HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-20 Bd Comm minutes3b(1)
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 23, 2014 — 7:45 A.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee
Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. He noted that Commission
Member Schantz is joining them via conference telephone.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/09/14 — Chappell asked if there were any
comments, concerns, or changes that need to be made to the minutes. Shaw noted
that there is one change he would like to make last paragraph on page 3 and top of
page 4, where it states: "Shaw... arrived late... has no opinion at this point either.";
and requested the record show he was undecided at that point.
Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Atkins seconded the
motion. The motion carried 9-0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Karr provide information regarding initiative and referendum required signatures and census
numbers. Karr reported how the census figures would compare, if indeed it was solely based
on census numbers. She shared census data provided by the Library, and then reported on the
increase in signatures using the same percentage (.0533617%).
1970 population was 46,850; no fewer than 2,500
1980 population was 50,508; would have been no fewer than 2,695
1990 population was 59,735; would have been no fewer than 3,187
2000 population was 62,220; would have been no fewer than 3,320
2010 population was 67,862; would have been no fewer than 3,621
Kubby then stated that she had a question for the Commission. She noted that she will have a
column coming out in the Press -Citizen on Saturday. In this column, she would like to write
about the Commission's January 7 meeting, basically using the press release. Kubby's
intention is not to give her opinions, but to say what the topics are and to perhaps give one
sentence on two sides of each issue to try to encourage the public to attend. She asked if
anyone had any concerns about her doing this. Several Members stated that they thought this
would be a good idea.
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 2
Kubby then asked if she could get a copy of the Charter in a Word document, and stated she
wanted to play with the document and that it would be easier to have a Word version to do this
with. Karr will send to the Commission.
Vanderhoef stated that she was looking at old minutes from the Charter Review Commission
and noted that in 1984 a recommendation was made to Council to move the date of the Charter
Review to one year following the census so that the numbers would be the most current. She
noted that evidently Council did not wish to do this, and she stated that she believes it to still be
a good idea just so they would have the most current census data to work with. Chappell asked
that they add this topic to another agenda so that they can further discuss it.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Update — Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board —
Chappell asked Karr when the CPRB meets next, and she responded that they
do not meet again until February. She added that they have not yet had any
discussion regarding Charter issues. Chappell continued, stating that they can
wait until the CPRB has this discussion. Kubby asked if they need to make a
request to be on the CPRB's agenda. Chappell responded he had already
appeared at a Commission meeting. Karr stated that the CPRB is closely
watching the Commission's work and monitoring the discussion.
b. Use of the word `person' — Chappell spoke to Kubby's proposal regarding use
of the word 'person.' He read the definition of 'person' aloud, noting that Kubby's
proposal is that 'person' means 'an individual.' A new term would be `other
entity,' which would have the definition of 'a firm, partnership, corporation,
company association, political party, committee or any other legal entity.'
Chappell asked what Member's thoughts are on this proposal, and whether they
want to make a change to the current definition. Sullivan stated that he is not
strongly in favor of this change, nor is he opposed to it. He added that he does
not believe there is a problem to be solved, but that he does understand the
morale type of argument of it and would not be opposed if others feel strongly
about this.
Atkins then asked how they would be furthering the governing process by making
these changes. Kubby responded that she does not believe it changes the
process or what any person or entity's rights and responsibilities are, but that it
clarifies this issue for the community, that it is more of a political piece than a
process piece. Sullivan stated that they should give this consideration even
though it is not a substantive change. Kubby noted that language indicates
values. Shaw stated that he would support the change with some modification.
In regards to the newly added 'other entity,' he would remove 'other' and have it
just say 'entity.'
Chappell asked Dilkes if she had any legal concerns with the proposed change.
She responded that she has some concern about unintended consequences, but
that at this point she is not sure what those might be. Moyers -Stone stated that
she found their conversation regarding 'citizen' versus `resident' to be more
compelling than this. She believes that if they did make this change it would only
make the Charter more `wordy.' She questioned a person being an individual,
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 3
asking if that means an individual human being, an individual resident of Iowa
City. She believes that what they have now works and to make such changes
would only create more questions.
Kubby stated that there are only four or five sections where they would need to
make this change, and Dilkes asked if they could look at these sections again.
Kubby continued, further explaining where she is proposing they make this
change and why. Chappell noted that Kubby originally identified the following
sections as needing this change: 1.03, 6.01 6.02, and 7.01. Members then
reviewed each of these. Ultimately there was not a majority of Members wanting
to pursue this change.
C. Section 4.02, Accountability and Removal — Chappell then moved the
discussion to Section 4.02, noting that this is one of the sections they left
undecided after their initial review. He spoke to the issue, noting that they did
find out that the city manager has a contract that spells out much of this, such as
being entitled to three to six months of salary if terminated. Chappell noted that
he does not have any strong feelings toward changing this. He added that he
would not want the Charter to make this amount any higher than two months
salary, but that the Council can do what it wants in this matter.
Shaw stated that he would propose that the phrase 'not less than two month's
salary' be changed to 'termination pay as stated in the city manager's contract,'
or something similar to this. He further explained why he is suggesting this,
noting that basically this is paying someone to leave. Others disagreed, stating
that they believe this sentence is not necessary and should be removed.
Chappell asked if this was put in the Charter due to a time when written contracts
were less likely to come into play.
Reviewing the proposal, Chappell noted that it would read: a) The city manager
is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office at its
pleasure. The rest of Section `a' would then be deleted. He asked how
Members felt about this proposed change. Dilkes reviewed some of the history,
noting that there was the desire to provide a minimum amount of protection in
order to get qualified city managers, but that she does not have any major
concerns with this. She gave some examples of arguments that could be used,
however, if the `contract' portion were removed. Kubby suggested having a
sentence that refers to there being a contract, and Chappell suggested a phrase
be added to the first sentence: "...consistent with any contract...".
Discussion continued regarding whether or not to have 'contract' in the first
sentence. Dilkes agreed that Chappell's suggestion of adding something to the
first sentence, which would contain the reference to there being a contract, would
probably be the best way to go here. Members continued with whether or not to
add wording regarding a `contract' or'employment agreement' to this sentence.
Chappell reviewed the wording for the second sentence: A city manager
removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay consistent with any
employment agreement between the city manager and council. He asked if this
covers the sentiment of the change they have been trying to make. Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 4
suggested it read 'as provided by contract' instead, and she re -read the
sentence: A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive
termination pay as provided by contract. Schantz suggested they add 'if any' to
the end of the sentence. He further explained his feelings on this matter, noting
that he believes they do not want to give the Charter too much power in this
regard. Chappell asked if others would like to add 'if any' to this second
sentence. Kubby stated that she does not believe it to be necessary, as
contracts will typically always have a termination pay clause in them and others
agreed. Members then agreed to the discussed changes in Section 4.02.
d. Article 6, Campaign Contributions and Expenditures — Chappell moved to
Article 6 next, noting that they have not tentatively approved any of this section.
Dilkes noted that there is one minor change in Section 6.03 — the chapter is now
68A instead of 56. Moyers -Stone asked if there are any State rules regarding
campaign contributions. Dilkes responded that there are none regarding
amounts, but that there are a lot of requirements regarding disclosure. Chappell
asked if there were any proposed changes for 6.01, 6.02, or 6.03, other than the
chapter number that Dilkes referred to. Members agreed to tentatively approve
Article 6 as discussed.
e. Section 7.03(c), Petitions, Affidavit of Circulator — Moving on, Chappell noted
that they tentatively approved some parts of Section 7, but that others are waiting
for the decision on 'qualified' versus 'eligible.' Looking at 7.03(a), Chappell
stated that they may want to have this discussion after their public forum. On (c),
the only possible change would be replacing 'a qualified' with 'an eligible.'
Members agreed to tentatively approve this section.
f. Section 7.07, Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Req. —
Chappell noted that they had quite a bit of discussion previously about whether
this section should change or remain the same. He asked Dilkes if she had any
further thoughts on this section. She responded that she had a note that they
were considering eliminating 'which are higher or more stringent than' and
change it to 'that are.' Others spoke to what their notes on this topic were and
what they remember the changes to be. Chappell noted that it would read as
follows: 'The council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or
requirements affecting initiative and referendum, which are inconsistent with
those imposed by this Charter.' Kubby stated that keeping the second part of the
sentence allows council, by ordinance, to make clarifications and small changes.
Without this sentence, she noted that they would not be able to do this without a
Charter amendment. Dilkes spoke to this section, stating that it would actually
be best to end the sentence after the word 'referendum.' She noted why she
suggests this, noting that it really is not necessary to have this here.
Atkins noted that he is looking at the word 'may,' wondering if that shouldn't be
changed to 'shall.' After further discussion, it was decided to put a period after
'referendum' and to change `may' to 'shall.' Members then tentatively approved
this section.
g. Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission — Chappell stated that they have
not yet touched this section. Sullivan spoke to the timing of this Commission,
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 5
noting that the next one would either have to be three or four years too early, or
four or five years too late. Chappell stated that he believes they have better
information each year on population. Karr agreed, stating that they can gather
data in a more current manner now. Members continued to speak to population
numbers. Sullivan stated that the times they need actual up-to-date, valid
census data is pretty small. He questioned if there are really that many
scenarios where they would need to rely on up-to-date population numbers.
