleman said that he was thinking about programs in terms of categories. He felt that this funding level was more than he could compromise for this project. Renquist said she really wanted to see the project work and Schmuch concurred. Elliott then said with $200,000 being a loan he does have concerns, but he would like to see the project succeed. He did not think any more funding could be given to the project. MOTION: Page moved to fund DVIP Safety Equipment project in the amount of $6,427 with a second by Elliott. The vote carried on a 9-0 vote. MOTION: Stewart motioned to fund Hillcrest in the amount of $8,000 with a second by Coleman. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote. MOTION: Coleman moved to fund ISED in the amount of $10,000 with a second by Elliott. The motioned carried on a 7-2 vote with Schmuch and Stewart opposing the motion. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 5 Gadson stated that she wanted to be consistent with the earlier argument that this is the top funded project in the category. She felt that $25,000 was an appropriate amount since it was the only program under economic development on the table. Schmuch commented that she used to feel that way. Now she does not necessarily feel that way. If the program does not meet the guidelines, the Commission should not be required to fund it. Nasby pointed out that this applicant indicated that they could not use partial funding for just daycare. The applicant then stated if city staff would be willing to work with their staff to determine the hard costs necessary to do a good job the funds would be acceptable. Coleman clarified that the motion implicitly stated that the $10,000 was for daycare. Stewart then said he keeps going back to the rating for Successful Living SRO Rehab rated at 78.2 that will not be funded and Elderly Services rated at 76.3 that was partially funded; however, the Commission is considering funding for this project that is at 65.6. It seems the rationale is not consistent. Elliott then said he looks at the ratings as a guide and they do not dictate the level of funding. Stewart said the price to fund this project is to not fully fund Elderly Services Agency and not fund Successful Living SRO Rehab at all. Coleman stated he disagreed with this because if you look at his scenario he fully funded Elderly Services Agency, SRO Rehab and gave $10,000 to this project. He said it is not a objective fact, but it may fall out that way. MOTION: Stewart motioned to not fund Extend the Dream with a second by Coleman. The motion carried on a 5-4 vote. Moraski, Gadson, Elliott and Schmuch opposed. Elliott stated that he would have funded it at half in the amount of $12,750 for architectural drawings. He felt this was going more to a group attempting to put in a mall area as opposed to economic development. MOTION: Coleman moved to fund Old Brick at $35,000. The motioned failed for a lack of a second. MOTION: Elliott moved to not fund Old Brick with a second by Stewart. The motion carried on a 7-2 vote with Gadson and Coleman opposing. Elliott commented that he looked at this project both last year and this year more as historic preservation than anything else. He stated he is more for housing people who have no houses, feeding people who are hungry and providing furniture to people who can not afford it rather than historic preservation. Renquist disagreed that it was historic preservation. Renquist went on to say that she really believes that it is an accessibility need as it is difficult to get to the upper level. Elliott said to be fair this applicant needed to have more than $20,000. Page commented that she was disheartened that additional funds were not leveraged to move the project along. Coleman stated that he worked up a scenario to fully fund MetroPlains at $238,000, HACAP at $142,000 and to give $228,000 to Iowa City Housing Rehab. He said he did not see how a sufficient funding levels could be given to MECCA and still do justice to the other projects. Schmuch said that giving MECCA all or nothing is the question. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 6 Elliott stated he was concerned about not giving MECCA any funding and Renquist concurred. Moraski said that to her there has been a question of immediacy in the projects receiving funding. She asked the applicant what was the immediacy in the funding of the project. Berg stated that in terms of clients the request is very immediate. There are many people who need housing with assistance. The clients that would be served are those nobody else wants to deal with because of the problems they have like drug addiction. MECCA does own the land for the proposed project. He did not believe waiting a year would make a significant difference with regard to their request for funds. Page asked how much less the project could take. Berg indicated that although things would be tighter the project could go on about $325,000. Staff would be an area where cuts would be made. Elliott stated that he would not want to fund something that would be hamstrung. He said there would be no need to fund a project if they could not have an adequate staff to deal with the people. Berg said in the request an increase in staffing was made to a person of half to three quarter time to deal with maintenance and client needs. At $320,000 this position would be eliminated and would be absorbed by current staff. Renquist noted that she liked the proposal because people coming off of treatment who are thrown into society without some assistance before they really go out tend to fall back into their old patterns. She said she felt this transitional housing would be helpful. Coleman brought up the leveraging issue. In MECCA the leverage was approximately $500,000 based on what the Commission would fund. Renquist pointed out that MetroPlains is a for profit organization. Elliott stated that there is a great need for affordable housing in Iowa City. There is affordable housing available, but the need is there for the ability and capacity to deal with people who have substance abuse issues. He felt MECCA was one of the leaders in this area. Renquist noted that families in need are an issue in this project. She went on to say that MetroPlains business is to build houses and not necessarily for low income people; however MECCA's business to take care of drug rehabilitation and help people become more productive members of society. MOTION: Stewart motioned to fund MECCA $325,000 with a second by Page. The motioned carried on an 8-1 vote with Coleman being opposed. MOTION: Schmuch motioned to fund HACAP $96,450 with a second by Coleman. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote. MOTION: Renquist moved to fund City of Iowa City Housing Rehab program in the amount of $186,623 with a second by Coleman. The motion carried on a 9-0. MOTION: Elliott motioned to not fund MetroPlains with a second by Stewart. The motioned carried on a 9-0 vote. The issue of not funding MetroPlains when it was ranked eleventh was discussed. Schmuch said she felt it needed to be justified to City Council. EIliott said he felt that when it came down to money he decided that support for substance abuse was a more preeminent need at this point than additional affordable housing. Moraski commented that the one thing that swayed her was that she felt that type of housing would go in anyway as it was zoned for duplex-family housing. The Commission found out that the people who qualified for the Swenson project were making the same amount of money as the people who lived next door in a completely free market project. Her justification was that it is going to be moderate type housing that will be Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 7 affordable to people making about the median income just by the housing existing there with the zoning and duplex lots that are already platted. Stewart also pointed out that the only three projects funded was the mandatory $96,450 for HACAP and the $21,000 for the Free Medical Clinic, Hannah's Blessing at $200,000 and ISED for $10,000. Moraski suggested that the housing projects funded with tax credits be contingent upon the projects actually receiving their tax credit dollars in the next round. The Commission members agreed with this contingency stipulation. OLD BUSINESS Peninsula Proiect Update- Schmuch commented that references were still being checked. She said it was the hope to have this together for the March 20th council meeting. Nasby noted that once the developer was selected a development agreement would be outlined, so in terms of affordable housing on the peninsula the Commission members were asked to submit any ideas they might have in regard to the development plans. Moraski asked for more education from the staff in regard to what other communities have done when there are new areas being developed. NEW BUSINESS FY01 Allocation Schedule- Nasby told Commission members that he would like to have the justification memo from the subcommittee by March 28. There is a work session with the council scheduled for April 17th. He noted that Council may request a meeting earlier if necessary. Nasby also asked that the regular HCDC meeting be April 17th as a combined %tghular meeting with the Council work session. The formal public hearing at City Council is April 1 and on May 2nd there will be a resolution for the approval of the FY01 Annual Action Plan. Schmuch confirmed that if Council requested changes they could be made on the evening of the April 17th. Moraski, Schmuch and Renquist agreed to be on the justification sub-committee. Discussion of National Community Development Week Celebration- It was agreed to have the celebration in July or early August. Coleman announced that he will not be able to continue to serve on the Commission next year and he will resign as of the May meeting. Nasby also presented a letter to the Commission members that was signed by a couple of north side neighbors withdrawing their names from the previous letter presented to the Commission members opposing the Successful Living project on Church Street. Nasby also noted that Marcia Klingaman had set an informational meeting for the North Side Neighborhood. If possible, staff would like HCDC representation at this March 23rd meeting. ADJOURNMENT Stewart moved to adjourn the meeting with Schmuch seconding the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:22 PM. Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson. ppdcdbg/min/hcdc3-9-00.doc PRELIMINAR'. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2000 - 5 P.M. : CIVIC CENTER- COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, T.J. Brandt, Dennis Keitel, Kate Corcoran MEMBERS ABSENT: Lowell Brandt STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Dennis Mitchell OTHERS PRESENT: Jong Koo Lee, Robert N. Downer, Dave Camp, Kevin McQuarry, Phillip Bennett CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kate Corcoran called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: Mike, Paul, T.J. Brandt, Dennis Keitel, and Kate Corcoran were present at roll call. Lowell Brandt was absent. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 12, 2000 & MARCH 8, 2000 BOARD MINUTES: Keitel moved the approval of the January 12 and March 8 minutes. T. J. Brandt seconded. The motion was approved 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS EXC99-0021. Public hearing on an application submitted by All Nations Baptist Church to amend the November 3, 1999 Board decision by approving a special exception to modify the setback requirement from Highway 218 for a fellowship and education addition to the main church building for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1715 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Miklo began by noting that the Board had granted a special exception to allow a religious institution to expand in this Low-Density Single-Family (RS-5) Zone in November of 1999. He said that the applicants were now coming before the Board to request an amendment to that special exception to allow a reduction in the front yard setback required from HWY 218. Miklo explained that normally a fifty-foot setback would be required along the highway in this area. The applicant requested that it be reduced to a forty-seven foot setback or a reduction of three feet. Miklo said that the zoning chapter states that the Board may modify setbacks if there is a difficulty in complying with the specified setback and there is a peculiar situation applying to the property in question. He said that in this particular case the property was peculiar because it is a triangular shaped piece of property bounded on two sides by major thoroughfares. Highway 218 is on the south and west and Mormon Trek Blvd. on the east. Normally the fifty-foot setback is required for religious institutions in order to provide a buffer yard between such large buildings and lower density residential development anticipated in such areas. He stated that this was a fairly minor modification being requested in the amount of six percent. In looking at the criteria the Board uses to approve or deny special exceptions this request would not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood. It actually resulted in the building being built farther away from the nearby residential buildings rather than closer to them. He went on to say because of the odd shape of the property and the fact that the church was originally built farther away from the Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 2 nearby residential zones it did make it a unique situation. Staff