HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-09 Info Packet~ i
~. "m ~`' ~
,~°~~•~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
December 9, 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community: Towncrest redevelopment
area financial incentive programs
IP3 P.A.U.L.A. Report -November 2010
DRAFT MINUTES
IP4 Board of Adjustment: November 10, 2010
IP5 Youth Advisory Commission: November 14, 2010
IP6 Airport Commission: November 18, 2010
IP7 Historic Preservation Commission: November 10, 2010
~:.®~'
s1 y~lll~'~~
~~_„_ City Council Meeting Schedule and ,~_~y_,~
CITY Of IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas IP1
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:30a - 4:OOp Special Budget Work Session (CIP & Budget Overview)
• MONDAY, JANUARY 10 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• THURSDAY, JANUARY 13 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Budget Work Session
• MONDAY, JANUARY 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day -City Offices Closed
• TUESDAY, JANUARY 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Budget Work Session (Boards/Commissions/Events)
• MONDAY, JANUARY 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, JANUARY 25 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• THURSDAY, JANUARY 27 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Budget Work Session
• MONDAY, JANUARY 31 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall
Presidents' Day -City Offices Closed
• WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23
4:30p Special Work Session Qoint meeting at Johnson County)
~' 1'`~,~
`' "'""®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
-~..a~._
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas December 8, 2010
www.icgov.org
• MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, MARCH 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, MARCH 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
r
~~_,_,®~ CITY OF IOWA CITY ~P
`III~~~
~W~~~ RAN D U ~
M E~C~
Date: December 9, 2010
To: City Council
From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development
Re: Towncrest redevelopment area financial incentive programs
At your December 7 City Council meeting you approved the Urban Renewal Plan for the
Towncrest Redevelopment Area. This is part of our ongoing strategy to seek reinvestment and
renewal of the Towncrest area in east Iowa City. This is one facet of our overall economic
development strategy to grow the commercial and industrial tax base in Iowa City.
Approval of the Towncrest Urban Renewal Plan enables the use of several financial incentive
programs including Tax Increment Financing. Attached is a brochure announcing the availability
of the programs we have been developing over the past six months. They include:
Facade Improvement Program
Our redevelopment strategy for Towncrest was initially focused on the construction of new
higher density multiuse buildings. As we got further into evaluating this strategy we realized,
particularly with the ongoing downturn in the economy, that we also needed to develop a
strategy for the renewal of existing buildings. This led to the development of the Facade
Improvement Program.
The Facade Improvement Program is designed to provide technical and financial assistance to
Towncrest property owners or business tenants seeking to renovate or restore commercial
building facades. This includes associated elements such as signage and lighting. It is hoped
that a combination of reinvestment in existing buildings as well as construction of new buildings
which are all consistent with the Towncrest Design Plan will spur the vision of the new
Towncrest.
Approved projects are eligible for 50% matching grants for the cost of the facade improvement.
Under certain conditions, projects may be eligible fora 75% matching grant if there is significant
overall private investment, the property is vacant, and the proposed improvements involve a
signed lease for a new tenant. The minimum grant amount is $5,000 and the maximum grant
amount is $25,000.
Gap Financing for Catalyst Projects
This program is designed to provide gap financing to support the development of commercial,
residential, and mixed use buildings in Towncrest. Projects must be consistent with the goals of
the Towncrest Urban Renewal Plan and the Towncrest Design Plan. This program was
developed because several businesses currently located in Towncrest or considering moving to
Towncrest have indicated to us a preference for a new or fully rehabilitated space that is not
currently available.
The City seeks to provide gap financing for projects that can positively impact the Towncrest
area. The financing "gap" will be calculated by financial analysis of each individual project. The
amount of assistance will be evaluated on the basis of the number of jobs created or retained,
or the amount of new property tax base created.
December 9, 2010
Page 2
Predevelopment Assistance
In our discussions with persons interested in Towncrest development projects it became
apparent that a grant program to support predevelopment expenses for projects eligible for the
Gap Financing Program would be valuable. Projects must be consistent with the Towncrest
Design Plan. Grants of up to $25,000 are available. Eligible uses include architectural,
engineering, and environmental assessment services. Expenses incurred prior to the execution
of a predevelopment agreement with the City are not eligible for reimbursement but may be
considered as contributing towards the required 50% owner/developer match.
To clarify, the Predevelopment Assistance Program is only available for significant construction
or renovation projects, and not the Facade Improvement Program.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
TIF is a mechanism which can be used at the City Council's discretion to finance significant
development projects in an Urban Renewal Area. We can also use TIF funds for public
infrastructure projects. The difference between taxes derived from the existing property and
those derived after the redevelopment project is in place is the "increment" of funding that is
available for improvements. Funds may be pledged at the discretion of the City Council as
property tax rebates or to retire indebtedness incurred by the redevelopment project.
It is hoped that if a significant redevelopment project involving new construction can be attracted
to Towncrest, the City would partner with the private developer and reconstruct the adjacent
streetscape consistent with the Towncrest Design Plan. It would be great to have the City
partner with the private sector on a catalyst project which would demonstrate the new vision for
Towncrest.
CDBG Economic Development Program
The CDBG Economic Development Program is an ongoing program which funds projects to
qualifying businesses that meet low/mod income guidelines. Loans are typically in the $5,000-
$50,000 range and are frequently used to provide gap financing. The current balance in the
program is $147,000.
Process
Projects requesting assistance from the Towncrest Financial assistance programs will initially be
evaluated by the City's Economic Development staff. Projects recommended for funding
exceeding $25,000 will be brought to the City Council Economic Development Committee for
the initial review and recommendation to the City Council. An important part of the evaluation of
projects will be the Towncrest Design Review Overlay District that you will consider for approval
at your January 10 meeting.
It is of critical importance that the financial assistance programs are used to fund projects which
are consistent with the Towncrest Design Plan. The Towncrest Design Plan has been
developed in a partnership between the City and the businesses and residents that make up the
Towncrest neighborhood. The Design Plan is the vision that has been embraced by the
community for the redevelopment and renewal of Towncrest.
