Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-04 Bd Comm minutes City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission February 8, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. Recreation Center Meeting Room B c:c FINAL I CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, Phil Reisetter, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: John Watson STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Terry Robinson, Mike Moran OTHERS PRESENT: Harrison Kane, Pam Michaud, Del Holland, Helen Burford RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council Action): Moved bv Klink, seconded by Westefeld to propose that the Annual Board/Commission/City Council Meetinl! be moved to an earlier date to allow more time to consider the budl!et proposals. Unanimous. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved bv Westefeld, seconded by Pacha, to approve the January 11, 2006 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved bv Reisetter, seconded by Pacha, to not take any action on the proposed DOl! Run at Collel!e Green Park. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR "DOG RUN" IN COLLEGE GREEN PARK: Trueblood called the Commission's attention to information in the packet, including past information and the current proposal submitted by Pam Michaud for the construction of a "dog run" in College Green Park. Michaud presented her proposal to the Commission. She feels that Iowa City demographics and increased apartment living demonstrates the need for a centrally located off leash dog run and play area to benefit all age groups living in this area. She also stated that homeowners would benefit from increased socialization of their dogs. While Michaud expressed praise regarding the dog park being constructed in the Peninsula Park, she also stated that she feels there is a need for another dog park in closer proximity to the downtown area of Iowa City, as many of the people living in this area walk to many of their destinations. Therefore, she is suggesting that an inner triangle in the south quadrant of College Green Park be the proposed location for a 90'x 90'x 90' fenced in area for an off-leash dog run. She submitted a petition to the Commission with signatures of those in support of this proposal. This petition is signed by dog owners who live within one block of the park as well as dog owners living in Parks and Recreation Commission February 8, 2006 Page 2 of 6 apartments within one-half mile of the park. There are also some signatures from people who do not own dogs. Michaud noted that she feels having dogs present in this park would also give a sense of better security to those using the park. Michaud is applying for a P.I.N. grant to assist in funding of this project. Pacha asked if dogs of all sizes would be permitted in this area at the same time, noting that a separate area for small dogs will exist in the new dog park. Michaud stated yes, however, she would expect threatened or threatening dogs to be leashed, also stating that the guidelines include a rule stating that the owner be sure that the dog is comfortable interacting with other dogs. Pacha then directed a question to Trueblood asking if there are any concerns about the use of crushed rock. Trueblood turned this part of the discussion over to Terry Robinson. Robinson said that there are concerns with crushed rock as it would change the pH level in the soil which is known to be detrimental to trees. He stated that the crushed rock also has to be thick enough to stay in place. Raaz referred Michaud to the other possible locations mentioned in her 2004 proposal and asked why she prefers College Green Park. These other locations include Oak Grove Park, Happy Hollow, City Park and Benton Hill Park. Michaud stated that as she lives in this neighborhood and because of its proximity to downtown she feels this is the best place for such a use. Reisetter asked Michaud to confirm that adding this dog run to College Green Park would decrease the amount of space to be used by people playing frisbee, catch, and other types of outdoor activities. She stated that it would. Westefeld confirmed that Michaud's main wish is to have this dog run in a park that is centrally located in Iowa City. She again stated that this is indeed her wish. Westefeld also expressed his concern with the fundamental changes that would occur to this park if this proposal is approved. Reisetter asked Trueblood if there is any "wasteland" available that could be used for a dog park. Trueblood stated that he is not aware of any such available land at this point. Gustaveson stated that while he has been very vocal in his support of a dog park in Iowa City, he could not support College Green Park as a proposed site for a dog run for the following reasons: 1) he is opposed to eliminating one type of use in a park for another type of use, 2) Project Green is opposed to this project in College Green Park, and 3) DogP AC does not support this project. Trueblood interjected that DogP AC did not take a position of non-support for this project, but indicated they do not have the time or resources to commit to another dog park project. They also indicated concern regarding rules and fees. They would want to see the same rules and fees apply to all dog parks in Iowa City, should there be more than one. He also reiterated that while not opposed to the concept of smaller dog parks, staff continues to feel that College Green Park is not a good location for one. Moved by Reisetter. seconded by Pacha. to not take any action on the proposed DOl! Run at Collel!e Green Park. Unanimous. Klink expressed her gratitude for all of the work that Michaud put into this proposal. O'Leary suggested that if Michaud decides to come back to the Commission to propose a dog run at another location that she first collaborate with DogP AC, Forestry and any other groups that should be involved. Gustaveson thanked Michaud on behalf of the Commission for her efforts. Michaud requested that the Commission keep this in mind as a possibility for future consideration. Parks and Recreation Comm ission February 8, 2006 Page 3 of 6 DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF FOOD VENDORS IN CITY PARK: Commissioner Raaz requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. Raaz is asking what the feasibility is of having vendors or vending machines placed in city parks, feeling that City Park especially would be an ideal location for such. Trueblood stated that while the City has not actively marketed for such a program, there have been a limited number of vendors who have been allowed to sell food items in the parks in the past. If a person is interested in doing such they need to place a bid through the Central Services department. Trueblood voiced his concern of vandalism to machines placed in the parks. Mike Moran will contact Pepsi Bottlers, vendors for the Recreation Division, to get their thoughts on this idea. REPORT/DISCUSSION ON PLANS FOR CITY PARK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION: Mike Moran updated Commission on plans for this event. June 10 will be the date of the primary celebration which will include concerts, a barbecue, free swimming and amusement rides, bocce ball, skateboarding and horseshoe demonstrations to name a few. In July the Iowa City Community Theater will perform a rendition of "The Music Man", if it can be worked out. This will be performed in the theater in the round near the softball diamonds at City Park. Exact schedule is pending at this time. The committee is working with the Jaycees to help promote this event during their 4th of July celebration. There will also be upcoming information on the city website, the recreation activity guide, as well as information mailed to Iowa City residents in their water bills. Trueblood mentioned that the Riverside Theater Staff has expressed interest in doing something in conjunction with their Shakespeare Festival to help commemorate the anniversary celebration as well. The Johnson County Historical Society will also be involved in this celebration. REPORT/DISCUSSION ON STATUS OF PROPOSED FY06-FYIO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET: Trueblood updated the Commission on the capital improvement budget status. He advised that the City Manager has given the approval to go ahead with Phase I of the Sand Prairie Enhancement and Preservation project. This item was initially unfunded. After C.LP. meetings with City Council, the Council stated they would like to see the skate park restrooms funded after all. Trueblood was happy with the outcome of this meeting but did note that item #2, the Iowa River Trail Bridge - Rocky Shore to Peninsula project is still unfunded. He feels we should continue to push for this project in order to provide better access to Peninsula Park, and to help reduce parking problems as well as increased traffic through the Peninsula neighborhood. Raaz suggested that perhaps when installing restrooms at the Skate Park that the City also look into a power source for vending in that area. Klink asked if there were REAP grants available for trails. Trueblood stated that he thinks there are and, in fact, the Rocky Shore to Peninsula Bridge project would likely qualify for such. Trueblood will follow up. DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO PROPOSED ROUTE FOR COURT HILL TRAIL PROJECT: Trueblood presented the Commission with the Court Hill Trail route plan (this plan is ten years old). Plan is to extend the trail from Creekside Park over to Scott Park. This plan only shows the trail going to Scott Park, but the long term plan is to go through the park. Trueblood noted that Parks and Recreation Commission February 8, 2006 Page 4 of 6 we not be able to do the Scott Park section in the current capital plan. Pacha asked what the position is of the property owners in the "gap area," assuming that it would take a considerable amount of consensus of the neighbors to continue it all the way along the creek. Trueblood agreed with this assumption. Del Holland, a guest present at the meeting, asked if the City is thinking of a trailhead in Creekside Park or if it would continue across Muscatine. Trueblood stated that this plan shows it coming into and through Creekside but not beyond that. Interest has been expressed in seeing this trail eventually run all the way to the river. Trueblood discussed this idea with John Yapp and the feeling is that the only way to do this is to provide signage directing bicycles to quieter streets because there is no place to build a continuous trail to the flver. ANNUAL BOARD/COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Gustaveson presented to the Council on January 30, 2006. He presented the Council with the Commission's Capital Improvement Budget priority list. He encouraged the City Council, on behalf of the Parks & Recreation Commission, to adopt the City Manager's proposed budget for FY07. Gustaveson specifically pointed out the need for support on the following projects: Iowa River Trail Pedestrian Bridge, Skate Park Restroom and the Brookland Park Re-Development. With regard to the Operating Budget, he reiterated the need for additional custodial help to better maintain the Scanlon/Mercer facility. This is supported by the City Manager. He also asked that the Council keep in mind the request for a Natural Areas Specialist position as well as two additional full-time maintenance workers for the Parks Division. Commission members discussed the idea of proposing a change to the annual boards and commission meeting to the fall so that it is earlier in the budgeting process, rather than January/February after most of the budget decisions have been made. Moved by Klink, seconded by Westefeld to propose that the Annual Board/Commission/City Council Meetinl! be moved to an earlier date to allow more time to consider the budl!et proposals. Unanimous. COMMISSION TIME Klink distributed the "Johnson County Heritage Trust, Preserving Land with Significant Environmental Value" brochure to the Commission for their review. This organization educates local land owners on how to preserve land. Klink mentioned an exhibit in Chicago that runs January 28 through May 7 called "New Designs for Public Space." Information item only for those who may be visiting the Chicago area in the near future. This exhibit demonstrates Innovative uses of land in urban areas. Westefeld commented on the nice article about the dog parks in the "Parks and Recreation" Publication (magazine published by the National Recreation and Park Association). He also mentioned that he walked across the bridge next to the Iowa River Power Restaurant and encouraged everyone to take the opportunity to walk across this bridge. He also mentioned the fact that the University is planning on building a massive recreation building on Burlington and Madison (150,000 square feet), probably within the next two years. Parks and Recreation Commission February 8, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Pacha complimented Trueblood on his letters to the Housing and Community Development Commission as well as to the Claude W. and Dolly Ahrens Foundation requesting their support for the Grant Wood Elementary PTO application for new playground equipment at the school. Pacha felt that the letters very well reflected the intent of the Commission. Raaz stated that he noted that the Bocce Ball courts have been scheduled for Special Olympic Events and that he is happy to see that the courts are being utilized for programs such as this. CHAIR'S REPORT: Gustaveson said that he recently went to the Waterworks Park and was very impressed. He also mentioned how impressed he was with the Iowa River Power Bridge. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Girls Softball: Trueblood stated that staff is working with the Girls Softball Organization to light two more ball diamonds at Napoleon Park, at their request. This project will cost about $100,000 with the City contributing $50,000 of that. Grant Wood Gym Update: Near completion. Mike Moran and Bill Blanchard will be doing a walk through on Thursday, February 9. Boathouse at Citv Park or Terrill Mill Park: The University is looking for places to build a boathouse. Trueblood and the City Manager will be meeting with them later in the month to explore possibilities. Bovs Baseball: Trueblood has attempted to schedule a meeting with Boys Baseball however, he has not heard back from them. There are some concerns regarding the building as it is not being completed as quickly as hoped. He will continue scheduling efforts. Farmers Market: A letter went out to current Farmers Market Vendors letting them know of an expansion for the Saturday markets. The City will be opening an additional 21 stalls at our Saturday market only. The Wednesday market will remain as is. Disc Golf Course: The Disc Golf course project is proceeding as planned. Contributions for the disc golf course are being run through the Foundation account. To date $1,000 has been donated. Donors will have the opportunity to sponsor a hole on the course. A sign with their name will be placed at the hole. ADJOURNMENT: Moved bv Pacha, seconded bv Reisetter to adiourn. Unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission February 8, 2006 Page 6 of 6 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 10111 11/8 12/13 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 X X Judith Kliuk 1/ 1/07 OlE X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X X Ryan O'Leary 1/1/06 X X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 OlE X John 1/1/07 Watson X OlE John Westefeld 1/1/06 X X KEY: X= 0= O/E= NM= LQ= Present Absent Absent/Excnsed No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member FINAUAPPROVED ~ FEBRUARY 2006 ~ MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21,2006 AR- SENIOR CENTER Call to Order: Members Present: Meeting called to order at 3:05 PM Bob Engel, David Gould, Jay Honohan, Jo Hensch, and Sarah Maiers Betty Kelly, and Nancy Wombacher Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Julie Seal and Susan Rogusky Katie Goldensoph, Betty McKray, Charlotte Walker Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 3:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: To approve the January minutes as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Hensch/Maiers. