Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-22 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission September 15, 2011 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline, Steve Crane, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Matt Wolford, Jeff Edberg, Eric Scott, David Hughes FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Minutes of the August 25, 2011, meeting were reviewed. Mascari moved to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2011, meeting as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 4 -0; Crane absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. 3b(1) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: a. Airport Commission Meeting Format — Dulek addressed the Members about items that are brought up and discussed at meetings, but that were not on the original agenda. These items need to be put on an agenda for open discussion so that everyone has the opportunity to attend the meeting and speak to that item. She also reminded them about email rules, open records requests, and what is considered open communication. b. Airport Commerce Park — Jeff Edberg shared with Members the latest news regarding interest in lots. He stated that a local business is still showing an interest. This company would have around 40 employees, according to Edberg. He added that he recently spoke to the City Manager, Tom Markus, to see if the City had any incentives to offer such a company. He stated that Markus was open to such an idea and would be willing to review an offer by the company. Edberg also stated that he received a new lead yesterday from another company. He noted that they are running advertisements in several locations for the Commerce Park lots. Members asked some general questions of Edberg, most notably what the market is like currently. c. Corporate Hangar L — Tharp noted that he and Eric Scott went back and reviewed the bids again, and bottom line is that the bids they received are most likely what they would get on a rebid. Scott spoke next, and he noted that the person who gave them the original figures is no longer with the company. He briefly explained the various reasons for the cost differences, noting that the overall hangar size had changed. A discussion Airport Commission September 15, 2011 Page 2 ensued, with Mascari asking if Scott's company could possibly do a re- design for the hangar. Scott stated that he would not recommend a new set of plans, that he does not believe this is needed. Members discussed the core issue with this, that being that they were given a false set of numbers in the beginning on what this hangar would cost. Mascari and Gardinier voiced their unhappiness with how this project has gone off track. Horan stated that he is concerned with how the State will perceive this if they have to turn back grant money again. The discussion continued, with Members reviewing their options on how they want to proceed with this. Assouline weighed in, stating that if they can still build the smaller hangar, he believes they should go ahead with this. Scott stated that the 'smaller' hangar costs were based on the conceptual numbers, and therefore this is not an option. Tharp noted that they also need to be aware of rental rates on a small hangar versus the larger one. Assouline asked if Tharp were recommending they terminate the project, and Tharp stated that as it currently stands, yes, he would recommend that. Gardinier stated that she wonders if Scott's company shouldn't go back to the company regarding the 'false' numbers, in light of the amount of time and money spent so far. Members continued to question Tharp and Scott about the hangar plans and timelines, trying to figure out how they got to where they are with a project they cannot afford. Scott tried to clarify why the size of the hangars changed and how they went from conceptual to the final plans. Mascari stated that he believes this was a waste of taxpayer money and that the Airport should pay the $90,000 themselves. He continued, stating that he believes the engineering company that Scott works for bears some responsibility in this, as well. He even suggested that one of Scott's supervisors attend a Commission meeting to further discuss this issue. Gardinier stated that she believes they should go to Des Moines for a face -to -face meeting with the State to discuss their needs for a hangar and how they may be able to proceed. Members turned back to discussing whether or not they can use these plans at a later date. Mascari again suggested they invite one of Scott's supervisors to the next meeting. Gardinier stated that she would agree to this, but that she believes they need a set of questions to follow. The other Members agreed that this would be a good idea. Scott spoke again to Members, stating that a rebid situation is what is needed here, not a redesign, which would be costly. d. Terminal Building Brick Repair — Tharp noted that there is not much to update Members on regarding this. Gardinier and Tharp briefly went over where they are with this project, noting that once the planter is torn out they will have a better idea of what they need to do here. Tharp questioned if the Members would like to have a sub- committee deal with this, and Members agreed they would not. e. FAA/IDOT Projects — AECOM: L Runway 7/25 & 12/3 — David Hughes addressed the Members next, stating that there is nothing back from the FAA yet on this. ii. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that he met with Dulek and a letter was sent out on this issue. iii. 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Construction has started, according to Hughes, with storm sewers being done next, after the initial work is completed. Hughes added that they had a progress meeting today and went over the schedule. He then responded to Members' questions. f. Airport "Operations ": L Strategic Plan- Implementation — Tharp noted that he is working with Purchasing on putting together a preventative maintenance plan for the hangars. He stated that by having such a maintenance plan, they would save money in the long run by getting to things before they break. Members spoke briefly to this, Airport Commission September 15, 2011 Page 3 stating that they would like to see some figures on what they are spending annually to fix and replace these types of items. ii. Budget — Materials for the FY2013 budget have arrived, according to Tharp, and the budget subcommittee will be meeting next week to begin this process. Tharp stated that documents are due back to the Finance Department by the end of the month, which will require a special meeting in order for the Commission to adopt the budget. He added that they can meet the first week in October in order to do this. Members discussed this briefly, with October 13th being looked at for a meeting. Due to a number of conflicts, a meeting date of Tuesday, October 11th was chosen instead. iii. Management — 1 . Airport Operations Specialist Position — Gardinier stated that she will draft a letter now that she has received Members' comments and will arrange to meet with the City Manager to discuss this position being full -time. Members then discussed what Tharp's additional duties would include, with marketing being a major one. The discussion then turned to how often the Commission would review this position, with Members looking at possible scenarios. g. FBO / Flight Training Reports: i. Jet Air I Air Care — Matt Wolford spoke to Members next. He reviewed what Jet Air worked on in August. He added some additional items, such as mowing, that had not made it to the report. Horan asked if they were using the newer light bulbs (CFLs) yet and Wolford stated that they still have the older bulbs in stock. Wolford continued, stating that Jet Air is seeing an increase in business. He then responded to Members' questions on fuel prices. Wolford shared with Members that they have been in contact with a company that has a Falcon 2000, and they are planning to be coming into the airport soon, while looking for some land to buy in the area. ii. Iowa Flight Training — Gardinier asked if Tharp had heard from IFT, and he shared what he was able to find out. He added that IFT is going through a transition right now. Members agreed that they would like to have IFT attend Commission meetings on a quarterly basis just to keep in touch. iii. Whirlybird — None. h. Subcommittee Reports: i. Community Liaison Subcommittee — Tharp noted that the subcommittee, which consists of himself, Assouline, and Crane, met recently. They are in the process of inviting the City Council candidates out to the Airport for a tour. i. Commission Members' Reports — Horan shared that he took pictures of the Tri -Motor while it was at the Airport. He shared these on the Facebook page. Mascari asked if the idea of a sidewalk on Riverside Drive is still going around. Members noted that Janelle Rettig had been a proponent of this when she was on the Commission. Tharp noted that there is a sidewalk planned for the east side of Riverside Drive, but no definite dates for it to be completed. Gardinier noted that when the Tri -Motor was here they unfortunately were not able to get as many rides in as they had hoped. She added that the event did go well, and she hopes they can bring even more such events in the future. j. Staff Report — Tharp reminded Members that he will be gone to the FAA Conference in Kansas City. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Airport Commission September 15, 2011 Page 4 The next regular meeting will be Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M. Mascari made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 P.M.; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 5 -0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission August 25, 2011 Page 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM N N w cn 0) -4 00 O0 (.0 O \ N \ N N \ -' N ? \ N (n 3 NAME EXP. 03/01113 X X X X X X X X X/E X X X Rick Mascari 03/)1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X Howard Horan Minnetta 03/01/15 X X X X X X X O/ X X X X Gardinier E Jose 03/02/12 X X X X O/ O/ X X X X X X Assouline E E Steve 03/02/14 d/-E— —X —X X X O/ X X X X X X Crane E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time 3b(2) APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Royce Chestnut, Erica Damman, Rebecca Routh, Mark Russo RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 518 Ronalds Street. Peterson said this could have been a consent agenda item, but staff wanted to bring it to the Commission for discussion, because staff would like to know if removal of non - significant chimneys could be one of the pre - approved minor review items. Michaud agreed that a chimney that is falling apart should not have to be considered by the Commission. Wagner stated that the criteria for minor review of the demolition of a chimney should probably be for a chimney that is at the back of the house and is not architecturally significant. Miklo said staff would add that to the list of minor or intermediate review approval items. Regarding this particular chimney, Miklo said it is not really highly visible from the street, it is deteriorated, and it does not have any decorative brickwork, so staff would recommend approval of the demolition. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 518 Ronalds Street as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Litton McMahon Swaim and Thomann absent). 713 N. Lucas Street. Peterson said this is a project for which the owner would like to replace the front door and to do something to even out the appearance of the foundation. She showed a photograph of the foundation and said the west elevation has the same condition. Peterson said the house has a mix of original, textured block and new block. She said the owner's thought is to somehow stucco over. Peterson said she thinks that may be a bad idea and believes perhaps the owner should repair the masonry and just paint it, as opposed to covering over cracks that will just come through the stucco. Peterson said the guidelines say that an unpainted foundation is recommended to stay unpainted; however, she did not think that is applicable here. Peterson said that would be more appropriate when there is only a little bit of foundation showing. She stated that this is a walkout and spans the whole side of the house. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 2 Peterson said the foundation was not properly toothed together, and she does not think it will perform well with the stucco. Ackerson said he thinks the stucco will work better than what you have there, at least you have done something about cracks. Downing asked about the potential of adding exterior insulation and then a siding material to match. Baldridge said he has seen new houses built with an obviously fake stonework fagade that he thinks would look better in this position.. Miklo said he guessed the owner would not want to make that kind of investment. Michaud asked if the owner could have something different on the short, front wall and then maybe put siding on the taller back walls. Peterson said that on the west side there is a full story that is foundation material. She pointed out where there is half and then as one comes around to the front, less than two feet, and the carport has maybe four to six inches of exposed foundation. Baldridge asked if the owner has consulted a mason. Peterson said she suggested that to the owner. Miklo said the question before the Commission is whether to approve stucco over a two different block foundation materials. Michaud suggested the Commission give the owner some options, since there are not strong opinions about it. Peterson said she thought the paint would be affordable but wouldn't cover up the masonry problems so that they could still be fixed. Peterson said that the front door is also part of the proposal. Peterson said the owner was wavering between replacing the door with a new door and getting rid of the storm or just leaving the current door in place and getting a new storm door. She said this is something that can usually be approved by staff and chair. Michaud said that a half light door would be appropriate, and Peterson agreed. Trimble said it is difficult to frame a motion without knowing what the owner's price point is. Miklo said the owner is proposing stucco, unless the Commission is offering another alternative. He said the question is therefore if the Commission would object to having stucco put over the two block materials. Michaud asked if there is any kind of stucco board to go over insulation. Downing said that one can buy stucco that goes over insulation; it's called exterior insulating finish system. He said that one can by four by eight sheets of foam and screw those into the block, and then use a fiberglass mesh and plaster it with two to three layers of EFIS. He said that it needs to be done properly to avoid moisture problems. Peterson said if EFIS is used the owner would have to come up with a detail where the siding meets the EFIS on the foundation, because the foundation is going to be thicker than the clapboard wall. She said she does not know how it meets at grade. Downing said one can do insulation below grade, but it would change the type of insulation. Miklo suggested stuccoing the new concrete block and leaving the older block as it is, as an alternative. Trimble said she is not opposed to stuccoing the old block, because it would not look any worse, but she did not think it would necessarily look any better either. Peterson said there would still be a patchwork of different surfaces. Michaud said that at least now, the surfaces are the same shape. She stated that if one adds stucco, it is going to be solid and a lot pointier than the faux stone. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 713 N. Lucas Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: the owner provide product information for the new front door(s) for approval by Chair and staff, and, if the owner does not paint the foundation, that the owner provide product information for stucco product and application methods for approval by Chair and staff. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Litton McMahon, Swaim, and Thomann absent). 427 Clark Street. Peterson said this property is in the Clark Street Conservation District, and the applicant was available to answer questions. Peterson showed the street facing the side of the house and the back side of the house. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 3 Peterson said this is an addition project. She said the roof of the one -story component would be removed so that a second story can be added up from the existing addition on the back, and the new addition, the one -story shed roof, would also be added. Peterson showed a sketch of the project and views of the house the way it is now. Peterson said her main concern is that she has not seen the trim work details that would match the existing house, especially the molding at the corner and over the window head. Miklo said staff's recommendation would be for approval, as long as those details match. Peterson said that what has been designed is appropriate, and the proportions seem correct. She said the proposal is for cedar siding and metal clad wood windows and a wood door. Damman, one of the owners of the house, said that this house was known as the murder house on the street, and she is doing her best to have it not be known as that. She said that in the spring, they will try to put back on the porch that was originally on the house. Damman said the drawings really don't show the wood trim described by Peterson, but they agree with matching the trim. Baldridge asked about the porch. Damman said that in the spring, she would like to come in with a proposal to put a full porch on. Michaud asked if the Commission should give a fiber cement board option if cedar is unavailable. Wagner asked if the siding has a four -inch reveal. Chestnut said that it is anywhere from three and one -half to five. Michaud asked if each side is different. Damman responded that it varies, because some of the boards might be spread out and some might be a little bit skinny, but on average it is four. Wagner said that across the last row, it is four inches. He said that over 16 boards, one can change it perhaps an inch to get four across the top. Wagner said that the siding is correct on the main building, so on the addition, one will want to watch that. Peterson replied that the owners will have to watch it, because this is meeting up; it's in the same wall plane, so they'll have to get it to match. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 427 Clark Street as presented in the application, with the following condition: trim at new walls, windows and door, and materials at new eaves will match those of the existing historic house. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, (Litton McMahon Swaim and Thomann absent). 