If the financial incentive programs can be thought of as the "carrot" that the City is providing to
encourage redevelopment, then the design review process can be thought of as the "stick." This
is no different than the design review process that established the City Plaza area in downtown
Iowa City. The community embraced the overall vision, and the design review process assured
December 9, 2010
Page 3
that redevelopment projects were consistent with the vision. We are proposing the same
process for the renewal of Towncrest.
Feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions.
Attachment
cc: Tom Markus, City Manager
Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner
Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner
Brian Boelke, Senior Civil Engineer
Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney
PP D D I R/M E M/Town crestFi na nci al I n centi veProg ra m.12-2010
ToWncrest
The Towncrest area is the focus of a major urban renewal
project that will bring a new look, new economy, and
new vitality to this east-side Iowa City business district
and neighborhood. The City of Iowa City is offering a
variety of financial incentives including grants and
low- or no-interest loans to developers, prospective
business owners, current business owners and tenants
to help fund construction, reconstruction, facade im-
provements, and new businesses. Some programs are
only available on a first-come, first-served basis, so con-
tact us now to discuss your projects and ideas!
-„~,
~``' ,~'
Incentive programs:
^ Tax Increment Financing
for substantial development projects
^ Gap Financing Grants
for new construction, substantial
reconstruction, and pre-development
assistance
^ Facade Improvement Grants
^ CDBG Loans
for business start-ups, if applicant
meets federal funding requirements
E'ormore info:
www icgov.org/towncrest
Project details and application forms
Economic Development Division
City of Iowa City
Call Wendy Ford or Tracy Hightshoe
319.356.5230
IP3
Iowa City Police Department DEC -- ~ ~~~a
1alO DEC -B PM 1~'•~ U. L.A. Report- November 2010
(Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age)
Business Name (occupancy] Monthly Totals Year-to-Date Totals PAULA Visit
(occupancy loads updated Oct '08) visits arrests visits arrests ear-to-date
808 Restaurant & Nightclub [176] 3 0 57 53 0.930
Airliner [223] 2 1 36 8 0.222
American Legion [140] 1 0 13 0 0.000
Aoeshe Restaurant [156]
Atlas World Grill [165] 0 0 1 0 0.000
Blackstone [297]
Bluebird Diner [82]
Blue Moose [436] 1 0 29 8 0.276
Bob's Your Uncle [260`
Bo-James [200] 1 0 22 0 0.000
Bread Garden Market & Bakery
[It's] Brothers Bar & Grill [556] `3 0 64 13 0.203
[The] Brown Bottle [289]
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar [189] 0 0 4 0 0.000
Caliente Ni ht Club [498 0 0 7 0 0.000
Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill [92J 1 0 2 0 0.000
Carlos O'Kelly's [299]
Chefs Table [162
Chipotle Mexican Grill [119]
[The] Club Car [56] 0 0 5 0 0.000
Coaches Corner [160] 1 0 3 0 0.000
Colonial Lanes [502]
Dave's Foxhead Tavern [87] 2 0 3 0 0.000
David's Place (aka Dawit's) [73] 0 0 3 0 0.000
DC's 120] 2 0 23 2 0.087
[The] Deadwood [218] 0 0 8 0 0.000
Devotay [45]
Donnelly's Pub [49] 0 0 7 0 0.000
[The] Dublin Underground [57] 0 0 9 0 0.000
[Fraternal Order of] Eagle's [315j
EI Banditos [25
EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant [104]
[BPO] Elks #590 [205]
EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant [161]
Englert Theatre [838]
[The] Field House (aka Third Base) [420] 5 0 48 78 1.625
Firewater [114] 5 4 23 4 0.174
First Avenue Club [280]
Formosa Asian Cuisine [149] 0 0 2 0 0.000
Gabes [261 ] 0 0 6 0 0.000
Geor e's Buffet [75] 2 0 6 0 0.000
Givanni's [158] 0 0 1 0 0.000
Godfather's Pizza [170]
Graze (49] 0 0 2 0 0.000
Grizzly's South Side Pub [265] 1 0 13 0 0.000
Guido's Deli [20]
Hawkeye Hideaway [94] 0 0 1 0 0.000
[The] Hilltop Lounge [90] 0 0 3 0 0.000
IC Ugly's [72] 1 0 6 0 0.000
India Cafe [100]
Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack [71]
Jobsite [120] 0 0 13 0 0.000
Joe's Place [281 ] 1 0 16 0 0.000
Joseph's Steak House [226]
Karaoke La Reyna [78]
La Reyna [49]
Linn Street Cafe [80]
Los Portales 161]
'
3
0
25
6
0.240
s [200]
Martini
Masala [46]
Mekon Restaurant [89]
'
0
0
12
1
0.083
s [98]
Micky
[The] Mill Restaurant [325] 0 0 1 0
[Loyal Order of] Moose 476
[Sheraton] Morgan's [231] ,
Motley Cow Cafe [82]
Okoboji Grill (222]
Old Capitol Brew Works [294) 1 0 7 0 0.000
One-Eyed Jake's [299] aka J Bar 1 0 36 30 0.833
One-Twent -Six 105]
Orchard Green Restaurant [200] 0 0 1 0 0.000
Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant [87]
Pagliai's Pizza [113] 0 0 0.000
Panchero's (Clinton St) [62)
Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr) [95]
Piano Lounge [65] 0 0 2 0 0.000
Pints [180] 2 0 35 1 0.029
Pit Smokehouse [40]
Pizza Hut [116]
Pizza Ranch [226]
Qualit Inn/Highlander [971]
Quinton's Bar & Deli [149] 0 0 9 0 0.000
[The] Red Avocado [47]
Rick's Grille & S irits [120]
Riverside Theatre [118]
Saloon [120] 0 0 4 0 0.000
Sam's Pizza [174] 1 2 5 2 0.400
[The] Sanctuary Restaurant [132] 1 0 7 0 0.000
Shakespeare's [90] 2 0 11 0 0.000
Short's Burger & Shine [56] 1 0 5 0 0.000
Slippery Pete's [178] 1 0 19 1 0.053
Sidelines [200] 0 0 8 0 0.000
Sports Column [400] 0 0 44 33 0.750
Star Lounge [144] 0 0 3 0 0.000
Studio 13 [206] 0 0 15 1 0.067
[The] Summit [736] 2 0 63 71 1.127
Sushi Popo [84]
Takanami Restaurant [148]
TCB [250] 0 0 14 1 0.071
Thai Flavors [60]
Thai Spice [91]
Times Club @ Prairie Lights [60]
T. Spoons [102]
Union Bar [854] 5 0 45 17 0.378
VFW Post #3949 [197]
[The] Vine Tavern [170] 5 0 18 3 0.167
Vito's [320] 5 0 35 2 0.057
Wi & Pen Pizza Pub [154] 0 0 1 0 0.000
[Iowa City] Yacht Club [206] 1 0 6 2 0.333
Zio Johno's Spaghetti House [94]
Z'Mariks Noodle House 47
Totals: 63 7 868 337 0.388 N
Other PAULA at non-business locations: 3 146 °
PAULA Totals: 10 483 0
current month year-to-date
*includes outdoor seating area
~
l=J ~
f~l
C-7
~ Z
~:".~
!V
c`e7 ..