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS Honohan volunteered to write the web article from this meeting. He also will report to the City Council on this meeting and other events associated with the Center. REVIEW OF COMMISSION OPERATING PROCEEDURES- Hensch The members of the Executive Committee met to discuss Commission operating procedures and develop recommendations for improving meeting effectiveness and productivity. Their recommendations were outlined in a memo dated 31 January, 2006, titled Summary of Executive Committee Recommendations for Reorganizing Senior Center Commission. The memorandum was distributed in this month's Commission meeting packet. A discussion of the ideas presented in the memorandum took place. FINAUAPPROVED FEBRUARY 2006 Commissioners supported the following recommendations: 1. Brief written staff reports on operations, programming, membership/fund raising and volunteer programs should be distributed in the Commission's meeting packet. Staff members will not be asked to give oral reports at each meeting. This will give Commissioners more time to absorb the information and make it unnecessary for the Program and Volunteer Specialists to regularly attend monthly meetings. Kopping will respond to questions related to the reports at each meeting. 2. Verbal staff reports during Commission meetings should be given at least semi-annually. Reports should be evaluative in nature rather than simple quantitative summaries. 3. Several new standing committees that focus on Commission responsibilities identified by the City Council should be established and ad hoc committees for special projects created as needed. Three new standing committees were recommended by the Executive Committee: Fundraising, Promotion and Community Relations and Outreach. 4. The duration of the monthly meeting should be limited to 60 to 90 minutes. 5. Commission meeting packets should be mailed out on the Wednesday prior to the meeting rather than the current practice of mailing it out the Thursday prior to the next meeting. Motion: To establish three new standing committees focusing on 1) Fundraising, 2) Promotion and 3) Outreach and Community Relations. Motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Engel/Gould Motion: Staff members shall prepare and submit monthly written reports on operations, programming, volunteer programs, fundraising and membership. The reports will be included in the Commission's meeting packets. The Program Specialist and Volunteer Specialist are no longer required to attend monthly meetings. However, they will make comprehensive verbal reports to the Commission at least semiannually. Motion passed on a vote of 5-0, Maiers/Engel Motion: Commission meetings shall be at 3PM on the third Tuesday of each month. Commission packets shall be mailed on the Wednesday prior to each meeting. Motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Hensch/Gould The frequency with which the new standing committees will meet was discussed. There was agreement that each committee should determine the frequency based on specific needs. There was a limited discussion of reducing the frequency of Commission meetings in response to an increase in the number of committee meetings and projects. Commissioners agreed to revisit this issue after the standing committees were in place and running. 2 FINAUAPPROVED FEBRUARY 2006 Commissioners supported the public recommendation that the contents of the Commission meeting packets should be posted on the Center's website prior to each meeting. Rogusky will investigate this. REPORT ON NUTRITION PROGRAM AND ASSEMBLY ROOM IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - HENSCH The committee met to discuss nutrition program improvements and renovations to the Assembly Room. Discussion focused on identifying problems, resources, and committee goals and then developing a plan of action for the committee. David Purdy, Director of Elder Services Inc, and Kopping agreed to gather information about successful nutrition programs and share this information at the next meeting. Site visits will follow. The draft minutes from this meeting were distributed in the Commission meeting packet. Hensch reported that participants in this meeting recognized the significant relationship between the success of the nutrition program and condition of the assembly room and fully supported working together to develop a comprehensive and innovative plan for improvement. It was noted that several items (a sound system, lighting, paint and wall covering) have been included in the Center's FY07 operational budget proposal. In addition, Elder Services, Inc. has indicated a willingness to provide financial support and Iowa City Senior Center Fund, Inc. has pledged funding to support the purchase of new furnishings. Motion: To accept the report from the Nutrition Program and Assembly room Improvements Committee's February 3, 2006 meeting. Motion passed on a vote of 5-0. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Operations- Kopping Kopping reported that Senior Center is partnering with the University of Iowa to bring Dr. Gene Cohen to Iowa City during May, which is Older Americans Month. His fee for this program is $2,500 plus expenses and will be shared by: The Senior Center, Hartford Center for Geriatric Nursing Excellence, University of Iowa Center on Aging, University of Iowa Department of Social Work and University of Iowa Aging Studies Program. Dr. Cohen is the Director of the Center on aging, Health and Humanities at George Washington University, where he holds professorships in Health Care Sciences and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. He is an internationally known scholar in the field of aging and has many publications to his credit. Two of his books, The Creative Age and The Mature Mind were written for the general public. Dr. Cohen's focus is on the positive potential and continued growth associated with aging. Dr. Cohen will be here for two days, May 1 and 2. He will spend the first day involved with Center events and the second at the University. The Center is 3 FINAUAPPROVED FEBRUARY 2006 planning an afternoon presentation and an evening book reading and discussion. Both events will be open to the public. Programs - Seal No report available. Volunteers - Rogusky Rogusky provided a written report detailing the sales and amount of time the gift shop was open during 2005 as well as the number of current volunteers. While revenue from the shop is down, there is a fairly significant level of volunteer involvement. She remarked that the goal of the shop is to provide volunteer opportunities to community seniors and not to make money. Nonetheless, participation has declined and the program needs to be evaluated in terms of participant satisfaction, staff time and space utilization. She asked that the Commission review her report and provide recommendations on how to improve this program. Walker suggested offering snack foods, such as chips and candy bars in the shop to increase traffic in the shop. Memberships and Fundraising Report- Buhman Buhman distributed a membership and revenue report. As of January 31, 2006 the Center was 65.35% towards reaching the established revenue goal and had a total of 964 registered members. A copy of this report is available for review at the Senior Center's Receptionist Desk. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Honohan reported that he had attended the Johnson County Board of Supervisors meeting twice since the January Commission meeting. Honohan reviewed the documents that he presented to the Board at the most recent meeting. Copies of the documents were distributed in the Commission meeting packet. Honohan asked Commissioners to consider their preferences for serving on the newly established committees in preparation for the March meeting. Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Maiers/Hensch. 4 FINAUAPPROVED FEBRUARY 2006 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2006 Name Term 1/24 2/21 Expires Bob En~el 12/31/08 X X David Gould 12/31/08 X X Jo Hensch 12/31/06 X X Jay Honohan 12/31/07 X X Bettv Kellv 12/31/07 X OlE Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X X Nancy 12/31/06 OlE OlE Wombacher Key: X= 0= O/E= NM = Present Absent AbsenUExcused No meeting Not a member 5 me MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT CONFERENCE ROOM FEBRUARY 16, 2006 APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Wally Plahutnik MEMBERS EXCUSED: Don Anciaux. Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Gordon, Greg Van Dusseldorp RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0, (Anciaux, Shannon absent) REZ05-00002, an amendment to a conditional zoning agreement to remove the requirement for a 30-foot setback (Item 4.e) subject to maintenance of the landscaped bed at the front of the lot and complete compliance with the landscape plan approved as a requirement of the right-of-way vacation prior to the installation of any additional parking or display areas within the 30-foot setback from Highway 1 for .53-acres of land located at 809-817 Highway 1 West. CALL TO ORDER Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was none. REZONING ITEMS REZ05-00002, discussion of an application submitted by Autohaus L TD for an amendment to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) to remove the requirement for a 30-foot landscape setback from Highway 1 for .53-acres of land located at 809-817 Highway 1 West. Miklo said the area was required to be maintained as a landscaped or turf-grass area as part of a 2001 rezoning. Shortly after the rezoning the City had vacated the frontage road and entered into an agreement with the applicant in which the City would vacate the R-O-W and turn it over to the applicant. A condition of that agreement had been a requirement for landscaping along the frontage as well as three small landscape islands that had replaced a larger existing green swath. At the time of the vacation it had been thought that the landscaping, which would be denser than just grass, would serve in lieu of the 30-foot setback. The applicant was currently requesting to eliminate the requirement for a 30-foot setback from Highway 1 for the Nissan portion of the property in order to allow more vehicle display area near the R-O-W. Similar landscaping conditions had been placed upon other businesses fronting Highway 1. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the CZA to remove the setback requirement. However, as noted in the Staff Report, as part of the previous right-of-way vacation agreement there were four (4) ornamental trees required in the larger parking lot which had not been planted yet. Miklo had spoken with Julie Tallman and she had no recollection of a wavier for those trees so they would need to be planted before any additional paving to the west was installed. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ05-00002, an amendment to a Conditional Zoning Agreement to remove the requirement for a 30-foot setback (Item 4.e) subject to maintenance of the landscaped bed at the front of the lot and complete compliance with the landscape plan approved as a requirement of the right-of-way vacation prior to the installation of any additional parking or display areas within the 30-foot setback from Highway 1 for .63-acres of land located at 809-817 Highway 1 West. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux, Shannon absent). Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 2 REZ06-00003, discussion of an application submitted by Sycamore Apartments LLC for a rezoning of approximately 1.51-acres of property from Interim Development Multi-family Residential (ID-RM) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) located on Kountry Lane SE. Terdalkar said the property was accessed through a private drive from Kountry Lane. In 1994 when the property had been annexed in to the City it had been part of a larger piece zoned ID-RM. When the City had acquired the Sycamore Greenway, this 1.5-acre tract had become separated from the larger ID-RM zone. An adjoining single-family residential property is located to the east. The subject property provides a transition zone and acted as a buffer from the existing multi-family residential development on the west. The City's Comprehensive Plan recognized this unique situation but anticipated the isolated piece to be developed as multi-family development. Terdalkar said Staff recommended approval of REZ06-00003 subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement which required a minimum 35-foot building setback from the east property line with an evergreen landscape buffer to provide a buffer for the adjacent single-family home. Brooks said he felt the 35-foot setback and the evergreen landscape buffer were good ideas to create a separation and buffer. He asked how would they be defined and how would there be assurances that the developer would plant them according to specifications in order that the buffer would accomplish what it was intended to do? Terdalkar said the developer would be required to submit a landscape plan showing the type of plants to be planted. Behr said with a rezoning, if a developer did not comply with the terms of a CZA, they would be subject to a municipal infraction and it would be handled the same as any other zoning violation. Brooks asked if it could be stipulated as part of the CZA that the plantings be in place before any buildings were started. Behr said the CZA could govern when the plantings had to be done. Miklo said typically the requirement was to have the buffer/plantings done before a certificate of occupancy was issued. Freerks asked how the required planting of trees had been missed in the previous commercial item they'd voted on. Miklo said it had been part of a vacation of R-O-W, and did not necessarily require a building permit. Koppes asked if the private drive went all the way to the end of the property. Terdalkar said that was correct, it went all the way to the single-family home. Brooks asked if there was an agreement in place for access to the proposed multi-family dwelling with the property owner of the single-family home as access was via the private drive. Terdalkar indicated on an overhead map where Kountry Lane ended and the private drive began. Plahutnik said after looking at the photo of the existing greenery and lane, it didn't look to be a very dense buffer. With only a 35-foot setback requirement, having a multi-family dwelling that close to his home would make him uncomfortable. Public discussion was opened. Steve Gordon developer's representative, said this was part of a 420-acre annexation into the City approximately 3 years ago. There were currently 3 existing apartment buildings on the west side of the property. Because the South Sycamore Regional Storm Water detention project used a large portion of the property this piece had remained attached to the larger RM-12 land to the north. The applicant's intent was to finish the Sycamore Apartment project. After the Regional Storm Water project had been completed, it had brought services to the area which had allowed the development of the current Sycamore Apartments. They were in addition to the three older buildings to which the applicant had made a lot of improvements to. In order to finish out the project the applicant was requesting that the 1.51-acre parcel be rezoned to RM-12. Gordon said they had tried to keep the buildings as far west as possible, Building H sat in line with the other buildings, Building I was at least 35-feet away from the property line. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 3 They anticipated doing extensive landscaping to be specified in the CZA Gordon said he thought they could also sink the building into the ground so it would not have a 3-story look from the front - the lower units would not have a patio but would have a garden-type window to minimize the building's bulk as seen from the private drive. He had met earlier in the week with Mr. Van Dusseldorp who'd made a couple of suggestions which Gordon wished to present: 1) Connect their sidewalk system with the City's trail system. That was not part of their original plans, but the applicant would like to connect the sidewalk in front of Building H with the City's trail system if the City would allow it. 2) At the end of the private drive, erect a sign "Private drive, no outlet" to inform vehicles that it was a private drive. Gordon said they felt their plans were in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It had been a successful development which had provided a quality place to live at a reasonable price on the south side of Iowa City. Gordon said he was aware of the request to have this item deferred and was agreeable. Brooks asked if the sidewalk connection was feasible, he thought it was a good idea. Miklo said he didn't anticipate any problems with that, it would have to be worked out with the Parks and Recreation Department. Plahutnik said Gordon had begun the process of meeting with the adjacent home/land owners, a process that the Commission endorsed. Freerks asked Gordon if he would be agreeable to having a condition in the CZA stipulate that Building I would be 2 Y, stories in height so the neighboring property owner would know that it was something that the Commission felt was a serious commitment. Gordon said at this time he would be hesitant to agree in that they had built the other buildings in that area and he didn't perceive a problem. The City Engineering Department had said there was a high water table in that area; the ground naturally sloped from north to south. The only thing that would prevent the proposed submersion of Building I would be if there was water and they could not dig down. If the Commissions wished, he could hopefully have the tests done before the next Commission meeting. If they tested the soils and there was water, then he would not want that as part of the CZA. Greq Van Dusseldoro, 4387 Kountry Lane SE, said he had concerns about more apartments being built in that area due to the wetlands that existed there and some events that occurred at the existing apartments. He said he'd like to see green space or park area considered for that parcel of land due to the density of persons currently residing in the apartment complex. It had been his understanding when the area had previously been rezoned that no more construction would occur, the number of apartments constructed and density was appropriate for that area. Van Dusseldorp said he felt that the Commission should take into consideration the density of persons living there and their need to have space to recreate. There was also a tremendous number of pets who resided there and persons currently used the open area to run their dogs off leash. He'd not complained when the dogs had run on his property, he'd tried to adjust to it. That was another concern of his. Van Dusseldorp said he'd also exchanged e-mails with realtors who'd informed him that with more apartments and higher densities in his area, it would cause his property values to decrease. He was also concerned for his peace and quiet. Van Dusseldorp said he was concerned about Building I being over 2 Y, stories high. He felt that these types of items could have been talked out earlier. He was disappointed that he had not been informed earlier, he'd not received any notification from the City until Saturday, Gordon had visited with him even prior to the City. He appreciated that Gordon had contacted him, but felt it would have been more appropriate and a better Good Neighbor intent if they'd contacted him last fall. Van Dusseldorp felt that the intent had been to shove this through and not give him time to understand the situation. He'd had to hire an attorney to get information and to scramble to try to understand what was going to happen. If he'd been given more notice he possibly could have had a better understanding of the situation and not had to hire an attorney. Van Dusseldorp said he was concerned as to how the surrounding area was going to be developed. He'd resided there since 1996 and had watched the area develop. His daughter had commented that the little Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 4 green stream had turned into a big brown ditch. It was not the area that he'd bought 10 years ago. With the proposed apartments coming closer to his property, he felt it was intrusive on his privacy. He was concerned about the ID-RM areas, what they would become and if they were to be low density or multi- family housing. He was very concerned as to what was going to happen to the wet lands. A tremendous amount of trash from the apartment complex blew into the ditch and no one picked it up. He'd picked the trash up for 6-months, he didn't think there was enough maintenance for the trash and receptacle area. It was concerning to him to constantly have the trash blow onto his land and to have to pick it up. Trash from when the apartments had been constructed several years ago was still there. The density of persons living there and the irresponsibility of those persons were part of the problem. Van Dusseldorp said he was willing to work with the developer, he realized that he probably was not going to get much done but wished to voice his opinion with the Commission. He was particularly concerned with the placement of Building I, he felt if the development had been built all at once it could have been a better complex. He was also unhappy with the amount of concrete that had been and would be installed for parking. A lot of persons used the trail, he'd had people compliment him for picking up the trash along the trail. Hauling out other people's trash was not pleasant. Plahutnik asked Van Dusseldorp if he anticipated talking with Gordon again during the requested 45-day extension to work things out. Van Dusseldorp said he was unfamiliar with the process, he didn't know if he should be talking to the developer or with the Commission. Freerks suggested including Staff in the discussion(s) as well. Plahutnik said the Commission didn't want to be in the position of telling the developer that they couldn't build on their land. A rezoning had been requested and there would be concessions with the rezoning as well. Staff would be a good resource as well as working with the developer. The Commission would like to see him be happy as well, but might not be able to satisfy all of his requests. Miklo said if this item were to be deferred, Staff could be directed to further explore certain concerns. With respect to the trash, the City Inspection Department could perform an inspection of the site and duplexes to see if they were being properly contained. Van Dusseldorp said he didn't think it was the containers as much as the people, how they placed their trash in the containers and how it was removed, on a windy day for instance. A lot of the problem was people being irresponsible and simply throwing their trash out the window. That could be seen between where you turned off Sycamore Street, traveled down Kountry Lane and turned into the apartments. Miklo said the Inspection Department had a lot of experience with different types of enclosure designs, particularly with designs that if the trash did get out of the container(s) it would be contained in a chain link, decorative fence or masonry enclosure. They'd look at it to see if a solution could be achieved. Freerks requested to have the Inspection Department look at the situation and initiate a solution if possible. Smith encouraged Van Dusseldorp to talk with Gordon and work out details with him. Van Dusseldorp said the wet lands were a very nice area. It was surprising how much water filled up in the ditch, the ducks and waterfowl had to contend with the trash. More apartments meant more noise too. Freerks asked about parking and number of parking spaces as the amount of concrete had been mentioned as well. Brooks said that had been a concern of his as well. The applicant was meeting the requirements. Terdalkar said 130 units, 234 parking spaces. Plahutnik said he regretted that the first thing Van Dusseldorp had done was to contact an attorney, which had cost him money. All the numbers of the Commission were published and they were all available to talk to. Miklo said the Commission By-laws regarding ex-parte discussions indicated that the appropriate process was for members of the public to attend the Commission's public meetings and not to talk to the Commissioners outside the meetings. In that way everyone has benefit of the same information, and the Commission could not be accused of working out deals in private. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 5 Koppes asked if there were additional requirements for open space in that area. Miklo said since it was not a subdivision, there was not a specific requirement. The neighborhood open space ordinance became effective when there was a subdivision or planned development. Van Dusseldorp said the kids who resided there now played in the corn field to the north, there was no other area for them to play in. The area proposed to be rezoned was extremely rough, it had been poorly graded, never re-seeded and had gone to weeds. After he had complained, it had been mowed but not maintained. Terdalkar said the green space fee noted in Staff Report was a name for Storm Water Management fee. Miklo said because of the high water table and not the best drainage in this part of the city, the City had taken on a public project and built the Sycamore Regional Greenway. The intent was to have it collect storm water from developing areas rather than having individual basins in each development. That fee would go toward the City's expense of having developed the Greenway. In addition to providing for draining it provided some open space and some wetland restoration. Koppes said as the development grew, there would be no parks required. Miklo said if there was a subdivision involved, then the Neighborhood Open Space ordinance would take effect and dedication or fees would be required. In the RS-8 area of Saddlebrook, when it was subdivided, it was anticipated then the ordinance would kick-in. Freerks asked Staff and the Developer to look at moving Building I, perhaps to the south to open up green space to the east and to the north. She realized there might be issues with topography or the water table, but to provide a little more space would be done easier now. Miklo said Staff would look at that. Van Dusseldorp said he definitely had a concern that Building I not be over 2 Y, stories high; he didn't want it to over power his home or the view when driving down the lane be apartments only. Public discussion was closed. Brooks said because the adjoining property owner had expressed concerns and requested a deferral to work through details and the developer was willing to do so, the Commission should defer. In the interim, Brooks requested that the developer, City Staff and the adjacent property owner explore some ideas to make the proposal more acceptable to all parties and come to consensus on a few things. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ06-00003, a rezoning of approximately 1.51-acres from Interim Development Multi-family Residential (IDRM) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) located on Kountry Lane SE. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux, Shannon absent). CONSIDERATION OF 2/2/06 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, (Anciaux, Shannon absent). OTHER ITEMS: Miklo distributed copies of a letter that had received addressed to the Commission. The letter was from a homeowner who had recently made some renovations and had complaints regarding the building code. Miklo had also forwarded the letter to the Building Official. The concerns were not specific to the zoning of her particular property. Freerks and Brooks requested Staff to draft a letter acknowledging receipt of her letter and that it had been forwarded to the appropriate department. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0, (Anciaux, Shannon absent). Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s/pcdlminules/p&z12006102-16-06.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2006 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/5 1/19 2/2 2/16 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X OlE B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 OlE X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 X OlE X X D.Shannon 05/08 X X X OlE T. Smith 05/06 X X OlE X INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 2113 D. Anciaux 05/06 X B. Brooks 05/10 X A. Freerks 05/08 X E.Koppes 05/07 X W Plahutnik 05/10 X D.Shannon 05/08 OlE T.Smith 05/06 X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting IJ:r MINUTES City ofIowa City Civil Service Commission March 22, 2006 - 8:15AM Lobby Conference Room - City Hall Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 8: 17 AM. Members Present: William Cook, Dorothy Maher Members Absent: Lyra Dickerson Staff Present: Sylvia Mejia, Karen Jennings, Police Chief Sam Hargadine, Others Present: None Recommendations to Council (become effective only after separate Council action): None Approval of Minutes/Consent Calendar: The first item of business was certification of the hiring list for the position of Police Officer. Maher noted that the list had been circulated and reviewed by the Commissioners. Cook moved to approve the proposed certified list, Maher seconded and all were in favor. There was no old or new business. Cook moved to adjourn, Maher seconded and meeting was adjourned at 8: 19AM. --.- ....- -- - - ------ Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission --- - ----------- ATTENDANCE RECORD -- ---- -- -- YEAR 2006 -- _ _ __---==r- ----,- -~ I T -(Meeting --...-- -----.-..-- Date) NAME TERM 02/09/06 3/22/2006 EXPIRES Lyra Dickerson 4/3/06 X OlE Dorothy Maher 4/7/08 X X Bill Cook 4/6/09 X X I ~ -------- , ----------.-- , , i --------.---- ----- KEY:i X = Present ---- i -----+- 0 = Absent --- --- -------- OlE = Absent/Excused -- ~--I- -~-_._-- NM No --- - Meeting __ - --- ----.- --- = Not a Member ---=---==- -- - ---------" ----- - --- -- ---.--- March 22, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination - POLICE OFFICER I ~ I ~~~~'t~ ....-;:.,... "l1li1'- .....:. CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Officer. Chad Wallace Robert Cash Ben Slife Ryan Wood Elizabeth Miller Dustin Buffington Caleb Osmundson Kevin Wolfe Darren Jenson Jonathan Kaplan Mark Nissen Sarah Lacina Bill Coakley Justin Rodney IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Ah..~ f\* Lyra W. Dickerson, Chair WdL. rl/\ G~ William M. Cook ~~1 t '{n ~YLcJrt.t..