Members continued to discuss this issue and whether changing the Charter
Review timeline would be helpful or not. Karr stated that with the present
language it says 'at least once every 10 years.' She noted that if the population
were to spike, the council could at any point in time call for this review to take
place. Atkins noted that census information is very important to the city
administration as it affects eligibilities, for example. After further discussion,
Members agreed to tentatively approve this section of the Charter.
h. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) —
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
PUBLIC FORUM (January 7. Iowa Citv Public Librarv. 6:00 P.M.
Chappell stated that they are close to having tentative approval on everything but those topics
being discussed at the January 7 forum. This should help them narrow their work significantly
after the forum. He added that if anyone has something they would like to add to the public
forum agenda, to send him an email regarding this. The Commission will plan to review the
forum and how they plan to proceed with it while at the January 6 meeting. Dilkes noted that
after the forum Members will receive a new red -lined version of the Charter that they can use in
their review. Karr asked if any supplies would be needed for the public forum, such as flip
charts. Members briefly discussed this and the use of them in these small settings. Atkins
asked how they will be expected to participate in this forum, and if they are speaking as
Commission Members or individuals. Chappell further explained what he sees their roles as,
which is to try to get the public to give their opinions on these specific issues. Kubby gave some
examples of how they can try to get people to open up more and give their opinions. Shaw
spoke to the need for them as facilitators in getting the discussion going, but added that he does
not see a lot of back -and -forth taking place.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): Chappell
asked if the meeting time still works for everyone. He stated that he would like to plan on
having the same Tuesday morning meetings through March, at which point they can decide how
to proceed. He added that he believes after the public forum, their work will become more
narrowed and they will have less issues to discuss.
January 6 — to discuss forum agenda
January 7 (FORUM)
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion
carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cn
0
M
M
-4
00
00
m
m
m
0
0
-�
NAME
EXP.
W
W
-4
O
N
N
0
m
W
o
46
00
o
cNn
,A.
.P
ah
-N
A
A
A
ah
-N
A
ah
4pk.
ah
ak
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0
0
N
N
NAME
EXP.
O
N
W
O
a)
O
.1h.
46
o,
o,
4/1/15
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
Schantz
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
Moyers
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
3b(2)
01-20-15
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 6, 2015 — 7:45 A.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(via telephone), Melvin Shaw (arrived 7:47), Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam
Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/23/14 —
Vanderhoef moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Kubby seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0, Shaw absent.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
None.
DISCUSSION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.)
Chappell stated that they need to discuss a few items prior to tomorrow's forum. He suggested
the Commission break into four groups with two Members in each group. This way there is a
Commission Member to guide the discussion and another to take notes during the discussion.
Chappell then spoke to the amount of time spent on each topic, stating that previously (10 years
ago) they did 25 minutes per topic, with four distinct topics. He added that this seems excessive
to him. He would like to plan for 20 minutes per topic and asked what the other Members would
like to do. Vanderhoef asked how well the conversation went during the 25 -minute period last
time and if it tapered off quickly. Chappell stated that he really does not remember too well how
it went, but that the discussion was good and those in attendance appeared to be very
appreciative of being able to offer their opinions. Kubby stated that 20 minutes should be
sufficient and others agreed.
Chappell then spoke to the introduction time, noting that he does not see this taking 15 minutes.
He would like to do a brief introduction as to where the Commission is in the process, what they
have done so far, and where they are headed, and then do an introduction of the first topic.
Kubby stated that it would probably be a good idea to introduce the process once they break
into small groups. Chappell then asked Members how long overall they would like this forum to
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 2
be. With the specific topics they have in mind, they would use up an hour and a half with 20
minutes per topic. Kubby stated that she believes 8:00 P.M. would give them plenty of time and
others agreed. Kubby added that it would be helpful if someone could come around to the
groups when they have approximately five minutes left and let them know that their time is
almost up. She stated that it can be hard to keep track of time when involved in these
discussions. Sullivan stated that he hates to give a set end time, especially if someone comes
to the forum wanting to share their thoughts and things become rushed. Kubby stated that they
could advertise 8:00 P.M. as the end time, but if discussion is still ongoing, they can always
stay. Karr asked if Members want a timeframe for comments put on the meeting agenda.
Chappell and others stated that most people come with the knowledge of having five minutes to
speak.
Dilkes stated that if there is not going to be an actual end time, they really should not put this on
their agenda. She suggested they not put anything if they are going to leave it open to continue.
Members continued to discuss this issue, with Karr noting that if they put 8:00 P.M. and no one
comes after 7:30, they do have to stay until 8:00. Chappell suggested wording to the effect of
`up until 8:00' or something similar. Kubby suggested they state this in the introductory remarks
that they hope to end around 8:00 P.M. After further discussion, Members agreed that there
would be no set ending time and no notation on length of comments on the agenda. Chappell
concluded that Members should be the ones reporting out at the end on each topic.
Chappell then spoke to the 'facilitator tips' that Members received, asking Members if they have
any questions regarding these. He reviewed how they can keep people focused on the specific
topic. There was agreement to have copies of the Charter and press release available for
people to review during the forum. Karr stated that one issue that came up last time was people
wanting to speak on one topic in particular and not being able to stay for the entire session.
She asked if Members are willing to deviate somewhat for this type of situation. Chappell stated
that he is sure Members can work with individuals should this arise.
Shaw asked how they plan to break into pairs for the forum as they have an odd number of
Members. Chappell responded that Schantz will not be able to attend, leaving them with an
even number of Members. He then suggested the pairings of Kubby and Atkins, Moyers -Stone
and Shaw, Sullivan and Vanderhoef, and Craig and Chappell. Chappell added that Members
can decide themselves who will facilitate and who will take notes. He suggested that topics be
introduced, comments then heard, and that then Members try to challenge people's reactions to
see if they can see any downside to possible amendments. Atkins asked if they would be
pushing negative aspects by doing this early on. Chappell stated that his sense is they are just
asking people if they see any, that they are not introducing them into the discussion necessarily.
Shaw asked if their notes from the forum will be typed prior to their next meeting, and Karr
stated that these notes will be typed and become part of the minutes.
Sullivan asked if there will be nametags available. Karr stated that they can have these pre -
made for Commission Members. She asked if they also want temporary ones for the public to
use and Members stated that they would like to have these. Members continued to discuss how
best to take notes during the forum, with Chappell stating that his general sense is that they do
not need to single out people by name for reporting purposes; as much as needing to get the
ideas down that come out of their group.
Members continued to talk about the forum. Questions were also asked about how the
reporting -out process is expected to go. Discussion was also held on room set-up and how this
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 3
is expected to be handled. Members then spoke to group formation and how they want to
handle this aspect. This led to a brief discussion of the availability of tables, and whether they
would be round or rectangular. Karr stated that one issue that may come up is 'what's next' for
the group. She asked if the group is agreeable to the meeting schedule that Chappell
suggested at the last meeting and if another forum is going to be held, adding that the public is
interested in what is happening next. Kubby noted that they had talked about having another
forum after they have a final draft to share.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified):
Chappell spoke to the meeting schedule and the possibility of shooting for the redlined draft and
final public hearing at the end of February. He asked what schedules are like during the spring
break period, and several Members noted they would be absent. Chappell asked if February 17
or 24 would work for the next forum. Members will check their calendars and staff will check
room availability. Atkins will be gone for two weeks starting February 18. Chappell asked that
everyone check their calendars. He also suggested they add an extra meeting on March 3, in
addition to their March 10 and 24 meetings.
January 7 (FORUM)
January 13
January 27
February 10
February 24
March 3
March 10
March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
tJ1
OA
M
-4
CO
00
W
t0
W
O
O
NAME
EXP.
W
w
-4
o
N
N
as
m
w
o
00
o
cn
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
s
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
N
w
O
rn
O
.i1
-N
Cn
Cn
4/1/15
X
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
Schantz
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
Moyers
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission 3b(3)
January 7, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — COMMUNITY FORUM
JANUARY 7, 2015 — 6:00 P.M.
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw,
Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Mark Schantz
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR:
Chair Chappell welcomed everyone to the second public forum on the decennial review of the
City Charter. Chappell invited everyone interested to attend the Commission's regular meeting
held at 7:45 AM twice on a month generally on Tuesdays. Information, including agendas and
minutes, can be found on the Iowa City website. Chappell stated the Commission members
were appointed by the City Council for a one year to review the City Charter and make
recommendations to the Council on any changes. The City Council may accept, reject, or send
the recommendations to the voters.
INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Commission Members introduced themselves.
BREAK OUT INTO SMALL GROUPS
Chappell reviewed the process the forum would take by stating the first part would be breaking
into four groups, with each groups discussing the four target topics (election of mayor; district
representation; initiative and referendum; Council compensation) identified. Each group would
contain two Commission members, one designated to be the recorder and would be reporting
back to the full group, and the second to serve more as a facilitator and keep the conversation
going. Chappell stated the Commission had not formed any recommendations and wanted to
hear more comments. Chappell concluded by saying each group would discuss each of the
four topics for 20 minutes; then the Commission would reconvene and each group "report out"
on each topic to the entire group.
At the conclusion of the reports the Commission would be available to hear from those present
in a more public hearing type of meeting, and anyone with anything to add to the reports and
wishing to discuss something new could do so. Chappell stated they hoped to conclude the
forum around 8:00 P.M.