~_
~ O
IP4
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 10, 2010 - 5:15 PM
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Will Jennings, Barbara Eckstein
MEMBERS ABSENT: Le Ann Tyson, Robert Anderson
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Clifford Reif, Kristen Breaux
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM
ROLL CALL:
Jennings, Sheerin, Eckstein were present
CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 13, 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Eckstein and Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes.
Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended .
Jennings seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC10-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Reif Oil Company for a
special exception to allow adrive-through facility located in the Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone at 2580 Naples Avenue.
Walz explained that the commercial area in which the drive-through was proposed was a
newer commercial development and that Naples Drive had been designed to support
higher levels of commercial traffic. She explained that City staff would be looking at the
street to decide whether the striped median approaching the Menards entrance should
be changed to a left turn lane.
Walz discussed the specific criteria for drive-through areas. She said that the location,
which is somewhat remote and along the intersection of two highways, would have
limited pedestrian usage. Nonetheless, the applicant was required to address pedestrian
access. The proposed site plan showed a sidewalk along Naples Avenue with a
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 2 of 7
pedestrian walkway extending around the parking area to the south and then crossing
over to the convenience store near the drive-through. Walz explained that other uses in
this area are all commercial in nature and so there was no concern with impacts on
residential properties.
Walz explained that one requirement was that the number of drive-through lanes and
stacking spaces were appropriate for the use. Since this drive-through restaurant was
accessory to the larger convenience store use, staff believed that the one lane with six
stacking spaces is sufficient to serve the use. Also, the proposed drive-through is to be
located to the rear of the site with vehicles circulating behind the convenience store
building along aone-way drive. The site plan shows pavement markings indicating the
one-way direction of the drive, but staff recommended that the exit area of the drive
should be marked to indicate exit only to make it clear that this is a one-way drive.
Walz stated that the drive-through met the required setbacks and that the precise
location of the drive-through is set at a significantly lower grade than the adjacent
Highway 1 interchange. It is difficult to see the drive-through area from Highway One
and for this reason, the Building Official had waved the requirement for S2 screening
along this portion of the site as part of the site plan review. However, Walz noted, in
reviewing the drive-through application the Board could require screening.
Eckstein asked whether there was any bus service to the area and whether there was a
bus stop or shelter along Naples. Walz responded that she did not believe there was a
bus shelter nor bus service to this area.
Jennings stated that depending of the specific food franchise or times of day, that the
could be large demand at the drive-through and wondered where cars would stack.
Would there be space for cars to stack behind the building and still allow other traffic,
such as delivery trucks to pass through? Jennings asked whether the parking or drive
area was designed to accommodate this situation.
Walz said that there was space for cars to wait directly behind the building as well as
some space in the area before cars enter the drive-through lane.
Eckstein asked how people from Menards would access the facility on foot, stating that
this being the only food service in the area it may attract workers on break to walk to the
site. Walz state that pedestrians would either cross the street at the drive entrance to
Menards or go to the controlled intersection of Highway One and Naples Avenue by way
of the sidewalk. Eckstein asked whether there was a pedestrian crossing where Naples
Avenue met the drive entrances from Menards and the subject property. Walz
responded that there was not. She said this had been discussed with the traffic planners
and that there was a consensus that in an area such as this where there is not frequent
pedestrian use that a crosswalk gives pedestrians a false sense of security as vehicles
are not anticipating the crosswalk.
Jennings asked about the traffic island shown on the site plan between the drive-through
area and the adjacent bypass lane that ran behind the building. Walz explained that
areas not used for parking and drives must be landscaped and that this would be
appropriate for turf or other low landscaping.
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 3 of 7
Eckstein asked whether the pile of dirt shown in one of the photographs was temporary.
Walk replied that it was.
Duane Musser of MMS Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant. He state that the
drive that ran behind the building would have signage directing traffic and that the design
of the site was intended to limit any interference between the drive-through traffic and
customers or deliveries for the gas pumps or convenience store. He stated that the
traffic island would have sod or low shrubs and would not impede visibility between the
drive-through traffic and vehicles accessing the rear circulation drive. He stated that
there is an easement for fiber optic connections at the top of the retaining wall along the
south property line. He indicated that due to the easement it was not desirable to place
additional plantings in this area and that the change in grade eliminated views of the
drive-through. He reiterated that the was no bus service to this area and that they had
provided appropriate pedestrian access to the site with the sidewalk along Naples and
the connection along the south side of the parking area. He indicated that the parking
spaces at the south side of the side would be primarily for employees and that the
proposed fast food restaurant would occupy approximately 1,100 square feet of the
building.
Eckstein asked how drainage was provided for the site. Musser responded that this is a
requirement and that curb and gutter were installed and stormwater intakes. He
explained that all water would drain to the detention area at the north end of Naples
Drive. No water could drain onto Naples or to the Highway or other areas.
Clifford Reif of Rief Oil explained that he had applied for a fast food franchise and that in
order to get the franchise his site needed. to provide 6 stacking spaces.
Jennings indicated again that the franchise may change over time and that at different
times of day or during the week demand for the drive-through would change. Reif
responded that it was not in their interest to have the franchise interfere with the
convenience store/gas station use and that the food service was only a small portion of
the facility.
Sheerin invited comment from the public. Hearing no further comment she asked for a
motion.