822 Rundell Street. Peterson said this property is in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She showed a view of the front of the house and said the proposed addition would be on the rear. Peterson said the owners plan to match the siding and the windows on the addition. She said they will be unable to match the roof pitch and the roofing materials. Peterson said the new roof will have a very flat pitch with a membrane -type roofing. She said it might be the best solution to tie into the steep roof without ruining the dormer that is already there. Peterson said the one concern she has is that the porch is projecting out farther than the laundry/bath, and yet the roof is projecting out the same amount. She said that where the edge of the porch is, that much roof overhead seems appropriate, but the roof overhang at the laundry room is at least four feet or more. Miklo said that might be a mistake in the drawing. Routh, the owner of the house, said she did not think this is a four -foot projection. Peterson said it is actually scaled quite deep so that she wondered if the beam and column could be repeated or else the roof pulled back so that there would not be the same fascia line at the laundry room as at the screened portion. She said there would be a couple of ways to deal with that. Routh said she had suggested going out further, Russo, her contractor, thought that would be less likely to be approved and that the symmetry would be better. Routh said Russo had thought that could be part of the enclosed porch. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 4 Russo said the whole structure is twelve feet deep, and the laundry room is eight feet deep. Peterson said the same roof is over the whole space. Russo confirmed this but said it can be changed. He said his idea was to have a sort of portico area for storage or sitting. Peterson asked if there would be another corner post and beam then. Russo said he thinks he may have intended to cut that roof back to allow light in there. He said that it would actually step back. Baker asked if it would be matched out then, and Russo confirmed this. Peterson asked if the roof edge would then match the building edge, with as much overhang, and Russo agreed. Michaud said she was encouraging the functionality of the addition. Peterson said that one could either pull the addition out to the same wall plane as the porch or push the roof back on the laundry room. Routh asked if both conditions could be approved, and then she and her contractor could discuss them. Russo said that he did not know about increasing the addition. He said that becomes the enclosed part, so that would become a pretty significant structure then that might look a little odd. Russo said he understands the concern about the roof line and thinks it would make sense to either continue the roofline over and create kind of a portico or to step it back. He said that to increase the depth of the bump out on this solid addition would look odd. Russo said that if he did that, he would prefer to enlarge it, but he did not really want to do that, because the entire purpose of this was to create a screened -in addition that evolved into a joint laundry/bathroom. Peterson said she feels that the proportions are right and that they are holding it back from the corners of the existing house. She said that except for the roof overhang, everything seems to be compliant. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 822 Rundell Street as presented in the application, with the following condition: provide final drawing of new roof for review, and possibly if the owner wants to think about the other option, considering the budget or other capabilities and time schedule, for approval by Chair and staff. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, (Litton McMahon Swaim and Thomann absent). Miklo asked to clarify the intent of the motion — if it is for approval as shown, with the roof notched back, or a larger addition. Michaud said it was to enclose a possible larger area for a bath, if the owner finds that more functional after all. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: Peterson stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had additional comments. DISCUSS FEMA MOA: Miklo said that is item is on the Commission's agenda because the Commission was asked by FEMA to have a public meeting to seek comment on the potential demolition of Sabin School and the fraternity building at 109 River Street. This was part of the Section 106 review, which requires when federal funds are used to damage or destroy a National Register eligible property attempts to mitigate the damage should be made. That meeting was held on August 11 (the Commission had further discussions at the September 8 meeting). He said the Commission sent back a list of suggested, projects that could mitigate the loss of those historic buildings. For the school, Miklo said the Commission's priority was activity that would further promote the preservation of Longfellow and Horace Mann, the other two historic school buildings designed by the same architect and built in the same year. He said Commission had requested funding elevators for those schools and the Commission also was interested in the possibility of listing Horace Mann School on the National Register. The Commission also suggested a facilities study focusing on the issues of maintaining the two schools in the long run. Miklo said FEMA took the Commission's and other public comments into account and came back with the proposal that is on the agenda. He said FEMA felt the elevator would be too expensive for them to fund. He said they did propose providing the School District with funding to study heating and air conditioning energy efficiency improvements to Longfellow School, as well as providing funding for the listing of Horace Mann School on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 5 Miklo said that someone from the Northside Neighborhood asked if the same study regarding energy efficiency should also apply to Horace Mann School. He said that was passed on to FEMA, which said it would study the design so that both schools would be addressed for energy efficiency. He said he received a call from FEMA's representative today asking that the Commission table discussion or suggest alternative mitigating projects that FEMA might fund. Baldridge asked why the change? Miklo stated that FEMA indicated that the School District has not agreed to those provisions and had asked that it not be part of the Memorandum of Agreement. He said that FEMA therefore has asked that the issue be tabled for the Commission to discuss at its November meeting, finding alternative mitigating measures for the loss of Sabin School or that some other suggestions be offered at this evening's meeting. Miklo said that FEMA is looking for broad ideas for what would mitigate the loss of Sabin School. Baldridge asked why the School District did not wish to participate in the agreement. Miklo did not know. Burford said that the draft MOA was written to say, "...if the school is demolished." She asked if there was any information regarding that. Miklo said it is his understanding that the current plans are to demolish the Sabin School but that may change. Miklo said the Commission's decision is to either table this discussion to its next meeting or come up with some alternatives mitigating measures. Trimble suggested tabling the issue to give the Commission some time to think about the matter. Baker said it would be interesting to know what the School Districts objection to the proposal is. She asked if the School District did not want to be part of this at all or if it wanted the Commission to come up with a better way to preserve the other two schools. Baker said it is difficult to come up with alternatives, not knowing what the School District issues are. Miklo responded that apparently the School District did not want to be part of the agreement at all. Baldridge suggested it would be an advantage to the School District. Ackerson said not being part of the agreement would make it easier for the schools to be torn down. Trimble asked if there was no objection from the School District to putting Horace Mann on the National Register. Miklo said the message he received from FEMA is that the School District is not comfortable entering into the agreement at all. He did not know what the District's concerns are. MOTION: Baker moved to table discussion of the FEMA Memorandum of Agreement to the Commission's next meeting in November. Ackerson seconded the motion. Wagner asked if there should be a subcommittee to come up with alternative ideas. Miklo said the question is what other historic preservation activities in the community not involving the School District could mitigate the loss of the Sabin School building. Baker said she recalled from the original discussion that most of the ideas related to the school buildings. Baldridge said that, from a preservation standpoint, he is not willing to give into the School Board that easily. Ackerson agreed. Baldridge said it is for the benefit of the community to get something out of the demolition of Sabin School. This was an opportunity for the School District to receive federal funding to help making its buildings more useful. Miklo said that would be an issue to bring up before the School Board, not FEMA, because FEMA cannot force the School District to be part of this MOA. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Litton McMahon Swaim, and Thomann absent). DISCUSS CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY: Trimble said there was correspondence regarding Roosevelt Elementary School. Miklo said the issue is how the Commission would like to respond to the correspondence. He asked if the Commission wanted to put energy into studying Roosevelt School further, given the Commission's other activities and resources. Miklo said it is his understanding that the School District is offering the property for sale. He added that any use of the property that is not for a public institution will require a change to the Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning so Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 6 that there will be a public process regarding the use of the building. Miklo said that whether the building will be preserved or not has yet to be determined. Trimble said it is a difficult issue in that this would be a big loss to that neighborhood. She added that the School Board has already decided that there will not continue to be a school there. Trimble said she was told that foundation repair would cost $800,000 or more, so it is unlikely that anyone else would use the building for anything. Baldridge said the building has not been maintained. He said that it was inadequate, they planned to enlarge it, but they didn't. Miklo said this probably does deserve some sort of response. He suggested a letter to the effect that the Commission recognizes that this may be an historic building but does not have the resources to nominate it or study it further. Miklo said as an alternative, the letter could give a list of sources to apply to for funding to study. Wagner suggested this could be one of the mitigation efforts by FEMA, since the School District is selling the property. Miklo said the School District is the current owner, so mitigation efforts would require its approval. Trimble said that being on the National Register would not stop the property from being sold or the building demolished. She stated that only a local designation would do that. Baldridge said that the real estate where Roosevelt School is located is an extremely valuable property. He said he is a little reluctant to deny the School Board, because it does need funds. Baldridge said the building has sort of been botched up already. Miklo suggested that the Commission chair send a letter acknowledging the concerns regarding Roosevelt but stating that, given the limited resources, there is not much the Commission can do about it at this point. That was also the consensus of the Commission. Michaud said the letter should thank those who corresponded for the work done on this. Trimble said the letter could also relate that National Register listing would not necessarily save the building from demolition. DISCUSS NOMINATIONS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS: Trimble said the awards ceremony would be held on Friday, November 18`h' at 5:30 p.m. Peterson presented slides of properties to be considered for awards and discussed the categories. Miklo said the subcommittee met and selected the properties from a larger list. He said they are being presented to the Commission to confirm that the Commission wants to bestow awards on all of them. Regarding the awards, Trimble suggested acknowledging Christina Kuecker, who is the former planner for the Commission, or giving her an award for the work she did for historic preservation. Miklo said there is a Margaret Nowysz Award that is not given every year, but the Commission may want to consider it this year. The consensus of the Commission was to present the award to Kuecker. Peterson showed the properties nominated for awards for exterior paint, residential stewardship, rehabilitation, commercial rehabilitation, new work, and special recognition categories. Trimble pointed out that awards are also given out for interior work, which is not something that would come before the Commission. She added that last year, if owners used salvaged or recycled materials, their certificates had a green star to recognize that. Miklo said that letters will be sent to the property owners asking if they want to accept their awards and asking if they want to have their contractors acknowledged as well. Burford asked about the Van Patton House that was heavily damaged in the recent fire. Miklo said Kevin Monson is aware that it is a landmark building and will require review by the Commission. Miklo said the guidelines state that if the owner can demonstrate that the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable, then the Commission may Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 7 issue a demolition permit. Miklo said that would involve review of the replacement building before the demolition permit is issued. Michaud asked how tall that building and the Bruegger's building could be if replaced and if they could be as tall as the Moen Building. Miklo confirmed that they could be six stories or possibly taller, but the sites may not be conducive to taller buildings, because they are so narrow and small. He said that in terms of height, the airport overlay limits downtown heights to about twelve stories. Miklo added that the Bruegger's building is not a designated building so that the Commission cannot do more than make suggestions for that location. Regarding the house at 332 -336 South Governor Street, Wagner said that he found out earlier in the day that the Commission did not discuss the back window at 336. Miklo asked if that had been in the plans. Wagner responded that he thought all of that had come up, but the Commission was focusing on the removal of the chimney at 332 South Governor. He said he thinks it was an oversight and should be corrected. Peterson stated that the Commission just reviewed new steps at the front porch and some railing and support of the foundation at the back porch, but nothing about windows. Wagner said the builder is under time constraints to finish the kitchen and asked if the Commission could convene a special meeting. Miklo said that the Commission cannot approve something that is not on the agenda, because it would violate the open meetings law. Commission members agreed to meet on Monday the 17`h at 5:15 in the Planning Conference Room for a second meeting. Burford asked if FEMA did not anticipate that the Commission would have any comments regarding the proposal about the old Art School Building. Miklo said he thought the reason FEMA brought the other projects to the Commission's attention is that they are within the Commission's jurisdiction. He said that because the old Art School is on the University campus, it was not put before the Commission. Michaud said that for the Monday meeting, the Commission might want to discuss a rezoning proposal near College Green Park. Miklo replied that that particular item will come before the Commission as an agenda item, so the Commission should probably not talk about it in any detail. He added that the proposed zoning change for Washington and Johnson Streets is for property in a conservation district so that anything built on the property will need to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Miklo said the appropriate time to talk about that will therefore be when a proposal is submitted. He said that anything built on that property will require the Commission's review, whether under the current zoning or any future zoning. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 8,2011: MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 8, 2011 meeting with the correction that the male voice should be amended to Wagner. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, (Litton McMahon Swaim and Thomann absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s /pcd/mins /hpc /2011 /hpc10 -13 -11 Z O N N O� UO Z U Ow QW U W Q N WD yZ W W w�- a� UQ O H U) 2 E O -0d O O Z w .� E w � C C N E (6 ° o Z a z ¢ ii ii u n w xo6z w Y M c x x x x o o x o O X x r x x X X X X X O X x x x x x x x o X X o co X X X X X X - X X ti CD 0 X p X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X X X X X X X O X X X X x X 0 X X X X CD X w X X X 0 X X X X X M X X X - X X p O O x x N X X X X O X X O X O a X W W M r CS) N M et r C� N M N r CA N C) co 0) N co q CA N M � N M N � N M N CS) N M � CA N M M C3) N M N C� N C7 F- U) Q 2 Z Z Y z O Y Q 0 = Ld o oc W W Y J Z Z 3: w Z Q z Q o ZO = Qa o a V �Lj J z a < Q Q o z Z Q 2 U a La m F- Y Z LL De z Q E O -0d O O Z w .