[The Commission and those present broke into 4 groups]
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 2
REPORTS OF SMALL GROUPS:
Election of Mayor
Group 1
Chappell stated that overall there was a common theme of a desire for change in the City
Council. With respect to changing how the mayor is selected, he noted that there was a lot of
support for making this change. Comments included the feeling that the current system is elitist;
that there is too much in -fighting with the current selection process; that the process is cliquish;
as well as a desire for a stronger mayor. Chappell noted that participants felt that by directly
electing the mayor, it would help to create the perception of there being a better 'connection' to
the public. Other comments regarding direct election of the mayor included things like the
election for the mayor would be more issue -specific; it may help with voter apathy; and may also
be a balance of power for the City Manager. On the other side of this issue, however, Chappell
noted that some believe that making this change really won't help address the issues and
concerns being discussed.
Group 2
Kubby reported that there was an argument over the issue of selection of the mayor from the
seven elected councilors versus a directly elected mayor, and how there is more turnover of
mayor with the current system. With a directly elected mayor, it was noted that there could be
political entrenchment with the office. Kubby noted that the group then began talking about term
limits and that there was disagreement on this, if there is an elected mayor. The discussion in
this group also went to the issue of the Charter remaining the same, but that there be more
transparency in how the mayor is selected from amongst their peers. By putting something in
the Charter to this effect, the group felt it would make the process be more transparent.
Group 3
Sullivan reported that participants were on both sides of the issue, with some believing there is
no need to change the Charter. The comment was made that people may be more engaged
with an elected mayor. He also stated that in his group it was also felt that it is important for the
mayor to build consensus, therefore the council should select the mayor. Another comment
made was that only about 10% of the community actually elects the council members.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone reported her group presented the idea that having an elected mayor may spur
more voter turnout and to have more interest in the election. On the other side, the current
system means the mayor builds consensus among the council. Comments continued in this
group with the idea of having an election for the mayor, after the election for council members.
DISTRICT REPRESENTATION
Group 1
Chappell reported support for a change, noting that people might feel that their vote makes
more of a difference if they were voting for just their district representative. Also it would be less
confusing to explain to others how the system works here. Chappell stated that there was some
support for even more districts than are currently in place, and also the thought that having pure
districts might result in more issues being brought forward for discussion. On the other side of
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 3
this argument, there was the thought that this would not work if changes are made to the mayor
selection process.
Group 3
Sullivan shared his group's comments on the district issue, first being that the two best
candidates may live next door to each other and that there should be no point in eliminating
them for this reason. The confusion of the system was also noted. Another idea is to have all
of the public vote in the primaries so that things are consistent.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone stated that one of the downsides to the district issue is that a candidate may not
necessarily be tied to the district that they represent. Also noted was that the current system
works well. She stated that her group had some discussion about the districts and whether four
districts and three at -large would change the way people perceive the system.
Group 2
Kubby noted that having all the candidates be at -large, and the pros and cons of this type of
arrangement. She stated that the group felt that recruiting candidates was more important, and
not having geography be a restriction for recruiting candidates. On the downside though was
the idea that all of the candidates might come from one area of town, leaving others to feel they
are not represented very well. Kubby noted that some thought there should be more district
representation than at -large, and that some believe the current system dilutes district voices.
Initiative and Referendum
Group 3
Sullivan reported one point raised was that the Charter Preamble itself states that the Iowa City
government belongs to all its citizens, not just to registered voters. Another thought was that
those who are not currently registered are still paying local sales tax, property taxes, etc., in the
community yet can't sign petitions. The group also talked about being open to allowing eligible
electors to sign petitions, as long as the threshold for signatures is increased. Comments were
also made as to the amount of time the Clerk's office must spend comparing petition signatures
to voter registrations.
Group 2
Kubby stated that some felt very strongly that the least someone can do is register to vote in
order to sign a petition that compels the government to act. Others felt just as strongly that
anyone who is eligible to vote and could potentially register by the time of the election, should
be able to petition their government for legislative change or reversal of something that is
already on the books. She stated that as far as the number of signatures required, a few felt it
should not change.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone stated a similar concern about how you would certify each signature. She stated
that some felt the current system works well and is responsive. In favor of changing to 'eligible
electors,' was the idea that it allows people the chance to affect change in city government and
is a way to be heard. In regards to the number of signatures, this group did not come to a
consensus, but the topic was part of their discussion.
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 4
Group 1
Chappell stated there was a lot of support for making the change, with some believing the
current system shows those who are engaged enough that they have registered to vote. Many
believed that there is too much staff time involved in the checking of signatures, and that there
are too many signatures rejected when they shouldn't be.
Council Compensation
Group 2
Kubby noted that her group was not interested in having a 'salary' for council members. Many
felt that compensation should be for community service and not a motivator to run for office.
Discussion also centered on how compensation might open up the demographic to a broader
spectrum of people being candidates for council. Kubby stated that current compensation for
councilors is not quite minimum wage, although it is not meant to be a living wage. She shared
that one of the group's suggestions was to bump up the compensation a little bit, and to keep
this as part of the Charter so the council itself does not have to deal with the matter.
Group 3
Sullivan stated that in his group some were receptive to raising the compensation, but that it
should not be done in the Charter. It was felt that this recommendation could be made outside
of the Charter recommendations. Other comments included how the School Board members
are not compensated, even though their responsibilities are equal to council members'. Another
sentiment was that the idea is to encourage public service, not public servitude.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone added that her group made a lot of the previous comments. She added that the
general feeling was that the current compensation is too low, but that it should not be raised to
the level of a full-time job.
Group 1
Chappell stated that his group had a lot of support for increasing the amount of compensation,
with the thought that more people could afford to run. There was also the thought that this
would give more varied participation from the community. He noted that some felt the councilor
positions should be at least half-time equivalent jobs, while others believe them to be full-time
positions. The question was also raised about how you would guarantee participation by
councilors if there was an increase in compensation, with the concern that the increase may not
bring about good changes.
Group 4 (continued)
Moyers -Stone added that in her group it was noted that if more compensation were given, the
money would have to come from somewhere, and the question then became where would this
come from.
Group 2 (continued)
Kubby stated that her group did not have specific concerns about this issue, as the amount is
not that much.
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 5
OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER:
Chappell then opened up the discussion for further input from participants. He noted that the
Commission plans to have another public hearing once they have a redlined version of the
Charter available for review. This will then give the public a chance to react to the proposed
amendments to the Charter, before the Commission finalizes their report.
Gary Gusen noted that in his group there were two comments about the initiative and
referendum issue that were made. One was that there is a safe -guard against false signatures
to a petition, in that those people won't get to vote on the issue once it is brought to election.
The other point made referred to the requirements in the Charter for a petition and how they are
so much more restrictive and burdensome than the State requirements.
Chappell then reminded everyone present that there is an email address for the Charter Review
Commission should they want to submit their comments in that manner — citycharter(a)-iowa-
city.ora.
Mike Carberry asked how the final recommendation process works, and whether these go
directly to the Council or whether some qualified electors need to work to put these changes on
the ballot. Chappell explained that once the Commission finalizes their report, they will make
their recommendations to the Council. The Council then has the choice of either adopting these
recommendations or putting them to a vote. Carberry then asked if the Council has to accept
the recommendations as a whole or if they can line -item veto some of it. Kubby explained that it
is not an all or nothing process, that Council can decide which to adopt and which to send to
ballot.
Caroline Dieterle read from her prepared statement, noting that one point she would like to
make is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and that it is necessary for citizens to
occasionally question authority. She added that those who are elected are regular people just
like everyone else, and that sometimes the citizens have to lead so that the leaders will follow.
She gave the example of the red-light cameras. She noted that less than two years after this
effort, people are finding out that red-light cameras are nothing but a money -making scheme.
Sullivan moved to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef seconded the motion.
(Correspondence from: Jay Honohan; Tim Weitzel; David Clark; Vanessa Ryan; Caroline
Dieterle; Martha Hampel; Harry Olmstead) The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent.
Bob Welsh then spoke, thanking the Commission Members for their time and consideration.
Secondly, he asked that they consider what would most empower the citizens of Iowa City as
they go through their process. He stated that he believes this would bring about a vitality that is
needed.
Martha Hampel read from her prepared statement. In reference to Commission comments at
previous meetings, she stated that making the assumption that someone who is not registered
to vote does not read the paper or keep themselves informed is ridiculous. Hampel also spoke
to the process of checking petition signatures and how many end up being denied when
addresses don't match, for example. Hampel continued to read from her statement, noting
some of the comments made by a Commission Member at a recent meeting. She stated that
no one needs to be a registered voter to address the city council, nor to be a part of public
forums such as this one. She also reiterated what the Iowa Code is for signing a petition,
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 6
questioning why Iowa City's Charter holds this to a higher standard. Hampel asked that the
Commission consider removing the qualified elector requirement for those signing initiative and
referendum petitions.
Aleksey Gurtovoy stated that he spoke at the previous public forum on the issue of `eligible'
versus 'qualified', and what the minimum number of signatures might be under this new
scenario. He added that he believes the 2,500 number is arbitrary to begin with and he gave
some examples of why he says this; he noted petitions that would change the City Code versus
those that would change the City Charter; explained how they have two petition processes
currently, with one conforming to the Iowa code. Petitions to change the City Code come under
Home Rule. He continued, giving some examples for the arguments being made.