Eckstein moved to approve EXC10-00010, a special exception to allow adrive-
throughfacility in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 2580 Naples Avenue,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and
2. The entrance and exit areas should be clearly marked with appropriate
signage to indicate the one-way circulation of the drive.
Jennings seconded.
Jennings state that the number ofdrive-through lanes and stacking space were
appropriate and would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties because their was
space for 6 cars to stack at the drive-through with additional space behind the building
for cars that must wait for order. He said that the drive-through was at the rear of the
site and that the circulation of the drive, when marked with appropriate signage, would
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 4 of 7
not conflict with public drives or other vehicles accessing the site. He said that the
location was surrounded by other commercial properties and that residential uses would
not be effected by the use. He stated that pedestrian access would be provided along a
walkway from the sidewalk on Naples Avenue and that it is in the City's future plans to
include asidewalk/trail extension to the Naples/Hwy 1 intersection, at which a signalized
pedestrian crossing would be installed.
Jennings noted that Naples Avenue was designed to support the level of traffic
associated with commercial development in the area. He stated that the drive-through
lanes meet the required setback standard and that additional screening was not
necessary due to the change in grade.
Sheerin noted that all lighting for the proposed use would be reviewed by the building
department as part of the permit process and that all other standards in the code would
need to be met. She reiterated Jennings finding with regard to surrounding zoning and
uses and the placement and design of the drive-through to support the general
standards and stated that the Southwest District Plan identifies this area as appropriate
for Highway-oriented development.
Eckstein noted for the record that she did not think it appropriate to develop a
commercial area such as this, with a major retailer like Menards, without provision for
alternative transportation: bike, pedestrian, or bus.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
EXC10-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Kristen Breaux for a special
exception to reduce the front principal building setback requirement to allow
reconstruction of a porch on property located in the RS-8 zone at 1122 E. Washington
Street.
Walz explained that the applicant had previously applied for a been granted a special
exception to alter the porch roof in order to provide better drainage. At the time the
applicant believed the porch could be improved with limited reconstruction. It was later
discovered that the porch was failing completely and need to be entirely reconstructed.
Because the special exception was limited to improvement of the roof, a new special
exception is necessary. Walz noted that the existing porch structure was enclosed with
windows that that staff regarded this similar to a home addition.
Referring to other properties along the street frontage, and in the neighborhood in
general, was stated that given the degree to which the porch extended into the required
front setback, staff would recommend that a new porch be an open air porch-a porch
not enclosed by windows or solid walls. This, Walz noted makes it appear as if is part of
the living space and not a separate distinct portion of the house, noting again other
porches along the frontage. Walz referred to the sketch provided by staff indicating that it
was important that the porch be aesthetically and historically appropriate for the
character of the neighborhood and suggestions from staff, including trim and cornice
board, maximum height of the railing, and columns. She stated that there was not an
acceptable plan submitted and so staff recommended that a final plan be approved by
the Director of Planning and Community Development. Other conditions associated with
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 5 of 7
the previous special exception with regard to the slope of the roof and matching the
eaves of the house and porch were to be continued with this special exception.
Eckstein asked whether the staff's recommendation regarding enclosure included
screens. Walz stated that it did not. She asked if the property was in a historic district.
Walz responded that it was not.
Kristen Breaux, the applicant, said that she had hoped to build an enclosed porch but
understood staff's reasoning for recommended an open air porch. She mentioned that
she had trim from the house addition and hoped to match that trim. She had also wanted
to build a porch that would match decks on the back of the house, which were
constructed of pressure treated wood. She wanted to use unpainted wood for the
cornice beam and columns.
Walz explained that the zoning code does not allow unpainted wood on front porches for
multi-family houses and was not sure how the code addressed this situation for single-
family structures, but she did not think this was appropriate. She explained that staff and
the zoning code regard the front of the house as a public face and therefore it would be
most appropriate to look to the established character along the street frontage, which is
painted porches.
Eckstein noted that the adjacent home to the east had a minimalist porch, with no walls
or railings. The applicant indicated her desire to have walls.
Jennings stated that he found the staff's submitted sketch confusing. He wondered if
staff wanted that precise porch to be built. Walz said staff did not submit this as a
required design but rather as an illustration of one porch that would be acceptable. She
stated that the applicant's sketch did not include trim or other elements that the staff
thought should be included and it was unclear what the final completed porch would look
like. Jennings asked whether he was being asked to make an aesthetic judgment
between or to provide a recommendation for what the porch should look like or which
elements it should include. Sheerin stated that she believed the recommendation to
allow staff to review and approve a final design meant that aesthetic issues could be
negotiated between the applicant and staff. She did not think the board should get into
the specifics of a design.
Eckstein moved that the Board approve EXC10-00011, EXC10-00011, an
application to reduce the required front principal building setback from 15 feet to
8 feet for property located in the Medium Density, Single-Family (RS-8) zone at
1122 East Washington Street subject to the following conditions:
The setback reduction be for the purpose of constructing an open air porch to
replace the existing porch;
• The new porch will fall within the footprint of the existing porch and its
dimensions shall be no larger than 9.6 feet deep x 19.6 feet wide;
The new porch shall in all aspects comply with the conditions of the previous
special exception.
• At no time in the future may the porch enclosed with windows or walls without
an additional special exception.
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 6 of 7
• Final porch design to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Development prior to issuance of a building permit.
Jennings seconded.
Sheering called for findings of fact
Eckstein stated that the situation is peculiar to the property since existing porch is
original to the house and is set in the required front setback. Many other properties on
the same frontage also have front porches closer than 15 feet from the property line.
She said the proposed porch would be the same size as the existing porch and would
not bring the building any closer to the right-of-way or to adjacent properties. She said
there were practical difficulties complying with the setback requirement since the current
porch is failing completely and that the applicant could replace the porch with an awning
or stoop this would not be in keeping with the character of the frontage.
Eckstein stated that granting the exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations since the open air porch would allow even greater light and air and
would not limit separation for fire protection or firefighting and would not limit privacy
between dwellings. She said that the proposed porch would be the same size and in the
same footprint as the current porch and that the open air porch would be distinct from
the house and not appear as an extension of the living portion of the house. She noted
that porches along this frontage and in the neighborhood were nearly all open air
porches-although one screen porch was on the opposite frontage-and that many
were located closer than 15 feet to the street right-of-way.
