Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-14 Info Packet~ - i ~III~ ''''r"iO~~~ -~..~._ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET April 14, 2011 APRIL 18 WORK SESSION IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum from the Director of Housing and Inspection Services to the City Manager: Regulating Melrose Avenue Football Game Day Commercial Vending IP3 Memorandum from Richard Wyss, Police Captain, to the City Manager: Animal Shelter IP4 Summary of Pending Work Session Issues MISCELLANEOUS IP5 Memorandum from the City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP6 Memorandum from the City Attorney to Kyle Johnson: Proposed Initiative to Adopt a "Restaurant Exemption to the 21 Ordinance" IP7 Memorandum from Jeff Schott, Institute of Public Affairs, to the City Manager: Council Strategic Planning IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood-related activities IP9 Email from James Protaskey, Engineering Division: Concrete patch in Pedestrian Plaza IP10 Email from Martha Boysen, Kristin Kromray, Regina Miller, Lois Pavelka, Mickey Miller: Farmers Market Counterproposal for Parks and Recreation Commission meeting IP11 Police Department Bar Check Report -March 2011 IP12 Fire Department Fire Safety Compliance Report -January 1, 2011-March 31, 2011 IP13 Dave Jacoby Statehouse News April 8, 2011 IP14 UniverCity Northside Open Houses -April 16, 2011 Email from Recycling Coordinator: Earth Week Events [Distributed at 4/19 formal council meeting] DRAFT MINUTES IP15 Board of Adjustment: March 9, 2011 IP16 Historic Preservation Commission: March 10, 2011 ~ = 1 ~~i~®~~ ~III~~ ~ • wry„e~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET April 14, 2011 APRIL 18 WORK SESSION IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum fro the Director of Housing and Inspecti Services to the City Manager: Regulating Melros Avenue Football Game Day Com~rcial Vending IP3 Memorandum from Ri and Wyss, Police Captain, to the~~ity Manager: Animal Shelter IP4 Summary of Pending Work Session Issues ; MISCELLANE IP5 Memorandum from the City Clerk. KXIC Radio S ow IP6 Memorandum from the City Attorn y to Kyl Johnson: Proposed Initiative to Adopt a "Restaurant Exemption to the 21 O inanc ' IP7 Memorandum from Jeff Schott, Institutc~o,! Public Affairs, to the City Manager: Council Strategic Planning IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Publi Wo sand the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood-related ctiviti IP9 Email from James Protaskey, Engine ring Division. Concrete patch in Pedestrian Plaza IP10 Email from Martha Boysen, Kris n Kromray, Regi a Miller, Lois Pavelka, Mickey Miller: Farmers Market Counterpropo I for Parks and Rec eation Commission meeting IP11 Police Department Bar Chec Report -March 2011 IP12 Fire Department Fire IP13 Dave Jacoby Statehou IP14 UniverCity Northside y Compliance Report -January , 2011-March 31, 2011 /News April 8, 2011 n Houses -April 16, 2011 DRAFT MINUTES IP15 Board of Adjustment: March 9, 2011 IP16 Historic Preservation Commission: March 10, 2011 ~~~~ 4/ 14/ l l "w'®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and cl~r o IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas IPA www.icgov.org • MONDAY, APRIL 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • Planning and Zoning Items "e,f,g" ^ Agenda Items • Commercial Vending -Melrose Avenue area (IP2] • New Animal Shelter (IP3] ^ Information Packet Discussion (Apri17 & 14] ^ Council Time ^ Budget Priorities • Summary of Pending Work Session Issues (IP4] ^ Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations ^ Discussion of Meeting Schedules • TUESDAY, APRIL 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE • MONDAY, MAY 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, MAY 3 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, MAY 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, MAY 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • WEDNESDAY, MAY 18 Coralville 4:OOp Joint Meeting • MONDAY, MAY 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall Memorial Day -City Offices Closed • MONDAY, JUNE 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, JUNE 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting ~~~ '' ""`®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas apr~i 13, 2011 wrww.icgov.org • MONDAY, JUNE 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, JUNE 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • TUESDAY, JULY 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Special Work Session 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, JULY 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, JULY 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, AUGUST 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, AUGUST 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, AUGUST 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, AUGUST 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting ~~~~r `~+.,~` M~~r~,l ~.if.._ IP2 C l l Y C~ f l U WA C I T Y MEMORANDUM ,~ ~.. _. Date: April 12, 2011 To: City Manager From: Douglas Baothroy, r sing Re: Regulating Melrose Av n e Football G ISSUE: Inspection Services e Day Commercial Vending The code enforcement issue is whether football game day commercial vending in the Melrose Avenue area should be allowed to continue under performance standards, or whether to enforce the current zoning provisions which would prohibit commercial vending. This issue is abaut commercial vending and not about tailgating. Tailgating is considered an informal, social football game day gathering that is non-commercial, and temporary tailgate parking would continue to be allowed during a tailgating event as long as the parking is unimproved. This memo provides background, options, and recommendations for Council's consideration of this matter. BACKGROUND: Temporary Commercial Use Vending Temporary commercial vending activities (e.g., food and retail sales) have been occurring for many years along Melrose Avenue near Kinnick Stadium (see attached vending location map) on football home game days. This area is zoned RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, and developed as Residential. The zoning regulations are intended to maintain, promote and protect the livability of the neighborhood. The RS- 5 zoning allows far some non-residential uses that contribute to the livability of the residential neighborhood (e.g., parks, schools, religious institutions and daycare facilities) but does not allow for any other commercial use. In addition, the Melrose Neighborhood is an historic district as designated on the National Register of Districts. In 2008, the Council, as part of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, included the goal to establish the Melrose Neighborhood area as a local historic district. The neighborhood historic district is intended to protect, preserve and stabilize the neighborhaod. Recent commercial activities of the "Stadium Club" (Commercial Use with Alcohol), relocation of the "Magic Bus" (live music with alcohol} and "Game Day" (Commercial Retail} tent stake puncturing a natural gas line raised serious neighborhood and life safety issues. Thus, the question of how to regulate commercial vending activities along Melrose Avenue needs to be resolved. Under the current zoning ordinance, any commercial vending that occurs along Melrose Avenue without a Temporary Use Permit would be considered illegal. April 12, 2011 Page 2 Temporary Use Permit The Temporary Use provisions of the Zoning Code (see attached temporary use regulations) would allow the City to issue a temporary use permit for those short-term uses that are temporary and determined by the Building Official to be compatible. Temporary uses have no inherent rights within the zone in which they locate and can be terminated and removed immediately with no permanent improvements allowed to a site. No temporary use permit has been issued for any commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. In the fall of 2010 the °Stadium Club" applied for a temporary use permit and was denied due to several issues, including zoning violations, permanent site improvements, and the determination the use was not compatible with the neighborhood. The "Magic Bus" did secure a temporary use permit to relocate to a site south of Benton Street. These temporary use permit considerations were an interim measure until discussion could be had by the Council concerning the future of commercial vending in the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood. • Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association Recommendation On March 24, 2011 the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood met with staff to discuss commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. At the meeting, the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee (13 residents} read a statement strongly recommending elimination of any commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. The Executive Committee's recommendation and rationale is attached to this memo. However, attendees at the meeting were divided as to whether or not commercial vending should be allowed so long as it is regulated. Residents supported the Executive Committee's recommendation and non-resident property owners supported continuation of commercial vending. DISCUSSION: A staff committee was created with representation from the City Manager's Office, Legal, Fire, Police, City Clerk and Housing Inspection Services. The Committee's purpose was to identify the options and make recommendations concerning the regulation of commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. A consensus was reached concerning the following options and recommendations: OPTION 1 - No change in the City's current enforcement practice Comment: In past football seasons, the City enforced no permanent site improvements and prohibited vendor setup before 12:00 p.m. on the Friday before game day and required tear- down/removal of all equipment and materials after each game. The "Stadium Club" activities, "Magic Bus" relocation, and "Game Day" tent stake situation has raised issues that require full compliance with the Zoning Code (i.e., temporary use provisions). Temporary use permits for commercial vending were not issued; therefore, the commercial vending was illegal. This option does not enforce the Zoning Gode or adequately protect the neighborhood and those attending game day activities. OPTION 2 -Enforce the Zoning Code to prohibit temporary commercial vending activity along Melrose Avenue Comment: Under this option the City would be enforcing the current zoning requirements and would no longer tolerate ongoing commercial vending. This would be consistent with University April '1 ~, <'+`.i l Heights' prohibition of commercial vending in their residential area along Melrose Avenue. It is consistent with the RS-5 zoning, and the recommendation of the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee. This option protects the neighborhood and its livability. It is the easiest option to enforce. However, neighborhood non-resident property owners do not agree with the Executive Committee's recommendation and wish to see commercial vending continue. OPTION 3 -Amend the Zoning Code to allow commercial vending only along Melrose Avenue an football game days (i.e., limited to the Melrose Avenue street frontage) without alcohol, and subject to a football game day temporary commercial use permit under performance standards. Comment: This option allows commercial vending to continue but only by permit if all performance standards are met, and any violation could result in loss of a permit and the right to engage in commercial vending. All vendors/property owners would need to comply with the conditions and standards of the temporary use provisions of the Zoning Code as well as any additional restrictions adopted by Council. Attached to this memorandum are some recommended commercial vending performance standards. This option is not consistent with the recommendation of the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee. It is difficult to enforce and would involve considerable enforcement expense (e.g., Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday inspections). If this option is selected, a permit fee should be established to fully cover the cost of enforcement as well as any neighborhood cleanup costs. The Zoning Cade would need to be amended to add provisions fora "football game day temporary use permit" with performance standards. An amendment to the Zoning Code would need to be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation. This option may open the door to allowing Temporary Commercial uses in other residential neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATIONS: Past enforcement practices (Option 1) do not adequately protect the neighborhood and enforce the Zoning Code; therefore, Option 1 is not recommended. Enforce current zoning regulations to stop commercial vending in the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood (Option 2). This option best protects the residential character, livability, and viability of the neighborhood. It's consistent with the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee recommendation, RS-5 zoning, enforcement in other neighborhoods, and the 2008 Historic Preservation Plan. Option 2 is recommended. Amend the Zoning Code to establish a new "football game day" temporary use permit under performance standards (Option 3). This option allows the continuation of commercial vending. The performance standards would address neighborhood compatibility and life safety issues. Enforcement would be difficult and expensive but fees could be established to cover costs. However, the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Executive Committee is strongly opposed to this option because ongoing commercial activity is destructive to the livability of their neighborhood. Ongoing commercial vending is contrary to what is allowed in other single family neighborhoods, the RS-5 zoning and the 2008 Historic Preservation Plan. It has encouraged speculation in RS-5 residential properties in the Melrose area for their commercial potential (e.g., 817 Melrose Avenue 2007-2010 assessment was $179,290 and it sold for $500,000; properties at 3, 5 Triangle Place and 805 Melrose 2007-2010 total assessment was $427,920 and they sold for a total of $1,080,000). Allowing ongoing commercial vending affects how people think of the neighborhood and will define its future. Option 3 is not recommended. hisadm/mem/dq-markus032511 doc Melrose Commercial Use Activity stadium hospital parking I~, ramp ~ LJ 22 2 .~~ 19 21 18 17 15 15 20 a 617 (811 801 C05 I~`80I1 ]20a ~ " LJ ~~ f°~d [~ [~ r ~~~~ ~ ~d~~ ~ ~ Commercial Uses 1. Suburban Sports 2. Imprinted Software 3. Wildwood Smokehouse 4. Tri-Care 5. Bruvissey's 6. Big Ass Turkey Leg 7. Cragar's Cigars 8. Custom Apparel) 9. Corridor Sports 10. Aladdin Restaurant 11. Hani's Grill 12. Imprinted Sportsware 13. The Brown Bag Deli 14. Wright's Pins 14 10 1L J_ li 13 1~ 741 13 ~ io ( ~~~ o ~8 \ L' c 3i O ro' -~ Melrose Ave 7 9 2 4 6 8 3 1 n ~07 601 4 71 I f 70 ,0, 629 3 p L..r { n o ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~~ L 223 2 00 ~~ ~] ~ ~ ..229 0 3 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 303 ~L~__J O O O 311 313 15. Imprinted Sporksware University property 16. Rage Graffix Signs & 5creenprinting 17. Yolanda's Egg Rolls 1$. Jerry & Margies Catering 18a. Gyros-Tom Paulsen 19. Kingdom Graphics 20. Big Mike`s Grill 20a. Stadium Club 21. Giant Tenderloins 22. Pizza 0n Wheels 23. Gameday Iowa 24. Cragar's Cigars 2S. Ricky's Roadhouse ""Wi._ CITY OF IOWA CITY rJ,~vc 4~~-~1 1~..~~/7 Tenipor~ary G.~'ses Article D. Temporary Uses -r ff The purpose of the Temporary Use regulations is to allow short-term and minor deviations from the requirements of this Title for uses which are truly temporary in nature, will not adversely impact the surrounding area and land uses, and which can be terminated and removed immediately. Temporary activities are characterized by their short term or seasonal nature and by the fact that permanent improvements are not made to the site. Temporary uses have na inherent rights within the zone in which they locate. J J ` I f ~ t i The following temparary principal and accessory uses are allowed, subject to approval by the Building OfFcial through the temporary use permit process described in this Article and any conditions specified herein: A. Outdaar display and sales of merchandise within commercial districts, including merchandise customarily sold on the premises by a permanently established business; B. On- and off-site contractors' construction yards in conjunction with an approved development project; C. Construction activities pursuant to a valid building permit that temporarily violate the Performance Standards contained in Article 14-5H of this Title; D. Temporary auto sales lots; E. Christmas tree sales lots; however, a permit is nat required when such sales are in conjunction with an established commercial business, provided such activity occurs only from November 1 through December 31; F. Circuses, rodeos and carnivals; G. Fairs, festivals and concerts, when not held within premises designed to accommodate these types of events, such as auditoriums, stadiums, or other public assembly facilities; H. Temporary parking areas in conjunction with a permitted use; 1. Halloween haunted houses for 15 to 45 days, one event per year; ,7. Real Estate Sales Centers and model homes, provided the center or use of a home as a model is discorntinued when the number of dwelling units remaining to be said is less than 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units approved for the development or 5 units, whichever is less. Employees at the approved real estate center are limited to the minimum number necessary to show and sell the dwelling units within the same development. The hours of operation are limited to the hours between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. K. Other temparary uses which, in the determination of the Building Official, are compatible with the zone and surrounding land uses. Tztle 14 IiJIA'Q C'iiy Zoning Code Revised 07-U6-09 Temporrry Uses ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ A temporary use permit is required for ail temporary uses listed in subsection B, above, unless specifically exempted. Procedures for obtaining a permit are contained in Article 14-88 of this Title, Administrative Approval Procedures. ~ M . ~ ~ r ~ A temporary use permit will be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Building Official within 10 business days after submittal of a complete application. A temporary use must meet the following approval criteria: A. The proposed use is temporary or seasonal in nature and will not continue for more than the time period specified in the application. Except far temporary uses specifically approved for longer periods, such as model homes or real estate sales offices, temporary uses must not continue for more than 180 days for outdoor temporary uses or 1 year far temporary uses within a building; B. The proposed temporary use will not necessitate permanent improvements to the site; C. The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use; D. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the land uses presently on the site and with existing land uses in the general area; E. There is adequate provision far public and private utilities and services to ensure that the proposed temporary use will not be detrimental to public health and safety; F. There is adequate provision for public and emergency access to serve the proposed temporary use; and G. Any impacts of the proposed temporary use are mitigated. In approving an application for a temporary use permit, the Building Official may impose conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit will be in accordance with the approval criteria required by this Article and to satisfy public needs directly caused by the proposed temporary use. These conditions may involve any pertinent factors affecting the operation of such temporary event or use, and may include, but are not limited to: A. Provision for a fixed period of time, not to exceed 180 calendar days for a temporary use not occupying a structure, including promotional activities, or one year for all other uses or structures, or for a shorter period of time as determined by the Building Official; B. Provision for temporary parking facilities, including vehicular ingress and egress and appropriate circulation, Parking required for temporary and principal commercial uses may be reduced up to 10 percent if sufficient evidence is presented that parking will be adequate to meet the demand for the proposed temporary use and any permanent uses on the site; C. Regulation of nuisance factors such as, but not limited ta, prevention of glare, light trespass, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, dirt, odors, gases, or heat that create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties; Title 14: lows C.iry Zoning Code Revised 07-Ob-U9 Ter~zlanr~ar}~ C~`sas d. Regulation of temporary structures and facilities, including placement, height and size, location of equipment and open spaces, including buffer areas and other yards; E, Provision for sanitary and medical facilities; F. Provision far solid, hazardous and toxic waste collection and disposal; G. Provision for security and safety measures; H. Provision for regulation of signs; T. Regulation of operating hours and days, including limitation of the duration of the temporary use; 7. Submission of a performance band or other surety device to ensure that any temporary facilities ar structures used will be removed from the site within a reasonable time fallowing the event and that the property will be restored to its former condition; K. A requirement that the approval of the requested temporary use permit is contingent upon compliance with applicable provisions of the Federal, State and City Code; and 1. Any other conditions which will ensure the operation of the proposed temporary use in an orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the intent and purpose of this Article. Title 14 Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 COMMERCIAL VENDING ON MELROSE AVENUE ON FOOTBALL GAME DAYS Statement from the Executive Committee of the Melrose Neighborhood Association March 24, 2011 Concerning commercial vending on Melrose Avenue on football game days, the Melrose Neighborhood Association's Executive Committee requests that Iowa Gity officials uphold the law and that this illegal activity be stopped. The Melrose Neighborhood, which includes a historic district nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, is a fragile neighborhood that needs to be preserved (as stated in various Iowa City documents). Currently, the people who congregate around the vendors' stands, and who walk down Melrose Avenue eating food purchased at those stands, appear to feel free to discard trash and uneaten food at will along and on the properties on the Avenue. There appears to be a herd mentality that shows an utter disrespect for the neighborhood, a disrespect that one would hope people would not exhibit in their own neighborhoods. For too long, this behavior has been allowed to occur unchecked. This vending on Melrose Avenue is an invasion of the neighborhood, which is zoned RS5 (residential), and it affects its character adversely. It is destructive in that it creates a huge mess on the street and on the adjacent properties, and though in recent years a better effort has been made to clean up (most of) that mess in a somewhat timely manner, it is still encourages disrespectful behavior and generates lingering harm to the properties in terms of tents, carpets, and people destroying the lawns. Few, if any, vendors have supplied trash containers for the by-products of their sales with the result that trash is strewn on the street, sidewalks, and properties. Of particular concern are the turkey bones and the shish kabob sticks that pose a threat to the lives of neighborhood pets and wildlife. Carelessly discarded broken-off wooden shish kabob sticks with remnants of food attached have been found and are alife- threatening hazard. In addition, extreme congestion of the street occurs because people are attracted to the stands from the stadium on the other side of the street and people tend to congregate around the vendors' stands. The neighborhood's request to have this illegal activity stopped is corroborated by the fact that University Heights upholds a ban on commercial vending in their city. Commercial vending on football game days occurs due to the University of Iowa's football games. We therefore believe that if commercial vending is to continue in the vicinity of the stadium, the University should take responsibility for any such activity so that it does not impinge on, and adversely affect, the Neighborhood. We would propose that any such vending could occur in an area of the stadium parking lot. In addition to eliminating the trash and the destruction of the Neighborhood, such a placement of the vendors should greatly diminish the congestion on Melrose Avenue near the stadium. We have heard of various instances, due to this congestion, when people could not reach the adjacent UI Hospitals and Clinics in a timely manner in an emergency or when people have had problems getting to'work at the UIHC. Most importantly, diminished congestion would facilitate the access of fire trucks, ambulances (particularly going to the UIHC), police vehicles, and any other emergency vehicles to the area. Reduction of this congestion on Melrose Avenue, which is one of the main arterial streets of Iowa City, is thus a safety concern. For all of the above reasons, we request that the illegal vending on Melrose Avenue be stopped TEMP®RARY GAME DAY COMMERCIAL USE PERMIT PERFt7RMANCE 1. Display permit. Vendors must prominently display the permit and it must be clearly viewable from the public right-of-way. 2. Noise regulation. No vendor may use amplified equipment. 3. Clean-up responsibility. All vendors must keep any area they vend at litter-free and shall remove litter from any adjacent public property/right-of-way. Vendors shall provide a trash container with unfilled capacity at all times. 4. No blocking of sidewalk/right-of-way. No vendor shall block or obstruct the free movement of pedestrians or vehicles on a sidewalk, street, or other public right-of- way. Tents/stands must be set back at least 8 feet from the edge of public sidewalks. 5 Signage. Vendor signage must be approved by the City. Vendor signage is only allowed on the vendor's stand/vehicle/tent, etc. and is not allowed on utility poles across the public sidewalk, on buildings or as yard signs. 6. Health permits. All food vendors must secure necessary health permits from the County and prominently display the permit so it is clearly viewable from the public right-of-way. 7. Sanitary facilities. Every property that has a food vendor must provide at least one port-a-john. This port-a-john must be removed after each game or, in lieu of removal, the port-a-john must be relocated out of the front yard and out of public view. 8. Insurance/indemnification. All vendors must provide to the City evidence of comprehensive general liability insurance of $500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate and must indemnify the City against all damages that may result from the vendor's permitted temporary commercial use and/or the vendor's use of the public right-of-way. 9. Fire extinguishers. All vendors must provide at least one fire extinguisher that is functional and accessible at all times. 10. Tent size. All tents must be stakeless and not exceed 144 square feet. 11. Cooking tents. All cooking tents (regardless of size) must be approved by the Fire Code Official. Cooking tents will be required to be separated from other tents, parked vehicles and lot lines. 12. Alcohol. Na alcohol is allowed in conjunction with any temporary commercial use. 13. Violation of these provisions. Any violation of the temporary use permit conditions will result in a civil citation and loss of the temporary commercial use permit for the current football season. Also, the property owner will lase the right to replace the commercial vendor on the site during the football season. hisadmltempuse-permitconditions doc IP3 ~.,.®~ ~ul~~,~ CITY OF IOWA CITY DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Tom Markus, City Manager FROM: Richard Wyss, Police Captain RE: Animal Shelter- Council Work Session April 18, 2011 910 Easl 4L`ashington Streel I<~wa City, ~i)Wil 52290- 1826 (319) 356.5000 (3191 356-5(109 FAX Wi1'W.1C~OV.Of~, The Animal Services facility was damaged in the 2008 Flood, and since that time the Animal Services Division has been working out of a temporary rented facility. FEMA will stop paying for this facility in May of 2012. FEMA has obligated funding to reimburse the City for the replacement cost of the flooded facility, based on rebuilding with the same size and materials, of which FEMA estimated the cost at 1.3 million dollars. After the flood, Jackson Ryan and Associates completed feasibility and programing Study on current operations at the Animal Services Division. The results of that study were to address architecturally the current and projected capacity and operations. Recommendations were presented for layout and systems to update the future facility to State Licensing codes, current Animal Shelter standards and local and state Building codes. The consultant recommended that to build an appropriately designed shelter, a much larger facility was required to meet our capacity and operational needs. The consultant was then directed by the City to work as closely within the square foot limitations of the former facility as a first phase and to recommend appropriately phased expansions. This presented a schematic design of a facility consistent in size to the flooded facility, demonstrating that a 7280 square foot facility built to current codes and standards will not meet the current operational needs of the Animal Services Division. In Monday evening's work session, staff will present information explaining why the future building needs to be different from the former and flooded facility. There will also be a representative from the Friends of the Animal Center Foundation to discuss their fundraising efforts. We are seeking Council's input as we are at a point where it is necessary to proceed with the design of the future animal control facility. At the direction of Council, the design phase will be used to submit an improved project request to FEMA. This is because an improved project request would allow the use of current and appropriate materials, and increase square footage maximizing FEMA's participation. The design phase is crucial to determining the improved project request to FEMA and for the Animal Foundation capital campaign feasibility study to proceed. The current deadline for the project is May of 2012. April 13, 2011 Page 2 Costs: Cost estimates for similar facilities are in the range of $250 per square foot. The Jackson Ryan and Associates feasibility and programing Study recommended 16,000 square feet of space, which would estimate costs at $4,000,000. Scaling back the project would reduce the cost proportionally. Funding Sources: $ 960,000 from FEMA $ 107,000 from State $ 269,000 from insurance Total Reimbursement: $1,336,000.00 $ 700,000 Request from General obligation bonds Total: $ 2,036,000.00 Current donations restricted to the rebuilding of the Shelter: $ 194,539.38 Staff recommendations: 1. The City pursue a schematic design through design development. 2. After completion of the schematic design, allow 3-5 months for FACF to complete a financial feasibility study. Attachments: 1. Comparison of Recent Animal Facilities Constructed in Iowa. 2. Tentative Calendar showing proposed City, Fema and Friends of the Animal Facility Foundation timelines for construction of the replacement facility. Y O U 3 i ~+ N O V N 0 Q O a L 0 ~+ U 3 0 N .~ m ~U LL .~ Q O N .~ /~ /'- 0 V O N m G1 G1 G1 3 N G1 N N dA m ~ C C C C O O O O O Vf N r-I N ~ 3 LL N l0 .~ O l0 00 ~ O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ N N ~ -I N -I ~ ~ i/? i/? i/? i/? i/? i/? i/? i/? ~+ O ^~ i.! O LL O V ~ C ? C O C O C O O V ~ O = _ _ ~ Y U ~ ~ m ~n ~n Q Ol c-I c-I ~ C O C O C O C O C O C O O V = _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N l0 ~ Ol u ~ ~ ~ m ~ _ O i a N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O G1 i N ~ 00 Ol I~ ~ -I ~ -I ~ N 00 S 3 C l0 . -I 00 . -I I~ c-I m m I~ N ~ ~ N N ~ O V a O o N LL ~ +' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O ~ a, ~ m o m o o ~ o ~ V f ~ N ~ ~ ('n ('n 00 Ol l0 N O ~ 3 V a d V f ~ ~ ~ O dA O O O O O O O O O 000 O 000 O O O ~ O f~ ~ 00 ~ O N ~ 00 V of O O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O O O O O ~ O ~ O O O N N ~> 00 Ol ~ m ~ N I~ r-i iJ ~ -I a v ~ °o °o 00 °o °o °o ~°o ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~n o Q ~ z Q m I~ 00 ~n N N m N ~ L N rn ~ L o c o ++ ++ C O ~ C O O O ~ c-I O OA ' c-I O ~3 ~ ~ ~ 6L i ~ . ~ . N 3 fC L N L ro O L L Z ~ _ ~ ~ ~ c N a ro m ~ ~ N ~ ~ m L oC L - •V O ~ ~ O ~ U U + ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ L ~ X + V U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ O in O O ro ~ ~ l0 Q 'Q o ~ ~ L U ~ C +~ '- N O v ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ _ '~ ~ Q ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L a ~ ~ U X X c O L to Q O U c O U_ L 1 0 L ~. o 0 o a o o a o a o a ~ ,~ ~ ~ CV C'7 1~ ~.f7 ~(3] w o ~ N a7 OC? ' L7 0 ~ o C37 r ~ OU C] r C_CS d .~ ~ ~.f7 CY7 ~ CV ~] ' ' d' o C'r? ' OD d7 Chi I~ ~ CV r Cr r M ~ '~- C~3 r r i a v ~ CY7 CSI o '~"' 1~ I~ I~ ~7 I~ r OD ~ o o rs~ o r` o r~- c~ r~ ~ ~n m v c~ ~ cx~ c~ cn ov ~n o ov c~ o ~ ~ i ` T Yi i r ~ ~' oc r c c~ N ~ '~ v c~ o a 0 a 0 o 0 o 0 ' a 0 r o 0 o 0 c~ 0 a 0 0 ~ N N Cfl N Co d C } ~ ~ © o C r~i ~ Ci7 CV ~:# 1`=-- ~ ~ Ctrl CV Cfl CV ~f7 ~ r ~ ~ ~ N Q ~ r 'd T v c~ a~ o ~ r` ~n o r` ~ ~.n r- © {CZI I~ RI ~i7 C4 [~ ~7 f'•- r I`~ OD v ~ c~ c~ ~ c~ r~ cv r ov rn 07- ~ ~ ~ ~ v r-- cv ~ c~ t~ t~ c~ o ~ o ~ v ~ ~ c~ r-- +~ cs~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~- a~ c~ cfl i-- a7 c~ cs~ cv o c~ b- o r o C37 N r ~ ~ ~.i7 U) ~--• ~7 as .~ 2 ~ ~'' ' ~ nx ~ ~ ° ' v~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ f1? ~ o ~ ~ ~ ?' ~ ~ + c ~ ~ l~ . t~ ~ - Q ~ ~ ~ C3 U = ~ ~ ~ C7 U] U] U] _ H ~ ~ ~ 4/13/2011 Animal Center Replacement from Flood 2008 -Tentative Calendar Action By Date Description Staff 4/11/2011 Archaeological intensive 1A Study Started Staff 4/29/2011 Archaeological intensive 1A Study -Results due back Distribute Request for Qualifications (RFQ): Select Architect / Staff 5/2/2011 Engineering Firm for Design FEMA 5/2/2011 Send Archaeological results to Fema Fema will Open a 30 Day Public Comment Period once FEMA 5/2/2011 Archaeological and Environmental are approved for site. Staff 5/27/2011 RFQ responses due Fema approval of site necessary before proceeding (Archaeological FEMA 5/27/2011 and Environmental) Interview & Selection of Architect & Engineering Service: Schematic Staff 6/13/2011 Design & Development Staff 6/17/2011 Design Contract Negotiation u City Council 6/21/2011 Formal City Council Award of Design Contract -Earliest Date City Council 7/5/2011 Formal City Council Award of Design Contract -Latest Date Staff 7/5/2011 Design Development (3 Months) Report back to City Council with Cost Estimates; Building & Site Plans City Council 10/4/2011 Schematic Design FACF 10/4/2011 FACF Foundation -Begin Financial Feasibility Study (3 - 5 Months) Staff 10/4/2011 Construction Documents -Begin Preparation -All Phases Design Improved Project Request Application (Approval takes 30 - 60 days) - FEMA 10/17/2011 Refine Fema Cost Sharing (code requirements, etc.) FEMA 12/19/2011 Improved Project Request Approval FACF Foundation -Financial Feasibility -Early date due for Study (3 FACF 1/2/2012 months from start) Staff 2/17/2012 Construction Documents -Complete City Council 2/21/2012 Set Project Public Hearing for Construction FACF Foundation -Financial Feasibility -Latest date due for Study (5 FACF 3/1/2012 months from start) Staff 3/7/2012 Bid Project -allow 6 - 8 weeks for return FACF Foundation -Begin Capital Campaign Solicitation (8 - 12 FACF 3/15/2012 months) Staff 3/22/2012 Pre Bid Meeting for contractors Staff 4/12/2012 Accept Bids Fema PW Extension Request, project currently due May 2012, FEMA 4/16/2012 extend based on Construction contract to be awarded City Council 4/17/2012 Award Construction Contract Staff 5/1/2012 Construction Begins -Allow 12 - 14 Months FEMA Current Deadline for Project to be Completed - an Extension FEMA 5/26/2012 will be requested Between May & City Council November Authorize Phase II Contract based on FACF Campaign Proceeds FACF 11/15/2012 FACF Campaign Complete (Early Date - 8 Months) FACF 3/15/2013 FACF Campaign Complete (Latest Date - 12 Months) Construction Phase I Complete (Possibly Fema Scope with or without FEMA 8/1/2013 improved materials) FACF ? Phase II Construction Complete -FACF Square Footage After Phase I or II FEMA Construction Move Animal Shelter from Temporary Facility -Fema PW 2509 FACF: Friends of the Animal Center Foundation Prepared by Deb Mansfield Calendar -Animal Center Replacement.xls IOWA CITY ANIMAL SERVICES OPERATION FIELD ENFORCEMENT- ANIMAL CENTER • Law Enforcement/Public Safety • Stray Animal Capture • Rabies Quarantine • Rabies Control • Noise Nuance Abatement • Wildlife Trapping and Abatement • Trap Rental • Cruelty/Neglect Investigations • Licensing • Dog Park Tag Issue • Permit Inspections • Animal Adoption • AnimalIntake/Reclaim • Public Education • Disaster Response • Emergency Sheltering • Animal Decontamination • Animal Food Bank • Animal Services Referral • Service Learning • Zoonotic Disease Monitoring FRIENDS OF THE ANIMAL CENTER FOUNDATION • Volunteer Training and Support • Foster Care Program • Medical Support • Animal Enrichment • Mobile Adoption • Community Education and Outreach Programs • Low Income Spay and Neuter Assistance Program • Low Income Spay Days • Low Cost Microchipping Clinics • Shelter Dog Training Program • Community Partnerships IP4 SUMMARY OF PENDING WORK SESSION ISSUES 4/14/11 Downtown Planning (MAY 2) Court Street -Summit to Muscatine (MAY 2) City Plaza Ordinance Revisions (MAY 16) Sanctuary City Review Function of Boards/Commissions: Explore Possible Consolidations Flood Response & Mitigation Update (PERIODIC) Mayz-3 May 16 - 17 June 6 - 7 June 20 - 21 July 5 -Combined r -- '~~~= p~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P5 ~~® ~ - ,', ~~ M RAND (~ MEMO Date: April 11, 2011 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~7~f~ Re: KXIC Radio Show At your April 4 work session meeting the Council Members agreed to the following schedule: April 13 -Wright April 20 -Dickens April 27 -Mims May 4 -Hayek May 11 -Dickens May 18 -Champion U: rad ioshowappts.doc U4-74-17 r IP6 ~~.,,r®~,~ CITY OF IO1NA CITY ~, ~~ QRAND~M 1VI E 1VI To: Kyle Johnson From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorne Date: April 13, 2011 Re: Proposed Initiative to Adopt a "Restaurant Exemption to the 21 Ordinance" Issue: I have reviewed the Affidavit to Commence Initiative that you filed with the City Clerk on April 7, 2011. A copy is attached. The issue is whether the proposed amendment to Section 4-5-8 of the City Code to add a "restaurant exemption" is allowable under Article VII of the City Charter. Conclusion: It is my opinion that the proposed amendment is "substantially the same" as the measure submitted to the voters at the election on November 2, 2010, and therefore, pursuant to Section 7.01(6)(3) of the City Charter the petition may not be filed until November 2, 2012. A brief explanation follows. On November 2, 2010 the voters of Iowa City defeated a referendum seeking to repeal the ordinance that changed the bar entry age from 19 to the legal age (21). Section 7.01(6)(3) bars resubmission of the same or "substantially the same" measure to voters for 2 years. I note that the definition of "restaurant" in your proposed measure is taken, in part, from Title IV of the City Code, which allows only "restaurants" to have outdoor service areas upon the approval of the City Council. The language of your definition, particularly in contrast to the original (section 4-5-1), is significant in the following respects: 1. The proposal removes the requirement that a "restaurant" be a business whose "primary function is the service of food to customers." Under the proposed definition an establishment can be a "restaurant" even if its primary purpose is the sale of alcohol. 