� E w � C C N E (6 ° o Z a z ¢ ii ii u n w xo6z w Y MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2011 PCD CONFERENCE ROOM 3b(3) APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, William Downing STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CONSENT AGENDA: CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 332 S. Governor Street. Wagner, the contractor for the project, said (tape starts in mid sentence — something about the remaining one — something — of the two other rooms that go out the back. He said it is not original to anything, except maybe the third 1970s addition. Miklo said the report sent out by Peterson found that this meets the guidelines MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 332 South Governor Street to approve the closing of two windows on the north side of the addition with the siding information for the shingles and siding to be reviewed and approved. McMahon seconded the motion. Wagner said that with that siding, which is aluminum, he did find some aluminum siding up underneath the second addition, which was done in the 30s, which (something like he could take off and match the aluminum siding). Regarding the shed porch on the south side of the 332 building, Wagner said he had talked previously about removing some of the siding that is on there about one third of the way up. He said it is rotted and deteriorated. Wagner said the certificate of appropriateness states that the owner could replace some of the siding that is on the house shed. Wagner said that, when the siding is removed to be repaired or replaced, the shed is not part of the original house. He said that the siding and the window that are inside that little shed porch is the exterior wall. Wagner said that if one were to take off the aluminum siding above the one part and all the way around, it would probably uncover the original stucco on the building. Wagner said he is asking that if the siding is removed and it looks as if the porch would look better without siding on it, if it could maybe just have three posts. He said that is the southern exposure, and that shed doesn't allow the southern light to come into the dining room and the kitchen. Wagner said he would put siding on if he has to, but if he takes it off and decides there could be three columns that would support the porch roof, it might be nicer to just leave it open and it might look more like a porch. Historic Preservation Commission October 17, 2011 Page 2 Wagner said he thinks it would look more appropriate to the age of the house to put three turned columns on that and perhaps a railing to match. He said then there would not have to be a storm door on a room where the outside temperature and inside temperature are the same. Wagner said he is requesting that if the siding is removed, which the certificate of appropriateness allows, if it is feasible, to not put the siding back on and leave it as an open porch. He said there would be turned columns to match the house, rather than just leaving studs there. Wagner said the storm window and door would be removed, and it would be an open porch. He said the other aspect would be to close the two windows on the north side. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Baldridge moved to amend the motion to allow the option of opening up the porch with the design of the exterior components of the porch to be approved by staff and chair. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 -1 (Baker and Downing absent and Wagner abstaining). 336 S. Governor Street. Wagner showed the rear of 336 South Governor, where the kitchen is being renovated as part of the University /neighborhood project. He showed the east side /rear door of the house, which is going to receive a new door that will be a half light, like the one that is on the side door of the foursquare. Wagner showed the window that the design has proposed for removal to provide for a wall of cabinets. Miklo said it would not have been unusual for a rear porch to just have a door. Wagner said that he would match the siding material with cedar siding with the same four -inch reveal. Wagner said he already has approval to replace the three pillars below. He said it is probably the type of columns he would match next door at 332 S. Governor Street. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 336 S. Governor Street to approve closing the window on the east side under the porch. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 -1 (Baker and Downing absent and Wagner abstaining). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s /pcd/mins /hpc /hpc10- 17 -1 Ldoc Z 0 N N �0 00 UU Z w 0w awl U W Q N w � Z w w w�- CL UQ O N E O 7 -00 O O Z U C:X � N O E cc a`).,<z o CLQn11z n n w g XOOZ I ti c X X � W X X X X X X X M CD X X X X 0 X O X X r X X 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 X X 0 co X X 0 X X X X X X ti 0 X 0 X X 0 X F 0 X 0 X X X X X X X 0 0 X 0 X X X X X X - X X X X M X 0 X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X FXT O O O X X N X X w 0 X X w 0 X X w X w 0 r a: X W M N M N M N N M M N M 't N M 'IT N ('7 N N C7 N N M 't N M M N M N N M H Q Z w Z O U) U Q CQ G H ui R Q m W W & Q m J_ 0 Z O O w Z Q Z O J Q o ZO 2 a p Q J z O �_ Q Q o Z Q _ V Q W m Z LL c Z C9 E O 7 -00 O O Z U C:X � N O E cc a`).,<z o CLQn11z n n w g XOOZ I MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION October 18, 2011 Lobby Conference Room APPROVED 3- b == Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., Dianne Day, David Brown, Diane Finnerty, Harry Olmstead, Wangui Gathua, Connie Goeb. Absent: Howard Cowen, Martha Lubaroff. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Day called the meeting to order at 18:02. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE September 20, 2011 MEETING: Commissioner Olmstead moved to approve. Commissioner Townsend seconded. The motion passed 5 -0. ( Gathua, Finnerty not present for vote) DECEMBER MEETING DATE The Commission will plan to hold a meeting on December 20th. LIFE BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN The Commission decided to serve as a co- sponsor for this event (no financial contribution). Commissioner Olmstead moved to approve. Commissioner Goeb seconded. The motion passed 7 -0. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY CONSTITUTION SERIES The flier has been updated and the League is looking for speakers' knowledgably in constitutional law as well as immigration law. YOUTH AWARDS ADULT HONOREE Commissioners discussed whether to create an additional youth award for the annual ceremony. The proposed award would be conferred to an adult at the ceremony. Youth in the community would submit the name of persons they feel are worthy of the recognition. Commissioners also discussed whether it was necessary to create another award when they could easily fit a nomination into a preexisting human rights award. Commissioners decided to place this item on the November agenda and discuss in more detail at that time. HUMAN RIGHTS BREAKFAST Commissioner Olmstead went over the honorees. Bowers provided the details for the Breakfast. IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE Commissioner Finnerty expressed her disappointment in the fact the Commission has not heard back from the Council re: a letter they sent to Council in mid - October. Commissioners discussed what options they had to specifically ask the Council to respond. It was decided that the Commission would send another letter to the Council. The Commission also discussed setting up a time to speak with the new mayor in 2012. Commissioner Finnerty moved Commissioner Olmstead seconded. The motion passed 6 -0. (Brown not present for vote) Human Rights Commission October 18, 2011 Page 2 of 3 FACES OF IOWA CITY The speaker's manuals have been sent to presenters. Commissioners Gathua, Day and Goeb will discuss possible wording for the flier which will be sent out to advertise the series. JUVENILE JUSTICE Commissioner Finnerty and Commissioner Townsend will meet over the next few weeks and report back. STAFF REPORTS Bowers reported on a retirement celebration for Assistant City Manager, Dale Helling being held on the 25th. Commissioner Olmstead reported on the screening of the film Abused on the 27th. Commissioner Finnerty reminded everyone of a program on I PTV- -Lost in Detention on the 18th at 8pm. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Townsend moved to adjourn. Commissioner Finnerty seconded. The motion passed 6 -0 at 19:16. Human Rights Commission October 18, 2011 Page 3 of 3 NAN Dianne Wangu Gathua Martha Lubarc Howan Cowen Consta Goeb Harry Olmste (8 -1 -20 Orville Towns Sr. Diane Finneri David I Brown Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 /Mnnfinn nnf a1 E TER M EXP. 1/18 2/15 3115 4/12 5/17 6/21 7/19 8/16 9/20 10 /18 11/15 12/20 Day 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X O/E X i 1/1/12 O/E O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X ff 1 1/1/12 1/1/13 O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X O/E O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E nce 1/1/13 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X ad 10) 1/1113 O/E X X X X X X X X X end, 1/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X y 1/1 /14 X X X X O/E X X X X X 3. 1/1/14 X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting /No Quorum R = Resigned - =Not a Member 'r 3b(5) 0000�� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED OCTOBER 20, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne, STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Nick Benson, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Al Streb, Mark Holtkamp, Loret Mast, Pam Michaud, Helen Burford RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Commission voted 4 -1 ( Koppes voting to approve) against recommending approval of an application submitted by Al Streb for a rezoning from General Industrial (1 -1) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone for approximately 2.34 acres of property located on Commercial Drive. 