Eckstein said that the since the proposed is exception is for the purpose of an open air
porch only, and because the porch will be limited to the size and footprint of the existing
porch, that this will mitigate any negative effects of the setback reduction. She indicated
that the new porch would comply with conditions of the previous exception regarding
slope and drainage to other properties. She stated that staff should approve the final
design of the porch to ensure that it is in the character of the neighborhood.
Jennings reiterated Eckstein's findings with regard to the size, location, and open air
design of the porch to support the general standards for the special exception and noted
that the exception would have no impact on traffic or ingress and egress from the site.
Eckstein noted that while the final porch design is to be approved by staff, that neither
the applicant's sketch nor the staff sketch represents a definitive design-that the final
porch will be negotiated and may be different from either sketch.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
Jennings moved to adjourn. Eckstein seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
C
N
7
a
O
'a
!C
O
m
O
V
~o
u~
~~
~ N
C
~+
Q
0
X X X 0
~-
M
X X X )C X
O
r
O X X ~C X ~
Q1
X x ~ X X
x X x
O O
ti
~ >C X X X X
cc
x X X ~ X
~
x X x x x
~ X X X )C X
M
1C X )C ~ x
N
X 0 x X X
r
N N ~ ~ M f
y ~-
'
~
L ~ ~ ~ \ ~
-
L r r r r ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 0
K
W O O O O O
C C ~
r ~`
N ~
L ~
'
t C
C V C N
.
Z Q ~ d H
~
~ ~ ~ C
~ ~
d ~ ' O ~
Q
_
~ m ~ V J
7
O
7
~ d
~ p
~ Z N
U ~~
X
~ ~ ~
.-~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ Q Z O
d Q II II Z
} II II W ~ ~I
YXOOZ
IP5
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
Sunday, November 14, 2010- 5:00 PM
HARVART HALL, CITY HALL
DRAFT
Members Present: Luan Heywood, Zach Wahls, Alexandra Tamerius, Jerry Gao, Matt Lincoln
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:06 PM. Heywood chaired the meeting.
MINUTES:
Tamerius motioned to approve the October 3 minutes. Wahls seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously, 5/0.
UPDATE ON VACANCIES:
The Commission currently has the Tate and an At-Large position open; and no applications to fill the
positions. Also, as of January 1, there will be a City High and West High position open, with both
Heywood and Wahl's terms ending. The deadline for all four vacancies is December 1.
BUDGET UPDATE:
The Commission has not used any funds this month.
ANNUAL REPORT:
Wahls motioned to approve the Youth Advisory Commission's Annual Report. Lincoln seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
^ Grant Programming Subcommittee - Wahls abstained from the meeting due to a conflict of
interest. Summer of Solutions provided the Commission with receipts from their Summer of
Solutions project. The Commission approved a grant of $750, however the receipts totaled
$259.97, including $100 in wages and $58 for their P.O. Box. The City Clerk reported she had
discussed the request with Asst. City Atty. Goers who recommended against wages and PO Box
A staff memo was included in the YAC packet explaining the reasons for the recommendation.
The Commission approved payment of $101.97 to the Summer of Solutions Program, excluding
$100 in wages and $58 for a P.O. Box. Tamerius motioned to approve the grant of $101.97,
which was seconded by Gao. The motion passed unanimously, 4/0 with Wahls abstaining.
Wahls returned to the meeting.
The Commission discussed amendments to the Youth Empowerment Grant's Application Form
to address concerns regarding "wages". Under Item #3: Estimated Project Costs, the Commission
changed "labor costs" to "outside labor costs" with specific examples such as "contracted help or
installation" included on the application form. Karr stated she would prepare a draft of the
application form for the next meeting.
The Commission discussed the application for the Christmas Basket Project at Regina High
School. Lincoln abstained from the meeting due to a conflict of interest. The project is used to
empower youth to help families in Iowa City. Wahls motioned to approve the $1,000 Youth
Empowerment Grant for the Christmas Basket Project. Tamerius seconded to the motion. The
motion carried unanimously, 4/0 with Lincoln abstaining.
Lincoln returned to the meeting.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
November 14, 2010
Page 2 of 4
^ Website and Advertisements - No new updates.
Youth Recognition Grant - Wahls and Gao circulated the grants around the junior high schools.
Kim Colvin sent it out to the junior high schools in the Iowa City school district, and Cristina
Allgood, the counselor of Regina Junior High and High School, was also given the grant
information. There were no applications submitted to date. The Recognition Grant Subcommittee
will create anotification/certificate to be given to the winner and will review how the award is
given. Any applications will be sent to the Recognition Grant Subcommittee for review and
members will make recommendations to the Commission.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Wilburn stated on November 29 at 5:30, there will be a meeting with local legislators and that the
Commission is welcome. A meet and greet for the new City Manager will be held on December 9 in City
Hall. This event will be open to the public. The City Council will begin their budget review at the end of
December.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission set a date for the next meeting, Friday, December 10 at 5:00 PM.
Gao motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Wahls. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously,
5/0, 6:04 PM.
Minutes submitted by Lincoln.
Z
O
~0
~~
~O
v~~
~ W N
y ~ W
0 Z
Q ~
~a
X X X X X
M
o X X X X X
`°
o X X X X X
~
M ,
X X X X x
0 X X X X
~ ~ ~ ~
.co Z Z Z Z
M ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
Z
Z
Z
Z i i i
N
~ X O X X , ; ;
~ X X X i
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
M
N ~ ~ ~ i
N X X X i i i i
N
~ ~ ~ ~
~ Z Z Z
r
O r O ~ r ~- r
~ d r
M r
M r
M r
M r
M r
M r
M
W X N N N N N N N
H W ~ ~ ~ .-
.-.