Eli Shepherd stated that he just wanted to second some of the comments previously made, one
being that when the Commission is considering its recommendations that they consider what
would most empower the citizens of Iowa City. He also stated that he wanted to second what
Harry Olmstead emailed to the Commission, that there needs to be more community outreach
on this process as many people are unable to attend such public forums. Shepherd then stated
that in reference to council compensation, he would be in support of anything that would make
the positions more accessible to lower-income citizens.
UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE:
January 13
January 27
February 10
February 24
March 3
March 10
March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Chappell adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M.
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4
ah
cn
cn
w
a)
-4
o0
0o
m
W
m
o
o
NAME
EXP.
oo
w
-4
o
a
N
N
o)
co
w
o
o0
o
cn
.p
ah
ah
.p
A
ah
4ph.
ah
46
A
A
ah
ah
a.
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
N
w
O
a)
O
M
Cn
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
O/
Schantz
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Moyers
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/16
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
h
4
[OVAIA C[TY 3b(4)
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 12, 2015
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Historic Preservation Commission
Re: Recommendations from Historic Preservation Commission
At their January 9, 2015 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission approved the December
11 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
By a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wager absent) the Historic Preservation Commission
recommends approval of the designation of 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street as
Iowa City historic landmarks. (become effective only after separate Council action)
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 11, 2014
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kate Corcoran,
Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie
Swaim
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore, Frank Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Carol Adderley, Eva Adderley, Jan Alan, Phil Beck, Nancy
Carlson, Michael Chamberlan, Janice Frey, Susan Hultman,
William R. Ingalls, Dick Kruse, Steven Marsden, Kelsey Pacha,
Ted Pacha, Joseph Pettit, Alicia Trimble
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wager absent) the Historic
Preservation Commission recommends approval of the designation of 608, 610, and 614 South
Dubuque Street as Iowa City historic landmarks. (become effective only after separate Council
action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Carlson thanked everyone who put in time and effort to the cottages on South Dubuque Street.
She said that at the City Council meeting on Tuesday morning, one of the issues raised was
that they did not like that fact that this was an eleventh hour type of thing. Carlson said the City
Council would have liked to have this move along in more normal channels.
Carlson said she wanted to discuss the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District and the Civic
District. She said the City has started plans for these two districts, and there was a meeting
held on October 30 to discuss this.
Carlson said the Unitarian Church is in the Civic District. She said they are asking questions
about increasing the density and what should be done with these two areas. Carlson said her
concern is that, given the fact that the City is looking for fifteen million dollars because of a
shortfall of property taxes, they are looking for every place possible to increase density and
increase funds for property taxes.
Carlson said she did not know how many people are aware of the two potential districts and the
older buildings that could be in there. She said that she copied off three of the maps and
questionnaires to distribute to make people aware of the fact that unfortunately, although the
Commission's plate is already full, there are other matters that could be coming up, and we
could end up losing other buildings.
Carlson asked how much of Iowa City, especially the older part, will be sacrificed to "save" Iowa
City.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 2 of 19
PUBLIC HEARING ON HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS FOR 608, 610 AND 614
SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET.
Swaim said that there would first be a staff report by Miklo and then the applicant, Friends of
Historic Preservation, represented by Executive Director Alicia Trimble, would speak. She said
that the owner of the properties would speak after that, and then the hearing is open to any
member of the public. Swaim said that once everyone who wants to has spoken, then everyone
will be given a chance to speak again.
Miklo said that the applicant is Friends of Historic Preservation, which has requested that the
three buildings at 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street be designated as Iowa City
landmarks. Miklo said that designation of properties as landmarks will require Historic
Preservation Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the buildings.
He said that landmark status also makes properties eligible for transfer of development rights
according to the Riverfront Crossings Code and also for special exceptions that would allow
waiver by the Board of Adjustment of certain zoning requirements.
Miklo said that the Iowa Site Inventory form prepared by Friends of Historic Preservation in the
Commission's packet has detail about the history of the buildings. He said that to qualify for
designation as landmarks, the subject properties must meet criteria A and B as spelled out in
the zoning code and one of the additional four criteria in the code.
Miklo said the Commission must find that the buildings are: A. significant to American and/or
Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. He said the Commission must also
find that B. the buildings possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and
workmanship. Miklo said that if the Commission finds that the properties meet these two
criteria, then it must find that they meet one of the other four remaining in the list. Miklo showed
photographs of the buildings and said he would be available to answer any questions.
Swaim said there are many aspects to this process, but the role of the Historic Preservation
Commission is to decide whether the cottages are historically significant in that they meet the
criteria as outlined. She said the Commission's role is therefore very precise.
Trimble introduced herself as the Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation. She
asked that 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street receive local landmark presentation.
Trimble said her presentation will be short, because the property owner needs to leave by 7
p.m., but she would be glad to come back for questions or to provide more details at any point.
Trimble stated that the Historic Preservation Commission, along with Friends of Historic
Preservation, has been working for several years to have the near North Side, now called
Riverfront Crossings, surveyed. She said the survey for that area finally starts next week.
Trimble said the Commission's recommendations given for the Riverfront Crossings plan make
saving the cottages, Tait Arms, and Sabin School goals for Iowa City.
Trimble said that ideally, the landmark application for 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street
would have been submitted to the Commission probably more than a year from now after the
survey's completion. She said, however, that extraordinary circumstances have made that
impossible.
Trimble stated that, having been on the Historic Preservation Commission herself, she knows
that the Commission's job is to decide if these cottages meet the qualifications to be local
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 3 of 19
historic landmarks, and they do. She said that as one can see by the slide, they meet the
minimum criteria listed, and they may have more information to yield in the future, just as Plum
Grove has through archaeology and more research.
Trimble said the cottages are an intact story of our history and are associated with important
pioneers, as well as many people who built Iowa City on their backs and with their own sweat
that are no less important but are less known. They are our story.
Trimble showed an 1868 birds -eye map showing the block pulled out. She said we know from
the bird's-eye map that a lot of the time the buildings are so tiny the details are not right, but it
does show if a building is there, and that is known to be pretty accurate. Trimble said that on
this block at that time one can see three buildings that are facing forward and a longer one. She
said the longer one is probably where Racquet Master is now and was probably an 1850s store
originally.
Trimble said there are three buildings to the left of that on the map, and right now there are five
buildings to the left. She said that could mean that the three cottages were there or that the two
houses were there and 608, which is most likely the earliest cottage, or some combination in
between, but it is known that these cottages are at least that old. Trimble said that
unfortunately, because these cottages were built for working-class people, possibly as rentals,
there is not a lot of data.
Trimble said these cottages are most likely associated with Charles H. Berryhill. She said he
came to Iowa City in 1838, a year before Chauncey Swan even plotted Iowa City. Trimble said
Berryhill is credited with giving Iowa City its original shape, adding on to what Swan had plotted.
She said that Berryhill was a merchant and owned the first dry goods store in Iowa City.
Trimble said Berryhill was a merchant, farmer, land speculator, alderman, as well as being one
of the most prominent members of Iowa City at that time.
Trimble said that William and Catherine Watkins lived here in 1872. Trimble said that William
Watkins was brought in as the pastor of the Welsh Congregational Church at Old Man's Creek,
and there are a number of references to Catherine just being a loving and kind woman. She
said that they had ten children. Although She said this shows the important roles the different
families have played.
Regarding the integrity of the cottages, Trimble said that in this case, the cottages are in their
original location and have their important, original context near the historic railroad line. She
said that a lot of the buildings in that area are from that time, although they have been altered.
Trimble said the buildings also have integrity of materials. She said the cottages are composed
of handmade brick and mortar. Trimble said the workmanship was obviously local with eclectic
features and shows interesting features such as a potato shelf in 608 and kind of a crookedly
built chimney in 614. She said that part of what makes these cottages so unique is that a
resident of our city did this work, which really is a testament to the people who built the city.
Regarding important patterns of history, Trimble said this obviously is associated with the Iowa
City Railroad District. She said that two things really made the city after the legislature left Iowa
City: one was the University and the other was the railroad. Trimble said the railroad came in on
December 31, 1855, and within a few years, Iowa City's population doubled. She said this was
the end of the line, and as part of this, a neighborhood arose around the railroad tracks and
continued to expand for the next couple of decades.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 4 of 19
Trimble said the people who worked in this neighborhood were always working class, often
immigrants, sometimes minorities and often poor. She said that most of these people would
never have had the means or the right to live north of Burlington Street, and because of that, we
tend to forget them in our history. Trimble said we have tended to raze their properties and not
recognize the important contributions they have made to the city.
With regard to modern history, Trimble stated that the middle cottage, 610, is associated with
the Actualist Poetry Movement. She said there were poetry readings and brainstorming here,
and the movement spread from coast to coast. Trimble said that having that movement start in
Iowa City is one of the reasons it has a UNESCO City of Literature designation.
Trimble said that the job of the Commission members is simple — to simply decide if 608, 610,
and 614 Dubuque Street meet the criteria to be designated as local landmarks. She stated that
those in the local preservation community know and have been working toward a survey here,
specifically because of these cottages and other buildings in this area. Trimble said she hoped
the Commission would take that into consideration when voting. In response to a question,
Trimble said that the OSA is expected to complete the survey of the area this next spring.
Ted Pacha said he would abdicate his time to his son but said he was surprised to see the use
of the term of architecturally significant on the board. He said that when the developer offered
to put the three facades of those buildings on three retail spaces in the proposed plan, he was
told that they were not architecturally significant.
