The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-01-12 Bd Comm minutes4b 1 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVED OCTOBER 22, 2009 - 6:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Brian Richman, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Jarrod Gatlin, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Shane Ersland RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:36 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 24T" MEETING MINUTES: Chappell offered a correction to the minutes. Chappell motioned to approve. Hart seconded. The minutes were approved 5-0 (McKay, Gatlin and McMurray absent; Zimmermann Smith not present at time of vote). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: No members of the public wished to comment. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Andy Douglas stated that he had recently attended a lecture given by Andrew Greenlee, a PhD in Planning and Urban Development who has analyzed the relation between Chicago's Public Housing programs and the perceived transplantation of low-income housing residents from Chicago to Iowa City's southeast side. Douglas said that one point Greenlee had made had really stuck out to him. Greenlee pointed out that only three Section 8 rental assistance vouchers have actually transferred into Iowa City from Chicago. Douglas cited this statistic as HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE 2 of 9 supporting the idea that the idea of an influx of low-income residents from Chicago moving into southeast Iowa City with vouchers or government assistance may be more perception than reality. Hart noted that the statistic may also be somewhat misleading. She pointed out that residents might move from Chicago to Iowa City, apply to the Section 8 waiting list, and become residents of the city during the time that they are waiting for their name to come up on the list. In such instances, the household would be considered a resident of Iowa City, not a transfer, even though their primary purpose in moving to the area might have been to obtain a voucher. Hightshoe said that she, Steve Long, and Steven Rackis (Iowa City Housing Authority) had had an opportunity to meet and talk with Greenlee prior to his lecture. She said that regardless of the perception, Greenlee pointed out that 70-75% of vouchers issued by the Chicago Housing Authority stay close to home and within their jurisdiction, and that a number of residents who initially "port" (vouchers are portable to other jurisdictions) out of the area, wind up porting back in. Rackis noted in that meeting that a number of communities that do not have residence preferences for their waiting lists do wind up serving clients who move to the area just to immediately port back out of the area. Iowa City's Housing Authority has a preference on its waiting list for residents of Johnson County. Hightshoe said that though the perception may be that people from Chicago are moving to Iowa City in order to receive a voucher and move back to Chicago, in reality only 11 Iowa City vouchers are active in Chicago presently. Douglas said he thought it was interesting that, according to Greenlee, a number of clients that port out of a bad neighborhood or living situation do not actually wind up living in better neighborhoods or housing conditions in the cities to which they transfer. NEW BUSINESS: REVIEW THE DRAFT 2011-2015 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (a.k.a CITY STEPS): Hightshoe explained that the draft before the Commission was a rough draft, and that Staff would return this document to the consultants with comments and corrections in early November. At that point, the consultants would quickly implement the changes and return the document for a public comment period from November 13, 2009 through December 14, 2009. Hightshoe said she had requested that the consultants zero in on specific priorities as it can sometimes be difficult to identify main focal points. Richman advised Commissioners to send typographical and minor corrections to Hightshoe, and to spend the meeting talking about the priorities outlined in the CITY STEPS plan. Hightshoe said there would be another chapter with strategic plans in it in the November draft of the document. Zimmermann Smith asked about the allocation of funding and whether there were specific percentages of money that had to be spent on certain areas of concern during the funding process. Hightshoe explained that HOME funds have to be spent on housing activities, and that CDBG funds can be spent on economic development, public services and facilities, or housing activities. CDBG money is more flexible than HOME funding. She said that applicants apply for CDBG/HOME funds in the same process and do not necessarily know which pot their funding will be from. Zimmermann Smith asked if the Commission was required to use census data to determine their funding priorities; because the most recent census is now almost ten years old, she suggested a more recent information source might be helpful. Hightshoe said that the HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE 3 of 9 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires census data for its purposes and reports, but that internally the Commission could be guided by other sources of information. Hightshoe said that for a fee 2007 population projections data could be obtained, though it would not be as detailed as census information is. Richman stated that the document being discussed is intended to be a summary of findings and recommendations. He noted that the "Housing Needs" identified in the document listed three priorities: 1) housing for the non-student renter, 2) housing for those at risk of homelessness, and 3) more owner-occupied housing units. Richman noted that some the figures in the document clearly include the student population when assessing areas of need. He asked Hightshoe if it would be possible for the document to clearly indicate when students were being included in the calculations and when they are not. Richman asked Hightshoe if removing students from some of the equations gave a clearer, more realistic picture of census tracts and where pockets of poverty or high concentrations of minorities are. Hightshoe said that in some cases traditional students can be removed from the data by removing those households consisting of non-related people under the age of 24. Chappell noted that the HUD definition of a "concentration" is 10% or more above the average for the rest of the city. Zimmermann Smith said that in the previous meeting the idea of setting an internal definition for the purposes of guiding decisions had been discussed. Hightshoe said the Commission was permitted to do that if they wished to do so in order to target resources. Drum asked why it would be necessary or beneficial to pull the students out of the statistics, noting that they are, after all, a huge part of the housing market. Chappell explained that according to the current formula a student that has parents paying for all of their expenses is being counted in the exact same way that an unemployed single mother of four is being counted. Drum contended that the students are still in the community, influencing the housing market. Chappell said that many students have significantly more buying power than others in their same "low-income" bracket. Hightshoe said that HUD does count students when calculating the city's entitlement funds, and that more money is allotted to affordable housing needs based on those students. Zimmermann Smith noted that the apartments in the downtown census tracts were too expensive for anyone other than students to live in, and yet, according to the current formula, that area would be considered just as "low-income" as areas in the southeast side of Iowa City. Hightshoe acknowledged that many efficiency and one- bedroom apartments in the downtown area had disappeared in recent years due to developers building four and five bedroom units geared towards groups of students living together. Richman noted that the consultants indicated that approximately 1,200 households in the city have housing affordability issues, and that because of this, non-student housing is a top priority. Hightshoe acknowledged that it may make sense to focus more of the CDBG/HOME resources toward rental units as owner-occupied units can be subsidized in a number of different ways from a number of different sources. The City has GRIP (dedicated to owner-occupied rehab. with general obligation funds), the Single Family New Construction Program and the UniverCity project that all assist owner-occupied housing within the next planning period for CITY STEPS. Richman noted that it could be a very useful tool to have a compiled summary of the various resources in Iowa City for housing and what those resources are spent on. He said this could help ensure the Commission's decisions are not made in a vacuum and take into consideration the needs and resources of the city as a whole. Hightshoe noted that before the flood CDBG/HOME funds were essentially all that were available; it is only since the flood and the Stimulus programs that we have substantially more funds coming in for housing programs. Staff HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE 4 of 9 will email commission members the City's anticipated revenues for 2011-2015 and indicate if they must be used for a special purpose such as new construction of owner occupied housing, etc. Richman asked Commissioners if they had identified any housing priorities other than those the consultants had listed. Hart threw out the idea of exploring the concept of limiting rents rather than constantly subsidizing them at high rates, a modified rent-control model. She noted that single-income households had serious affordability issues in this town and often fall through the cracks of subsidy programs aimed at the elderly, disabled, and families, but now at lower- income working people. Hightshoe agreed that there was a need for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and one-bedroom units in the city. Hart said she believed there was also a problem with the concentration of ownership for rental properties, saying she would like to see support for smaller-scale landlords and more zoning for multi-family units. Richman said he felt there is a non-student demand for one bedroom and efficiencies. Douglas asked if there were rent-control systems in place anywhere in Iowa. Hightshoe said she thought it was more practical to concentrate on subsidizing units enough on the front end to allow for lower rents. Chappell asked how deeply the University's impact on the housing market had been explored. He asked what would happen if the University built another dorm or two and required freshmen and sophomores to live on campus. He said he imagined this would have a big impact on the market. Hightshoe said she imagined that it would drive rents down if student demand is less. Living close to the university would probably still demand a higher rent than in other parts of the City. Chappell asked if any consideration had been given to subsidizing other issues affecting housing affordability. He asked if anyone had studied the effects on housing prices if one subsidized childcare or transportation rather than rent. Hightshoe said that would be difficult to do with the funding available to the Commission. Only 15% of the City's CDBG entitlement can be used for public services. Salary, operating expenses, taxi vouchers, and similar activities are considered public services. Hart asked if the housing market analysis indicated how much of the housing was actually available. She said there is often a practical difficulty to finding an affordable apartment that is actually unoccupied. Hightshoe said that Iowa City's vacancy rate is about 1 % (depending on the zone in Iowa City); a typical vacancy rate for a healthy rental market is more like 5%. Richman noted that there is an initiative from the Provost Office at the University to increase student enrollment by 100 students per year and to increase retention by 5%. He said that if these initiatives were successful it could have a notable impact on housing. Drum pointed out that there probably were no dollars available to actually promote and actively bring that goal to fruition. Richman noted the need for affordable transportation and asked if it was possible to use CDBG funds to purchase a bus for the City's fleet. Hightshoe said that would not be allowed as it would be considered an operational use, as well as personal property. She said CDBG funds cannot be used to purchase anything portable or for personal property (vehicle is considered personal property). You may be able to purchase through public services, but funding is limited and the use of the bus/van has to be for LMI persons which you would have to document. It can't be for general use. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE 5 of 9 Richman noted that both Iowa City and Johnson County showed incredible population jumps between 2007 and 2008 according to the plan. He asked Hightshoe to investigate it as it is likely an error. Hart asked if the figures given on page 27 had been adjusted for inflation and to reflect current costs, which led Richman to ask why the Commission was using a Housing Market Analysis with ten year old data. Zimmermann Smith added that previous discussions had indicated that just because HUD requires the census data for their purposes, the Commission does not need to use it internally. Chappell asked about an incongruity on page 29 which seemed to have redundant categories for different types of households. Chappell noted that Iowa City is not considered high growth in the report, merely high cost. Chappell said he was surprised to see actual data in this report that supports the idea that Iowa City is truly contracting. Hightshoe said that Iowa as a whole is losing population. She said that when the 2010 census numbers come out, there will be a lot of money at stake based on those population gains and losses. She said that there is already a lot of lobbying going on as to how entitlement calculations should be done when the new census comes out. She said the 2010 census results should be summarized and available by 2012. Chappell asked if Iowa City would consider doing a special census if the numbers did not go in their favor. Hightshoe said that process is expensive, but the City would consider if the numbers don't appear realistic. Douglas asked how the rankings of low, medium and high would be allocated to priorities and if the consultants would be in charge of it. Hightshoe said that the consultants would be guided by Staff and Commission input. Hightshoe noted that the Commission would see a major influx of dollars in 2011 based on the financing arrangements for Aniston Village, a Housing Fellowship project. Hightshoe explained that essentially the City would receive $2.9 million in CDBG money. She said once the money came in it would have to be spent quickly so the Commission should begin the process of thinking about priorities for that money now. Richman said that an amount of money that large would likely be heavily directed by City Council's needs and priorities. Zimmermann Smith noted that the public comments listed housing/resources for seniors and people with disabilities as a high priority. She said that this is not reflected in any of the priorities listed by the consultants. She said that adding some language might alleviate that discrepancy. Hightshoe explained that the survey results were mixed and often contradictory. Zimmermann Smith suggested that if there was a question of the validity of the survey data then the City should do another one; if the survey was deemed to be valid, then its findings should be included. Hightshoe said there was some question as to whether survey takers actually understood the questions in context. Zimmermann Smith said that giving a survey and then simply ignoring its results was not good policy. Richman asked if there was data beyond the survey and the public comments that influenced the formation of the priorities. Hightshoe said the comments of service providers were given consideration. Zimmermann Smith said that if the City seeks community input, it should take it into account. She said the City Council deserves to have a Commission that is guided by more than just a focus group with service providers. Chappell agreed that the priorities needed to in some way reflect the public comments in the survey and the forums. He suggested simply adding language that reflects the public concern about housing for the elderly and disabled. Drum said he too believed there was a middle ground wherein the survey results are neither ignored nor dominant. Hart said she HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE 6 of 9 was wary of relying heavily on a dubious survey. Zimmermann Smith noted that focus groups are also not scientific; she said that if the Commission is going to discount data, then it cannot in good faith do so selectively. Hightshoe stated that staff and commission members should not discount survey results, but to make decisions and set priorities based on the survey results, service provider feedback, input from low-to-income residents, department input, and studies such as our recent Housing Markey Analysis. Richman concluded that it is possible that the three priorities listed by the consultants are indeed those that the Commission will settle on (with some language changes) but that it was good to have a thorough discussion of the matter. Hightshoe said that it is always difficult to prioritize non-housing community development activities. Upon reviewing the survey data, the consultants were under the impression that some of the survey takers understood the questions to mean that the City would be directly providing the service as opposed to funding local agencies addressing certain areas such as child care or mental health. Hightshoe said some of the responses stated that they didn't' feel that it was the city government's responsibility to solve the problems associated with homelessness. Hightshoe said that respondents consistently said they wanted to see more done about the problems associated with homelessness, but also consistently said they did not feel the City should be responsible for alleviating those problems. Hightshoe stated that we shouldn't ignore survey results, but consider them as well as all the other ways the City gathered information and input. Drum said he was thrown by the fact that respondents placed the removal of "vacant and deteriorated buildings" as a number two priority. Drum asked where these vacant and deteriorated buildings could be found. Hightshoe said that narrative comments overwhelmingly concerned securing help for the Broadway area. Zimmermann Smith said these comments ought to be incorporated into the priorities. Richman agreed that the priorities should reflect public comment. Hightshoe pointed out that the priorities being discussed were the basis for how the Commission would be spending its money over the next five years. A common comment in the Broadway neighborhood was a need for a police substation; however buildings for the general conduct of government are not an eligible CDBG or HOME activity. She said that it did not make sense to put priorities in the Plan that could not be funded under CDBG/HOME allocation rules. Chappell said it was important to at least explain that rationale, acknowledging the importance of some of the public priorities but the inability to fund them through CDBG/HOME finds. Hightshoe said that this could be done in the narrative of the plan. Richman noted that ultimately the Consolidated Plan is a HUD report on how CDBG/HOME funds will be spent. Richman said that the consultant's priorities for the funding of public facilities were not helpful at all. Hightshoe suggested that one priority could be the funding of public facilities in the Broadway area. Zimmermann Smith noted the necessity of affordable daycare that operates outside of standard business hours. Richman said the recommendations as currently stated are useless and that some guidance needs to come out of the document; he said that without some guidance either by type or geography the City is not getting its money's worth. Zimmermann Smith said that it would be ideal to have public facilities dollars that work toward family self- sufficiency such as daycare, life skills, health care, etc. Richman said that perhaps the most useful thing to do would be to look at the types of projects funded in the last five years. Hightshoe said that homeless shelters, subsidized daycare facilities, after-school care and drop- offdaycare are all worthy public service priorities. Hightshoe noted that CDBG dollars could pay for the bricks and mortar of a daycare if some other agency actually ran the center. Richman said that substance abuse, assistance for the disabled, and mental health issues come up repeatedly. He asked Hightshoe to direct the consultants to revisit the priorities. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE7of9 Richman noted that having firm priorities will make the allocation process both easier and more difficult. He said it would put more of an onus on the Commission for justifying why they do not fund something. Drum asked if the consultants were relying solely on the survey when setting priorities. Hightshoe said they were also relying on focus groups with the public, service providers, input from our public needs hearing last May and meetings with various City departments such as the Housing Authority, Police, Parks and Rec., Planning as well as the 2007 Housing Market Analysis. Hightshoe said she will send the Commission/Staff comments to the consultants and will distribute the updated draft to Commissioners as quickly as possible. Richman noted that something needed to be added to the document that addressed the procedure for the Commission reconsidering an allocation when a change in terms is requested. UPDATE ON FY10 PROJECTS - CDBG/HOME PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT ENTERED A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF IOWA CITY: Hightshoe noted that most agencies have entered agreements within 90 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. Hightshoe said that three or four of the funded projects are actually already completed. She said that Dolphin Point Enclave is a concern. She said that they have until December to make a decision on what it intends to do regarding the first round of funding that they were allocated. She said that MECCA has not entered an agreement but that is due to their accounting practices and funding cycles; she said she expects a signed agreement by the end of the week. She said that the FY08 Blooming Garden project has not proceeded and the agreement required the homes to be done by the end of October. She said that project will probably be on next month's agenda. UPDATE ON THE HCDC-SPONSORED AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVENT: Douglas said that he expects to have flyers next Wednesday. He said the event is being publicized by the Eco-Iowa City Initiative. He said free winter weatherization kits will be handed out at the event. Hightshoe said that there is a $50 procurement that can go toward refreshments. Douglas said he is making an effort to reach out to area builders and real estate people, and that the message is that building/selling "small and green" is good. He said that he hopes the Commission will continue to do small events in the future concerning other affordable housing issues. MONITORING REPORTS: IOWA CITY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC -OPERATIONS (McKAY) (McKay e-mailed his report to Hightshoe who shared it with the Commission.) The Free Medical Clinic was allocated $5,000 to assist in paying for a pharmacy technician to dispense medications; the clinic is transitioning to an electronic system which should help with efficiency. The clinic has finalized the purchase of their building. ISIS INVESTMENTS LLC -RENTAL HOUSING (McKAY): ISIS was allocated $150,000 and has already purchased three homes for rental housing on Prairie du Chein, Plaen View and Shrader. Once the final unit is occupied, their project will close and the compliance period will begin. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2009 PAGE8of9 FIRST MENNONITE CHURCH -HOME TIES ADDITION (McKAY): There have been some delays with this project due to changes in plans and the securing of permits, however, the project has broken ground. FY09 HACAP- TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (DOUGLAS): Hightshoe reported that HACAP purchased a property for transitional housing on Village Green Road. The project is closed and the compliance period has begun. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Z O ~_ O U 1- Z W a O W W D r_ Z 0 U D Z Q C7 Z O D O v w W ~ U° Z° Q N D Z W a 1 I 1 1 1 1 c X X X ~ X ~ ~ X X r N X X X X X X X X X ; ; ; ~ ~ W p X ; X W O X W O ; W O X X n N ; X ~ ; X ~ X X ; X ~ X ; X X ; X X X X ; X X X ~ ; w X ; X X X w O ~ w O X W O ~ O N ; X X ; X X O X ; X X X M N ; X X ; X X X X ; W ~ X X M ~ ' W X ; X X X X ; X X X N o N ' Z Z ' Z Z Z Z ' Z Z Z N ' I X X ; ~ X ~ X ; ~ X X N r ~ t- O r N r O r r- r ~ r O .- N r O O ~ O O O O ~ >C O ~ r O ~ ~ O O N ~ r O ~ ~ O ~ ~- O ~ r O O N ~ ~ ~ . ~ O ~ ~ O H W ~ O O ~ O O O O _ O) O ` O ` O V = W W ~ U Z Z W O ~ Q W Q ~ Q W W ~ ~ ~ >- J _ °C ~ m Z ~ > a J V ~ U ~ _ '~ O ~ ~ Z ~ v N W a J U Z } ~ ~ W 2 ~ Z ~ Q > > F- ~ v ~ U d ~ 2 2 V ~ ~ Z V D O C9 ~ ~ ~ N 0 V rn ~ ` N ~ ~, W '~ N c~~~ ~ a~ ~ c>3 dQZ ° Z II II II II W ~ ; YXOZ ; 4b 2 Airport Commission November 17, 2009 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Greg Farris, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John Staley Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson Others Present: David Hughes, Randy Hartwig, Patrick Sheridan RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action)• Persons who are appointed to the Airport Commission must be residents of Iowa Ci CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Rettig called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. Rettig then noted that she had asked City Attorney Dulek if there would be a conflict of interest on her part now that she is on the County Board of Supervisors. Dulek stated that she did review this and she briefly commented on what she found including an Iowa Attorney General's opinion. At this time she does not find any conflict of interest. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The minutes of the October 15, 2009 meeting were reviewed. Rettig noted on page 3, in the 2nd paragraph, where it states... "..the Airport paid off their debt recently" that this is not entirely true. The debt on the North Aviation Commerce Park is what was paid off. Staley moved to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2009 meeting as amended. Farris seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. AMEND THE AGENDA: Farris moved to amend the agenda by moving item 4.g. up before item 4.b. Horan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. 2 Airport Commission November 17, 2009 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. FY2011-FY2015 Strategic Planning -Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development, joined the Commission to discuss updating the Airport Strategic Plan. He noted that he is there to help them in developing the FY11-FY15 plan, and he encouraged Members to update and change the plan as they see fit. Members agreed that they would like to have this process completed by the end of the fiscal year. Tharp will review the Airport's Master Plan, and Davidson will give a review of the South Central District Plan. Davidson further explained how this plan ties in with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The conversation turned to what type of input the Commission would like to receive. Davidson suggested they use aweb- based system where they could receive public input, in addition to having a public input session with the Commission. Tharp will send a memo to tenants and other interested parties so that they are aware of the meeting. Members discussed having the input session from 6:00 to 7:00 P.M. on December 17, and then the regular Airport meeting will begin at 7:00 P.M. Davidson explained the process he will use in facilitating these meetings and what the Members can expect. g. FBO Staff Report -Sheridan spoke to the Members regarding the previous month's maintenance items. He noted that they have put the snow plow on the truck and are getting ready for the winter season. Business was up in the last week, with a few larger planes making landings now that the runway is open. He also noted the larger crowds on football weekends, adding that parking was getting tight at the last home game. Also noted was that Klay Johnson has resigned and Josh is now acting as the shop manager. b. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp stated that he has not talked to Peggy Slaughter, but will try to reach her. c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM - i. Runway 7/25 8~ 12/30 -David Hughes addressed the Commission, stating that 7/25 is open, and that there are a few things they will need to finish up in the spring. Rettig noted that they received an email from the first plane that landed on the newly opened runway, stating that it was "absolutely beautiful" to land on. Gardinier was second to land. Hughes continued, adding that 12/30 will be completed if they get some dry weather. If everything goes well they hope to have it opened yet this week. ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Hughes noted that there is no change from last month on this. Dulek offered to contact Mediacom regarding this, and Hughes will get the contact information to her. iii. Building H -University of Iowa Hangar Expansion -Tharp noted that the lease will be on the December meeting's agenda, and they will need a special meeting to set the public hearing. Tharp continued, stating that they have met with the contractor and are looking for substantial completion by December 15 and then another week or so to complete punchlist items. Airport Commission November 17, 2009 iv. FAA FY2011 Pre-Application -Hughes noted that Members should have a copy of what was submitted last year to the FAA. He has talked with Scott Tenor who does the Planning and Programming for the State of Iowa, and he shared Scott's suggestion of how they lay out their funding requests. Rettig asked for some clarification of the funding, and Hughes briefly explained the breakdown and ranking system. The discussion turned to the need for a storage building at the Airport and whether or not they could move up the equipment building project to FY10. The discussion continued, with Members agreeing that they would like to move this project up. Members then discussed the parallel taxi-ways and when this project has been slated for completion. They also talked about how this project will impact the Airport and the runways. Hughes noted that he will discuss this with Scott and will let the Commission know of any revisions to the schedule. d. Airport Operations: Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; Management - Rettig noted that Tharp may have printed out the wrong form for them this month. He apologized for this and noted that there was not anything unusual for this month. Rettig noted an article that she read in the newspaper, where the Department of Veteran Affairs is looking to lease 600 parking spaces in the Iowa City area. She wondered if the Airport would be interested in such a venture and briefly explained the requirements. Farris suggested they check into the possibility of using Airport grounds for storage of RVs, for example, as a way to increase revenues. This led to a discussion about the National Guard's building. Tharp noted that they have been slowly moving out, but that the Reserve has called and indicated an interest in renting this location. Gardinier suggested they look into using one of the lots they are trying to sell and use it for parking or storage. Members agreed that they should look into the VA request further and see if they can offer something. Tharp then asked if Members would let him know of any changes, additions, etc., to the annual report. At the December meeting the Commission will need to accept this and forward it on to the City Council. Rettig noted that she would like to add some of Horan's photos to this year's plan, and any charts and graphs that are applicable, as well. e. Airport Commission Eligibility - Dulek spoke to the Members regarding the change in the statute regarding eligibility. She reviewed this change, noting that the City Attorney is okay with making a recommendation to the Council that they can limit commission eligibility to Iowa City residents; however, she would like the Commission to explain to the Council why this is important to them. Rettig asked if Members wanted to extend the eligibility to County residents, but no one was interested. A letter will be written to Council to reflect this. f. Jet Air /Iowa Flight Training -Tharp noted that the contracts with Jet Air, both cleaning and maintenance, will expire at the end of the year. Both have automatic renewals, with the maintenance contract being for a year and the cleaning contract is done on a month-to-month basis. Tharp briefly touched on how things have gone with Jet Air, stating that he has been pleased with things. Gardinier brought up the issue of not being able to see the segmented circle from the air. She noted that 4 Airport Commission November 17, 2009 Patrick with Jet Air had previously discussed putting pea gravel around the segmented circle in hopes of bringing it out more. h. Subcommittees' Reports -None. i. Commission Members' Reports -Rettig commented on an article in the Gazette about three area pilots receiving FAA safety awards. j. Staff Report -Tharp noted that he was at the Airports 101 conference in Cedar Rapids recently. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING: A special meeting will be held on Monday, December 7, at 7:30 A.M. to set a public hearing. The next regular meeting is set for Thursday, December 17, 2009, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: Gardinier moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Farris seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission November 17, 2009 AIRPORT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 NAME TERM EXP. 1/8 2/5 2/12 3/12 4/2 4/14 4/16 5/6 5/21 6/18 7/10 Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 --- --- --- X X X X O/E O/E O/E X Howard Horan 3/1 /14 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X O/E X X X X X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X X X NAME TERM 7/16 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/17 12/7 12/17 EXP. Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 X X O/E O/E X Howard Horan 3/1 /14 X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X X John Staley 3/1 /10 O/E O/E X X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member Airport Commission December 7, 2009 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2009 - 7:30 A.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Greg Farris, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John Staley Members Absent: Minnetta Gardinier Staff Present: Sue Dulek Others Present: None FINAL 4b 3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action : None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Rettig called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: Horan moved the resolution A09-27 setting a public hearing for December 17, 2009 for the lease of Building H between the Iowa City Airport Commission and University of Iowa. Farris seconded. Motion passed 4-0 (Gardinier absent). ADJOURN: Staley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:31 A.M. Horan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0 (Gardinier absent). CHAIRPERSON DATE 2 Airport Commission December 7, 2009 AIRPORT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 NAME TERM EXP. 1/8 2/5 2/12 3/12 4/2 4/14 4/16 5/6 5/21 6/18 7/10 Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 --- --- --- X X X X O/E O/E O/E X Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1 /12 X O/E X X X X X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X X X NAME TERM 7/16 8/20 9/17 10115 11/17 12/7 12/17 EXP. Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 X X O/E O/E X O/E Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1 /12 X X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 O/E O/E X X X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 4b 4 MINUTES APPROVED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION November 4, 2009 - 5:30 p.m. MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Members Present: Lorin Ditzler, Maggie Elliott, Aaron Krohmer, Margie Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, John Westefeld Members Absent: David Bourgeois, Craig Gustaveson, Jerry Raaz Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson Others Present: Ann Dudler, Andy Dudler RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None AFFILIATE GROUP DISCUSSION: This meeting was scheduled for the Commission Members to discuss the ongoing issue of how the Parks and Recreation Department should move forward with an affiliate group fee structure. Previous to that discussion, however, Westefeld reminded the group that historically for Parks and Recreation Commission, the current chair and one or two other members of the board work together to give nominations for the upcoming chair and vice-chair. Westefeld asked for those interested in this process to let him know. Elliott and O'Leary volunteered to help in this process. Westefeld also noted that he was recently in touch with the City Manager who is asking for any Commission Members who would like to be involved in the selection process for the Parks and Recreation Department Director to let him know. Krohmer, Loomer and O'Leary volunteered to be a part of this committee contingent on the time that this would entail. Westefeld will pass this information on to the City Manager. Westefeld then turned the discussion to the task at hand for this particular meeting. He asked Moran to give a review of why this meeting was called. Moran reported that after much discussion during the past two Commission meetings regarding affiliate groups, it was determined that in light of the time that was needed to resolve this issue, it was necessary to call this special meeting limiting discussion to this topic. He noted that it is his understanding that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss the process, come up with three scenarios and then Commission will vote on them during the November 18, 2009 meeting. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 4, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Moran noted that there are three issues to cover this evening. 1) Fee structure and cost recovery amount necessary from youth sports groups who rent fields from Parks & Recreation. To date he understands the consensus to be that Commission wants to charge them 10% initially of the actual City costs with a goal to raise to 40% over several years. 2) Fee structure and cost recovery amount necessary from those groups that rent rooms from Parks & Recreation. Commission to date has agreed to charge 50% of the costs incurred by the City to these particular groups. However, in lieu of the goal to recover 40% of non property tax support, may want to reconsider 40% recovery rather than 50%. 3) Fee structure, if any, for social service agencies. Some options that Moran listed are as follows: a. Determine social service agency discount based on their tax code. Moran included some documentation with descriptions of the different tax codes. b. Determine that social service agencies are exempt, therefore, no charge incurred. c. Require social service agencies to pay 10% of actual cost incurred by the City. d. Require social service agencies to pay same as other organizations (determined in #2 above) which would be 40%-50% of costs incurred by the City. Moran also distributed a list of talking points for Commission members to refer to when discussing this with groups. After tonight's discussion he will put together a draft letter to affiliate groups for Commission to review at the November 18 meeting. As there were two audience members present, and audience members are not allowed to speak at a work session, Westefeld clarified with them that they were here to only observe. Moran suggested discussing the items in the order listed. He first needs to determine if Commission is in agreement with a 10% cost recovery rate with the understanding that it would be increased over a period of time to 40% or 50% for the two baseball, one softball and Kickers organizations. Elliott asked if 10% would get us to the goal amount necessary. She further stated that she is not clear of the intent of this process; while she feels it is more justified to raise fees with the intent to make up a budget shortfall, she would prefer that it be done in a more structured pattern. Moran explained that staff presented council with a 10% reduction in expenses. While they turned this down initially, he believes it will be necessary in the future. In that initial budget, staff put together a $26,000 reduction figure. The idea was rather than cutting costs, to offset it through revenue. Ditzler stated that she understood the 40% amount was decided upon as this is the goal for the department for cost recovery. O'Leary asked if the department would break even with 40% recovery. Moran stated that is the case further stating that the idea for most of their programs is to break even, excluding special populations programs and some youth programs. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 4, 2009 Page 3 of 7 O'Leary explained that he sees that there are three talking points. He said that he advocates that Commission agree to stretch out the increase over a slow time frame to make it easier for the groups (this includes all groups). He recalled discussion of increasing from 10% to 40% in four years. He feels this is too aggressive. He suggested perhaps spread these increases over a ten year time frame. Ditzler agreed with the idea of stretching out the time frame. O'Leary noted that from an equity standpoint, we need to have a better understanding of how these numbers will affect programs as he doesn't want to see any of these proposals dramatically affect their activities. He said that he has learned a lot from talking to some of the social service groups about their budgets and that they seem very open and have an understanding of this proposal. Moran noted that recreation fees generally increase on a two-year schedule. He thought perhaps that commission should consider the same structure for this policy. Elliott said that while she would like to see us do whatever is needed to meet the budget, and she is not opposed to increasing fees over a period time, she would like to do it in a more planned and creative way referring to the Master Plan as a guide. Moran noted that we don't have a complete understanding of what the budget process is as it is given to departments in a piecemeal fashion. Therefore, he does not have a clear picture of what needs to be cut in the future. O'Leary liked Elliott's idea of looking at budgeting in a more creative and constructive manner. He stated that his perspective is that if a group is required to pay even a token fee they will take ownership and have more respect for the system. While he doesn't want the fee to be a burden, he thinks there needs to be something that demands a little more respect of what we are supplying. He also noted that we cannot make assumptions that the revenue will be there, i.e. some groups may go elsewhere for room rentals etc. Robinson noted that staff will also be looking at a higher fee for out-of-town groups and tournament groups. His point being that staff is currently considering other ways of gaining revenue other than the proposal being discussed tonight. Ditzler agrees that it makes sense to look at what is needed for the budget, however, doesn't want to appear that we are being purely reactive to the budget situation. Moran said that his letter will reveal that this it not being done strictly to cover our budget deficit, it will reflect that we are not letting them use these facilities for free any more based on a new policy. Elliott again stated that she is not clear on the mission. She said it is important to tie it to something other than just charging money to make money. Krohmer noted that we are not accumulating money by these fees but that it is cost recovery. We have been expending this money on existing facilities that we have not been recovering from and that even if we were in better budgetary times, he would still support this proposal with the idea that perhaps we could fund something that may have been put off because all of the money has been put into these facilities and not into additional staff etc. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 4, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Elliott said she doesn't feel she can move forward without something concrete to tie this too. Not being able to say that we are doing this for a specific cause makes this difficult for her. Krohmer said his understanding is that the mission and intent would be reflected when explaining that there will be a policy to recover about 40% of the costs incurred through fees and charges by the user. Elliott noted that this is more money than we had before so why is this amount necessary. Moran said that it offsets the property tax accumulation from the City so in turn reduces the amount of money that we use from the City. It helps us help the City so that they don't have to afford our programs by being more cost-effective. O'Leary mentioned that when talking with social service agencies and exploring fees, that while they would, of course, like for the rental fees to remain $0, they also said that 2% initially would not be a hardship for them, or if even a 5% in five years. He feels that this creates a small amount of equity. He is concerned that if we are too aggressive with this, that it will limit people from pursuing recreation. Elliott noted that what she understands now is that the increased revenue will offset how much the City has to pay to this department, however, it will not mean that we will have more staff. G'Leary noted that perhaps when groups start looking at the time actually needed for a facility, they may actually save money when they are more cognizant of what they need. He hopes that charging a fee will prevent groups from, for example, scheduling five days of use and then only using two days, therefore, we lose revenue. He also hopes that it will allow us to redistribute our staff if facilities are scheduled more efficiently, therefore, allowing staff more time for other things. Moran stated it is a political process that is hard to explain. He said that we can show City Council that we bring in a certain amount of revenue for soccer fields, therefore, they may perhaps approve funding for an extra employee. O'Leary said that in the business/political world of grant writing, you may say look at what we did to recoup some of these facility costs, we are not going to necessarily surrender that amount, instead we are going to expand a park or other service, and perhaps we need to present an idea of how we plan to distribute this money. Westefeld noted that he sees three different elements here. He thinks that this proposal shows how the department has done things in the past, and while this is a proposal to recover costs in the here and now, potentially it could also help in the future. He believes that in addition to this there are a number of other things that can be done as well. He agrees with O'Leary that he too does not want to see a group not able to continue as in the past because of these charges. He asked that Commission to look at these items one by one and see if they can come up with a consensus. O'Leary said that he would like to add to the talking points that establishing a policy and a mission are the most important things. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 4, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Krohmer suggested having a graduated system of fees for the sports organization. Westefeld asked for comments on the second point. O'Leary stated that his overall goal with all three groups is to make sure that we are asking the groups to be good stewards and that we need to at least look at recouping costs for cleaning, prepping, etc. Krohmer stated that as he has given it more thought he is not comfortable with compromising a token fee. Regarding concerns of more efficient use of facilities, he would even be comfortable with charging a fee to social service groups if it would discourage them from scheduling time that they don't actually use. Westefeld asked Commission members if they are comfortable with the 40% recovery. The overall consensus was yes with Elliott saying no. Westefeld asked where people stood on the sporting groups or social service agencies. O'Leary talked about his relationship with some of these groups, sitting on the Kickers Board, donating money to both Boys Baseball and Girls Softball. He noted that he was impressed with some of their ways of raising money for scholarships etc. He finds it interesting that by charging a 10% fee, Kickers would actually be paying less than they give currently voluntarily to the City. He is fearful that it would appear unfair to the other groups who have been at 0% level to jump t0 10%. Krohmer suggested that perhaps we use the model that Moran mentioned where fees generally increase every two years for Recreation Programs. Ditzler likes increasing fees over an eight year span. Westefeld asked the group for their thoughts regarding social service agencies. Elliott noted her concern that this may be a conflict of interest in her case as Iowa City Hospice does rent rooms from the City and pays the full amount. Ditzler noted that based on what Elliott said, and other comments, it seems that the current system is not very fair. It seems that there is no particular reason that some groups are considered affiliate groups and others are not. This is another reason that she supports the need for a written policy. O'Leary noted that an organization such as ARC may represent both groups with members who are low income, however, ARC is reimbursed. VUestefield noted that it seems that before the Commission can set a policy for social service groups, there needs to be a definition of who these agencies are. Ditzler said she is not comfortable with making that definition. She said we need to make that decision based on the tax status definition. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 4, 2009 Page 6 of 7 O'Leary noted that there are groups that are able and capable of compensating within that 501 (c) (3) status and there are groups that have the budget for it. However, if we have a policy that states that 501 (c) (3) can get reduced rates, but in order to get for free they have to go through an application process this may help. Moran stated that there is currently no distinction based on tax status. If Neighborhood Centers for instance wants to purchase swim passes at a low income discount, they have to provide the same verification that an individual does -that being either Title 19 or income based. Moran suggested that the group may determine to exclude these social service groups entirely from any fee and look to the master plan for ideas on ways to solicit other revenue to cover these costs. Krohmer agrees with Moran's idea to remove 501 (c) (3) groups from the pay structure all together and then look at alternative ways of fundraising for them outside of fees. Moran further noted that we wouldn't charge them anything directly, but would charge it to the Foundation or charge it to an account that the Foundation sets up similar to a flower bed account for someone etc. Elliott asked if now may the time to bring in the Foundation and let them know what we are thinking. Moran said that it would probably be a good idea to do so. Westefeld agreed that this could be of benefit. Ditzler agrees with Krohmer's idea where all facilities (outdoor or indoor) are charged the same. Moran will summarize these recommendations and bring them to the November 18, 2009 meeting. Meeting was adjourned. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 4, 2009 Page 7 of 7 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 NAME TERM ~ N c-+ ~ ~ co ~ oo °' ° ~ .- EXPIRES David Bourgeois 1/1/11 X O/E X O/E X X X X O/E X OIE Lorin Ditzler 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X Maggie Elliott 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X Craig 1/1/11 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E O/E Gustaveson Aaron Krohmer 1/1/13 * X X X X X O/E X X X X Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E X X OIE X O/E X X X X Loomer Ryan O'Leary 1/1/10 X X O/E X X X X X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X X X O/E John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum * = Not a member at this time 4b 5 MINUTES APPROVED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2009 - 5:00 p.m. MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Members Present: Lorin Ditzler, Maggie Elliott, Aaron Krohmer, Ryan O'Leary, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld Members Absent: David Bourgeois, Craig Gustaveson, Margie Loomer Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson Others Present: Del Holland, Carrie Norton, Sarah Walz RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Krohmer seconded by Raaz, to approve the October 14, 2009 minutes as written, Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Gustaveson and Loomer being absent. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. John Westefeld chaired the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Sarah Walz with Friends of Hickory Hill Park announced that the annual Hickory Hill calendars are now available for $10 each. She noted that this is their largest fundraiser of the year. She also announced that volunteers have been very busy in the park. These volunteers included a group of 1500 environmental students and an AmeriCorps team. All together they put in over 1000 hours of work this fall. Garrie Norton spoke to commission about the Wayside Shelter that has been constructed at Hickory Hill Park. She explained that her husband Dee Norton was on the Parks and Recreation Commission in the 60's. At that time the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to the City Council a bond referendum, and because of that referendum the City now has Hickory Hill Park, Mercer Park, Willow Creek Park and Terrill Mill Park. Before her husband died he and Carrie had pledged to help the Friends of Hickory Hill Park buy the Dickens property and they also pledged to build a small structure for that area. When Dee passed away, people donated over $5000 to the Parks and Recreation Foundation. This helped in her decision to go ahead with the project, even with the current economic times. Moran and Walz worked very closely together and now the shelter is complete. Two items that Norton wanted to emphasize tonight were: 1) the decisions that the Commission makes as a board effect this community deeply and they are appreciated, and 2) the mechanism of the parks and recreation foundation works beautifully in terms of receiving funds, admonishing the funds, and writing thank you letters to those who donated. She made the comment that the Foundation is a little known treasure in the City. She thanked everyone very much and invited all to visit the Wayside Shelter. Westefeld PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 18, 2009 Page 2 of 7 thanked Norton for her comments and noted that he was at the dedication and said that several things struck him-the number of people who attended and the heterogeneity of the people that were present. He further stated that this is a great example of a process that brought so many people together in the spirit of the project. O'Leary noted that during the annual bus tour they looked at the shelter and he is excited about the safe house structure as well. Norton likes that some of the design elements of the Wayside Shelter will be continued in the building of the safe house. AFFILIATE GROUP DISCUSSION: Westefeld noted that Commission, at the November 4, 2009 special meeting that was held to discuss an affiliate group policy, agreed to further discuss at the meeting tonight. Moran would like to get a general consensus from the Commission tonight on a policy so that he can send letters out to the affected groups inviting them to the December Commission Meeting. Moran was able to put together three concepts for such a policy based on discussion at the previous meeting. Since that meeting, Moran and Robinson have had some discussions with the affected groups. Moran noted that overall they seem to be okay with the idea as they understand the concept of being fiscally responsible. Kickers and Girls Softball were just concerned with how their past contributions would be recognized. In other words, they would like the donations that they have given figured into the equation when determining their fees for facility usage. Moran reviewed the three concepts: 1) Everyone pays 100%. 2) Public non profit groups will pay 10% of outdoor facility costs to be raised biannually until it reaches 40% of the cost sustained by the department. They would be charged 50% of incurred expenses for use of indoor facilities. This will actually be a cut for them as they are currently paying 100%. 