++yy
Q
Z
~
d a
a
0
OL
c
a'~i
C
7
L
Q
7
'C d
O
3 Z `y
v ~~
W r y
r ~ ~
C
~ ~ G1 ~ ev
N N
a`aaZZ°
II II ~ II II
XOpZ
W
Y
Airport Commission
October 14, 2010
Page 1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 - 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Steve Crane, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan
Members Absent: Jose Assouline
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp
DRAFT
12-09-10
IP6
Others Present: Matt Wolford, Randy Miller, Peggy Slaughter, Van Miller, Toby Meyers,
Bob Libby, John Yeoman, David Hughes
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action): None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
Minutes from the October 14, 2010, meeting were reviewed. Gardinier moved to approve the
minutes of the October 14, 2010, meeting as submitted; seconded by Crane. Motion
carried 3-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp noted that the agreement on the Aviation Commerce
Park lots with Iowa Realty expires at the end of this year. He added that either the
Commission can agree to extend the contract, or they can open it up for new bids from
other realty companies. Dulek gave a brief history of this agreement to the Members,
noting that the previous realtors handling this contact are no longer with Iowa Realty.
She reiterated that the Commission can either extend the contract with Iowa Realty, or
open it up for bids. Members then discussed what they would like to do, with Dulek
responding to questions. Crane stated that he would like to open it up for bids from
other realty companies in town. Gardinier stated that she would most likely agree with
that, to let other realty companies make a bid on the contract. The discussion continued,
with Members agreeing that they would like to open up the bidding process to those
realtors with commercial offices. Tharp will contact these companies, asking them to
present abrief - 10 minute -presentation at the December meeting.
i. Consider a Resolution Approving Contract Amendment with Iowa
Realty -Horan moved to consider the Resolution; no second.
Motion failed for lack of second. Horan moved to invite Iowa Realty,
Airport Commission
October 14, 2010
Page 2
Mid-West America, Coldwell Banker, and Lepic-Kroeger to make
presentations at the December meeting; seconded by Crane. Motion
carried 3-0.
b. Airport Farm Management -John Yeoman addressed Members, stating that he has
been in contact with Tharp regarding the hay, thistle, and weed problems. He added
that he has one person interested in planting wheat out there. Tharp noted that he has
been talking with the FAA on what can and cannot be planted. A lot of it depends on
whether or not the crop would attract large numbers of animals to it. Yeoman also talked
about how they could keep this area mowed during non-growing times. The individual
he has in mind could do this for $4,000 for the season. The discussion continued, with
Members going over the options.
c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM -David Hughes addressed the Members next.
i. Runway 7/25 & 12/30 -Final documentation is being wrapped up, according to
Hughes.
ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Hughes stated that they have submitted the updated
Airport layout plan to FAA. The FAA's response to this will be tied in with the
obstruction mitigation finalization
iii. Hangar ADrainage -The project will be complete once some repairs are made.
The temperatures need to get above 40 degrees before they can do this,
however. Hughes noted that tomorrow's forecast looks good for this.
iv. FY2012 FAA Pre-Application -Hughes then gave Members a handout on the
previous years' CIP and how they do this year to year. He then responded to
Members' questions, further explaining the Master Plan for the Airport. Tharp
noted that the process to update this is similar to how they approached the
Strategic Plan. Hughes asked Members if he should move ahead with this and
bring the documents to the December meeting for approval. The Members
agreed that he should do so.
v. 7-25 Parallel Taxiway -Hughes noted that around the first of November, the
FAA gave an initiation letter for the first phase of this project. This involves the
grading and drainage associated with it. The federal share is estimated at $1.7
million, which is what had been submitted in the CIP last year. He added that
once funding is in place, this should be able to move forward. Hughes then
stated that they will be moving forward in putting a task order together for the
Commission and City's review. The FAA will need this returned in December, so
this will coincide with the December Commission meeting. Hughes stated that
the City will receive information prior to the meeting, to give them time to review.
Gardinier asked when they might expect this work to begin, and Hughes stated
that hopefully with the spring construction season, but that it will ultimately
depend on when the funding comes together.
d. 2011 Air Race Classic -Gardinier stated that in talking with the Air Race Classic
people, there will be several items needed from the Airport in January. She added that
the web site for the race will open in January. Rockwell-Collins has pledged some
money, according to Gardinier, for the race.
e. Corporate Hangar "L" -Tharp stated that there is not much to update on this until they
present at the budget meeting with Council in January. He added that beyond that they
do have state DOT funding secured. The land sale has also been completed, so funding
Airport Commission
October 14, 2010
Page 3
is in place. Gardinier asked if they would be able to retain some of this revenue, and
Tharp responded that they hope to have $100,000 cash after this project is complete.
Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan Implementation; Budget; Management -
Crane asked about a $4,500 for Repair and Maintenance, and $500 for Other-Bldg.
Tharp noted that this is Jet Air's maintenance contract, and the $500 is for cleaning
services. He explained how the accounting department divides up these charges.
Tharp then addressed the upgrading of the old Hertz space. He noted that he has
received some bids, and it looks like $5,500 to do what they would like to do. Tharp also
spoke about some heaters that need repaired. The total for this would be around
$4,000. Members agreed that Tharp should go ahead with these repairs. Gardinier
commented that she still has to wait a long time to get even lukewarm water in the
women's restroom. Tharp will look into this. Tharp then noted that he and Patrick with
Jet Air have been looking into a truck with a plow, a possible three-quarter ton. The
Airport would have to come up with about $7,500 in order to upgrade to this truck. Tharp
is suggesting selling off the smaller mower, which would give them this amount.
Members discussed this, agreeing it was a good idea.
g. FBO /Iowa Flight Training /Whirlybird Reports -Toby Meyers addressed the
Members and introduced Bob Libby, owner of Care Ambulance. He stated that he
partnered with Libby the first part of the year, creating Jet Air Care. Libby is considering
renting the Hertz space for this venture. Meyers stated that he is here tonight to see if
the Commission would be interested in this. The venture would bring four ambulances
to the Airport, and he briefly explained what this would entail. He added that this would
be quite a benefit during something such as the Air Race Classic this coming summer.
Horan stated that he believes it would be a good arrangement. The discussion turned to
how to proceed from here. Tharp will have a memo prepared by next month's meeting
outlining this arrangement. Meyers then spoke to Members, noting that they have some
new staff. He added that traffic has been picking up for Jet Air. Tharp stated that
Whirlybird's has some new staff. It was suggested that he invite them to a monthly
meeting.
h. Subcommittees' Reports -Gardinier stated that she and Tharp met with a group of
third and fourth graders at Weber Elementary recently at lunchtime to talk about aviation.