Kelsey Pacha said he is the oldest son of Ted Pacha, the property owner. He said he wanted to
offer a perspective that has not been heard regarding these old buildings on Dubuque Street.
Pacha said he grew up in Iowa City and lived here as recently as 2012. He said he has seen
many changes as a result of development and rezoning in Iowa City, not all of which he agreed
with, and was at the meeting to comment on some of the claims made in the Friends of Historic
Preservation application to declare these three buildings as historic landmarks and also to
comment briefly on the process.
Kelsey Pacha said that on page seven of the application, the author claims that the Actualist
Poetry Movement is the only literary movement to have its roots in North America. Pacha said
our own Prairie Lights Bookstore is named for San Francisco's City Lights Bookstore, which is
where the first beatnik poetry was published, although the movement began in New York. He
said this is an error that no one has questioned that was also in the original form of the petition
that was disseminated to supporters of historic preservation.
Kelsey Pacha said there are also multiple spelling and grammar errors, which he assumes were
the result of hurried writing. He said he had a list of examples. Pacha said it is not his intention
to nitpick but to bring attention to how haphazard the information being presented is. He said if
such a sweeping, erroneous claim about the only literary movement with roots in North America
can be made without question, what other claims by Friends of Historic Preservation are simply
wrong, whether to inflate the buildings' importance or because these reports are being thrown
together at the last minute.
Kelsey Pacha said that much of the information about the earliest owners and apparent
occupants is based on census material, which, as the applicant states, gives very little
information about the purpose the buildings actually served. He added that in the case of Jacob
Beard's wife, it gives contradictory information about her name. Pacha said that the information
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 5 of 19
about property owner Charles Berryhill, who, it states, "...certainly did not live in the
buildings...," does not seem relevant to those who did live there.
Kelsey Pacha said that most of what is presented under the early settlers heading is speculative
and tells us more about who owned the land and whatever buildings might have been there at
the time, as the application acknowledges that there are no documents that explicitly state when
these so-called cottages were erected. He said the report though states that the families who
owned and lived in the buildings were some of the wealthiest in Iowa City at the time of the
settlement but also states that they are "...some of the last remaining intact representations of
working class Iowa Citians at the time of this early railroad district." He asked which then is it —
wealthy families or working class citizens. Pacha said the infamous Mormon Trek is also
mentioned, without any proof of a relationship to the Mormon Trek.
Kelsey Pacha stated that he is not saying that these buildings are or are not historically
significant; he is just saying that, as a reader, there are many holes. He said that because
Trimble did not work with the property owner, she did not have access to the State plat book
that the owner is in possession of, which could offer additional information or insight.
Kelsey Pacha said that, as he understands it, it is highly unusual for someone who is not
working with the property owner to apply for any kind of historic landmark status. He said it
seems that an assumption was made that the owner would not have welcomed it, when in fact,
he would have been glad to help any time in the past 18 years before he recently decided to sell
the property.
Kelsey Pacha said the owner has been a steward of these buildings to the best of his ability, but
he has been told by a certified structural engineer that they are dangerous, which is another,
rather important fact that is not even mentioned in the application. He referred to the integrity
section on page five, which states that the integrity of the cottages is intact. Pacha said he
understands that speaks to the historic integrity, but the structural integrity should also be a
concern. He said the application clearly does not take into account the information provided by
VJ Engineering, which is vital to anyone who steps inside.
Kelsey Pacha said that, speaking strictly as a citizen and a community organizer in his own
right, he wanted to make a few comments on how this process, initiated by Friends of Historic
Preservation, has happened. He said that no one had ever approached his father in the past 18
years with interest in collaborating on preservation of these buildings. Pacha said that is
ultimately because this is not simply about these buildings. He said this whole fight is a
repository for all the anger and resentment about other rezoning and development around Iowa
City.
Kelsey Pacha said that the story for these organizers was already written as soon as they saw
this rezoning request, which was less than a month ago. He said, "Heartless landlord who
doesn't care about history looks to get big money from large developer." Pacha said this is why
they jumped on getting in touch with the media immediately, effectively controlling the
conversation and why they jumped on creating online petitions that were later presented to the
City Council.
Kelsey Pacha said that he has been a community organizer and an advocate for people with
disabilities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for about ten years. He
said that in that time, he has organized protests, gone to City Council meetings, and both written
and signed petitions like the one Nialee Sylvan created on change.org. Pacha said that,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 6 of 19
speaking from the perspective of one who has witnessed the negative effects of gentrification in
both the Chicago and San Francisco Bay areas, if he only had the information presented to him
via the petition or the previous new articles, he undoubtedly would have signed it. He said that
not only were there glaring inaccuracies, as mentioned before, but the title and language were
changed shortly before it was sent to the City Council. Pacha said this is relevant in terms of the
amount of public support that is perceived about the historic preservation process.
Kelsey Pacha said that originally this petition's title was "Declare 608, 610, and 614 Dubuque
Street Public Landmarks" as of 11 a.m. on December 2. He said that then, around 1:45 p.m.
Nialle Sylvan wrote an update entitled, "What We Need to Ask for the City Council to Set a
Public Hearing." Pacha said the update explained, probably because they got more information
on the process than what the City Council needed to hear rather than just a desire to save the
old buildings, was that people specifically wanted a public hearing to occur. Pacha said that she
(Sylvan) states at the end of the update, "I am revising the petition accordingly."
Kelsey Pacha said that with the internet, this is as easy as copy and pasting. He said that if this
were a paper petition, the organizers could not simply cross out the original wording of what
they were asking for and asking people to sign for and present those signatures to City Council,
which were signed for a different purpose. Kelsey Pacha said that at least they could not do this
in good faith. He said it is just one example among many of intentional manipulation by the
organizing groups to foment public outcry against allowing the owner to do what he wishes with
the property and to present an as of yet unverified version of the cottages' history in the body of
the petition.
Kelsey Pacha said that if he has learned anything from his organizing work, it is that it is always
best to attempt to engage in dialogue with the person who you view as your adversary. He said
it is very easy to create an us and them mentality before ever talking to a person and to have
unfounded assumptions about their motivations and their character.
Kelsey Pacha said that a question he has struggled with through this entire process has been, if
Friends of Historic Preservation believes that the buildings are structurally sound and believes
they are historically significant, why would they not go about the process the right way — the
prescribed way. He asked why they would not jointly look at the buildings with the property
owner, as was agreed upon in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Pacha asked
why they would not collaborate and share information to apply for preservation before the
property owner wanted to sell.
Kelsey Pacha said it is not as if Friends of Historic Preservation tried and failed to work with his
father; they never even attempted it. He said that in their fervor to stop further development in
Iowa City, which is something he understands, Friends of Historic Preservation has done only
surface level research in barely three weeks' time and made dubious claims to the public about
these buildings, both without collaborating with the owner and with no accountability for the
outcome.
Kelsey Pacha said that a vote for preservation is a vote for this last-minute process; it endorses
it; it is a process without integrity. He asked if the Commission wants to reward that kind of
divisiveness, especially when the claims being made are based on limited information. Pacha
encouraged those who care about older buildings in Iowa City to do something while there is still
time to do it respectfully with those owners and to not use such underhanded means to get what
they want.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 7 of 19
Ted Pacha thanked the Commission members for their time and said that he and his son had to
leave the meeting for another commitment.
Pettit said he has been a resident here for 23 years. He stated that Kelsey Pacha said that over
the past 18 years, Friends of Historic Preservation or other groups did not make any effort to try
to preserve the cottages. Pettit said he does not exactly know the circumstances, but he might
be able to indicate why this is so last minute.
Pettit said he first learned two years ago that these cottages had an historic place in the railroad
district. He said he was told that they were stops for the pony express if his memory is correct.
Pettit said now that the rezoning and demolition applications have arisen, it has struck home
that these places were not as permanent as he thought they were, and they are now suddenly
threatened, although he had no idea that this was coming.
Pettit said that the Pachas mentioned that the structures are, according to VJ Engineering, in a
state of disrepair and could be under threat of collapsing. Pettit asked, if the process for historic
preservation designation were to continue, how would any repairs or bracing be carried out — if it
would be on the part of the property owner, the current tenants, the City, or another entity.
Swaim said it would be the property owner's responsibility.
Pettit asked if the local landmark designation would mean that Ted Pacha would still be able to
own these properties, although without the ability to demolish them. Swaim said that if they are
landmarks he would need to apply for demolition permits which would then be reviewed by this
Commission. She said the Commission's decision regarding whether to approve the demolition
permit would be based on two things. Swaim said the first would be if the buildings could not be
repaired - if they were deteriorated beyond repair. She said the second would be what kind of
replacement buildings would be proposed, if they would be sympathetic to the buildings that had
been torn down in terms of mass, setback, size, and such.
Alan said she lives in Iowa City. She said she considers this district to be a shopping
destination, as do many of her friends. Alan said the one thing that makes it cute are those little
houses.
Alan said that in her own community organization business, she saw other communities that
were destroyed by the City and watched businesses flounder and people become homeless.
She said it is awful to take away a whole community. Alan said that if these businesses go, the
whole community will go, and she would hate to see that.
Alan stated that the other point is that, especially with all the publicity, this area is increasing in
price, and it will continue to increase in price. She said that if a developer wants to come in 20
years from now, the owner will get a lot more money for it.
