Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-28 Bd Comm minutes POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - January 10, 2006 FINAUAPPROVED ~ CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Roth called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Elizabeth Engel, Michael Larson, Loren Horton MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Capt. Tom Widmer of the ICPO and Public, John Kirby RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC DISCUSSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Larson to adopt the consent calendar. . Minutes of the meeting on 12/13/05 . ICPO General Order #90-02 (Report Review) . ICPO General Order #00-1 0 (Evidence and Property Handling Procedures) . ICPO General Order #01-07 (Police Media Relations/Public Information) . ICPO Quarterly/Summary Report (Qtr 4) - IAIRlPCRB, 2005 . ICPO Use of Force Report (November 2005) Motion carried, 5/0. None. Roth wanted to review the complaint process and how complaints were forwarded to the Chief and when. His main concern was if there was a step to see if the Board even had jurisdiction over the complaint before it was forwarded and initiating an investigation. After going through the code and discussing it with legal counsel, section 8-8-7 of the code says that the Board will forward all PCRB complaints to the Chief or to the City Manager when the Chief is concerned. Legal Counsel Pugh also spoke with the Sarah Holecek in the City Attorneys office and was assured that when a complaint comes in they also look at it and that the motion for summary dismissal generally comes from the Chief. Also when a complaint is filed, the Clerks office sends a cover letter along with the complaint if it appears to be untimely or not involve an Iowa City sworn police officer. Roth feels that his initial concern was answered by the City Code, Legal Counsel, and the City Attorneys office. John Kirby mentioned an article regarding a jailer in Wapello who had shot his wife and other miscellaneous incidents. He stated that he thought that the Board was a good idea because of incidents like this. Roth explained that the Board had no jurisdiction over other cities or counties. PCRB January 10, 2006 Page 2 BOARD INFORMATION Barnhill inquired about the number of in-car recording devices that are not working. Widmer stated that they are in the process of purchasing 5 new digital recording devices with grant money, which will eliminate a lot of the problems they were having with the video recording devices. Five of the digital are installed now and seem to be up and running well. They are planning to take some more grant money and finish outfitting the rest of the marked squad units so that all 17 units would have the new digital recording devices. They haven't had any problems with the digital, it's clearer and the technology is more up to date. Barnhill then asked if the officers had the ability to override the recording device and turn it off. Widmer said with the new digital device it is constantly recording, and when the red flashing lights are turned on the device backs up about 30 seconds and captures that image. The officers could shut the unit off, but they can not go back and erase. The information is downloaded onto cards and the cards are turned over to a supervisor and then downloaded into the system. Officers are being instructed to have a supervisor swap the cards out when they're about 90% full. Barnhill then inquired as to whether there is a standard procedure for interviewing parties after an event has occurred and are all new officers instructed in those procedures. Widmer explained that they have Standard Operating Procedures that govern the way that officers interview, however there is not a general order that spells out how to do interviews. Investigations/communications is something that is taught from day one at the academy as far as the way they're to conduct themselves during interviews. It's also something they train in constantly and there are special interview/interrogation schools that they send officers to. Different officers have different styles in the way that they conduct the interview. The procedure would only indicate this is the information we need and the manner in which they're to do that. Barnhill asked if it was up to the officer's discretion if there are two witnesses if they interview them separately or together. Widmer replied that it would be policy to never put two antagonistic people together, you would always try and separate for interviews so that you would have untainted interviews. Barnhill referred to Legal-05.1, Off Duty Conduct, under definitions, where it states "Officers should remove themselves from any involvement in such a situation and immediately contact on-duty personnel to handle." Widmer said the intent of that is so that you don't have an officer in an off-duty capacity take enforcement action. Or you don't have them get another uniformed officer there and have them do the work, they're supposed to remove themselves in such a way that the other officer then takes over and conducts that investigation. Engel asked if the off-duty officer could be on the scene. Widmer stated that there's nothing that says he can not, but he can't be involved in the investigation. Roth asked if the officer does not take enforcement action, is he acting in the capacity of a sworn police officer. Widmer said he believes the way you look at it is that PCRB January 10, 2006 Page 3 STAFF INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SESSION REGULAR SESSION you're a sworn police officer 24 hours a day, but your actions that you're supposed to take are entirely different when you're off-duty as opposed to being on-duty. When an incident happens in the presence of an off-duty officer, they have the same rights as a normal citizen does to call an officer in and take care of it. To dictate to the officer on how it's going to be taken care of or to jump in and influence the way that investigations going you're getting into a grey area. Widmer believes it's improper, but if you stand back and let the officer properly handle it, it's the same rights as a citizen. Horton had a citizen come to him with a complaint on a police officer. His suggestions to the citizen were to file a complaint with the City Clerks office for the PCRB, go to the Police Chief and he could initiate an internal one, speak to the City Council during public discussion at one of the meetings, or go to the City Attorneys office. Pugh stated that if a person went to the City Attorneys office they would be directed to either the Clerks office or the Police Department. Widmer suggested that either one of the Captains or a Watch Commander instead of the Chief if the citizen was intimidated by speaking to the Chief. None. Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel 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, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:42 P.M. Returned to open session at 8:58 P.M. Motion by Engel and seconded by Horton to set the level of review for Complaint #05-03 to 8-8-7 (B)(1 )(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 5/0. PCRB January 10, 2006 Page 4 Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel to request 45-day extension for PCRB Complaint #05-03 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Horton to request 30-day extension for PCRB Complaint #05-04 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Horton and seconded by Larson to change the March 14 to March 21. Motion carried, 5/0. MEETING SCHEDULE . February 14, 2006, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . March 14,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room (Changed to 3/21/06) . April 11, 2006, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . May 9,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Engel. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 9:03. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD I ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 I (Meetinl! Date) TERM 1/10 NAME EXP. Candy 9/1/07 X Barnhill Elizaheth 9/1/08 X Engel Loren 9/1108 X Horton I Greg Roth 9/1/09 X I Michael 9/1/09 X I I Larson I I j i I I ! I I ! ! I i I I I ! : i ! I I I I KEY: X = Present I I 0 = Absent I I OlE = AbsentlExcused I I NM = No meeting I ! --- = Not a Member I I c:: City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission January II, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. Recreation Center Meeting Room B FINAL CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, John Watson, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Klink, Phil Reisetter STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Terry Robinson, Mike Moran OTHERS PRESENT: Anne Burnside, Marla Edwards, Gary Glenn, Jan Grenko Lehman, Barbara Meredith, Jean Walker New Commissioner, John Watson, was introduced to the other Commission Members. Watson is filling the vacancy created by Sarah Walz' departure. Watson's term runs 1/1/06 to 1/1/07. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council Action): Moved bv Westefeld, seconded bv O'Leary to approve the master plan for Brookland Park and to include this project in the FY07 budl!et. Unanimous. Moved bv Pacha, seconded bv Raaz, to accept the JCDol!PAC Board of Directors recommendation to name the Iowa City dOl! park site the "Thornberry Off-Leash DOl! Park" and to also accept the fee structure with 10% of the fees collected annuallv beinl! paid to the Parks and Recreation Department. Unanimous. With rel!ard to the Country Club Estates Subdivision, Pacha moved, Westefeld seconded, to accept the developer's proposal for land in lieu of fees to satisfy the Neil!hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous With rel!ard to Lacv's Run Subdivision, Pacha moved, O'Leary seconded to accept land (0.7 acres) in lieu offees to satisfy the Neil!hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous. With rel!ard to the Elk Run Subdivision, Pacha moved, Raaz seconded, with one abstention (O'Learv), to accept land in lieu of fees to satisfy the Neil!hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimons. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved bv Pacha, seconded bv Raaz, to approve the December 14, 2005 minutes as written. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 2 of 7 Moved bv Pacha. seconded bv Westefeld. to elect Crail! Gustaveson as Chair and Judith Klink as Vice Chair for 2006. Unanimons. Pacha moved. O'Learv seconded. that the Citv contribute from the Annual Parks Maintenance and Improvement Bndl!et $10.000 toward the Grant Wood pnrchase of new plaVl!round equipment. Unanimous. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: It was proposed by Pacha on behalf of the nominating committee to elect Craig Gustaveson as Chair and Judith Klink as Vice Chair for 2006. Moved bv Pacha. seconded bv Westefeld. to elect Crail! Gustaveson as Chair and Judith Klink as Vice Chair for 2006. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. PRESENTATION OF BROOKLAND PARK MASTER PLAN: Jean Walker, representative for the Melrose Neighborhood Association, was present to ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to support the City Manager's recommendation that this project be funded in the FY07 budget. Brookland Park is an approximately 3-acre area bounded on the southwest side by a railroad to the southeast by Greenwood Drive. It has a concrete path connecting Greenwood Drive to Melrose Court. There is a swing-set and an area with play equipment. With the exception of one security light, this park is unlit. The park currently is not very attractive for use by the neighborhood and is primarily used as a shortcut for pedestrians. The neighborhood has expressed a desire that the park be developed into a more attractive and usable area. The neighborhood has raised $13,000 to have the park listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They would like to continue this work and have the park renovated in a manner that would complement its National Register status. Trueblood mentioned that there is an area of the railroad tracks adjacent to this park is used as a shortcut for pedestrians. As this presents a hazard, Trueblood and Steve Ford of Shoemaker & Haaland met with railroad staff about the possibility of making this an official pedestrian crossing. The railroad staff did not approve this request. They stated that this is an area where the train frequently stops and that this would present an even greater hazard. Trueblood also discussed plans for the park that includes a relocated creek, improved accessibility, a trail, shelter, play equipment, a sculpture plaza, an outdoor habitat area as well as historical markers. Loomer asked if this plan will help with flood control. Trueblood stated that it would. O'Leary commented that he is pleased with this plan. Moved bv Westefeld. seconded bv O'Leary to approve the master plan for Brookland Park and to include this proiect in the FY07 budl!et. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission January 11,2006 Page 3 of 7 Raaz asked if $70,000 per acre is a typical price for park development. Trueblood stated that it depends on the development plan; however, based on his experience this is within the norm. Trueblood noted that the new shelter would be in a new location. Raaz asked about the design criteria required for shelters and stated that he advocates purchasing more permanent, longer lasting park shelters. Trueblood stated that shelters are generally installed by the Iowa City Parks Staff. Robinson noted that that there are warranties on the materials. Trueblood stated that most of the shelters in the city have over 25 year life expectancy. Raaz asked about the procedure for purchasing shelters. Trueblood stated that these purchases go through the City's purchasing procedures. O'Leary asked if there are other features that may be considered. Trueblood stated that there has been some discussion about the possibili1y of placing a basketball court in the park. However, the neighborhood consensus is that this may not be practical and they would like the park to present a more relaxing environment. Walker also mentioned that they may look at placing wireless connections in the park. O'Leary thanked the Neighborhood Association for their work. CONSIDER REOUEST FROM GRANT WOOD PTO FOR PLAYGROUND EOUlPMENT FUNDING: The Grant Wood PTO is currently conducting a fund raising campaign (goal is $100,000) to install new playground equipment. This $100,000 would provide for purchase and installation of playground structures and placement of a safety base surface that will accommodate up to 100 children at one time. According to Gary Glen, the PTO generates approximately $12,000 annually which is used for books, computers, and other school supply expenses. Representatives from the school and PTO were present at this meeting to ask for the Parks and Recreation Commission to contribute up to $25,000 towards their goal. Trueblood reminded Commission that in the past such requests have been denied largely because the School District does not provide any money toward playground construction. However, the city has contributed upwards of $700,000 to the school to construct a larger gymnasium and a "family resource center." Both facilities will be available for public use. It is believed that 1his playground will also serve as a community "park." While Fairmeadows Park is adjacent to the school, the play equipment is geared towards younger children. Trueblood noted that if the Commission does agree to provide assistance, the funds would come from the Annual Parks Maintenance and Improvement Budget. Raaz asked school staff if they had considered doing this project in phases. They are considering this as a second option if necessary. Gustaveson recommended that the Commission send a letter to the School District suggesting that they revisit their policy to not provide funds for school playgrounds. Watson encouraged PTO members to continue their involvement as this will encourage members to take ownership of this project and they will in turn take better care of the playground. Raaz asked if Parks and Recreation would have input into this project if funding is approved. Trueblood stated that they would. Pacha moved, O'Learv seconded, that the City contribute from the Annual Parks Maintenance and Improvement Budl!et $10,000 toward the Grant Wood purchase of new plaVl!round equipment. Unanimous. Westefeld emphasized the fact that this is an unusual action taken by the Commission and this message needs to be forwarded to the school board. Trueblood will draft a letter to the School Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 4 of 7 District for Commission Chair's signature. O'Leary expressed gratitude to the PTO for their efforts. CONSIDER NAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE NEW DOG PARK; DISCUSSION OF FEES FOR SAME: Anne Burnside spoke on behalf of the JCDogP AC Board. She stated that their understanding is that they bring their naming recommendations to the Commission who will then forward to City Council. Their recommendation for naming of the park as a whole is "Thornberry Off-Leash Dog Park," in recognition of their primary donor, Dean Thornberry. Discussion then turned to the fee structure for the park. The JCDogP AC Board recommended an annual fee of $25 per dog, subject to reduction of $5 for proof of spay/neuter with an additional $5 reduction for proof that the dog is micro chipped. The annual pass would run from January I through December 31 and will not be prorated for late purchases. These passes will be available through the Iowa City Animal Shelter and the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department. The board recommends no nonresident fees be charged at this time and that a reduced fee be available for persons of low income, those who are disabled, and to senior citizens. Pacha asked why the Board decided to waive the nonresident fee. Burnside stated that the Board does not want to price the park so that people are not able to afford to use it, and since there are no other facilities available in the surrounding area a large number of people could be nonresidents. She reiterated that the point of the park is to exercise and socialize the dogs. Trueblood suggested that if they find that Iowa City residents are not able to use the park due to the number of nonresidents using the facility, the board may want to review this policy in one year. The board also recommends that owners provide proof of vaccination for both the annual and the daily pass. The Board is still discussing the fees for the daily pass. Their concern is that if the daily fee is too low people will opt to pay in this manner rather than purchase an annual pass and they want to encourage the purchase of annual passes. The Board is also still discussing the best way to confirm vaccinations/licenses for those using a daily pass. Westefeld commented on the importance ofrabies vaccine verification for the safety of animals and their owners. The Board recommended that 5-10% of the fees collected annually from park users be paid to the Parks and Recreation Department. The remainder will be retained by JCDogP AC and dedicated toward park maintenance and improvements. Gustaveson asked what Parks and Recreation would do with the 5-10% paid. Trueblood stated that this would go into the general fund, as all fees do to help support the overall budget. Moved by Pacha, seconded by Raaz, to accept the JCDol!PAC Board of Directors recommendation to name the Iowa City dOl! park site the "Thornberry Off-Leash DOl! Park" and to also accept the fee structure with 10% of the fees collected annually beinl! paid to the Parks and Recreation Department. Unanimous. CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE ITEMS: COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES: Trueblood reviewed new proposal from the developer of Country Club Estates with the Commission. This property includes the area in the northwest comer of the subdivision adjacent to City-owned property. A vote is needed from the Parks and Recreation Commission January ii, 2006 Page 5 of 7 Commission to accept property adjacent to Outlot A as well as Outlot B as shown on the plat included in this months packet. With rel!ard to the Country Club Estates Subdivision, Pacha moved, Westefeld seconded, to accept the developers proposal for land in lieu of fees to satisfy the Neil!hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous LACY'S RUN: This is a small subdivision that requires 0.7 acres of parkland be dedicated as neighborhood open space. It is staffs recommendation that the Commission accept land in lieu of fees as this property is adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Even though a very small parcel, acceptance ofland makes more sense than receiving the small amount of fees in lieu. With rel!ard to Lacy's Run Subdivision, Pacha moved, O'Leary seconded to accept land (0.7 acres) in lieu offees to satisfy the Neil!hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous. ELK RUN: The developer is willing to give more land than is required. It is staffs recommendation to accept this land as this property will eventually adjoin Peninsula Park, and provides more property immediately adjacent to the Iowa River. With rel!ard to the Elk Run Subdivision, Pacha moved, Raaz seconded, with one abstention (O'Leary), to accept land in lieu of fees to satisfy the Neil!hborhood Open Space requirement. Unanimous. CONSIDER REOUEST FOR CITY PARK ANNIVERSARY SUB-COMMITTEE AS PROPOSED BY COMMISIONER RAAZ: Raaz has submitted a proposal to the Commission to form a subcommittee to coordinate and implement a Centeunial Celebration for City Park. Trueblood informed committee that there is a group already in place that includes Patty Mott, long time resident of Iowa City, Barb Coffey, Iowa City Document Services Director, and Recreation staff. The Commission members were invited to either join the existing group or form a subcommittee. It is Trueblood's suggestion that there be only one group rather than two. Raaz agreed with Trueblood's suggestion. Commission Members Raaz, Pacha, O'Leary, and Loomer will join the existing group. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 19 at 2:00 p.m. Moran will send out information regarding this meeting. Trueblood noted that there is no budget for this celebration, however, the City Manager expressed that some funding would be made available. The City Manager and Trueblood will meet to determine specifics. CIP AND OPERATING BUDGET UPDATE: Trueblood reviewed summary information provided to Commission that indicates the City Manager's recommendations and how they compare to the Commission priorities voted on at the December 2005 meeting. Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 6 of 7 Items on the list that were discussed are as follows: Item #2. Iowa River Trail Bridge-Rocky Shore to Peninsula: Trueblood indicated that the City Manager and CIP Committee support this project; however, the City Council does not consider it to be a high priority at this time. Item #5. Sand Prairie Enhancement and Preservation-Phase I: The City Manager has asked Trueblood to submit a proposal to him for Phase I of this project. Item #7. Skate Park Restrooms: This project had been moved up on the priority list due to some interest on the part of at least one Council member, but it remains unfunded at this time. Staff will be looking at the possibility of placement of portable restrooms in the meantime. Trueblood also addressed other projects of interest with the Commission. With regard to the operating budget, Trueblood announced that the request for an additional Y. time position for Mercer Maintenance has been approved in the City Manager's proposed budget. This will allow one % time person to advance to a full-time position. COMMISSION TIME Pacha requested that the list of Commission members be e-mailed to him. He also requested that the packets be three-hole punched before sending to the Commission Members. Tanuny Neumann will be sure to do this in the future. Raaz announced that the disc golf course is moving forward. Trueblood referred Commission members to the e-mail from Jeff Harper that was included in their packets with the updates. CHAIR'S REPORT: No report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Trueblood noted that the Grant Wood gymnasium is moving along very nicely. Moran and Trueblood toured the facility recently. Recreation staff will be scheduling events in this gym in the near future. At this time the Recreation Division's 3Td_6th grade basketball program that starts on January 28 has been scheduled at Grant Wood. Trueblood mentioned to Commission that Pam Michaud will be attending the February meeting to present her proposal for a small dog park at College Green. Information item only. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Pacha, seconded by O'Leary to adiourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission January 11, 2006 Page 7 of 7 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/7 7/12 8/9 9/13 10/11 11/8 12/13 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 X Judith Klink 1/1/07 OlE Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X Ryan O'Learv 1/1/06 X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X Phil Reisetter 1/ 1/09 OlE John 1/1/07 Watson X John Westefe1d 1/ 1/06 X KEY: X= 0= OlE = NM= LQ= Present Absent AbsentlExcused No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member r:r MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 11, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY, CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright. STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Doug Boothroy OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Drea, Lillian Davis, CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:02 ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Wright moved to nominate Leigh as chairperson. Alexander seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. MOTION: Leigh moved to nominate Alexander as vice-chairperson. Wood seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2005 MINUTES Wright noted that Denis Keitel was mistakenly added to the list of members present. Instead of Denis Keitel it should have been Ned Wood. MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes with the proposed correction. Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. APPEAL: AP05:00001: Discussion of an appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards. Walz made a correction to the memorandum submitted. On page 2, under the application of lot and yard lines, second paragraph, second line, instead of front yard line it should be front lot line. Walz said that the appeal is considered under the old zoning code. She said the regulations being challenged reads: "If lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets." (14-6Q-2B) She noted that in applying the front yard regulations a first relevant question is if the lot fronts in two streets. She said that in this particular case the lot fronts on two streets. Next question is if the applicant's property is required to have a front yard. She said that all lots in the RS-8 zone are required to provide a front yard of 20 feet, and therefore this iot is required to provide a front yard on both streets. Walz noted that the applicant's attorney has used the definition of front lot line to make an argument that on any lot there can be only one front yard. She said that this argument substitutes the definition for the regulation. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 10, 2006 Page 2 Walz said that a front lot line is the first line of reference on any lot. All other lines and boundaries are derived from the front lot line. The front lot line determines the rear lot line, which is set opposite to it. The definitions do not take the case any further than this. She said that yard lines can not be drawn or determined from the definitions alone, and that regulations need to be used. Walz noted that yard lines are derived from lot lines, but they do not establish yards. She mentioned that yards may only be determined by referring to the code. She exemplified by saying that in the downtown district, and some commercial areas there are no requirements for rear or side yards. She said the regulations for the RS-8 zone state that the front and rear yard requirements are 20 feet, and the side yard requirements are 5 feet. She noted the specific property is located on a corner. She added that the general requirements dictate that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard. a front yard shall be provided along all streets (14-6Q-2B). Therefore, she said that the property in discussion needs to have a front yard on both streets. She added that the yard line on Walnut Street steps back to 20 feet. Walz said that the requirement for front yard along the second street does not change the designated front lot line because there can only be one front lot line. She said that it dictates that the yard requirements for the front yard, which is 20 feet in the RS-8 zone, be met along both streets. Walz said that the applicant would argue that the provisions must be construed if possible so that effect is giving to all provisions. She said that one code provision should not be interpreted in such a way that it renders other provisions meaningless. Walz added that in the case of ambiguous or conflicting provisions, the most specific rule prevails. She said that the appellant argues that the definitions in the code are more specific than the regulations. She said that the definitions are the general, and yard is establishment only takes the shape and size through the specific requirement in the code. Walz said that in this specific case the requirements are those for a corner lot in the RS-8 zone. She said that the requirement for two front yards for corner lots had been applied throughout Iowa City for more than forty (40) years. She said that the regulations had consistently held that where a front yard is required, corner lots or lots fronting on two (2) or more streets must provide a front yard along both streets. Walz stated that the staff believes that the building official's interpretation that the zoning code requires a front yard along both Walnut Street and Webster Street is correct and should stand, and the appeal submitted by Mr. Drea be denied. Miklo said that the Doug Boothroy, the Building Official, was also present to address the Board. Douo Boothroy, the Building Official, said that the decision the Board would make as to whether or not an error was made when the code was enforced regarding the specific property. He said that he does not consider it an error for several reasons: 1) The City of Iowa City had consistently, by practice and enforcement, applied this particular standard requirement. He noted that over the past forty (40) years the standard had always been applied. He added that the situation is not in any way specific to the property in discussion, but is a common issue within neighborhoods. 2) Over the years there have been many cases brought in front of the Board of Adjustment to provide relief from the two (2) front yard requirement, but the Board had never called the regulation into question. 3) He noted that he was a co-author of the code being discussed, and as a result of his experience serving as the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment between 1975-1983, he believes that the special exception should be used to alleviate some circumstances, where it can be shown that a reduction of the front yard is warranted. Public Hearino Opened Lillian Davis. 920 South Dubuque Street, attorney representing Mr. Drea, distributed handouts and pictures in support of her presentation. Davis said that the building official mentioned that he had first- hand knowledge regarding the legislative intent of the code, and he indicated that he has first-hand knowledge regarding the legislative intent regarding the special exception process, and the option for the City of Iowa City. She said that the Board is confronted with an appeal. Davis said that for the Board of Adjustment there are application forms available online, none of which is for an appeal. She noted that this might be the reason why Mr. Drea was handed an application for a special exception, when he was Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 10, 2006 Page 3 actually filing an appeal. She added that it is clear from Mr. Boothroy's presentation that the City of Iowa City had always done it "this way", however, the City's own definitions produce the results that will be presented. Davis said that the City had recently changed its definitions as part of the new Zoning Code, and the new definitions are more likely to result in the position argued. However, she said, the old definitions do not. She noted that the issue raised is an appeal, and not a special exception, therefore the Board needs to determine if there was a mistake on the part of Building Official, and not if all the standards for a special exception are met. Davis said that there might have not been any appeals filed on this matter for several reasons: it is expensive ($300) to file an application, and it is also expensive to hire someone to do the analysis and present the argument in front of the Board. She noted that the issue being presented is narrow and not a request to decide how the term frontage is going to be limited, or that the definition of double frontage line precludes a corner lot from having two lot frontages. The issue simply regards whether or not there was an error. Davis said that the first point to be considered is whether or not the area in discussion is a front lot. She said that where Walnut Street comes east, immediately north to the specific property it takes a little jag and narrows. She said that the building was constructed in 1900 and predates the zoning code. She said that when the street went through it took up the yard for the house. She said that it is a peculiar lot, non-conforming use that was grandfathered in. She said that "all conforming and non-conforming uses! structures shall be treated as though they were established on a conforming lot." Davis said that in the general description of the property, the view from Webster Street shows a fairly sizable front yard. She added that where the street came through, what should have been the side yard was truncated dramatically. She said that they agreed that the provisions of the zoning code prior to December 2005 applied to this matter. Davis said that they generally agree on the rules of construction, as to what rules apply when there is confusion. She said that there is an order on how the rules should apply. She noted that the front lot line determines the rear lot line, and all other lot lines are determined in relations to those. She mentioned that this can only be achieved by applying the definitions and the specific directions in the definitions. She said that the disagreement regards the fact that the specific definitions are general statements. She added that the section of the code requiring that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets (14-6Q-2B) is listed under General Yard Requirements, and therefore is a general rule informed by the details set up in the definitions. Davis said that it was suggested that the definitions were taken .out of the context, but she noted she was very methodical in determining the lines, following the step-by-step requirements of the definitions. She said that at the beginning of the definitions section it is noted that "as used in this chapter the following definitions shall apply." She added that the word "shall" is used, and according to the rules of word construction the word "shall" is always mandatory, and therefore we are required to use the definitions set up in that section of the code. Davis said that when there appears to be a conflict the board needs to determine whether there is a way to reconcile both of those provisions so that meaning is given to both. She mentioned that the statement that there have to be two (2) front yards applies when there is a double frontage lot. She said that the authors of the code might have meant something else, but they did not write something else. She asked the city staff to restate the City's position regarding the statutory construction. Holecek said that the city's position is that they are reconciled by applying the 14-6Q-2B to require front yards along both streets frontages. Davis asked if there is a conflict would it be appropriate to apply the first test that the two could be reconciled before deciding there is an ambiguity. Holecek said that the City's position is clear that the definitions are not necessarily the regulations. Holocek added that while the definitions give meaning and body to the regulations, the specific regulation requiring a front yard set- back along all streets is the most specific, and that is how