3) No charge for social service agencies. This policy would eliminate the term "affiliate group." Moran noted that the definition of affiliate groups has become hazy over the last several years. They have existed for 25 plus years with the department. Krohmer noted that he believes that Moran's explanation accurately follows what was discussed at the previous meeting. His only issue would be that he wants to see a note added to add 501 (c) (17) veterans groups within the nonprofit groups. Commission agreed with this suggestion. He asked what the rationale is for charging 50% for indoor facilities and 40% for outdoor facilities. Moran said that there really was no rationale for this, therefore, Commission agreed to 40% cost recovery rather than 50% for both indoor and outdoor facility rentals. Ditzler agrees with Krohmers suggested changes/additions. O'Leary expressed his concern with not having the same Commission Members present at the meetings where this topic has been discussed. He believes it is a good idea to implement a token fee for those groups that serve the low income population. He further stated that in his conversations with a couple of these groups that they did not feel a 2% or 5% fee would be a problem. He feels that the policy should be more equitable. Jerry asked Moran for a definition of an affiliate group. Moran said that it was something that was adapted before he started his employment with the department so is not sure how these groups were assigned this status. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 18, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Elliott noted that she will abstain from the vote because of her position as Hospice Director. However, she is pleased with this policy. She expressed her appreciation to the group and the job they have done on putting this policy together. She did express some concern about the timing of such a change due to the economic state of many and also in terms of this department benefitting from this policy. Westefeld asked for input from the Commission regarding Kickers and Girls Softball in light of their large donations over the past several years. How do we justify charging them the same amount as groups who have not given donations to the City. Krohmer doesn't see a problem with this as the money they have given has gone for capital projects and the fields they use so they by far are the largest benefactors of their donations. However, there is a need for revenue coming in to cover the high maintenance fees of these facilities. Moran feels that when the groups actually figure out just how much 10% will be, it will not amount to that much. However, he did say that Kickers and Girls Softball may decide not to donate money for park improvements due to the need to pay for facility usage. Ditzler asked for further explanation of what the groups mean when they say they want to be recognized. Moran said they would like those donations to be figured into the equation, not that they want public recognition. O'Leary noted that Kickers and Girls Softball are decidedly different than the other groups based on the donations that they have given in the past. He feels they are setting a good example to other groups who should also be donating money to help reduce costs. In a discussion he had with Barb Kamber, Kickers Administrator, her point was that in addition to .their donations, they currently pay 100% of the rental fee when scheduling Grant Wood Gym. O'Leary said that while Kickers has donated over $400,000 to the park, it could also be argued that they gave over one million dollars because the park was donated to them and then was held by the City because of insurance and maintenance costs. Moran corrected him by noting that this land was purchased by the Water Treatment Plant who only needed 34 of the 144 acres, therefore the City has always owned this land. O'Leary said that there has been an informal agreement between Kickers and the City that Kickers would donate a certain dollar amount. Kickers agreed to this with the thought that they would not be charged significant user fees. Westefeld asked Commission again if they are okay with the policy as written Raaz asked if there was something to define the different tax statuses. He was directed to a document that was included in the November commission packets. Krohmer said he is comfortable with discussing a token fee with social service groups but wanted to make it clear that it is not something that would occur over the next couple of years, as they have to be prepared when writing grants etc. He also stated that when it comes to a vote whether or not to charge these groups, he will vote no. He also feels that Council will never agree to a charge for these groups. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 18, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Commission was in agreement to leave policy as revised with the two suggestions mentioned by Krohmer: 1) Include veteran groups in the social service group definition. 2) Charge 40% of department costs for both indoor and outdoor facility use. Moran will draft a letter to affected groups. He will email a copy to Commission for their review ahd will then mail to the groups prior to the December meeting inviting them to attend that meeting. CIP PLAN, PRIORITIES & ACCEPTANCE: Moran included a list of CIP projects in the commission packet. He noted that he and Robinson updated last years list with their suggestions regarding priority of such projects. He said that these projects may change prioritization based on the money that is available and flood related projects that need to be complete. Moran is asking Commission to review and let him know if there are any projects they would like to move on the priority list. Moran specifically pointed out some possible additional projects to the CIP list. One is the need to put in a second access to Lower City Park. Currently there is only one entrance/exit to this portion of the park which becomes very congested at times. Del Holland, member of the public, mentioned that he understood that the City couldn't build anything on this land. Moran noted that the City can build up to the end of the park property and have asked FEMA for an exception to that rule for this particular project. If they do not grant this request, it would mean that the access could not be concrete or asphalt but could be rock. Holland asked then couldn't there also be a trail constructed of the same material (rock or limestone). Moran stated that could be a possibility. Moran noted that the City has been awarded two trail grants. While one of them is a matching grant of $27,000 which can be covered in the budget, the second is a matching grant of $94,000 and this then would have to be added to the CIP list. He noted that the Mercer Park pool filter replacement project that was to take place this year was postponed as it was determined that there was a great need to repair/construct the solarium. The pool filter replacement will be bid out upon completion of the solarium. Moran reported that the North Market Square redevelopment was previously moved back from FY10 so he doesn't think Council would move this back another year. He also noted that Terry Trueblood had a vision of lighting all of the trails in City Park. However, Robinson and Moran are reconsidering as they are concerned about flooding of this area. Moran also discussed the possibility of putting a raised running track at Mercer, noting that this has become more important in light of the future University Recreation Center. Raaz stated that it would be helpful to have dollar amounts included on this list. Moran will include more detailed report in the December commission packet. RECREATION REVENUE REVIEW AND APPROVE: This is pending at this time as Finance has asked that the department revise their format for revenue reporting. Moran will include this report in the December commission packets. COMMISSION TIME: Ditzler went to the public input sessions regarding the Riverfront Crossings District. She said there was discussion about parkland development in this district. Elliott thanked O'Leary for representing Commission at the Council Meeting. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 18, 2009 Page 5 of 7 O'Leary reported that he too went to five of the sessions on the Riverfront Crossings District. He is currently posting a survey on Facebook and has received approximately 20 responses regarding a possible riverfront walk route. O'Leary also noted that when he went to the Council meeting he discussed fees and revenues for Parks & Recreation as well as the farmer's market survey and the master plan. He further mentioned that he is excited about activity of the Foundation and is excited about the memorial fund brochure and endowment funds. He also recommended that the Commission invite the Optimist Club to come to a future Commission Meeting. He noted that the Optimists Club has been around for over 50 years and for at least 40 of those years have sold evergreen trees in the Dairy Queen parking lot on Riverside Drive. Over the last several years they have given money for playground equipment at College Green Park and the Pedestrian Mall. They have also given money to Boys Baseball and Girls Softball to name a few. They would like to put live evergreen trees in these areas as well. Raaz referred to an article in the newspaper recently regarding smoking on the Pedestrian Mall. He feels that it is important for the Commission to make Council aware of their thoughts on this topic. He personally feels that smoking should be banned on the Ped Mall. Moran commented that City staff is currently working with the Downtown Association regarding this issue, as well as the City Attorneys. Raaz also asked if there was anything that the Commission could do to support the idea of winter farmers markets. Neumann reported that she received a few recommendations via emails and phone calls. These have included using the armory building, Eastdale Plaza and the Johnson County Fairgrounds. Neumann feels that the Johnson County Fairgrounds may be the most feasible location as they have a large building that has a large door that would allow vendors to enter with their vehicles and unload items etc. There fee is approximately $400 per use and this could be covered through vendor fees. O'Leary asked if it continue to be held in the gymnasium at the Recreation Center. Neumann said that this is difficult due to other scheduling needs for that facility. Raaz asked what the plans are for maintenance and snow removal on the trails, feeling that it would be okay to leave some snow covered for those who want to snowshoe or cross country ski while also alleviating some pressure on maintenance staff. Robinson reported that staff is currently in discussions with the Engineering Department regarding these procedures. Staff will continue to work with the Legal Department on this to find out what the liabilities may be. Krohmer asked about the naming policy that is being proposed by Council. Moran will report during his Directors Report (below). CHAIRS REPORT Westefeld thanked O'Leary for reporting Commission activities to Council. He reminded Commission that his last meeting as Chair will be in December and O'Leary's last meeting as a Commission Member will be in December as well. He noted that the December meeting will be a very busy meeting with a number of items on the agenda. Westefeld has shared with the Interim City Manager the names of those commission members who have volunteers to be a part of the selection team for the Parks & Recreation Director position PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 18, 2009 Page 6 of 7 DIRECTORS REPORT December Agenda: Moran reported, as mentioned by Westefeld, that there will be a number of items on the December agenda. The affiliate groups will be invited for public discussion regarding the pending policy. There will also be a gentleman coming to discuss low income discount procedures of the department and whether or not when purchasing a family swimming pass that caretakers should also be included in that discount. There will also be discussion of the CIP list priorities and fees and charges for the Parks and Recreation Department. Farmers Market Survey: There has been a very good response to the surveys with many of them coming in daily via the Internet and by mail. These are due by December 18. Staff hopes to have a report for the Commission at the January meeting. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area: Snyder and Associates will be present in January to review Phase II of TTRA plan. DogPAC: Robinson and Moran met with Dog PAC recently to discuss putting in a small dog park area at Rita's Ranch. No resolution came from this meeting. The group will meet again in February or March. Gift/Naming Policy: Dale Helling sent a memo to City Council regarding agift/naming policy. Moran will include a copy of this memo in the December commission packets. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Krohmer, seconded by Ditzler to adiiourn meeting at 6:30 p.m. Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois Gustaveson and Loomer being absent. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION November 18, 2009 Page 7 of 7 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 NAME ~ a- r e- ~ M ~ O O O Q1 r O TERM r' ~ N M ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 07 O T l"' r EXPIRES David Bourgeois 1/1/11 X O/E X OIE X X X X O/E X O/E O/E Lorin Ditzler 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X X Maggie Elliott 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig 1/1/11 O/E X X X X X X X X OIE OIE O/E Gustaveson Aaron Krohmer 1/1/13 * X X X X X O/E X X X X X Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E X X O/E X OIE X X X X OIE Loomer Ryan O'Leary 1/1/10 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X X OIE X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum * = Not a member at this time 4b(6) MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 14, 2009 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Barbara Eckstein, Terry Hora, Will Jennings, Robert Anderson MEMBERS EXCUSED: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Ramirez, Kapesh Patel, David Bailie, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:07 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Sheerin, Jennings, Anderson and Hora were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 9T" 2009: Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes. Jennings moved to approve the minutes as amended. Hora seconded. The motion carried 5-0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 2 of 12 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by AT8~T Mobility for a special exception to allow construction of a 100-foot cell phone tower in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 925 Highway 6 East. The tower would be located off Crosspark Avenue, behind the building that houses Tuesday Morning. Walz said that at the last meeting the Board had directed Staff to provide information on other towers in the area where AT&T might co-locate, as well as more detailed coverage information on the US Cellular tower on Olympic Court and the MidAmerican towers near Kirkwood Community College. Walz explained that the MidAmerican towers fall outside of the half-mile radius that the special exception criteria require for possible collocation-this is why the towers were not identified by staff. Walz said that Staff is not aware of any towers within ahalf-mile radius of the proposed tower that would meet the provider's coverage requirements. Walz said that the Olympic Court tower was approved at 60 feet in height and that the City has no authority to go back and require a taller tower on their site to accommodate another carrier. Walz said that two representatives of the applicant were present to speak more fully to coverage issues. Sheerin invited the applicant to speak Brian Ramirez, an AT&T representative, said that he had brought a radio engineer to help the answer any issues the Board might have regarding coverage. Kapesh Patel, an AT&T radio engineer, gave apower-point presentation which demonstrated the differing coverage areas AT&T could get with towers of differing heights at the proposed location; the higher the tower, the greater the coverage area. Patel explained that the US Cellular tower on Olympic Court did not have adequate space or height for the needs AT&T was trying to meet with the proposed tower. Patel said that the MidAmerican towers are lower than the proposed AT&T tower, and are also very close to two AT&T cell sites where coverage is already adequate. Patel noted that there was an alternate location near the K-Mart site that had also been proposed by AT&T; it would offer similar coverage but would be problematic in that it is more visible and would require a fenced compound for equipment. Patel offered to answer any questions from the Board. Anderson said that his understanding was that Hora had expressed concerns at the last meeting about the number of towers in this neighborhood, and whether or not collocation was possible to avoid building a new tower. Anderson asked if AT&T was addressing this concern by making their proposed tower "co-locate-able" for other providers looking to expand coverage in that community. Patel said that they are. Ramirez said that the FAA allowed a maximum height of 100 feet in that area, and that there will be four canisters inside the pole; AT&T will occupy the top two canisters. Patel explained that the structure will be a stealth monopole where the antennas are hidden inside a shrouded canister. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 3 of 12 Walz noted that the second choice mentioned by Patel did have the shortcomings described by Patel, but also had the advantage of being across the street from commercial property rather than residential. Patel noted that the second choice site provided close to the amount of coverage offered by the proposed site, but that the proposed site provided the best coverage. Jennings noted that if another provider wished to co-locate on the tower, that provider would actually have to co-locate at lower heights than the AT&T canisters. Jennings asked if the same situation would not then arise that made the US Cellular tower problematic for AT&T; while the tower may be 100 feet, the available canisters will be far less than that. Ramirez explained that even at the lowest level of the proposed tower, the available canisters will still be approximately 30 feet higher than the US Cellular pole. Patel noted that the airport severely restricts how high a tower can be built in this area. Eckstein asked Greenwood Hektoen if there was anything in City code regulating the density of cell phone towers, or guidance to make a reasonable judgment about when coverage is good enough for a given area. Eckstein said she sees no way of controlling this process if there is no code addressing those issues. Greenwood Hektoen replied that the specific criterion requires that a new tower must be in an area that is not served by an existing tower. She said this is the way that density is presently controlled. Eckstein noted that there are a lot of different carriers. She said that in looking at coverage maps, the coverage refers to AT&T's coverage, not cell phone coverage as a whole. Patel said this was correct, and that the biggest boost from a new tower would come to coverage inside of buildings. Greenwood Hektoen stated that right now Eckstein's suggestion is not presently one of the criteria that the Board would be able to judge the application on. Walz said it is a struggle because there are competing interests within the criteria. She noted that the towers are to be constructed at the minimum height to provide service, but that the City also wants the greatest potential for co-location. She said that these towers are proliferating, but that she is not sure how that can be addressed because there are multiple providers. Walz said that the City Council was considering a code amendment that would allow cell phone towers in the ID-RS zone. This zone consists of areas that will be future residential zones, but are not presently zoned for development. Walz said the criteria for that special exception would require that the applicant demonstrate that the tower cannot be located in a commercial or industrial zone. Eckstein asked if it was within the purview of the City to have regulations on density of towers. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is regulated in non-specific ways, through the criteria of the special exception. Eckstein said that she believes the current code offers too little guidance and is not forward looking on this subject. She asked if it was within the purview of the Board to write a letter to Staff or the City Council saying that the Board feels there is not enough guidance in the current code. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the Board wished to amend the criteria for having cell phone towers then an amendment to the code would be required to do so; such amendments are generally initiated by City Council. Hora asked if Walz was contending in the staff report that the City did not have authority to require cell phone companies to co-locate on another company's towers. Walz clarified that what the City does not have the authority to do is to retroactively require US Cellular to allow their pole to be replaced by another company's pole in order to accommodate co-location. The City has already granted US Cellular the right to that pole and cannot now force them to change it. Hora asked if the City has the authority to ask a vendor to co-locate on the proposed pole in the future rather than allow another tower to be built. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 4 of 12 would have the right to reject an application if there is another suitable pole upon which they can co-locate within ahalf-mile radius of their proposed site. There were no further questions for the applicant or Staff. Sheerin opened the public hearing, and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of the application. Seeing no one, she asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application. Seeing no one, she opened the matter for Board discussion. Hora said he was hoping that somewhere along the line the number of cell phone towers could be reduced because he feels the density is becoming too much. Hora said he felt there was no other option but to vote in favor of the application at present. He said he was concerned about the future and the tendency toward ever-increasing demands of technology. Sheerin noted that it was discussed in the last meeting that there should be no lighting on the tower. Hora and Eckstein agreed that lighting was unnecessary. Eckstein said that while their specific questions had been answered by AT&T's representatives, it was not really the place of those representatives to answer the larger questions. Jennings said he thinks this application raises a number of issues concerning technology and its advances. He noted that television antennas were also once ubiquitous eyesores in neighborhoods and now are all but obsolete. Jennings said that the provisions of the code do not address the idea of a receptive technology in the future that may influence whether these towers stay up or come down. He said the issue of continued review has not been resolved. However, he said he concurred that the application must be approved under the current constraints of the code. Sheerin called for a motion. Eckstein moved to approve special exception EXC09-00005, an application for a communication transmission facility in the CC2 zone located at 925 Highway 6 East, subject to the following conditions: • compliance with the site plan and all specifications regarding the tower design and enclosure submitted as part of the application, including; • the cell tower will have no lighting of any kind; • the cell tower will be finished in galvanized grey to match other light poles in the area, or in another color to be approved by Staff; Jennings seconded. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited the findings of fact. Jennings offered the findings of fact. He noted that in compliance with the specific standards, the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property, or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. The applicant has documented attempts to utilize existing towers or structures within one-half mile of the proposed Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 5 of 12 tower. There are no existing towers or commercial structures in this area that are of sufficient height to meet the applicant's needs. Jennings said that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the area. The monopole design has no trusses, guide-wires, or strobe lighting, and the antennas are mounted within the pole. The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary for its intended purpose, as is required by the specific standards. The applicant has provided coverage maps to demonstrate the varying coverage resulting from differing tower heights. The proposed tower will be set back at least equidistant from any residential zone as it is 102 feet from Cross Park Avenue. The specific standards require that adequate screening measures are taken for any equipment associated with the tower. In this case, condensing units will be screened by a privacy fence and all other associated equipment will be stored inside the building. There is a tall dense row of evergreen trees to additionally screen the area from residential properties. The applicant has indicated that there is no back-up generator associated with this site, which is compliant with the specific standards. There will be no strobe lighting on the tower. The design of tower accommodates at least two other users, as is required by the specific standards. If the use of the tower is discontinued, then the tower and its associated equipment must be removed no later than one year from the date of discontinued use; the applicant has readily agreed to comply with this requirement. Jennings stated the general standards for this special exception had also been met. Jennings said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because the proposed tower is set back more than 100 feet from the property line and the associated equipment is screened by a privacy fence. The use will not be injurious to the enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish property values in the area because the setbacks and screening proposed for the tower are adequate. This special exception will not impede the normal orderly development of the area for uses permitted in the zone because of its inconspicuous design and the screening involved. Necessary access roads, drainage, and utilities have already been provided and no improvements are necessary; adequate electrical and phone service will be provided by the applicant. Egress and ingress are not affected by this proposed use as no additional traffic will be generated by the tower. This specific proposed exception conforms to all other standards of the zone in which it will be located and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Eckstein noted that this tower will provide phone coverage for AT&T customers that would otherwise not be possible, but does not increase cell phone coverage in general. Hora said he hopes AT&T will encourage other providers to co-locate in their facility in the near future. Anderson said he would like to reiterate that the benefit from this tower will be for AT&T customers, and is not necessarily reflective of the absence of coverage by other providers. Sheerin added that the absence of lighting elements on the pole are important to her, and that providing cell phone coverage for AT&T customers is an important need in the community. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 6 of 12 Sheerin declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record can do so within thirty days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXC09-00006: An application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc. for a special exception for a drive-through facility located in the CC-2 (Community Commercial) zone at 1720 Waterfront Drive. Walz pointed out the location on a map. She noted that this change is part of a larger expansion of the Hy-Vee store. Walz noted changes in traffic patterns that would result from the expansion of the store, including an additional access point onto Boyrum Street. The special exception is for the new pharmacy drive-through, and takes into consideration the grocery pick-up lane. The drive-through for the pharmacy is in the outside lane and will be serviced by a pneumatic tube system. Walz walked the Board through the specific criteria for this special exception. She said that the number of drive-through lanes and stacking spaces will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties because there are no residential properties in the area. The drive-through will not detract from or unduly disrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area where the special exception is located. Walz said that safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access is required to promote compatibility with the surrounding development and that if the Board chooses to they can require: restricting the location of the drive-through to rear or side access; requiring directional signage; limiting the number of lanes and/or amount of paving; and limiting or prohibiting the use of loudspeakers. Walz pointed out two areas on the site plan where pedestrian connections to Boyrum are located. Staff had concerns that the original site plan showed only five-foot wide sidewalk in the area between the building and the drive-through lanes. Walz said that this area of town has a fair amount of pedestrian traffic and that there will be through foot-traffic and outdoor storage and display that could diminish sidewalk widths. The applicant has since proposed ten-foot sidewalk width, which satisfies Staffs concern. In terms of stacking spaces, Walz said that Hy-Vee has indicated that traffic is light in their drive-through areas, and that the stacking spaces laid out in the site plan are adequate. Walz said that the transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the existing uses already in the area. Walz said that there is not a concern with traffic stacking onto the public street. The drive-through will be set back well in excess of the required ten feet and the area will be screened to meet the S2 requirement, Walz said. Walz said that lighting for outdoor areas must comply with the outdoor lighting standards to prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring properties. Walz said that all of the lighting plans are being reviewed by the building official; noting that lighting could be an appropriate condition of approval if the Board decided to approve the application. Walz outlined the general standards as well. She said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because broadening the Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 7 of 12 sidewalks to a minimum of ten feet allows for greater safety. This specific exception will not be injurious to the enjoyment of immediate properties in the vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. This is not a problem because the property is surrounded by other commercial uses. Walz said that the proposed exception will not impede the normal, orderly development of the surrounding areas in the zone in which it is located because it is surrounded by commercial uses. Also, the addition of an access point onto Boyrum will help to alleviate current traffic issues. Walz noted that curb cuts would have to be reviewed by the Public Works Department at the time of site plan review. Ingress and egress should be improved by the change in curb- cuts to the property. This proposed exception conforms to all other aspects of the zone in which it is to be located, Walz said. The site plan is currently under site plan review by the building official to ensure compliance with all other applicable code requirements. One area being carefully reviewed is pedestrian access throughout the site, and access to nearby streets. The proposed use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan also strongly emphasizes pedestrian access. With the most recent changes to the site plan, Staff feels comfortable recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan; 2. Conditioned upon the approval for the larger building site plan. Walz invited questions from the Board. Eckstein asked where pedestrians come from when entering the property. Walz pointed out where the pedestrian paths would be located, as well as the bus routes. She noted that there will be pedestrian routes marked into the concrete that people can use. Walz clarified that the special exception really only concerns the areas contiguous with the drive-through and that other areas of the site plan would be reviewed by using the site development standards. Greenwood Hektoen attempted to clarify the sixth general standard: except for specific regulations to the exception being considered the specific proposed exception conforms to applicable regulations. She noted that the task is to determine if the proposed drive through complies, not the entire site plan. Anderson asked if it was correct that the Board would not be able to make a design recommendation as a condition of the special exception. Walz said that the Board could make a recommendation for changes if the recommendation is related to the drive-through. Jennings asked if cars exiting the drive-through area would be leaving straight out Boyrum. Walz said that they would. Walz said that the landscaping requirements may keep pedestrians from crossing the parking lot areas. Walz said that more would be known about how pedestrians access the site when it was determined if all the curb-cuts in the site plan would all be allowed. Sheerin asked the applicant to present the proposal. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 8 of 12 David Bailie, Hy-Vee, Inc., West Des Moines, said he was present to answer any questions the Board may have. He said that Hy-Vee concurs with Staff and respectfully requests that the application be approved. Bailie said that this store is long overdue for a remodel, and that the pick-up and pharmacy areas are vital parts of the operation. Hora asked if Hy-Vee had considered putting the pharmacy drive-through at the east side of the building. Bailie said they had not. He said the design had been done a number of times at other stores, and that laying that much pneumatic tubing was not ideal. Hora said that he had asked because he thought having grocery pick up and pharmacy pick up under the same canopy was somewhat congested. Bailie said that there is not a great deal of traffic that goes through that area. He said the traffic that does go through comes to a complete stop and drives slowly and carefully. Bailie said there have not been any problems with this design in the past. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, said that he would compare the Hy- Vee drive through design to that of some area banks where multiple lanes converge into one exit point. He said that it is rare to have several cars moving at once. He reiterated that there have not been problems with this design in other locations. Eckstein asked if there would be an ATM machine right outside or directly inside the building where the drive-through lanes are located. She said she was concerned about the possibility of a car parking for a period of time and further congesting the area. Musser said there is an ATM somewhere inside at the front of the store. He said the whole front of the store is clearly marked as a fire lane so there is no parking allowed there. Walz asked if there was any plan to place an ATM machine outside the store in that area. Musser said there are no plans for more ATMs than the ones presently there. Eckstein asked if cars coming into the parking lot from the east would be able to also exit from the east if they came made a U-turn to come through the pharmacy lane. Musser said it depended on the driver and the car they were driving. Sheerin asked how much traffic was generated by the pharmacy window. Bailie said that it was intended as a convenience, but that not much traffic is generated by it because most people also get some kind of grocery items as well. Sheerin asked if Bailie anticipated this design increasing the amount of traffic that goes through that area. Bailie said he did not believe it would function any differently than it does currently; there are currently two lanes, it is just that one of the lanes will be for pharmacy. Walz said that having two uses, a grocery use and a pharmacy use, is a change, and does imply an increase in traffic. Bailie said he believed that this design is actually safer than the current design as there will not be employees and carts weaving between lanes. Eckstein said she could be wrong about the demographics, but that she would assume the majority of people using the pharmacy drive-through are elderly or disabled. Bailie said that there are a variety of people, but that most often when people get to the store they want to pick up something other than their prescription. Sheerin opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to speak to the issue. Sheerin invited Board discussion. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 9 of 12 Sheerin said she thought the design seemed congested and would add more cars to a small area. Anderson said he too felt it was somewhat congested. Eckstein said she was mystified by how this design could be an improvement over the current design. Greenwood Hektoen said that whether the design is an improvement or not is not one of the criteria the Board is to consider. Eckstein explained that if the Board is being asked to make a special exception to go from one use to two in this site she felt it was valid to question whether the improvement being achieved was worth the special exception. Sheerin said that she thinks of the discussion of "improvement" in terms of the general criteria concerning health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public. She said if it is congested or creating a situation where people can be hit by cars, then she does not think that is in the public welfare. Hora said he thinks the design is great. He said that the pharmacy drive-through is a convenience Hy-Vee offers to the elderly, the disabled, and other people who struggle for one reason or another to walk into the store. Hora said the only concern he has is the merging of traffic into one lane to leave the property, but he said he did not think that was an issue the Board could control. Anderson said he can appreciate Hora's position. He said that he took issue with the idea that pneumatic tubes could not be employed if the pharmacy drive-through was moved to the other end of the store. He said the University of Iowa uses a pneumatic tube system to cover significantly farther distances than that presented by moving the pharmacy drive-through to the east end of the store. Musser explained that there is vast improvement between the proposed site plan and the current configuration of the store as far as ingress and egress to Boyrum, as well as general on- site traffic circulation. Musser said that there are two lanes of traffic at the drive-through currently, and so although one use is being changed, in reality, there will not be an increase in traffic lanes. Musser said he is not an expert with tubing systems, although he is familiar with the system used by the University. He said that he imagined face to face contact was of great importance when customers are dealing with illness and medicine, and that the customer comfort level will be higher seeing a person behind the window rather than simply talking into a microphone in a wall. Musser said Hy-Vee is trying to create a customer service experience, whereas the University is simply trying to get papers shot from one end of the hospital to the other. Musser said that he felt that Staff was supportive of their plans, and that they truly feel they have a greatly improved facility with the proposed plan. Sheerin asked to clarify that the Board is to look at only the drive-through facility, not access issues to Boyrum. Walz said that the Board is not necessarily deciding whether Hy-Vee can have adrive-through; they are deciding whether Hy-Vee can have this particular drive-through configuration. Bailie said he would like to add that Hy-Vee has been in the grocery store business for about 80 years now, and that the last thing they would ever do is design something that would cause concern for their customers or put them in danger. Bailie assured the Board that the design has been well-tested at other sites, and that it is safe and functional. Sheerin closed the public hearing. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 10 of 12 Hora moved to approve EXC09-00006, an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc. for a special exception for adrive-through facility for pharmacy and grocery pick up located in the CC-2 (Community Commercial) zone at 1720 Waterfront Drive. Anderson seconded. Hora led the findings of fact. He stated that the specific criteria requires that the number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces and paved area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area where it is located. Hora said there are an adequate number of stacking spaces and parking spaces for the drive-up pharmacy and the grocery pick-up. Hora noted that the lighting system will be reviewed by the building official to ensure that it is up to code. Hora said that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the safety, comfort or general welfare of the public. He said the special exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Hora said the site plan in general would improve the area. Hora stated that the establishment of the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. Hora said the remodel and the drive-through will help to beautify the south side of town. Another general standard requires that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been provided: Hora noted that they already exist in that area. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Hora said that in taking the number of curb cuts down from six to a maximum of three the traffic flow and ingress/egress will be improved. Hora said that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Hora said that the proposed exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it is in line with the transportation goals that encourage pedestrian traffic and public transportation. Hora said that based on all that he stated he believes this is a good proposal and he will vote for it. Jennings asked for a point of clarification because he did not hear anything in the findings of fact regarding amplification systems. Walz said that issue had not been addressed in the staff report because there were no nearby residential neighborhoods to disturb. Eckstein said she wanted to be clear that the special exception is contingent upon the sidewalks having a minimum width of ten feet. Walz asked if she would like to amend the original motion. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the proposal had been revised to include that requirement so no amendment was necessary. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 11 of 12 Anderson said he felt the location of the pharmacy drive-through had largely been determined by the location of the interior pharmacy. Sheerin said she finds it persuasive that there is a need in the community for this drive-through pharmacy, and that she believes the applicant has carefully considered the safety implications for the community. She said that the ten-foot sidewalk is very important, and that it should be noted that traffic from the drive-through will not stack onto public streets. The proposed drive- through facility is set back more than the required ten feet from the property line. Eckstein said that she felt it was relative to add that there is no outside ATM machine in the area of the drive-through. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Sheerin declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record can do so within thirty days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz noted that due to the Veteran's Day holiday on November 11th, the Board of Adjustment will hold its November meeting on November 12th at the Robert A Lee Community Recreation Center in Meeting Room A. Walz said that at this time there are no applications. Walz said she had sensed a lot of consternation with the cell phone tower criteria, and she wondered if there could be a brief discussion about things that Staff could do to clarify the matter. Greenwood Hektoen said that if there are no applications for next month, and educational meeting could be held to talk things out a bit. She noted that in terms of revising the ordinance itself, that would be a City Council matter. Walz said she was thinking about things such as how coverage charts are looked at, and how much coverage is a reasonable amount of coverage. Jennings said that one of his concerns is that there is potential for a broad demand for expansion. Eckstein said it is not really a site issue, rather one of coverage and consumer choice. Eckstein said that the information given to the Board is very partial information, and wondered if allowing one company a tower was in essence giving them a market advantage, and if so, must it then be extended to competitors as well. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned that these are philosophical issues that are also regulated by the federal government, and that the City has to steer clear of violating the Federal Communications Act. She said the current criteria are in compliance with that act. Walz and Greenwood Hektoen agreed that further discussions about purview and context might be useful. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Eckstein seconded. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 12 of 12 The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. 4b 7 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2009 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Florence Stockman, Dan Hilsman, Judy O'Donnell RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard absent) to approve REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single family (RS-8) zone, for property located on Huntington Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the following: 1. dedication of necessary land along Taft Avenue for right-of-way and construction easements to allow the improvement of the roadway; 2. Contribution toward the future costs of upgrading Taft Avenue to City standards, which contribution shall be 12.5% of construction costs; 3. Lots that double-front on Taft Avenue will be a minimum of 140 feet in depth; 4. Substantial compliance with the approved landscaping buffer area, which will include at least 50% evergreen plantings. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the following amendments to the Iowa City Zoning Code: 1. By a vote of 5-1 (Eastham voting no; Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fencing allowed for salvage yards as set out in the staff report, but also including additional language stating that flexibility is allowable where nearby uses will not be harmed by the reduced requirements. 2. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 zone where such use will be functionally compatible with surrounding areas such that the health and safety of clients/students are not compromised, as outlined in the staff report. 3. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct problematic language that will make it easier to extend Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 2 of 12 wheelchair ramps and stoops into setback areas for all types of buildings. 4. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code clarifying provisions in article 14-3A Planned Development Overlay, as outlined in the staff report. 5. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to subsection 14-76-7 to indicate the use of the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual when determining the parking facility impact fee. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc., for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is October 9, 2009. Walz noted that the last time this application was discussed Staff had recommended that the applicant curve Huntington Drive rather than simply ending it at the north property line. Walz said one of the board members had asked the developer to come up with a concept plan for how such a road would serve properties to the north, keeping in mind that the Northeast District Plan calls for some single-loaded streets along the public park on the opposite side of the creek. The applicant drew up a concept plan. Walz said that Staff had reviewed the plan and found some problems with it. Staff is leaning toward a traditional cul-de-sac in that area, and so at this time Staff is not prepared to recommend a conditional zoning that is based on this specific concept plan. Staff would like to be able to review plans for Huntington at the platting stage because that would give Staff more information to determine if the plan could work. Walz said that transportation planners have been clear that the current concept plan showing Huntington Drive returning to Taft Avenue is not workable. She reiterated that Staff would not recommend tying the rezoning to a specific concept plan at this time. She said Staff does recommend the RS-8 zoning so long as the lots double-fronting between Huntington and Taft have a minimum depth of 140 feet. Staff has also spelled out conditions for the developer's contribution to the eventual improvement of Taft Avenue, as well as a landscape buffer to be put in once the improvements are made. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. Walz said the plan looks reasonable, though Staff recommend that 50% of the shrubbery consist of evergreen to provide ayear-round buffer. Walz offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Koppes asked if permission from homeowners would be needed to install the landscaping plan Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 3 of 12 since it would be done after the property was developed. Walz said the landscaping would be done within the construction easement. Miklo said the landscaping would be on the homeowners' private property, but that they would be aware when buying the lot that this landscaping would be put in place after Taft is built. Koppes asked what would happen if the homeowners did not want the landscaping. Miklo said he believed that because the landscaping would be a condition of the zoning, the homeowner would be required to accept the landscaping. Walz noted that if homeowners put their own landscaping in prior to the upgrading of Taft they would likely lose it once Taft is upgraded. Koppes asked if the homeowners would be able to remove the plantings at a later date. Miklo replied that technically they could not because the plantings were a condition of the rezoning, but that he doubted it would be strictly enforced. Payne asked if the owners would be required to replace plantings that died. Miklo said that they would technically be required to do so, but that enforcement would not likely by that stringent. Payne pointed out that the landscape buffer was there to buffer the property owner, so if the property owner failed to replace a tree it would only detract from their own enjoyment of the property. Eastham asked if the City would be paying for the installation of the landscaping after Taft Avenue is improved. Walz said it was the developer who would be paying for the landscaping in advance of the project. Miklo explained that when building permits are issued, the developer will have to put into escrow the money to pay for the landscape buffer; Miklo said this had been done in a few other cases where it was known there would be road improvement in the future. There were no further questions for Staff. Freerks opened the public hearing. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, spoke on behalf of the developer. Musser pointed out that there was a slight chance that the landscaping buffer could be put in when the development was built, rather than waiting for Taft Avenue to be upgraded. Musser said that it depends on how the grades and elevations work out for future Taft Avenue; he said more investigation will be done on that with the City's Public Works Department during the construction plans phase. The Commission had no questions for Musser. Florence Stockman, 132 Eversoll Lane, said that her concern is about the park and the trail involved in the development. She said that she is specifically concerned about the lots that back onto the trail. Stockman said she has many questions about the trail, such as who will be putting the trail in and when. She said it has always concerned her that the homeowners will be responsible for the maintenance of the trail. Because there will be a lot of public access to the trails, she does not feel the maintenance of the trail should be the responsibility of the homeowners. Stockman said she felt the lots were somewhat small. Freerks asked Walz to point out the trail on the map. Walz did so and noted that the trail actually is a part of another subdivision, Stone Bridge Parts 6-9. Walz said the developer is required to build the trail but that there is a public access easement over the trail. Miklo said that the trail would, however, be maintained by the homeowners' association. Freerks pointed out that the trail in question is not actually a part of this development. Eastham noted that it will be the homeowners' association for Parts 6-9 that will be responsible for the trail, not the association for the area presently under consideration by the Commission. Freerks noted that the trail/park issue will be reviewed again at a later date when the planned development is considered as a whole. She informed Stockman that there would be another opportunity to come before the Commission to address her concerns. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 4 of 12 There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Freerks called for a motion. Payne motioned to approve REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single family (RS-8) zone, for property located on Huntington Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the following: 5. The developer would be required to dedicate space along Taft Avenue for right-of- way and construction easements to allow the improvement of the roadway; 6. The developer would agree to contribute toward the future costs of upgrading Taft Avenue to City standards, which contribution shall be 12.5% of construction costs; 7. Lots that double-front on Taft Avenue will be a minimum of 140 feet in depth; 8. Substantial compliance with the approved landscaping buffer area, which will include at least 50% evergreen plantings. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham said he was generally in favor of this application. Eastham said he felt the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan in that the plan calls for somewhat smaller lots and denser development along arterial streets, which Taft Avenue is slated to become. Eastham said his difficulty with the development is what to do with Huntington as the area develops to the north. Eastham said that he hoped at the subdivision stage the cul-de-sac proposed by Staff might actually become some sort of roundabout that incorporates traffic from the north. He said that he understood that there is uncertainty given the unknown factor presented by the property owner to the north of Huntington, but he would like to preserve as many options as possible for the development of the area. Weitzel said he was not totally excited about a traditional cul-de-sac and would prefer to see something along the lines of Eastham's suggestion. He said that given the transportation engineers' concerns about the tie-in of Huntington to Taft Avenue, he also did not wish to see that done. Weitzel said it is a very tricky situation when one must work around a large existing lot. He said he was in favor of the proposed smaller lot sizes, and that he hopes that a good balance can be found. Freerks said she believed this could be a fine development in the end, and that more discussion was needed on the way it would be laid out. She said she was alright with the idea of a cul-de- sac because Huntington is a neighborhood street and not a major arterial. Freerks noted that there were drainage concerns to the north, and that it was possible that running Huntington all the way through might not be the best solution. Freerks said that it seemed to her the development has a lot of possibilities and a number of solutions and that she is in favor of it. There were no further comments and a vote was taken. On a 6-0 vote (Busard absent), the Commission voted to approve REZ09-00007 Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 5 of 12 CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: 1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fence required for Salvage Operations. Howard explained that salvage yards are only allowed in heavy industrial zones. Salvage yards have large outdoor work and storage areas, and because of the potentially negative externalities associated with salvage yards, a special exception is required to establish one. Howard explained that the language in the special exception has a fairly set definition of the type of fencing required for salvage yards, and does not allow the Board of Adjustment much flexibility to adjust the type of fence based on particular site conditions. The applicant who requested this change had a case in which there was some misunderstanding as to exactly what the Board of Adjustment had required for fencing and so had installed a fence that doesn't meet the requirement for a solid fence as stated in the code. The applicant wishes to allow flexibility in cases where screening the use may not be as important as it is in most cases, such as: in instances where there may be another salvage yard next door, or a storage facility, or a property that will not be developed in the future or is not visible to the public. Howard said that Staff is recommending adding language to allow the Board of Adjustment to approve other types of fencing (semi-opaque or open pattern fences) in certain situations, as outlined in the staff report. It was noted that even if the zoning code is amended the affected property owner will have to go back to the Board of Adjustment to