recommended that the November 3, 1999, Board decision approving EXC99-0021, a special exception to allow the expansion of a religious institution be amended by approving a setback modification to allow the two-story addition to be setback forty-seven feet from HWY 218 right-of-way; instead of the required fifty feet for property located in the RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Zone, at 1715 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Public Hearing Opened. Jong Koo Lee, Pastor of All Nations Baptist Church, spoke on behalf of the setback requirement. He re-iterated that the property is unique in shape with the building being located far from the residential area. He said that if the Board would grant the special exception it would not impede in any way of the traffic from HWY 218. Public Hearing Closed. MOTION: Paul moved that the Board approve the November 3, 1999, decision, EXC99- 0021 a special exception to allow the expansion of a religious institution to be amended by approving a setback modification to allow the two-story addition to be setback forty- seven feet from HVVY 218 right-of-way line instead of the required fifty feet for property located in the RS-5 zone at 1715 Mormon Trek BIrd. The motion was seconded by T.J. Brantit, Keitel noted that this request was a very minor change. In noting the contour lines on the map there is quite a bit of grade separation between HWY 218 and the existing church building. Any reduction in the setback would be minimal as seen from HWY 218. He stated he would vote in favor of the motion. T.J. Brandt stated that he would vote in favor of the exception from the standpoint that it would be a very minor. He noted when the Board looked at this back in November the Board did look at re-configuring the building plan. He said he assumed that the church looked into the cost of reconstructing the addition to fit inside of the guidelines. Knowing how many times the church had been before the Board he did not see any reason why the exception should not be approved. Paul echoed his colleagues' statements in terms of size of the modification. Population density and use of municipal facilities would not be affected and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Traffic would not be affected as well. Since there is a uniqueness to the property he stated that in the interest of justice he would support the application. Corcoran stated that she would vote in favor of the application. The purpose of the zoning chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare as well as to conserve and protect the value of properties while allowing the most appropriate use of land. She said that given the odd shape of the property and where it is located with the request being only a six- percent in the required setback the effect would be minimal. Given its location it is in the public's interest to grant this. By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the motion. VAR00-0001/EXC00-0002. Public hearing on an application submitted by QuikTrip Corporation for five variances and two special exceptions to permit expansion of an existing, non-conforming Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 3 use, an auto and truck-oriented use, for property located in the Central Business Support (CB- 5) zone at 325 E. Burlington Street. Miklo said that the property was formally zoned as CB-2, Central Business Service Zone. The zone was changed in 1994 to CB-5. The Central Business Support Zone does not allow auto and truck oriented uses. Therefore, it is a legal non-conforming use. This means that they may stay in operation as is, but would not be allowed to expand. The applicants had submitted a request for a variance to allow for an expansion of the non-conforming use as well as variances from other provisions of the CB-5 zone. These included a variance from the minimum building height of thirty-five feet. The actual building height would be about one-third of that. Variance from the landscaping requirement that fifty percent of the front yards be landscaped. There would be landscaping in the front yard areas. Also, requested was a variance that dumpsters be located so that they would not be visible from the public street. The location of the proposed dumpster would be visible from both Burlington and Gilbert Streets. Finally, a variance from the provision in the Central Business zone that prohibits blank walls was requested. The zone requires that there be windows or decorative treatment every twelve feet. The proposed addition would not provide for this. Miklo went on to say that the zoning code provided for variances when it can be shown that the variance would not threaten the neighborhood's integrity, use or value of adjacent properties and would be in harmony with the zoning code and comprehensive plan. Also considered is when the strict compliance with the zone code would result in unnecessary hardship. Miklo explained that the CB-5 zone is intended to prohibit auto and truck oriented uses while encouraging the redevelopmerit of the south of Burlington area for commercial and high density residential uses. The existing convenience store with gasoline sales does not comply with the current code or the comprehensive plan. The approval of the requested variances would prolong the continuation of a non-conforming use, which is not in compliance with the community's plans for the use of this portion of the city. This would allow and encourage the use of an auto and truck oriented use in an area high traffic conflicts and pedestrian activity. Miklo went on to recommend that in addition to compliance with the code and comprehensive plan the Board should also consider the test of hardships required to be shown by the applicant in order to receive a variance. He reminded the Board that the tests are outlined as follows: the applicant would need to show that there is a reasonable return test or that there could be no reasonable use of the property given the existing codes and ordinance that apply to it. Miklo stated that staff did not find this to be the case and that the property could be redeveloped in accordance with the Central Business Support zone requirements or that the existing use could continue as is with no changes. Miklo also noted the uniqueness test that would indicate that there is something unique about the property that would warrant some change or variation from the zoning requirements. He said that staff did not find any uniqueness or characteristics about the property that would warrant special treatment. Miklo then noted the final test is not of the landowner's making. He said that this was true as the city did fezone the property to make it non-conforming. However, in order for a variance to be granted all three tests must be met and at least two of them were not being met. Miklo went on to say that in addition to the variances the applicant requested a special exception to modify the yard requirements. He noted that the setback requirements in the Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 4 Central Business Zone were maximum requirements with no building being setback no more than twelve feet from the public right-of-way. In both of these cases the setback would be considerably more with the east side from Gilbert being thirty-three feet and on Burlington Street the setback would be seventy-three feet. He noted that there would be minor adjustments from the west and south. He commented that the intent of the setbacks in the Central Business Support Zone would be to encourage a fairly intense pedestrian- friendly environment and to have buildings built close to the sidewalk. To grant a special exception in this case would encourage the continued use of the building that does not comply with the intent of the zone. This further illustrated the difficulty in maintaining this use in this location and complying with the intent of the comprehensive plan and the building code. Staff recommended the denial of VAR00-0001, a variance to allow the expansion of a non- conforming use, an auto and truck oriented use, in the CB-5. A variance to the minimum building height requirement, a variance to the landscaping requirements, a variance to the dumpster location, and a variance to the fenestration and articulation requirement to building walls in the CB-5 zone. Staff further recommended the denial of EXC00-0002, special exception to modify the maximum building setback requirements along Burlington Street from 12' to 73' for 13.75 feet width of the west building addition and the 10' of the east building addition. Along Gilbert Street from 12' to 33' for the 24' length of the east wall of the east addition and 24.5' for another 12.75' length of the east wall of the subject property and in the west yard from five feet to 1.83 feet and for the 32 foot length of the west addition in the south an rear yard reduction from five feet to 4.71 feet for the 13.75 foot width of the west addition. Paul asked for clarification of the work that would be done. Miklo explained that the building would be added on to on the west side and the east side. Public Hearing Opened. Robert N. Downer of Meardon, Sueppel & Downer, PLC. represented QuikTrip Corporation in connection to their various requests that were detailed by Miklo. He introduced Dave Camp from Omaha who represented the development office of QuikTrip and Kevin McQuarry from the Des Moines area and is in construction management. Downer presented the Board drawings of the current building and the proposed modification. He then detailed some of the history of the building and stated that he felt that it did go some distance in refuting Miklo's indication that there was a uniqueness in this situation. The structure was built in 1983 and the property had been a service station prior to that. It was a Phillips station with a couple of homes to the west of the station and was redeveloped for QuikTrip's use in 1983 and had been used for that purpose since that time. He said that it was important to note that the present Iowa City zoning ordinance in its general format and provisions became effective in December of t983. He said that he thought that it was reasonable for anyone to assume who was developing a new property at that point in time that those requirements would stay with the property for some considerable length of time thereafter. In fact, the zone of the property was changed in 1994 when the building was only ten or eleven years old. He went on to say that another factor motivating the application was the enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) that occurred in 1990. A significant part of what was being proposed with the respect to this property is to make it ADA compliant. Presently a unisex restroom in the building does not comply with the ADA or codes that are applicable at present. One of the major parts of the remodeling and slight expansion of the property would be to make the property ADA compliant and to separate the restrooms. Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 5 Downer noted that the one restroom is on the right-hand side of the existing floor plan. The two are proposed to be located at the extreme westerly edge of the property. The proposed changes have a domino effect in terms of how the property would be configured in that the restrooms are proposed to be locate where there is an existing dumpster area; which in turn requires the relocation of that to the east side of the buildings. He went on to say that there is also a ten foot wide storage area proposed for the east side of the property. He said that a lot of this area is to provide storage for the coolers that were proposed for installation. Downer further indicated that there are public health aspects to it in that it would be much easier where coolers load from the rear rather from the front to make certain that stock is properly rotated so that there is not stock in the coolers that would be out of date. This also would allow for broken containers to be removed. Downer commented that the actual appearance of the property while being updated would not be materially different from present. He went on to say that it was somewhat ironic that the corporation is faced with an ordinance that seems to have as its principal purpose that there would be a greater percentage of the land area on a site that is occupied by the building which is exactly what is being attempted to be done with the proposed modification of the structure. Downer noted that this property has been associated with motor vehicle related use for a long period of time. He said that it is fair to say that it is one of the principal types of operation engaged in by a convenience store. He said that Mr. Camp would be speaking about the economic ramifications of bringing the property into conformity in terms of abandoning the uses. It is a relatively new structure that would pose a serious economic hardship to require that it be totally demolished and the property redeveloped to bring it into conformity with the existing zoning ordinance. He commented that if the development was located across the street to the east it would be in conformity because the property is in the CB-2 zoning classification; which this property was in at the time that the building was constructed. He submitted that the traffic considerations and potential conflicts that Miklo spoke about between vehicles and pedestrians was no greater on the west side of Gilbert Street than it would be on the east side; particularly given the very substantial number of apartments that are located in the area. Downer stated