2. The Commission voted 4 -0 ( Eastham recused, Payne absent) to approve REZ11- 00016 an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: Consider Setting a public hearing for November 3, 2011 to amend the comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for property located on the east side of Commercial Drive north of 420th Street. REZ11- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Al Streb for a rezoning from General Industrial (1 -1) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone for approximately 2.34 acres of property located on Commercial Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 -Formal Page 2 of 9 Miklo noted that the Commission asked for some additional information and staff has provided that to them in a memo. Staff was also asked to contact the adjacent property owner of Lot 42. The owner had contacted the City and she submitted concerns and objections in writing regarding the rezoning. Miklo told the Commission that they will need to decide if there is merit to pursuing the rezoning further and if so than the Commission could set a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for November 3. If no further consideration is needed then no public hearing is necessary and a vote should take place on the zoning. Koppes made a motion to approve setting a public hearing to November 3, 2011. Weitzel seconded. Eastham noted that he would not be voting in favor of the motion. He reviewed all materials as well as listened to all information and feels that the current Comprehensive Plan and treatment of this property and zoning is appropriate. Eastham does not feel that there has been any evidence showing a need for commercial space in the area. Weitzel stated that the industrial space needs to be preserved and there are other options for Community Commercial (CC -2) in the vicinity. He does not feel that there needs to be a rezoning at this time. Freerks agreed with Eastham and Weitzel and noted she would be voting against. Dyer noted that she agrees with the above and noted it is also because it is in the middle of the block and would make the rest of the property less useful for industrial purposes. A vote was taken and the motion denied 1 -4 (Dyer, Weitzel, Freerks, Eastham voting no, Payne absent). Freerks opened the public hearing. Al Streb, 1700 County Club Drive, Coralville, IA, is the applicant for REV 1- 00015. He noted that this commercial would be right across the street from commercial. He would not ask the neighbors to rezone. Right after he subdivided the property and gave a design to the City he feels it's a promise he never received. He feels that he has to compete against the City. He noted his concern for the missing of the taxation. Freerks closed the public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve REZ11 -00015 rezoning from General Industrial 1 -1 to Community Commercial CC -2 zone. Koppes seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. Eastham stated that he would be voting against this application. He stated he does have sympathy for the applicant as a property owner. Eastham noted that he is applying his best judgment for the City's overall interest. The Comprehensive Plan gives a clear guidance and there is good evidence that industrial development is occurring at a good pace in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 9 Freerks noted that she agrees with Eastham. She stated that the idea of if the area is rezoned that there could be a potential for living units above the commercial space. Freerks noted that there are other opportunities. A vote was taken and the motion denied 1 -4 (Dyer, Weitzel, Freerks, Eastham voting no, Payne absent). REZ11- 00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. Eastham recused himself due to being a board member for a nonprofit that is general partner for a limited liability that owns property within the 200 foot exception area for the application. Miklo stated the property is on the west side of the street just north of Brown Street. The Comprehensive Plan for the area shows the subject property as being appropriate for low to medium density multi - family residential. That designation could accommodate either RM -12 or RMS -20. The surrounding properties are generally RS -8 and there are two to three properties zoned RS -12 and they are developed with mostly duplexes. There is a property to the west zoned R3 -B and it was a court ordered from a previous zoning code. Miklo noted that the proposed zoning would comply with the designation with the current Comprehensive Plan. The current commercial office zoning allows office on the ground floor and would also allow for the area to be redeveloped with multi - family on the second floor at the same density as the RM- 12 zone. The zoning would not change the density of residential development on the property but would change the form. Changing the zoning to RM -12 would make it possible for redevelopment. Miklo showed an aerial photograph that showed the surrounding neighborhood. Miklo noted that there was a sidewalk to the north but not to the south. The applicant submitted a concept plan. Miklo noted that it would not be possible to build the plan as shown for a number of reasons. The main reason would be the sanitary and storm sewers that run through the property. They would have to be moved or the plan would need to be redesigned. The location of the driveway is a concern because of the curve in the street and the hill. The transportation planners have identified a site distance issue. There are minimum distances from the property line and where the drive way might be located. Miklo stated that the transportation planners have indicated that the buildings should be set back further to ensure proper site distance. Staff recommends a condition that the transportation planners be satisfied with the site distance for vehicles exiting the property. Miklo stated that there is an inconsistency with the right -of -way. Staff recommends that the triangle of less than 600 square feet be dedicated to make a consistent right -of -way in the area. Staff is recommending that any development of the property should be required to put a sidewalk on the frontage as well as on the adjacent properties up until it gets to the City property at Happy Hollow Park. Miklo noted that any multi - family on this property will be subject to the multi - family design review requirements of the zoning code. Miklo stated that in regards to the question about the number of townhouses that could be built on the property if it was zoned RS -12: they would be individual units and have to be on Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 9 individual lots with lot lines dividing the units. Due to the easement situation it is difficult to determine how many units could be built under RS -12. Without building any new street or infrastructure approximately eight townhouses could be built. If a street was built and a rear lane that provides access to the parking and the utilities about 16 to 18 units could possibly be built. Staff recommends the approval of the rezoning subject to dedication of right -of -way for consistent street width and to accommodate sidewalks. The developer would be required to install sidewalks along the frontage and the two adjacent properties on the north property line of Happy Hollow Park. The City would then be required to put in the remaining sidewalk to Brown Street. The location of the driveway is subject to the transportation planning approval. The front setback is sufficient to provide adequate site distance. Sewer easements should be established on the property to allow repair /replacement of the lines. Freerks asked if there was an issue with the frontage as far as being the proper distance in the diagram that was provided by the applicant. Miklo stated that the setback is a minimum of 20 feet. . Freerks opened public hearing. Mark Holtkamp, applicant for REZ11 -00016 noted that dedicating the land on the triangle would not be an issue as well as inserting a sidewalk. Holtkamp stated that zoning the area RS -12 would kill the project because of the costs it would take to put in additional roads. Freerks closed the public hearing. Koppes moved to approve REV 1 -00016 discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. Dyer seconded. Koppes stated that this was a good example of an infill project and that she would support. Weitzel stated that there were a lot of issues that staff would need to work out but that he was okay with the concept of the plan. Freerks agreed with Koppes and Weitzel. She stated that the RM -12 would fit in and be a transition from the R3 -B, RS -12 and the RS -8. Freerks noted she would be in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carries 4 -0 (Payne absent, Eastham recused). Consider setting a public hearing for November 3, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi- family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 9 Eastham stated that he had a brief discussion with Jeff Portman about this item and the process that would be followed. Miklo pointed out the location of the property on a zoning map. The property is currently zoned RM -12. He noted that to the west and to the north the properties are zoned RNS -20. The Comprehensive Plan currently shows the property as private institutional in recognition to the synagogue that is located on the property. The synagogue will be moving to another location and then the Comprehensive Plan should be changed unless another religious or private institution occupies the property. Miklo stated that on the Comprehensive Plan map the surrounding properties are denoted as appropriate for residential conservation and staff recommends the same classification for the proposed property. Miklo pointed out the property in relation to Ralston Creek. He stated that there is a public alley that is platted on the block but it is not built. It currently is used as a driveway to provide access to the parking lot and by two of the adjacent property owners to provide access to the rear of their properties for maintenance purposes. Miklo showed pictures of the building on the property and noted that there are some utility lines in the alley. An easement will be needed to accommodate the utilities as well as access to the two adjacent properties. He stated that on paper it would change from a public alley to a private easement. Miklo noted that there is an elevation change from a sidewalk to a developed portion of the property. Miklo stated that the staffs view on the Neighborhood Compatibility and the Comprehensive Plan is that the proposed rezoning to RNS -20 is compatible given the adjacent properties to the north and the west. There is one house on the street would remain RM -12 because it is a part of the historic district. The property is within a Conservation District which requires approval by the Historic Conservation Commission for any new building on the property. Miklo stated that there was a concept plan that was submitted and staff does not suggest that the rezoning be tied to the concept plan. Staff is still not sure if the plan will work because of unresolved issues. The lowest level of the building there would be a parking facility for the apartments above. The plan shows eight two bedroom units per floor and there may be issues fitting that in the current height limit on the property. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning from RM -12 to RNS -20. As well as approval of the vacation of the alley subject to establishment of easements for utilities and access to the adjacent properties and for a potential for a trail along Ralston Creek. Freerks asked for a review of the different height restrictions for the RNS -20 versus RM -12. Miklo stated that the height restriction for both is 35 feet. Miklo noted that it is likely that there will be fill on the property that will bring the Washington Street elevation up. The pedestrian entrance to the property would be on Washington Street above flood elevation. Koppes asked if the RNS -20 was downzoned from RM -44. Miklo stated that the RNS -20 was established in the in 1985 when a new zoning map was adopted city wide. He noted that he was unsure about the previous zoning but he would check into it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 -Formal Page 6 of 9 Weitzel asked for staff recommendations on scale and massing for the new building. Miklo stated that until there is a concept plan to review it is hard to say. Another property that is a similar situation is on the corner of Washington and Governor Street. Freerks stated that currently there are no restrictions on two bedroom unit and in an RNS -20 there could be up to four bedrooms per unit. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Freerks stated that the illustration shows 24 two bedroom units. Eastham asked what the unrelated occupancy requirement for RNS -20. Miklo stated that it was four and the current RM -12 zone would allow three. Weitzel stated that at the Monday night informal meeting the Commission talked about the comparison of the heights of what is allowable and what the next door building would look like. Miklo stated that staff has advised the applicant to have something illustrating it for the next meeting. Eastham asked if the Historic Preservation Commission review will just be the design and won't state the number of bedrooms. Miklo confirmed that was correct that they just look at the exterior of the building only. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks noted that the applicant was not present for the public hearing. Loret Mast, 631 E. College Street, Iowa City, noted she lived on the corner or College and Dodge Street. Mast stated that she does not want an apartment building where the synagogue is located. She feels that if the complex goes in that it won't fit in the neighborhood and the trees will get taken down. Pam Michaud, 109 S. Johnson Street, Iowa City, IA, lives in College Green Park. She stated that she is only one of two people that were notified of this potential zoning change. Michaud stated that the other neighbors that have lived in the area for 30 to 40 years were not contacted. She feels that the applicant did not use the good neighbor policy to inform the greater east side of Iowa City. Michaud gave a background of the neighboring houses and stated that 21 years ago she had all neighbors signed the petition with the intention of preserving the streets around the park. She stated that the area has neighborhood diversity. Michaud stated that when the City had workshops on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan they did not imagine that the synagogue would be removed and so no one challenged the default zoning. She stated that a three or four story building will dominate the 600 block of Washington Street. She feels that the logic that the synagogue lot is backed up to the RNS -20 is faulty because Ralston Creek separates it. The blue print for the apartment building looks as if it was designed for a flat site. She asked that before the next zoning meeting a complete site design and blue print should be mailed to everyone on the east side. Helen Burford, 528 E. College Street, Iowa City, lives across from College Green Park. She stated that they were not notified of the rezoning. The neighborhood as a historic district is fragile. She stated that the area has multiple forms of housing. She feels that a line is being crossed in saying that the older portions of Iowa City are no longer buyable and the investments that people have made around the park to change the balance. Freerks closed public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 -Formal Page 7 of 9 Eastham moved that the Commission set a public hearing on November 3, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi- family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Dyer seconded. Koppes stated that it was still owned by a private institution and she asked if they can change it. Miklo stated that there is a contract to sell the property at this time. Freerks asked how long it can function as a private institution once it gets rezoned. Miklo stated that the private - institution can function in a residential zone. Changing the Comprehensive Plan would not have an effect on the use of the property for a private institution. Koppes asked if the RM -12 is covered by this change. Miklo stated that the RM -12 and RNS -20 would be covered. A vote was taken and the motion carries 5 -0 (Payne absent). Koppes moved to defer REZ11 -00017 / VAC11 -00002 the application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Eastham seconded. Weitzel stated that he would encourage the applicant to engage the neighborhood. Koppes asked why RNS -20 was chosen for that area. She stated that she felt the RNS -20 is a stabilized neighborhood and up- zoning from RM -12. Miklo stated that the intent for the RNS -20 talks about stabilization as well as allowing redevelopment of multi - family at a reasonable level. Koppes stated that RM -12 is also multi - family and stated that she would like more information on it. Eastham stated he had concerns with the design appearance on the property. He stated he has confidence that the Historic Preservation Commission will only approve a building that has a reasonable design within the context of this location. Eastham recommended that the applicant meet with the neighborhood and work on both the design and functional use of the building. Freerks stated that she has a problem with the potential scale and mass that can go on that piece of property if it is changed to the RNS -20 zone. She stated that the applicant should talk with the neighborhood and then speak to the Commission about the details on the plan and the information regarding the setback elevation. Dyer stated that she has the same concerns as Freerks. Miklo stated that there might have been some confusion with the applicant on the concern that Dyer had raised regarding a drawing showing the proposed building in relation to the adjacent building. The applicant might have misunderstood in thinking that this rezoning wasn't going to be talked about tonight and that is why he didn't show up. Miklo stated that he did discuss with the applicant that this would have to be deferred to the next meeting and to have the drawing prepared for that meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carries 5 -0 (Payne absent). Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 9 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: October 6, 2011: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Koppes seconded. The motion carried 5 -0 (Payne absent). OTHER: Freerks stated that recently the City Council voted on the rezoning of Bloomington and Linn Street. The Comprehensive Plan was voted on and passed at 4 -3 but the rezoning failed at 2 -5. The Council needed to wait avid give an opportunity to meet with the Commission regarding the negative rezoning vote. Freerks asked the Commission if they would like to have the opportunity to meet with the Council. Eastham stated he was at the Council meeting and there was a long discussion about the appropriateness for amending the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning. He stated he was confused when the Council was discussing as to what the Council members want to have in a building on the corner. Commercial uses had the majority of support from the Council but the design and use along Bloomington Street was unclear. Eastham stated that he feels it is very appropriate to have a meeting with the Council about the decision. Freerks asked for the minutes of the City Council meeting to review before they meet with them. Eastham stated it would be a good idea to have the Council review the Commissions minutes. Miklo stated that the next step is to have a joint meeting so that the procedures are clear and what will happen next. Miklo stated in the past the Commission will go to the next informal Council meeting. He asked the Commissioners to think about their reason for voting for the rezoning and to be prepared to tell the Council why you voted. Freerks asked for everyone to be prepared to make a statement. Miklo stated that staff will be present but that they will not be advocating for the Commission position. There was discussion on if the informal meeting on October 31, 2011 should be cancelled due to the lack of Commission being present. The Commission decided to have their informal meeting after the November 1 meeting with the Council. Koppes asked that the new secretary is voted on at the next meeting because Plahutnik resigned. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 (Payne absent). z O U) g� OU Uw Z w V- U z z N N Q 06 W OI-- z_ F. z a z a J a z O W W f X X o X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r V- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X w X X X 0 0 X X X X X X X X TZ co X X X X 0 0 X X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X X X X- X LLI X ti ti X X X X X X X X 0 iii L Lij X CN O X X X X O O X X X X X X DxxxX0 � oxXxxoX a z w w 2 Q O LL z ti oxxxxx x r X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X co LnxxOXOXX 00 coxxxxxox ti 0 X X X X X X N : XXXXXX N M : XXXXXX O N x x x x x x .- Cl) W CO Co M N L) Ln M w waLo�LnLnLnm0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W w J W W J } Q z J Lij J = Z 0VQWUY Q N 2Z J W U= w W W N E w N w a>- Q~ Q >- QwOQJW zoWwlo.a� E 0 D -0d O N z O U ag X O � N c N E N O O a�V)Qz u n w 2 XOOz LLJ Y E 0 D -0d O N z O U ag X O � N c N E N O O a�V)Qz u n w 2 XOOz LLJ Y FINALJAPPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — October 25, 2011 3b(6) CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Peter Jochimsen, Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle STAFF ABSENT: Staff Catherine Pugh OTHERS PRESENT: Sgt Droll of the ICPD; Spencer Verlo and Reme Ardila public RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE King and Treloar were appointed to the nominating committee at the September 27th meeting. King reported that the committee had met and both agreed that they would be willing to continue as Chair and Vice Chair unless there was someone interested in filling the positions. CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Jensen to prescribe the method of voting by a voice vote and use majority vote for the basis for decision. Motion carried, 5/0. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to appoint Donald King as Chair. Motion carried, 5/0. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF VICE - CHAIRPERSON Motion by King, seconded by Jochimsen to appoint Joe Treloar as Vice - Chair. Motion carried, 5/0. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Treloar and seconded by Jensen to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 09/27/11 • Minutes of the meeting on 10/12/11 • ICPD Use of Force Report — May 2011 • ICPD Use of Force Report — June 2011 • ICPD Department Memo #11 -32 (May -June 2011 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Department Memo(Quarterly /Summary Report (Qtr 3)- IAIR /PCRB,2011 • ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) — September, 2011 Motion carried, 5/0. PCRB October 25, 2011 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — Tuttle checked the room schedule at the Iowa City Library for April and most of the dates are available. The Board agreed to a date and to have staff book the room. Moved by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to hold the Community Forum at the Iowa City Library on April 17, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS Board Packet Distribution — Tuttle asked the Board if everyone had a chance to look at the on -line packet distribution. The majority agreed that they liked it and would use it. Jochimsen had some difficulty and would stop into the office and walk through it with Tuttle. Tuttle will distribute by mail and on -line again next month and the Board can discuss. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Ardila had questions regarding noise from businesses around his residence and what could be done and how it's enforced. Tuttle gave him contact information for the Code Enforcement Assistant. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Jochimsen and seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 5:47 P.M. (Porter left executive session due to a conflict of interest — 5:50 P.M.) REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:35 P.M. PCRB October 25, 2011 Page 3 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • November 8, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm (Rescheduled to 11/16) • November 16, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • December 13, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • January 10, 2012, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • February 14, 2012, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jochimsen to move the regular monthly meeting from November 8th to Wednesday, November 16th. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Jensen, seconded by Treloar. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 P.M. � � 0 X zz >�� CD eb fD C c. H H d b r n n �I u 7 UQ N w w N N A yC X � yC yC N C O yC >C X X A yC' X X >C yC N I O O k4 N H H d b r n n �I u Approved Minutes September 2011 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 ROOM 208, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Sara Maiers, Chuck Felling, Michael Lensing, Merce Bern -Klug Members Absent: Rose Hanson Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Honohan chaired the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 18.2011 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the August 18, 2011 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 510. Maiers/Felling. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will attend the next Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the next City Council meeting. STEERING COUNCIL REPORT: Felling reported that Jim Curry resigned as the chair of the Membership Committee. The steering council discussed the new door and building security policy and how it will affect members. 3b 7) Approved Minutes September 2011 3e ANNIVERSARY PROGRESS REPORT: Buhman reported that the senior art show opening that kicked off the Senior Center's 3& anniversary was a success with over 110 attendees. Many artists attended the opening. The member appreciation dinner held on September 8�h was attended by about 120 Senior Center members. Volunteers from US Bank, who sponsored the event and the Senior Center served members a lasagna dinner from the Cottage. Entertainment was provided by magician Nate Staniforth. A free dance will be held September 23 d with music by the Dale Thomas Band and is being sponsored by Friends of the Center. A film festival will be held the weekend of September 3&- October lot. The night of September 30th, The Alloy Orchestra (a three -man ensemble) will accompany the famous silent movie, Metropolis. This event will at the Englert Theatre. On October 1", four movies will be shown at the Senior Center; all movies will pertain to senior issues. The Senior Center will host an open house the last week of September. The Center will have tours every day of the week. Interested people will be able to use the facility for free during this week. This event coincides with the International Council on Active Aging's International Aging Week. This year's theme is "Expand Your Experience." The Senior Center will be holding a Mac and Cheese Fundraising Dinner on October 21st. This event is being sponsored by Hills Bank and supported by the Blackstone. Tickets are $5 in advance, $7 at the door. People will receive a serving of Blackstone mac and cheese, a drink and a homemade desert. Buhman reported that the she is promoting this event with a table at the I -Club breakfast, an insert in the water bill, in addition to selling tickets at the same time as the Senior Center quilt raffle. She will also be appearing on the KCRG Mugshot of the day event. The Center will also be raffling tickets to win an Iowa Hawkeye football that is autographed by Kirk Ferentz. REVENUE COMMITTEE REPORT: Maiers reported that the executive committee met and discussed raising membership dues and parking permits. Honohan noted that the executive committee no longer wants to subsidize the parking program. They will meet once more before giving their recommendation to the commission. Approved Minutes September 2011 OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Kopping spoke about how to spend the money in the gift fund. Ideas that were discussed include: -Sound proofing between VNA and G02 -Room 103 exercise floor and mirror - Narrow theatre style tables in some 2nd floor classrooms -Tables for the art room - Electronic signs for the building entrances The Commission asked to have pricing for each of these different items so they can give an informed recommendation. Kopping reported that the City of Iowa City approved the repairs to the Linn Street entrance steps. This is expected to cost approximately $43,000. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The commission discussed creating positive community partnerships. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 510. Maters /Felling. N r � O c N O 4 fl. Q I) O H •E G U v 1.0 c vT U '" C C N �Q i 8 E N m E la a¢Qz°z° II II 11 ii W m II XOOz I N Y 61 X 1 X X X X co O X X X w X r- N ti w X X X X i X X X X X i N z Z Z z z z z M z Z z z Z Z z N X 0 X X X X Q X X X X X '- a- N N M Cl) T- N € a a a a a a � r r r r r i- r m CD c c W 4) .M c L o LL Z J m S v z U i 8 E N m E la a¢Qz°z° II II 11 ii W m II XOOz I N Y