all the issues are reconciled. Davis asked if there is agreement on the order in which the different rules of statutory construction are to be applied. Davis said that the first rule is if there seems to be a conflict it should be seen if there are Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 10, 2006 Page 4 ways to give effect to both that does not render either one meaningless. She noted that the next, more specific rule takes effect as an exception of the general rule. Davis said that several definitions were changed through the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. She said that the definition for a front line lot is the same as used before with the addition of "on double frontage lots there are two front lot lines", which in itself supports Mr. Drea's position. She added that that there is an option given for the owner to choose which line is to be the front lot line. She said that lot line side and street side are new provisions. She noted that there is no definition for "yard", but instead for "setback areas". She mentioned the City had changed the Code to make it very clear, and with examples. Davis said that the pictures taken from the Webster Street showing the backyard shows the limited space between the house and the street. She noted that it defies logic to suggest that the paved area is the front yard of the property. She added that the fact that the code has the provision that non-conforming uses should be grandfathered in, the board would have to take the north line of the house to determine what the yard is on that side of the house. She added that more than half of the area is not paved. She said that if the entire front yard would be taken into consideration Mr. Drea does not have more than 50% pavement. Davis said that no credit was given for the area of the front yard beyond the 20 foot front line, which is not paved. She said that the ratio of paved area is 15%, far from the 50% maximum. Davis said that Mr. Drea was cited for having more than 50% paving. She stated that there is an exception for side yard limitations, for parking for two family dwellings, which exist on the specific property. She added that there are no limitations providing parking in the rear yard. Davis said that even if the Board agrees that it is a front yard, it defies logic, for the code to not treat it as a non-conforming use. She noted that the house should not be considered as paved area, and credit should be given for what is not paved. She said that the City was not happy regarding the pavement of right-of-way, and that matter is not being appealed. She said that there were people testifying at the October meeting that putting the pavement in was definiteiy an improvement. Davis said that looking at the City regulations it should be clear that there is a front yard on Webster Street. Miklo said that the applicant contends that this is a nonconforming use on a nonconforming lot. He said that the lot conforms to the dimensional requirements in the RS-8 zone, and that it is a conforming use since duplexes are allowed in the area. He said that it is a non-conforming structure which violates the 20 foot set-back because it was built before there were any setback requirements, and that non-conforming structures cannot be expanded to increase their non-conformity. He said that treating the two front yards separateiy, the paved area would go over the 50% accepted paving. Davis said that she meant to say that it was a non-conforming structure, and not a non-conforming use. Public hearinQ closed Wright said that he read the documents, the appeal, the staff memo, and the City Code and the statement that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets seems clear. He added that the lot requirement in the RS-8 zone minimum yard front is 20 feet, that it is a corner lot has been established and that if a lot fronts on two or more streets it is required to have two front yards, is again a clear statement showing the intent of the code. Wright added that he agrees with the logic exercised by the Building Official. He said that there is no misinterpretation in applying the code as is written. Alexander said that she agrees with Wright's statement. She added that Miss Davis had done an admirable job in trying to find a way for this to fit for her client, but the code provisions seem to be very clear. Leigh said that the interpretation of the Code that the specific property is a corner lot, and it has to provide two front yards cannot be contested. She added that the property lists two addresses, one on each street. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 10, 2006 Page 5 Wood noted that it is a corner lot, and by 14-6Q-2B lots fronting on two streets have two front yards. He said that he will support this position. Shelangouski will also support this position. She noted that the Building Official did apply the code correctly as is written. MOTION: Alexander made a motion regarding AP05:00001: an appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards, that the building official's decision be uphold. Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5:0 vote. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC05-00016 Reconsideration of an application submitted by David Drea for a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow paving a greater area than normally penmilled in the Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street. Miklo said that the code requires that no more than 50% of the front yard be impervious surface. He added that the applicant was cited for paving more than 50% of the front yard adjacent to Walnut Street, as well as the City property contained in the right-of-way. He said that the Board had granted a special exception to the applicant at the October 2005 meeting, to allow more than 50% of the yard to be paved, but required that paving within the visual triangle and the right-of-way be removed, leaving approximately 55% of the yard still paved. Miklo stated that the applicant is required to remove the paving from the right- of-way regardlessof the Board's decision. Miklo said that the applicant wants the Board to reconsider the provision that paving be removed from the vision triangle. He noted that the vision triangle is an area free from structures meant to allow clear site distance near an intersection of two traveled ways. Another concern regarding the vision triangle refers to the demarcation of the street from the private property; as a result of the paving is not very clear where the street ends, especially at different times of the day due to lighting. Miklo said that there are also aesthetic concerns regarding the appearance of the residential neighborhood, and concerns regarding the provision of permeable areas where rain water can be absorbed. Staff recommends that the previous decision of the Board to allow some reduction in the front yard, but requiring the pavement within the vision triangle be removed be uphold. Davis said that they withdraw the request for reconsideration. OTHER: Miklo said that the commissioners have been provided with a new copy of the Zoning Code which would be used for further meetings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M. s:lpcdlminuteslboaf2006101-11-06,doc Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 10, 2006 Page 6 I Board of Adjustment I Attendance Record 2006 Term I Name Exoires 01/11 I Karen Leil!,h 01101/07 X Carol Alexander 01101/08 X Michael Wril!,ht 01/01109 X Ned Wood 01/01/10 X M. Shelanl!,onski 01101/11 X I Key: X = Present I 0 = Absent I OlE = Absent/Excused I NM = No Meeting I i , ! , i I I I I ) i I , I I I I I I ; ! i , I I ! c:: MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission January 12,2006 Iowa City Airport Terminal- 5:45 PM APPROVED Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; John Staley; Dan Clay; Howard Horan Members Absent: Greg Farris Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Harry Wolf, Jack Young, Michelle Robnett, Ron Duffe, Rick Mascari, Kim Brogan, Rob Nichols DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:47 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 8, 2005 MEETING: Chairperson Hartwig asked if there were any additions or changes to the above-named minutes. Staley moved to accept the minutes of the December 8, 2005 meeting as written; seconded by Horan. Motion passed 3-0; Farris absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Rick Mascari addressed the Commission. He asked ifhe could, at his own expense, insulate his hangar. He explained the procedure that he would like to use and answered the members' questions. Hartwig noted that this item would be added to a future agenda so they can then give him a decision. Jack Young with the Big Kids' Toy Show addressed the Commission. He stated that they are working on getting sponsors lined up for the upcoming program, and that they should know by the February meeting where they are with this. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. Runway 07 Project - Earth Tech -- Dave Hughes of Earth Tech was unable to attend this evening's meeting, according to Chairperson Hartwig. He stated that there is not much to report, other than the work on the culvert is continuing. He also stated that they received a letter from the F .A.A. that basically stated that they could go ahead with the plans that are in place for the coming year, which amounts to grading work and a continuation of the construction, surveys, etc. B. Aviation Commerce Park- a. Update - Harry Wolf addressed the Commission. He stated that not much has changed since last month - developers are slowly planning the Wal-Mart project, doing what they can until court hearings have taken place. He also stated that the listing with Iowa Realty Commercial is up for renewal at this time and they are requesting a one-year extension. Members asked questions of Wolf regarding interest in the property. b. Consider a resolution extending the listing agreement with Iowa Realty Commercial to sell and/or lease property in Aviation Commerce Park - Horan moved to consider the resolution as stated; seconded by Staley. Motion passed 3-0 on a roll call vote; Farris absent. C. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan - Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Hartwig noted that next month he is going to meet with the Economic Development group from the City. He stated that if any of the members wanted to join them on February 18th, to let him know. Hartwig also noted the upcoming budget meeting with the City Council, and stated that he would get more information to the members on dates, times, etc. Hartwig stated that they will be asking for money in the budget for the parking lot repairs and asked members what they thought of having pictures of the areas that need attention. Hartwig noted that he has been reviewing the applications received so far for the job opening and has been impressed so far. D. T Hangars - Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on plans and specifications for repair to the floors in Hangars Band C - Tharp noted that the project is expected to take 75 days. The members discussed a date and time for this public hearing. Horan moved the resolution to set the public hearing for January 23, 2006, at 7:30 A.M.; seconded by Staley. Motion passed 3-0 on a roll call vote; Farris absent. E. Kim Brogan Agreement - Kim Brogan addressed the Commission. She stated that she would like to respond to the letter she received after last month's meeting in order to clear up a "miscommunication." She stated that she is no longer able to give ground school lessons on the same scale as previously, due to accepting a new position. She also gave them some background on the pipes that froze and broke recently, as well as furnace problems. She questioned the Commission as to why she was charged rent for two months when she was no longer in the building. Hartwig noted that one concern is the lease for that space, and he also noted that he did not feel that he was giving her an okay to stop her lease when he spoke with her earlier. Hartwig reiterated that the Commission would be willing to work with her, but that they could not just let her "leave" her lease as she did. Clay asked if she had a specific solution to ending her lease, and stated that the members would definitely be willing to work with