Marsden said he has been a visitor and shopper at Jim's Bookshop. He said he was also briefly
an employee at the neighboring store, the current bookshop.
Marsden said he wanted to express his appreciation for the presentation made by Friends of
Historic Preservation. He said that, despite whatever shortcomings have been pointed out, it
was a remarkable explanation that was put together in a very short time.
Marsden said the Actualist Movement had many readings there and many events at Jim's
Bookshop. He said that Jim's Bookstore was not the only bookstore that was there. Marsden
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 8 of 19
said that it was preceded by Alan Doney's bookshop, which is somewhat continuous in terms of
the cultural developments that led to the Actualist Movement. He said that Doney's bookshop
was also an important cultural center in Iowa City.
Marsden said that is not the only influence. He said it is a physical manifestation of its heritage,
but it was also an important cultural center preceding, developing, and contributing to the
movement that became the actualist movement.
Marsden said there was another owner in between Jim Mulach and Ben Biber. Marsden said
he did not know much about that, but Ben Biber had a bookshop there called the Free Culture
Co-op. Marsden said the events there might not have been as important on a national scale as
the Actualist Movement, but it was very significant historically in terms of the local literary and
especially the local alternative music scene.
Marsden said that the history of the area is not just about Jim's Bookshop, as important as it
was, but there was a cultural continuum before and after Jim's proprietorship.
Beck said he is a long-time resident of Iowa City. Regarding the issue of timing, he said that the
last minute nature of this has been questioned. Beck said he is sure there are a lot of
circumstances to explain why things are happening now instead of earlier, but his question is
whether that is really relevant or pertinent. He asked if it really matters if it was done 18 years
ago, 18 months ago, or 18 days ago.
Beck said he is not really familiar with the process of applying for landmark status. He asked if
the rules have been followed, however last minute they are. Beck asked if anything has not
been done that should have been done that would render the process of application invalid.
Beck said he has not heard or read anything about whether doing this late in the game
invalidates the process. He said it is obviously unfortunate and is very apparent that the
Pachas' feelings have been hurt. Beck said it is unfortunate but asked if again it is pertinent or
relevant.
Beck said it seems to him that the Commission's task is to try to separate out the emotional and
the procedural things and decide upon the procedural. He said that if procedures have been
followed, that is what is most relevant. Beck said he did not think the fact that Trimble had
some grammatical mistakes and even some factual errors is all that pertinent. He said that as
Trimble pointed out, the history of these cottages is not documented in great detail.
Beck said there are gaps in the history. He said that anyone who has done any historical
research knows that when one goes back to a pervious century, one deals with spotty records
and things like that. Beck said he thinks that enough evidence has been presented showing
that these cottages have historical import in the history of Iowa City. He said that whether or not
some of the actual details or names were nailed down, these cottages are part of history and
are associated with certain people.
Swaim confirmed that all of the procedures have been properly followed. She said that the
Comprehensive Plan (Near Southside Redevelopment Plan) of 1992 already spelled out that
this area needed to be examined and that those three cottages needed to be looked at as sites
to be protected. Swaim said those are things that should be done. She stated that what slows
processes down are things like lack of staff, lack of money or funding, paying for consultants to
do the work, lack of volunteers, etc.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 9 of 19
Swaim said there is also the fact that the flood and its effect on the Music Building created this
snowball effect on other buildings. She said that part of the overriding FEMA mitigation process
involved the Commission's suggesting that a survey be done of that entire area. Swaim said
that FEMA has a process. She said that also delayed the survey. Swaim said that as part of
the process, a large survey of the area would occur and then individual properties are identified
as worth more examination and perhaps protection.
Swaim said that the surveys are a long process, funded in various ways. She said that
preservation efforts are often eleventh hour, because demolition permits are learned about at
the eleventh hour. Beck said that confirms his support for landmark status.
Frey said she has been a resident of Iowa City for over 30 years. She said she is not very
familiar with this process, but she thinks that the lack of public comment is really a shame for
this. Frey said that what we're learning now by people coming forward and making comments
has enriched the knowledge of what these cottages meant.
Frey said she thinks there is something to be said by preventing the demolition of these
buildings, because once they're gone, they're gone, and there is no issue any more. She said
that opening it up and having a public meeting would perhaps bring forth many more stories
about these buildings.
Ingalls said he lives at 608 South Dubuque Street and pointed out the property on the map. He
thanked everyone who had spoken, because there is so much valuable information to consider.
Ingalls said that Swaim did a fine job of explaining that many times, when a pursuit of historical
status is sought, it is because a demolition notice has been applied for. He said he has been
the caretaker/property manager of the entire block since 1986, ten years before Ted Pacha
owned the properties. He said that this has just come up as recently as three or four weeks
ago.
Ingalls said it was sort of a planned assault on the Building Inspection Service Department and
everyone else involved. He said the military term for this is rapid dominance. Ingalls said they
had been talking with some of the City Council members early on. He said he was told by Ted
Pacha as recently as three weeks ago to go from property to property on the block and assure
people that nothing was going to happen, there were no plans afoot to change anything, and
that all leases would be honored until the end of the lease terms.
Ingalls said he has tried to buy his place many times, and Ted Pacha told him he thought they
had to be sold as a unit but to rest assured that if they come up for sale, Ingalls would get the
property, because he had asked about it a million times. Ingalls said that Ted Pacha told him
that he could not do anything with the properties if he wanted to, because they are designated
to be preserved.
Ingalls said that all of this came at the last minute, and the way Trimble was treated by the City
Council, saying that the right process had not been followed, still bothers him. He said that
Trimble's research and report have been exemplary. Ingalls said the report brings to light a lot
of things he didn't know.
Ingalls said he does know some things about all three of the buildings, because in 1986, Doug
Boothroy was not sure that he should be living and working out of 608 South Dubuque Street
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 10 of 19
because of commercial zoning. Ingalls said that he told Boothroy that people had been working
and living there forever as far as he knew, and Boothroy told him he would have to prove that.
Ingalls said that the property owner at that time was Freda Hieronymus. Ingalls said that
Hieronymus objected to being told what she could and could not do with the property, so
between the two of them, they put together a roster of tenancy dating back to 1855 of all three
cottages.
Ingalls said that Trimble mentioned most of what he found out, because he does not have
documentation. Ingalls said that what he does have is common knowledge from former postal
carriers and older people in the neighborhood and people who would stop in and give him
information.
Ingalls said that the research shows that the cottages served briefly as that era's versions of
bed and breakfasts. He said that railroad workers lived there, and they were stagecoach
layover stations for a while. Ingalls stated that he has heard again and again that they were
pony express depots.
Ingalls said he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have about the
properties.
Chamberlan said he owns the Broken Spoke, which is located two properties to the left of
Ingalls, right on the corner at 602 South Dubuque Street. He said he wanted to confirm what
Ingalls had said about Ted Pacha's comments, telling people when the property was being
rezoned for the form -based zoning that no one needed to worry about anything and that this is
just to comply with the new standards of form -based zoning. Chamberlan said he has talked
with other business owners on the same block who have also said that Ted Pacha had told
them the same thing.
Regarding the rushed process, Chamberlan said there is a little insight to how this could easily
become rushed. He said that on the one hand, there is no implication that anything is going to
happen for a while, especially if, the survey took place in the spring, there would be no reason
to expect why it would have to happen soon, if everyone had leases and there was also
consideration in the master plan for these cottages. Chamberlan said that of course when there
is a demolition notice in place, then that speeds things up and sends things into emergency
mode.
Hultman said she owns Suzy's Antiques and Gifts at 610 South Dubuque Street. She said she
was born in Iowa City and has throughout the years seen multiple older structures, both homes
and businesses, torn down in this town, and she thinks it is a travesty.
Hultman said that these three cottages and actually the whole block are jewels in the Riverfront
Crossings District. She said that if this block is torn out for more student high-rise buildings, the
uniqueness of this railroad district here loses so much. Hultman said there are very few if any
places left here in Iowa City like this block. She said it is very important to preserve these
cottages.
Eva Adderley said she is 24 and grew up in Iowa City and has lived here her entire life. She
said she remembers seeing the cottages when she was young and being captivated by them as
beautiful diplomats of days gone by.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 11 of 19
Eva Adderley said that it was later that she learned about their historic significance, and she
thinks this is actually a more important part of our history than a lot of what gets preserved,
because there are other buildings in Iowa City that are really beautiful buildings that have been
preserved, as they should be, but it is mostly the buildings where the wealthiest and most
prominent citizens have lived, and that is almost no one's history.
Eva Adderley said the cottages are the places where the people who built Iowa City with their
own hands, sweat, diligence, inspiration, and bravery lived and worked. She said that some of
the first businesses owned by women were there. Adderley stated that when one talks about
preservation, one cannot just talk about duty to the past, because a lot of it is about the duty to
the future. She said it is a choice between preserving a really important part of our identity and
letting a little bit of magic die.
Carol Adderley, said that the Eva Adderley, the woman who just spoke is her daughter.
She said she and her daughter are third and fourth generation Iowa City residents. Carol
Adderley said that the first person in her family who came to Iowa City was Esther Anderson.
She said Anderson came because she was from a poor family but she worked for a lawyer who
told her she should be a lawyer. Adderley said that Anderson came here because it was one of
the few places where a woman could even train with the hope of becoming a lawyer.
