The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-05-23 Bd Comm minutes em: City ofIowa City Parks & Recreation Commission April 12, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. Recreation Center Meeting Room B FINAL CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Jerry Raaz, Phil Reisetter, John Watson, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Klink, Matt Pacha STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Terry Robinson OTHERS PRESENT: Del Holland RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Moved by Reisetter to approve all of the PIN erant proposals with the exception of the Melrose Neiehborhood Association application on which the Commission will make a separate vote. O'Leary seconded a motion to approve applications from Oak Grove Neiehborhood association. Washineton Hills Neiehborhood Association. Colleee Green Neiehborhood Association and the Wetherby Friends and Neiehbors. Unanimous. Moved by Raaz. seconded by Loomer to accept the PIN erant proposal submitted by the Melrose Neiehborhood Association. Passed 5-2 with I opposed (Reisetter) and 1 abstention (O'Leary). Moved bv Raaz. seconded by Reisetter to accept fees in lieu of land for the Schnoebelen Subdivision. Unanimous. Moved by Westefeld. seconded by Raaz. to accept a combination of Outlot A (2.587 square feet of land) and fees in lieu of land for the remainine 2.367 square feet. Unanimous. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Westefeld. seconded bv Raaz. to approve the March 8. 2006 minutes as written. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2006 Page 2 of 6 REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF PIN GRANT PROPOSALS: Proposals relating to Parks and Recreation were included in the packets sent out to the Commission members. Trueblood asked for members to review and discuss proposals. Total requests add up to $18,705 ($25,000 budgeted for this program). Reisetter asked if remainder can be forwarded to the next year. Trueblood indicated that he believes so, and also stated that the maximum amount allowed per neighborhood is $5,000. Terry Robinson reported that the playground equipment has arrived for the Oak Grove Park. They are requesting additional funds to purchase a tire swing to complete the playground. Reisetter voiced his concern regarding a request from the Melrose Neighborhood Association for $1,300 for a Brookland Park Renovation Celebration, feeling that this neighborhood may not be as financially needy as others. Reisetter asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission had the power to veto a request. Trueblood stated that the procedure is for them to review and comment. These comments are forwarded to Marcia Klingaman in the Plauning Department who then follows up with the Neighborhood Council and then City Council. Trueblood does not believe that the income of the residents is always a factor in the approval process. Raaz commented that he would like to see the neighborhoods choose local bands for their celebrations. Westefeld asked Trueblood if the Parks and Recreation staff has any concerns regarding any of these requests. Trueblood stated that they do not. Gustaveson stated that he understands Reisetter's concerns, however, he also believes that these celebrations are a great way to get people together to celebrate and dedicate a new park. Moved bv Reisetter to approve all of the PIN l!rant proposals with the exception of the Melrose Neil!hborhood Association application on which the Commission with make a separate vote. O'Leary seconded a motion to approve applications from Oak Grove Neil!hborhood association. Washinl!ton Hills Neil!hborhood Association. Collel!e Green Neil!hborhood Association and the Wetherbv Friends and Neil!hbors. Unanimous. Moved bv Raaz. seconded bv Loomer to accept the PIN l!rant proposal submitted bv the Melrose Neil!hborhood Association. Passed 5-2 with 1 opposed (Reisetter) and 1 abstention (O'Learv). NEIGHORHOOD OPEN SPACE ITEMS: Schnoebelen Subdivision: This is a 4-lot single family residential subdivision on approximately 2.61 acres of land located at Hummingbird Lane, south of Lower West Branch Rd. Trueblood noted that this is a small subdivision requiring only 1/20 of 1 acre for park dedication; therefore, staff recommends fees in lieu of land for this subdivision. Moved bv Raaz. seconded bv Reisetter to accept fees in lieu of land for the Schnoebelen Subdivision. Unanimous. Hollvwood Manor - Part 9: This is a proposed subdivision containing 12 single family home lots located east of Wetherby Park. This subdivision is approximately 4.84 acres; therefore, the Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2006 Page 3 of 6 open space required is 4,954 square feet. The developer has proposed to dedicate Outlot A to provide trail access to the park from Wetherby Drive. This outlot is approximately 2,587 square feet, leaving 2,367 square feet of open space requirement or pay fees in lieu of. Moved bv Westefeld, seconded bv Raaz, to accent a combination of Ontlot A (2,587 SQuare feet of land) and fees in lieu of land for the remaininl!: 2,367 sQuare feet. Unanimous. UPDATE ON ANGEL OF HOPE: The Angel of Hope statue will be installed prior to April 23. Invitations have been sent to Commission Members to attend the "Angel of Hope" dedication scheduled for Sunday, April 23 at 4 p.m. in City Park. Richard Paul Evans, the author of "The Christmas Box," the book in which he introduces the Angel Statue, will be in attendance as well. REPORT OF CITY PARK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION: Trueblood distributed notes and tentative schedule of events for the City Park Centennial Celebration to the Commission. He noted that June 10 has been designated as "Family Fun Day." Commission members are encouraged to keep this day open as they may be asked to be involved in the dedication and the overall program. PROJECT PLANS AND UPDATES: Trueblood updated Commission on several projects. City Park Log Cabins: The quotes for restoration of the smaller cabin remains high ($20,000- $25,000). Future plans for this project are pending. Soccer Comolex: The city has accepted a bid for construction of softball diamonds (practice fields only) at the soccer park. This project will start soon and staff hopes to have them available by this fall. Playground EQuioment: As mentioned by Terry Robinson, the playground equipment for Oak Grove Park has arrived and will be installed soon. Naooleon Park Ball Field Imorovements: The ball field light structures have arrived and will be installed by the beginning of the Girls Softball season. This will make for a total of six lighted softball fields at Napoleon Park. The concession building improvements are also underway. Robinson noted that a batting cage will be added behind field #5. Dog Park: The fence construction is in progress. Robinson noted his concern regarding sandburs. Parks staff cannot spray this area with any chemicals due to the close proximity of the water wells. Therefore, it will take a considerable period of time to get them under control with the growth of grass and frequent mowing. Boys Baseball Project: This project is not complete but progress is being made. The baseball season starts May 15 and Trueblood stated the building will be done by then. Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2006 Page 4 of 6 Recreation Window and Building Enhancement Proiect: Trueblood stated that the word "SWIM" will be placed over the pool windows. He had a sample for Commission to see. They are metal covers that allow light through. This project will start early this summer. Citv Park Pool: Trueblood showed plans to Commission for new fencing project in City Park. This fencing will allow more green space at the swimming pool. This will be done before the start of the 2006 season. Disc Golf: Trueblood met with Jeff Harper, course designer. They want to open the course by June. Donations are steadily coming in. Trueblood stated he still has concerns regarding parking. Sandlake Recreation: The City has signed a contract for a consultant to go ahead with conceptual plans for this area. Sand Prairie Area: Robinson reported that Parks/Forestry staff will be removing trees in this area located across from Napoleon Park. Riverside Festival Stage Proiect: The contract for this project should be finalized soon. It includes new restrooms, a shelter and a sidewalk. It likely won't be completed until next fall. Court Hill Trail: Initial planning will take place in the next month or so. Brookland Park: Consultant has been hired and will be meeting with the Neighborhood Association in early May. Soccer Park Public Art: The "Just For Kids" sculpture has been installed at the soccer park. COMMISION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Raaz mentioned that in the Sunday DesMoines register there was a survey asking readers what they like to do. Raaz noted the top ten items and also sent around a copy for Commission review. Raaz asked that the Master Plan be listed as an agenda item at our next meeting. Raaz asked about access to Peninsula Park via Taft Speedway. Trueblood noted that the Elks Club has indicated no interest in selling any property to allow a trail to gain access to the park. Raaz noted a recent article in the newspaper stating that Iowa City was working on creating wireless networking throughout the city. He asked about the possibility of having network connections in the City Parks. Trueblood noted that the Planning Department is in charge of this and perhaps would be a good future agenda item. Watson commented and complimented the surface material that was used under the playground equipment near the Iowa City Library. Parks and Recreation Commission April 12, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Watson passed out a copy of the Iowa City School Districts policy on distributing materials through the schools. He suggested that this be an item on a future agenda and perhaps we should invite a member ofthe school board to attend that meeting. Loomer mentioned a letter to the editor regarding homeless people sleeping in the parks. She asked what the procedure was for this type of situation. Trueblood noted that it is the Parks and Recreation staffs' role to contact the Iowa City Police Department, when this occurs, especially if it is causing a problem. CHAIR'S REPORT: No report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Avenue ofthe Flags: Trueblood stated that for the Memorial Day season, Oakland Cemetery will begin a new tradition known as the "Avenue of Flags". These flags will be 5' x 9.5', and flown on 20 ft. poles placed at intervals along the cemetery's central roads. Each pole will include a small engraved "memorial tag" stating the name of the donor or person to be memorialized. Anyone wishing to contribute a memorial flag and pole may do so by sending a check in the amount of $200 to the Oakland Cemetery with the name of the person to be memorialized and a phone number where the donor can be reached. Coralville Softball Complex: Trueblood attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the future Coralville softball complex located south of Interstate 80. He commented that this is going to be a very nice facility. Bovs Baseball: Howard Villhauer asked if Parks and Recreation Staff could take care of ordering the partitions for the restrooms. They have been ordered, and Parks staff will install them. Miscellaneous Information: Trueblood updated Commission Members on Marilyn Kriz' condition. Recreation Staff have been taking meals to their home. While her health is failing, Marilyn remains in good spirits. Tammy Neumann announced that the Farmers Market Advertising Committee is in the process of putting together a cookbook with Parks and Recreation Staff that will be dedicated to Marilyn. A portion of the proceeds from this will go to A.L.S. research. Commission Members are also invited to participate. Trueblood noted that Jerome Whittington, a Recreation Center temporary employee, passed away this week from a sudden heart attack. ADJOURNMENT: Moved bv Raaz. seconded bv Reisetter to adjourn. Unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission April 12. 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 10/11 11/8 12/13 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 X X X X Judith , Klink 1/1/07 DIE X X DIE Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X X X X Ryan O'Learv 1/1/1 0 X X X X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X X DIE Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X X X X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 DIE X DIE X John 1/1/07 Watson X DIE X X John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X X KEY: X= 0= DIE = NM= LQ= Present Absent Absent/Excused No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member Airport Commission May 1, 2006 Page 1 C[ MINUTES FINAL Iowa City Airport Commission May 1, 2006 Iowa City Airport Terminal-7:30 AM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Greg Farris; Howard Horan; John Staley, Janelle Rettig Members Absent: Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Eryka Driscoll RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 7:32 AM. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. Grading- Plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 2 Project" within the Runway 7/25 extension project to grade the area for runway extension. Hartwig opened the public hearing on Plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 2 Project" within the Runway 7/25 extension project to grade the area for runway extension. No public comment was received and the public hearing was closed. B. Resolution- Rettig moved the resolution approving plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 2 Project" within the Runway 7/25 extension project to grade the area for runway extension, establishing amount of bid, directing the City Clerk to publish advertisement for bids, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Farris seconded the motion. Resolution No. A06-o7 passed 5-0 roll call vote. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:45 A.M. fW.vl Chairperson ~~ t;-/~--O)" Date Airport Commission May 1, 2006 Page 2 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 /Meetina Date\ TERM 1/12 2/9 3/9 4/13 5/1 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1/08 -- - -- - -- Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X Greg Farris 3/1/07 0 X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X X X X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 -- - X X X KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - = Not a Member Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Page 1 I ~~(i) MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Iowa City Airport Terminal- 5:45 PM FINAL Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; John Staley; Howard Horan (arrived late); Greg Farris, Janelle Rettig, Dan Clay Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: David Hughes, Dick Blum, Jay Honeck, Harry Wolf DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:47 PM. RECOMl\1ENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 9, 2006, MEETING: Chairperson Hartwig asked if there were any additions or changes to the above-named minutes. Hartwig noted that Item A part 1 - "construction" should be "obstruction." Also, in regards to the hangar floor questioned the amount oftheilangar contract adjustment. Rettig noted that on page 2, item C, where it states, "Rettig stated..." that the wording sounds as ifWal-Mart is being asked to stabilize their debts, and she suggested using ''the Airport can clear their debt..." Staley moved to accept the minutes of the March 9, 2006, as amended; seconded by Farris. Motion passed 4-0; Horan absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: (Item A was addressedfollowing Item B.) A. Parcel of Land: Parcel No.1 020177001 (the "Hagen parcel" located on Highway 1 between land owned by Patricia Wade and Ann Hargrave) (Discussion to be at 6PM) - Hartwig asked Tharp how many responses they have had to date on this. Tharp noted that they have one response from Westside Automotive, based on a few contingencies, for the purchase price of $440,000. He states that this parcel was assessed at $432,000. Hartwig noted that he is open to discussion on this, as they need to decide how they want to move forward. Horan discussed leasing versus buying on this parcel, stating that they should offer a 20- or 30-year lease on this. Rettig stated that if the property is sold, she would like to see some sort of contingent that they have to be able to apply the money to airport operations and not return it. Dick Blum noted that this is due to F.A.A. regulations and the money has to go to the Airport budget. Rettig noted that she misspoke - she meant to say for capital improvements. Blum stated that "if' they were allowed to keep this money, they would have to use it for Airport budget. Blum stated that they could take a lump sum and immediately invest it in ten hangars, for example, Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Page 2 which would provide immediate income. In the long-term, he states this would be much more valuable, versus the leasing option. Rettig noted that they should consider returning this property to the tax rolls, for the obvious benefit of tax dollars. Staley asked if this property is ever going to be of use to the Airport at any time in the future, to which Hartwig responded to the negative. This area was part of the Runway Protection Zone, at one time. Tharp noted that if they do continue with the sale of this parcel, the F.A.A. will probably want some money back as the Airport has not controlled it for 20 years. Staley asked if anything could be built on this property, and Horan noted that basically only light poles would be constructed, not an actual building. Rettig stated that she would like to give others the opportunity to speak on this before they make any recommendations to the City Council. Hartwig stated that they need to set up a sub-committee to put the issues into focus. Horan, Hartwig, and Tharp will work on this issue. Blum asked if they could have this done by the next Airport meeting. Dulek stated that the Commission could get clarifications from the FAA regarding the use offunds. (TAPE ENDS) The discussion turned to getting this completed by June 1, in order to take advantage of the construction season. Rettig suggested that the sub-committee check with Craig Willis and see if the interested party would even consider a lease. Blum asked if it is possible that the F .A.A. would have them use this money for the Runway Project. Blum noted that everyone should have an email from the DOT regarding reduced funding for aviation, and if this happens, the Airport will lose their $150,000 per year in discretionary entitlements. Blum noted that his clients made an offer to purchase, not lease, and if they are going to come back and ask about a lease now, he believes his clients will not be interested any longer. He suggested they do as Horan said and layout what they are interested in exactly - for example, a 20- year lease for a specific amount. B. Airport Zoning Ordinance - Hartwig noted that this is in regards to whether or not they want to continue the zoning ordinance. Dick Blum stated that a couple years ago, the Commission directed a revision of the Airport Layout Plan and at that time, the Commission was very interested in seeing the pian constructed in such a way that it could provide an instrument landing system at some point. Blum stated that at the same time, it was appropriate to revise the Airport Zoning Ordinance. Blum stated that last year a landowner wanted to open a business in this area, and therefore, the City looked into this, noting the discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and the ALP. Members asked what needs to be done in order to move forward with this. Blum stated that it is very minimal. Dulek stated that in a couple of years the airport layout plan map will be changed. Rettig asked how the Airport Zoning Commission ties into this. Blum stated that the Airport Zoning Commission is a body that is created by State Code that is the actual group that would adopt this Zoning Ordinance. He stated that this group consists of two representatives from theOty, two from the County, and a fifth person who is chosen by the members, typically from Zoning or something like that. Horan asked what possible problems could arise if this is not changed. 2 Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Page 3 Blum stated that the worst-case scenario would be that someone wants to use their land and due to the zoning, it would not be permitted. They could then say the Airport is acting in a capricious manner and could fight the fact that the zoning will not allow what they want to do on their land. Hartwig stated that he feels they should move forward on it before they run into something like this. Horan stated that he was on the Airport Zoning Commission at one time and that this issue has been tossed around for at least 10 years. He also feels that this needs to get done now. The discussion continued, with several members weighing in on the topic. Horan moved that the Airport Commission should move forward with the Zoning Ordinance; seconded by Staley. Motion carried 5-0. C. F AAlDOT Projects - Earth Tech - David Hughes a. Runway 7/25 i. Consider resolution setting a public hearing for the plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 2 Project within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to grade the area for runway extension - Hartwig noted that the above resolution needs to be approved. The hearing date will be May 1,2006, at 7:30 A.M. Staley moved to consider Resolution No. ; seconded by Horan. Resolution No. _ passed on a roll call vote of 5-0. ii. Update - Dave Hughes noted that the box culvert project is about 99"10 complete now. He stated that they were doing final grading today, and the scheduled completion date is May 7. b. Taxi-lane North Tee's - Hughes noted that they are just now moving to the design phase on this and hope to have it out for construction this summer, as planned. Hartwig stated that he had been talking with someone about how they are going to handle this - whether planes should be moved or if people should leave their planes in the hangars during this project. Hughes stated that the t-hangar floor contractor is done with his work now and everyone has been happy with it so far. c. ASOS Relocation - Hughes stated that they have been working with the Weather Service and the FAA on this and they have agreed on a location. Hughes stated that the paperwork and necessary steps are being taken on this. Hughes was asked the cost of this project, and he stated it was in the $30,000 range. Hughes further stated that they have submitted, on the DOT side, a Vertical Infrastructure Grant recently and that this grant includes concrete floors in Hangar A, some more pavement rehab in the hangar areas, and walk-in doors. Rettig asked about 3 Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Page 4 the Strategic Plan and~curb appeal" and asked if they should not improve some things like painting doors. Hartwig noted that some of these doors are going to be replaced as they are old. Rettig noted that she was at the self-serve pump recently and she noted that gas would spurt out even when the person was done pumping. Tharp will look into this and see what is going on. D. Eastern Iowa Big Kids Toy Show - Clay noted that plans are coming along nicely for this year's show. The show starts with a Friday night hangar party for the sponsors of the show. He noted that he and Jay met with the people at the Iowa Children's Museum regarding the design and construction of the aviation exhibits that will be built there with the use of money generated by this show. Clay and Honeck stated that this display will be right inside the large windows and can be seen from the outside, as well. Clay fielded questions from the members regarding this upcoming show. E. Aviation Commerce Park - Harry Wolfwas present to address the members. He stated that he was happy to hear that the lawsuits regarding the Wal-Mart project are now over and the process will be moving forward, as planned. He stated that they are optimistic that everything will proceed smoothly. Dulek responded to questions regarding the possibility of an appeal and to any contingencies on this project. Wolf next addressed commercial land leasing and current zoning issues. Some points that he raised regarding commercial land leasing were legal issues, and is the property stand-alone or part of a larger project. He stated that currently they are proposing to market this as two separate parcels - the 13-acre adjacent to Wal-Mart, and the 2-plus acres on the other side of the street, noting that this 2- acre parcel may very well be a stand-alone property. The discussion turned to lease terms and options, with Wolf giving the members his thoughts on these issues. Another factor that Wolf discussed was on-going expenses for tenants, such as snow removal. Discussion continued on fair market value and return on investment issues. (TAPE ENDS) F. Airport Operations: Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Rettig questioned the electric and heating budget noting that it has gone over, and there was a large monthly charge. Tharp responded that there was an error in the reading of the meter, and the airport has a $566 credit on their bill. Clay questioned whether the possible rise of prices was due to the increased usage from Hertz being in a facility. Staley asked Tharp to look at use vs. price to determine whether the increase was a result of increased costs vs. increased usage. Tharp noted he would put information together for the next meeting. Hartwig noted that the budget only had a small increase to compensate for inflation instead of the large rise of heating prices. Rettig questioned the budget item of Testing Services. Tharp noted the charge was for a 6month retest to the underground fuel tank following repairs last fall. Retting asked about the technical services, and Tharp noted that is the locating for cleaning services performed at the airport, as 4 Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Page 5 well as the current bill from EarthTech regarding the survey done for the Hagen Parcel. Rettig requested a future agenda item regarding the Operations Specialist, Consultants, and Management Agreement with Jet Air, to discuss their relationship with each other, and the airport. Rettig discussed the Capital Projects, and that they aren't in the montWy budget reports. She questioned if there is a way to reflect the capital charges, so the airport can better show its actual budget. Rettig asked about the proposed Economic Coordinator position which the city would like to make full-time, and draw upon the resources of several departments (including the airport) to help fund. Hartwig responded he had discussed the position with the city manager, and that this agreement was made. Tharp noted the registration for the American Association of Airport Executives Certified Member Review Course was open. Tharp noted that the cost would be approximately $2700. Tharp further described the program and expressed that by sending him the airport would gain a better trained and credentialed employee. Horan moved approval of Tharp's request to be sent to this conference. Seconded by Staley. Approved by voice vote. MEETING ADJORNED - SEVERE WEATHER G. Subcommittees' Reports- H. Chairperson's Report-- COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: STAFF REPORT: SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: May 11,2006 @ 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. due to severe weather. JLVl C alrperson DI~) 7 -Ir'()b Date 5 Airport Commission April 13, 2006 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meeting Date) TERM 1/12 2/9 3/9 4/13 5111 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1108 --- -- - -- Randy Hartwig 3/1109 X X X X Greg Farris 3/1107 0 X X X John Staley 3/1106 X X X X Howard Horan 3/1108 X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1112 --- -- X X KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = Ab~entlExcused NM = No meeting - = Nof a Member 6 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 13, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY, CITY HALL c:: APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Dick Brown, Mary Lee Dixon, Nestor Lobodiak CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 8, 2006 MINUTES MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the March 8, 2006 minutes as submitted. Wright seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC06-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Viktor Tichy for a special exception to the establishment of a daycare center serving up to 30 children and to reduce the minimum 5-foot setback requirement for parking in the side yard along the alley for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue. Leigh noted that the application was withdrawn by the applicant. APL06-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development for an