( Dorothy Maher ATTEST: -, . ~ ~~ ~, City Clerk c;: MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY g, 2006 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 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: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Eldeen, Brenna Eldeen, Shelley McCafferty CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness: 1201 Sevmour Avenue. Terdalkar said that this is the second application for a project at this address He added that this property is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District Terdalkar said this application is for a two-story addition at the back of the property, with the approximate footprint size of 26 feet by 24 feet McCafferty said the owners and the builder's representative were present at the meeting. She said this is an application for an addition, as well as some modification to windows on the west side of the existing house. McCafferty said that the back of the house has been changed from the original; the dormer was added and patio doors were added, so that there are not really any significant features on the back of the house at this time. She said the owners want to expand toward the south with an addition to give additional bedrooms, a larger kitchen, and a sun porch. McCafferty said that because of interior remodeling and reconfiguration of the rooms, the owners would want to change the windows on the west side of the original house. She said that the bathroom window would be moved further to the south, and the owners would like to install taller casements on the master bedroom for privacy reasons and for flexibility with the spacing of their furniture. McCafferty pointed out that also on that side are currently two double-hungs at the attic level that do not meet egress requirements. She said the owners would like to replace them with casement windows designed to look like double-hungs. She said double-hung windows meeting egress on the upper story would be so large that they would be out of scale with the house. McCafferty said that on the back side of the house, there is a little room at the end of the gable where the owners would like to install a circular window in the end of the gable. She said that it is not really typical for a Tudor revival house, but the neighboring house has a round window in Page 2 the gable end, so that there is a precedent for the round window. McCafferty said there is also a round window in the arched door. Weitzel said that there is a round window in the house at 415 Clark Street, the house on Seymour Avenue, and in some houses in Manville Heights. McCafferty said that the materials would comply with the guidelines. She said that either fiber cement board or cedar shingles would be used for the siding. McCafferty said there would be wood window and door trim to match the existing, and the metal clad double hung windows with muntin bars on the exterior. She said that the foundation is concrete, so there will be no issue with matching brick or stone. Maharry asked about the reasoning for the size of the windows on the south elevation compared to the windows on the rest of the house. McCafferty said the owners wanted more light into that area, so she added a transom, while continuing the line of the window head around, but adding the transom on top to keep the horizontal consistency. She added that transoms are not uncommon in this style of house. McCafferty said that on the east side, there will be high casements for the dining area, which is common in this style of house. Maharry asked if the Commission had reviewed a lot of certificates for owner-occupied structures in which the application proposed to change out windows for egress. McCafferty said that egress is only required on an owner-occupied house for a remodel, in which case the owner would have to bring the house up to Code, while rental properties have to meet the rental code so that windows have to be changed out as rental permits expire. McCafferty said that the egress requirements just apply to bedrooms, and there is only one bedroom on the first floor. Maharry asked if it is required for this house to change out the windows on the second floor. McCafferty responded that the windows would have to be changed out to meet egress. She said that they were probably installed in the 1980s. McCafferty said the upstairs is basically one big open space right now. She said that putting a bedroom on the one end of the second story would require egress. Maharry asked if the windows on the front roughly match the dimensions on the back. McCafferty confirmed this, saying they are all very similar. McCafferty stated that the pitch of the roof on the addition would match that of the main part of the house. She said that the dormers themselves are pushed back from the end wa[1 to express the gable a little more strongly. McCafferty said that there are no corner boards, so the same treatment will be used on the addition. Weitzel said that it is important to have the motions reflect the wording of the certificates of appropriateness as a matter of due process. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1201 Seymour, as per the discussion to follow. Gunn seconded the motion. Maharry asked if a handrail was required down from the stairs to the patio. McCafferty said the stairs and the landing are less than 30 inches. Carlson said his question as always with these enormous additions is whether the Commission has any say over the size of the addition. He stated that something that basically doubles the footprint of the house does not strike him as something that would meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Weitzel stated that the Secretary of the Interior Standards say that an Page 3 addition has to be within scaie, match the mass, and be subservient to the original part of the building. He said that is pretty vague, and precedent-wise, there has been little that the Commission has ever done to stop an addition that didn't go all the way to the back lot line. Carlson said that when the guidelines were developed, there was some discussion with the City Attorney about whether or not the Commission could limit the size of the addition. Gunn said the Commission tried to write language allowing a limitation on the number of square feet that could be added relative to the size of the original property to control the scale of the addition. He said the Legal Department said the Commission could not enact such a limitation, as it is too strong a violation of property rights. Gunn said the Commission could control the streetscape and the appearance from the street. He said that since the Commission could not compel a square footage limitation, it ended up doing the best it could architecturally. McCallum said that underlying zoning does limit the size of a house to a percentage of the lot size. Gunn said the Commission ended up with limitations having to do with the square footage of the front fagade. He said they were an alternative to nO control on the size of the addition. Weitzel stated that the general prevalence of opinion in town is that people want to be able to add On to their houses and don't want to be told what size the addition should be. He said that one of the final statements of the due process pamphlet is that the Commission's decision has to be a supportable decision by the community in which it exists. Enloe said that even if the Commission cannot have a specific square foot limitation, it stili can address the issue of scale McCafferty read from the Guidelines for Additions under Design, "...cannot diminish the character of the historic structure... preserve significant historic materials and features, decorative windows, brackets, trim, porches...deslgn the addition so that it does not diminish the character of the historic structure...dlstinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition.. matching key horizontal lines... materials similar... placing the addition at the rear of the property...setting back from the sidewalls at least 18 inches..." She said that the addition in this case would be set back 24 inches, and she thought the addition met all of the criteria. Enloe agreed with Carlson that he is a little concerned with the 32-foot length of the addition behind a house that is 28 feet long, and it at least raises the issue of scale. Enloe agreed that it met the other criteria. He said it is the screened porch that makes the addition so long. McCafferty stated that the screened porch is used to align the roof with the character of the front. Weitzel said that it does actually break up the fagade there and makes It look smaller. Maharry agreed that if it is broken up, it still appears large, but the shingles don't continue all the way to the back of the built structure. He asked if there are any dimensions that could be cut back. McCafferty said that cutting back the dimensions would de-emphasize the gable, because the dormers would not be set back as far from the front of the house. She said that the scale of that wall will then appear to be larger. Enloe said the transparency of the screened porch does lessen some of his worries about the overall length of the addition. Gunn said the scale looks the most bothersome in plan. Ponto said he feels that to someone going down the street or sidewalk, this will not significantly change the feel of the neighborhood. Page 4 McCafferty stated that the on the west side of the lot is a long garage and retaining wall so that one has no view from the sidewalk to the west. She said that the house to the east has also had an addition to the back so that it has also been elongated. McCafferty said that one would sense very little of this addition from the neighborhood. Enloe said that because it is set back and is semi-transparent at the back, he would not raise an objection to the size of the addition He said, however, that the other thing that concerns him is the removal of the casement windows in the master bedroom, which would be part of the streetscape and the removal of which would change the aspect of the historic part of the house. McCafferty said the windows were being changed for functional design to add flexibility to the room. She said there is also a privacy issue that the higher windows resolve. McCafferty said that if there is enough concern, she could work on an alternative to that. Weitzel agreed that that the replacement windows would be altering a historic part of the house. He said the Commission would need to evaluate the impact of that on the house and the neighborhood. Weitzel said that it is difficult to see the back two windows from anywhere except for perhaps one angle as one walks down the sidewalk. Enloe said that for potentially allowing a pretty massive addition to the house, he feels it is important to maintain the historic character of the front part of the house. Ponto said he had no problem with putting in a window for the new bathroom where the owners propose to move the small window. Enloe said he would not have a problem with moving the bathroom window either. McCafferty showed a sketch of the owners' alternative proposal, which would rearrange the windows that are there and put two windows in the bed room leaving enough space to arrange the interiors. Enloe said he thought that would be more appropriate. McCafferty said the windows would have the same feel as what is there now but would just have a different arrangement, with one on either side of the bed The owners said that would be acceptable to them. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 1201 Seymour Avenue with a revised drawing for the arrangement of windows on the west elevation of the master bedroom. Gunn seconded the amendment. Carlson said he is still troubled by the size. He said that Section 5.1 of the Guidelines refers to not diminishing the character of the structure. Carlson said that part of the character of this house and other houses like it is that it is small. He said that doubling the size is not in keeping with the historic character. Carlson said he is not opposed to an addition to this house but is opposed to an addition of this size to this house. The motion carried on a vote of 8-1, with Carlson votinq no. Minutes for Januarv 19, 2005. Carlson said that on page six of the minutes in the last paragraph, the words "demolition of the" should be added after the words "...size and the.." He said that on page seven, in the last full paragraph, the word "oriole" should be changed to "oriel." Page 5 Weitzel said that on page three, in the fifth paragraph, last sentence, the word "some" should be inserted between the words "that" and "things." Maharry said that on page two, in the ninth paragraph, the sentence should be completed with "... felt it was important to include this fact for her consideration when Svendsen redoes the Preservation Plan." MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the January 19, 2006 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. OTHER: Discussion of Annual Historic Preservation Awards. Maharry said the nominations are currently open, but there is a March 15th deadline. He said that nominations should be submitted to Helen Burford. Weitzel added that Burford asked the Commission to go through its minutes from last year and see what it liked of those items that had been approved. Terdalkar said that he had images of all but one or two properties. He added that the announcement for the awards has been posted on the website. Maharry said that one important qualification for an award is that the work needs to be completed. Terdalkar said he should be able to check that through the permit process. Maharry said he did not think there would be as many painting nominations because of the condensed time period for these nominations - from August through spring. He asked Terdalkar if he could put the nominated properties roughly into the categories. Terdalkar said he could put them into the categories of additions, alterations, and new construction. Terdalkar asked if there were any proposals/suggestions for the Margaret Nowysz award. Maharry suggested that McCafferty be considered as a recipient. Maharry asked, since the awards presentation might be fairly short this year, if anyone had suggestions for other items for the program. He said that possibilities include having someone speak to commemorate the 150'h anniversary of Old Brick and/or someone to speak to commemorate the reopening of the Old Capitol. Maharry suggested having a list for consideration at the next meeting. He said that in the past there have been about 20 total awards, but a lot of those have been for painting. Terdalkar suggested that the Commission Subcommittee and Friends of Historic Preservation review the list of possibilities. Weitzel said that he, Maharry, and McCallum were previously on the subcommittee. Terdalkar reminded that the terms of four Commission members would be expiring soon: one at-large position and three district positions. The Commission discussed two houses, both on Clinton Street. Maharry said that the brick Italianate at 335 South Clinton is for sale, and if someone wanted to buy it, the new owner could demolish it. He suggested that there could be some historic aspect to the building or to someone who lived or worked in the building. Page 6 Weitzel said that the owner of the brick building at 530 South Clinton wants to raze it and construct a new building on that lot. Weitzel said that the owner of 530 South Clinton is willing to let it be moved. The Commission looked for empty lots in the vicinity to which the house could be moved and discussed the expense of moving such a house. McCallum said that it may be difficult to move a brick building. Weitzel stated that it would be worth looking into ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2006 Term Name Expires 1/19 2/9 M. Brennan 3/29/08 X X R. Carlson 3/29/07 X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X M. Gunn 3/29/07 X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 X X J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 0 0 T. Weitzel 3/29/08 X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = AbsenUExcused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2006 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM c:r- 4b 6 APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Justin Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, James Enloe, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Resolution of issues related to coverinq of built-in qutters: Weitzel said that the Commission was meeting to review some changes in wording in Section 4.11 for gutters and downspouts. He said the Commission is discussing the fact that there are several options under Section 4.11; the only thing that is disallowed is altering the roof pitch. Weitzel said he recalled that the Commission believed that a small pitch, just enough to allow water to run off, would be sufficient to deal with water issues but also so minimal that it would not really change the noticeable appearance of the house and would comply with the guidelines. Carlson said that right now his memo did not propose any particular roof pitch. He said he was looking for a consensus from the Commission that this would be an acceptable change. Carlson said that right now the way the guideline is phrased and was interpreted when reViewing the application for 517 Grant Street was that no change in pitch was allowed. He said that discussions with Shelley McCafferty and Weitzel's discussions with Bob Miklo suggest that in fact the Commission's original intent for horizontal gutters was to allow some small pitch for drainage. He said that in order to make that recommendation to the City Council, he wanted to get the consensus of the Commission that it would indeed consider doing this and that it would be a reasonable change to the guidelines to allow for a small pitch for drainage when covering built-in gutters. Gunn said that one of the solutions the Commission discussed in the past was that the gutters didn't have to be dished with drains coming out of the bottom but that they could be covered with a slight pitch and put the gutter around it. He said that was discussed when the guidelines were written and several times since. Gunn said that no one ever talked about a porch roof being dead flat. He said there is always pitch, even on an internal gutter; what is called a flat roof has a pitch. Gunn said the Commission talked about the gutters themselves being quite a compromise, allowing an external gutter on what was originally an internal gutter. Carlson stated that there are three sections in his memo that are highlighted that need Commission approval. He said that what is being proposed to resolve the issue in the 517 Grant Street case is to retroactively grant a Certificate of Appropriateness using the Commission's power to grant a special exception. Carlson said that approval would be based on the information that was presented to City Council and to the Commission informally and the fact that given the way the Commission was interpreting the guidelines for flat roofs earlier, there was no reasonable cost alternative for the owner at that time. He said that given that state of affairs, the Commission would now clarify the wording of the guidelines but retroactively approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the work that has been done, given the confusion around the issue at the time. Gunn asked what the state of the house is right now. Carlson said it is basically the same as it was when the Cornmission denied the application back in September. He said it is a pitched roof of probably more than the Commission would want to see, although at that time, some Commission members were willing to let the project go as it was. Carlson said that at the time of the application, one side of the house was done, and since then, the other side has been completed. Weitzel said the Building Department's letter to the owner makes it clear that she is in violation but will not be fined until a solution can be worked out. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Page 2 Carlson said this issue should be brought up during the Preservation Plan review this summer. Weitzel said he has not heard from Marlys Svendsen whether that is within the scope of the Plan review. He said that in the grant proposal, the Commission actually specified getting a CLG for another grant to investigate work flow issues and things of this nature. Terdalkar said the consultants will be reviewing the guidelines for problems, as that was part of the RFP. He added that when a Commission representative meets with the City Council formally or in a work session, these kinds of issues can be discussed. McCallum said that he is concerned that the Building Code and the Historic Preservation Code need to be consistent. He said that the Building Code section regarding windows is very clear about what needs to be done in the districts, but the same pattern does not hold true for roofing. McCallum said he would like to see clarity throughout the Building Code and believes that the contractor may not have known that a building permit was required in this case. Gunn said the discussion was never to have a pitch suitable for shingles; it was to have a pitch suitable for some sort of flashing or EPDM or asphalt or something like that. Pardekooper said that the application of EPDM is expensive, because a roofing contractor has to have his employees certified in order to do the work or the warranty is void. He said that Acrymax is a good alternative to EPDM. Pardekooper said that one thing to be addressed with these gutter systems is that he has seen some that have been done perfectly. He said that he looked at the Grant Street house and felt that in specific areas where there was leaking, there was maintenance done that built up around the seams of the tin that trapped water, which coincided with where all the major water damage was inside the house. Pardekooper said that keeping water damage from these old houses should be viewed as important as keeping these houses going in their historical aspects. He said that water will ruin a house more quickly than anything else, especially these historic houses because of all the wood elements. Pardekooper said that a gambrel roof for which the roof slope cannot be changed is then capped, leaving a completely flat roof where water won't go anywhere. He said that some emphasis on just the internal gutters should be thought about. Pardekooper said that longevity-wise, there has to be a happy medium to preserve these houses and not just the architectural styles of them. He said that internal gutters tend to be a problem. Weitzel said that these lasted 80 years without any problem, which is a lot longer than any roof one can get today. Pardekooper agreed but said that years ago there were a lot more homeowners who were willing to work on their homes too, cleaning the gutters and maintaining them. He said the internal gutters look great, but keeping water away from these homes is a huge concern for a lot of people. Pardekooper said that allowing for a little bit of pitch to cover the gutters up and put external gutters on them, in this kind of scenario, is just practical and reasonable. Weitzel suggested using flashing back up the roof. Pardekooper asked if the idea then is to cap it flat and then put a gutter system on it. Weitzel confirmed this and said that is what the Commission is allowing. Pardekooper asked if this would still allow a flat roof but with a standard gutter on the outside. Weitzel agreed and said that the Commission acknowledges that the gutter has to do something to keep water from getting to the foundation. Pardekooper stated that there are a lot of old foursquares with flat front porch roofs. He said that for those, it would be much easier to maintain a reasonable, nice-looking pitch. Weitzel said that most of them are actually hipped inside. Pardekooper said it is a tricky situation. He asked how many houses have a gambrel with internal gutters on it. Weitzel agreed that it is unusual but said that is why it is a unique situation that the Commission needs to preserve. The Commission discussed the use of EPDM. Weitzel said that at some level, he doesn't think the Commission members can be the ones who determine who does the work. He said there are several options still available, including EPDM, flashing, and Acrymax. Pardekooper said he thinks it will be a hard sell to convince people to not want to cap these. He said he believes the contractor for 517 Grant Street probably didn't think he needed a building permit and so did the most cost effective thing. Weitzel said that what the Commission needs to determine is whether or not that alters the appearance of the house. Pardekooper said that it does alter the appearance. Maharry said that the City Council was prepared at the time of the homeowner's appeal to change the guidelines right then and there. Weitzel said that he was concerned that the Commission would be setting Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Page 3 a precedent by changing this now. He said he is afraid this will turn into a driveway right through the guidelines. Mahany said the Commission then needs to use appropriate wording to show that the decision was made for an appropriate reason, rather than the homeowner appealing a decision with which she was unhappy. Maharry said if the Commission is going to allow minimal roof slope modifications, he thought that could be justification for going back and looking at the 517 Grant Street application. Weitzel stated that he would rather not approve that project, from a pervasive, overall perspective. He said that from the beginning, his concern was because of the potential to set a general precedent. Ponto asked what the minimum would be. Maharry said that is what a majority gets to decide. He said that would at least open it up, because right now, there is nothing allowed. Pardekooper said that visually, three would be the maximum. Terdalkar said that anything below 10% pitch is considered a flat roof, and the Commission could put a cap at that level. He said that would be the minimal slope needed to drain out the water. Pardekooper said that it would drain water at that pitch. Maharry asked if the Building Code currently defines a flat roof as one with a less than 10% pitch. Terdalkar said that conventionally the construction definition of a flat roof includes those with a slope of up to 10%, but he did not know if there was a definition in the Building Code. Maharry said that if the Commission defines a flat roof as having a slope of up to 10%, that allows approvability for something that is not completely horizontal. Weitzel said he talked to the contractor for 517 Grant Street and said that the contractor grew up in the neighborhood and is used to a cheap, quick repair. Weitzel said that is fine for most houses, but the historic district requires a higher standard. He said that people had the chance to oppose the historic district at the time the discussions for designation went on. Weitzel said that this instance is something most architectural historians and architects would agree is a change in appearance. Terdalkar said the guidelines could specify a ten degree slope. Gunn said that would make it something less than one in nine. Pardekooper said that even one in twelve will shed water fine. He said that one in twelve will also work with the wording with the horizontal blocking. Pardekooper said the blocking would need to be done in such a way that as the blocking is growing and being tied back in with steeper of the internal gutter, one could still maintain just enough fall to get the water to drain. He said that covering that is another discussion, but the horizontal blocking could still be put into place. Pardekooper said one would then allow for an external gutter with a normal downspout, and water should shed. He said that there would still need to be backflashing up the plane of the roof, but It should work with no problem. Pardekooper said that a roofer in the City, R. C. Wemberly, told him about a peel and stick product made by Certain Teed that works well on short sections. He said that it is designed for flatter roofs, and the color can be matched. Carlson asked what surface materials would work for a one in twelve grade. Pardekooper said that EPDM would work. He said that rubber would drain water but would break down over a period of time. Pardekooper said that one could ice and water shield and probably do a three-inch reveal and shingles. Weitzel said the Commission might want to consider going back to the design/technical manual and having the list of products there instead of in the guidelines. Pardekooper questioned whether there was a better way to let building contractors know about these kinds of issues. Weitzel said Weitzel said the proposed CLG grant request that the Commission is talking about doing in the future, that was specified in the HRDP, was designed to look at those kind of staffing/work flow issues. Maharry said the first highlighted area of the memo looks fine to him. Carlson said he assumed that there would need to be more research done on slopes and materials, although he wanted to get a consensus for the purposes of the memo that some slope is permissible. Regarding this application, Weitzel said he did not see why the Commission would have to allow it. He said the work is done now, and the Commission's action could be to take no further action, but the Commission doesn't have to approve it. Weitzel pointed out that the Commission did not approve the demolition of the structure on Governor Street but didn't make the owner build it back up either. Maharry Historic PreseNation Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Page 4 said the Commission could change the guidelines but does not need to change its opinion about that application. Carlson asked about the wording regarding the resolution of 517 Grant Street. Weitzel suggested including the wording that the Historic PreseNation Commission considers the matter closed. Maharry said that if HIS chooses not to enforce this, the Commission is not the police. He said there are no repercussions for doing this. Gunn said that right now the City is looking to the Historic PreseNation Commission to end this issue under its authority. He said he thinks it is counterproductive to just ignore the issue. Gunn said the Building Department and the City Council are trying to get the Commission's approval, so if the Commission says that it is okay to just do whatever, it opens the door for that kind of action in the future. Weitzel said the guidelines call this disallowed. He said if the Commission allows it at this point, he is concerned that anyone who disapproves of the guidelines will go ahead and do what he wants, because he doesn't have to follow the guidelines. Gunn said that is possible but said that it won't happen on a gutter again. He said if the Commission invites people to ignore its rulings, he thinks it is a mistake. Maharry said he thinks what this does is encourage people to appeal decisions when the Commission denies their applications. He said it gives them more impetus to go to the City Council and complain, whether they're right or not. Maharry said then the City Council comes back on the Commission, which is a bad precedent. Gunn said that the Commission wins most of those. Maharry said the Commission could bend over completely backward and retroactively approve the Grant Street application. He said, however, that based on the new wording, it probably still would not pass. Carlson agreed that the application probably still would not pass. He said his idea was that because there was some confusion at the time, the Commission would approve the project. Weitzel said he still did not think the Commission needs to do too much with this, because there are several other things that HIS has chosen not to enforce in the last two years that the Commission doesn't have any say over. Carlson said the Commission could say that it voted, and since there is no application under consideration, the Commission has no further obligation. Weitzel said that is legally correct; the Commission does not really have the legal option to go back and open up cases and change the vote. Gunn said he thought the Commission could reconsider any question it wants to consider. Weitzel said the Commission goes through sort of a minor court process, and once the Commission has held its hearing and made its decision, it is recorded and put into effect. He said that if the Commission can't go back and change something that it did like, it should also be that the Commission can't go back and change something it didn't like. Weitzel said that is just due process. Maharry said the Commission could limit its scope. He said the Commission is doing what the City Council asked it to do in reviewing the historic preseNation guidelines that disallow this and is, in fact, going to change it. Ponto said that if the Commission were going to approve this application under Section 3.6, there should be an application to ask for that. Weitzel and Maharry agreed. Ponto said that otherwise it would be an arbitrary and capricious decision. Carlson said he fully agrees and said there has been some suggestion on the part of staff that the Commission should not trouble the owner for another application. Terdalkar said that he also believes this would need some kind of application to consider it. Weitzel left the meeting at 7:51, and Carlson took over as Chair of the meeting. Gunn said that there was a time when the Commission was afraid to ban aluminum or vinyl siding on historic homes and also had no way to prevent demolition. He said the Commission tiptoed around these issues and debated for a year before it addressed these situations with guidelines. Gunn said the Commission has lost all of that concern about the politics and property rights of it. He said he thought the Commission should tread a little more softly. Gunn said the Commission now has guidelines, and although it sometimes hits rough patches, the best thing to do may be to draft a carefully written memo and send it off and then go on. He said the last thing the Commission