Carol Adderley said that is part of Iowa City's history. She said that when Anderson was here,
she did not stay in a fancy place. Adderley said this is an artifact that we can't get back if it
goes.
Carol Adderley said that if one walks inside these places, the cottages may be small but they
feel so good. She said they are well built. Adderley said that she owns the old Shimek School
and feels pleasure every time she walks in the building.
Carol Adderley said she is on the board of her family's company and understands the issues
involved in making decisions and the need for speed. She said that she knows, speaking from
experience, how much one needs good information. Adderley said one needs good information
and enough time to work through the process. She added that we cannot get this back if the
buildings are torn down; they are not replaceable.
Carol Adderley said this is so very much a part of so many more people who have built Iowa
City and have made it what it has been. She said it is very forward looking. Adderley said one
of the most well-known buildings in Iowa City is probably J. Schaeffer's tumbleweed, which has
been featured as a small house in publications. She said that these cottages are a historic form
of small houses.
Ingalls said that he was at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting a few weeks ago
when he first heard Hodge Construction's engineer's inspection report about these buildings.
He said that so much of what was being brought up was misrepresentation, exaggeration, and
in some cases, not the truth. Regarding his home, Ingalls said the report stated that books
should never have been allowed in there, because the floor is totally unsupported. He said the
inspector missed a 40 -foot beam that runs under the floor from front to back and is supported by
seven jack posts. Ingalls added that the inspector also missed the two by ten pillars on the end
of each floor joist that runs all the way to the foundation. Ingalls said that to say that the floor is
unsupported is just an example of many of the misstatements made in the initial report.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 12 of 19
Ingalls said that Trimble raised enough money for a second structural report that completely
refuted the first one. He said that if structural issues are a consideration when the Commission
makes its decision, he agrees that the buildings could use some tuck pointing in places. Ingalls
said there is not much that needs to be done to the Suzy's Antiques building and not much
needs to be done to the Kung Fu building. He said it would be a weekend's work to do most of
the tuck pointing. Ingalls said there is a little bit of woodwork to be done structurally, and the
rest is basically cosmetic.
Swaim asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There was no one. Swaim closed
the public hearing.
Swaim reminded Commission members that, to determine the buildings are significant, they
must meet criteria A and B as set out in the staff memo and one or more of criteria C through F.
She said that although there are many aspects to this, the Commission's role is to look at this
part of it.
Baker asked Commission members if they feel that criteria A and B have been met.
Corcoran said she feels it is important that the Commission members all give some sense of
how they feel about this so that when the Commission votes, the context for the decision is
evident. She said she is very persuaded by the application and would be in favor of moving this
forward. Corcoran said that personally, she does not feel there is anything haphazard or last
minute but thinks that all of what has happened was necessary because of the fact that the
owner received a declaration of nuisance from the City, and to abate that nuisance, the
resolution was to demolish the buildings. Corcoran said that is what has forced all of this to be
on such a short timeline. She said she is very persuaded by the fact that 22 years ago, the
Planning Committee and the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan of 1992 that
specifically called out these properties as important and meriting protection. This in not just a
last minute recognition of the importance of these buildings to our community.
Corcoran said she would vote to approve this. She said she feels that the three properties at
608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street meet the historic landmark requirements, namely:
they are significant to American and Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology, and culture;
and criterion B, they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship.
The consensus of the Commission was that the properties meet criteria A and B.
Corcoran said she feels the cottages meet criterion C, because they are associated with events
that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. She said that she
grew up in Iowa City and remembers these buildings from when she was young and remembers
riding the train and the little businesses that were there. Corcoran said this is a very interesting
part of Iowa City, especially because it is old and so much of it has been taken down, especially
on the other side (south) of the railroad tracks. She said she trusts that the historical research
of Friends of Historic Preservation is true in that no one has presented evidence that these
buildings do not date to the mid 19`h century. Corcoran said they housed workers and people
of different backgrounds and different trades.
Corcoran said the buildings are very architecturally unusual. She said they are part of a whole
area there where the railroad, pony express, etc. contributed to the communication that Iowa
City was having with towns throughout the country.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 13 of 19
Swaim said she thinks those contributions brought patterns, including the railroad and working
class housing in that neighborhood and the city's growth in just a few years after the railroad
came in, and the information about the Actualist Movement. She said she does not know if there
is any documentation that the pony express had any connection with that, so until that is
documented, she did not think it should be part of the public record. Swaim said she definitely
agrees that the properties meet criterion C.
Durham said he was persuaded about the inclusive definition of or persons significant in our
past and information about the working class associated these buildings.
Michaud said she has been in Iowa City for 42 years and remembers Jim's and Alan Doney's
bookstores and was aware of very strong literary movements. Michaud said that she owned a
used and rare bookstore and therefore had reason to deal with other bookstore owners. She
said that before 1992 when Will Ingalls started operating his bookstore there, he made
extensive fortifications and replaced almost all the joists and multiple jacks and things like that.
Agran said the comments about significance are very relevant. He said that if there were many
more of these buildings left in the city, then maybe the way this is written and phrased might
encourage one to not save buildings like this. Agran said, however, that the fact that there are
so few and maybe only these left, in terms of representing a whole portion of the makeup of the
city in the past, makes these significant. He said he agrees that these meet criterion C and said
that very good cases could also be made for D, E, and F; although only one of the C through F
criteria needs to be met.
Michaud recalled the sorrow over the loss of the Czech Village because of the flooding and all
of the small houses that were basically worker cottages in Cedar Rapids. She said that one
cannot control the weather, but we can control human intervention. Michaud said that to quibble
about some deteriorating red brick is a sad way to attack these buildings. She stated that much
more comprehensive documentation is done on their strengths than on their weaknesses.
Corcoran said it sounds like we agree on the application of criteria A, B, C and D. She asked
about E: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values (she did not know about that...) or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction. Swaim said that she was not very convinced about that one and did not see it as
one of the more convincing criteria.
Regarding criterion F, Durham said we did not have the basis to find for criterion F.
MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the
Friends of Historic Preservation application for designation of 608, 610, and 614 South
Dubuque Street as Iowa City historic landmarks for the following reasons: these three
properties meet the historic landmark approval requirements, mainly criterion A — they
are significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology, culture
and criterion B — they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and
workmanship; and they also meet two of the other approval criteria, specifically criterion
C — the three properties are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history and criterion D — they are associated
with the lives of persons significant in our past. Linton seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 14 of 19
Swaim said this application now goes on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its
consideration and then would go on to the City Council.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
30 North Clinton.
Miklo said this property is an Iowa City historic landmark and is also located in the Jefferson
Street Historic District. He showed its location at the intersection of Jefferson and Clinton
Streets. Miklo showed the main building, the Congregation Church, which is the landmark
building. He said that an addition was made to the church sometime in the 1950s, and that is
the subject of the application.
Miklo said the proposal is to replace all of the windows in the addition. He stated that the
guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards call for preservation of historic windows
where possible. Miklo said that where windows are in deteriorated condition, then replacement
with like windows is appropriate. Miklo said the guidelines do have exceptions for buildings that
are under the Commission's jurisdiction but are not historic or are non-contributing. He said that
even though this is attached to the historic building, he believes that is the case here.
Miklo said that he inspected the windows with members of the church's building committee and
found them to be in deteriorating condition. He showed a close-up example of one of the
windows that, even when it was fully closed, had a gap of at least a quarter of an inch. Miklo
said this condition was common to many of the windows.
Miklo stated that if these were wooden sashes, that would be repairable. He said these
windows have aluminum frames and replacement parts are probably no longer manufactured.
Miklo said it would therefore be reasonable to replace these windows based on their poor
condition.
Miklo said the applicant is proposing to do a different pattern than what is shown. He said the
original windows typically were three -pane in an awning format. Miklo said that even when they
were new, they were probably not the best windows for this climate.
Miklo said the proposal is to replace the configuration of windows. He said rather than three
awning -type panels, these would either be single -pane, casement, or single -hung, meaning two
panels with one that would operate. Miklo said the proposal is also to use a bronze finish that is
similar to what is on the trim of the main church.
Given that the addition is not the historic part of the building and the poor condition of the
windows, Miklo stated that staff recommends approval of this modification.
Corcoran asked if there are storm windows here. Miklo responded that the exterior windows are
the main window, although storm windows were added to the interior at a later date due to the
problems with the main windows. He said that all of that would be taken out, and the exterior
windows would be replaced.
Kruse said that he is a member of the church and on the building committee. He said they are
charged with the task of maintaining this building. Kruse said it is at the point where heat is
being lost, and they would like to get the windows in yet this winter.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 15 of 19
Kruse said the windows on one side will be just an opening with a division at the center. He
said the larger window will be a window that slides back and forth, and they will all be much
tighter than the present windows. Kruse said that the darker aluminum will look better with the
church and will probably be a readout rather than a standout. He said they are trying to
minimize the impact of the new windows.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the windows were on a non -historic element of the
building and that they were in deteriorated condition. Therefore they met the guidelines for
replacement.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the window
replacement project at 30 North Clinton Street as presented in the application. Agran
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent).
304 Brown Street.
Miklo said this property is in the Brown Street Historic District at the corner of Linn and Brown
Streets. He said this is a Craftsman -style structure, although it is quite large for Craftsman -style
when compared to other houses of that style in Iowa City. Miklo added that it has some
distinctive characteristics such as the support brackets under the eaves, open rafters, and
shingle siding.