appeal of the City's determination of a stream corridor on property located in the Rural Residential (RR1) zone and Interim Development Single Family Residential (IDRS) zone west of Rohret Road and north of Slothower Avenue. Leigh said the application was deferred by the applicant. EXC06-00003: Discussion of a request to reconsider an application submitted by First Presbyterian Church for a special exception to permit installation of a columbarium, a structure containing niches for storage of cremated remains, for use by the church members for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 5) zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue. Brown, 2905 Saddle Club Road, NE, said that he has additional information to present to the Board incl uding information on landscaping planned for the site and real estate information. He asked for reconsideration of the special exception in front of the entire Board. Lobodiak, 229 Green Mountain Drive, said that the burden of proof and persuasion by the applicant to show that there will not be substantial diminution of property values was addressed by the four board members, and there is no necessary ground for reconsideration. Holecek instructed the Board that because the application failed with a 2:2 vote someone from the prevailing opposed side would need to make the motion to reconsider. MOTION: Wood moved to reconsider the Special Exception EXC06-00003. Shelangouski seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. OTHER: Alexander asked if there was any news regarding the Shelter House case. Holecek said that the appeal is still pending in the docket before the Supreme Court. Walz provided board members with corrected pages to the Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:10PM. s:/pcd/minutesJboa/2006/04-1 J.06.doc Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2006 Term Name Expires 01111 02/08 03/08 04/13 Karen Leil!h 01101107 X X OlE X Carol Alexander 01101/08 X X X X Michael Wril!ht 01101109 X X X X Ned Wood 01/01/10 X X X X M. Shelanl!ouski 01101/11 X X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused I NM = No Meeting I rn: ~ Iowa City ~Public Library FINAL APPROVED BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes 5:00 pm - March 30, 2006 2nd Floor Board Room David VanDusseldorp, President Linzee McCray, Vice President Thomas Dean William Karf Thomas Martin Meredith Rich-Chappell Pat Schnack, Secretary Leon Spies Tom Suter Agenda item 3A Members Present: William Korf, Tom Martin, Linzee McCray, Meredith Rich-Chappell, Leon Spies, David VanDusseldorp Members Absent: Thomas Dean, Pat Schnack, Tom Suter Staff Present: Barb Black, Terri Byers, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Elyse Miller, Patty McCarthy, Hal Penick Call Meeting to Order VanDusseldorp called the meeting to order at S:02 pm. Public Discussion None. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of February 23, 2006 were approved after a minor correction. A motion was made by Rich-Chappell, seconded by Korf to approve the minutes from February. The vote was 6-0. Unfinished Business Leased Space New York NY Deli is becoming familiar with Iowa City building codes. Venting is necessary for the panini grill and for the coffee roaster for their sublessee. They will enclose a vent into a column as it passes through the second floor to the roof. New York NY Deli will be responsible for these costs. There has been no news from Kevin Hanick about the basement space. University Heights Contract: University Heights proposed a change to the contract previously approved by the Board. The changes from the previously approved contract are in Section 4A and reflect their wish to phase in payment over two years instead of one. VanDusseldorp and Craig attended a meeting where several changes were discussed. They agreed to bring this one back to the Board. The Coralville Agenda item 3A Page 2 Library Board has already approved the revised contract. University Heights Council is excited about getting this service. A motion to approve the revised University Heights contract was made by Martin and seconded by Spies. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. New Business Review of Board Policy #701 - Public Relations Policy Although the language changes to the actual policy are minimal, Craig raised general issues regarding public relations in the cover memo. The Strategic Plan calls for developing a Public Relations plan in FY07. ICPL already has a commitment to public relations via the strategic plan and the budget. We have not marketed the library in a unified way rather, public relations is conducted in a decentralized manner. Craig believes that the Board sets the tone for public relations. Questions to ponder: What is the Board's concept for library public relations? How much is the right amount of money for us to spend to create an image in the community? How much to identify materials and services that we provide that people may want to use that they may not know that we have? Martin asked about surveys. A community survey was conducted in October 2004 after the building opened at a cost of about $15,000. The Library typically undertakes this kind of survey every five years in preparation for the next strategic plan. McCray asked about the frequency of press releases. The Library sends press releases multiple times. each week. McCray feels that because we have the good will of the public and the attention of the media, we've got a head start on public relations. VanDusseldorp believes that we need to continue to be proactive about the impression the Library creates and that we can do a better job when we are more mindful about the intent, that is, public relations. Korf hears often that people wish we had better parking. Martin remarked about Coralville Public Library charging no fines during National Library Week next week. He would like the community to know just how much this Library has to offer, that ours is the busiest library in Iowa, and that we circulate a huge amount of materials. Spies suggested a brainstorming session and Craig will schedule when there is a light agenda. A future work session about public relations is planned. A motion to approve the Public Relations Policy was made by Spies, and seconded by Korf. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. June Library Service to University Heights and Hills Staff recommend beginning library service to University Heights and Hills on June 1, 2006, and not to wait until the contracts officially begin on July 1. This means children will have library access as soon as school is out. A motion to begin library service to these two communities in June was made by Korf and seconded by Rich-Chappell. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. Appointments to Art Advisory Committee These positions were advertised in the Press Citizen, Gazette, The Window newsletter and throughout the building. More than two applications were received. A motion was made by McCray and seconded by Martin to appoint Connie Peterson and reappoint Karen Rushton to the Library's Art Advisory Committee. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. Enhancement to Checkpoint Security NOBU funds were set aside in FY06 to upgrade collection security. Staff felt it might become necessary to enhance security at some point but the technology was new and untested. A level of theft, for movies in particular, has been reached that requires us to do something now. Holds are shelved behind the Circulation desks to help minimize DVD theft, but we need a more concrete fix for this problem. Our collection security company is now marketing a special product for disc security. Costs will not exceed the amount set aside last summer. A motion was made by Spies and seconded by Rich-Chappell to enhance Checkpoint security. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. Agenda item 3A Page 3 Appoint Committee to Evaluate Director Martin was appointed to lead the Committee to Evaluate the Director, with Spies, and Rich- Chappell filling out the Committee roster. Staff Reports DeDartmental Reoorts: Adult Services, Circulation Services, and Information Services McCray wondered how many people attended the Spanish language nutrition program; eleven showed up. A nutritionalist from WIC liked the program so well that he wishes to have a videotape to show at his agency. Channel 10 is currently recruiting an intern. McCray also wondered about interlibrary loans and wondered if we ILL with University Library and Coralville. Clark briefly explained the SILO process and stated that we sometimes suggest that a patron physically go to these libraries to pick up the materials they want. If requested they may come from anywhere. Foundation ReDort. McCarthy was very pleased about the first online reservations for the Building the Collection event. Invitations will be mailed next week. Already there are nearly as many sponsors for this event as last year, including some new sponsors. This year's fundraising appeal is only $8,000 shy of last fiscal year total. DO assistant Gayle Warner has resigned and we will be looking to fill this position in the near future. The Foundation Funds year-end ICPL investment report was 10.09% return for the year, compared with Standard & Poor 4.86%, and Lehman Bros Aggressive Bond fund return of 2.3%. Review of VISA Procedures Craig brought an example of our VISA bills and documentation so the Board could see Library VISA procedures. This was prompted by a City auditor's report regarding Library VISA bills. Some minor procedural changes have been made. Miscellaneous. Martin wondered if New York NY Deli will offer wifi. President's Report PLA Conference. VanDusseldorp attended a number of presentations that applied speCifically to board members. He noted a couple of themes throughout the conference: technology and funding. At one session they discussed fundraising as cultivating relationships with citizens, politicians, etc. Another theme he noted was service. VanDusseldorp discussed the Denver library system which uses genre branch libraries. Overall the conference offered great presentations. He also attended exhibit space and visited the e-audio people and the architectural firm that planned our building. He appreciated the opportunity to attend PLA. Announcements from Members Korf mentioned that IPTV Live from Lincoln Center on Monday night presents the Centennial for the Julliard School from 8-9:30. McCray mentioned that the Old Capitol reopening is May 6. The formal ceremony is 9:30-10:30 with daylong events to follow. Committee Reports Foundation Members Included in Foundation report. Agenda item 3A Page 4 Communications Response letter was sent to the person who inquired about the Library cell phone policy. Disbursements Visa Expenditures for February 2006 were reviewed. A motion was made by Korf and seconded by Rich-Chappell to approve disbursements for February 2006. The motion carried with a vote of 6-0. Set Agenda Order for April Meeting Building budget Tom Dean, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, asked to bring everyone up to date and would appreciate nominations, including self-nominations. Please e-mail Dean with nominations, including self-nominations by 4/15 so he can complete the ballot. Children's Services, Systems, Technical Services departmental reports Volunteer recognition event 4/20; ice cream sundaes, etc. Adjournment A motion was made by Martin and seconded by Spies to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:14 pm. Respectfully submitted, Elyse Miller Agenda item 3A Page 5 Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD CALENDAR YEAR 2006 Meetina Date Name Term 1/2610 2/23/0 3/3010 4/2710 5/25/0 6/22/0 7/2710 8j: EXD 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Thomas Dean 7/01 /0 X X OlE X 9 Bill Karl 7/01 /0 X X X X 9 Tom Martin 6/30/1 X X X X 1 Linzee McCray 7/01 /0 X OlE X X 9 Meredith 6/30/1 X X X OlE Rich-Chaooel 1 . Pat Schnack 7/01 /0 X X OlE OlE 7 Leon Spies 6/30/1 X X X OlE 1 Tom Suter 7/01 /0 0 0 0 0 7 David 7/01 /0 OlE X X X VanDusseldoro 7 A. KEY: X ~ Present o = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - March 21, 2006 FINAUAPPROVED c;: CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Roth called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Elizabeth Engel, Loren Horton, Michael Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Capt. Tom Widmer of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #05-04. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel to adopt the consent calendar. . Minutes of the meeting on 02/14/06 . ICPD General Order #95-01 (Emergency Operation of Police Vehicles) . ICPD General Order #99-02 (Alarm-Open Door Response) . ICPD General Order #01-06 (Juvenile Procedures) . ICPD Department Memo #06-07 . ICPD Use of Force Report - January 2006 Barnhill requested some clarification from Captain Widmer regarding General Order 01-06 (Juvenile Procedures) IV (Procedures), subsection D (Criminal Offenses), VI(A) concerning the age of consent to search. Widmer explained that they can not request consent if the juvenile appears to be under the age of fourteen. If they appear to be between the age of fourteen and eighteen the officer must request a supervisor respond to the scene. Barnhill confirmed with Widmer that the date for the fifth item on the January Use of Force Report should be 012606 instead of 012605. Barnhill also wondered if the Use of Force report is supposed to be in chronological date order, and that item two was out of order. Motion carried, 5/0. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. PCRB March 21,2006 Page 2 BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SESSION REGULAR SESSION Barnhill wanted to go over the policy for media and where they could be during a public meeting for audio/video recording. Pugh stated that she did not think it needed to be in the Standard Operating Procedures because of the infrequency that it occurs. Pugh also said that the Chair or Board should be able to request that the media record from a certain area and if necessary the arrangement of the room could be changed. Pugh reported that she had received a phone call from a complainant that was unhappy with the outcome of the Public Report from the Board. She informed the complainant of the duties and responsibilities of the Board and the section of the City Code regarding the PCRB. She also offered to the complainant that he or she could come to the next meeting and address the Board during Public Discussion, but that the complaint was considered closed and the Public Report had been issued to the City Council. Tuttle informed the Board that the meeting dates on the agenda for May, June, and July were incorrect and would be corrected on the next agenda. Motion by Horton and seconded by Larson to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:22 P.M. Returned to open session at 7:44 P.M. Motion by Horton and seconded by Larsen to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #05-04 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Horton and seconded by Engel to cancel the April meeting due to lack of Board business. Motion carried, 5/0. PCRB March 21, 2006 Page 3 MEETING SCHEDULE . April 11 ,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room - CANCELLED . May 9,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . June 13,2006,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . July 11, 2006, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Larson will possibly be gone for the June meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Larson. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 7:47 P.M. , I POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meetin2 Date) TERM 1110 2/14 3/21 NAME EXP. Candy 9/1107 X X X Barnhill Elizabeth 9/1108 X OlE X Engel Loren 9/1/08 X X X Horton , Greg Roth 9/1109 X X X i Michael 9/1109 X OlE X Larson . I I I I KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = AbsentJExcnsed NM = No meeting I --- = Not a Member , , I POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint o :s:O ~- - .J-J- '"" c:::;J c.~ c-, ...-'.'~ .....-, -n "....., -, ,-) " --- r- .~, _/ ~ ....... ~---, N N FROM: Police Citizens Review Board "'" ::n: iT] : ~........, \_1 RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #05-04 c~ "~,- <. /, )3: (J1 (J1 DATE: March 21, 2006 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #05-04 (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. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk, November 22, 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 January 31,2006 and was filed with the City Clerk on January 10, 2006. 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 February 14, 2006. FindinQs of Fact The complaint alleges Officer A failed to properly investigate a disturbance complaint and used a condescending tone. The general facts of the incident, as follows, are not in dispute. On October 27, 2005, at approximately 1918 hours, the complainant reported a disturbance in the apartment above the complainant's. In the complaint filed with the PCRB the complainant described the disturbance as "... pounding, jumping, and stomping." Upon arrival of Officer A, there was no disturbance as described by the complainant. The complainant also mentioned vandalism to private property and related this to living noise. There was no further discussion of vandalism. On November 15, 2005, during the subsequent police department investigation, both Officer A and the complainant were interviewed. As per complainant's request, Officer A spoke with the complainant prior to speaking with the residents of the apartment above the complainant's. The complainant stated Officer A asked "Is this about the kids again?" and felt it was said in a condescending tone. Officer A maintained the conversation was professional in nature. The Internal I nvestigation Report, dated November 15, 2005, suggests prior complaints with police response. After speaking with the complainant Officer A went upstairs and spoke with a person in the apartment about the complaint. Officer A reported not hearing any type of disturbance while interviewing the complainant or speaking with the person at the apartment above the complainant's. The complainant did not state there was any type of disturbance while the officer was present. The complainant stated past similar disturbances have caused pictures to fall ...., and ceiling light globes to fall to the floor. The complainant does not bel@Ye the~ disturbance was normal household noise. :::E 0 ::r: >-j ~ In the Interview Report dated November 15, 2005, the complainant stat~q JIlerEN to be one actual complaint, that being the perceived condescending man{l~r- in N which Officer A asked, "Is this about the kids again?" - 1.:):1 ~ ~7::~ _ )> Ul U1 By unanimous vote, the Board set the Level of Review for this complaint at 8-8- 7(B)(1 )a, believing there to be enough information in the Chief's Report, and other attached materials, to allow the Board to come to an informed conclusion. The Board vote was 3-0 with 2 members of the Board absent. The Board finds allegation #1 to be not sustained. The officer responded to the call, spoke with the complainant prior to contacting the people in the other apartment, spoke to a person at the other apartment about the problem, and provided the complainant an alternative course of action to the problem. There is a question if the noise perceived by the complainant is a "disturbance" or is usual noise associated with multiple-story, apartment living. Conclusion The Board further finds allegation #2 to be not sustained. From the interviews of the Officer and the complainant, it is evident that other complaints have been ""Tl in i---' 'J lodged by the complainant concerning disturbances and that Officer A had some knowledge of those complaints. This would account for the question, "Is this about the kids again?" Other than the words used, there is nothing in the complainant's complaint or interview that suggests the tone used by the officer was condescending. It does suggest repetition of complaints which might lead to a perception of a condescending tone on the part of the complainant or an actual frustrated or condescending tone on the part of the responding officer. With the evidence before it, it is impossible for the Board to ascertain if either of these accurately portrays what occurred. The Board concludes the findings of the Chief of Police are supported by substantial evidence, are reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and are consistent to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law. Complaint #05-04 Alleqation # 1: Failure to properly investiqate a complaint Allegation #1 against Officer A is not sustained. Alleqation # 2: Usinq a condescendinq tone when speakinq to complainant Allegation #2 against Officer A is not sustained. Comment None. "" 0 = = "" :2:0 - *,.,"," )>--, ". 11 -, ::;v ~, --<.:: N \. ) ;2i~ N m m ". ,--""1 02:2 :J.#r: ,-.j ~,/, -- ~ .. U1 Ul MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006 EMMA HARVAT HALL APPROV~~) t MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Jim Ponto, Mae Schatteman, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Connie Champion, Ann Freerks, Russ Garrett, Matthew Lage, Mark McCallum, Michael McLaughlin, Sarah Richardson, Robert Warner CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE BUILDING AT 335 SOUTH CLINTON STREET AS A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK: Terdalkar stated that the Commission is considering the nomination for the buiiding at 335 South Clinton. He said the nomination is not for the property but only for the building. Terdalkar said the buiiding is to be moved to 819 East College Street to avoid demolition and the iandmark designation will help this effort. He said that, depending on how the Commission's votes tonight, this couid go forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the overiay zoning and eventually the City Council will consider the nomination for landmark status. Terdalkar referred to the nomination form and said that the nomination was initiated by citizens in the community. He said that there is an interested party who would like to move the house to another location and applied for a certificate of appropriateness. Terdalkar said there is an issue regarding the front porch, to be considered in detail before the nomination for landmark designation and the certificate for moving the house to 819 E College site is approved. He said that the applicant is proposing not to reconstruct the porch when the house is moved to the College Street site, as it is not feasibie because of the lot restrictions. Terdalkar said the lot is only 50 feet wide. Mark McCallum, the applicant, said that one issue involves the porch. He stated that the porch is nine feet, and if he could accommodate it on the lot, he would. McCallum said that he discussed the porch with Bob Miklo, and everyone agreed that the porch was built around 1904, about 20 years after the building was constructed. McCallum said he wouid like to construct a porch there similar to Helen Burford's. He said he does plan to reconstruct a porch, but his first considerations are preparing the site, moving the house, and getting a foundation under it. McCallum said that he will therefore be back at some point with a porch proposal for something with an Italianate design at the very front of the structure. McCallum said that he has a June 1 'I deadline, and, at this point, he has bank financing in the amount of $210,000 from Hills Bank, with an open invitation to review that amount. He said he has a mover who is pressuring him to sign a contract so that if he can move things through the public process quickly, it will enable him to start signing contracts and putting things in motion. McCallum said he also has someone to do the foundation work. Maharry asked McCallum about the feasibility of moving the current porch. McCallum said that it has a slab under it so that it is not technically a porch. He said that the sides of it are concrete, and the little arches are hollow. McCallum said he was not certain that it could not be done. He added that the issue is really the porch on the side of the house. McCallum directed Commission members to look at the site plan. He said that his current parking lot has excessive parking, but he needs that driveway access to get through to the parking. McCallum said that right now the driveway is the width of a City street. He said that adding the porch to the side would make it physically impossible to accommodate any parking on the site. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 2 McCallum said the Board of Adjustment does have the power to exempt him from all parking requirements, but he did not believe he would want to go from 30 parking spaces to zero. He said the plan before the Commission would have 17 spaces, which would be enough for the sanitarium needs. McCallum said that he would be asking for an exemption for all the parking required for this house, the Myers House. He said there is a five-foot offset on the east side of the property, and even one more foot to push the house eastward would be helpful as well, to separate the two buildings further. Weitzel asked if this building is planned for use as a guest house. McCallum confirmed this. He stated that it is economically unfeasible to make a business plan work at $200,000 at the current market for a three or four-bedroom rental property. McCallum said he has run a more aggressive guest house model, to satisfy the bank needs, and would need at least six guest rooms. McCallum added that this would have a full basement underneath it. He said the plan is to pour a basement with a brick face; he said he would like to salvage the rubble from the original building to relay it up as the foundation. McCallum said there are a number of basement windows, on the east side in particular, that will probably work on that east side as much as possible. Weitzel asked McCallum what he would use for parking for the six guest rooms. McCallum said that at any given time, two-thirds of his current parking lot sits empty. He said there is flow through a parking lot. McCallum said he may call this a faculty house or target international students, people who may not have a car. He said the transient nature of the business doesn't require parking needs there all the time. McCallum said that the normal flow through the lot of tenants in and out would also be a factor. Helen Burford said that, as a resident of the College Green Neighborhood, she looks at this as a good addition to the community. She said the area has had both single-family and multi-family dwellings along College Street for its entire history. Burford said she doesn't think this would be out of place, and, in addition, the style of the house is in keeping with others in the neighborhood. She said the house is in period With in the area. Maharry asked about wording for the motion. Terdalkar said the Commission first needs to decide if this structure would have legitimate landmark status and if the nomination is complete. He said that the Commission would then make a motion to designate this as a landmark and another motion for a certificate of appropriateness for moving the structure, with or without the porch. Terdalkar said the landmark designation should also take into consideration the factor of the porch and whether this would be a landmark in a new location with or without the porch. Ponto said he really likes the porch, but he also likes the building. He said it is worth saving the building without the porch, rather than losing both of them. Maharry agreed. He said that if the Commission has two historic structures, an old house and the porch, rather than losing both, it would be preferable to sacrifice one and keep the predominant one, which is in itself historic, and instead of two historic additions to the College Street neighborhood, there would be one major one. Carlson said that when the house is moved, as he understands it, the porch will be removed, the foundation will be different, and the integrity of location will be absent, which are three things that it has now that it would lose in the move. He said that everything else in the application would apply to both locations. Carlson said that if everything else in the application is sufficient for landmark status, he would say that it would apply equally to either location. Maharry asked Carlson if he believes the new location would be inconsistent with the house. Carlson agreed with Burford that it will fit into the neighborhood. He said that in a way, gaining the integrity of selling makes up for the integrity of location being lost. Weitzel asked if anyone was in opposition to the designation. No one was in opposition. MOTION: Ponto moved that the Commission determine the structure at 335 South Clinton Street to be eligible for landmark status, without the porch and without the foundation, and that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 3 Commission recommend that the City Council approve the structure as a landmark, Maharry seconded the motion, Carlson asked if something should be included in the landmark nomination about the losses that will occur as a result of the move. Terdalkar said the motion could be amended to include the fact that, despite these losses, the property should still be considered a landmark, as its architectural significance would still be present. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto amended the motion to include the fact that, despite the loss of the porch, foundation, and location, the property should still be considered a landmark, as its architectural significance would still be present. Maharry seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1, with Schatteman abstainina. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow the move of the structure at 335 South Clinton Street to 819 East College Street. Terdalkar said the applicant intends to construct a new porch on the house and is expected to come back for a certificate for that at a future date. McCallum said he would like to have language accepting a poured foundation with a brick face so that he would not have to come back before the Commission. He added that, because the access to the existing basement is somewhat limited, he would like to work in an exterior staircase at the rear to allow a service entrance into the basement area. Weitzel asked if McCallum has a design in mind for the staircase. McCallum said it would probably be just a black wrought iron railing staircase that wouid be part of the foundation. He said that it wouldn't be above grade, except for the hand railing. Carlson said that he would rather, at this point, approve the railing in concept so that McCallum would not have to come before the full Commission for a wrought iron railing. McCallum said if the Commission gave him a general direction, he would comply with that. Weitzel said that, as with all railings and structures of that nature, one could either go with a plain black or plain metal or whatever color or could try to make decorative features to match the building. McCallum said the staircase would be poured as part of the foundation work, and he would like to have general approval for the stock language used for porch railings. Terdalkar suggested that the staircase be subject to staff and chair approval. Carlson asked what the foundation would look like. McCallum said it would be a poured foundation that is done with a brick face. He said the hole would be dug and the site prepped. McCallum said the house would then be moved to the site to sit on stilts. He said the foundation is then poured to fit the house, which enables windows to be reused to some extent. McCallum said there is a definitive separation, in that there is the rubble stone and then a concrete something between that and the brick. He said he believes that the mover takes everything below the rubble up, under the foundation to be lifted up on dollies. McCallum said the foundation will then be poured underneath, and there will be a brick ledge above grade, so everything above grade would have a brick ledge. He said that as the mover is pulling the house away or prepping it, he will salvage the rubble and re-utilize it as a brick face on the new foundation when it is set on the house. Carlson asked if it would then be brick rubble, not the stone rubbie from the stone foundation. McCallum said that it would be a stone rubble foundation. Carlson asked if it would be a stone rubble veneer, and McCallum confirmed this. He added that he believes all this occurs below the brick level; the brick is unaffected. McCallum said there is a separation between the brick and the rubble that he thought would be taken as well. He said that as much as possible, the mover will try to maintain the integrity of the building. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Maharry amended the motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the moving of the house, with a stone rubble foundation exterior and a basement stair to be approved by staff and the chair. Carlson seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Apri/13, 2006 Page 4 Maharry said that this process came together with work by the City staff, the City Council, Karin Franklin, the Historic Preservation Commission, Friends of Historic Preservation, and Richard Carlson. He stated that the work came together quickly, was well done, and shows how a process like this can be done in an expedited way. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Aoorooriateness. 430 South Summit Street. Terdalkar said that this application is for an addition to an existing garage. He stated that the footprint will be increased by 12 feet and 24 feet. Terdalkar said the drawings show the addition, with three new windows, and said that the side elevation of the garage would be duplicated with the addition. He said the applicant intends to use similar materials to those existing on the garage, and this application appears to be consistent with the guidelines. Connie Chamoion, the owner of the house, said that she would like to be able to park a second car in the garage. Ponto said that on the existing garage there appears to be a regular square window with four panes on the side. He said the new addition would have three single-pane windows and asked if there were a reason for that. Champion replied that she did not have a particular reason but just wanted to have some windows across there so it isn't just bare wood. She added that her house does not have any paned windows. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a garage addition at 430 South Summit Street, as proposed. Ponto seconded the motion. Ponto said he did not really have a strong feeling about the windows but wondered if there were a reason. Carlson said that a lot of the application refers to matching the existing. He asked if the motion should specify what the existing is. Carlson said there was no written description under project description, and so the only place that specifies the materials is in the staff comments. He said it would be important to specify it in the motion, because it is not clear from the drawing. Champion said that the City has the original drawings that were approved by the Historic Preservation Commission from when the garage was built, so there should be easy access to that information. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Maharry moved to amend the motion to include the staff comments regarding building materials in the application. Ponto seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1, with Schatteman abstainina. 712 Ronalds Street. Terdalkar stated that this application is for an addition to the back of a non- contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said this will be a two-story addition with about a 14 %-foot wide and 16-foot long footprint. Terdalkar said the applicant is requesting approval of a metal shed roof and wood windows, wood siding, and a foundation to match the existing. Robert Warner, the owner of the house, said the idea of the addition is to add a bathroom on the first floor, expand the kitchen, expand the bedroom on the second floor, and add a bathroom up there. He said he is trying to add a couple more feet up there to make the bedroom usable. Warner said the building is rather strange in its alignment in that the front end is the older part, and it only has 5 %-foot high ceilings at the edge. He stated that the current code requires 7 % feet. Warner said the addition in the back was put on another addition underneath it, which is why it sticks out one and one-half feet all the way around. He said he wanted to touch the existing structure as minimally as possibie. Warner referred to the old cistern by the steps coming off the porch and said that it is right where he wants to put the footer. He said he wants to do a simple post and beam construction and tuck the roof in underneath the existing roof and have a shed roof coming out. Warner said that would keep an even profile that kind of runs across the whole length of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 5 Warner said his photographs show other houses around his that have metal raised seam roofs. He said that because of the slight slope on the roof, there wouldn't be a guarantee on any shingles that would be used. Warner said he therefore wants to use a metal raised seam roof. Warner said the design is based on the structural simplicity of it. He said he would do a post and beam construction, with iaminated beams to go across and support it. Warner said that would then be an independent structure. He said he can't trust the foundation, because he believes the cistern has leaked water into the basement wall, resulting in deterioration of the brick on the inside. Warner said he therefore does not want to do anything that would put a load on the existing foundation. Weitzel asked Warner if he would be filling the cistern. Warner replied that he would fill it with a stone, aggregate material. He said he hopes to locate the new footer right at the top of the existing footer, so it does not disturb the existing one, and then have a crawl space underneath. Warner said that if the Commission insists that he uses a peaked roof, he would ask that it not touch the existing roof, in other words, have it with a vertical face and a fixed window that will then get light down into the room below. He said he would really like to go with the shed, because he thought it would be the best for the rain coming off there. Warner added that he would match the wood and siding and the concrete block. Weitzel asked if the pitch of the roof is okay for a metal roof product. He stated that some of the metal roofing is not very good for near flat roofs. Warner said he would put a pitch on at the minimum for that, but it would be less than the four to one. Ponto said that a lot of the standing seam roofs in the neighborhood have pretty steep pitches, and the closer to flat roofs tend to be more of a pressed seam or soldered kind of fiat thing. Warner said he needs to have something that is guaranteed and so will have to have something other than shingles at this pitch. Carlson said the application states that the wood siding will be wider lapped than the existing siding. Warner said the house has a couple of different lap types on it, including a four and one-half inch and a five inch. He said his understanding is that the addition is supposed to look different than the main structure, so he could go to five and one-half or go down to three and one-half. Weitzel said an addition is supposed to be distinguishable from the original structure, but there shouldn't be any problem with that here. Terdalkar said that to distinguish between the new and the old addition, Warner can just use a trim board, which is usually done, and then he can keep the same lap width. Carlson said he thought it would look disjointed enough without using a different lap width. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 712 Ronalds Street as proposed, with the option of using siding of an equal lap if desired. Maharry seconded the motion. Carlson said he appreciates what staff is trying to do here, but he was not certain there was any way to make an addition here look especially compatible. He said there are earlier 20'h century shed roof additions on some houses. Carlson said that if this is what the owner really wants, he is willing to say that it would not add sufficiently, in his opinion, to put a gable roof on here. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1, with Schatteman abstainina. 220 South Dodqe Street. Terdalkar said that this application Is for an alteration of a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. He said the applicant wants to replace a pair of basement windows with egress-sized windows and install a new entry door by enlarging the existing cellar entryway to the basement. Terdalkar said the applicant had new information to present, and he distributed it to Commission members. Michael McLauqhlin, the owner of the house, said his intent is to finish off the basement of the house with a basement bedroom, bathroom, and laundry room. He said that he would use the existing cellar entry, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 6 which is constructed of cinder block. McLaughlin said the entry door is below grade, and so he would like to reconstruct the cellar entry with the same materials, cinder block, to accommodate egress requirements. He said he selected a weatherproof door with a composite threshold and would also be in that rear door entry, which would suffice for egress. McLaughlin said the egress window on the south side would be double hung windows that would match the same style that is on the house, with a little bit of an expansion of the window well to provide egress. Weitzel asked about potentially using the inside stairway. McLaughlin said that was not really feasible, given the structure. He said the stairwell would have to be extended out about three feet into the room, which would be well beyond where the load bearing joist is above, so that it is not really much of an option to do it internally. Regarding the extension of the roof over the back, McLaughlin said he would use inset gutters, a metal aluminum roof to match, molded wood to cover the exterior of the inset gutters and for the soffit underneath, two-inch tongue and groove wainscoting. He said he would be using two-inch wide lap siding to match what is existing there. Carlson asked if the new egress window on the south side of the house would rise up any higher than the current window. McLaughlin said it would not, that he would just be using the existing frame. He said the view from the street will be pretty much the same as it is now. Carlson asked about the new drawing submitted with the roof and if the window underneath that on the first story would not be affected. McLaughlin said that is correct. He said that the underside of the extended roof would be a little bit more than a foot above that, so it won't be affected at all. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 220 South Dodge Street, as proposed. Maharry seconded the motion. Carlson asked about the windows being proposed. McLaughlin said the only change in the windows would be the south side egress window. He said he planned to use the 850 series, which is wood with metal clad, and the wood is fully wrapped. Carlson asked if it would be a divided light window. McLaughlin said it would be a single pane to match the existing windows. Carison asked about the proposed door. McLaughlin said that because it would be below grade, he would like to use a six-panel door. Ponto asked if the stairwell down to the new basement door would require handrails. Terdalkar said that if there are more then four risers, then handrails would be required, and a simple metal pipe rail would be sufficient. McLaughlin said that there would be more than four risers and agreed to the simple metal pipe rail. Carlson asked if the height or width of the existing door would be changed. McLaughlin said it would not and that the opening would stay the same. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the motion to approve a pipe rail or a similar hand rail. Maharry seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1, with Schatteman abstaininQ. 900 North Johnson Streel. Terdaikar said this application is for the construction of a new garage on this site at 900 North Johnson Street, which is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. He said that the footprint of the garage would be 23 feet by 23 feet. Terdalkar said the dimensions given are internal dimensions, so that is the reason for the change. He said that the applicant has requested one single garage door with the width of two cars, instead of two separate garage doors. Terdalkar said the applicant would also like to install a small vent on the roof that would not be visible from the front of the garage. Matthew Laqe, the owner of the house, said the door would look like an older door and would be made of wood. He said he still hasn't decided whether it should be one door or two separate doors. Ponto asked if Lage planned to use rain gutters. Lage said he assumed that he would. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 7 Carlson asked Lage if he was still considering the two different siding materials. Lage said he was considering a Dutch overlap and a three-inch trim that would match the house. Carlson said it is recommended to match the house. He said the one concern is not to make it look too much like a 1918 garage, but he thought there would be enough differences here. Ponto asked Lage if he would have soffits or just open rafter tails. Terdalkar said that the house has closed soffits, so that gives Lage the option of using closed soffits here. Weitzel said that if the garage has gutters, the exposed rafter won't be seen, although he did not care either way. Lage said that he will probably use soffits. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new garage at 900 North Johnson Street, as proposed, allowing both alternative siding materials, allowing the option of having or not having a soffit, and allowing the option of using one or two garage doors. Ponto seconded the motion. Maharry said he thinks this is okay with one or two garage doors because this proposed garage would be quite a distance from the street and would not be terribly visible. Carlson stated that the guidelines recommend having two doors instead of one broad door, so that would be the preferred option, but the Commission is not at liberty to require two doors. Weitzel said the door shown in the drawing takes out some of the importance of the separated doors, because it has such a nice, authentic look. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina. 830 Bowery Street. Terdalkar said this application is for the demolition of an outbuilding on the property. He said there was an accident in which the garage was damaged. Terdalkar stated that the applicant has not provided any information about future plans, although that is not required by the guidelines. He said the Commission will need to review this to determine if the building is architecturally significant and if there is damage that is beyond repair. Ann Freerks said she sent a memo to the Commission earlier in the day to convey her opinion. She said she walks by this building almost daily and has never felt threatened by it or felt that it was a public safety issue. Freerks said that since the post was put in, the building is shored up, and she feels it could be easily repaired. Terdalkar displayed on the overhead screen another letter from a neighbor, Martha Greer. Weitzel said that Greer's letter is also in support of repair. Maharry asked if the applicant had supplied any evidence besides photographs, such as an engineering report, that the structure was unsound. Terdalkar said he did not. He added that a City building official drove by the building, and although he did not do an official survey, he did not feel that it was about to collapse. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an outbuilding at 830 Bowery Street. Carlson seconded the motion. Maharry said he would vote against the motion. He said that although he is not an engineering expert, he walked around all four sides of the structure, and they appear plumb. Maharry said it does not appear that the structure was knocked off its foundation or is leaning, except for the one area that is currently slightly buckled. He said the building is on a foundation, so the bottom is not decaying as it might otherwise. Carison agreed. He said he walked by the structure and except for the one corner, it looks perfectly sound. Carlson said the building itself is unusual in the area and contributes to the historic character of the area. He said it probably dates to the teens or twenties and looks to be largely unchanged since that time. Carlson said that, barring any strong reason to tear this down, which the Commission has not heard, he would yote against the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 8 Ponto pointed out that the application says the building presents a hazard to the safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Weitzel said that other opinions that have been submitted contradict that. Ponto said there is not evidence to support the contention that is a hazard. T erdalkar referred to the photographs provided by the applicant. Ponto asked if there is currently a temporary post holding up the building in the corner. Terdalkar confirmed that a post had recently been installed there. Ponto said he believes that repair of the building should be considered as the first option. The motion failed on a vote of 0.6.1. with Schatteman abstainina. 519 South Summit Street. Terdalkar stated that this application is for an addition to the back Of a house that is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said the applicant is proposing to demolish a part of a current addition that is a second or third addition to the house and would like to construct a new, one and one-half story addition that would have a ground floor footprint of 12 feet by 28 feet. Terdalkar said the owners also propose to construct a gable roof on the existing addition from where it is a flat roof. He said the applicant has provided new drawings that have a siight change in that he has tried to line the windows up in horizontal and vertical lines. Sarah Richardson, the owner of the house, said that she and her husband, David Barker, have lived at this address for about nine years. She said they love the neighborhood and are dedicated to old houses and won a painting award from the Commission several years ago. Richardson said that staying in the bonds of historic appropriateness is very important to them, and they are trying to do that on the inside as well. She said that the motivation for this addition is to accommodate changing family needs from the time that the current kitchen was built. Richardson said they would like a historically appropriate space to enhance the property and accommodate their needs. Richardson pointed out that the addition that was done before was so poor that this change would only enhance the building. Weitzel said it is an important point that this would change an existing addition. Russ Garrett, the contractor for the project, stated that the existing addition was done very poorly. He said it has a flat roof and does not meet any criteria that would match any historic preservation whatsoever. Garrett said he would like to bring the portion of the addition that was already done so that it looks more appropriate and more in proportion with the existing house and also build a larger kitchen. He said the drawing provided to the Commission shows the distance from the back of the addition to the garage at 24 feet, where it is 32 feet now. Garrett said he would remove the existing small porch that is on the back now and then continue out from there another 14 feet. Richardson said that she wants to make sure that she has enough backyard and therefore intends to remove a concrete slab and turn it back into yard area. Garrett said there is also space between the garage and the alley, because the garage is set in on the property a lillle way. Carlson asked if, in the new drawings that were submitted, there is anything different other than the removal of the bay windows. Garrett said that on the south side of the house, there is a window all the way to the left that was a bathroom window. He said he would change that window to match one of the windows of the original foyer. Garrett said that Terdalkar had some recommendations, and as a result, he lined up two windows so that they are symmetrically the same off the corners of the house and are also the same size as the existing window on the north side. Garrett said that the kitchen window would be a triple unit. Regarding exterior changes, Garrett said the bathroom window would be changed to match the window on the front of the house. He said he would also make a handful of changes to clean up the lines on the back of the house. Garrett said the pitched roof over the back would remove the flat roof. Carlson said that one of his concerns with the original design is that it would add clutter to an already cluttered house. Garrett said he heard those concerns and has planned for cleaner lines now. He said he would follow the architecture that is there. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Apri/13, 2006 Page 9 Carlson said that the plans call for existing non-matching corbels to be replaced with curricles matching those in the original design. Garrett said he would be open to that. He said that Terdalkar suggested that it might be better if the ones put on the addition when the addition was put on in the early 1960s were left. Garrett said that the original ones are pretty ornate. Carlson said that if the addition was as late as the 50s or 60s, he would not be committed to keeping them either. Richardson said the neighbor has dated the additions as being built in the 1960s and 70s, the 50s at the very earliest. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition to 519 South Summit Street in accordance with the new drawings presented at the current meeting, with the exception of allowing 125 feet from the lot line. Terdalkar said the motion should address the issue of 125 feet, because the language in the guidelines allows 125 from the street and specifies that the intent is to maintain the open space in the rear yards. He said the guidelines do not refer to the property line, but he would interpret this as being from the curb line or the street, as they are both visible. Carlson asked if the current plan would go approximately 4 Yo feet beyond the 125 feet from the curb. Terdalkar confirmed this and said the Commission could consider an exception to that rule, although it should specify the reasons for the exception. Weitzel said it is in the guidelines, but the language doesn't refer to the curb, the property line, or the center line of the street. Terdalkar said he believes that it refers to the street. He said that because both the property line and the street center line are invisible, the Commission may want to consider the curb. He said that he discussed this with the legal department, and the attorney said this is something for which the Commission would want to set a standard. Gunn said that the Commission discussed this at the last meeting, and he referred to page two of the minutes where Weitzel refers to "the front of the lot line." Gunn said that he and Ruedi Kuenzli measured the 125 feet, and to the best of his recollection, it was from the inside of the sidewalk, which is generally considered the property line. Gunn said the language was probably not very well drafted but said that he was comfortable with this as it is. Maharry said that any way the Commission interprets this, it can also recommend a special exception for this and does not necessarily need to create a precedent at this time. Carlson asked what the special exception would be based on. Maharry suggested it be based on the improvement in the overall appearance of the house. Carlson said he would be more comfortable setting a precedent to use the edge of the lot line. Ponto said that he would be comfortable going with the original intent of the drafter of the guidelines. Gunn said that the lots on Summit Street are about 220 feet from front to back, and this is only considering about a ten-foot difference, as there is a fairly narrow area between the sidewalk and the curb. He said that if this is an encroachment, it's fairly small anyway. Gunn seconded the motion. Carlson said he did not think the Commission knows enough about the brackets and when they were put on. He recommended against the removal of historic materials until it's determined whether they are early 20th century or mid to late 20th century. Garrett said that there are two different kinds on the north side. He said there are plain square brackets and brackets that are ornate. Garrett said the large brackets/corbels underneath the bay windows on the other side of the house match the ornate bracket on the house. He said that the three that match are on the older portion of the house. Carlson said he would like to see the brackets/corbels maintained to keep a sense of how the rear wing developed. He said that one should be able to distinguish the new addition from the old, but because there is so much going on back there now, it will be difficult enough as it is. Carlson said that keeping the brackets might distinguish that part as the older part of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 10 Maharry said that the windows seem to do that, because there are long, thin, narrow windows on the old part versus what is proposed. Garrett said he would be matching the other windows to the front windows on the house. Carlson asked if there were any way, since there is not a setback or change in much of anything else, to distinguish that this part is 50 or more years after the other part. Garrett said that one can tell because there is a two-inch offset where there is a different height of trim. He said there is also an offset of eight inches in the foundation that would remain, because no work would be done there. Garrett said that would separate the older portion of the house from the iater addition. Carlson recommended doing a different foundation to distinguish the addition. Garrett said he can't match the previous brick anyway, because that style is no longer available. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina. 520 Grant Street. Weitzel said that he has had extensive conversations about this project with both the owner and the contractor and felt he could no longer be impartial. He said he would therefore recuse himself and turn over chairmanship of the meeting to Carlson, the Vice Chair. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the proposal is to re-side the house with fiber cement board and also construct a front porch across the full front fa<(ade. Terdalkar said that this application was previously deferred, because the applicant was not available for discussion of an alternative, and the applicant is currently out of town. Terdalkar said it is unusual to have a front porch of this type on a Cape Cod style house. He said that this house is possibly from a mail order catalog. Terdalkar said he researched the Sears catalog and did find a Cape Cod with a front porch just in front of the door but not running the full length of the front fa<(ade. He said that would be a more logical addition to this house. Terdalkar said the illustration provided by the applicant shows an addition on the side, which is a logical way to add to this type of house. He said that this house already has a three-season room on the side of the house. Maharry said the applicant has a May 7'h deadline and asked if the Commission would meet again before that date. Carlson suggested that the Commission approve the siding in time for the deadline, and the porch could be proposed as a separate motion. Maharry said the application is for the siding and the porch, so he suggested the Commission rule on all of it or defer all of it. Terdalkar said the applicant indicated that the May 7'h deadline was an insurance deadline for the siding of the house. He said that if the applicant wanted to then do the porch, he would have to redo the siding in the front, so that the applicant wanted to have both items considered at one time. Maharry asked if the applicant would be willing to defer this. He said it would be in the applicant's best interests to have it deferred. Gunn said that the Commission could approve this subject to a design change in the porch. He said there is some precedent for front porches but perhaps not just exactly like this proposed front porch. Maharry said the precedent for pulling a front porch just over the door of a Cape Cod house is not nearly what the applicant wouid like to do. Carlson said that, as far as he knew, there is absolutely no precedent for a porch wider than right around the front entrance, and even that is rare. Terdalkar said he has seen one model using a very similar pitch of the dormer so that there would be an enlarged dormer coming out at the front, and there would be some covered area in front of the door, perhaps a ten by ten foot area. He said it could have support columns and a gable end. MOTION: Maharry moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 520 Grant Street to the Commission's April 271h meeting. Gunn seconded the motion. !!!! motion carried on a vote of 5-0-2. with Schatteman and Weitzel abstainina. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 13, 2006 Page 11 Terdalkar reminded the Commission that there would be two nights of meetings next week at which Marlys Svendsen would be present for discussions. Weitzel took over as chair of the meeting at this point. Minutes for March 16. 2006 Meetinq. Carlson said that on page two, in the sixth paragraph, the word "listing" should be included after "National Register." He stated that on page four, in the ninth paragraph, the word "moving" should be changed to "removing." Carlson said that on page six, "form" should be changed to "from" in the sixth paragraph. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve the minutes of the March 16,2006 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with Schatteman abstaininq. Burford referred to a chart she distributed regarding the historic preservation awards. She said that there were four rejections, two no responses, and she is waiting for two other applicants to respond. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcdfrTinutesf2006HPCminutesI04-13..Q6.dOC Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2006 Term Name Expires 01119 02/9 02/22 03/16 04/13 I E. Baker 3129/09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I M. Brennan 3/29/08 X X OlE OlE X R. Carlson 3/29/07 X X X X X I J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X OlE OlE -- -- M. Gunn 3/29/07 X X X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X -- -- J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 X X X 0 -- -- J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X M. Schatteman 3/29/09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 0 0 0 0 -- -- T. Weitzel 3/29/08 X X X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member I I I MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED '~6) I MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Arbuckle, Ms. Knudson, Shelley McCafferty, John Rummelhart, Kristen Rummelhart CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Carlson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Aoorooriateness: 621 South Summit Street. Knudson said that she was at the meeting on behalf of William Bywater, the owner of this property, who was unable to attend. She said the project is basically for a patio to be put on the back of the house. Knudson said the patio would be concrete with brick edging all around to match the enclosed porch on the south side. She said there is a step up into the porch and a step up into the entrance to the house, and Bywater wants to put a deck under the balustrade there. Knudson said she just put a general detail there but would use basically whatever the Commission requires. She said Bywater also plans to put a fence around his air conditioner. Terdalkar said he spoke with the applicant about an appropriate style for the railing. He said there is a railing on the front semi-circular portico that could be made of cast iron or simple metal and painted white. Terdalkar said he had asked Bywater if he would be willing to install a similar railing instead of the pre- cast concrete railing as shown in the application. Terdalkar said similar metal railings are also visible on the single-story wings on the north and south side of the main structure. He said he suggested using metal railing to keep the similar appearance to those already on the house, and Bywater seemed willing to make the change. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a patio at the rear of 621 South Summit Street with a railing to match the one on the portico that is in the front. Maharry seconded the motion. Carlson asked if the Commission approval is required for patios. Terdalkar said if this is a platform raised above grade level, it would be considered a deck and constriction of deck requires Commission approval. Knudson said that this will be a patio on grade level and there is a step up into the house. Terdalkar said the applicant wants to reconstruct existing steps. He suggested, if the proposal for a patio construction and not a deck, then approval would be necessary only for the reconstruction of steps and new railing. Knudson said they are currently brick steps and are very settled and uneven. She said they would be replaced with concrete, with a railing on the side. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto amended the motion to include approval for replacing the steps and installing new railing to match the one on the front portico. Maharry seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 1112 East Court Street. Gunn stated that he was contacted about this project by Emerson Andrishok, the consultant, who asked him to review some plans and give a preliminary opinion. Gunn said the plans were exactly the same thing that is in the packet. He said he informed Andrishok that the plans were Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2006 Page 2 generally consistent with the guidelines and that the Commission would most likely be discussing the windows on each side. Terdalkar said that this application is for an addition to the back porch to extend it by about six feet with the same width. He said the owners plan to add windows on all sides and plan to replace the profile of the windows on the north elevation to match the kitchen window that will be close by. T erdalkar said the applicant has proposed to use the wood steps and a landing area for the back entry, with a change in its current orientation. He said he had suggestions about the windows and the placement of the windows and believed the applicant had new drawings. Kristen Rummelhart provided new drawings and said she would like to use this as an entry porch and have it be as functional as possible. She showed photographs of some houses in the neighborhood as examples. Mrs. Rummelhart said she realized the size of the windows might be an issue. She provided pictures of some of the neighbors' service porches. Mrs. Rummelhart showed two carriage houses next door, both with the smaller windows. She showed a photograph of the house on Clark Street that went through the Commission's approval process last year. Maharry asked about the current dimensions versus the revised dimensions. Mrs. Rummelhart said that it is to scale. She said she used what Andrishok had done on the original drawings. Mrs. Rummelhart said they would have the lattice underneath on all sides. She said Terdalkar also discussed the handrails being of a certain dimension. Mrs. Rummeihart said the current orientation of the landing forces someone to back down the steps to get in the door. She said they would like to use wood steps with a landing to the side so that the parking can still be used and to make the top deck deeper so that one could deposit things while unlocking the door. Mrs. Rummelhart said they hoped to use a salvaged, historic door for the replacement door. Maharry asked if the plans were for either double hung-type or casement. Mrs. Rummelhart said her preference would be for the smaller casements. She added that she has discussed this project with the neighbors on both sides, who have not objected. Maharry asked what is above the door. Mrs. Rummelhart said there is a transom there now. She said that Andrishok was trying to replicate all the details in the drawings. Mrs. Rummelhart said she would be using the clapboard. She said that she would also re-use the brick support by moving it to the outside edge to keep the look the same from the outside edge. Carlson asked Mrs. Rummelhart if her preferred plan would be to have the small square windows on all three sides. Mrs. Rummelhart confirmed this. Carlson said he had a bit of a problem with that, because something like this really wouldn't have had that small of windows all the way around. Mrs. Rummelhart stated that the small windows were used in certain places in houses, such as over a mantel or in a stairwell. Carlson agreed that they were used at specific locations. Mrs. Rummelhart showed a photograph of an addition with small windows to a house in the Clark Street District that was approved by the Commission in the past year. Maharry asked if the plan would include matching the eaves. Mrs. Rummelhart said they plan for a lillle less of an overhang. She said the issue is that it would be visible if it extended beyond the side of the house. Mrs. Rummelhart said she would like to get the maximum overhang without being visible. Maharry asked about the railing design. He suggested a basic, square spindle. Mrs. Rummelhart said she would use something simple. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a rear addition to 1112 East Court Street, in accordance with the revised drawings, with the four-pane divided light; with cornerboards to match and a simple square, spindle wooden staircase; with a door similar to the drawing with one or two panels below and a glass panel above; and with lattice recommended underneath. Brennan seconded the motion. Carlson said he is still not convinced by the square windows, but because this is a small addition, he would be willing to let it go. Mrs. Rummelhart pointed out that this would not be visible from the front. Baker added that there also appears to be precedent for this in the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2006 Page 3 The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 520 Grant Street. Terdalkar stated that he spoke with the applicant regarding this project, and the applicant has still not finalized the porch design and is still considering a porch with a shed roof and width same as that of the house. Terdalkar said the applicant has an insurance deadline for the siding issue and has therefore withdrawn the porch proposal and requested that the Commission consider only the siding replacement at this time. Carlson said the proposal was for fiber cement board to replace the existing aluminum. Terdalkar confirmed this. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of aluminum siding and either repair of the wood siding underneath or replacement of with fiber cement board siding, as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. Maharry said that if the aluminum is removed, there may be cornerboards and trim underneath, although there may not have been with this style of house. Terdalkar and Carlson agreed that there may not have been with this style of house. Terdalkar suggested amending the motion so that if there are cornerboards and trim, the applicant should try to match it. Gunn suggest including language requiring leaving or repairing the original trim, since it isn't known what is under the siding. Carlson said that if there was actually a cornerboard, and the owner puts hard i-plank on top of it, he will at least have to rebuild a new cornerboard to make it look right. Gunn said he could bult up against the old cornerboard or put a new one on. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the main motion to require the applicant, if existing cornerboards and trim are still intact, to keep or repair the existing trim and cornerboards. Baker seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. DISCUSSION OF TORNADO RECOVERY: McCafferty said there is an issue on 715 East College Street, the Musser Mansion, that will also be applicable to two or three other houses. She said there is a barn on the property that is being repaired. McCafferty said that Arbuckle, the contractor, has applied for a certificate of no material effect to replace the barn roof. McCafferty said that a building permit is required, because the barn has skip sheathing on it right now, and there were then wood shingles, and then there was metal, which was damaged. She said there was a question as to whether or not this could be approved as a certificate of no material effect. McCafferty said the owner would really like to just remove the metal roof and put on asphalt shingles to match the house. She said the metal has been corroding from underneath and is already leaking. McCafferty said there is really not enough left there to repair. Arbuckle said that about 30% of the metal has been destroyed and cannot be reused. He said the roof had several places where it leaked before the storm, and underneath the metal across the entire roof are wooden shingles that crumble in one's hands. Arbuckle said that even the skip sheathing underneath the wood shingles has deteriorated. Arbuckle said the barn was moved off its foundation and is silting on stacked brick at ground level. He said he has had to raise the building up and also deal with a well and an underground fuel storage tank. Arbuckle said the barn has a built-in metal gulter that the owner wants to keep. He said he would repair what is there now or make a new one out of copper. Miklo stated that this issue is similar to the siding issue the Commission will be facing. He said it is important for the Commission to establish some policies, perhaps allowing a building to be repaired if the damage is less than a certain percentage or basing the requirements on the significance of the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2006 Page 4 Arbuckle said the insurance coverage for this barn is $42,000, but the project will hit $75,000 very quickly, and that is without the metal roof. He said this is a great looking structure, but the metal roof was never installed correctly. Arbuckle said the barn dates to 1890. McCafferty said the Commission needs to determine whether this can be approved with a certificate of no materiai effect. She said that if it were not for the skip sheathing issue, this would not even require review. Gunn said that on page 16 in the Guidelines under Mass and Roofiines: Recommended Materials: it reads, "Using asphalt shingles that resemble the texture and color of weathered shingles for roofs that had wood shingles historically." He said that this language was added with the last major revision to address this exact situation. ' Miklo said that because metal roofs are pretty significant historically in their own right, the Commission may want to consider looking at these on a case-by-case basis. Carlson suggested having this first go to Terdaikar and the Chair to decide if it should then come before the full Commission. Gunn said he had no problem with this application, but it makes sense to look at these on a case-by-case basis. Terdalkar said the Commission may choose to decide on a conceptual level whether a certificate of no material effect can be considered or not. He said that for a historic district property, an issue like this will not be a minor or intermediate review. Terdalkar said it would have to either be a certificate of no material effect or a major review. Miklo said there is an appearance change with this, so the Commission would need to go through the process in a situation like this. Ponto said the handbook says that a certificate of no material effect can be considered when the change "will have no effect on the appearance of significant architectural features." Carlson stated that the roof is almost always a significant feature of a house. McCafferty asked what is significant about the roof - the material or the form and shape of it. Carlson said it's more the shape that is significant. McCafferty said this would not change the shape but would just change what it is covered with. Terdalkar said the language also refers to the appearance of the significant features. He said that raises the question of whether the shingle appearance is architecturally different than the metal's appearance. Gunn said he did not think the intention of the guideline is to require either the removal or the keeping of all metal roofs. He said the intent is to say that there are times when a wood-shingled roof is every bit as good or better than a new metal roof. Terdalkar questioned how the Commission would know that a building or roof is beyond repair. Maharry said the applicant would have to present evidence at the Commission's meeting in an open forum. Gunn said he did not feel that a case would have to be made that a metal roof is irreparable in order to put shingles on. Maharry asked Terdalkar if there was a count as to how many structures in conservation and historic districts would have siding issues. Terdalkar replied that there are at least 20 or 30 properties on Iowa Avenue, Washington Street and other streets in this area that had vinyl siding torn off. Terdalkar said that in this case, because more than 50% of the sheathing is to be replaced, a permit is required. Miklo said that will probably be the case with all metal roofs. He said it is pretty clear that a certificate of no material effect would not suffice. Miklo said there are circumstances in this case that wouid provide the Commission with a consensus for approving this. Because of the small insurance proceeds in this case, he said that if the Commission insisted on saving the metal roof, the whole building would be threatened. Miklo suggested the Commission consider holding weekly meetings so that people won't have to wait to have their projects approved. The consensus of the Commission was to hold weekly meetings, as necessary, on Thursday evenings at 6:00. Maharry asked if there were an inventory of how many homes were damaged and what will have to be done to those homes. Miklo said there were 125 homes damaged in conservation or historic districts Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2006 Page 5 although he did not know that all of them would need Commission review. He said that some houses only have windows out and can receive certificates of no material effect. Terdalkar stated that approximately 40 houses in the districts have major damage. He said that other houses just have broken window panes, some dents in the siding, or vinyl siding damage. Terdaikar said that many of the property owners have aiready approached the City, and the Chair and Staff were able issue certificates of no material effect, and certificates of appropriateness for under minor and intermediate review categories for some of those applications. Terdalkar said that of the 40 plus houses with major damage, quite a few are from the conservation district so that minor review and intermediate review will be possible for them, and they will not need to come before the full Commission. He said that most of the applicants are restoring the existing structures to pre-storm conditions. Terdalkar stated that he would research the number of properties that have siding damage in the districts. He said the Commission may want to determine a percentage at which it would be okay to replace the siding that is there. Maharry said Weitzel has stated before that if one has to take off all the siding to put new siding back up, that is replacement, and anything short of that is repair. Terdaikar said a homeowner discussed with him a case in which there was damage on all sides, but only a few pieces on each side. He said the homeowner asked if he could remove the siding from one side and use the pieces wherever there is damage. Terdalkar said that if the owner replaces the missing pieces with new vinyl, it doesn't match what is there already. Miklo said that it is hard to get exact matches with aluminum and vinyl siding. Brennan asked if there were something in the zoning code that allows a property to be restored to its non- conforming use if it was damaged by an act of God. Miklo said the zoning code states that if a property is damaged to more than 75% of the value, it has to conform to the current codes in terms of use and setbacks. Terdalkar said that in a conservation district, there is an exception that allows vinyl siding on non- contributing structures. He said that it is an exception that can be made by the Commission but is not required to be made. Miklo said that one difficulty with some structures is that they might be contributing if they didn't have the synthetic siding on them in the first place. Maharry asked about the Friends of Historic Preservation gap coverage grant program. Miklo said that right now there is a pool of about $10,000 that might help restore two or three buildings. Terdalkar cited several houses on Iowa Avenue that have vinyl siding, only one of which is contributing. He said in some instances if the synthetic siding was taken off and old wood wood siding could be restored the property may qualify as a contributing status. Ponto said there is a mechanism to change the status one way or the other. Terdalkar said he would get an exact number of the houses with vinyl siding that have been damaged. Miklo said that too lenient of a policy might risk losing some owners who would otherwise bring their properties back. Maharry said that if there are less than ten properties with siding issues, it should be manageable to review the applications on a case-by-case basis. Gunn said they all have to come before the Commission anyway. Maharry said the issue is repair versus replacement, as an owner doesn't need permission to repair. He said the question then is what is considered a repair. Terdalkar said most people are coming with the notion that they want to replace all of the siding with vinyl. Maharry commented that those who sell vinyl say that it doesn't fade, so that should allow homeowners to repair any damage. Gunn asked if there is a percentage that seems reasonable. He said that he would have a problem with saying that if it's 25% there that it's okay to re-side the whole thing. Gunn said he was okay with looking at these on a case-by-case basis. He said he would not give a very big percentage if one were given, maybe no more than 10%, without seeing the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 27, 2006 Page 6 Carlson said he believed that in the past the Commission has allowed, on occasion, the replacement of one synthetic siding with another type of synthetic siding. Ponto said that in a past application, a homeowner wanted to replace aluminum siding, but the aluminum siding was no longer available, so then he wanted to switch to vinyl. Miklo said the consensus of the Commission seems to be to review these on a case-by-case basis, considering the quality and the contributing versus non-contributing status of the building. He said that if a building would go from non-contributing to contributing by taking the siding off, the Commission may want to consider that in its decision. Miklo said that Molly Naumann often called a property non-contributing because she felt the siding changed the character of the house. Maharry said it sounds like the consensus is to have a zero threshold and consider every application. Gunn said the Commission could say that a certificate of no material effect could be approved if the damage is less than 15% or something iike that, with the rest being reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He said that wouid allow for a small repair. Terdalkar said that people don't generally go for small repairs. Miklo said the nature of siding is that it is not easily repaired. Terdalkar said he would provide as much information as possible for the weekly meetings on laser fiche so that Commission members could review the material ahead of time. Weitzel took over chairmanship of the meeting at this point. Minutes for ADri113. 2006 Meetina: Carlson stated that on page one, Pardekooper should be deleted from the list of members not present. He said that on page four, in the second paragraph after the motion, the word "product" should be changed to "project." Carlson said that on page five, the term "racing" should be changed to "raised seam" in two places in the first paragraph. He stated that on page nine, in the first paragraph, the word "curricles" should be changed to "corbels." Carlson said that on page nine, in the last two paragraphs, the word "brackets" should be changed "brackets/corbels." He added that on page nine in the second to last paragraph, the second sentence should be changed to "...until it's determined whether they are early 20th century or mid to late 20th century." MOTION: Maharry moved to approve the minutes of the April 13th, 2006 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Maharry said that the house at 335 South Clinton Street is scheduled to be torn down. He added that the Alpha Chi Omega house will most likely be demolished. Maharry asked if there are any other houses in the conservation and historic districts that are deemed structurally unsound and need to be demolished. Terdalkar said there are two structures designated unsafe on Iowa Avenue, but there are not many structures that have been deemed 'totaled' in the districts. Terdalkar said some of the damaged chimneys are disappearing. Weitzel said that a lot of them are just being roofed over. He said there are a lot of small things that people won't submit applications for if they can get away with it. Terdalkar said that is a difficult to watch and control every1hing that is being done in the damaged areas. He added that there are front elevation photographs taken before the storm of most of the houses in the districts, which could help in the rebuilding process. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcdlminutesJHPC/2006HPCminulesl04.27 -oS.doc I Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record , , ! 2006 i I I I Term Name Expires 01/19 02/9 02122 03/16 04/13 04/27 I E. Baker 3/29/09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X M. Brennan 3/29/08 X X OlE OlE X X R. Carlson 3/29/07 X X X X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X OlE OlE -- -- -- -- M.Gunn 3/29/07 X X X X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X -- -- -- -- J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 X X X 0 -- -- -- -- J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X M. Schatteman 3/29/09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- T. Weitzel 3/29/08 X X X X X X I Key: I X = Present , 0 = Absent I I OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member I I I I I i I