This was part of the school's Extended Learning Program (ELP).
Commission Members' Reports -Gardinier asked if anyone has applied for the
Commission opening. Dulek noted that one person applied, but that due to gender
balance they have to readvertise. It will probably be January before a replacement is
brought in. A brief discussion ensued about how such openings are advertised.
Gardinier suggested they put a posting on the bulletin board on the main level of the
terminal building. She also suggested an email be sent to their hangar tenants to see if
there is any interest in serving on the Commission.
j. Staff Report -Tharp noted that he will be emailing the Annual Report to Members soon.
He asked that they come prepared to the December meeting with any edits.
Airport Commission
October 14, 2010
Page 4
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING:
Horan reminded everyone that attendance will be important at the next meeting since they are
still down one person. The next regular meeting will be Thursday, December 16, 2010, at 6:00
P.M. at the Airport Terminal building.
ADJOURN:
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 P.M. Gardinier made the motion to adjourn the meeting at
7:28 P.M.; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 3-0.
Chairperson
Date
o °
•N o
E ono
o ~,
v ~
1= ~
a > ~
o ~
Q Z a
c ~
00
vNi w
. ~
two
U '"
() Q N
~ ~
O Z
a~
Q~
Q
12/16
11/18 z X X ~ X ~
z ~
z
10/14 ~ X X x X z z
z
9/16 g
Z
X
X
X w
O ~
Z ~
Z
8/19 X X X X X z z
7/27 g ~
x x x x X z z
7/15 X x x x X z z
7/1 X X X X X z z
6/17 x X 0 X ~ z z
5/20 w
p X X X X
z
z
4/29 X X X Z X ~ Z
4/15 X X X Z X X Z
3/18 X x X z ~ x z
2/18 X X X z z X X
1/21 X X X ~
z ~
z X X
C
C M
r ~
r N
r N
T
~ ~
!~
~ N
r O
r
~.
a
W X ~
o ~
0 ~.
0 0 0 0 0
~ W O O O O O _
M
O O
W
~
~ d
~ •~ d
=
.
d
Q O •i ~ t0
3 C 'a
L d
~
N j C d O
~ C d
L
Z G1 L
Uli `-
2= C
~C9 to
~Q d1 ~
VAC) C
"~°~~ ~N
m
.~
'~ N
~ ~,
~~
U
_ ~ ~
~ ~ N cC
N ~ N ,r,
~~
a`¢Qz°
II II
>, II II W ~
YXOOZ
D~.RFT ~P7
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESF..NT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, David McMahon,
Pam Michaud, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSEN~I`. Andrew Litton, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Catherall, Jane Murphy
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson McMahon called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PilBI IC DISCIJSS[ON OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Michaud discussed the properties on North Lucas Street that were demolished.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
304 Brown Street.
Kuecker said this is an application for a temporary ramp at 304 Brown Street. She said the ramp would come out of
the side door and extend to the driveway. Kuecker said it would be amodular-style, aluminum ramp that would not
require footings. She said it could be removed once it is no longer needed or the property changes hands.
Kuecker said that since it is a temporary situation, staff finds this to be acceptable for the property and recommends
approval as presented in the application.
Catherall, the daughter of the owners, said that because the house is a little bit on a hill, from the street one would
barely see anything. She said one would have to walk halfway up the driveway to really see even the beginning of
it.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 304 Brown Street
as presented. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of S-0 (Litton, Swaim, and
Trimble absent).
Michaud suggested that this be something that could be approved by Chair and staff as apre-approved item.
Kuecker said it would have to be put on the agenda in the future as something to be discussed and voted on.
610 Oakland Avenue.
Kuecker said this project involves a window replacement for the second story bedroom and bathroom windows. She
said the owners are proposing Quaker brand metal clad wood windows that have simulated divided lights. Kuecker
said the Commission has approved this type of window in the past. She said the guidelines allow for window
replacements that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic
windows.
Historic Preservation Commission
November 10, 2010
Page 2
Kuecker said that in staff's opinion, the proposed windows are compatible with the architectural style of the house.
She said staff recommends approval as presented in the application with the condition that the windows retain the
overall appearance of the historic windows, including type, size, sash width, trim and use of divided lights.
Wagner asked if the owners are replacing the two windows because they are not functional. Kuecker believed that
was the case. She said the owners are replacing all the second story windows, not just two windows.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 610 Oakland
Avenue as presented in the application with the condition that the windows retain the overall appearance of
the historic windows in the house, including type, size, sash width, trim and use of divided lights. Downing
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Litton Swaim, and Trimble absent).
328/330 North Linn Street.
Kuecker stated that this is an application to remove and reconstruct porches on the house. She said there are
currently just decks on the house with an entrance on each corner of the house. Kuecker said the owners would
like to build covered porches on them to be of a style that would be similar to what would have been on the house
originally. She said the owners are modeling them off the porch that is on the neighboring house in terms of style,
roof pitch, etc. Kuecker referred to a picture in the packet.
Kuecker said the owners also want to demolish a garage that is on the Davenport Street side of the property. She
said they would like to have two parking spaces instead of one garage. Regarding the garage, Kuecker said the
guidelines state that the decision to approve a demolition of an outbuilding is on a case-by-case basis, with the
Commission considering the condition, integrity, and architectural components of the outbuilding. She said staff
does not feel this is an original garage and believes the demolition would have minimal impact on the historic
integrity of the property.
Regarding the porches, Kuecker said the guidelines recommend removing non-historic alterations and constructing
new porches that are consistent with the historic building and building historic features. She said staff feels the
proposed porch reconstruction projects help to return this house back to its original appearance.
Kuecker said staff is recommending approval of the application as presented with the condition that all new
windows be either solid wood or metal clad solid wood and retain the overall appearance of the existing original
windows on the property, including type, size, sash width, trim and use of divided lights. She said that divided
lights may be either true divided lights or with muntin bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with
snap-in muntin bars.