Miklo said the historic windows are nine panes over one. He said it just happens that the attic
windows are currently being restored, and that is why there are no divided lights shown in the
photographs.
Miklo said that most of the gable ends in this building already have windows. He said the
applicant is proposing to add a window to the east gable end. Miklo said it would be positioned
between the two brackets and sized such that there would be about three inches on each side
of the brackets.
Miklo said the window would be designed as an egress window — as a casement window that
would open out, instead of a double hung. He said the guidelines do provide for exceptions for
casement windows in lieu of a double hung when they are for egress. Miklo said there are
some other casement windows on this building, but they are more of a French style in that they
open in the middle.
Miklo said staff finds this proposed additional window meets the criteria in the guidelines in
terms of locating a window in such a fashion that it would not detract from the overall
architecture of the building and would be consistent with historic window patterns. He said it is
clear from the other gable end windows that this is consistent, and staff recommends approval.
MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
304 Brown Street as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent).
435 Grant Street.
Miklo said this property is in the Longfellow Historic District. He said it is an early 20`h century
house that may have been a catalog house in that it has many of those characteristics.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 16 of 19
Miklo stated that this house is very symmetrical. He said there is a sun porch on the south side
of the house that at one time was balanced with a pergola structure on the north side of the
house. Miklo said that 435 Grant was once one property combined with a vacant lot between
435 and 423 Grant Street. He said the property line that is between 435 and the vacant lot is
just five feet north of the house at 435.
Miklo said that about ten years ago, the owner of 435 Grant sold the extra lot to her neighbor.
He said that the pergola extended eight feet into the side yard or three feet across the property
line. Miklo said there was an agreement that there would be an easement for a period of ten
years to allow the pergola to remain in place. He stated that when the agreement expired, the
new owner of the adjacent lot asked that it be moved. Miklo said the owner removed it without
first seeking a demolition permit, which is required in a historic district.
Miklo said that another neighbor notified the City, which then notified the owner of the situation.
He said she applied for the demolition permit to remove the pergola after it was done. Miklo
said he spoke with her about the possibility of replacing the pergola with one that extended to
the property line, which would be allowed by zoning as long as it is not attached to the house.
He said the owner agreed to do that in an attempt to try to recreate as much as possible what
was there.
Miklo said the owner had retained most of the pieces of the pergola, so it could be constructed
for the most part with original materials. He said that rather than approving the demolition
permit, which staff would recommend be denied, the Commission would consider approval of
replacement of the pergola on a smaller scale, which the owner has agreed to do.
A Commissioner asked if the pergola was original to the house. Miklo said that, given the design
of the house, the brackets on the sun porch are very similar to the ends of the pergola, which
would indicate that it was part of the original design. He said the symmetry of the design also
indicates that the pergola was original.
Sandell asked what the distance is between the brick house and the neighbor. Miklo said it is at
least 45 feet, because the vacant lot is 40 feet five feet wide.
Michaud asked if the pergola would have the same detail as it had originally. Miklo confirmed
this. He said it can only be five feet, because the neighbor will not consent to the pergola being
back on his property.
MOTION: Baker moved to deny the demolition of the pergola as a significant
architectural detail. Litton seconded the motion. The motion to deny carried on a vote of
9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent).
MOTION; Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction
of a 5' by 16' freestanding pergola in place of the original, subject to the following
conditions: 1) the original material to be used to the extent possible, 2) original material
that is damaged should be replaced with new wood of the same dimension as the
original, and 3) the final design of the freestanding pergola to be approved by staff and
the Commission chair. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of
9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 17 of 19
203 North Linn Street.
Miklo said this is a recently designated landmark. He said the proposal is to replace the
awnings on the two street sides of the property with awnings similar to what is there in color,
design, and material. He said that two of the new awnings would have the name of the
restaurant on them. Miklo added that a projecting sign would be added to the corner. He said
that it would be on a metal bracket and would be a wooden plate with copper letters with the
name North Side Bistro on it.
Miklo showed a computer mockup of what the sign and the awnings might look like. He said the
applicant clarified that only two of the awnings would have signs; they would not put signs on all
of them.
Miklo said the guidelines do not have specific standards for signs. He said that in a case such
as this, the Secretary of the Interior Standards would be used, and he referred to details about
how the Secretary of the Interior Standards address signs for historic buildings. Miklo said the
awning signs were quite common historically, so there is no question that the awning signs are
appropriate. He said that projecting signs were also an historic sign form, although weathered
wood probably would not have been seen on a historic sign. Miklo said it may be a false sense
of history to use weathered wood, but given the size and scale of this sign and the fact that
signs like this are generally not permanent, he did not think there would be harm to approving
this one. But he said he would also recommend that the Commission approve an alternative,
which would be on a plain metal or wood or fiberglass panel should the applicant choose to do
something simpler.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 203
Linn Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1) signs will be
placed on the two awnings located to the west and north of the corner entrance; and 2) in
addition to the weathered wood background,, the projecting sign may consist of
alternative materials including metal, smooth painted wood or a fiberglass panel painted
to look like wood. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0
(Clore and Waqner absent).
608 Grant Street.
Miklo said this application was submitted the day before the packet went out, and staff was not
able to get it on the agenda for this meeting.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Miklo said that several have been approved, but there was not time to get them on the agenda.
He said he would prepare a list for the January meeting.
DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL AWARDS PROGRAM:
Miklo said that the subcommittee met and selected a number of nominees for the awards
program, which will be held January 29th. He said it is customary for the full Commission to
approve the subcommittee's work.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2014
Page 18 of 19
Miklo reviewed the nominees with the Commission. He asked if any Commission members had
objections or suggestions for additions. Michaud asked that the subcommittee also consider an
award for the Unitarian Church at 10 South Gilbert Street.
Sandell asked about the property in the Summit Street Historic District. Swaim asked if the
foundation would be painted like this. Miklo said it would typically not be painted the same color
as the house. He said if there are qualms about putting a property on the list as an example of
something the Commission would like to see, he would recommend taking it off the list. The
consensus of the Commission was to take the house off the list.
Miklo said that if there are other properties to be nominated, the information should be provided
to the subcommittee right away. Swaim asked about the Nowysz award, and Miklo said that
could still be discussed at the Commission's January meeting.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the list of nominated properties, as presented by
the subcommittee and amended by the consensus of the Commission, to be recipients of
the historic preservation awards. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on
a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION.
Miklo said he has received an informal request about the demolition of a property in the Brown
Street Historic District. He said there are some possible extenuating circumstances with the
property. Miklo said it has not been inhabited by people for a number of years, although it was
used as a cat sanctuary.
Miklo said it has recently changed hands, and the owner has indicated that there was a
considerable amount of damage done by the cats so that it may be very difficult to salvage the
house. He asked that a subcommittee of two or three Commission members visit the property
with him and give the owner some feedback as to whether a demolition permit would be issued.
Miklo said that before a demolition permit could be issued, a replacement structure would have
to be approved.
Ackerson, Agran and Michaud volunteered to visit the property with Miklo.
Swaim said that, given some of the absolutely necessary but last minute efforts the community
has been making to save historic buildings, the Commission needs to pay attention to its work
plan. She said that there was an indication that more historic buildings should be listed before
they are threatened with demolition. Michaud said that it is difficult to do the research
necessary to designate properties when staff has been cut. Swaim said that early next year the
Commission should review the Preservation Plan discuss how to approach the issue.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 13,2014:
MOTION: Litton moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
November 13, 2014 meeting. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of
9-0 (Clore and Waqner absenO.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
z
O
N
N
O O
U U
z
O LULO
O
� U
� Z
r
N
N
W z
w W
CL
U Q
rx
O
F-
U) U)
2
N r.
X
Xx
XTax
x
x
x
X
w
V-
O
M
T-
T
x
O
LLI
O
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
o
T
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
O
O
V-
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
p
x
m
v
X
ww
0
X
0
w
4'-
X
x
X
X
w
0
oo
r.
X
x
X
x
X
0
0
O
x
X
x
to
00
W)
wx
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
w
0
x
o
x
o
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
Cl)
x
x
x
i
x
x
x
x
i
x
o
Cl)
a
CD CV)
N
X
X
X
1
X
X
LLJ
0
X
1
X
X
ti
CL
T.- M
X
X
x
i
X
x
X
X
i
x
X
N W)
N
N
x
X
X
i
X
x
`O
x
'
O
O
P
le
LU
!
x
I
X
x
X
X
I
x
X
P
T
c
x
i
x
I
x
x
x0
I
x
x
T
C!')
ac a
W WN
CF)
a)o�
N
N
o�
N
a)
N
0)o�
N
N
N
N
)
N
o)
N
F'
Cl)
M
M
Cl)
M
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
M
M
Cl)
Z
a
W
Q
Ui
Q
z
W
z
W
J
z
W
Y
O
=
�
W
O9
Y
Q
w
Q
a
W
m
z
<
ZO
F-
W
;j
Q
LL
Q
J
LL
d
zjux)
z
zILZU
p
2
z
Q
Lou
z
Q
W�e 32
X
O
X
Z
(7
V
O
Q
m
V
O
o
J
N
y
Q
V
US
US
=3 N
Ox E
W N
c c g
m
a¢Qz
n n u u
XOD