wants to do is offend a lot of people Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Page 5 in the City and in potential future districts with historic preservation. Gunn said that perhaps the Commission should be a little bit more humble. Maharry said that there was not much leeway with this application. He said the Commission is proposing to change something that other cities might not consider changing. Pardekooper said one of the things to address with this particular issue is that if there is no regulation of roofing, then if the Building Department doesn't see the address and it doesn't come up that the property is in a preservation district, the Commission can change this but the situation will occur again. He stated that if roofing is not regulated, there is no way for the Building Department to know this is even happening. Maharry said that there is an annual letter sent to notify property owners in historic and conservation districts. He asked Terdalkar if roofing is included in the wording. Terdalkar said he thought the wording included something about external gutters but not anything about built-in gutters. Pardekooper said that changing the wording is necessary, but there should also be a way to let people know about the guidelines regarding internal gutters. Maharry said that in the memo, the Commission should probably include some of the discussion regarding the runoff. He said there needs to be evidence presented about why the Commission is changing the wording. Carlson said that from past discussion, he believed that this was part of the original idea when the guidelines were put together, although it was not clear in the guidelines. He said that this is not a change in the guidelines so much as a clarification. Gunn said that coil stock is another option for working with internal gutters. Pardekooper said that they can be lined with new coil stock, which is thicker than tin. He said that the bigger issue is regulating this. Pardekooper said that as one drives through these neighborhoods, vinyl siding or windows are easy to see, but an internal gutter system is not something that can be seen casually. Maharry said that the Commission revisited this issue and is making clarifications. He suggested that the Commission then call for more regulation of roofing in general. Terdalkar pointed out that a permit is not required for the re-roofing of a single-family house if there is no structural change or if less than 50% the sheathing is being replaced. He said that if the work requires structural review, then a permit is required. Terdalkar said that all multi-family buildings are reviewed for re-shingling, because there are different standards for what is applied. Gunn said he doesn't really like what was done on Grant Street or agree with it, but he believes the flak created is detrimental to historic preservation in the long run, and the best thing to do is to just turn one's head and go on. He said it is a concession to someone, but he would rather retroactively approve the project than to say just ignore the Commission. Gunn said he would rather have a letter from staff saying it should be reviewed, if that's what it takes to get it back on the table, review it, and approve it. He said the Commission could win this one, but it may give up hundreds of properties in the future. Ponto said that because of all the confusion, he would be willing to consider the project and possibly approve it under Section 3.6. He said, however, that he would like to see it come before the Commission as some type of application. Maharry said that if the applicant reapplies, he thought the Commission could approve under Section 3.6, but until the change in 4.11 is approved, the Commission can't change its vote based on something that hasn't been officially approved yet. Gunn pointed out that this is not a change but is a guideline clarification. He said it should have been made clear in the guidelines that a minor slope was a realistic possibility. Gunn said Carlson has written a nicely drafted memo to put this behind the Commission, so that people think of historic preservation as a good thing. Ponto said he liked the first sentence of the third highlighted paragraph, "...the Commission is prepared to exercise its power to make a special exception..." He said that points out that the Commission will review it if it receives another application. Carlson said it has been suggested that it would be easier to take the information already presented, rather than asking the applicant to come back again. Ponto said that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Page 6 applicant does not need to attend another meeting. He said, however, that the Commission needs to see an application that asks for a special exception. Maharry suggested that Terdalkar call the applicant and tell her he would fill out a form for her, letting her know that the Commission would re-vote and that the vote would probably be favorable. Maharry said Terdalkar could inform her that the issues have been resolved, but the Commission needs another application to vote on it. Carlson said he could insert a sentence in the memo asking the applicant to resubmit an application to reopen this issue. He said he could also include some wording stating that the Commission is open to considering some other mechanism by which it could reconsider this legally. Gunn suggested asking the Legal Department about this. Terdalkar said the City Council received a letter from the homeowner which was included in its most recent information packet. He said the Commission is trying to get a response to the City Council as soon as possible. Maharry said the second highlighted paragraph in the memo could be removed, although the rest is fine. Carlson said it was suggested that the conclusion be put right up front, and then the second highlighted paragraph was supposed to give more detail about the first paragraph. Maharry suggested that the wording in the second highlighted paragraph be changed to "... The final conclusion of the Commission is that the present wording of Section 4.11 does not make clear that a minimal slope for drainage is permissible when..." to "...The final conclusion of the Commission is that the present wording of Section 4.11 does not make clear that a minimal slope for drainage has been permissible when..." He said that would clarify that some slope has always been permissible. Pardekooper read under disallowed, "Roof slope - altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering historic building gutters." He said that the roof slope at 517 Grant Street is 24:12, it's a gambrel. Pardekooper said that with that language, one could go as high as he wants then. He said one could do a three, a four, a five, or a six. Pardekooper said that if the owner has a massive roof slope, he could put about whatever he wanted there. McCallum said that the owner did this with rough sheathing, just plywood. He said the Building Code says that a building permit is not required unless one is replacing more than 50% of the rough sheathing. McCallum said that if the owner wanted to take this to court, he thought she would prevail. He said he wondered if that is why the Building Department is reluctant to enforce this. Terdalkar explained the project and permit requirement. He said that the project has resulted in adding more roof surface by covering the gutters, not re-sheathing or replacing part of the sheathing and that is the reason a building permit is required, under review for structural changes. Terdalkar said depending on the material use, method used to span the covering, issues such as whether rafter supports are required, and whether they are tied into the rafters from the original roof, are decided. These changes warrant a structural review and therefore a building permit. He said that HIS. doesn't even have the owner's application for review to decide if the change is structurally sound. Terdalkar said that since the project was not reviewed for structural safety prior to the construction, only the contractor can tell accurately what materials were used and what method was used to cover the gutters. Terdalkar said the applicant is in violation for construction without permit, which resulted in the notification letter from the City. Gunn said that the implication from the language is that one can cover internal gutters if it is done right. He said that even when the Commission wrote the wording, it had in mind that internal gutters could be covered, but with a gentle pitch and a gutter on the outside. Pardekooper said that when someone asks his roofing contractor to deal with internal gutters, the contractor will do something just like this. Carlson asked if that is because the wording in the Building Code is interpreted to allow less than a 50% change in sheathing without building permit. Terdalkar said re-sheathing or replacing it should not be confused with adding more roof surface, which is what happened by covering gutters in this particular instance. McCallum said that is why the Building Code needs to be clarified. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Page 7 The consensus of the Commission was that Carlson's memo was good. Gunn said that the memo could also suggest a clarification of the language in the Building Code. Maharry suggested adding a sentence regarding the Commission's need for an application to review, regarding 517 Grant Street. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:lpcdlminuteslhpcl2006HPCminulesI02-22-06doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2006 Term Name Expires 1/19 2/9 2/22 ^,1. Brennan 3/29/08 X X OlE R. Carlson 3/29/07 X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X OlE .M. Cunn 3/29/07 X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X J. Pardckooper 3/29/07 X X X J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X J. \Veissmiller 3/29/06 0 0 0 T.Weitzcl 3/29/08 X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = AbsentlExcused NM = No Meeting ---- = Not a Member POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - February 14, 2006 FINAUAPPROVED c:: CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Roth called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Loren Horton MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Engel, Michael Larson STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Lt. Jim Steffen of the ICPD, Colin Burke from the Daily Iowan, and Addiel Gomez from the Daily Iowan TV RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #05-03. CONSENT CALENDAR OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC DISCUSSION BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION Motion by Horton and seconded by Barnhill to adopt the consent calendar. . Minutes of the meeting on 01/10/06 . ICPD General Order 89-02 (Department Disciplinary Philosophy) . ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling) . ICPD Use of Force Report (December 2005) Motion carried, 3/0, Engel and Larson absent. None. None. None. Roth received a phone call from Chief Hargadine regarding the possibility of presenting a report to the Board, which has not been filed as a complaint to the Board, for review. Roth spoke with Legal Counsel Pugh and according to City Code the Board can not review unless the Chief would submit the report as a complaint of possible misconduct against an officer. Roth and the Chief also discussed that the Board also has the option, in highly publicized cases if there is reasonable belief of misconduct, to file a complaint as a Board. Pugh added that the City Manager, the Police Chief, the City Council, or the Board have that option. Anyone else filing a complaint must have personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct. After speaking with Pugh, Roth returned a call to the Chief and presented him with the information. Tuttle informed the Board that there are copies of the Citizens' Summary for the 2007 -2009 Proposed Financial Plan available if they would like one. PCRB February 14, 2006 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION REGULAR SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Barnhill 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 governrnent 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, 3/0, Engel and Larson absent. Open session adjourned at 7:12 P.M. Returned to open session at 8:08 P.M. Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Horton to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #05-03 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Engel and Larson absent. Motion by Horton and seconded by Barnhill Horton to set the level of review for Complaint #05-04 to 8-8-7 (B)(1 )(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Engel and Larson absent. Barnhill questioned whether there was a policy for media and where they could be during a public meeting for audio/video recording and the concern for confidential information being in plain sight during the open session. Pugh stated that the Chair should be able to request that the media record from a certain area. The Board agreed that this should be put on the next agenda for discussion. MEETING SCHEDULE . March 21,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . April 11, 2006, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . May 9,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . June 13,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Barnhill will possibly be gone for the April meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Barnhill. Motion carried, 3/0, Engel and Larson absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meetinl! Date) TERM 1/10 2/14 NAME EXP. Candy 9/1/07 X X Barnhill Elizabeth 9/1 108 X OlE Engel Loren 911108 X X Horton ---~ -...__.- _._~--- """,. Greg Roth 9/1/09 X X Michael 911109 X OlE Larson KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 FROM: Police Citizens Review Board ,..., 0 c> c:,:, -- ';;r> .~ C) -" :D= ("1 en I] D C) 0\ ,-:: r- :-11 iT; -U :tJ -',c. ,-, ,--....., _0'. J '-' h N -s: ~ '" m TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #05-03 DATE: February 14, 2006 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #05-03 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibilitv Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise" (Section 8-8-7B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence", are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law". Sections 8-8-7B (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 27 September 2005. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on 27 December 2005 and was filed with the City Clerk on 21 December 2005. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B (1) (a), on the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on 10 January and 14 February 2006. FindinQs of Fact The Complainant alleges "Improper Conduct" and "Differential Treatment" on the part of an Officer of the Iowa City Police Department. On 22 August 2005, Officer A was off-duty and in his personal vehicle, but was not the driver. He observed a traffic violation by the Complainant, contacted the ICPD by telephone, reported the violation, and requested citations be issued. The driver of the Officer's car continued to follow the car being driven by the Complainant until both vehicles pulled off the street, at a considerable distance from the alleged traffic violation. Officer B arrived and began to question the Complainant. At this time the versions of what happened are in dispute. The Complainant alleges that Officer A got out of his personal vehicle and began to enter into the situation by accusing the Complainant of untruths, using a loud tone of voice, and raising his arm in the direction of the Complainant. Officer A agrees that he did leave his vehicle in order to provide information about the alleged traffic offense. Officers A and B, and the driver of Officer A's personal vehicle maintain that while Officer A did enter into the situation, the gesture with the arm was only for emphasis, not done in a threatening manner; Officers A and B agree the voice was not raised to an unusual pitch. The Complainant further asserts that Officer A behaved in this improper manner because of the race of the Complainant. Officer B wrote two traffic citations for the Complainant, and the validity of these citations are not in dispute by the Complainant. Conclusion The Police Citizens Review Board finds that there is no evidence to support the complaint that Officers A or B behaved in an improper manner because of the Complainant's race, which seems not to have been brought into the situation at all at the time the citations were written. The PCRB finds that the Complainant seems to have no complaint about Officer S, except in allowing Officer A, in an off-duty status, to enter into the situation when Officer B was gathering information preparatory to issuing traffic citations. The main thrust of the complaints is against the behavior of Officer A. The Complainant believes that Officer A should not have inserted himself into the situation. However, the adopted policies of the ICPD Rules and Regulations (Section 345.14) and the ICPD Policies and Procedures Manual (Leg-05-01 IV. C-2) do provide for the off-duty conduct of officers, and it does not appear that the conclusions of the Chief of Police's Report can be considered to be unsupported by substantial 8.5 evidence, nor that the findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, ~ )Qat ~ the findings are contrary to an ICPD policy or practice or any federal, stat~ocar! I ' co aw. ~~~ - m II .