Kuecker said the reason for the window is that on the rear of the house, the owners want to change from one window
to a double window to allow more light into the kitchen. She said staff feels that is appropriate for the style of the
house, and because it is on the rear of the house, would not have a major impact on the historic integrity of the
house.
MOTION; Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 328/330 North
Linn Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: all new windows being either solid
wood or metal clad solid wood and retaining the overall appearance of the existing original windows on the
property, including type, size, sash width, trim and use of divided lights. Divided lights may be either true
divided lights or with muntin bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin
bars. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Litton, Swaim, and Trimble
absent .
DISCUSSION OF 219 N GILBERT STREET:
Murphy said that she and her husband own this property, and the roof is a mess. She said she wanted the benefit of
the Commission's accumulated wisdom and experience regarding options for replacing the roof.
Historic Preservation Commission
November 10, 2010
Page 3
Murphy said she had discussed this with the State Historic Preservation Office, and they did not really recommend
the use of the Acrymax material, and they did not want the roof replaced with a metal roof either. She said the State
says it cannot be documented that the house had a metal roof on it at the turn of the century. Murphy said the two
State recommendations were to go back to a wooden shake roof or do asphalt shingle. She said if there is proof
there was a metal roof on the house at the turn of the century, that would be sufficient for the State, but they don't
think the metal roof was put on until the 20s or 30s.
Downing said that an 80 or 90-year old metal roof would be more in character with this house than an asphalt
shingle roof. Kuecker said that when Preucil School wanted to replace its roof, she found out that there were two
schools of thought on this, with Marlys Svendsen, an architectural historian, feeling that the metal roof was in
keeping with the architectural style and a historic alteration.
Murphy said the estimate to replace the roof with metal was around $18,000. She asked the Commission about the
use of Acrymax and why it is disparaged by the State historic preservation people. Baker said it has been used on
her metal roof, and she does not have a problem.
Downing said he knows the State allows asphalt shingles. He said, however, that to him, they are not anywhere
close to equivalent to cedar shakes or to a metal roof.
Murphy said she is not obligated to go with the State guidelines. She said she would prefer to do this the right way,
however, and to satisfy the local Historic Preservation Commission more than anyone else. Murphy said that if she
did follow the State/federal guidelines, this would apparently be eligible for some tax credits, although no grant
money is available.
Murphy said she is at an impasse and does not know what she should do here. Kuecker said she could contact
Marlys Svendsen to get a quick opinion.
Commission members discussed their experiences with Acrymax and different roofing materials.
DISCUSSION OF CITY HIGH CUPOLA:
Kuecker stated that the packet contained a letter that neighbors around City High wrote to the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the City High Cupola. She said the building is not a historic landmark, but it is
probably eligible for that status.
Kuecker said when alterations that require approval at the federal level are made to a building that is 50 years old or
older, the Commission is allowed to comment on the building proposal. She said the Commission did comment on
the proposal and said that any alteration needed to be sensitive to the design and not damage the historic character
and such.
Kuecker showed the before and after pictures of the cupola. She showed where the railing was cut out on all four
corners and where the small antennas were put in its place. Kuecker said the neighbors felt that this is a disgrace to
the cupola and said the wood has not even been painted where it was cut off.
Kuecker said she could not find the design proposal in the files but said she felt fairly certain that if the Commission
had seen this design, it would not have recommended favorably to the State Historic Preservation Office.
Commission members recalled looking at a design that kept the antennas inside the cupola.
Baker asked if there was any recourse at this point. Kuecker said she has been unable to contact the State Historic
Preservation Office to know what it did approve. She said that if this is not what was approved by the State Historic
Preservation Office, then the company that put up the antennas is in violation of federal law. Kuecker confirmed
that it would be the company's obligation to fix this if it is not appropriate and would not be a responsibility of City
High.
Historic Preservation Commission
November 10, 2010
Page 4
McMahon suggested sending a letter to support the neighbors who brought this to the Commission's attention.
Michaud agreed. The consensus of the Commission was to have Kuecker draft a letter in strongest terms in support
of the neighbors.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 14, 2010.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 14, 2010
meeting, as written. Thomann seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Litton, Swaim, and
Trimble absent).
OTHER:
Kuecker said someone contacted her regarding finding someone who can put a chimney liner in a chimney. She
said she believes the chimney has quite a bit of architectural significance. The Commission made several
recommendations of people who would do such types of work
The Commission discussed the Historic Preservation Awards. Kuecker said the awards would be presented Sunday
at 2:00. She stated that there are 27 property awards and the Margaret Nowysz Award to be presented.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
z
O
C~_
G
U
z
O
W
W
a
U
O
H
~_
2
°
O
w
w
U
z
Q
°
Z
W
H
a
rn
N
r
r
r
X
X
X
X
~
0
X
X
W
~
X
O
X
o X X X W
O ~ X W
O X ~ W
O X X X
x
x
x w
o
x
x
x o X x o
x x x o x x x x o x x
x x x o x o x x o x x
o x x o o x x x x x
N
x
x
x
x
;
;
p
X
; w
O w
O X X
r x x x x x X x o x x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X w
~ X X X
~
M
~
Z
Z
Z
Z
~ ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z
~ X ~ X ~ X X X ~ ~ X
N
w
0 x x x x o x x x x x
r
a:
X
M
~-
N
M
~
~
~
N
O
N
~
M
N
W
C
W ~
~
N
M ~
~
N
M ~
~
N
M ~
N
M r-
N
M r-
N
M .-
N
M ~-
N
M ~-
N
M ~-
1
N
M .--
\
N
M
\
N
M
N
M
I--'
w
~
Z ~
Y
O
w
Y
Q ~
=
ui
U
°
o
J
m
w
~
w
W
Y
m
~_
~
C7
Z
~
° a
z
w
N
a
m
W
~
°
Q
O
~
J °
a
°
Z
O
Q
~
L
~
aQ.
~
=
_U
L
w
~
~
~
O
C.
~
z
~
~
~
N
a
°
Z
Z
~
2
H
~
Q
W
m
~
H
a
w
~
~
z
Q
0
0
N
E
0
~ d
~ o
~ Z ~
U p~ ~
X
w •~~-, E
~~°'
~~~~~
o~QZ°o
a. ¢ ~~ ~~ z
u ° w~
xooz ;
w
Y