99% of its gross sales could be from alcohol. 2. The proposal eliminates the provision that a "restaurant" includes a "cafe, cafeteria, coffee shop, delicatessen, ice cream shop, lunchroom or tearoom" and replaces it with the following: "A restaurant may include a bar, nightclub, pub, club or tavern or other business on its premises." 3. The proposal provides as follows: "an exemption certificate is not required if the premises meets the definition of restaurant." No City approval is required. There currently is a mechanism for distinguishing "bars" (businesses with the primary purpose of selling alcohol) from "restaurants" (businesses with the primary purpose of selling food) in section 4-5-8(B) (3) of the City Code. Under the existing exemption, the applicant must demonstrate to the Police Chief that the primary purpose of the business is not the sale of alcohol, including a demonstration that more than 50% of gross sales come from goods and services other than alcohol, such as food. The current April 13, 2011 Page 2 exception requires the issuance of an exception certificate by the Police Chief and posting of the certificate at the establishment. Because of the way "restaurant" is defined, the proposed exemption to the 21 ordinance is substantially the same as a repeal of 21. The voters would be faced with substantially the same choices as they were on November 2, 2010. Simply put, at the last election the two alternatives were: 1) 19 and 20 year olds may enter a licensed establishment after 10:00 p.m. only if the establishment's primary purpose is not the sale of alcohol (the existing ordinance) OR 2) 19 and 20 year olds may enter a licensed establishment after 10:00 p.m.without regard to the primary purpose of the establishment (the referendum). If the proposed exemption, which allows an establishment with the primary purpose of selling alcohol to be "a restaurant", is placed on the ballot, the voters will be choosing between the same two alternatives: 1) 19 and 20 year olds may enter a licensed establishment after 10:00 p.m. only if the establishment's primary purpose is not the sale of alcohol (the existing ordinance) OR 2) 19 and 20 year olds may enter a licensed establishment after 10:00 pm without regard to the primary purpose of the establishment (the initiative). The fact that the proposed "restaurant" definition is self-executing (i.e. no City approval is required) merely exacerbates the similarities to a repeal of 21. The "restaurant" exemption being proposed essentially swallows the rule. The language and effect of the proposed measure reveal that it is substantially the same as the measure defeated by the voters on November 2, 2010. Therefore, the petition may not be filed until November 2, 2012. 1 Cc: City Council City Manager City Clerk Police Chief 1 The entertainment and split venue exceptions that have been passed by the City Council since the vote on November 2, 2010 have no bearing on this analysis. Neither addresses the food/alcohol or restaurant/bar distinction. More importantly, when a ballot measure proposed by initiative or referendum fails, there is no restriction on Council action as there is on resubmission of a ballot measure. Indeed, the Council could choose to enact an ordinance repealing the 21 bar entry age at any time. AFFIDAVIT TO COMMENCE INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PROCEEDINGS STATE OF IOWA ) , COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) The undersigned petitioner(s) hereby proposes} to commence Initiative or referendum proceedings pursuant to Artlcte VIE of the Charter of Iowa City. 1. Each of the undersigned is a voter who is regfsteced to vote In Iowa City. 2. The undersigned will supervise the c(rcutation of the tnltiative or referendum petlUon and will be responsible for filing it in proper form with the City Clerk of Iowa City. 3. The names}, address(es), and phone numbers} of the petitioners} is (are) as follows (print or type); ~~\i/L~E?'~ 1~ Ci. t~~`1 ~ `.Nrnl.,'~~ ~~ ~_ ~ "a_t-# L" 4. 5 All relevant notices retaUng to the initiative or referendum proposal shall be addressed as follows: 1~.~1' ~ ~ ' I l-~r ~-~- -r#- ~; I ~' (Name of recipient} Street Addressor Post Office Box City, State, Zip Code The ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered is a{tached hereon as an exhibit and by th(s referendum made a part hereof. Witness my (our) ha d(s} this ~'~ ~~ -" ~ ~~~s~~ . ~Subscrfbed arid sworn t(o~ before me, a Notary Public, on this ,_ j___ day of by ~~,,.~ X l ~1~~?~i N .tome known to be the'person{s) who executed the foregoing Affidavit, and who (or each of whom) acknowledged that helshe executed the same as hislher vo act and deed. J,R~Ar~ DONNY LINDELL N ary ° ~ Commission Number 761653 My Commission Expires w r FefSrruary 1, 2013. My commission expires ~~ ~~'~ ~ day of ~•~ , 20 ~) rv c~ Cr ~ ~ ~~i ~ _:-~ c s 'a ~ ~ - 'z7 ~ ~ 1 ` ; i ~~ ~ ,~- "Restaurant exemption to the 21 ordinance" 4-5-8: PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS: F. Additionally, the provisions of subsection A, C and D of this section shall not apply when: (Ord. 03-4073, 5-6-2003, eff. 8-1-2003) 1. The licensed premises is a restaurant. a. Requirements: 1. the kitchen must be open at all times when persons under the legal age are allowed on the premises; 2. an exemption certificate is not required if the premises meets the definition of restaurant; b. Definition of restaurant for this section: 1. Prepares meals on the premises and allows food consumption on each floor of the premises which is open to the public while the kitchen is open; 2. Has a food service menu from which customers may order; 3. Has an employee whose primary duty is the preparation of food and an employee whose primary duty is to serve food and/or drinks to customers; 4. Has a kitchen separate from the bar equipped with all of the following: a stave, a griddle, a grill or broiler, an automatic dishwasher and a food refrigeration unit with a capacity in excess of one hundred twenty (120) cubic feet; 5. Operates the restaurant service during at least sixty percent (60%) of the hours that the business is open to the public; 6. The kitchen is open on average at least 40 hours per week; 7. Holds itself out to be a restaurant and advertises itself as a restaurant if it advertises and; 8. A restaurant may include a bar, nightclub, pub, club or tavern or other business on its premises. N O ~Q ~~ Z7 • ^ .~ ....! .~' aer~ P -~! C'' J ~~ f ji ~ ~ _ '-~ r~ W ~-..~ ~"" ~' IP7 INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA M E M O R A N D U M Date: April 12, 2011 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Jeff Schott, Institute of Public Affairs, University of Iowa Re: Council Strategic Planning As requested at our meeting this morning, we are proposing the following timeline for the city's strategic planning process. Focus rg_ou~s with line staff September 13 -Line Staff (all day / 2 sessions -Harvat Hall, 410 East Washington St.) September 14 -Line Staff (all day / 2 sessions -Room A, Iowa City Public Library Department Head Session October 19 - 10:30 am - 3:00 pm (Harvat Hall) Strategic PlanningSession #1 with City Council November 18 -City Council, 1:00-5:00 (Water Treatment Facility Conference Room, 80 Stephen Atkins Drive) Strategic Planni~~Session #2 with City Council December 5 -City Council, 2:00-5:30 (Harvat Hall) It will be essential that all members of the 2012 City Council team attend the strategic planning sessions on November 18 and December 5 in order for the process to be valid and useful. We would also encourage the outgoing members of the current City Council to attend but only the 2012 council members will be involved in selecting the goals and priorities for the upcoming two -four year period. We would also encourage department heads to attend the goal setting sessions in order to foster teamwork and be available as a resource for background and information as needed. ,;,~®~ C[TY QF [OI/VA CITY 1P8 ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 1V1 E 11/1 D RA ~ D (~ M Date: April 13, 2011 To: City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Re: Update: Flood-related activities Engineering Division .The demolition of buyout properties continues. This includes preparing, contracting and inspecting the asbestos abatement and structure removals. .Staff is preparing a contract with the University of Iowa to conduct a Phase 1 Intensive Archeological Study for the Animal Shelter relocation. This work is being completed this Spring. Dubuque Street Elevation and Park Road Bridge Reconstruction Project • HNTB continued Park Road Bridge type, size, and location study in conjunction with preliminary hydraulic studies and impact of bridge on upsteam elevations. • HNTB continued draft of Initial Alternatives Screening Report. • City staff coordinated with HNTB to explain and discuss drainage issues/elevations on North Dubuque Street, south of Foster Road • Sewer coordination with MMS -City staff received preliminary copy of the topographic survey that is being completed. • Continue examination of existing environmental conditions, prepare environmental constraints mapping. • Held the April Technical Advisory Committee Meeting on April 6, followed by a Bella Vista Neighborhood meeting onsite. The morning of April 7, the planners with HNTB and City staff walked the site to discuss relevant issues discussed at the TAC & neighborhood meetings. • Continued coordination for a funding charrette to be held sometime mid-summer. • Concurrence Point #1 package is anticipated to be sent out the week of April 11 upon the FHWA approval of purpose and need document. Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation Project The following draft Technical Memorandums were delivered to the city 1. TM 1 Secondary Clarifier Capacity Modeling 2. TM 2 South Plant Wastewater Characterization and BioWin Calibration 3. TM 3 Secondary Treatment Alternative Assessment 4. TM 4 Grit Removal Improvements 5. TM 5 Primary Sludge Handling Alternatives 6. TM 6 Alternative Secondary Clarifier Layouts Update of Flood Related Activities Page 2 • The design concept on BAR process and documenting recommendations is being refined • Sections of Preliminary Engineering report are being written and completed in draft form • Work is being done on preliminary engineering cost estimating • Work is being done on graphics for figures to be included in Preliminary Engineering Report Rocky Shore Drive Pump Station and Floodgates Project • Consultant with City staff regarding the hydraulics and hydrology portion of the project • Consultant prepared a memo regarding the pros, cons and opinions of cost on the types of removable flood walls and gates Iowa River Flood Modeling • Final revisions are being made to the report. West Side Levee City Attorney received propels for appraisal and title services. Staff is currently negotiating contracts and the City Manager will execute the contracts on behalf of the City. City has received acknowledgement that Army Corps of Engineers has received the permit application and the review process will be approximately 4 months. Water Division River Crossings • The University of Iowa has completed the environmental/archeological study and review for the river crossing sites located at the old plant and Hwy 6. The report recommends that a Phase I field visit be performed a by an architectural historian prior to proposed construction activities. • FEMA has been updated regarding the status of the project. The requested archeological evaluation will be completed by the end of April. Peninsula Source Protection • The completion of this project that was scheduled for the end of January has been extended to the end of April 2011. Water Works Prairie Park Source Protection Scope changes which were discovered through the design process have been approved by IHS and FEMA. An audit meeting with HIS is scheduled for April 20, 2011. Update of Flood Related Activities Page 3 Planning and Community Development A total of 70 residential properties have been acquired through disaster recovery buyout grants. Of the 70 properties, 32 of the properties have been acquired through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), 32 with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and six with Community Disaster Grant (CDG) funds. A total of 59 properties have been demolished in the Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway neighborhoods. An amendment to the CDBG buyout program was approved by the Iowa Department of Economic Development in order to add four properties on Normandy Drive. The amendment increases properties eligible for a buyout with CDBG funds from 58 to 62. The lottery drawing to determine selection order for Round 3 of the Single Family New Construction Homes Program was held on April 8th. There will be 31 affordable housing units built in this round. Staff received 40 applications for the drawing and are now processing the first 10 numbers selected in the drawing. Applications for Federal Jumpstart funds for repair, rental rehabilitation, down payment assistance and interim mortgage assistance are still being accepted and funds are available. To date, $869,500 in Federal Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 18 households. Staff has completed a scope of work for the Taft Speedway Levee impact evaluation and will be publishing a notice this week to let potential study contractors know the Request for Proposals process has begun. A public meeting will be held in May to gather initial public input on the scope and timeline of the study. Due to the possible rescission of federal grant funds, staff is continuing to provide information to our Congressional offices in Washington on the City's active federal flood recovery and mitigation grants. S:flood.doc IP9 Kathryn Johansen _ From: Tom Markus Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:00 PM To: Kathryn Johansen Subject: RE: Re Council Question re concrete patch Ped Mall Make a part of the info pack From: Kathryn Johansen Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:10 AM To: Tom Markus Subject: FW: Re Council Question re concrete patch Ped Mall F.Y.I. From: Jim Protaskey Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:53 AM To: Kathryn Johansen Subject: Re Council Question re concrete patch Ped Mall Kath i, I saw in the March 31St, 2011 Council Packet/ IPS, There was a question concerning the two temporary concrete patches located in the Ped Mall. These patches are a result of the placement of new fire lines for sprinkler systems to several buildings located in the CBD that occurred over the winter. The removal of the temporary patches and reinstallation of brick pavers will take place as soon as area asphalt plants go back into operation after their winter shut down (an asphalt leveling base is required). The tentative date for asphalt to be available is set for the week of April 18tH If any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Jim James Protaskey City of Iowa. City F.nguieering Division Utilities/ROW 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5438 Office 319-631-1140 Cell 319-356-5007 Fax iim-protaskeyC~iowa-city.or~ IP10 Marian Karr From: Mboysen <mboysen@mwci.net> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:45 AM To: Tammy Neumann Cc: Mike Moran; Tom Markus; Council Subject: Farmers Market Counterproposal for Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Attachments: downtown proposal 04 05 11 word version.doc Tammy, As you know, a small group of vendors has been working on a counterproposal to the Downtown Association's request to move the Iowa City Farmers Market from its current location. We would like to bring this proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting next week. Our proposal is attached. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions. Martha Apri16, 2011 Tammy Neumann Parks and Recreation Department 220 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1632 Dear Tammy: We are a group of Iowa City Farmers Market business owners, and we are writing in response to the Downtown Association's request to move the Iowa City Farmers Market from its current covered location in east downtown to the central downtown streets. We know that many vendors and customers have already written to, emailed, and called you to express, in detail, their concerns about this idea. Instead of reiterating what others have already said, we would like to raise another concern. We believe that the DTA's proposal is an example of the short-term, reactive devision-making that has, unfortunately, characterized Iowa City-particularly the downtown area-for the past several years. Although the DTA's proposal might benefit some downtown merchants in the short term, we feel that it fails to take into consideration the long- term needs and goals of both the Market and the community as a whole. Before any decision is made about the Market's future, we feel it is imperative that all the Market's stakeholders-business owners (both Farmers Market business owners and owners of storefront businesses), city representatives, and Market customers-carefully consider these questions: What is our long-term goal for the Farmers Market and its place in Iowa City? How can we best use the Farmers Market to strengthen Iowa City's economic and social fabric, increase Iowa City's role as a regional leader, and ensure wise future development of Iowa City's resources? Which decisions will put us on the path to that goal, and which will lead us away from it? Level of customer satisfaction with the Farmers Market's current location It is particularly important, we would argue, to make decisions which will maintain or increase customer satisfaction with the Market. For our Market to continue to prosper, we need customers who continue to be enthusiastic about and committed to shopping at the Market. A 2009 survey of 1500 Iowa City residents, distributed randomly with the water bill, found that Market customers are overwhelmingly satisfied with the Market's current location. 530, or 69%, of the 601 residents who responded to the survey said that the Market's location needed "No Improvement," and a further 18% said it needed only "Some Improvement"-that is, 87% of the Iowa City residents surveyed saw no reason to move the Market. We believe that many elements of the Market's current location contribute to its success and to its customers' satisfaction. Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp provides the Market with a location which is both open-air and all-weather, where customers can have the feeling of an outdoor market while still being protected from the weather. Parking in and near the ramp is plentiful, close to the Market, and free, and the ramp parking allows customers to park and shop under cover in bad weather, as well as increasing accessibility for customers with impaired mobility. The Market itself is compact, contained within the space of about a city block, a size which makes it easy for customers to walk. Chauncey Swan Park, which adjoins the ramp, provides a pleasant green space for music, dining, and socializing, as well as a safe play area for children. The Market is, in addition, centrally located, within a block of the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center, New Pioneer Co-Op, the Public Library, and the pedestrian mall; and within easy walking distance of most of downtown. Furthermore, the fact that the Market is not in central downtown means that it is relatively unaffected by the parking problems and crowds associated with football game days and some Summer of the Arts events-something many of our customers seem to appreciate. The Farmers Market's current role in Iowa City The Iowa City Farmers Market is a valuable asset for the city. Apart from its uniquenessto our knowledge, it is the only covered open-air weekly market in the state of Iowa-it is a vital part of this community's social and economic fabric. The Market is one of Parks & Recreation's most popular programs. In the 2010 America's Favorite Markets competition, sponsored by the American Farmland Trust, the Iowa City Farmers Market ranked 10th nationally among large markets (markets with 56 or more vendors), garnering more customer votes than many markets in much larger cities, including St. Paul, MN; Austin, TX; Olympia, WA; Phoenix, AZ; Omaha, NE; and Cleveland, OH. The 2009 survey referenced earlier found that of the 601 respondents, 592-91%-had attended the Farmers Market during the 2009 season, most of those (495, or 55%) weekly. In the Parks and Recreation Department's 2008 citizen survey, 72% of respondents indicated a need for a Farmers` Market (an estimated 18,070 households); 86% of respondents indicated that the current Market is meeting their needs at the 75% level or better, and 54% felt it meets their needs 100%. 58% of respondents indicated that the Market was one of the four programs most important to their households, and it had the highest percentage of respondents select it as the most important program for their households. 57% of respondents named the Market as one of the four Parks & Recreation programs in which they participated most often (and again, the Market had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice). For many of our customers, the Market is both a place to shop and an important social destination, a place to meet friends, chat with vendors, and enjoy Market events. The size of the Iowa City Farmers Market clearly demonstrates Iowa City's enthusiasm for its farmers' market. At 110 vendors, it is a large market for a community this size. (By comparison, Madison's Dane County Market Saturday markets are held to 150 vendors; Madison has a population of approximately 210,000. The Cedar Rapids downtown market has 200 vendors; Cedar Rapids has a population of approximately 127,000. Iowa City's population is approximately 68,000, and the population of the entire Johnson County/Washington County metro area is only 149,000.) That we support such a large market relative to the size of our community says a great deal about the enthusiasm Iowa City has for its market. And of course, the Market is important to Iowa City's economy. Many studies of the economic impact of farmers' markets have shown that markets, in general, tend have a positive economic impact on their communities. Customers who shop at the market tend to shop at other businesses within the community as well. A growers' market like Iowa City's-where local vendors sell things they've grown or made-tends to keep shoppers' money within the community, as customers buy locally-produced goods from local vendors. Although farmers' markets represent a small percentage of the national agricultural economy, they are also afast-growing segment of that economy, as more people become interested in buying sustainable and locally-produced food. The Market's rapid growth over the past five years or so-and the fact that many of its vendors regard it as one of the best markets in the region-clearly indicate that the Market can and most likely does benefit Iowa City economically. The Problem Because the Iowa City Farmers Market has such an important place in Iowa City's economic and social fabric, we believe that the City and the Parks & Recreation Commission should consider very carefully the Market's future, and make decisions that will use the Market to the benefit of the entire community, not just a handful of downtown business owners. To the best of our knowledge, there is currently no long-term strategic plan for the Market, despite its popularity and its importance in the lives of many Iowa City citizens. The Farmers Market is addressed in neither the Parks & Recreation Department's Master Plan nor in the Planning and Community Development Department's design plans. We believe that the Market's popularity and its social and economic importance to Iowa City-as well as the rapid growth of farmers' markets in general as a segment of agricultural and local economies-make it important that we plan strategically for the Market's future and for its role in the future development of the city. Doing so, of course, does not preclude partnerships between the Market and the central business district-or, indeed, between the Market and any Iowa City business district. In fact, we believe the Market should have strong partnerships with both for-profit and non-profit organizations throughout the city, county, and state. However, we also believe any decisions about the Market's future should be based on what is best for the city and the Market long-term, not on the short-term needs or wants of a single business district. Developing a vision for the future of the Iowa City Farmers Market To this point, the conversation about the Market's future has been focused on the short term: Do we move the Market downtown next year, or not? And, indeed, as a community, we have done very little thinking or talking about the Market beyond the short-term concerns of this Market season or next Market season. The fact that there is no long-term plan for the Market only complicates these short-term discussions-how do we know what will be best for the Market if we have never decided what we want the Market to become? The DTA's proposal is essentially focused on the short term-on the immediate needs of the downtown merchants, rather than on the long-term goals of the community. Instead, we would like to see everyone involved with the Market thinking not about what we can do tomorrow, but about what is possible for the Market. What is our ideal? In the best of all possible worlds, what place would this Market have in the city, in the region, in the nation? To that end, we would like to propose that during the 2011 Market season, a strategic planning group for the Iowa City Farmers Market be formed. This group would consist of representatives from all of the Market's stakeholder groups-customers, Market business owners, the Market Coordinator, representatives from the City departments most affected by the Market (parking, streets, etc.), the City Manager or his representative, and representatives from other significant stakeholder groups (for instance, members of the local foods community). The purpose of this group would be to consider the Market's current and potential roles in the community, create a vision for the Market's future, and draft a plan for achieving that vision. We would also like to see, as part of this process and throughout as much of the course of the process as possible, open meetings for Market business owners, customers, and other large stakeholder groups to make their views known. At least one of these sessions should be held specifically for Iowa City's young people, from kindergarten through high school, since Iowa City's young people are also the Market's (and the city's) future. Sessions should also be scheduled with groups who might have special needs as the Market continues to evolve-for instance, senior citizens-and groups whose connection to the Market could be further strengthened-for instance, college students. In addition, surveys of Market vendors and customers should be conducted over the course of the 2011 season to gather further information about vendor and customer attitudes toward and ideas for the Market. Many people feel they have a deep personal stake in the Market-for the Market's business owners, that stake includes their families' livelihoods-and we feel that any strategic plan will serve stakeholders best if they are given a frequent and active role in the discussions. We would like to see the planning group convened by the middle of the summer of 2011, and would hope that it might produce a strategic plan by the beginning of the 2012 Farmers Market season. Building partnerships between the Market and Central Downtown We believe that both the Farmers Market and downtown merchants could benefit from increased cooperation, and we would like to propose that while the process of planning for the Market's future is underway, the Market and the Downtown Association discuss ways these two groups of business owners can work together. That said, we don't think that moving the Market from its current location to the central downtown streets would be the most beneficial or even the most effective form of partnership for either group. Such a move would require Market vendors to take significant financial risks and would inconvenience Market customers. It would, furthermore, be unlikely to solve-and might even contribute to-the problems underlying the central downtown's current economic situation. A customer survey conducted for the city's 2007 Downtown Market Niche Analysis suggests that for Iowa City residents, the primary deterrents to shopping downtown are lack of selection and variety; a perceived lack of available/free parking; limited store hours; high prices; and an overabundance of bars and restaurants. These are not problems moving the Market is likely to solve; the parking problem is one the presence of the Market downtown might even exacerbate. We believe that there are other, less risky, and potentially more effective ways in which the Market and the Downtown Association could cooperate. We suggest that any partnership between the Market and the DTA begin with smaller steps, rather than something as drastic and irrevocable as moving the Market. Some forms such a partnership might take could include: • Coupon exchanges. Many communities organize coupon programs which link farmers' market and storefront merchants. For instance, on certain weekends during the summer, Market vendors might hand out a 10% coupon for downtown businesses; downtown businesses could reciprocate. The Downtown Association might help underwrite the cost of the program. Customer education. Although the Market has strict rules about the presence of non-City non-profit organizations at Market, the Market might consider ways to allow the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, and other business district associations some sort of presence at the Market, which they could use to educate customers. In exchange, these groups might agree to promote the Market in their business districts (through posters, flyers, and other customer information). Transportation for customers. Since parking is a perennial concern for Iowa City residents, and since parking near the Market is generally seen as being more available than parking in central downtown, a free shuttle bus service might be provided between the Market, central downtown, and perhaps other business districts (e.g., the Northside, Near Southside, and Riverfront districts). This might also increase accessibility for customers who are not able to walk from the Market to other parts of downtown. This would undoubtedly be more costly than some other forms of partnership; it could perhaps be jointly funded by the City and the participating business districts. More safe and attractive walking routes between the Market and downtown. Improved/increased street landscaping, enhanced walks and street crossings, increased crosswalk safety measures (particularly on the Washington and Gilbert Street crosswalk), banners, and other small-scale improvements might make the walk from the Market to downtown more attractive and accessible, encouraging more Market customers to visit the downtown-and vice versa. Stronger partnerships between the Market and local chefs. Market/chef partnerships are quite common in farmers' markets nationwide, and the Market already, in fact, has a popular Chef at the Market program which brings local and regional chefs to the Market to conduct cooking classes. The Market's current partnerships with area chefs could be expanded. For instance, chefs and Market business owners could coordinate advertising efforts (for instance, restaurants which source their meat or produce from the Market could include the Farmers Market logo in their menus, and Market growers who provide produce or meat to a restaurant could advertise that fact somewhere in their Market stall). Another possibility might be starting a special Wednesday evening "Dine Out at the Market" program, which would allow a different local restaurant every week to offer a limited menu of their most popular dishes to Market customers. (We can imagine similar sorts of partnerships between the Market and other kinds of businesses which buy from Market vendors.) Sunday Markets. Once or twice a summer, as a special event-much like the winter Holiday Markets-Farmers Market vendors might be invited to hold a Sunday Market on the walking mall or elsewhere in central downtown. Sunday Markets would be a good way to test the concept of a street market in Iowa City, without interfering with Market business owners' regular Saturday Market schedule or putting them at undue financial risk. Sunday Markets would also allow the DTA to schedule a market around (not in competition with) Arts Festival, Jazz Festival, football game days, etc. Cross promotion of existing special events. The Farmers Market and the DTA might more carefully coordinate the schedules of the indoor Holiday Markets and downtown's holiday events, perhaps promoting them together as an all-downtown Iowa City Winter Festival-type event. A free shuttle bus could transport customers between the Holiday Markets and central downtown. The Market and DTA could also coordinate promotion for Summer of the Arts events. In addition, the Market could provide information about downtown events at the Market Master's table, and Market events could be advertised on the kiosks downtown. Open lines of communication. The DTA and Farmers Market business owners might meet formally once or twice a year to discuss ways in which the two groups can work more closely together over the coming year. We would also suggest that a representative of the Farmers Market-perhaps the Market Coordinator or a representative of the Farmers Market's vendors-become a member of the Downtown Association, in order to facilitate communication between the Market and the DTA. New special events. The DTA and Farmers Market might work together with other business districts (Near Southside, Northsid.e, the eastside district near New Pioneer Co-Op) to develop events which will draw customers to all areas of downtown. For example, the DTA might develop special Saturday morning events which could be promoted at the Market or held in conjunction with Market events, or the DTA and Market might work together to develop a Local Food Walk or Local Food Festival which would highlight both the Market and the local restaurants that use Iowa-produced foods in their menus. • Sponsorship opportunities. The Downtown Association or its members might increase their visibility to Market customers by sponsoring all or part of a major Market event-for example, Kids' Day or Opening Day. We believe steps like these would be a more beneficial way for the Market and the DTA to build a working partnership than the more drastic step of relocating the Market to the streets. Yes, most of these are relatively small steps, but we believe that as such they will be relatively low- risk and affordable for both partners. In addition, all of these steps would give the DTA and the Market an opportunity to build a mutually beneficial working relationship, and all of these steps could be expanded relatively easily to help the Market form similarly beneficial partnerships with other business districts and other organizations. We hope that these ideas can help the city, the Market, and the Downtown Association have a more productive discussion about the future of the Iowa City Farmers Market. Thank you for considering our proposal. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact Martha Boysen at 358-0616 or mboysen@mwci.net. Sincerely, Martha Boysen, Prairie Dog Bakery Kristin Kromray, Spiral Tree Soap Regina Miller, Life is Sweet Bakery Lois Pavelka, Pavelka's Point Meats Mickey Miller, Pure Prairie Gardens /Mount Vernon Confections cc: Tom Markus, City Manager Michael E. Moran, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Iowa City City Council Members V4-~14-~I ~I IP11 Iowa City Police Department Bar Check Report -March, 2011 EPo~ssion of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Numbers are reflective of only Iowa City Police activity ~ni I APR --8 A~ 9= ~5 Business Na n ~C Occupancy "~ U) ~-~' ~ ti (occupancyi4~d~~,fu~e~oc~~~~., 1ia ° ~-~, ttG„ Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) [Iowa City] Yacht Club 206 8 0 0 27 1 1 0.0370370 0.0370370 [It'sJ Brothers Bar & Grill 556 17 0 3 106 1 9 0.009434 0.0849057 (TheJ Deadwood 218 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 [The] Dublin Underground 57 2 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 [The] Summit 736 16 3 3 96 11 9 0.1145833 0.09375 [The] Vine Tavern 170 2 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Airliner"' 223 10 0 4 60 0 9 0 0.15 American Legion 140 1 0 1 10 0 1 0 0.1 Blue Moose 436 4 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 Bo-James 200 5 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 Caliente Night Club 498 3 0 0 21 3 0 0.1428571 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 DC's 120 11 0 2 56 3 3 0.0535714 0.0535714 Donnelly's Pub 49 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 Gabes 261 5 4 0 13 4 0 0.3076923 0 lobsite 120 4 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 281 2 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 Martini's 200 1 0 0 39 2 0 0.0512821 0 Pints 180 4 1 0 59 3 2 0.0508475 0.0338983 Sam's Pizza 174 4 0 8 12 0 1Z 0 1 Shakespeare's 90 2 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 Short's Burger & Shine"' S6 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Slippery Pete's aka Fieldhouse 178 13 0 0 50 1 0 0.02 0 Sports Column 400 11 0 4 66 4 6 0.0606061 0.0909091 Studio 13 206 4 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 TCB 250 11 0 0 38 1 0 0.0263158 0 Union Bar 854 23 6 5 85 10 13 0.1176471 0.1529412 Friday, April 08, 2011 Page 1 of 2 VFW Post #3949 197 1 0 0 7 0 Totals Off Premise 170 0 14 0 30 18 1010 0 44 0 Grand Totals * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance 170 14 I 48 1010 44 0 0 0 65 0.0435644 0.0643564 29 0 0 94 1 0.0435644 0.0930693 N O '*=: ~ ~~ ~ ,~,,,.-E ~ ss ac ~ p y[ ` v ~ y `~ ~ y / di.1 Y .4'~ .~' c~n Friday, April 08, 2011 Page 2 of 2 IP12 Iowa City Fire Department Fire Safety Compliance Report January 1, 2011 -March 31, 2011 Business Name (occupancy] January February March Summary of Violations Observed Airliner [223] X No violations observed. American Legion [140] X No violations observed. Atlas World Grill [165] X No violations observed. Blackstone [297] X No violations observed. Blue Moose [300 up] [136 down] X No violations observed. Bluebird Diner [82] X No violations observed. Bob's Your Uncle [260*] X No violations observed. Bo James [200] X No violations observed. Bread Garden Market & Bakery [197] X No violations observed. [It's] Brothers Bar & Grill [556] X No violations observed. [The] Brown Bottle [289] X No violations observed. Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar [189] X No violations observed. Caliente Night Club [498] X No violations observed. Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill [92] X No violations observed. Carlos O'Kelly's [299] X No violations observed. Chefs Table [162] X No violations observed. Chipotle Mexican Grill [119] X No violations observed. Clarion Highlander Hotel [971] X No violations observed. [The] Club Car [56] X No violations observed. Coach's Corner Sports Pub [204*] X Storage near rear exit Colonial Lanes [502] X No violations observed. Dave's Foxhead Tavern [87] X No violations observed. David's Place [73] X Now Chili Yummi DC's [120] X No violations observed. [The] Deadwood [218] X No violations observed. Devotay [45] X No violations observed. Donnelly's Pub [49] X No violations observed. [The] Dublin Underground [57] X No violations observed. [Fraternal Order of] Eagle's [315] X No violations observed. El Banditos [41] X No violations observed. El Cactus [65] X No violations observed. El Dorado Mexican Restaurant [104] No violations observed. [BPO] Elks #590 [205] X No violations observed. El Ranchero Mexican Restaurant [161] X No violations observed. Englert Theatre [838] Business closed. [The] Fieldhouse (aka Third Base) [420] X Door managers -track capacity First Avenue Club [280] X No violations observed. Formosa Asian Cuisine [149] X No violations observed. Gabe's [339] X No violations observed. George's Buffet [75] X No violations observed. Givanni's [158] X No violations observed. Godfather's Pizza [170] X No violations observed. Graze [49] X No violations observed. Grizzly's South Side Pub [265] X No violations observed. Guido's Deli [20] X No violations observed. [The] Hideaway [96] X No violations observed. [The] Hilltop Lounge [90] X No violations observed. IC Ugly's [72] X No violations observed. India Cafe [100] X No violations observed. Business Name (occupancy] January February March Summary of Violations Observed Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack [71] X No violations observed. [The] Jobsite [60] X No violations observed. Joe's Place [281] X No violations observed. Joseph's Steak House [226] X No violations observed. La Reyna [49] X No violations observed. Leaf Kitchen [27] X No violations observed. Linn Street Cafe [80] X No violations observed. Los Portales [161] X No violations observed. Martini's [200] X No violations observed. Masala [46] X No violations observed. Mekong [89] X No violations observed. Micky's [98] X No violations observed. [The] Mill Restaurant [325] X No violations observed. [Loyal Order of] Moose [476] X No violations observed. Motley Cow Cafe [82] X No violations observed. Okoboji Grill [222] X No violations observed. Old Capitol Brew Works [87] X No violations observed. One-Eyed Jake's [299] Business closed. One-Twenty-Six [105] X No violations observed. Orchard Green [200] X No violations observed. Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant [87] X No violations observed. Pagliai s Pizza [113] X No violations observed. Panchero's (Clinton St) [62] X No violations observed. Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr) [95] X No violations observed. Piano Lounge [65] No violations observed. Pints [180] X Door managers -track capacity Pit Smokehouse [40] X No violations observed. Pizza Hut [116] X No violations observed. Pizza Ranch [226] X No violations observed. Quinton's Bar & Deli [149] X No violations observed. [The] Red Avocado [47] X No violations observed. Rick's Grille & Spirits [120] X No violations observed. Riverside Theatre [118] Business closed. Saloon [120] X No violations observed. Sam s Pizza [174] X No violations observed. [The] Sanctuary Restaurant [132] X No violations observed. Shakespeare's [90] X No violations observed. Share Bistro (Sheraton) [231] X No violations observed. Short's Burger & Shine [56] X No violations observed. Sidelines Bar and Grill [200] X No violations observed. Slippery Pete's [178] X No violations observed. Sports Column [400] X No violations observed. Studio 13 [206] X No violations observed [The] Summit [736] X Door managers -track capacity Business Name (occupancy] January February March Summary of Violations Observed Sushi Popo [84] X No violations observed Takanami Restaurant [148] X No violations observed TCB [250] X No violations observed Thai Flavors [60] X No violations observed. Thai Spice [91] X No violations observed T. Spoons [102] X No violations observed Times Club@ Prairie Lights [60] X No violations observed Union Bar [854] X Door managers -track capacity VFW Post #3949 [197] X No violations observed [The] Vine Tavern [170] X No violations observed Wig & Pen Pizza Pub [154] X No violations observed [Iowa City] Yacht Club [206] X No violations observed Yen Ching [156] Business closed. Zio Johno's Spaghetti House [94] X No violations observed Z'Mariks Noodle House [47] X No violations observed Monthly Totals: First Quarter Total: 40 ~ 22 ~ 40 102 *i~rcluder o~tdoor.reatiirg area Burinerrclo.red =closed at time of attempted wit NOTE--Inspection items reviewed during compliance checks includes: Occupant Load/Overcrowding Means of Egress/Exits hire Alarm/Detection Equipment ]'ire Extinguishing Equipment l?mergcncy lighting IP13 Marian Karr From: Representative Dave Jacoby <david.jacoby@legis.state.ia.us> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:45 AM To: Council Subject: Representative Jacoby Statehouse News 4-8-11 ~, Breschool, Nigher Education on the Chopping Block Despite concerns of higher tuition and increasing student debt, the Iowa House approved the education budget bill that funds community colleges, state universities, college aid programs, the Department of Education, and the Department of Blind. For the first time since the early 1980's the House approved atwo-year budget that spends $791 million in fiscal year 2012 and $829 million in fiscal year 2013. The bill cuts $49 million in funding to our state universities and community colleges in fiscal year 2012. The bill provides $8 million more for community colleges and $3 million for the state universities to split in fiscal year 2013. This will likely cause tuitions to rise and increase student loan debts to mount. The~bill also reignited the debate over quality, accessible preschool when the majority party again voted to end Iowa's statewide voluntary preschool initiative and replace it with a voucher system while reducing funding by over half. Citing the state's $1 billion surplus, opponents of the bill said it unfairly punishes middle class families by raising the cost of education from preschool to college. Iowa students already carry one of the highest debt burdens in the nation after finishing college, which forces many students to look for higher-paying jobs out of state. The bill now heads to the Senate where it is likely to be changed. Capitol Visitors State Representative Dave Jacoby showed his support for the black and gold with Herky the Hawk during Hawkeye Caucus Day on April 5, 2011. State Representative Dave Jacoby and Senator Bob Dvorsky welcomed Kimberly Merchant of the University of Iowa College of Public Health to the House chamber during Hawkeye Caucus Day on April 5, 2011. State Representative Dave Jacoby welcomed Cathleen Waddle and Pamela Wong of the University of Iowa College of Pharmacy to the House Chamber during Hawkeye Caucus Day on April 5, 2011. State Representative Dave Jacoby welcomed Heidi Zander, Lauren Erickson, John Heinemann, Jenny Braun, Kimberly Kim, and Elspeth Adriana McMullan of the University of Iowa College of Public Health to the House chamber for National Public Health Week on April 5, 2011. Helping Our Soldiers and Veterans This week, the Iowa House passed a package of bills to help Iowa's soldiers and veterans. The House expanded eligibility for the National Guard Education Assistance Program to include soldiers who participated in Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom. Operation New Dawn began on September 1, 2010 and Operation Enduring Freedom began October 7, 2001. Senate File 399 requires businesses to disclose that County Veterans Affairs Administration will assist at no cost with appealing a denial of veterans' benefits. Currently, some businesses are misrepresenting that they are affiliated with the Veterans Affairs Administration and charging veterans for services. Any business that does not comply with the disclosure requirement is subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 per incident. Senate File 194 makes changes relating to the Iowa Military Code, including waiving the application fee for a certified copy of a birth certificate or death certificate of an Iowa service member who died in performing military duties. All three bills go to the Governor for his signature. Read More from the Iowa House To read the rest of the Statehouse News go to: http://iowahouse.org/StatehouseNews/4-8- 11 Unsubscribe me from this list Having trouble viewing this? Click here: http~//interspire iowahdc info/displa~php?M=117055&C=0df101088f3d59ff882f4380c020a5 a2&S=924&L=36&N=548 IP14 UniverCity Northside Open Houses Saturday, April I6th I2-2pm 408 E Fairchild and S I2 N Van Bucrn www icgov org/UniverCity THE UNIVERSI'iY OF IOWA ~? ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ • rir®~o~ CI~ F IOWA CITY CU LVER/JUDGE IOWA'S INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INITIATIVE Marian Karr From: Jennifer Jordan Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:57 AM To: *City Council Cc: Dave Elias; Rick Fosse; Dale Helling; Tom Markus Subject: Earth Week Events Hello, We have a bunch of Earth Week events coming up that I'd like to share with you. The University also has a full calendar of activities at: http://sustainability.uiowa.edu/. Hope to see you! Jen THURSDAY, APRIL 21 Iowa City Public Library -123 S. Linn Street, Meeting Room A 7 p.m. Jen Jordan, City of Iowa City Recycling Coordinator, will speak on "Recycling Changes in Iowa City." The City recently adopted a dual stream curbside recycling program, which requires less sorting and eliminates the need for plastic bags. For more information, see www.ic~ov.org/recycle. FRIDAY, APRIL 22 -EARTH DAY! Robert A. Lee Recreation Center - 220 S. Gilbert Street 3 - 6 p.m. Join over 20 local groups for an Environmental Fair in the social room to learn about the work that environmental groups are doing in the Iowa City/Johnson County area and how you can get involved. U.S. Bank - 204 E. Washington Street 3 - 5 p.m. University of Iowa graduate art student Kevin Chamberlain will present his work, "The Forest of Our Convenience," composed primarily of recycled plastic and mixed media. For more information, see http://www.kfc- art.com/kevin/Home.html. SATURDAY, APRIL 23 Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center - 3900 Hebl Avenue Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Facility - 4366 Napoleon Street SE 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. Take a tour (or take two!) of the City's Landfill and Recycling Center and/or the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Groups are limited to 15 people per tour, so please register in advance at www.ic~ov.or~/landfill. If you have a group interested in a tour, please call the Recycling Coordinator at 319.887.6160. SATURDAY, APRIL 30 Grant Wood Elementary School parking lot -1930 Lakeside Drive 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. Bring those old expired or unused prescriptions and medications and have them disposed of properly during a "Take- Back Day." This event is sponsored by the City of Iowa City Police Department, Library, and Landfill, along with Engineers for a Sustainable World, the University of Iowa School of Pharmacy, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. MONDAY, MAY 9 Iowa City Public Library - 123 S. Linn Street, Meeting Room A 7:30 p.m. Brian Soenen of the Iowa Department of Natural Resource (DNR) and Carol Sweeting of the City of Iowa City will present information on Project AWARE and Iowa City stream clean-up projects. Project AWARE, which stands for "A Watershed Awareness River Expedition," involves hundreds of volunteers who spend their vacations working as aquatic garbage collectors -- cleaning up, learning about, and exploring Iowa's rivers. For more information, visit www.icpl.or~/eco-iowa-city or contact Jen Jordan at 319.887.6160 or Jennifer-Jordan@iowa- cit .or . Jevi.w%ferJordAw Recycling Coordinator Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center 3900 Hebl Avenue SW Iowa City, IA 52246 319-887-6160 Jennifer-jordan(c~iowa-city.orq www.icgov.orq/environment IP15 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 9, 2011 - 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin, Adam Plagge MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Grenis, Jennings, Sheerin and Plagge were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 9 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings offered two typographical corrections. Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended. Jennings seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC10-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Center City LLC for a special exception to allow above-ground structured parking and offsite parking for a proposed Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 2 of 15 mixed-use building to be located in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 328 East Washington Street. Miklo explained that the proposal is for afive-story building at 328 Washington Street. Miklo shared an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the building. He explained that there is currently an office building on the property. An alley at the rear of the building provides access to the property and intersects with Gilbert and Linn Streets. The Chauncey Swan parking facility is located approximately 400 feet from the subject property. The proposal is to build afive-story structure with approximately 2,000 square feet of ground- floor commercial uses. The top four floors would contain 16 three-bedroom apartments. The zoning code requires 32 parking spaces for the apartments, two spaces for each three-bedroom unit. The applicant has proposed placing 13 of those required parking spaces on the property at grade orabove-ground at the rear of the property. Miklo shared an illustration of the proposed building footprint. The parking spaces would be at the back of the building with access from the alley. The preferred location for parking in the CB-10 district is underground. The intention of that standard is to promote and maximize commercial uses in the downtown area. The zoning code only allows above-ground parking by special exception. The intent is to control the location, design and amount of parking so that it does not detract from the downtown policies of encouraging ground-floor commercial uses and of creating an attractive pedestrian environment. Miklo said that this is the first aspect of the special exception that the Board will be considering. The second aspect under consideration is a proposal to provide 19 of the required 32 parking spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp, rather than on the property itself. In 2008, the City Council amended the zoning code to require that new residential structures provide parking spaces to serve residential uses. Prior to that time, the code did not require parking for either commercial or residential uses in the CB-10 zone. The requirement grew out of a concern that there seemed to be an increased demand for parking for residential uses in the downtown that were competing with retail and commercial parking needs. Recognizing that it would be difficult for some smaller properties to provide on-site parking, the code included a special exception to allow parking to be provided off-site. One possibility for off-site parking is parking in City-owned facilities if there is capacity to do so. The applicant is requesting that 19 of their spaces be provided in the Chauncey Swan facility, which is approximately one block east of the subject property. The specific standards in the zoning code require that the proposed structured parking not detract from or prevent ground-floor storefront uses. Parking can be provided on the ground- floor so long as a substantial portion of the ground floor remains available for commercial uses. The ground-level parking is also not allowed to be located in the first 50-feet of the building depth. Staff feels that the first aspect of this standard is clearly met. Approximately 2,000 square feet will still be devoted to commercial space, which staff feels is adequate. The requirement that the parking be accessed from the rear is also clearly met. The third specific standard is that any exterior walls of any parking structure that are visible from a private or public street must appear to be a component of the facade of the building, and must use materials that are similar to and complement the building. Miklo said that based on the Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 3 of 15 information staff has received, they do not believe any of the parking structure will be visible from the street. The existing buildings on either side of the property will likely mask the parking structure. Staff is concerned, however, that the north access to Ecumenical Towers, which provides direct access to the elevator and is accessible for persons with disabilities, is at the north side of the property, and is adjacent to the proposed parking structure. Staff recommends that design review be required given the high visibility of that wall to Ecumenical Towers. According to the specific standards, each entrance to the parking structure must be constructed such that those entering and leaving the parking area are clearly visible to pedestrians. Staff feels that this standards is generally met in that there are no pedestrian pathways or sidewalks on the alley that would pose problems for pedestrians. The proposed structure will be set back ten feet from the alley so it will allow vehicles entering and exiting the structure appropriate visibility. Miklo noted that care will have to be taken to locate the dumpsters so that they do not block visibility. He said that this should be reviewed with the final site plan. Miklo next reviewed the specific standards pertaining to the off-site parking. There is a requirement that the plan contain a map showing the location of the parking in relation to the proposed structure. The map must demonstrate that there is a safe walking route to and from the facilities. Staff feels this standard is met as there is a controlled intersection between the proposed building and the Chauncey Swan parking ramp, which are approximately 400 feet apart. Another requirement states that when an applicant requests parking in a City-owned facility the Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services and the City Manager to substantiate that the capacity of the facility will not be exceeded. The special exception can only be approved if there is capacity in the facility. Staff feels that this requirement has been met. The Director of Transportation Services has determined that there are 19 spaces available. Overall there are 475 spaces in Chauncey Swan. Permits have been issued for 384 spaces. An additional sixteen permits have been issued for residential use by a previous special exception that is similar to this request. There are 75 spaces that are uncommitted and remain available to the general public. Based on this the parking facility can accommodate this request for 19 spaces. However, staff cautions that as parking demand changes over time, this may not always be the case. The Board is to consider the desirability of the location for the proposed parking spaces, whether or not it is accessible and safe, as well as any potential detriment to adjacent or nearby properties. Staff feels that this standard has been met, as the parking facility provides for safe egress and ingress. An agreement or written covenant is required to ensure that the parking spaces are available in perpetuity, so that future residents of the building continue to have access to the parking. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit the required written agreement as apart of the building permit application. This agreement should state that the parking will only be offered to residents of 328 Washington Street, and shall be offered at a rate not to exceed the market rate as determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. Staff recommends that the agreement require the property owner to provide the Director with the name, license plate number and address of all permit holders. Miklo said that these conditions are necessary to ensure that permits are available to residents of the building and are not offered on the market to the general public or sold at a higher rate than what the City Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 4 of 15 charges for them. Because the future demand for parking is likely to increase, the agreement should include a provision giving the Director of Transportation Services the ability to move the spaces to another parking facility if that is determined to be necessary. The general standards that apply to most special exceptions were briefly outlined by Miklo. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The location of the parking is a reasonable distance from the proposed building, there are safe pedestrian crossings, and there is safe egress and ingress to the parking structure. The above-grade parking at the rear of the property is not necessarily supported by this criterion, because the entrance to the residential portion of the building is not visible from the public street and may not be safe and accessible. Staff is recommending that the Board impose the following conditions in order to make sure the general standards are addressed: • the building design should be subject to design review in order to ensure that the residential portion of the building has a prominent entrance from the public street; • the building must have an entrance that is safe and accessible to residents whose parking is located off-site; • and there must be final review of the site plan by the Building Official and Planning staff to ensure that the location and design of the dumpster enclosure does not impede visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure. The next general standard requires that the specific proposed exception will not impede the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes that granting the special exception to allow off-street parking in a municipal facility will allow the applicant to construct a substantially larger and more intensely used building than otherwise would be possible given the number of parking spaces that the applicant can provide on their own property. The larger building will have a greater impact on the streetscape and the adjacent building. Therefore staff recommends that approval of the application for off-street and above-ground parking be subject to design review. The design review process will help ensure that the building is compatible with the downtown streetscape and that there will be consideration of the appropriate design of entrances for the residential uses and for the facade on the portion of the building that is highly visible from Ecumenical Towers. The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in the zone. This standard has been met for the off-site parking based on the following: the Director of Transportation Services has determined that there is capacity for the requested 19 spaces; however, as future parking needs in the central business district change, those 19 spaces may not always be easily accommodated. Staff recommends that the special exception be approved subject to a provision allowing the Director of Transportation Services to allocate those parking spaces to other facilities downtown should the need arise. Staff also recommends a condition that the final building plan be submitted to design review to ensure compatibility with surrounding property. Staff believes that the requirements for the above-ground parking spaces are satisfied because: the structured parking allows for the first 50 feet of the building to be used for storefront uses; it will not be highly visible from public streets or sidewalks; and the project will be subject to design review. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Another standard requires that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and necessary facilities have been or will be provided, and staff feels that has clearly been met. The general standards require that adequate measures have been taken to address egress/ingress to avoid traffic congestion on public streets. The City's current parking facility was designed to meet those standards. That criterion is also met for the aboveground parking at the rear of this property, so long as dumpster placement is reviewed to ensure that visibility is maintained. The next standard requires that except for the regulations applicable to the special exception being considered, the proposed exception meets all other applicable zoning codes. Miklo noted that the matter would be reviewed by the Building Official in greater detail at the time of site plan review. He noted that design review is also being requested by staff. The proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The Comprehensive Plan does raise concerns about residential parking in the downtown area competing with commercial parking needs. Miklo explained that this concern was one of the reasons the zoning code was amended, but that these concerns are addresses by the parking plan the applicant has proposed. Miklo noted that staff is requesting design review in order to ensure compatibility with the character of downtown to comply with Comprehensive Plan policies pertaining to the appearance of downtown. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of EXC10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark to allow 13 off-street, above-ground parking spaces at 328 E. Washington Street, and 19 off-site parking spaces in a municipal parking facility, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-street parking prior to securing a building permit, and the agreement shall include the following conditions: o The permits shall only be available to residents of 328 Washington Street at a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of the leasing; o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation Services the name, license plate number and address of all permit holders; o The permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328 Washington Street; o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to another downtown parking facility on an annual basis as necessary to accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities; The final building plan will be subject to design review to ensure that the building is compatible with the scale and character of downtown. Any portions of the structured parking visible from adjacent residential buildings should appear to be a component of the building. The building should feature a prominent entrance that is safe and accessible to pedestrian residents. Conflicts with surrounding uses should be minimized, and the design of the dumpster enclosure will not impede visibility to the alley for vehicles visiting the parking ramp. • The building plan must be consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application. This plan indicates that there will be no more than three-bedrooms per unit. Miklo noted that the Board had received some correspondence in their packet regarding this property. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff. Grenis asked why the parking spaces being allotted are in the Chauncey Swan ramp rather than the parking ramp just to the north of the subject property. Miklo said he believed the Transportation Director felt that Chauncey Swan had more parking available. Plagge asked if it was standard operating procedure for the parking director to collect names, license plate numbers and addresses for people leasing parking spaces. Miklo said that the reason that those particulars are included in the conditions is to ensure that the spaces are not leased out to non-residents on the open market. Miklo said that these parking spaces will be taken away from the pool of parking spaces available to the general public and so the City would not want to see someone reselling them, possibly at a mark-up. Sheerin asked how much the City can take into account EXC10-0001, where 16 spaces were previously granted in the Chauncey Swan Ramp. Greenwood Hektoen said the Board could and that those spaces would have been taken into account by the Director of Transportation Services when he analyzed space availability. Jennings said that his recollection is that the uses were slightly different concerning those two parking space allocations. Jennings said that the last time this came up, there was a question as to what happens when the residents of the apartment building do not have cars. If the owner has paid for the permits, does the owner then have the ability to make those permits available to other people? Jennings noted that under the previous exception that was granted, the owner was allowed to sell those extra permits. Greenwood Hektoen said that staff believes that including these specific provisions will better address those concerns. Jennings said that had been a concern of his, and he is happy to see that it has been addressed. He noted that the provisions in this exception allow the Director of Transportation to relocate these parking spaces to a different facility if it becomes necessary to do so in the future. He asked why spaces were not being shuffled at this time to allow the residents spaces in the ramp closer to the subject property, rather than in Chauncey Swan. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thought that those kinds of decisions should probably be left to the discretion of the Director of Transportation Services. She said that part of his job is to review and analyze data on parking space availability. Greenwood Hektoen said that market needs change, and each year parking permits are reallocated to different parking facilities. Miklo said that while the Clock Tower ramp being discussed appears to be physically closer than Chauncey Swan, the pedestrian entrance may not actually be any closer or more convenient to the entrance to the subject property because the pedestrian entrance to that ramp is on the far side of the block. Jennings said that if there is on-site parking in the rear of the building then there will be building access in the back. Miklo said that access is not intended for pedestrians, and the City would not want to encourage pedestrian traffic in the alley, though it is allowed. Jennings said that he has questions about the safety of pedestrian traffic along Linn and Gilbert as well as in the alley. Eckstein asked if the alley allows traffic going both ways, and she was told that it does. Eckstein said that Ecumenical Towers appears to have a handicap accessible drop-off site in the alley. Miklo said that this rear entrance for Ecumenical Towers does get heavily used because it has a wheelchair ramp and is very near the building's' elevator. Eckstein asked if it is only adrop-off Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 7 of 15 site or if there is parking as well. Miklo replied that there is no parking for Ecumenical Towers in the alley. She asked if the alley is wide enough for two cars to pass going in opposite directions. Miklo said that it is 20-feet wide, which is wide enough. Eckstein asked if the east face of the proposed building can be seen. Miklo said that the east face is almost entirely masked by the building that houses Gabes, directly to the east. Eckstein noted that Gabe's is a two-story building and the proposed building is five-stories. Miklo said that he believed the upper floors would be of similar design. Plagge said that the Davis Hotel is also located to the east. Eckstein said that she understood that. Jennings said that he had a general procedural question. Jennings said that there seem to be a lot of conditions based on design and plan review and he said it seemed like putting the cart before the horse to approve an exception for a design that had not yet been approved. Sheerin said that is a very big question mark indeed. Plagge said that the Board is only approving the parking, not the building design. Jennings said that all manner of things that have to do with the parking also have to do with the building design issues that still have to be negotiated. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board has the discretion to defer a decision until after those matters are settled. Miklo explained that a recommendation for design review, and there is a staff committee that functions to make those decisions. Miklo added that the Board certainly could defer it if they preferred to see the design themselves. Staff felt that a way to expedite the application was to turn it over for design review. Grenis asked if design review was common for buildings in the CB-10 and Miklo replied that it is actually not. He said that design review is required in the Central Planning District, but for some reason is not required downtown unless it is in one of the urban renewal parcels. Staff is suggesting that it be a part of this application primarily because this building is considerably larger than would otherwise be permitted if the Board approves the special exception for parking off-site. Staff's primary concerns with the design review aspect are the front facade of the building, the portion that will be visible from the street, ensuring that the pedestrian access to the building is an attractive, inviting and highly visible entrance, and that the design of the building itself is compatible with the urban patterns seen downtown. Eckstein asked if it was the case that if the off-site parking is approved, the building is able to be larger than would otherwise be permitted so the mass of the building is within the consideration of the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Eckstein asked what the square footage of the building that currently exists is relative to the proposed building. Miklo said that the building that is there now is approximately two-stories, and the new building will be a five story building. He said that the current building has as smaller footprint and has a parking lot behind. Greenwood Hektoen said that the applicant can probably address that question. Sheerin said that she thought the Comprehensive Plan is usually more helpful; in this case, it seems somewhat ambiguous. She said that it seems to merely state that there is a tension between housing and parking that needs to be resolved. Miklo said that he believes the City Council has made an attempt to address the issue by requiring parking for residential uses in the downtown. Sheerin said that the over-arching policy with the question of higher density residential housing development in the downtown versus commercial parking demand does not seem to have been resolved. Miklo said that Sheerin was correct that the Comprehensive Plan has not been developed any further on that question. He said if that was a concern for the Board they might want to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to look at the issue in more detail. He said that the code that the City is operating Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 8 of 15 under now was an attempt to address that concern. Eckstein said that she agrees that there is a fair amount of ambiguity in several places in this application. She said that there is a question as to whether the Board has a responsibility to promote pedestrian use or satisfy the demand for parking. Another ambiguity is that the staff report states that any parking agreement made will be in place in perpetuity; yet, at the same time the Board is told there will be an annual review of the matter. Eckstein asked for clarification on that issue. Greenwood Hektoen explained that so long as this special exception remained in place, the applicant would have the right to 19 parking permits in perpetuity; they would not have the right to 19 spaces at the Chauncey Swan parking ramp. Miklo advised that the Board may want to have public discussion before getting into these kinds of broader discussions and ask questions specifically about the staff report at this time. Grenis asked if the design review would be applicable to the entire building or just the parking area. Miklo said that staff would recommend that it pertain to the entire building. Staff's primary design concerns are: the main facade because the building will be much larger than would otherwise be allowed if the special exception for off-site parking is not approved, the western facade, and the high visibility of the building from Ecumenical Towers. Staff was less concerned about the east side of the building because it will be partially masked by the adjacent buildings. Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Jeff Clark, the applicant, said he could see there were some concerns with this project and he hoped to address them one by one. Clark said that he had been through this process with another project last year. He said there are always a lot of questions as to what to design on a project. He said that it is not really possible to go forward with a good design until you know what portions of code need to be met and what amount of parking will need to be put on-site. Clark said that he understood the concern the Board has about not knowing what is going in there exactly; however, it is difficult to present a complete design without knowing whether or not the parking will be on-site. He said he has worked extensively with Planning staff on this project, and will continue to do so. Clark said that there is short-term parking in the rear of Ecumenical Towers available to residents by sign-up for a few hours at a time. Clark said that building code dictates that the building will have rear access, and where it will be. Clark stated that he is happy to do whatever staff recommends in terms of leasing parking spaces. However, he did note that if he was granted the ability to lease unused spaces to tenants of other buildings then that would free up on-street parking elsewhere downtown. Clark said that in 2008 when this ordinance was being changed, he was present at City Council discussions. At that time, he actually had a building that was supposed to go on this site that was intended to be a high rise with 50 four-bedroom apartments. After the ordinance change, the plan was changed to 16four-bedroom apartments. Once the parking requirements were changed, the four-bedroom units became impossible. The project has now been down-sized to 16three-bedroom apartments. Clark said that when they purchased the property in 2008, they had intended a much more intensive use and at this point they are just trying to make it work. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 9 of 15 He said the building will ultimately be very attractive. Clark said he has worked with the design review process on several projects, and Planning staff does an excellent job. The east side facade is planned to be virtually the same as the west side. Eckstein asked if the largest sets of windows on each story were balconies on the east, west and south sides, and Clark said they were. Plagge asked if it was reasonable to assume, that Clark would be able to sell all of the 13 on-site parking spots to residents and Clark said that it was. Clark said that parking demand varies from year to year. Sheerin opened the issue to public discussion. No one wished to speak. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that because the parking was being allocated as permits rather than stalls, parking at the Chauncey Swan ramp would be available on a first come first serve basis. Grenis asked if the agreement was finalized for the Chauncey Swan ramp. Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct for the first year, and would be reviewed annually by the Director of Transportation Services after that. Eckstein moved to approve EXC10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow 13 on-site above-ground structured parking spaces and 19 off- site parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 328 East Washington Street, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-site parking prior to securing a building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions: o The permits shall only be available to residents of 328 East Washington at a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328 East Washington. o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to another downtown municipal parking facility on an annual basis as necessary to accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities. • The final building plan is subject to Design Review to ensure the building is compatible with scale and character of downtown; any portions of the structured parking visible from the adjacent residential building should appear to be a component of the building; the building should feature a prominent entrance that is safe and accessible to pedestrian residents, conflict with surrounding uses are minimized, and the dumpster location and enclosure design will not impede visibility into the alley for vehicles exiting the parking garage. • The building plan is consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application, indicating no more than three-bedrooms per unit. Grenis seconded. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 10 of 15 Eckstein said that one thing that sticks in her mind is the general criterion that asks if the special exception impinges on the rights of surrounding property owners and residents. Eckstein noted that this is a building with balconies on three sides. Given the location of the building and the size of the apartments, it is reasonable to assume that the residents will likely be students. Eckstein said that in her mind, a question is raised as to whether open balconies catering to a student population facing a building that houses elderly residents is compatible. Sheerin asked if Eckstein was relating this to the parking issue because there would be that many more people in the building. Eckstein said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned against considering the occupants of a building, as zoning decisions need to be made based on the use of a building. Miklo said that it is not appropriate to assume the residents will be students; however, it is appropriate to consider the balconies and address those if they pose a concern. Eckstein said that it is the balconies that are the concern. Greenwood Hektoen said that the balconies would also have to be considered in relation to the parking issues before the Board. Eckstein asked how many apartments would be enabled by allowing only the 13 on-site parking spaces. Miklo said that if the off-street parking is disallowed, then there would be ten fewer three-bedroom units allowable on the site. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the applicant could opt to put in units with fewer bedrooms. Sheerin noted that she would have to leave in five minutes. She said that her concern with this application is that she is uncomfortable with the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is so wishy- washy in terms of how the Board should be looking at this issue. She said that she really feels that it is ambiguous and does not give the Board proper guidance. Miklo suggested that the Board make the decision on this case based on what is available to them and then make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to revisit this type of application so that there would be greater clarity for future cases. Sheerin said that one of the requirements is that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the Comprehensive Plan not clear in this respect. Miklo said that staff has highlighted two pertinent areas of the Comprehensive Plan which speak to mixed use development downtown. Sheerin said that she still did not feel the Board was getting any guidance from the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the downtown parking issues. Miklo said that he felt the Board needs to act on the information available and then ask for further clarification from Planning and Zoning and the City Council. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is part of the judgment call that the Board is being asked to make. Sheerin said it is difficult because the problem is not the application, but the Plan. Jennings said that his concern is that the staff report specifically addresses problems that could arise and is indirectly asking the Board to approve their remediation through design review under the auspices of having the Board approve parking. He noted that the staff report points out potential conflicts with adjacent buildings, such as noise from activity or air condition units located on balconies. Jennings said that he trusts the applicant is acting in good faith, but is uncomfortable approving parking spaces based on a design review that hasn't taken place, particularly when the staff report points out problems that could arise in the design review process. Miklo explained that the Board has two alternatives. One is to delegate the design aspects to the design review committee, outlining any specific concerns and directing the committee to address those; another is to defer the application and ask the applicant to come back with a building that addresses their concerns. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 11 of 15 Jennings said that there is currently an affirmative motion on the table so he is not sure how to proceed in any other way. Jennings said. that it seems to him there are two areas of guidance, one has to do with design review and the other has to do with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that while they are related, the Comprehensive Plan issue seems to him to be a future issue, a protracted process of getting guidance for future rulings. He said he does not think it would be fair to burden the applicant with that, but it does need to be addressed. He said his more acute concerns were with design review. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks the Board needs to decide whether it is willing to delegate that expertise to staff, or whether they wish to have control over that. In regard to the Comprehensive Plan issue, Greenwood Hektoen noted, the plan itself may be broad and it is up to the Board to determine whether this application does or does not meet it, taking into account that the City Council did enact an ordinance requiring parking be provided for residential uses downtown and allowing this kind of parking arrangement and special exception. Plagge noted that the applicant is not bumping up against any height restrictions at this point so there is actually nothing keeping him from adding more on-site parking and adding another story to the building. Miklo said that the issue is probably one of feasibility. It would not be possible to fit in a ramp and additional levels of parking on this small of a lot. Sheerin said that she accepts what Greenwood Hektoen and staff have said, but that she is uncomfortable with the idea that the Board is a body that could be perceived as a rubber stamp. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board does not have to vote in favor of the application simply because staff has recommended it. She said that she thinks the Board does have the information it needs to vote one way or the other. Eckstein said the Board had a similar struggle in a different case in which they were to approve a preliminary design which they were told was not necessarily what the end-product would be like. She said there are plenty of details in this case that she does not feel the need to micro- manage, but she feels it would be irresponsible to vote for a special exception in relation to the parking that would enable a building to be of this size with this many balconies facing a structure housing elderly residents. Eckstein said that for her it is not the mass of the building or the parking arrangement, it is that if she votes for those special exceptions she is enabling a violation of one of the general standards the Board always uses to evaluate an application: the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Eckstein said that it is as simple as this: if she can make a motion that says she wants no balconies, then she can vote for the parking; if she can't make a motion like that, then she cannot vote for the parking. Sheerin said that it sounds as though the Board has at least three separate problems: Sheerin has a problem with whether this complies with the Comprehensive Plan; Eckstein has a problem with the balconies; Jennings has a problem with the design. Jennings said he concurred with Eckstein. Eckstein said that it was a specific articulation of the same problem. Jennings said that it is a problem of being asked not to consider the occupants while simultaneously being asked to consider problems that would result from a specific kind of occupants. Greenwood Hektoen said the Board is certainly allowed to consider how the building will be used, just not Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 12 of 15 who will be using it. Jennings said he understood that. Eckstein said that the balconies may create problems regardless of who the occupants. Greenwood Hektoen said that the record is probably sufficient to allow the Board to take a straw poll without going into findings of fact if it wished to do so. Miklo noted that there is a motion on the floor and that if the Board wished to add an amendment stipulating conditions for approval that might be another way of moving the application forward. Plagge noted that he too would have to leave in five minutes. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the motion is going to fail then the record is clear without having to go through the criteria. There was some discussion as to whether the Board wished to take a straw poll or vote on the motion. Miklo asked if it would be useful to simply amend the motion to reflect the Board's concerns. Greenwood Hektoen said it did not seem as though the Board was in a place where they were ready to amend. Sheerin asked if the application could be deferred, as the Board was about to lose its quorum. Grenis said that if it was to be deferred then the Board should be specific about what it wanted the applicant to bring back. Greenwood Hektoen advised that if Eckstein wished to she could amend her motion to make it a motion to defer. Greenwood Hektoen said that it seemed to be a controversial application and it would probably be good to have the full Board vote on it, though that was certainly the Board's decision. Eckstein said that she always resists deferring because she recognizes that applicants have reasons for putting these things together and schedules to keep; however, she said that it seemed as though voting on the issue as it stands also might not do the applicant any good. In that spirit, Eckstein said, she would amend her motion. Greenwood Hektoen said that she should do whatever she was comfortable with. Plagge noted that while the application may be controversial within the Board, there has not been any member of the public to speak against it. So this does not seem to be a concern for the community. Ekstein said that may or may not be the case. Sheerin noted that it is the Board's role to consider what is in the interest of the community. Eckstein moved to defer the application until there was some clarity on issues of design and guidance on how to read the Comprehensive Plan in this case. Jennings seconded. Greenwood Hektoen advised that the Board is not likely to see guidance in the form of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan prior to consideration of this application, as that would be a drawn-out process. She asked what the Board would feel comfortable with in terms of guidance. Sheerin said that perhaps the best thing would be to ask for clarification for future applications. She said she did think the design review questions are one which the Board could get more information on whereas it probably was not fair to hold the application up for the Comprehensive Plan issues. Eckstein said that the design review is also related to the general criteria concerning the general well-being of the surrounding properties. Greenwood Hektoen asked if images relating the proposed buildings to existing buildings would be helpful. Jennings said that would be helpful, as well as a specific plan for how design review would deal with the concerns laid out in the staff report. Jennings said he is very uncomfortable doing a sideways vote on parking for something of this size and mass and potential impact. Grenis asked if it was an option to have the design review occur before the application is approved, or at least a more detailed site plan. Miklo said that staff could look into having the applicant do a more detailed plan of the building. The applicant could be asked to produce some Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 13 of 15 drawings showing the building's scale in relation to the rest of the block. Miklo noted that a cursory review of the plan had also shown some concerns on the part of staff regarding the balconies in relation to Ecumenical Towers, and would likely have been addressed specifically during the design review process. Jennings said that he thinks the concerns laid out in the staff report have potential for significant impact on the area and would like to see them addressed in the design review. He said that he does not want to unduly burden the applicant or hold up their application, but he does not think that voting for parking is a way'to address those concerns. Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the City staff but the building is going to have a significant impact and he would like to see what he is approving. Miklo said that assuming the motion to defer is approved, staff will work with the applicant over the next few weeks to clarify the main entrance, the visual impact of the building, the placement of windows and balconies, the dumpster location, and a diagram showing this building in relationship to other buildings on the block. Jennings said that what he is seeing are red flags raised in the staff report and he wants to see those addressed prior to voting on the parking. Plagge asked if Jennings had anything specific he would like to propose as part of an amendment to approve the application. Jennings said that there was nothing beyond the areas outlined in the staff report, though those were substantial areas. He said that his concerns were not specific to this application, though he does feel that alley is heavily used by pedestrians and a considerable increase in traffic at all hours would have a considerable effect. He said there are potential public safety issues he has concerns about aside from the parking issues. Miklo reiterated that the motion is to defer. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3-1 (Plagge voting no; Sheerin absent at time of vote). Miklo summarized what he believed the Board would like to see from the applicant at its next meeting: 1) A diagram showing this building in relationship to the other buildings on the block to get a sense of scale; 2) The concerns about the main pedestrian entrance to the residential portion of the buildings being addressed; 3) The visual impact of the building which would include such things as window placement, balcony placement, scale of windows being; and 4) The dumpster location. Miklo asked the Board to please let staff know of any other concerns they wish to have addressed prior to the next meeting. Eckstein said that there is the issue of potential noise, as some designs are likely to illicit more noise than others. Grenis asked if staff would envision still recommending a full design review of all of these issues were addressed. Miklo said that he would suggest the design review committee works with the applicant to flesh out the design addressing these concerns and then come back before the Board. Once that design is approved, it may or may not be necessary to do a further design review if the Board is satisfied. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Gernis asked if the question regarding review of the Comprehensive Plan and parking issues should be voted on at this meeting. Miklo said it could be something out on the agenda for the April meeting. Greenwood Hektoen said it might also be helpful to provide the Board with a copy of the actual ordinance enacted by the City Council. She said there are usually a list if "whereas" statements that would give the legislative intent behind enacting the parking requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Greenwood Hektoen noted that as there are two new Board members there should probably be a training sometime soon. She said she would coordinate that with Sarah Walz. Grenis asked if making a recommendation for guidance on the Comprehensive Plan was something that should be done yet that evening. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Grenis seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Sheerin absent at time of vote). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/9 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/8 7113 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 Barbara Eckstein 01/2014 X X Brock Grenis 01 /2016 X X Will Jennin s 01/2015 X X Adam Pla e 01 /2012 -- X Caroline Sheerin 01/2013 X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting/No Quorum --- = Not a Member P 1 to MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2011 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, William Downing, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Baldridge, David McMahon STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Gabe Aguirre, Don Garland, Chris Hayes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Brewery Square Kuecker said this project involves a sign installation on the property. She said that it actually involves two historic landmarks in Iowa City -the first is the Economy Advertising Company Building. Kuecker said the applicant proposes to put a metal sign that says Iowa City Press-Citizen above the awning. She said the sign would be lit from behind. Kuecker said the second building is the Union Brewery. She said the applicant proposes to put two wooden signs on the corner, one facing north and one facing east. Kuecker said the historic preservation guidelines do not address signage, because there are not a lot of commercial buildings that are historic, so in this case, the Commission must use the Secretary of the Interior Standards. She said that in this case, the standards basically say that the alterations should be compatible with the historic architecture of the building and use historic materials. Kuecker said staff feels that the sign on the Economy Advertising Building is of a location, scale, and material that are appropriate for the building. She said that, in staff's opinion, the two signs on the side seem to not be quite compatible with the property. Kuecker said staff used some Photoshop manipulations to change the background color of the sign from white to a cream color similar to the LaJames sign below. She said staff feels that just by changing the color in this manner, the sign becomes compatible with the architecture of the property. Kuecker said she also used Photoshop to remove the light fixture above. She said staff feels that the sign without the light fixture is more compatible with the building than with the light fixture. Kuecker said staff recommends that the project be approved with the conditions that the background color of the wooden signs be a cream color, similar to the background color on the LaJames sign, and that the light fixture be removed or incorporated into the soffits of the building, rather than using a gooseneck light fixture. Hayes, Press Citizen employee, said he absolutely has no problem changing the background of the sign to match more appropriately. He said the one issue he would have would be at night, without the gooseneck lamps, having the sign be invisible. Hayes said that they were trying to kind of go off the Historic Preservation Commission March 10, 2011 Page 2 street lamp, and they wanted to use a light there to light the sign that would be very close to what is there on the streetlamp. Swaim said she thinks the cream color will be better. She said that the problem she sees is that the light looks out of scale with the rest of the building. Swaim asked if there were a way to put the lights in the soffit to be useful but not visibly distracting. Kuecker said staff feels that a light fixture could be mounted, perhaps between the brackets, to shine down onto the signage that would not be as visible from the street and still serve the purpose of lighting the sign. Hayes said there might be issues with trying to mount lights up into that, just because of the way the building was constructed. Ackerson said one problem with the soffit mount is that it is probably going to illuminate a larger vertical distance of the wall because it would be shining down at an angle. He said the gooseneck would probably illuminate just the sign and would be a little less distracting at night. Hayes said that was the intention, just to illuminate the sign and not the whole side of the building. Hayes said that the illustration of the light is just a representation of the style, but the actual size could be smaller. Michaud suggested painting the gooseneck to match the brick. Kuecker said that traditionally, if there was a light like this, it would have been black. She said she thought it might be strange to have it be the color of the brick. Swaim stated that one's eye would go to the sign because of the light feel. She said that, in that sense, during the day the light fixture will be quite noticeable. Swaim said she would still like to find another solution. Michaud asked about a bar of light going over the middle of the sign, so that it looks like a black line over the rectangle. Garland, of Nesper Sign, said that he has been working on this with the Press-Citizen people. He said to put something like an overhead light there, the LED pierces but does not downcast. Garland said that if they did something like a bar over this sandblasted sign, it would only catch the high spots and result in a lot of dead space. Garland said his concern is that if one starts boring holes up in the fascia, trying to get power to it, he did not know how secure it would be nor did he know if one could get power to the fixture. He said he would discourage having conduit on the outside of the building. Hayes said that what they are trying to do with the gooseneck is not have the light broadcast out away from the building but direct it more specifically back toward the building. Downing asked if Press-Citizen had talked to Housing Inspection Services about the ability to put lights on the outside of a building and if there are any restrictions. Hayes said that the first plan he submitted to the City was fine code-wise. Baker said it seems like there isn't an easy alternative to this plan without knowing whether it is possible to get power up into the soffit. Ackerson asked about a kind of wide fixture the same width as the sign, which is four to five feet, with fluorescent lights maybe set out from the wall a small number of inches. Garland said his company has done that before. He said the reason that they try not to do it any more than they have to is because the little three to four inches sticking out in order to project back to the sign becomes a perfect pigeon roost. Swaim said she still doesn't like the gooseneck design but wondered if two goosenecks would be better. Swaim said that she brought this up because it increases the mass of the light fixture. Michaud said that if one wants greater mass, there could be a smaller version of the streetlight. She said there is a right angle in the Italianate brackets, and there is a right angle in the streetlamps. Michaud said she thought this is a great relocation of the Press Citizen and would not want to split hairs over this. Historic Preservation Commission March 10, 2011 Page 3 Hayes said he thinks two goosenecks would look great. Swaim said she did not think, if she were looking at the building, that it would occur to her that the gooseneck was echoing in some way the streetlight. She said that what she sees with that building is everything that is under the eaves, and she is not concerned about the streetlight and the building lighting trying to work together. Michaud asked what kind of bulb goes into the gooseneck light. Garland said it can be a standard light bulb or an LED light. He said that halogen would not be used outside because of the color it would cast on the sign. Kuecker said that staff feels that two or possibly three gooseneck lamps might look better, because it would make them more substantial and give some balance to the area. Michaud asked if two goosenecks can come out of the same bracket. Garland said he would need to find out if that light fixture is available. Swaim suggested that perhaps two lamps without any kind of connecting bar might look more authentic. Kuecker stated that the motion could give the applicant different options, depending on what is available, perhaps subject to final approval by staff and the chair. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for Brewery Square as proposed, with the condition that the Press-Citizen Media signs have an cream background and with two or three gooseneck light fixtures separately mounted and subject to final approval by staff and the chair. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. (Baldrids~e and McMahon absent). 904 Bowerv Street. Kuecker stated that this project involves a UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership project. She said the application includes alterations to the garage door, replacement of the side/front door, and the shortening of a window in the kitchen. Kuecker showed the garage door as it currently exists. She said this cannot be a garage, because there is no separation between the garage space and the living space. Kuecker showed the options presented by the applicant. She said the first one involves two pedestrian doors, with one fixed and one operable. She said this mimics agarage-door style. Kuecker said the other option is essentially the building of a wall with aflush-mount steel door and then using some trim boards to make it look like a garage door. She said the applicant is okay with either of these plans, so if the Commission has an opinion, it could select one, or it could leave the option open for the applicant to choose. Kuecker said the second part of the application is to change out a door that is in fairly bad condition. She said the applicant proposes ahalf-light or three quarter light panel door. Kuecker said that this door is not on a street elevation. She showed the view from Bowery Street and said the house sits on Bowery and Governor. Kuecker said it is a unique house in that it does not have astreet-fronting door. Kuecker stated that the other part of the application is to take the kitchen window and shorten it by approximately six inches to allow a cabinet to go under it. Kuecker said the guidelines allow the replacement of windows and doors but recommend that the new windows and doors retain the size of the existing windows and doors. She said that the Commission, however, in the past has approved alterations to improve functionality and has approved shortening the windows for a kitchen remodeling. Kuecker said that staff feels the changes are compatible and will have minimal impact on the historic integrity of the house. She said that staff recommends approval of the application as presented, with the conditions that the applicant can use either option for the garage door, the final door specifications to be approved by staff, and the new window retaining the appearance of the historic windows and being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood. Historic Preservation Commission March 10, 2011 Page 4 Swaim said that for the window, if the applicant is making it shorter, it would come pretty close to lining up with the bottom of the next window over. Kuecker confirmed this and said that it would be approximately that same size. She said she believes the other window was shortened at some earlier point in time to allow for counter space. Michaud stated that it would be nice if the front door would match the back storm. Kuecker responded that is kind of the style they are looking at -having the top half be light and the bottom half be a panel of some sort. She added that there is another door on the inside of the porch that goes into the kitchen that looks more original that is athree-quarter light, and that is why the applicant is looking at these options. Regarding the garage door, Wagner said he would prefer the one the first option because of the windows. He said that would give natural light to the basement that way, as opposed to the steel doors. Michaud asked, regarding the garage door, how stationary is stationary and if it will have a pin or what it will have. Kuecker said that it is intended that it will be permanently stationary; the applicant doesn't want people to have the option to drive something inside. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 904 Bowery Street as presented, subject to the following conditions: the final door specification to be approved by staff, the applicant using the first garage door design with the pedestrian doors and the new window retaining the appearance of the historic windows and being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baldridae. McMahon, and Wagner absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2011. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 10, 2011 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baldridae. McMahon. and Wagner absent). OTHER: Kuecker stated that the Commission would hold the election of officers at April's meeting. She said there are four seats up for renewal or reappointment at the end of March. Regarding the cabins at City Park, Kuecker said she received an opinion from the State Historic Preservation Office that the cabins are eligible for the National Register. She said the City has received a Technical Advisory Network (TAN) grant for assistance, so Jeff Mills out of Des Moines will be coming next week to evaluate the cabins and give information regarding what needs to be done to make them usable again. Kuecker said that the City's only expense will be paying for the consultant's travel. Michaud asked about the status of the Chamber of Commerce building. Kuecker did not know. Baker mentioned Richard Carlson's offer at the last meeting to write a grant to evaluate the Riverfront Crossings area. Kuecker said the problem with that is that the Commission does not have any funding to match a grant. Kuecker added that Helen Burford planned to talk to Carlson about doing the survey at a possibly reduced cost that Friends and the City could both be part of the match. She said that is still in the works. Baker said it would be a shame to not take advantage of Carlson's offer. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 NAME TERM EXP. 1/13 2/10 3/10 ACKERSON, KENT 3/29/13 X X X BALDRIDGE, THOMAS 3/29/14 X X O/E BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/12 O/E X X DOWNING, WILL 3/29/13 X O/E X LITTON, ANDREW 3/29/14 X X X McMAHON, DAVID 3/29/14 O/E X O/E MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/12 X O/E X SWAIM, GINALIE 3/29/12 X O/E X THOMANN, DANA 3/29/14 O/E O/E X TRIMBLE, ALICIA 3/29/13 X X X WAGNER, FRANK 3/29/12 O/E X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = AbsenUExcused NM = No meeting/No Quorum -= = Not a Member