~f:._:' ~T.; ,,,,'::d 'J~ =.:/". ~ ~ , " TJ r-l I........J N 1'0 m Complaint #05-03 Allegation # 1: "Improper Conduct" is not sustained. Allegation # 2: "Differential Treatment" is not sustained. Comment The Police Citizens Review Board considered ICPD General Order Number 00-05, "Off-Duty Conduct: Powers of Arrest"; ICPD General Order Number 99-07, "Traffic"; and ICPD General Order 01-01, "Racial Profiling" in coming to its conclusions. 9 ~Q j:?-=) .r") :~~, --- :0 07 ~ );> ~ {.-:::> = cr- --r> fT1 co 0"\ II - 1-- r-n c-~ \,--1 -0 -"-"" N N '" MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006 ~ ~ FINAL Members Present: Jerry Anthony, William Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Kelly Mellecker, Thomas Niblock, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw, Yolanda Spears Members Absent: Lori Bears Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Public Present: Tom Walz, Pat Meyer, Sandy Pickup, Suellen Novotny, Patricia Kelley, Karen Ganiard, Crissy Canganelli, Kafi Dixon, Steve Rackis, Jesse Burns, Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham, Mark Patton, Marla Edwards, Kristie Fortmann-Doser, Mary Chval, Kelli Malone, Ron Berg, Jennifer Adrian, Bill Reagan, Stephen Trefz, Andy Johnson, Carol Spaziani, Jesse Burns, Tracy Falcomata, Bob Porter, Beth Kopper CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:40 PM. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 19, 2006 MINUTES Anthony handed changes to the minutes to staff. Motion: Hayek moved to approve the minutes as amended by Anthony, Greazel seconded the motion, Motion passed 8:0. PUBLIC COMMENTS OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL FOR FY06 HOUSING SITES Hightshoe said that last year HCDC agreed to submit site approvals directly to the City Council until a formal scattered site policy was approved. Hightshoe stated a second reason the Commission decided to forward requests directly to Council was that HCDC meets once a month, however housing projects involving acquisition are often under time constraints. Sending the request directly to Council expedited the approval process. She stated that the Commission will need to decide how to handle FY06 site approval requests. Hayek asked how many such instances will there be left from FY06. Hightshoe said that the Housing Fellowship has 2 owner occupied and two or three rental sites to identify and Habitat for Humanity has 1 site left. Motion: Hayek moved to submit site approvals directly to the City Council, Greazel seconded the motion. Motion passed 8:0, DISCUSSION REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR FY07 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING PUBLIC SERVICE Extend the Dream Foundation No representative present, thus no discussion followed. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County Meyer said that they are requesting support for the Johnson County Newcomer's Network. She noted that the goal of the Johnson County Newcomer's Network is to help low-income residents new to Iowa City settle and to assist them in finding ways to share their strengths and culture with the larger community. She said that the project will continue to be provided even if partial funding will be awarded. She added Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 2 that the funds will help them commit more time for the program. Meyer said that they are continuously looking at other sources of funds. Shaw asked how many people attend the Center's meetings. Meyer said that approximately 25-30 people participate at meetings. Niblock asked in the Center's program is based in one specific part of the town. Meyer said that it functions in various areas. Anthony asked about the work plan or planning study paid with by FY05 CDBG funds. He requested a copy of the study and questioned the date of the plan. Meyer said the study was done in the summer of 2004. She said she will provide copies with the results of the survey for all members of the commission. Free Medical Clinic Pickup said that the budget breakdown included in the application shows that the total amount needed for the basic operation of the case management position is $524,400. Of the total, $450,000 is from medications and laboratory testing for patients with chronic disease. She added that they are very lucky not to have to pay for medications and lab tests since they are provided free by drug companies and the University. She stated that the program will still continue with partial funding. Pickup said that a couple of years ago the clinic received funds from the Iowa Foundation for Medical Care, but they discontinued their grant program. She said that they will apply again as funds become available. Hayek asked if operational expenses will increase after moving to the Towncrest facility. Pickup said that the only increase might come from utilities. She said that currently utilities are included in the rent paid. She stated that the rent will be similar to that currently paid, but is not sure on how much the utilities will be. Shaw asked if the drugs received free by the clinic are by continuous agreements with the drug companies or if they have to reapply every year. Pickup said that they have to reapply for each patient, which is very time consuming. She added that a Case Manager was hired to prepare all required documentation. Anthony asked how the relocation is going. Pickup said that the building is meant for medical offices, thus improvements are minor. They are fund raising for remodeling and renovation and that is going well. Visiting Nurse Association Novotny said that in 2005 they made 3,078 home based visits, 511 people in Iowa City. She said that they have 38-40 mental health patients, out of which 34 are in Iowa City. She said that in 2005 they provided 393 billable mental health home visits to 23 individuals living in Iowa City. He noted that Magellan Behavioral Health reimbursed these visits at a rate that was $24.55 lower than the average cost of service in 2005 which leaded to a $9,648 loss. She said they provided 26 visits for which no reimbursement was received which leaded to a $2,328 agency loss. Novotny said that the service will continue if partial funding was received, but the continuation of the program is an annual concern. She stated that they are seeking grants on a weekly basis and are very successful in getting small grants. In addition, she said they hold 4 fundraising events yearly. She added that another option available would be to see more insured patients rather than providing free or reduced fee services. Compeer Kelley said that it is well documented that one to one friendships increase and enhance regular mental health treatment. She noted that most of their clients are isolated, living alone in poverty. Kelley said that the organization is almost all volunteer based, and has a very fluid budget. Ganiard said that the project will continue if only partial funding is available. She stated that Compeer is a community based organization based mainly on volunteers. Ganiard said that they currently serve 13 clients and 20 clients are on the waiting list. She stated that part of their mission is to ensure that all clients are matched. She noted that the client initiates the match, and they recruit volunteers to become Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 3 companions for that person. Ganiard said that volunteers need to give a 4-hour commitment per month and participate in three hours of training. Ganiard said that they do not maintain records of the income of people requesting the service. However, she said that all clients requesting a match are under 50% average income and most of them are disabled. She said that they don't request the clients to specify their income. Kelley said that if needed they could provide such data. Hightshoe stated that it is a requirement that clients self-certify their income and!or income range, and records must be maintained for CDBG eligibility. There has been director turnover. The previous director did report this information. Shaw asked how many clients were served last year. Ganiard said that they served 40 clients in the past year. She added that for the current year they only have 20 people requesting a match. Shelter House (Security Deposit) Dixon said that beginning in September of 2005, due to limited funding available, Shelter House revised program guidelines to prioritize persons living in shelter and individuals considered chronically homeless according to HUD for financial assistance. She added that during FY06, when the program was still open to public, only 10 households from Shelter House and 4 households from DVIP were assisted with security deposit or emergency assistance. She stated that since the guidelines have been revised, the program has already served 9 Shelter House households, 8 DVIP households and 2 chronically homeless individuals. Canganelli said that they have been tracking the percentage of household that are successful in maintaining their place of residence for 6 months to 1 year after they receive the one-time assistance. She said that 74% of households were successful at maintaining their place of residence for 6 months to 1 year after receiving assistance and participating in housing counseling component of the program. She stated that housing counseling focuses on helping recipients of the financial assistance in understanding their lease agreements, knowing and understanding their rights and responsibilities of being a tenant. Canganelli said that Shelter House will not be able to make the program live off of returns from the security deposit because the $100 given per household is coming back slowly. She said that other sources of funding will continue to be pursued to continue to offer this as one of Shelter House's baseline programs. Shelter House (Outreach Coordinator) Canganelli said that they received approximately $448,000 last year from HUD for the STAR program. She said that they received verification of the renewal grant for the coming year and that with the renewal they will sign a contract with HUD that requires Shelter House to come up with a $106,750 cash match. She stated that the Shelter House has requested funding from Johnson County in the amount of $13,000 and $10,000 from both the United Way and City of Iowa City. She noted that these are requests only, and Shelter House has no indication that the money will be designated to the STAR Program. She added that current allocations are $0 from Johnson County and the United Way and $5,000 from the City of Iowa City Aid to Agencies Fund, and $5,000 from Goodwill Industries. Canganelli said that other funds are raised through the general fundraising efforts of the Executive Director and Board of Directors and are comprised of private and local business! corporate gifts. Dixon said that of the 525 clients, approximately 100 will be participants of the STAR two year case management program. She stated that the additional 425 are served through the In-House Counseling program which is supported by the STAR program and provides a direct point of contact for persons transitioning into the program. She added that without the STAR program, shelter outreach and case management services would cease to exist. Hayek asked hypothetically if $5,000 was awarded to Shelter House, would it be beller in term of the cash match to have all money in the outreach coordinator application or split between the two applications. Canganelli said that it would be beller for the organization to have money as cash match for shelter outreach which is their most overwhelming obligation. Canganelli said that out of clients participating in the In-House Counseling Program, 49% of adults increased income upon exit from the program. She added that 11% of current STAR clients are gelling their GED and 10% have received professional certifications such as a CNA. She stated that participant Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 4 income increased by 150% at exit over entry, and 100% of all STAR participants exited the program with an income. HOUSING Iowa City Housing Authority Rackis said that their request is not unit based but budget based. He said they will support a certain number of families according to the funding, for 12-24 months period. He said that the vouchers can be utilized within Johnson County. He added that if someone intends to move they can maintain their voucher if they relocate within Johnson County. Rackis said that the area distribution of voucher users is predicted to be similar with the map presented on page 52 of the commission's package. He said that the rent calculations include a $50 minimum. He stated that staff looks at assets, income and medical deductions, and determines the contract rent based on income. Rackis will provide data regarding the accessibility of the units at the next meeting. Richman asked how the operation of the program works, whether tenants go and find an apartment or the Iowa City Housing Authority has a list of choices for them. Rackis said that some people will choose to find their own unit. He added that the Iowa City Housing Authority provides a list with known landlords that have utilized the Housing Choice Voucher Program. In addition, he said that the University of Iowa compiles a brochure for finding an apartment in Iowa City and it is made available to anyone interested. He said they did not run in too much trouble with people not finding apartments. Shaw asked how long the current waiting list is. Rackis said there are 2,900 people on the waiting list. He added that they are processing applications from August 2003. Anthony asked if funding is awarded could the Iowa City Housing Authority limit the distribution of vouchers to Iowa City. Rackis said that such limitations will be possible. He added that 65% of voucher utilization occurs in Iowa City. Harmony Development, LLC Burns said that the term and amortization of the City HOME loan has been revised to 30 years and is reflected in a revised proforma handed to the Commission. He stated that investors will evaluate the project based on the amount of tax credits generated much more so than the number of units. He noted that they are confident that the project will attract an investor for the tax credits. He noted that the project would not proceed if a non-profit was not found. Burns said that the project budget and proforma were prepared assuming three-bedroom units, and the mention of 3-4 bedrooms in question 18 of the application is a typo. He also said that the project would not move forward without state HOME and/or L1HTC funds. Burns said that even though the architectural designs for the single family/ duplex rental units proposed in the application are not complete, they will comply with all city ordinances. In addition, he said that all units would be compatible with their respective neighborhoods. Burns said that they are aware that the Council has identified areas of the community in which they would like to see additional affordable housing be developed. He stated that they will find parcels scattered throughout Iowa City, specifically looking in those census tracts identified for additional affordable housing. Shaw asked about the potential barriers in acquiring lots. Burns said that the biggest issue is that subdivisions might have covenants in place that require a two car garage and a minimum square footage that is more than they can build to maintain affordability. Greazel asked if the pictures handed out show what they will construct on sites. Burns said the pictures are an example of current projects. Richman asked why the prices per unit are significantly higher than last year's cost. Burns said that the price of land had significantly increased since last year. Hayek asked why they are confident of finding more single family lots rather than lots for duplexes. Burns said that the current market offers mainly lots for single family units. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 5 Anthony said that the Iowa Finance Authority's Qualified Allocation Plan was revised, and then asked how confident they are about getting the tax credits. Anthony asked how they will compete against other projects. Burns said they will compete very well since they are not asking for a large amount of the total allocation of credits. Anthony asked if there is a market for single family rented units and if services like mowing or snow removal would be included in the rent. Burns said that people prefer the commodities offered by the single family house life style. He added that snow removal will be included in the rent. Richman asked if they did not receive the requested funds would they look at owner-occupied housing as an option. Burns said they are proposing that they would like to have that option before having to return the funds. The Housing Fellowship Dennis said they have a new name, The Housing Fellowship. She also said that the CDBG/HOME application format was much improved over previous years. Eastham said that they have submitted written answers to staff comments. He stated that the project proposes to rehabilitate 16 rental units for low-moderate income households and add them to the tax rolls. He proposed changing the source of funding for this project from HOME funds to internal City funds generated by the City Manager or City Council. He noted that the request for funds is in the form of loan. He said that there are possibilities for other sources of funding. In addition, he proposed that the interest paid for the loan amounts to $250,000 and City Council could divert some of that interest to be returned to HCDC and be used as housing funds. Eastham said they are drawing up the request, but propose that the project be funded from other resources. Shaw asked if this proposal was made in a public meeting to City Council. Eastham said that several years ago they were given a short term loan from internal city sources. He said that other sources of funding were used for the Peninsula Development. He said that through discussion with city staff he determined that the use of reserve funds for housing projects has been internally discussed. Richman asked for a background on the proposed projects. Dennis said that the City invested CDBG money in FY'92 and 8 units were constructed in 1993 using those funds. She added that 8 units were acquired The Housing Fellowship using a combination of CDBG and local HOME funds. She noted that state HOME funds were not a source of funding at that time. Greazel asked if ownership will change after the renovation. Eastham said that they will sell the units to a private entity, but the Housing Fellowship will be the managers in a limited partnership. Anthony asked how long the units acquired with HOME funds are supposed to be kept affordable. Dennis said that the units are required to be affordable for 10 years for existing buildings and 20 years for new buildings. Anthony asked what will happen if one source does not fund. Dennis said that they will continue to own and manage them as rental units. Hayek asked if the units are currently leased out. Dennis said that in 2005 the Housing Fellowship had a much higher vacancy rate than past years. Greazel asked what type of rehabilitation is proposed. Dennis said that they plan on replacing appliances, reroofing, siding, windows, etc. Richman asked how they arrived at the acquisition price. Dennis said that the legal advice from the Iowa Equity Funds was to sell the property at fair market value. Iowa Valley Habitat Patton said that the total cost per unit is close to $110,000. Patton said that if they are partially funded they will face an increasing challenge to find affordable lots. He added that reduced funds translate into less lots purchased and less affordable housing in Iowa City. Patton said that Habitat builds more homes in Iowa City than in other places in Johnson County. Patton said they are required to submit a site plan to City staff who then makes recommendations before issuing a building permit. He noted that they are trying to improve and build prettier houses with porches and curb appeal. Patton stated that they made a mistake while filling out the application and the total project cost should be $437,000. He said that the $16,000 development fee will be built into 4 homes. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 6 Anthony asked if there are covenants for lots in available areas. Patton said that there are almost always covenants which make constructing Habitat homes less affordable or if even able to build due to garage requirements or minimum square foot restrictions that are larger than what they can build affordably. Richman asked if they considered the acquisition and rehabilitation option. Patton said they have moved houses previously, but it was not efficient since moved buildings are considered new by the City building codes and must be brought up to code. Shaw asked if there is a waiting list for homes. Patton said they have 14 families on the waiting list and hired a person to provide counseling to families in financing practices. PUBLIC FACILITIES Iowa Valley Habitat (ReStore) He stated that the ReStore is in a warehouse on land donated by the City of Coralville. He said they received a grant from DNR to get started. He said that one of the goals was to increase recycling of construction materials. He added that in 2005 they saved 50 tons from going to landfills and took in $52,000 from the sale of the used materials. He said that Habitat International has a rule that when building a new home the use of old materials is not allowed. He said that the project proposes to work with the Furniture Project and the Salvage Barn. He said that the Furniture Project and the Salvage Barn are currently located on City property at the landfill and have limited hours and access. He noted that the goal is to move them to a location in Iowa City to get expanded use. He said that they are serving 450-500 people per month. He said that the clients are mainly mobile home owners and landlords. He noted that their goal is to generate money to build more houses. He said that a purchase offer was accepted on a three acre parcel on the eastside of Iowa City. He said they have to go through environmental review process and hopefully in the next two months the plan will materialize. Richman asked about the cash flow ReStore generates. Patton said that the ReStore annually generates net revenue of $20,000. Richman said that for investing $200,000 city looks at 1, 1.5 houses to be built in perpetuity. Grant Wood PTO Edwards said that the Iowa City Community School District will handle all legal and financial issues. She stated that the life expectancy of the Miracle playground equipment is 30-40 year, and has a warranty of 10-100 years depending on the piece of equipment. She said that the life expectancy of the National Safe Surface Initiative is 25+ years with a warranty of 5 years. She noted that both Miracle and National Safe Surface Initiative will accept verbal commitments with purchase and delivery after July 1, 2006. She said that they have been working closely with Iowa City Community School District Safety Coordinator Bob Porter. Shaw asked how much money was raised so far. Edwards said they currently have $31,000 in their account. In addition she said that they are applying for grants and the kids are doing a coin collection. Shaw asked if there is a potential to reach their goal by July. Edwards said the goal is to raise $55,000. She said that the highest expense comes from the safety surface. She said that there are many advantages in using the safety surface like injury reduction or liability reduction. She added that the surface is more accessible for persons with disabilities. She said that is very similar to the surface used for the Iowa City Public Library playground, with the exception that the proposed one comes in squares which allows for easier replacement if needed. Hayek asked if this project integrates with what the Family Resource Center is doing. Edwards said that the Family Resource Center will be able to use the playground. Mellecker asked what will happen if partial funds were available. Edwards said that the biggest expense is the safe surface. Reduced funding will force them to use the safe surface for selected playground equipment and woodchips for the rest of the area. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 7 Anthony asked who funds playgrounds at other schools. Edwards said that PTOs and families need to raise money for such improvements. Shaw asked how old the existing playground is. Edwards said that the equipment was installed in 1985. DVIP Anthony asked if DVIP has a capital reserve budget. Fortmann-Doser said that they have a reserve budget to be used for operating expenses. She said she would prefer to do fund raising for this project it not funded because their goal is to have 3 months worth of funds for operating expenses in the reserve fund and the fund currently has sufficient funds for just 2 months. Anthony said that the contractor said that the project could wait for another year and asked if it would be possible to try to fundraise and re-apply next year for the amount not raised. Fortmann- Doser said they will start to fundraise. She noted that the money received last year was fully spent. Niblock said that in section 3, question 14 of the application it is mentioned that 1% of people helped are from Iowa City. Fortmann- Doser said that it was a typo, and that they are serving 80-85% residents of Johnson County. Four Oaks Malone said that they have a facilities department that works on construction projects and they will oversee all the guidelines that need to be met. She added that there are three advantages due to consolidation, staff resources, infrastructure and equipment. Malone said the lease expense will also be diminished and the new site will be multi purpose by using all available programs of the agency. Malone said the Iowa City Community School District and Johnson County Human Services help by purchasing services, they typically do not provide funding for brick and mortar projects. She said that partial funding might create an unsure situation. She stated it would depend on what level they get funded. For lesser amounts it would translate into scaling the project back. Anthony asked how large the facility would be. Malone said they are looking at 3,000 square feet. She added that the current construction plan shows a link between the existing building and the addition. Richman asked if they looked at the option of leasing rather than building a new facility. Malone said that they are currently leasing and it is hard to find affordable space. She added that by having the building, added efficiencies will be created thereby reducing the expenses. MECCA Berg said they are requesting funds to replace all of the carpeting at their main facility on Southgate Avenue. He said that the total building has 13,000 square feet and they would like to replace 10,000 square feet, at a cost of $5 a square foot. He stated that they have not been able to locate other funds. He added that the fundraisings help support the services offered by the organization. He said that if partially funded the project will continue. Berg said that MECCA has a capital reserve fund, which has been used for replacing the windows and all 9 furnaces and is focused on reducing the overall operating expenses. He stated that they researched other flooring types but decided to settle for carpet squares which represent the best current option for the organization. Shaw asked if they will carpet the entire space. Berg said they will carpet everything but the bathrooms, dinning area and client bedroom areas. The Arc of Johnson County Reagan said that the Arc of Johnson County has been serving children and adults with mental retardation and developmental disabilities since 1957. He said that last year they've served 228 clients, 200 of which children. He said they are requesting funds to install new carpeting. Reagan said that the instructions to each contractor were to provide bids for commercial grade carpet designed for high traffic areas. He stated that the Arc of Johnson County owns all space occupied at Eastdale Plaza. He said that the carpeted area will be used daily for respite or daycare for children with a Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 8 disability. He added that carpeting contractors confirm to be in compliance with federal labor provisions. Reagan said that it is unlikely that the project will continue if partial funding is approved. Shaw asked how large the area to be carpeted is. Reagan said there is 1200 square feet that needs carpeting. Hayek asked what is Arc's main source of income. Reagan said that Medicaid and grants are the main sources of income for the organization. Community Mental Health Center Trefz said that the Community Mental Health Center serves over 2,000 individuals with mental illness each year. He said that the proposed project is to provide maintenance and improvements to the properties for the safety of clients, staff and the general public. He noted that the improvements include installing a fence or railing on top of the retaining wall along College Street, replacement of the concrete entry stairs to the 507 East College Street building and repairing or replacing the concrete drive and parking areas. Trefz said that they have researched the availability of grants, but were not fortunate on finding any available grants. He said that in case of partial funding they will limit their project to installing the railing. He added that the Community Mental Health Center has a capital reserve budget which was invested in a new furnace and air conditioning to manage utilities costs. He said they currently have a small reserve. Trefz said they have not explored the use of asphalt instead of concrete for the parking area, but are willing to do that. The commission discussed going on a tour to see selected projects that were discussed at the meeting. Greazel proposed the commission to include provisions requiring applicants to submit pictures with their applications which will ease the funding decisions. Greazel said that having a projector showing pictures of the projects at the meeting would be more informative. Richman said that it would also be helpful if applicants that choose to submit written answers to staff questions would do that a couple of days in advance. Anthony asked if it would be possible for staff to compile a spreadsheet to compare all projects in one category. Greazel said that proformas should require the applicants to include a reserve to maintain the projects. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM. s:/pcdlminutes/HCDCf2006102-16-06 hcdc.doc Housing & Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2006 Term Name Expires 01/19 02/16 Brian Richman 09/01/07 X X Jerry Anthonv 09/01 /08 X X Kellv Mellecker 09/01/08 OlE X Lori Bears 09/01/07 X OlE Matthew Havek 09/01/07 OlE X Michael Shaw 09/01/06 X X Thomas Niblock 09/01/08 X X William Greazel 09/01/06 OlE X Yolanda Soears 09/01/06 ---- X Key: X ~ Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member