that there are similar types of uses that deal with food service located both and south of the location. Happy Joe's Pizza is less than one-half block north and restaurants are south of it; which are all similar uses. He said that he did not believe the use would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood in general. Downer then noted that by enabling the company to comply with the ADA and upgrade restroom facilities would be in the public interest, as would matters of the building code compliance that would be required with refurbishing of the property. He said nothing is in connection with the application that expends auto-oriented uses on the property. In no sense does it increase conflict with vehicles and pedestrians. The predominant changes deal with matters that are separate and apart from any attempt to increase business. The requests are related to providing better service for the customers of the facility. The retail space would be reconfigured, but does not expand the area. He did note that the property is leased with thirteen years left on the lease. The addition of a storage area and a restroom would not extend the duration of any non- conforming use. Downer stated that QuikTrip started discussing the matter with staff in the building department of July 12, 1999. They were not told of the need for variances until February 18, 2000. He said that while it is not the obligation of city staff to lead someone through this type of project there was approximately $10K expended on architects before it was indicated that the additional Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 6 steps would need to be taken. Downer submitted that although it is an extensive request for variances and special exceptions that the tests set forth in Iowa law in the municipal code are met. Camp came forward to discuss the economic ramification of bringing the property into conformance by abandoning the auto use. He clarified that $15K has been expended thus far not counting internal salary expenses as opposed to the $10K mentioned by Downer. Camp went on to say that QuikTrip is a unique company in that they listen to their employees and customers while reacting to requested needs. The company systematically goes through the re- images the stores to meet the current requirements. He noted that the store has gone through several changes since it was built. The checkout counter was upgraded and bottle storage was added because of the bottle bill. Nothing major has been done thus far and this was the same for this project. The company was attempting to make simple modifications for a more efficient operation. He described the plans to change the windows and the color of the exterior of the building. Camp went on to say that the company is trying to improve the customer environment. The company staff comments were that they could continue as is, but they prefer to make the updates. Paul inquired if the impetus for the project was to comply with ADA or to remodel or both. Camp said that ADA is a portion of this issue. When upgrade projects take place compliances have to be met. He said the upgrades are being made not to make more money, rather for the employees and customers. Public Hearing Closed. Miklo then noted that there was nothing in the code that would prohibit the cosmetic change such as color or new windows and doors. The adding of square footage that would not meet code. MOTION: T.J. Brandt moved to approve VAR00-0001, a variance to allow the expansion of the non-conforming use, auto and truck oriented use in the CB-5 zone for variance to the minimum building height requirement, a variance to landscaping requirements, a variance to the dumpster location and a variance in the fenestration and articulation requirements in the CB-5 zone for the property located at 325 E. Burlington Street. Attorney Mitchell suggested that each variance item be addressed separately. T.J. Brandt amended the motion to read as follows: MOTION: T.J. Brandt moved to approve VAR00-0001, a variance to allow the expansion of the non-conforming use, an auto and truck oriented use in the CB-5 zone. Paul seconded the motion. Paul noted that the tests of the necessary hardship in his eyes had not been met completely. The zoning was changed after the company opened for business and this meets the landowners' own making hardship issue. The reasonable return test or the uniqueness was not met in his mind of the necessary hardship. For those reasons Paul stated he would not support this motion. Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 7 Corcoran commented that an application for a variance must meet a very high standard for approval. The Iowa City zoning chapter provides that no non-conforming use shall be expanded. The public interest test must be met. She said that she agreed with the staffs view of the proposal and that it could very well increase the usage of property. There are health and safety concerns triggered with the proposal. The expansion does not appear to be in harmony with the comprehensive plan; which is to enhance the pedestrian orientation. Just in taking up more land and having a more intense use of the piece of property does not agree with the plan. In the test of unnecessary hardship if the application does not meet all of the tests then the variance has to be denied. On the reasonable return test she did not feel that it was met. In the uniqueness test she did not see anything unique that makes it difficult for the applicant to meet the provisions of the zoning chapter. Corcoran states she would vote against the expansion portion. Keitel said that he would agree with the comments made by his colleagues. One of the comments that were made was the increase of pedestrian use. He said he did not see any attempt to reduce the pedestrian and vehicular conflict. By increasing the traffic he said the problem would become more acute. Keitel indicated that he would vote against the expansion. T.J. Brandt commented that when he considered this he felt that it would not threaten the neighborhood integrity. Unfortunately, as his colleagues stated the three tests of hardship must be met and this proposal does not do that. He said that he did not see hardship being met and as set forth by the law the Board cannot approve the variance if the tests were not met; therefore he would vote against the variance. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. MOTION: Paul motioned to approve the VAR00-0001, the variance to the minimum building height requirement for the property located at 325 E. Burlington Street, located in the CB-5 zone. Keitel seconded the motion. Keitel noted that in the CB-5 zone it is encouraged to be a high intensity use. With the existing non-conforming use he was not able to support the motion. Paul stated that he was not in favor of voting for the variance. In looking at the city plan it would send a bad signal to community to vacate the zoning requirements. Given what is trying to be done downtown the Board needs to support the plan. He said he did not feel that the hardship tests were met. Corcoran stated that she would vote against it for the same reasons she stated previously. It did not appear that allowing a variance for the building height would be in harmony with the comprehensive plan. The three tests are not satisfied. T.J. Brandt stated that unfortunately he too would vote against the motion. Knowing what the city wants to accomplish with the CB-5 zone and for the reasons stated by his colleagues he would vote against the motion. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. MOTION: Keitel moved to approve VAR00-0001, the variance for the landscaping, with a second by Paul. Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 8 Paul commented that he did not believe this motion was in compliance with the spirit or the letter of the zoning that was trying to be established in the area. The reasons are the same as talked about in the above motions; especially in the tests that have to be met for reasonableness of return and uniqueness. Paul said he would vote against the motion. Corcoran stated she would vote against the variance for the landscaping requirements for the reasons articulated by Paul. The tests have not been met. Also, with the intent of the zone and the vision of the comprehensive plan this plan would be against the legislative enactments by the city. T.J. Brandt said he would echo his colleagues' thoughts in terms of the tests of hardship, as he did not believe they had been met. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. MOTION: T.J. Brandt moved that the VAR00-0001, the variance for the dumpster location in the CB-5 zone for the property located at 325 E. Burlington Street be approved. Keitel seconded the motion. Paul stated that for the same reasons as stated before he would vote against the motion. It may be easier for the dump truck to service the area, but he would worry about the pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. Again, it would not meet the tests and this is the crucial issue. Keitel said he would confirm what Paul stated regarding the unnecessary hardship issues. For the dumpster relocation it could not be said that there would not be a reasonable return. Granted, it was not their own making. Since the three tests were not met he could not support it. Corcoran stated she would vote against it, as she did not believe all of the unnecessary hardship elements have been met. With the dumpster being moved to the east end of the property there is a lot of foot traffic which would be in conflict with garbage trucks. On the west side there is an alley where there would be less conflict. Again there has been no evidence presented to show that there would not be any reason for a reasonable return if the dumpster was moved. T.J. Brandt commented because of the hardship test not being met and for reasons stated by his colleagues he would vote against the motion. With the dumpster on that side there would be a problem with the foot traffic. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. MOTION: Paul moved for the Board to approve VAR00-0001, a variance to the fenestration and articulation requirements for building walls in the CB-5 zone, located at 325 E. Burlington Street. Keitel seconded the motion. Paul stated that he did not think that it would be in general harmony with the area and the objectives of the comprehensive plan. It does not meet the uniqueness test. For these reasons he would not vote in favor of the motion. Keitel said he would not support this portion of the variance because the tests of unnecessary hardships had not been met. Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 9 T.J. Brandt complimented QuikTrip and their corporate offices for going to the extreme for this project. Common sense-wise he said there probably would not be one person on the Board who would like to see the building be updated for ADA and all of the other obvious reasons. By law the Board is required that all tests of hardship are met. If only one is not met then a variance cannot be approved. As a businessman in Iowa City he commends QuikTrip for what they have done in town. If it were not law he would not bat an eye at it, but because it is law he could not support the variance. Corcoran stated she could not vote in favor for this portion of the variation. The code for this zone is the prevailing law and it does not be in harmony with the vision of the comprehensive plan. It is a high standard that has to be met. No evidence has been provided that the company will not have a reasonable return for the property and the uniqueness test has not been met. She would vote against the motion. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. MOTION: Keitel moved to approve EXC00-0002, a special exception to modify the building setback requirements along Burlington Street from twelve feet to 73 feet for the 13.75 foot width of the west building addition and ten-foot width of the east wall of the east addition and to 24.5 feet for another 12.75 foot length of the east wall of the addition for the subject property. Paul seconded the motion. Paul stated that there is a unique situation with the location of the building and the gas pumps. This is the reason for the configuration. Having done the research over the years it probably is the best way to get people in and out of the gas pumps; however with the new zoning in the area it is the intent to make it useful for both pedestrians and vehicles. It would conflict with the · city's intent and he would vote against the motion. Corcoran commented that in this case this would be a substantial change in what is allowed in the zone. These are great differences are not in line with the comprehensive plan and the intent of the zone. For those reasons she would vote to deny the motion. Keitel began by saying that one of the things that is looked at in granting special exceptions is whether granting the exception would provide special privileges to the property not afforded other properties in the zone. However, if this is granted and any new businesses came along they would look at the exception granted. For this reason he is not in favor of going such a long distance for granting such an exception and would vote against it. T.J. Brandt said that he was concerned because he was going against common sense, but because of the law he had to vote against the motion. Someday down the road QuikTrip may decide to vacate the premises. As long as the property would remain QuikTrip's property for all of time, but knowing that it is a leased property he could not agree with the amount of the setback. He would deny the exception. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. MOTION: Paul motioned for EXC00-0002, a special exception requested for the west side yard reduction from five feet to 1.83 feet for the 32-foot length of the west addition and the south rear yard reduction from five feet to 4.71 feet for the 13.75 width of the west addition. T.J. Brandt seconded the motion. Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 10 T.J. Brandt said that because of the setback on the other side it points towards an addition being put on the building and that an addition was not being added with this portion tying into it he would deny the motion. Corcoran said that she would vote against the motion, as there is nothing peculiar with the piece of the property being in conformity with the zoning chapter. There appears to be no reason for the compliance to be met as set out in the zoning code. The facts in this case do not warrant the Board granting the exception. Paul said that he would agree with his fellow Board members comments; as well as he had concern with safety coming up the alley and the visual clearance that might be inhibited by granting such as exception. He would vote against the motion. Keitel noted that as he stated in the first part of the exception; the Board has to look at the special privileges that might be afforded to this property and whether or not it would compromise the interest of justice. He felt that it would and would vote against the motion. By a vote of 4-0, the Board denied the motion. EXC00-0003. Public hearing on an application submitted by Phillip Bennett for a special exception to modify a setback requirement for a garage from an alley right-of-way for property located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 732 Dearborn Street. Miklo said that in October of 1998 Bennett applied for a building permit to replace a garage that was damaged in a July windstorm of that year. The permit was approved subject to the new garage being ten feet from the alley as provided in the zoning chapter. The garage was constructed; however it was constructed ten feet from the alley paving and not the actual alley right-of-way. Apparently Mr. Bennett misunderstood the instructions of the building department. The garage was completed and there was no notice of it having been build closer to the right-of- way until another property owner requested a permit to build a garage. They pointed out the existing garage in the neighborhood was not built ten feet from the alley. The city inspectors noted that the garage was built only eight feet from the alley. The applicant is therefore requesting a special exception to remedy the situation. It does appear that the building of the garage was the result of a misunderstanding and the fact once the slab was built the applicant did not request further inspections as normally done with the building permit. Miklo said that in terms of the degree of special exception this would be minor to moderate with a twenty percent reduction from the required rear yard in this area. The intent of the setback in this case is to assure that there is good visibility for someone traveling down the alley as well as someone backing a vehicle out of the garage. Ten feet was determined at the time the code was written in 1983 to be the minimum required for that safety. In this particular case it would be arguable whether one could actually back out of the garage and have safe visibility. There are other garages in this same alley and neighborhood that are actually closer to the alley than the current garage. Some are actually on the lot line. There is no evidence of accidents. Miklo said in terms of it being detrimental to the neighborhood it would be arguable; given the existing situation in the neighborhood. In view of the way the situation arose the Board should consider whether justice would be served. Staff did feel that the uniqueness test is not being met in this case. The same situation applies to any property in the area. It might be a better remedy to amend the zoning code to allow an eight-foot setback if it can be shown that sight Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 11 distance can be achieved on a case-by-case basis in an alley situation. The more appropriate remedy would be an amendment to the code and therefore; staff does recommend denial of the request. Corcoran inquired with regard to the change in the ordinance; how would it be accomplished. Miklo said the Planning Department could initiate a change to the zoning code and the Board may want to make a recommendation to the Plannig and Zoning Commission regarding this matter. Miklo said it could be done by a minor modification procedure that the building department could review it on a case-by-case basis, or a blanket code amendment could be done to allow it in all cases. Paul asked what would happen it the application was denied. Miklo stated that if that happened and a code amendment was not made the owner would be required to physically move the garage two feet from its current location. Mitchell stated that a municipal infraction could be issued. If found guilty cities are given abatement remedies. The structure could be forced to be removed. Paul asked for a historical feel for the amendment. Miklo said it would be a possibility, but there is no guarantee. There is a possibility that after further research it may not be granted. Public Hearing Opened. Phillip Bennett stated that he brought the drawing into city offices showing the four-foot extension to the garage existing pad. He was given the permit and at no point was he told that he had to have an inspection at each stage. He said he did assume there would be an inspection. He did ask if he was required to get a permit for the extension of the concrete for the drive and was told it was not necessary. He said a contractor was hired to the pavement extension and the garage was done from a kit. News of this issue came from the city two days after the house was sold. Neighbors have never complained and there had not been any accidents. Bennett noted in a document that he received from city staff it was noted that in a similar case the Board allowed an eight-foot setback. He said he did not see how his case would make precedence when there are other similar cases. Paul asked Miklo if staffs recommendation for denial based on the fact that an amendment is a better way to go so that a green light is not given to other people in similar circumstances. Miklo said the basis of the recommendation is that no uniqueness could be found for this property. Corcoran noted for the record that in the staff report on page three, second paragraph. It stated that in a similar case the Board of Adjustment allowed an eight foot setback from street paving where the street functioned as an alley as long as an unobstructed vision triangle with two of its sides at least ten feet in length on each side of the driveway was maintained. Measurements at the 732 Dearborn property show that a larger unobstructed vision triangle is available on both sides of the garage. Public Hearing Closed. MOTION: T.J. Brandt moved to approve EXC00-0003, special exception to reduce the setback requirement for a garage that is entered from the alley from ten feet to eight feet Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 12 from the alley right-of-way line for a twelve foot width of the garage for property located in the RS-8 zone at 732 Dearborn Street. Keitel seconded the motion. Keitel stated that he looked at the property and did drive up and down the alley a couple of times to determine of there were any safety concerns. He said he did notice the garage in the immediately adjacent property being much closer. He went a couple of blocks on either side of Dearborn Street in the alleys to see how many garages appeared to be closer to the ten foot setback. He said there was a real hodge-podge. He said he was not in favor of amending the ordinance in this point in time because it is not a good idea to amend the ordinance without a good cause. This appears to be a clear case of a misunderstanding. He said he would vote in favor of approving the motion. Corcoran said she would vote in favor of the motion. It seemed to be a misunderstanding. She said she would not know ten feet from the street or alley; she would think it could be paving. The building setbacks are established to minimize the sense of over crowding and the appearance of congestion. In this case it is a twenty percent reduction and she did not consider it excessive. She went to the property and noted the neighboring property as well. She felt there were special circumstances in this case. He did the work himself and did not get a lot information from the city. The impetus was the storm. The Board does not like to make a special rule for one person. She felt the applicant acted in good faith and the reduction will have little effect. She said that she would vote in granting the exception. Paul said two terms jumped out at time. He said he could argue that this would be a unique situation in a number of cases. An act of nature caused damage to this garage. He did try to put himself in the applicant's position and he too would have done the same thing. He would have been wrong. The applicant made good faith gestures to talk to city staff. In the interest of justice in this case it would be best served to vote grant the exception. T.J. Brandt said that he wanted to echo Keitel's thought that he did not want to see an amendment to the ordinance at present. Knowing the neighborhood he felt that if the time comes to build new garages in the neighborhood he would hope that the City staff would be more communicative with community members. The code is not always spelled out to the letter of the law. A lot is left to interpretation and can be misleading. He said that he would vote in favor of the motion in the interest of justice. Corcoran added that she heard the Board say that the public safety concerns have been met. She pointed out that there is precedent for doing this as it is contained in the staff report that on one other occasion the Board voted to grant a special exception for an eight-foot setback where the street functioned as an alley. The measurements at 732 Dearborn show a large unobstructed triangle for vision on both sides of the garage. The Board members are all very sensitive to not carving out exceptions for certain individuals. If other people come to the Board they will be looked at on a case on case basis. By a vote of 4-0, the Board aDDroved the motion. OTHER None Board of Adjustment April 12, 2000 Page 13 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION The next meeting will be on May 10, 2000. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn with the second by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. Camp said he would like to make an additional comment. Corcoran reconvened the meeting. Camp said he understood the position the Board was in and felt they conducted the meeting in a professional manner. He asked about the possibility of a rezoning. Miklo said that his first reaction would be that a rezoning would not be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the area. He said that the City planned for the redevelopment of that part of the city for commercial uses and high density residential uses. Camp thanked the Board for their consideration. Keitel moved to adjourn with the second by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. Minutes Submitted By Le Ann Dunne-Tyson Pcd/boafiles THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2000 - 5:30 P.M. ' Subject to Approva... CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~j MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Richard Carlson, Mike Gunn, Doris Malkmus, Pam Michaud, Marc Mills, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Peter Jochimsen, Sue Licht STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Means, Vern Fisher RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Malkmus moved that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook draft of March 28, 2000 (with minor revisions) be forwarded to City Council for approval. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Mills moved to approve the Commission's revised procedures and to forward the revised document to the City Council for review. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Malkmus said a resident requested the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) write a letter to the City Council in support of the down zoning of Governor and Lucas Streets. Anderson asked for a vote to determine if the entire Commission was in favor of the proposed down zoning. Commissioners .voted 6-0-1 in favor. Anderson abstained from the vote. Gunn said that he would be attending the City Council meeting and agreed to speak to Council on the Commission's behalf to let Council know of the Commission's support. Mills said that he could write a letter of support on behalf of the Commission. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 24 AND 31, FEBRUARY 10 AND 28, AND MARCH 9, 2000 MEETINGS For the January 24th minutes, Malkmus requested that the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 7 be changed to, "He said College Green and East College Street would not have met the requirements for a historic district if replacement siding would have been used to eliminate them from eligibility." MOTION: Malkmus moved to approve the January 24, 2000 minutes as corrected. Widness seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. For the January 31st minutes, Widness noted that the minutes mistakenly list her as absent. Commissioners also suggested minor changes to the organization. Malkmus said that in the last sentence of the 7th paragraph on Page 3, the sentence should state, "Malkmus said that she would eliminate the minimum in size." MOTION: Widness moved to approve the January 31, 2000 minutes with corrections. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 2 For the February 10, 2000 minutes, Malkmus said the second to last sentence of the third paragraph from the bottom of page 2 should say, "A rule of thumb would be that the residence not exceed 4,000 square feet nor be increased more than 100%." MOTION: Michaud moved to approve the February 10, 2000 minutes as corrected. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. For the February 28, 2000 minutes, Carlson said that the last sentence of the third paragraph from the bottom of page 2 should be changed to, "Carlson suggested changing the word 'concentrate' to 'identify."' MOTION: Mills moved to approve the February 28, 2000 minutes as corrected. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. For the March 9, 2000 minutes, there were no corrections. MOTION: Malkmus moved to approve the March 9, 2000 minutes as submitted. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS WITHIN HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS Kugler said the Commission had already reviewed the guidelines in detail. He said the guidelines have been made available at the Public Library, the City Clerk's office, the Department of Planning and Community Development, and on the City's web page. All property owners within historic districts and owners of historic landmarks were forwarded a notification letter informing them of the public hearing. He said two letters about the guidelines were received and one was included in commissioners' meeting packets. The Commission had planned to hear input from the public and then decide whether or not to forward the guidelines to the City Council for review and approval. Anderson asked if anyone from the public had comments. Duane Means, 120 Fairchild Street, said that he was just there to learn and thought the guidelines looked great. Vern Fisher, 1135 E. Colle.cle Street, said that he planned to replace the entire windows in his home, but was not sure how to shop around for the best option and meet the guidelines. Malkmus explained that the Secretary of the Interior's standards suggest retaining as much of the original window as possible. Gunn said one of the commissioners could go to Fisher's house to take a look at the windows and suggest the best option. Kugler provided Fisher with a phone number if he wished to set up an appointment. Commissioners also discussed an email received from an individual who appreciated the idea of controlling the demolition of buildings in historic districts and allowing some flexibility for the use of contemporary materials as long as the aesthetic values are maintained. Kugler said the Commission also received a couple of comments from City staff. Staff suggested changes to the section on Paint in order to meet Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) guidelines on lead paint. Kugler said he would work with Gunn to make some minor changes to the language. Michaud commented that the guidelines evolved quite well. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 3 Public hearing closed. MOTION: Malkmus moved that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook draft of March 28, 2000 (with minor revisions) be forwarded to City Council for approval. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. DISCUSSION OF REVISED PROCEDURES Anderson said the Commission had previously approved the procedures. Kugler noted that at the same time the Commission was revising the procedures, they were discussing whether or not there should be an appeal for neighboring property owners as well as owners of the properties. The Commission had decided not to incorporate this. The changes in the revised procedures would set up a second Commission meeting each month to discuss only Certificates of Appropriateness if any had been filed. This would allow another opportunity for property owners to get their review completed rather than setting up special meetings. There will also be an application filing deadline of 8 working days prior to the meeting date. Kugler said the rest of the changes were made to bring the procedures in line with what the Commission is actually doing. Malkmus suggested a change to the top of Page 3. She said it could state, "The Commission may defer consideration of the application." Kugler said City staff also suggested Item A under "Certificate of Appropriateness" could be deleted in order to avoid redundancy in the procedures. Kugler said the Commission sent a memo to City Council last fall regarding the decision not to allow an appeal by someone other than the applicant. This appeal issue was never placed on the Council's agenda and the Commission decided to wait to address both the appeal issue and the guidelines with the Council at the same time. Anderson suggested that the Commission re- forward the memo at the same time as the guidelines and have a member present to answer questions. MOTION: Mills moved to approve the Commission's revised procedures and to forward the revised document to the City Council for review, Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. SECTION 106 REVIEW: 1928 H Street: Anderson said the Commission first needed to decide if the property is individually eligible for listing on the National Historic Register and if so, whether the work meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Kugler said the City has not conducted any surveys in this area. He did not believe the area qualified as a historic district but individual buildings may be eligible. After some discussion of the architecture, commissioners determined that the house is not individually eligible for listing; therefore, they would not need to approve the applicant's replacement of windows. MOTION: Michaud moved that the property at 1928 H Street was not eligible for listing on the National Historic Register. Mills seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 4 SECTION 106 REVIEW: 1735 F Street: Commissioners reviewed photographs of the house. Malkmus said it looked like an addition was added to the front of the house and one of the dormers looked like it was added recently and did not match the other dormer. MOTION: Malkmus moved that the property at 1735 F Street was not eligible for listing on the National Historic Register. Widness seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. SECTON 106 REVIEW: 1523 Broadway Street: Kugler noted that the property just met the 50-year requirement. Michaud said because of the multiple additions to the original structure, the property did not appear to be eligible. MOTION: Michaud moved that the property at 1523 Broadway Street was not eligible for listing on the National Historic Register. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. SECTION 106 REVIEW: 1127 Davenport Street: Carlson said that he looked at this house. Kugler said the draft Phase III report states that the property is eligible for listing on the National Register. MOTION: Carlson moved that the property at 1127 Davenport Street is individually eligible for listing on the National Historic Register. Mills seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. Kugler stated that the proposed work on the house basically involved painting, repairing, and replacing the screens on storm windows. MOTION: Widness moved that the proposed workplan for the house at 1127 Davenport Street complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Mills seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. DISCUSSION OF AWARDS PROGRAM: 1. Additional Award Nominations Kugler showed pictures of three additional properties that people called in as potential award nominees for the Program. Of the properties reviewed, commissioners decided that two of the properties should be recognized in the "Additions/Reconstruction" category and the "Rehabilitation" category. 2. Nowysz Historic Preservation Person of the Year Award Commissioners agreed on an individual to be honored with this award, to be presented at the program. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 5 3. Other Issues Anderson said that he would be leaving the Commission because of a conflict of interest with his employment. However, he said that he would still "MC" the Recognition Program. Anderson noted that one of the first items on the agenda at a May City Council meeting would be Historic Preservation month. Widness said that she would be willing to attend the meeting and invite people to attend the Recognition Program. Kugler asked if the Commission wished to add the category of "Stewardship" to this year's awards program as they had the previous year. After some discussion, commissioners agreed that they would not have enough time to obtain photographs and add this category to the program. Widness asked where the Commission could place refreshments at the Recognition Program. Anderson agreed to find out by talking with staff at the Courthouse. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT GOVERNOR-LUCAS STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Kugler asked if one of the commissioners would edit Section A. Malkmus said that she had made changes to Section A. and asked if Kugler would edit her draft. Kugler also asked for a volunteer to write an explanation of a conservation district. Mills said he would write this. Kugler said the Commission should also take a look at Section G. that discusses what types of projects City staff could sign off on without the Commission looking at them; what types of projects could be taken care of with staff and the chairperson or their designee; and what types of projects needed the review of the whole Commission. Malkmus said that she thought the section looked good. Kugler pointed out that changes to the building code regarding window replacements and siding replacements affected historic preservation districts and historic landmarks. The changes do not apply to conservation districts. The Commission would not have review over window replacements or siding replacements for single-family or duplex buildings; however, because multifamily buildings do require a building permit, the Commission would have review. Carlson said there were additional questions that he and Licht planned to talk over regarding contributing/non-contributing. Commissioners discussed some of the issues concerning boundaries of the proposed conservation districts and what would be classified as noncontributing structures in those districts. Commissioners also discussed the guidelines for Governor-Lucas Street. Malkmus suggested that the language state that the front wall of the property not extend further than the front of the two adjacent structures. Kugler noted that the ordinance proposes a 20-foot setback and the Commission would not be able to allow a structure that does not meet this code. The Commission is attempting to make new development fit within the existing neighborhood. Kugler asked whether they wanted to use the parameters of what is seen from the streetscape for a size limit or if they wanted to specify square footage. He said the City attorney raised questions about specifying a number (square footage) for both the minimum and maximum. Kugler noted this would apply only to single-family duplex residences. Specifying the square footage limits the enjoyment and use of the property. Gunn's suggested alternative was to look Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 6 at how a building appears in the streetscape, but said it would be difficult for the Commission to make a decision without the maximum square footage restriction. Kugler said they could also look at what percentage of the lot a structure covers. Gunn said that he did not feel the issue could be decided without further investigation. Commissioners discussed many scenarios and agreed that if they chose to use square footage, they would need to provide a reasonable basis for the number. Gunn said he would work on determining an appropriate range (minimum and maximum) for this district. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT PHASE III ('GOOSETOWN) SURVEY REPORT Commissioners agreed to table this discussion until all commissioners had a chance to review the materials thoroughly. DISCUSSION OF MAY 15 DESIGN REVIEW FORUM Anderson said the Iowa State Historical Society would set up this forum on the Iowa Communications network. Kugler said he was told that someone would need to serve as a host in Iowa City. The State was also asking for commissioners to attend and participate in discussions. None of the commissioners would be able to attend. Anderson said that he would contact Friends to see if someone would be interested. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioners agreed to postpone election of officers until more commissioners were in attendance. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Commission Time Kugler handed out new commissioner handbooks. Iowa History Forum 2000, April 15, Des Moines, IA Forum News, March/April 2000 Iowa Historian, March/April 2000 "New Codes for Old Buildings," Shelter Force, Date Unknown Letter from Kerry McGrath, State Historical Society of Iowa, regarding changes to the CLG program CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW: 9 S. LINN STREET Kugler said that although Licht was not in attendance, she had relayed her suggestions. She thought a simple black metal railing without additional design ("S" brackets) would be fine. Licht thought simplicity should be encouraged. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 7 MOTION: Mills moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition that the applicant remove the proposed "S" brackets from the railing. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Michaud moved to adjourn the meeting. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Wendy Larive. Pppdadmin\mins\hpc041300.doc PRELIMINAR' IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000, 3:30 PM Subject to ~,,ppr0yal CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Purington, Rick Fosse, Terry Trueblood, Sandra Hudson, Stephen Perkins MEMBERS ABSENT: Emily Vermillion, Gary Nagle STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin, Joyce Carroll OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Eckholt, John Kenyon, Iowa City Gazette Literary Walk Sub-Committee Members: Matt Lage, Kevin Hanick, Margaret Richardson, Paul Ingram, Susan Craig CALL TO ORDER Purington called the meeting to order at 3:33 P.M. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL That the Iowa City Public Art Procedures be adopted. (5-0) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Purington began speaking as the president representing the Arts Iowa City. She thanked the committee for the financial assistance that was given to the organization to help them remain visible on the street level for several months in their twenty-fifth year. The City Council did not vote to give Arts Iowa City any financial assistance for FY01. She went on to say that recently a Council Member had spoken to a member of their board stating that within the past couple of weeks they had heard that Arts Iowa City had rejected some free space on a street level location. She went on the record stating that Arts Iowa City had not received any proposal for free space and there never was any discussion of this issue by their board. For the record the Board would consider such an offer. They would not turn down offers and then depend on the City Council. There will be a paper fiber opening at Arts Iowa City from 5-SPM with a pianist and hor d'oeuvres. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 2000 MEETING Hudson inquired about the fact that there was not a notation about the forum for the public to express their ideas for sculptures. She thought she had brought this up during the meeting, but perhaps it was brought up after the meeting adjourned. Franklin clarified by saying that for the sculpture selection having an opportunity for public review is part of the selection procedures. Once the semi-finalists make their submission for the sculptures for the pedestrian mall there will be a week that these will be on display. They are allowed to make written comments at that time as well as at the meeting where final selection is made. Hudson then inquired about the author selection process. Franklin noted that a press release was sent out to the local newspapers and some input was received from members of the community. It was relayed to the authors selection committee. Fosse made the motion to approve the minutes with Trueblood seconding the motion. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 6, 2000 Page 2 INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER Stephen Perkins was introduced as the newest member of the committee. Purington asked him to give a brief statement of his reasons for applying to the committee. He said that he saw this as a window of opportunity in Iowa City presently for a cultural and arts presence downtown. By trade he is an art historian, curator and artist. APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART PROGRAM PROCEDURES Franklin explained that this is the final draft from the previous meeting. It will be passed on to the City Council for final adoption. Hudson asked if the city legal department has looked at the procedures. Franklin said that this is done as a matter of course when there is a resolution on the agenda. Hudson went on to say that she remains concerned about the section on acquisition. Specifically, on Page 2, she had concerns about the statement: All contracts for the acquisition of public cart shaft include provision for a reasonable time period within which the City agrees to keep the piece of artwork in the place for which it was commissioned, purchased or donated. Hudson had concerns about this statement as there are many reasons why something might have to change before a time period is up. She felt that this might be a clause the city may not always be able to live up to. There may be unforeseen events that require the removal of a piece of art. She said she felt it should relate to circumstances rather than a period of time. Franklin commented that she felt that it was broad enough that the decision will be made with each piece that is acquired as to what that reasonable time period is. This committee will see all contracts that are done for the pieces. Fosse said he agreed with Hudson's point. Trueblood suggested adding to the end of the sentence the words ~barring unforeseen circumstances which may necessitate relocation or de- accession of the piece sooner than anticipated." Franklin noted this change and said she would ask the legal department to review the document. MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the procedures as amended and forward them to the City Council after the City Attorney's Office has reviewed them. Perkins seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. Purington thanked the committee for reviewing this document so many times to come up with comprehensive and superior procedures. IOWA AVENUE LITERARY WALK Franklin began by presenting to the committee the author selection sub-committee. She commented that they were a delight to work with and have worked very hard to prepare the current author list, which was provided to the committee. Hanick presented the members of the sub-committee. He said that the process had been very interesting as it had given them a chance to talk about the concept of the literary walk. They established criteria to determine authors. Franklin identified the criteria that the group laid out as follows: Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 6, 2000 Page 3 Someone who was born in Iowa or someone who rived in Iowa and wrote a significant work while living in the state. The author generally needed to be one who had a body of work and had achieved some critical acclaim. Hanick went on to say that this is a broader definition than that used by the Special Collections at the University of Iowa Libraries. The Committee wanted to be more inclusive and give some leeway to choose authors. Hannick stated there were at least 200 authors considered before the first cut was made. General categories were determined to ensure a fair representation of genre. There are crossovers in the categories, but they were selected for what the author was best known for. They did tend to weight this first cut towards living authors with the idea of hopefully having some of these authors present at an opening dedication of the artwork. He went on to say that this group felt they needed to supply a representative quote from the author's work. The group feels very comfortable with the representation they have for the first group of authors. Purington commented that this work done by the sub-committee is very good and thanked the group. She felt that the extra work done would be incredibly helpful to the artists. Hanick gave an example of an incident that happened when he was teaching. He had a student that did an incredible artpiece from the poem of James Tate. He felt by giving the artists a selection of the authors' work it would give them a lead so-to-speak; whatever the artist chose to do with it was where the art came in. Hanick also commented that the second portion of the list would be compiled for the 300 block portion of the project. There also is a back-up list that might be used in later stages of the project. It is fluid and can be used down the road. Purington suggested that this could be tied into a celebration at some point. This concept could also be tied into other forms of art. Richardson noted that some of the authors are from long ago. She noted that Mildred Wirt Benson is the author of the Nancy Drew Mysteries. Hudson then inquired about the age categories represented in the selection. She said that she saw authors for ten year olds, but wondered if there was work that would appeal to pre-school age children. Richardson pointed out that Ellie Simmons, Ruth Carlsen and Mildred Wirt Benson wrote for children. Purington suggested in the call to ask the artists to take a quote and tailor it towards a young child. Hudson commented on a project she had worked on where she was asked to find works of authors that were no longer in the library. The individuals were very fond of them and wanted their children exposed to these authors. Hudson inquired if the individual had anyone in mind. Ruth Carlsen was the author they noted with the Mr. Pud.clins Book. In the process of searching she learned that the librarians have a source that they use to find this type of information. She said that Mr. Pud.qins is the number one lost book. Franklin explained that the sub-committee will now look at which ten authors might be placed together. They also will work on truncating the quotes. Franklin then went on to say that the artist concepts are due on April 17th. There are eight artists; however she is not sure if all eight will respond to the invitation. From the eight three artists will be selected. One of the artists is from Iowa. She said that in her conversation with the Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 6, 2000 Page 4 artists; all of them have made the assumption that within their work there would be quotes that would be incorporated. The sub-committee has talked about putting together a booklet that would perhaps be on display in Tower Place that would have all of the authors listed with the full quotations, the author's works, the year of the work and a shod biographical sketch. The literary walk sub-committee left at 4:08PM. Franklin then went on to discuss the schedule of the review for the artists' submittals. A public display would need to take place in the library, the Civic Center or some publicly accessible space. Purington suggested using Arts Iowa City as avenue. It is open from 11AM to 5PM daily. The committee agreed to this idea. It was also decided that the authors list would be displayed with the proposals. A special committee meeting for the review was scheduled for April 20th at 3:30PM. Franklin asked for confirmation that the committee approved the authors selected by the sub- committee for use in the project. Perkins noted that he counted twelve female authors and twenty-seven male authors. He said he might be off on that number; however there are twenty-five percent female and seventy-five percent male in the representation. Trueblood commented that he was very impressed with the list and the work done by the sub- committee. Hudson again expressed her concern that there was not adequate representation of the authors for youth. She said she felt the list was heavily weighted towards adults. She said she hoped when the next blocks came along there would be some thought given to this. She felt Iowa City does pride itself on the education of the youth in the community. She felt there were some contemporary authors that are almost blockbuster authors who produce work. Franklin suggested that Hudson make some recommendations for the list that she will pass on to the sub-committee. Franklin noted that the sub-committee worked towards gaining a variety of recognition. They strived to come up with recognizable authors from Iowa. It was their intent to engage people while educating them as well. MOTION: Trueblood moved to approve the list of authors as submitted for use in the literary walk with a second by Fosse. The motion was approved on a 5-0 vote. PROPOSAL FROM THE CULTURAL DISTRICT DISCUSSION GROUP Eckholt began the presentation by saying that an ongoing discussion had been ta.king place regarding the forming of an art and cultural district in the downtown area. The group had been having weekly meetings for about two months. One of the biggest concerns had been that the group did not want to limit themselves by narrowly defining boundaries around the downtown area. This would leave out sites like Riverside Theatre, Studiolo and the Old Capitol. At one of the meetings John Loomis, a local contractor, came up with the term "epicenter". It seemed liked the kind of term that was exciting and energy generating; as opposed to the Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 6, 2000 Page 5 cultural district. This then spurred on further discoveries and ideas. He said the group decided to focus on the epicenter idea. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has a grant opportunity for their Arts Reach Program, which is to try to get groups to focus on arts. The program identified twenty states that they felt were under-represented in the NEA grants in recent years. Iowa is one of the states identified. One of the specific things that they fund are either getting groups together to create a plan to create a cultural district or take an existing plan and fulfill the ideas that they have. The grant is capped at $10K and has to be matched. Gifts in kind can be used as part of the match. This group would probably need around $2K in cash. His proposal asked for $8,600 from the National Endowment for the Arts. This includes banners for the light poles that would be seasonal. The deadline for the proposal was April 1s~. The grant award announcement will be made in July of this year. If they receive the grant the group would like to have things in place for Spring of 2001. Eckholt said that he prepared the proposal using the City's downtown strategy as the plan because so much of it involved using the arts as a destination point. The groups involved included the Chamber of Commerce, Convention and Visitor's Bureau, Senior Center, the Public Library and the University of Iowa. The group decided to make the epicenter WeatherDance. They would like to play off the weather and this coincides with the theme that the group is trying to utilize. They are trying to create a series of materials and icons that will guide people to where the cultural resources are. By playing off the WeatherDance title of the area, which he said he felt needed further definition, a sense of space like WeatherDance would be the perfect place to begin the epicenter. Eckholt presented the committee with logo ideas that his group had come up with. He went on to say that there is an artist in Iowa City, Justine Zimmer, whose specialty is doing tornadoes made of wires and materials. The concept was to have a tornado sculpture that could be moved to different display locations. The artist has offered to do a fifteen-foot tall tornado with most of the cost donated by the artist. The group would like to use the sculpture pad by the Burger King to launch the program. Trueblood asked how this would fit into the plans for the sculpture. Franklin said that it sounds like the Spring of 2001 would be the earliest that they would like to place the tornado. She went on to say that this was the pad designated for an Iowa artist. She suggested the possibility of a rotating sculpture program on this pad. This could address the financial concerns and always feature an Iowa artist. Purington felt the idea of the rotating sculpture would be a healthy one to explore. This would keep Iowa artists fluid in the area. This would be a good showcase. She said some procedures would have to be put into place to start the program. The fee for the tornado piece would be about $3K. Purington thanked Eckholt for working on the grant proposal. He said it was a stretch to pull together, but felt it was a good project. He noted that his lead sentence in the proposal was something to the effect of "like the forces of nature the arts have an immediate impact on the physical as well as the spiritual side of a community." He said he thought it was a good metaphor to use. Within three years from now Iowa City will be a showcase of public art in a brand new downtown. Hudson commented that when she first joined the committee Franklin had mentioned the changing sculpture in downtown Cedar Rapids. Since that time Hudson said she has really Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 6, 2000 Page 6 enjoyed watching the sculptures change as she has traveled in downtown Cedar Rapids. She feels this is an excellent idea for Iowa City. Eckholt left the meeting at 4:45PM. PEDESTRIAN MALL SCULPTURES: DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF SEMI- FINALISTS' SUBMITTALS Franklin noted that those who did not make the selection for sculpture proposals have been informed. She is working on the proposal request for those selected. The original plan has been delayed since the group became involved with the literary walk. The group determined that the deadline for the commission submittals would be July 7, 2000. COMMITTEE TIME/OTHER BUSINESS Purington inquired about the college group that was working on a field project. About one month ago Franklin said she had received an e-mail where they had said they had changed their focus. Franklin noted that at the May 4th meeting there would a discussion of the Near Southside Transportation Center. This is a $12M project that will include inter-city buses, taxies, bicycles and daycare on the lot defined by Burlington, Dubuque Court and Clinton Streets. The federal government will pay eighty percent of the project. It has an art component that this committee will be involved in. ADJOURNMENT Fosse moved to adjourn the meeting with a second by Trueblood. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM. Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson. ppddir/miNart4--6~O.doc PRELIMIN/tR IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE y THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2000, 3:30 PM , Subject tO .approvaI MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Purington, Rick Fosse, Gary Nagle, Terry Trueblood, Sandra Hudson, Emily Vermillion, Stephen Perkins MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin, Joyce Carroll OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER Purington called the meeting to order at 3:37 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL That Greg Lefevre be selected as the artist to complete the Iowa Avenue Literary Walk from Clinton Street to Gilbert Street (6-1, Perkins voting no). DISCUSSION OF THE IOWA AVENUE LITERARY WALK The group viewed slides of work submitted by Greg Lefevre and Steven Woodward. Franklin summarized the work of Lefevre as mostly sidewalk maps and that of Woodward as sculpture. Purington commented that the "Library Walk" materials submitted by Lefevre seem to be in step with the committee's concept for the Iowa Avenue Literary Walk. Franklin reviewed the choices outlined in her memo of April 14. She also reviewed the proposal sent by Aalto Design of Fairfield, IA. Discussion continued in regard to the Aalto proposal. Purington commented that Aalto Design appears to provide the technical work rather than the design work itself. She would not be as interested in securing this agency although the workmanship is certainly elegant. Fosse added that Aalto Design does look to be a fabrication company. Hudson commented that the design expertise shown in the brochure is outstanding in contrast to the concepts submitted for the Iowa Avenue Literary Walk. Discussion regarding Lefevre's wok began as Hudson raised her concern with the use of brass and bronze. Her concern is that these materials may not withstand the traffic required of sidewalk art. Franklin indicated some reservations with Lefevre's concrete stamped text. Purington said the bronze panels were compatible with the grid concept and that it was attractive. Fosse discussed maintenance requirements particularly in regard to snow removal. Vermillion said she likes Lefevre's work, and that it could be reinterpreted for Iowa City's Literary Walk. She is, however, hesitant to select only one adist for the entire project. Franklin said Lefevre had indicated he could consider doing the 300 block and the committee could see if they liked his work enough to secure his services for the next two blocks as well. Vermillion said she would be interested in having Lefevre do the 300 block. Fosse agreed. Discussion of Woodward's work centered on future possibilities of anchor pieces rather than pavement designs. Perkins wondered if Woodward could be asked to submit pavement designs. Hudson reminded the group that Woodward is moving from his current studio space. She doubted he would have the time to resubmit an additional proposal. Vermillion said she is impressed with Woodward's work. Fosse mentioned Aalto Design could be asked to submit examples of his own design work vs. others he has fabricated. He also said Woodward's work would be of interest in bases for lightpoles, for instance. Hudson indicated interest in something other than the limestone bases Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 20. 2000 Page 2 but she felt Woodward's work is too large for that application. She suggested that his work may best be selected for use as a focal point at Linn Street and Iowa, or some such site. Purington added that a focal piece at Gilbert and Iowa would also be appealing. Vermillion said something raised would draw attention to the sidewalk art. N'agle suggested the committee engage Lefevre for the entire project. Hudson mentioned her reservation in sidewalk stampings--she was afraid they would not be easily read. Nagle said to tell Lefevre the group does not want cement stamps if that's the only negative aspect of his work. Trueblood inquired about making a second call. Franklin said there is not enough time. Hudson commented that she preferred in some ways to award the whole project to Lefevre now. She feels his creative energy will be more comprehensive in thought. Purington commented that stamped concrete allows for more movement in the art. Vermillion agreed. MOTION Nagle made the motion to recommend Lefevre be engaged to design all three blocks of the Iowa Avenue Literary Walk. Hudson seconded the motion. DISCUSSION Perkins reinforced the need for the contract to allow an "out" after the first block. Fosse said he liked the continuity of securing one artist for the whole project. The motion was approved on a 6-1 vote, Perkins voting no. Franklin clarified that Perkins' reservation was in engaging Lefevre for all three blocks rather than in Lefevre's work itself. A discussion started concerning inviting Woodward to design a sculptural piece in the future. Vermillion stated that pieces along Iowa Avenue at Gilbert and Linn would lend some connectedness, even if it was a few years out at this point. Fosse said that although he was not adverse to more art in downtown, the discussion may be premature in that the group may need to discuss other projects. Hudson commented she would like to see downtown completed first. Fosse noted it may be difficult to define 'complete" or "finished." Vermillion inquired what the City's plan for art in other Iowa City locations is, and suggested a plan could be developed and phases outlined. She asked that the group be provided maps of some sort. Purington recommended the group do just that~evelop a Iong- range plan to target appropriate places for public art. Vermillion said that a plan would draw attention to Iowa City. A plan would offer a sense of cohesiveness, consistency, and definition. A plan could help the committee to visually understand the needs of Iowa City. It was decided to discuss this more at a future meeting. COMMITTEE TIME Franklin reported on the Council's desire to place the Gutheinz Fountain in Chauncey Swan park. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:47 PM. NEXT MEETING May 4, 2000; 3:30 PM. Minutes submitted by Joyce Carroll. ppddir/min/art4-20--00.doc MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Endel, Craig Gustaveson, Bruce Maurer, James Moxley, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, A1 Stroh, Kathy Wallace MEMBERS ABSENT: Toni Cilek STAFF PRESENT: Steve Atkins, Marjan Karr, Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS: City Council members: Connie Champion, Ernie Lehman, Steven Kanner, Mike O'Donnell, Dee Vanderhoef, Ross Wilbum; Adam Lowenstein; Fred Lucas FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Stroh, seconded by Gustaveson, to approve the March 8, 2000 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Wallace, seconded by Moxley, to recommend acceptance of fees in lieu of land dedication in the Washington Park Addition-Part II subdivision. Unanimous. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Stroh, to have the Animal Control Advisory Board look into viability and get their opinion on establishing a dog park Unanimous. WASHINGTON PARK ADDITION-PART H Trueblood reported the subdivision is located in the Pheasant Hill/Lcmme Neighborhood Open Space District, which has an open space deficit of approximately 8 acres. Part of the deficit will be met with the 2.35 acres to be dedicated in the Boyd's Fashionable Acres subdivision. The open space requirement is .4 acres, and planning staffs recommendation is to accept fees in lieu of land dedication. Pheasant Hill Park is located just to the west of this subdivision. After a brief discussion, it was moved by Wallace, seconded by Moxley, to recommend acceptance of fees in lieu of land dedication in the Washington Park Addition-Part II subdivision. Unanimous. DOG PARK A packet of information regarding a possible "dog park" was included in the commission's packet. Trueblood stated he met with the Animal Control Supervisor, Misha Goodman, who indicated she would take this issue to the Animal Control Advisory Board for their input. Trueblood stated the options for the commission were to not pursue such an endeavor and send that recommendation to the City Council; to wait to receive the Animal Control Advisory Board's input before making any decision; or to direct staff to begin exploring possible sites and costs. He noted a viable area for such a facility might be the south section of Scott Park. The area is estimated to be 8-10 acres in size, and part of it could be fenced off. He also noted such a project is not presently included in the budget and it is likely that it will have to go through a future budget process. He stated another possibility could be to put out a call for interested people to form a task force to explore this issue and to possibly help fund the project. Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2000 Page 2 of 4 Maurer stated Scott Park is used heavily by soccer players, and he was opposed to taking an area away from active use. Trueblood stated the park is used for soccer practices, but they also have the option of reserving a field at the soccer complex. Endel felt the big issue would be how to prevent dog bites and dog fights. Gustaveson favored the idea of a dog park. Pacha questioned if establishment of a dog park would stop the problem of dogs being let to run loose in Hickory Hill Park. Pruess stated the down side of establishing a dog park on one side of town would be that the other side of town would want one also. Stroh stated there is a desire to have such a park and it could be done incrementally to see how it works. Gustaveson agreed with trying it on a trial basis, noting the area in Scott Park is already bordered on two sides by farmland, with fencing and a creek. Pacha did not favor Hickory Hill Park, noting it would go against the guidelines established by the commission for the park. Gustaveson stated he also was against a dog park in Hickory Hill Park, even in the section off First Avenue, which is popular with dog owners. Putting in a fence would destroy the character of the park. Pruess reminded the group that a dog park does not appear on the Commission's priority list and there is no money budgeted for such a project. Discussion ensued with respect to prioritization and funding. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Stroh, to have the Animal Control Advisory Board look into viability and get their opinion on establishing a dog park Unanimous. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL A joint meeting was held with the City Council to discuss the proposed parks and recreation master plan and the future direction, specifically with respect to parkland and trail development and maintenance issues. City Manager Steve Atkins noted some issues of concern presented by the Commission to the City Council during the budget process. He indicated that with the master plan you in effect set the direction of the future of parks and recreation by developing specific goals and items desirable to accomplish. Goals such as facilities acquisition and renovation are basically an investment in parks and recreation; many capital investments require a referendum; under current financial circumstances each and every one will affect property taxes. A master plan will create community vision and it implies a commitment. He noted his concern that a master plan is to demonstrate commitment, but if unable to fulfill that commitment we do a disservice to the public. Some master plans are easier to fulfill, such as the airport master plan, which deals with federal mandates and receives federal funding. With parks and recreation it is a community issue and takes community resources to finance it; it is a local issue and locally financed. In Iowa, tax policy is controlled by the state; we have many other community commitments coming on line very shortly, such as a library referendum, which if successful will be financed by property taxes. Above all if we create a plan and can't fulfill it, we are doing a disservice to the public and their expectations. We have good policies in place and they have created an accumulation of assets we are not sure what to do with. The City now has parkland that needs investments. Trails are going to need maintenance. He stated with other projects how do we fulfill our commitment? The bottom line is that he would hope we develop a master plan that creates a vision, but within reasonable expectations as to what we can and cannot do financially. Trueblood pointed out on a map areas of parkland and trails that have been added to the city's inventory since 1985. He also distributed information detailing the increases in parkland and trails and staff (see attached). He noted it was not just a parkland and trail issue; other factors contributing to the need for more maintenance staff include the addition or redevelopment of high maintenance areas, such as the Kickers Soccer Park and Napoleon Park; other unique projects that require a different kind of maintenance, such as the Shakespeare theatre, the amusement rides and skate park. All are difficult to quantify. He noted the misconception that all of the additional parkland is a result of the Neighborhood Open Space Plan. Of the 1,322 acres accumulated, less than 100 acres are the result of the NOS plan. He distributed copies of other cities' parks and recreation master plans for examples what we may be looking at. He emphasized a master plan is not just a park plan; it will also address recreation. Stroh noted the dual mission and the limited Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2000 Page 3 of 4 funding. He is concerned that the amount of property acquisition is tipping the scale he did not want it to compromise the recreational side of things. The consultant will need to look at a balance between the two. Kanner asked how we compare to other cities with regard to acres of parkland in relationship to full time employees. Trueblood stated this information could be obtained, but it might not be a true picture, noting the variances between communities; i.e. high maintenance areas, natural areas, unique facilities, etc. Vanderhoef asked if the consultant would be able to tell us how much staffing we need for certain kinds of areas. She indicated it is important to note maintenance and staffing needs where appropriate in the plan. She also noted a component of the plan needs to be the amount of funding required to maintain and staffing to complete the goals established. Lehman noted any master plan creates expectations. Trueblood stated the plan would inventory parkland facilities, possibly showing some comparisons on a statewide basis, and would look at what the community feels its priorities are. Lehman stated he would also like the consultant to have information from the City Manager as to reasonable expectations for funding. The consultant could take this into consideration and tell us what things could be accomplished. Wilburn stated the master plan process would be an opportunity to educate the public as to high cost areas which are staff intensive, thereby making them aware of high-ticket items and that it may be years before they can be realized. Champion stated it was important to have goals, even though some may be unrealistic. Stroh stated a master plan will give the department a framework and vision, and not just a list of capital projects. It is important to determine what the community wants; i.e., more recreational activities, more facilities, etc. Vanderhoef stated she did not know how many citizens recognize and buy into the vision of neighborhood-sized parks and their connectivity to community services. She felt it is important to include the infrastructure items. Atkins stated he strongly supported having a vision and direction. He noted what needs to be kept in mind is the financial foundation, which is being altered for cities throughout Iowa. Taking into consideration the amount of land and today's dollar estimates to develop it, it is going to be staggering. The department may not be able to develop the land it currently has for 10-15 years. He emphasized the department's planning needs to coincide with other planning initiatives. Vanderhoef noted the number of projects recently completed due to private/public parmerships. Champion noted this does not address the problem with maintaining these areas. Lehman stated the problem is that the City Council has to look at priorities as they see them, and staff increases in parks and recreation will be hard to come by. The City Council conducts goal setting, along with master planning then has to take into consideration funding and maintenance costs. He felt the department does an incredible job and the community is fortunate to have the facilities it has and the quality operation to go along with them. Kanner stated he would like to see more of an equal parmership with the University in master planning. Stroh noted the recent cooperation between the City and University with the Iowa River Corridor Trail. Maurer noted the department's need for additional maintenance workers, and feels the Commission should continue to request funding for them. He commended the City Council for adding a 1/2 time position, allowing a full time program supervisor to work directly with youth and at-risk-youth. Vanderhoef noted the need for staffing in other City departments and the City Council has to set priorities. Atkins stated as difficult as it is for the Commission to make difficult choices when setting its priorities, it helps the City Council to know what those priorities are. Moxley suggested that the consultant develop a two-prong master plan, a super conservative one and a liberal one. Kanner also would like the consultant to take into consideration urban sprawl and ways to cut down on traffic congestion by providing additional trails. Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2000 Page 4 of 4 Trueblood stated the next step in the master planning process is to prepare a request for proposal. Stroh stated a master plan is more important as the commission goes through the process to do the right thing with the limited funds available, and to link operational costs to each project. Pruess stated to do the master plan is to focus on the vision, but it will not solve the fundamental problem with funding constraints. Trueblood noted it will give the department a blueprint for the present and future. Gustaveson felt it was important to have a long range plan even though some of the goals may be unachievable. Pacha stated the commission will meet with the consultant to formulate what the master plan should include. He expressed appreciation to the City Council for meeting with the Commission. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Soccer Complex Buildings. The building at the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park has been completed, and a dedication/ribbon cutting ceremony will be held either April 29 or May 6. (NOTE: This has since been changed to May 13, 11:00 a.m.) New Employee. Tammy Parks has been hired as the Office Coordinator. She replaced Pat Johnston, who retired. The meeting adjoumed at 6:40 p.m. MAY-OS-00 14:33 PROM: I.C. RECREATION.DIU. ID: 3193868487 PAGE 2 PARKLAND/TRAIL/STAFF INFORMATION Joint Meeting City Council/Parks & Recreation Commission 4/12/00 1985 2000 INCREASE Parkland (acres) 625 1,322 112% Trails (miles) 7' 20* 185% Full time Park Maintenance Employees 9 11 22% Seasonal Park Maintenance Employees (FTE) 2.04 5.31 160% Total Park Maintenance Employees (FTE) 11.04 16.31 48% Parkland Sites 27 50 88% * Trail figures are estimated; we also estimate another 20 miles of trails to be constructcd within the next five years. On-street hike lanes and a number of 8-foot sidewalks are not included. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - April 25, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chair J. Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: P. Farrant, J. Stratton and J. Watson. Board members absent: L. Cohen and P. Hoffey. Staff present: Legal Counsel C. Pugh and PCRB Assistant S. Bauer. Captain T. Widmer was also in attendance. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by J. Stratton and seconded by P. Farrant to adopt the Consent Calendar, to include: a. Minutes 4/11/00 meeting Motion carried, 3/0, Hoffey and Cohen absent. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC DISCUSSION None MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL (L. Cohen present at 7:09 P.M.) Chair Watson distributed a working document outlining the issues for discussion at the joint meeting with the City Council on May 1. The agenda for the meeting was discussed and agreed upon, to include: ( 1 ) PCRB Responsibilities (2) Progress Report (3) Issues/Concerns The agenda, together with a narrative addressing the Board's Issues/Concerns, will be provided to the Council in their packets of April 27. MEETING SCHEDULE · Joint Meeting with City Council, May 1, 2000 · Regular Meeting May 9, 2000 · Special Meeting May 23, 2000 Regular Meeting June 13, 2000 BOARD INFORMATION J. Watson - spoke with Mayor Lehman about the joint meeting. He also spoke with a Daily lowan reporter following an incident with the police dog. T. Widmer advised that the General Order was changed to state that anytime that the police dog is outside the control of his master, he is to be muzzled. STAFF INFORMATION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by J. Stratton to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5 (1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22.7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Open session adjourned at 7:38 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Regular meeting resumed at 9:20 P.M. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Farrant to review the Chief's Report on PCRB Complaint #99-09 at level 8- 8-7 B. 1 (e), performance by Board of its own additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Motion by J. Stratton and seconded by P. Farrant to review the Chief's Report on PCRB Complaint//99-10 at level 8-8-7 B. 1 (a), on the record with no additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Legal counsel was directed to write a letter to the Chief for the Chair's signature regarding PCRB Complaint//99- 08. Legal counsel was directed to write a letter to police staff regarding transcripts in PCRB Complaint//99-09. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by J. Stratton and seconded by L. Cohen. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.