her, but that the concern is the broken lease. The discussion continued with Brogan and members discussing her 2 request to break her current lease and to then do business at the Airport, in a different location. Horan asked questions about the furnace and why it was not functioning properly. (TAPE ENDS) Horan asked for some type of financial solution to breaking this lease. The discussion continued with Clay bringing up the issue of accountability on Brogan's part and stated that the Airport has to be able to recoup their loss on the deal. Clay stated that he also feels that Brogan needs to propose some type of agreement that is amenable to both of them. Brogan stated that she feels that her business has contributed to the Airport's increase in activity, and that this should be a positive factor. Tharp noted that with flight instruction, there is an expectation that this would be open at least five hours per day. Hartwig asked ifthere is always someone around, and Brogan stated that there are other instructors available if she is not, and that they have a sign-up sheet for customers to leave their name and phone number when everyone is busy. The Commission discussed the fact that they helped her to get started in her endeavor and that they cannot just let her walk away from her contract, especially since she still wants to do business on the Airport grounds. Ron Duffe commented concerning the costs Jet Air pays to the airport for the flight instruction service they provide. Staley moved that Horan and Tharp form a subcommittee and that they entertain whatever proposal Brogan submits and that they act on behalf of the Commission, or they reject it and come to some other agreement with Brogan; seconded by Horan. Motion passed 3-0; Farris absent. F. Judgment against Rob Nichols - Dulek noted that Nichols had to leave. She stated that there are two options: the Commission could vote on his offer; or it could be deferred until February's meeting. Hartwig asked Dulek to give the members some background on this. In 2001, Nichols signed a long-term lease agreement, which he subsequently broke, and the Judge in the case gave a judgment of $8,982.72 in rent, plus interest, which now brings his total to $11,448.66. He is offering to settle this for just over half that amount. Dulek gave the members some pros and cons on accepting Mr. Nichols' offer. Hartwig moved to accept the offer as stated; seconded by Horan. Motion passed 3-0; Farris absent. G. Subcommittees' Reports - None. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Hartwig noted that the main thing he wanted to mention was the upcoming budget talks with the City. Horan asked that Hartwig email the members with the date and time of this. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Horan stated that he left a voicemail with the new city council member and he will keep the members up to date. 3 STAFF REPORT: Tharp discussed the Commission's project list and shared a copy with the members, stating that he would like to post it in several spots throughout the Airport. Members briefly discussed the projects. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: February 9, 2006, at 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. ~~g,lbO" 1,- 9 -Ol Date 4 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meetin" Date TERM 1/12 2/9 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1/08 --- Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X Greg Farris 3/1/07 0 John Staley 3/1/06 X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = AbsentlExcused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 5 c:: MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission January 23, 2006 Iowa City Airport Terminal- 7:30 AM APPROVED Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Greg Farris; Howard Horan; John Staley Members Absent: Dan Clay (Advisory Member) Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Ron Duffe, Jet Air DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 7:38 AM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. T-Hangars-Project to repair the floors. Hartwig opened the public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction to repair the floors in Hangars B and C. No public comment was received and the public hearing was closed. Farris moved the resolution approving plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction to repair the floors in Hangars Band C, establishing amount of bid, directing the City Clerk to publish advertisement for bids, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Staley seconded the motion. Tharp stated that it is a 75-day project. Resolution No. A06-3 passed 4-0 roll call vote. B. Rick Mascari Lease. Commissioners consented to allow Rick Mascari to insulate his hangar at his cost. C. Kim Brogan Agreement and Sublease. Horan and Tharp updated the Commission on discussions with Kim Brogan about possibly terminating her space agreement and subleasing space from another tenant. Horan stated that the ball is in her court to make an offer to the Commission. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:45 A.M. C~"; [ [) I~~ 1- ~9 ' IN:;> Date MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM FEBRUARY 2, 2006 r= APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Bob Brooks, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Dean Shannon MEMBERS EXCUSED: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Glen Meisner, Kevin Parrott RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, (Smith absent) SUB05-00032, a final plat for Galway Hills Subdivision Part IV, a 24-lot residential subdivision located on approximately 1 0.41-acres of land south of Melrose Avenue and East of Hwy 218 subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to consideration by City Council. Recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, (Smith absent) SUB06-00001, a final plat for Parrott Estate Addition, a 17.94-acre, 2-lot single-family residential subdivision located on Conklin Lane. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB05-00032, discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a final plat of Galway Hills Part IV, a 24-lot, 1 0.41-acre residential subdivision located on Galway Drive Terdalkar said this was the final plat for a 24-lot residential development on approximately 10.41-acres of land. The rezoning and preliminary plat were currently pending before City Council. Staff recommended approval of SUB05-00032, subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to consideration by City Council. Freerks asked if the location of the water feature was unusual or would be problematic with respect to the safety of the neighborhood children. Miklo said he thought the particular location was due to the topography of the land. It was an already existing pond. The ponds in the Wellington development had raised concerns about neighborhood children being attracted to them. The neighbors in that area had come before the Commission to express their concerns about safety which had been addressed with fencing and the planting of evergreens to screen and block the area from public access. He said none of the existing residents in the Galway Hills raised such a concern. Public discussion was opened. Glen Meisner, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve SUB05-00032, a final plat for Galway Hills Subdivision Part IV subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent). Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2006 Page 2 SUB06-00001, discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Parrott for a final plat of Parrott Estate Addition, a 2-lot, 17.95-acre residential subdivision located on Conkiin Lane. Terdalkar said the applicant had requested that the name of the subdivision be changed to Parroll's Estate Addition from Lacy's Run Addition which had been approved on the preliminary plat. Most deficiencies had been corrected, Staff recommended approval of SUB06-00001. Piahutnik asked if the 50-foot wide right-of-way (R-O-W) dedication wouid permit sidewalks, especially in the area of the existing house. Miklo said it was the City's intent to acquire the R-O-W now and when the street was developed at some point in the future, there would be room for sidewalk(s) on both sides. The installation of the sidewalks would be tied to the development of the street. Public discussion was opened. Glen Meisner, MMS Consultants, said three brothers would be living on the property of their parent's. Kevin Parrott intended to build a home on iot #2; a second brother lived in the existing home and a third brother would build on a parcel as indicated on the site map. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve SUB06-00001. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent). OTHER ITEMS: Miklo said a larger, revised zoning map had been included in the Commissioner's information package. It showed the central area in an easier to read format. At the previous meeting, Staff had been requested to investigate the status of the driveway at the corner of the Bud Lewis property and Foster Road. The agreement had been that when Mr. Lewis or his wife no longer resided on the property, then the drive would be closed. At this time Mrs. Lewis still resided on the property. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to nominate Bob Brooks as Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion: Koppes made a motion to cease nominations. Motions passed on a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent). Motion: Shannon made a motion to nominate Ann Freerks as Vice Chair of the Commission. Motion: Koppes made a motion to cease nominations. Motions passed on a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent). Motion: Anciaux made a motion to nominate Beth Koppes as Secretary for the Commission. Motion: Freerks made a motion to cease nominations. Motions passed on a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent). CONSIDERATION OF 1/19/06 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0, (Smith absent). ADJOURNMENT: Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2006 Page 3 Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 pm. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, (Smith absent). Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minutesJp&zl2006/02 .02 -06. doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission I Attendance Record I 2006 i , I FORMAL MEETING Term , Name Expires 1/5 1/19 2/2 I D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X B. Brooks 05/10 X X X ! A. Freerks 05/08 X X X I E. Koppes 05/07 OlE X X I W Plahutnik 05/10 X OlE X D.Shannon 05/08 X X X T. Smith 05/06 X X OlE i I I j , I I INFORMAL MEETING I I Term Name Expires I D. Anciaux 05/06 , B. Brooks 05/10 I A. Freerks 05/08 I I E. Koppes 05/07 W Plahutnik 05/10 D.Shannon 05/08 i T.Smith 05/06 i Key: I X = Present 0 = Absent I OlE = AbsenVExcused I N/M= No Meeting MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM (]1iL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Justin Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Brad Eldeen, Shelley McCafferty, Beth Rapson, Susanna Strode, Marlys Svendsen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. FIRST SESSION WITH SVENDSEN TYLER. INC. (CONSULTANT) FOR THE UPCOMING IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE: Weitzel introduced Svendsen as the consultant for the new Historic Preservation Plan, and members of the Commission introduced themselves to her and noted the districts they represent. Svendsen said that two other consultants who are with Clarion and Associates, Matt Gobel and Bodie Hitchcock, will also be working on this project. Svendsen said that Clarion was the original consultant on the preservation plan and provided the expertise for the historic preservation ordinance as well as guidance on some of the financial incentives discussed in the original plan. Svendsen stated that Clarion was interested in being involved in this project. She said she is impressed with Clarion's work and believes this will be an opportunity to bring some of the best, most knowledgeable people in the preservation planning field to this work. Svendsen said that Hitchcock has also worked as a city planner in the field of preservation for the City of Boulder. Svendsen reviewed the scope of the project and discussed specific goals and objectives as her first goal. She said this will be an update and said that the previous plan contains a pretty good foundation. Svendsen said the Commission will have an opportunity to point out any deficiencies with the plan as the process moves on. She said the Commission has asked for a basic concept of a working document that contains goals and objectives as well as a timeline and recommendations for targeted strategies in specific neighborhoods. Svendsen said the process would last about twelve months, and she hoped to present the plan in its final form in early 2007. She said the plan should have a 10 to 15-year time frame and should therefore take the Commission through the year 2020. Svendsen said this time frame points out the importance of the responsibility of planning for the next generation. Svendsen said the plan's RFP calls for the inclusion of three or more neighborhood planning meetings designed to disseminate information and to solicit input. She said she did not believe that three meetings would be sufficient but said that three to five meetings is more realistic. Svendsen said that during the 12-month process, she and the consultants would be interviewing 20 or more people in the following categories: pro-preservation, anti-preservation, neighborhood leaders, leaders of preservation organizations, individuals who have completed major preservation projects, those representing the real estate community, the heritage tourism community, staff, State Historical Society staff, etc. Svendsen said she would hold a specific planning session, in addition to the neighborhood focus groups, with the Commission and with representatives of Clarion and Associates. She said she planned to have the Clarion people in town for three or four days and would have them meet with one or two of the neighborhood focus groups during that time. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 2 Svendsen said there will be an effort to review and update the goals and objectives in the 1992 plan. She stated that specific neighborhood objectives wouid be added to the plan, based on input and recommendations from the consultants. Svendsen said the plan would update the history of the preservation movement. She said it is a very important step, because it keeps everyone up to speed. Svendsen said she would compile an outline for an update of the multiple property document (MPD) titled Iowa Historic Resources. She said the document covered the period up to 1940, with some amendments since that time. Svendsen said that there has not been a comprehensive overview update, however. She said the update would cover the period through 1957. Svendsen said that she would be looking at the post World War II period, including the large growth at the University and the growth in housing, as well as industry that began in the late 1950s and early 1960s. She said that as the document expands to include neighborhoods constructed in the post war period, there will be an effort to update the bibliography. Svendsen said her second objective is to identify major preservation planning issues and problems that the Commission would like to see emphasized. She asked Commission members to share any specific concerns they might have. Weitzel said that one important issue is property owner rights and the preservation movement. He said he would also like to have Svendsen look at modern building standards and preservation. Weitzel said that parts of the building code have specific clauses for exceptions for preservation; however, this administration authority is not looking at those at this point. McCallum asked if there is a state historical building code. Svendsen said there was an effort to enact one a few years ago, but it was never passed. She stated that the Uniform Building Code established a uniform rehabilitation code, and there is now a 4F section that allows for local building officials to grant exceptions. Miklo said he believes the City adopted that. McCallum said that California has a historical building code for the State that grandfathers in older buildings and allows some flexibility for historic buildings. Svendsen said that in the mid 1980s she was part of a historical building code board at the State level. She said that when the architect on that board left, the group fell apart. Svendsen said that in the meantime, there was so much work going on nationally that it was thought better to stick to a national code like the Uniform Building Code, which could be defended in court and would cross boundaries. She said that flexibility was then left in the hands of the chief building official and that in most communities, the chief building officials have become more persuaded about historic buildings being salvageable and have come to understand the field much better. Svendsen said that technology has also changed things. She said she would investigate how the 4F exception has been used in the past and what has prevented it from being used. Svendsen said there is a potential for conflict between the chief building official and the Commission, and she would follow up on that. Maharry pointed out that the City recently designated a cultural district. He said the City Council felt it was important to seek the designation but it is necessary to take advantage from the incentives, grants available through the designation and it is important to include this fact for her consideration when Svendsen redoes the Preservation Plan. Svendsen said that in terms of the State historic tax credits, unless the property is in a CED, the owner goes to the end of the line for the allocation of State tax credits. She said she hoped that would change at the State level. McCallum asked if new key structures would be identified as part of this process. Svendsen responded that one of the specifications in the RFP was the identification of potential National Register-eligible properties. She said it may be difficult to do a complete survey at this level but said she is always reluctant to give up on a building until she knows its history. Svendsen said this will present an opportunity to identify potential neighborhoods that might be eligible for survey work, and in that, there will have to be an identification of potential individually significant properties. ~-~'----~--'----~--'--"-"--"---~"-"---'--_._'-~------.__._".._.__._..._---,.~.._~_..- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 3 McCallum said he is concerned about Greek houses in particular, some of which are not in districts. He said that some of the changes in the zoning code will allow some flexibility for properties. McCallum said that if they were at least identified as key structures, they might benefit from some of the new zoning language that allows different types of use and some exemptions. Weitzel said that in the past, Svendsen had recommended doing this exact kind of survey. Svendsen said she would look for strategies that would encourage the preservation of these types of buildings. Maharry asked Svendsen if she would be investigating the previous preservation plan and its effects, both positive and negative, on Iowa City. He suggested looking at demolition permits in the districts proposed since 1982. Svendsen said there would certainly be an attempt to identify achievements and non- achievements for each of the set objectives and to look at effects good and bad both inside and outside of recommended areas and strategies. Weitzel suggested also compiling a summary of the economic impact of preservation. Svendsen replied that there will be a fairly extensive recommendation in terms of the next step, how it should be accomplished, and how things are done in other communities. She stated that this would include a plan for the Commission to follow as potentially another project or as asking the Planning Department at The University to undertake a project on the Commission's behalf. Svendsen said a State staff member brought to her attention the fact that the plan in the past did not address issues of archaeology. She asked how the Commission felt regarding archaeology issues. Weitzel said the City has a separate ordinance covering archaeological sites, but it might be interesting to see how it has worked. Enloe said it would be beneficial to see what other communities have done in that regard. Weitzel stated that Ames has a very different approach than Iowa City. Svendsen asked if the Commission has felt the weight of the archaeological facet. Weitzel said the Commission has not, and Enloe agreed. Weitzel said there have only been two archaeological issues in the past five years. Svendsen asked if there is a sense that many archaeological resources have been threatened or lost in that time period. Weitzel said it is difficult to tell, because neither the City nor the County has a comprehensive survey, although he would suspect that some things have been impacted without people knowing it. Svendsen said that as she works on the MPD, there are obvious things that surface in terms of what hasn't been surveyed, for example things in Manville Heights and areas further west. She said the next issue is identifying where the neighborhood meetings should be held and therefore where the emphasis on developing strategies in the updated plan should be. Svendsen said she had four ideas in terms of where emphasis should be. Svendsen said she thought that the Longfellow Neighborhood, Summit Street, College Street, College Hill, and Governor could be considered as one contiguous area. She stated that another area might include the North Side, Jefferson Street, Goosetown, and Tank Town, as well as Dubuque Road and Rochester. Svendsen said a third area would basically be west of the river - Melrose and Manville Heights, partly because they were developed almost at the exact same time. She said the Commission might want to consider inviting University Heights citizens to participate at least at the neighborhood meeting level. Weitzel asked Svendsen if she would include the University at all. Svendsen responded that during the course of this process, the University needs to be included as a group or by specific interviews or both so that the University is engaged in a discussion of preservation that it has not wanted to be involved with in the past. She said the State Historical Society is stronger than it has been in the past, which might present an opportunity for the State Historical Society to engage the University as a parallel State agency. Svendsen said the University should of course be invited to be involved in the neighborhood discussions, as the University owns property in most areas discussed. Svendsen stated that a fourth area to consider would be the downtown, which should be separate from the residential areas because its needs are so different; the building stock and tax incentives are so different. She said it would be worthwhile to invite owners of the Northside commercial property area to the downtown meeting as well as to the Northside residential meeting. Weitzel said that Mercy Hospital should also be invited to participate in the Northside meeting. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 4 Maharry said that the Kirkwood area is a potential area for targeting. Svendsen said she thought of including that for the Longfellow Neighborhood. Weitzel also mentioned the South Moffitt District. He added that in Miller's Orchard, located between Highway One South and Benton Street, there is housing stock that was built by the Douglas Corporation, although he did not know if he would consider any of it unique. Svendsen said her final objective is to compile names of people who would be worthy of interviewing. She asked Commission members to e-mail her at svendsentvler@centurvtel.net with the name, e-mail address, and phone number of any individual she might want to contact and an idea of why he or she would have a unique perspective on preservation issues. Svendsen mentioned that she would particularly like to talk to the person who put together a walking tour of literary figures in Iowa City. Svendsen said she hoped to hold the neighborhood meetings in March and April, avoiding the week of spring break, and asked if anyone had scheduling problems during those two months. She said that Commission members would not need to attend all the meetings, but it would be good to have a few commissioners at every meeting. Maharry said that the City Council would be reviewing this document, and he felt it would be important to compare the City's personnel needs with regard to preservation with those of other cities. Svendsen said she would also look at cities nation wide for such information. Svendsen said that when the Clarion consultants are in town, they will hold planning sessions with the Commission and with other preservation organizations. She expected that to occur in March or April. Maharry said that the previous plan discussed the State historic property rehabilitation tax exemption, and he asked if that still is in effect. Svendsen said it still exists but has not been used very much. She said that although the old law is still in force, for the project to qualify, it has to be identified as a substantial rehabilitation. Svendsen said the current tax credits would not likely be used frequently in Iowa City, because of the high cost of real estate in Iowa City. She said the exemption requires the amount spent to be equal to the adjusted basis of the building. Svendsen said she would be examining other states to come up with ideas that may make more sense in Iowa City. Burford asked if there would be an opportunity here to address historic preservation and affordabie housing issue. Svendsen said she would look at affordable housing but said she was not certain the Commission would want to make preservation obligated to solve the affordable housing issue. She stated that it would be an appropriate thing to look into to the extent that the City may be looking to developers to solve the affordable housing issue with reconstruction. Weitzel stated that this is an important process, and participation is important because the plan is expected to be in effect through 2020. ANNUAL GOAL SETTINGIWORK PLAN FOR YEAR 2006: Weitzel asked how many goals the Commission had besides the Preservation Plan for the next year. Terdalkar distributed the Work Plan Goals and Objectives. Weitzel said it would be good to finish up some of the goals and objectives; however, there would be a lot of work to do on the preservation plan, which should get priority. Maharry said the goals are all worthy goals, but if there is the same volume of applications for certificates of appropriateness as in 2005, there will not be time to work on other goals. Weitzel pointed out that some of the goals would be picked up by Friends of Historic Preservation or other organizations. Ponto asked if notification of property owners in historic districts would be repeated. Terdalkar replied that letters are going out this month. Ponto said he feels it is important to send those letters out annually. Carlson asked if the community outreach expected by City Council before any new districts are proposed would be part of the new plan. Weitzel said it might be worthwhile for the Commission to wait until the plan is in place for the next set of districts. Carlson agreed that it is important but might be better to come Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 5 after the plan, when people are more aware of what is going on. Weitzel said the goals and objectives would be kept as a notation unless anyone had anything new to add. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 315 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that this is the second application concerning this property. He said the Commission reviewed this project with alternative designs, but the applicant has come back with a new plan that would not remove the screened porch but would partially enclose it and would replace some of the windows on the house. Terdalkar said the proposed enclosure would be about eight feet by six feet. He said that the window on the east side would be replaced with a window of shorter height, and on the second floor, a bathroom window would be relocated to allow interior modifications. Terdalkar added that the materials are consistent with the guidelines. Rapson, the consultant for this project, stated that the first addition would have cost more than the bank was willing to loan. She said the new goal is to enclose a portion of the back porch, putting a new foundation underneath it that would match the existing, to create a mudroom but also to lend some more base to the second floor addition. Rapson said they would also try to improve the open spot by continuing the siding down. She said it actually extends a little beyond the porch roof so the underside would probably be finished like a soffit to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Rapson said that the two posts would be left in their current location, and the back steps and the porch would be left the same. Rapson said that the bathroom window on the second floor would be moved 18 inches. She said the kitchen windows on the east side would now be left in their current location, but the plan would shorten the windows to accommodate kitchen counters. Rapson said there would be no changes to any roofiines or any footprint. She said the owners would be reusing the back door and would be installing a new wood storm door. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised project for 315 Brown Street, as proposed. McCallum seconded the motion. Terdalkar said the applicant had called him and asked that the Commission should consider only the first proposal. The applicant has decided not to pursue the Alternative 1. Maharry said he would be interested to vote or at least discuss the alternative. He said that the last time when the Commission approved this, there was a bumpout that the Commission tried very hard to get rid of. Maharry said the Commission ended up approving it by allowing exceptions to some of the guidelines. He said that in the new configuration, that situation is not improved to the historical standards of the neighborhood by remaining bumped out there. Maharry said the alternative provided for a seamless first and second story. Carlson agreed that the alternative proposal might be more aesthetically harmonious, although this is actually more historically correct. He said, however, that if it is kept the way it is, he would have no problem with it. Terdalkar pointed out that the alternative is not 'seamless' on the east fa~ade as the first story is slightly wider than the second story addition. Enloe said he agreed with Carlson on that point. McCallum asked if the alternative is something the property owner wanted. Strode, the property owner, said that they could use the additional space, but it would be a lot more complicated. She said the contractor pointed out that there would be about three different planes on the east side that would be an issue. Rapson stated that part of the rationale for this plan is that there would not be so much money invested in this that the porch could not come off later. She said it would be a short-term solution for the owners so that they would not have to spend so much money trying to fix a bad thing that they don't really want anyway. The motion carried on a vote of 8-1. with Mahanv votinCl no. 1201 Sevmour Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this is an application for the replacement of a garage on a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. He stated that the plan is to replace an old garage Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 6 with a new, two-car garage that would have a footprint of approximately 29 by 26 feet. Terdalkar said that at the highest point, the new garage would be 20 feet from the ground, and most of the materials to be used are consistent with the guidelines. McCafferty said that the house is very small, but the owners like the neighborhood and want to expand the house with an addition so that they can continue to live there and have the house function for their needs. She said that part of the plan includes demolishing a small model-T garage and building a larger, more functional garage and a new addition. McCafferty said this application is for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of the new, because that will potentially have some impact on what is done with the addition. McCafferty said the current garage has some rotting around the bottom, and it sits on the ground; there is no slab. She said that with the new garage, she has tried to reduce the scale of it, particularly from the street, and to evoke the look of the old garage by having the little bumpout with the gable on it. McCafferty said that on the rest of it she has used a hipped roof so that there will not be the large scale from the front and back yards as one would have with a gable roof. She said that from an elevation viewpoint, the height may be 23 feet, but using a hip roof also adds perspective, so that it will appear to be smaller and shorter than what is seen in the elevation. Weitzel asked for the height of the house. McCafferty said the house is 28 feet wide, and it's the same pitch as there is along the largest gable of the house, not the more decorative gables on the front. She said that the width of the actual garage is 24 feet, so it's not going to be as high and will also appear lower visually because of the hip roof. McCafferty said the garage would be 24 feet wide by 26 feet deep for most of the garage. She distributed a sketch of how the addition would look if the garage project is approved. Weitzel said the Commission has allowed other demolitions of garages on this same block, including one on Clark Street. Enloe asked how reparable the garages were in the case of the other demolitions. Weitzel said that at least one of them was reparable, but it was decided that the garage was not specifically unique. He said that for the other garage, the owner insisted that it was not reparable, although some of the Commission members disagreed, but ultimately the owner could not park in the garage because it was a small 1920s or 1930s garage. Weitzel said the Commission has to balance keeping the house usable and livable and museum-quality restoration. McCafferty said that on the plans, she tried to maintain the scale and character of the front of the house, but the back of the house, in terms of the addition, has been changed dramatically. She said that in general, the rear part of the property has been altered significantly. Maharry asked for the dimensions of the existing house. McCafferty said the front elevation is 28 feet by 32 feet. Maharry asked how the elements of mass and subservience to the main house would be met with the new garage. McCafferty said that it would be smaller in size, smaller in width, and would have a hip roof to diminish the scale. Enloe said he thought it would be of an appropriate scale once the addition is built, but he is a little troubled by the two-step process in which the Commission is asked to approve a garage that approaches the size of the house, although this is a fairly large lot. Maharry noted that the footprint of the proposed garage is approximately 639 square feet, and that of the existing house is approximately 896 square feet. McCafferty said that the house is one and one-half story versus a one-story garage. She stated that the house is at least 3 % feet taller than the garage. Brennan said that it is also heavily wooded in the back yard and the alley, with fencing on the east elevation. Ponto asked if the pitch of the garage roof was planned to match something. McCafferty replied that on a Tudor revival house like this one, the main mass of the house is of a lower pitch and then on the front there is a steeper pitch. She said that the garage roof would have the same pitch as the largest mass on the house to keep it lower, so it won't compete with the main house. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1201 Seymour Avenue, as proposed. Pardekooper seconded the motion. Carlson said he is troubled by the footprint size and the demolition of the admittedly non-functional for the current vehicles garage. He asked, if the demolition is approved, is there any case in which the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 7 Commission would not approve the demolition of a small period garage that is not particularly ornamental but is just a functional model- T type garage. Weitzel said the statements that have been made are that garages that match the house were in really good shape, although the issue has always been presented as functionality. He said however, that denial would prohibit an owner from being able to park, or he would have to build another garage next to that and take up the rest of the lot with another garage. Enloe added that garages of that time period were not built on slabs and therefore tend to be a little weak at the bottom. He said that once again, any garage of this period becomes vulnerable to that kind of judgment. Enloe said he was concerned that the City would lose this as a ciass of building. McCafferty said that there is a precedent for allowing this. Pardekooper said that aesthetically, looking from the street to the back yard, this will make the whole property look nicer. He said that any future addition will be based on approval of this, and McCafferty confirmed this. Maharry said that a larger garage may be okay, but its size of compared the cottage is a concern. He read from Section 6.2 of the guidelines, which recommends, "Constructing garages and other outbuildings that are clearly subordinate in size to the primary structure." Maharry stated that it is a recommendation and that this would not be disallowed by the guidelines. McCafferty stated that there are a number of two-car garages in the alleys in this area. She added that typically the older two-car garages have a hip roof. Terdalkar pointed out that the houses in such instances are generally bigger. Weitzel said that Commission members need to decide if this meets the criteria of scale, mass, and historical significance of the existing structure and vote accordingiy. Enloe said he believes the proposed pian diminishes the visual mass to a reasonable degree. He said, however, that whether it is calculabiy subordinate or perceptibly subordinate is an individual judgment call. Enloe agreed that it would be subordinate to the larger house, but that is not an issue at this point. The motion carried on a vote of 5-3-1; with Carlson, Enloe and Maharrv votinll no; and McCallum recusinll himself because of a business relationship with the contractor. DISCUSSION OF SECTION 4.11: GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS OF THE IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK: Carlson said he has not yet completed the memo to be sent to the City Council regarding this issue. He said that there are actually two points to be addressed: one is what the City Council actually asked the Commission to do in reviewing Section 4.11, and the other concerns the implied direction of the City Council with regard to the application for a project at 417 Grant Street. Carlson said that the second point has been affected by a phone call that Terdalkar had with Ms. Duarte. Terdaikar said that at Weitzel's direction, he contacted the applicant to see if she could meet with the representatives of the commission, Vice-Chair Richard Carlson and Justin Pardekooper and staff to propose and explore the options commission has considered. T erdalkar said the owner has said that she is open-minded about reaching to a solution, and he hopes to make some progress in that direction after the meeting with Ms. Duarte on Monday or Tuesday. Weitzei said the owner did not make clear at the first meeting is that there is a leak over the oriel on the bumpout on the south side, and the plaster there is now starting to become wet. He said he did not know the condition of the gutters, although last year's hailstorm and lack of a repair job is one possibility for the cause of such a leak. Weitzel said he would be concerned about the Commission making a change in its decision simply because the owner is not doing maintenance. Pardekooper asked if the contractor at least made the situation watertight. Weitzel said the contractor was allowed to finish and did go ahead and finish the roof. He said the contractor put tar paper and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 8 shingles on the north gutter but did not close off the ends. Weitzel said the investigation with the owner would help determine what caused the leak. Weitzel said that the owner contacted Jan Ream and had her look at the plaster, at which point Jan told Terdalkar that they weren't going to enforce anything if the owner went ahead and did the work. Weitzel said the Housing and Inspections Department can't do that but must follow the directives of the Commission and the City Council. Weitzel said he then asked Terdalkar to contact the owner to discuss the situation with her. Carlson said he would just like to see the owner come before the Commission and discuss this. He said that if the Commission could eliminate all the options the owner has eliminated and say that the only two options are what she is doing or a $3,000 complete rebuilding, he would certainly consider what the owner wants to do. Weitzel agreed but said that there are several other steps the owner has skipped over. Carlson agreed and said that before the owner completes those steps, the Commission can't do anything. Carlson said that the guidelines do allow exceptions in exceptional circumstances. He said that in terms of the guidelines in Section 4.11, his sense from the last discussion was that most Commission members felt the wording was fine, provided that there are a variety of options that will work in most cases. Weitzel suggested the Commission give Carlson the latitude to complete the memo to the City Council after and regardless of the meeting with the homeowner. Weitzel said the discussion with the homeowner should be taken into account but said that a memo of some sort is in order, in any event. Carlson said that he would send the memo to staff for review before sending it to the City Council. Gunn and Enloe agreed that the memo did not need to be reviewed before the full Commission. Minutes for November 10. 2005. Weitzel asked Commission members to submit typographical or grammatical errors to Terdalkar. Terdalkar pointed out that the tape recorder stopped working during the meeting and said that spaces where there are parentheses or where statements are out of line should be filled in by those making the particular comments. Carlson stated that on page seven in the fifth full paragraph, the first sentence should read, "Carlson said that the Commission had previously approved similar windows but not on a house of this style, and he did not believe that paired windows would be appropriate in this case." Carlson said that on page six, in the third paragraph after the tape recorder quits, his meaning would be better conveyed by, "Carlson said that he would probably vote against the demolition, because he considers back porches to be character-defining features of houses of this period," which would accurately reflect his intent. Carlson said that on page ten under other, the second sentence should just be deleted, and the third sentence should begin with the word, "Carlson." He added that in the last sentence of that paragraph, the word "resources" should be changed to "experience." MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's November 1 0, 2005 meeting, as amended. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Weitzel pointed out that there would be a Cultural Advocacy Day in Des Moines on Monday, January 23", which would include information regarding the economic impact of historic preservation. The consensus of the Commission was to begin future meetings at 6 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte. s:fpcd/minuteslhpcJ2006l01-19-05.doc I I I I I I Historic Preservation Commission I I Attendance Record i I i 2006 , I i i , , I , I Term I Name Expires 1/19 M. Brennan 3/29/08 X ! R. Carlson 3/29/07 X I J. Enloe 3/29/06 X I M. Gunn 3/29/07 X i I I M. Maharry 3/29/08 X , M. McCallum 3/29/06 X j J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 X I J. Ponto 3/29/07 X , J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 0 I I T. Weitzel 3/29/08 X I I I I Key: I X - Presenl I 0 - Absent i OlE - Absent/Excused , I NM = No Meeting i -- -- = Not a Member I I i I , I I I I 1 I I i I I , i , I , i [;[ APPROVED JANUARY 2006 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2005 G08- SENIOR CENTER Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 3:00 PM Members Present: Bob Engel, David Gould, Jay Hanahan, Jo Hensch, Betty Kelly, and Sarah Maiers Members Absent: Nancy Wombacher Staff Present: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Julie Seal and Susan Rogusky Others Present: Lynn Campbell RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. The meeting was called to order by Hanahan at 3:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes as amended. A correction was made to the membership report to change the word decease to decrease. Engel/Maiers. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS Hanahan agreed to visit the Board of Supervisors and City Council to report on today's meeting. Hanahan will write the web article for the February meeting. REVIEW OF COMMISSION OPERATING PROCEEDURES- Hanahan Hanahan suggested that the Executive Committee (Kelly, Hensch and Hanahan) meet to discuss steps that could be taken to increase the effectiveness of Commission meetings. Committee members agreed to meet at 10AM on Friday, January 27, 2006. APPROVED JANUARY 2006 REPORT ON ASSEMBLY ROOM RENOVATION PLANS- Honohan The following people have agreed to serve on this committee: Craig Buhman, John Conner, Diane Flemming, Jo Hensch, Glenn Jablonski, Sally Jablonski, Betty Kelly, Linda Kopping, David Purdy, Dawn Rogers. The Committee plans to meet on Friday, February 3, 2006 at 10 AM. REPORT ON COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR DONOR RECOGNITION- Honohan Jay Honohan, Ina Loewenberg, Fran Austin, Loren Horton, Linda Kopping and Michelle Buhman have agreed to serve on this committee. No meeting date has been set. SENIOR CENTER ASSET REPORT-Kopping Kopping reviewed the Center's proposed Financial Plan for 2007-2009 that is being considered by the City Council. She noted that the request for an additional half time Program Specialist has not been included in the current proposal. Honohan and Kopping plan to request that this position be reincorporated in to the proposal when they meet with the Council later this month. Kopping also noted that the funding for fitness and SCTV equipment in the proposed budget is to be paid by the Senior Center Fund Inc's, Charitable Giving account. The Spring 2006 Program Guide has been submitted to document services and should be available in mid February. This issue includes a special section highlighting Older Americans Month programming that is being organized by our partners in service to seniors, the AARP and the Johnson County Task Force on Aging. Programs - Seal Seal distributed list of public events and classes scheduled to take place in February 2006. For a complete listing of Senior Center programs, see the 2005/06 Winter Program Guide. Volunteers - Rogusky Rogusky reported that the first of the Holistic Therapies series brought in approximately 25 people. Those who attended reported that they enjoyed the event. Rogusky is looking for people to volunteer to work in the Gift Shop. The number of people willing to work in the shop has declined over the years. The core group of volunteers will meet next week to discuss the future of the shop. 2 APPROVED JANUARY 2006 Memberships and Fundraising Report- Buhman Buhman distributed a membership and revenue report. As of January 17, 2006 the Center had 971 members, an increase of 33 members since the December 27,2005 meeting. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Kelly reported that she has received some requests to hold a public forum to discuss the Senior Center's Strategic Plan and Goals. The Commission discussed the idea and decided that rather than hold a special meeting they would make a more obvious effort to invite the public to attend their regularly scheduled meetings or contact Commission members directly. Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Maiers/Hensch. 3 APPROVED JANUARY 2006 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2006 Name Term 1/24 Expires Bob Engel 12/31/08 X David Gould 12/31/08 X Jo Hensch 12/31/06 X Jay Honohan 12/31/07 X Betty Kelly 12/31/07 X Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X Nancy 12/31/06 OlE Wombacher Key: X= 0= O/E= NM = Present Absent Absent/Excused No meeting Not a member 4 --------_._._----......"---~---_.._---- -_._,._---~--_._--._-,~_._._,----_._----~