request a change to their original order. Payne asked if language suggested in the informal meeting, "where nearby uses will not be harmed," had been added to the suggested code. Howard said she had not added that language, but that the Commission could do so in crafting their motion if they wished. Freerks opened the public hearing. Don Hilsman, Ace Auto Recyclers, spoke in favor of amending the language. He said that there had been some confusion in his attempts to comply with the fencing requirements for a salvage yard. He said that all other screening requirements of the special exception had been met or exceeded. Hilsman said that in his particular case, the property immediately to the north of his salvage yard was an existing salvage yard. On the east side of his property the old City landfill is located; a property unlikely ever to be developed. Hilsman owns the property to the south of Ace Auto Recyclers. Hilsman said that they would be happy to re-do the west fence to make it a solid fence two feet higher than the existing fence to make it less visible from Highway 218, per Staff request. There were no questions for Hilsman from the Commission, and no one else wished to speak to the matter. The public hearing was closed. Freerks called for a motion. Howard said that she would request Staff discretion as far as the best place to insert Payne's wording regarding "where nearby uses will not be harmed." Payne motioned to recommend an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 6 of 12 the type of fencing allowed for salvage yards as set out in the staff report, but also including language stating that the flexibility is allowable where nearby uses will not be harmed by the reduced requirements. Plahutnik seconded. Eastham asked if Payne's motion meant that the additional wording would become subparagraph four in the staff report. Howard said she would advise against that, and would ask that Staff be allowed to incorporate this phrase into the code language in the most appropriate location to ensure it is a basic requirement of the exception. Eastham concurred. Eastham asked if the phrase "other public rights of way" in the proposed code clearly and definitively includes neighborhood trails. Howard said that it does. Howard noted that it is just after that phrase that she would suggest adding the language concerning nearby uses not being harmed. Eastham asked if the phrase would include trails that were planned for the future but did not yet exist. Miklo said that those are the kinds of things the Board of Adjustment would definitely take into account in granting or denying a special exception. Eastham said that while salvage operations are a valuable economic activity, their appearance can be somewhat unsightly. Screening such operations from the view of nearby property owners is for him a significant goal of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. He said he is hesitant not to require S5 fencing around salvage yards in all cases, regardless of how unlikely it is the yard will be viewed. He said that the City has no way to go back twenty years from now and require screening in an existing zone if it was not required at the time of the salvage yard's establishment. He said that allowing exemptions could come back to haunt the City. Koppes said that she had the same concerns prior to the informal meeting, but that she felt comfortable changing the requirement if the language concerning nearby uses not being harmed was included. Koppes pointed out that if the operation wishes to enlarge at a later date then they will have to come up to the standards of the code - a process Ace Auto Recyclers is presently going through. She said that after seeing the site in question, the request seems reasonable. She also noted that there was not a danger of a large number of salvage yards being established throughout the city. Koppes said she had trust in Staff to make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Adjustment, and also trusts the Board of Adjustment's discretion. Howard pointed out that salvage operations are only allowed in heavy industrial zones, and that there is only a small amount of land in the community which is zoned heavy industrial. Plahutnik said that the purpose of the fencing requirement is for screening and that the Board of Adjustment will do their job to make sure screening requirements are met. He said that he had no problem with the change. Payne noted that the Board of Adjustment has very specific criteria for granting a special exception, and that Staff does a great job of presenting the facts to the Board. She said that typically the Board does a good job of scrutinizing things that come before them. Freerks said she was in favor of the change, and that she did not think the views in question would be harmed. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Eastham voting no; Busard absent). The Commission moved to item #4 as the petitioner was present. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 7 of 12 4. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 Zone. Howard explained that this was a code amendment where a specific request and an application had been received. Specialized educational facilities are schools that focus on non-academic, specialized training in trade, business, or commercial courses, as well as music, drama, and dance schools. Howard explained that the CI-1 zone was amended back in 2005 to try to eliminate uses that did not seem to fit in well with the zone; "schools of specialized instruction" was one of the uses disallowed at that time. The applicant has requested that the City re- examine that decision. Staff has closely analyzed the zone in light of the applicant's request. One of the purposes of this particular zone is reserving space in the community for businesses and recreational uses that are land intensive and require large outdoor areas, large indoor areas, or unusual building needs that other commercial areas cannot provide. Some of the allowable uses are large recreational uses orquasi-industrial uses that have large outdoor work areas and storage areas. The CI-1 zones in the city vary in nature by their location, Howard said, with some of them including businesses that specialize in repair of cars and trucks that have large outdoor work and storage areas and other areas contain small office uses or specialized services or recreational uses that are completely indoors, but that do not need the exposure to drive-by traffic along an arterial street. Howard said that Staff feels that specialized educational facilities could have a space in the CI-1 zone, and recommends that they be allowed by special exception. Howard said specialized educational facilities relate to the zone in at least two ways: 1) they can be land intensive uses with unusual interior space needs, and 2) they are uses that are destinations in and of themselves and may not need more visible retail commercial locations. Howard said that specialized educational uses are also similar to other uses allowed in the zone, such as fitness centers, health clubs, and gyms. If the schools provide office-type environments, that too would fit into the CI-1 zone. Howard outlined the specific criteria the Board of Adjustment would use to determine eligibility for the special exception: whether or not the use is functionally compatible with the surrounding zone such that the health and safety of the students is not compromised. Howard also made reference to the general approval criteria the Board of Adjustment must consider when granting a special exception as a means of further ensuring the use fits in with the surrounding area. Howard offered to answer questions from the Commission. Weitzel asked if it was correct that the special exception would be granted based on the uses in the area at the time the application for a special exception is made. Howard said that was correct. Payne asked if the special exception would be lost if at some point the building changed uses. Howard said that as long as the use was the same, the exception would remain in place. Once the use changes, the special exception is no longer in effect. There were no further questions and Freerks opened the public hearing. Judy O'Donnell, 16 South View Drive NE, said that she wants to open a fencing center to teach the sport of fencing in Iowa City. O'Donnell said the facility would be the first fencing school in the state of Iowa. O'Donnell said that finding a site that is large enough has been a problem for her, as a fencing strip requires 60 feet of length, and a fencing center would require several fencing strips. O'Donnell said that buildings of that length are very difficult to find, especially outside of the CI-1 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 8 of 12 O'Donnell said that she did not really understand why this use should require a special exception once the zoning code is amended. She said the reasons cited in the staff report (such as nuisance concerns from noise, vibrations and dust) are things that any business owner would be looking at when trying to determine an appropriate business site. O'Donnell noted that a health club could open up a business in the CI-1 zone without a special exception, and the space that she requires is actually much smaller than a health club and would have less impact on the area. O'Donnell said a miniature golf course could also be opened up in the area without the need for a special exception. She said that people who are trying to run schools of specialized instruction are as capable as those operating health clubs and miniature golf courses in determining a site that is appropriate for their business and their clientele. O'Donnell said that the location of specialized educational facilities should be market driven, and should not require a special exception. O'Donnell said she would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked approximately how many square feet O'Donnell would require for her school. O'Donnell said she needed 5,000-6,000 square feet. There were no further questions for O'Donnell and Freerks invited a motion. Koppes motioned to approve the amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 zone as outlined in the staff report. Weitzel seconded. Koppes said she personally felt that this use should require a special exception in the CI-1 zone, but that she felt that indoor and outdoor recreational uses should also be reviewed at a later date to see if they too should require a special exception as they are similar in nature. Koppes said that given the size of the buildings required, allowing specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 makes sense, but that she thinks it also makes sense to have the Board of Adjustment review the matter on a case by case basis. Eastham said he too is supportive of adding specialized educational facilities to the CI-1 zone, but that he would like to see the use as a permitted use, without the need for a special exception. Eastham said that it is important to him when adding a requirement for land use that there is a clear and convincing reason for doing so. Eastham said that in his view specialized educational facilities are nearly indistinguishable from indoor recreational uses, which are a permissible use in the zone. Eastham motioned to amend the original motion to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 zone without the need to seek a special exception. There was no second to the amendment and the amendment died. Plahutnik said he felt that since the Commission had members divided in two separate directions in terms of the need for a special exception, that it was probably a matter that should be discussed fully in an informal session at some point. Plahutnik said he agreed very much that specialized educational facilities were indistinguishable as a use from fitness centers, and joked that O'Donnell might consider changing the name of her facility to the Iowa Fencing Fitness Center to avoid the special exception process altogether. Plahutnik said that overall it was good to open the zone to educational facilities of all stripes, and thanked O'Donnell for bringing the matter to the Commission's attention. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 9 of 12 Weitzel said he felt that the city does a good job of making their CI-1 zones safe and pleasant, and does not find this use to be incompatible with the other uses in the CI-1 zone. He said that because it is not a permissible use in the zone presently, there is merit in having the use reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Freerks said she felt Staff had done a good job outlining the issues involved, and she thanked O'Donnell for taking the time to find a place in this community where she could create a niche. Freerks said there is a lot of history behind why things are put into and taken out of the code, and that reviewing the code from time to time is useful. She said she agreed with Koppes that it could be a good idea to review indoor and outdoor recreational uses to see if they too should require a special exception. Freerks said she felt the amendment before the Commission was a reasonable compromise. A vote was taken and the motion passed on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent). 2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct problematic language that will make it easier to extend wheelchair ramps and stoops into setback areas for all types of buildings. Howard said this amendment is intended to correct some language in the code. Howard said that the term "dwelling unit" in this section of the code should be changed to "building." There were no questions from the Commission. Freerks opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to approve a recommendation to adopt the proposed Zoning Code amendment intended to standardize setback requirements for wheelchair ramps and stoops. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). 3. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify standards that apply to duplexes and single family attached dwellings in planned developments. Howard said that in the informal meeting Plahutnik had asked Staff to review where variation between duplexes and single family attached dwellings occur in planned developments. Howard said that planned developments allow for flexibility in dimensional requirements as well as in the uses that are allowed. This is in part intended to allow developers to be creative or to avoid sensitive features on the site. Howard said the process is set up to be flexible and accommodate a lot of different situations. Howard offered Lytham Condominiums as an example of what she was talking about. She said the property was infill development, and was difficult to develop, with its only access occurring in from a different jurisdiction. In the middle of the property is a large ravine with a lot of sensitive features. In this case, the developer was trying to mix some uses, create open space, and to avoid sensitive features on the site by clustering the development into duplex or attached single Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 10 of 12 family units, with single detached family units providing a transition to the nearby neighborhood. Howard said that in this case the area could not be developed according to the standards of the zone, and so the property became a planned development. Even so, Howard said, in negotiating with the developer, Staff and the developer disagreed as to whether the buildings in question were duplexes or attached single family units, which have different standards and requirements. Howard said the additional language would make it more clear how to judge the difference between attached single family homes and duplexes. Howard said additional clarification will make it clear to developers in the future and should make the process of reviewing applications more straight-forward and efficient. The public hearing was opened; no members of the public were present and the public hearing was closed. Weitzel moved to approve the clarification of provisions in article 14-3A Planned Development Overlay Zone. Eastham seconded. Eastham noted that there was a very extensive and helpful discussion on this matter at the informal meeting. Eastham said that as he understood the matter, the ability to put duplexes in a planned development overlay in an RS-5 or RS-8 zone would not be changed, other than to clarify the standards for doing so. Howard said that was correct. In further discussions between Freerks and Howard regarding the proposed wording change, Freerks said she would hate for the change to result in any sort of moving away from single family homes in planned developments. Howard said that there simply has not been much planned development of any kind recently. She said that before the code was adopted, standards for attached single family were unworkable in some of the zones. Because attached homes were a desired housing type in the community, and because the only way to build them was through planned development, a lot of the planned developments did focus on attached zero-lot lines. In a way, Howard said, the RS-8 zone became the de facto attached single family zone. Freerks asked if it was correct then that not many single family detached homes were part of planned development overlays. Howard said that with single family homes people generally expect to own the land; planned developments keep the overall density in keeping with the underlying zone, while allowing for attached development. Koppes noted that there has to be a genuine justification for a planned development overlay, and it is reviewed by the Commission. Weitzel said it is an important tool to creatively address areas that are problematic to develop. Eastham asked if it is correct that current code says that planned developments can include townhomes if there is justification for them. Howard said that is correct, and read from the current planned development overlay section of the code. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). 5. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to specify that the amount of the Near Southside Neighborhood Parkins Facility impact fee shall be adjusted annually based on the national historical cost indexes contained in the most recent edition of Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 -Formal Page 11 of 12 the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual and to hold any negative changes to the cost index of the preceding near. Howard said this change to the code was initiated by the Housing Inspection Services (HIS) department. This is about adopting a readily available source manual to determine the appropriate rate for the parking facility impact fee in the Near Southside District. The manual that is currently listed in the ordinance is not one that the City receives on a regular basis. The Engineering News Record, however, is one that iswell-respected and is the one the City's Public Works Department uses on a regular basis. The public hearing was opened; no members of the public were present and the public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to approve the amendment to subsection 14-76-7 to indicate the use of the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foof Costs Manual when determining the parking facility impact fee. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 3, 2009: Koppes motioned to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Busard absent). OTHER: Freerks advised Commissioners to check and see who was scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting. Miklo asked Commissioners to mark their calendars for November 11th and 13th. Early in the evening of those two dates some planning workshops will be held for the development of the Gilbert Street/River Front Corridor area. Miklo said that the City is considering calling this area the Riverfront Crossings District. The meetings will be held at the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building, and a letter with details will be sent at a later date. Miklo said that on the morning of November 12th the consultant will want to meet with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission if possible. Howard said the exact agenda is still being hashed out by the consultants. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Busard absent) vote at 8:07 p.m. Z O 0 Z_ Z N Z a Z_ Z Z a J a 0 o c~ W Z ~ W W ~ W U o° ~ Z N J a a ~ ~ Z ~ W ~ I- F- a 0 0 X X X X X X X X X ~ X ~ X ~ X X X X O X X 0 M X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ti ~ x o x x x x x ~ o x x x x o x X X ~ X X X X X X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X N X X X X ~ X X X X X ~ X X X r W ~~ r c- M N O O M ~a WX ~ li ~ in ~- in r- in ~ in .- ~n r- in F-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ~ ~- ~ ~ m J J J 2 a Z ~ fn = U Z a . 2 ~ ~ W C) Y ~ ~ m OC a = Y ~ N W W ~ ~ w W a ~ w a z = N ~ cn cn w a ~ a F... - W a z ~ m a w m w O Y a a ~ a ~ o ~ X X X X X 0 ~ x x x x x x o ti 0 M X X X X X X X M M X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X ~ O X X ~ X X ~ w ~ ~a ~ ~ r .- M ~- N ~- O ~ O .- M r- W X ~n ~ ~n ~n ~n ~ ~n H W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ~ ~- m J ~ J a 2 a Z . Z U Z a ~ W U Y ~ ~ _ ~ W W ~ W W a H W a Z 2 H ~ a cn ~ tn a w ~ o- o >- a a ~ - W z m w w Y a a ~ c~ z H W W Q O Z E `o ~ d a~ ~ o X ~ a~~ ~ ... ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ E cv ~~QZ o aQnllZ II II w II xooz >- w Y 4b 8 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2009 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Eubanks, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Dana Thomann MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Holtkamp, Lynn Zimba RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Bunting Eubanks said that Kuecker presented her with an application that Kuecker felt could be signed as a certificate of no material effect. Bunting Eubanks said, however, that she is a little hesitant to sign the certificate without everyone on the Commission having a look at it. Bunting Eubanks said the house is a ranch house, anon-historic property at 748 Grant Street in the Longfellow Historic District. She said the project is to replace two windows at the rear of the house with a sliding glass door. Bunting Eubanks said the approval would be subject to the door either being solid or metal clad solid wood with trim to match the remaining windows and doors. Bunting Eubanks said Kuecker feels that because this is anon-historic home, a certificate of no material effect is appropriate. Bunting Eubanks said she would sign the application unless someone on the Commission had an objection. Kuecker showed a photograph of the back of the house. Ponto said that it seems that a sliding glass door would be appropriate for a ranch house. Other Commission members agreed. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CONSENT AGENDA: Kuecker said that she places on the consent agenda simple projects that she feels generally meet the guidelines. She said if the Commission feels any of them need to be discussed in further detail, that item or items may be removed from the consent agenda. 321 E. Davenport Street. Kuecker said there was a fire at this house in May. She stated that the Building Official has deemed the building unsafe and is requesting its immediate removal. Kuecker said that because of its dangerous condition and the unlikelihood of the house being reconstructed, staff is recommending approval of the demolition, provided the new structure comply with the guidelines, and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Commission. 621 Rundell Street. Kuecker said this application is for the replacement of windows with windows of the same size. She said the owners would be maintaining all the trim but would just be putting in new window inserts. Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 2 Ponto asked if the three windows in this project are all the same size. Kuecker was not certain but thought not. She stated that the replacement windows are the size of the current windows. Ponto asked if there would be any problem with siding, and Kuecker said there should not be. Ponto asked if the existing trim around the windows would be kept, and Kuecker said that is the plan. Michaud said that with the different sizes it is possible that these are not original windows. Kuecker said that because this is a Moffitt House, it would not be uncommon for the windows to be of different sizes and it is likely that these are the original window sizes. She said that two of the three windows were damaged in a fire, and the owners would like to have all three of the windows be of the same style and look. 726 Clark Street. Kuecker stated that the owners of this property would like to install a sliding glass door on the rear and put in a nine by eleven deck. She showed a photograph of the two windows the owners would like to remove and replace with the glass door. Kuecker said staff feels this is appropriate and meets the guidelines, provided that the sliding glass door is either metal clad wood or solid wood and the handrail looks like the one in the staff report. MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve certificates of appropriateness for the three consent agenda items, subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. (Downing, McMahon, Swaim, Trimble, and Wagner absent) CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 613 Grant Street. Kuecker said that this house is a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. She said the applicant would like to replace the exterior doors and windows. Kuecker said the proposed windows are JELD-WEN metal clad wood sash replacement windows. She stated that the two larger windows on the north side are bedroom windows and will need to be wider to meet egress. Kuecker said staff feels that because all the windows of the same size will be increasing by the same size on one side, it will be compatible with the style of the house, more so than casement windows. Kuecker said that in staff's opinion, the window replacements will have minimal impact on the historic character of the house, provided that they are of a darker color similar to the black windows that are currently there. She said black or another dark color such as dark green would be appropriate. Kuecker said that details about the doors were not provided in the application. She said staff feels the front door is in a condition that could be maintained, and it is likely a historic door. Kuecker said that unless the applicant provides some evidence that the door is deteriorated and beyond repair, then staff feels the door should be retained. She said that the rear door should be subject to staff approval. Kuecker said staff is recommending approval as presented in the application with the conditions that: the divided light pattern match the pattern on the existing windows, with the use of either true divided lights or with muntin bars adhered to both sides of the glass but not with snap-in muntin bars; the window trim be maintained and any new trim replicate the existing trim; the new window sashes matching the color of the existing window sashes or being a similar dark color, as white metal cladding is not appropriate for this application; the historic front door being maintained and not replaced unless evidence of decay is presented; and the other door design being subject to staff approval. Zimba said she had two different companies -Iowa City Windows and Doors and a person from Pella - come out and check the front door, and they told her the front door is not repairable. Zimba said the seams at the bottom on the inside are just open wide, and they did not feel that that could in any way be Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 3 shored up. She said the window at one point had been replaced, and a larger section of trim around the window that is missing and the replacement window had been simply caulked in. Zimba said that the trim on the inside on the top and along the sides has just been stapled in. Zimba said that not replacing the door is essentially defeating the purpose of replacing the windows, because the energy will just be going out through those cracks. She said she would question whether an oval glass door is the original style for this particular type of house. Zimba said there is nothing else in the structure of the house or the decor on the inside that would suggest anything curved or rounded. Zimba said she is going to try to preserve the back door. She said it has almost a half light and three panels that are horizontal. Zimba said that all of the doors in the house are horizontal, three-panel doors. She said that she would prefer to replace the front door with a door that is more in keeping with the rest of the style of the house. Zimba showed a picture of one. Zimba said the only oval door listed in the JELD-WEN catalog is listed in the Victorian section. Michaud said there could be an overlapping style. She asked Zimba if, when she was discussing themes, she is talking about the difference between the horizontal and the vertical doors. Zimba showed where, on the inside, the window was just caulked in. She said it would take quite a bit of redoing. Zimba said she would like to get rid of the storm door completely and not have a storm door there at all. Zimba said the house was built in 1905. Baldridge said he thought the door was older than 1905. Zimba said she checked around the neighborhood, and most of the doors for bungalows are like the one shown in the catalog. Baldridge asked Zimba if she has been to the Salvage Barn, and she had not. Zimba said she is still concerned about the lack of insulation. She said the insulated glass is really going to cut down on energy loss, and she just had a new furnace. and all-new ductwork installed in the house. Zimba said that if she does not get the windows and doors replaced with insulated glass, she is just going to be wasting money. Bunting Eubanks said there are other ways to save energy. She said that one could install a storm door with solid insulated glass. Bunting Eubanks said there are storm windows and storm doors that would fit that barrier. She said the issue for the Commission is whether what is currently there is repairable. Michaud said the people who Zimba consulted with were not carpenters but are sales people who want to sell new doors. Zimba said she has had contractors out there too, and quite a number of people have looked at the door. Baldridge asked if the door opens directly into the living room, and Zimba confirmed this. She showed the door that she would like to use as a replacement, a JELD-WEN door from Iowa City Windows and Doors. Zimba said she could do the crossbar design any way she wanted to with the door. Zimba showed two other doors. She said she likes the design with the horizontal panel like all the other doors and like all the interior doors. Zimba showed another door she likes that did not have the fancy glass. Baldridge said he thinks it is appropriate to replace the door, given the condition of it. Michaud said that if one did not have a storm door, it makes sense to go with the most insulated door possible. She asked about the door material. Zimba said all the choices are wooden doors. She said that even the one that is all solid wood with the glass, the glass is two panes of glass with air in between for about $1,500. Bunting Eubanks asked Zimba if she would be willing to donate the old door to the Salvage Barn, and Zimba said that she would. Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 4 Michaud pointed out that one can also get a metal door that is also insulated and paneled. She said that one could get a metal half-light or three quarter light door, and one can use metal-clad, which does not have to be painted or varnished. Michaud said that it is much better insulation than just wood. Bunting Eubanks suggested the Commission leave approval of the final door to the discretion of staff and the chair. Bunting Eubanks said that a homeowner could also have windows reglazed. She said the panels would be taken out, resurfaced, and then reinstalled. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 613 Grant Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the divided light pattern match the pattern on the existing windows; the window trim be maintained and any new trim replicate the existing trim; the new window sashes matching the color of the existing window sashes or being a similar dark color, as white metal cladding is not appropriate for this application; the final door selection and design being subject to staff approval. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. (Downing, McMahon, Swaim, Trimble, and Wagner absent) 230 South Dodge Street. Kuecker said this is a contributing property on the corner of Dodge and Burlington Streets in the College Green Historic District. She said the applicant proposes several projects for approval, including siding repair and replacement, window replacement, roof repair and replacement, and a parking area addition. Kuecker showed a photograph of the house from Burlington Street. Regarding the siding, she said the applicant proposes to remove portions of the siding, including a portion under the porch and on the Dodge Street side and the siding on the back addition. Kuecker stated that most of the house is asbestos siding. She showed the asbestos shingles on the rear and the rear addition siding. Kuecker said that if only portions of the house were have the asbestos removed with wood or fiber cement board used instead, the house will have apieced-together, disjointed look. She said staff feels that the siding should be an all or nothing project, with all removed or all retained with repairs made to the portions that need it. Kuecker said that if the applicant were willing to remove all the asbestos siding and assess the condition of the wood siding, hopefully the wood would be in a state such that it can be restored. She said that if it were decayed, fiber cement board of the same reveal would be appropriate in this case. Kuecker stated that if the applicant is unwilling to remove all the siding, then repairs should be made only to the damaged portions of the asbestos siding. Regarding the replacement of the siding on the rear portion, since it already does not match and it is a rear addition, the replacement of that with fiber cement board would be fine, according to Kuecker. She said it would be good to match the original wood siding, but if that cannot be determined, then a three to five inch reveal siding would be appropriate. Kuecker said the applicant would like to replace the windows with Pella Po-line, metal-clad wood windows. She said the applicant would like to use dark red or brown colored sashes. Kuecker stated that some of the windows have atwo-over-two pattern, but most have a one over one pattern. She said the applicant would like to use one over one, and staff feels that either pattern would be appropriate for this style of house, as long as it is consistent all the way around the house. Kuecker said the applicant proposes to remove the garage door and replace it with a window that matches the one above. She showed a window on one elevation and showed a door and window that the applicant would like to remove that are both in pretty deteriorated condition and do not appear to be Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 5 original to the house. Kuecker showed a window that does not appear to be original that she discussed with the applicant. Kuecker said that instead of replacing it as is, she showed replacing the two windows that would be an appropriate size in a more consistent location. She said that they had talked about putting two windows on the second story, but there is a chimney that would prevent any windows from being located in that room. Kuecker said staff believes the new windows would be consistent with the historic integrity of the house and that either two-over-two or one-over-one windows would be appropriate, just so it is consistent throughout. She said the trim should be maintained and replicated on any new windows or where it has been removed. Regarding the roof, Kuecker said the applicant proposes to replace the asphalt shingles on the main roof, which does not fall under the Commission's purview. She said the applicant is planning also to make repairs to the metal roof of the porch but is concerned that when he cleans it, it will be beyond repair. Kuecker said the applicant would therefore like permission at this time to use asphalt shingles. She said staff believes that asphalt shingles on the porch roof would have a minimal impact on the house. Kuecker said the last portion of the application is for the parking area. She said the applicant is converting the building into a duplex, and in order to get the rental permit for occupancy he desires, he will need six parking spaces here, which will include stacked parking spaces. Kuecker said that for the number of bedrooms being planned; only four parking spaces are required. She said that this requires review by several other entities, including a minor modification review by the Building Official and approval by the DOT. Kuecker said these additional approvals are required because of the property location on a State highway and its proximity to the intersection with Burlington. Kuecker stated that the guidelines pertaining to review by the Commission state that, "The driveway leading from the street shall be one lane in width, which is generally ten to twelve feet wide, and it can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to the parking." She said that guidelines also state that the parking must be behind the primary structure where possible, and if it must be located along the side, it must be set back at least ten feet from the front plane of the structure and screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of landscaping and fencing. Kuecker said that the parking area is not compatible with the building and the neighborhood, and there should be some steps taken to mitigate the visibility from the street and the neighboring properties. She said some suggested steps would be narrowing the driveway to ten or twelve feet, reducing the amount of paving to the minimum required, and providing landscaping of at least 50% evergreen between the north and east property lines and the parking area. Kuecker said that the parking and landscape plans either should be subject to staff approval or considered at a future Commission meeting. Kuecker said she distributed a letter from Friends of Historic Preservation saying that they would like to help in any way possible to see this house restored appropriately. She said that Friends is willing to donate siding or any other exterior trim piece from the Salvage Barn at no cost to the owner. Bunting Eubanks said this is a huge project, and the Commission would like to help Holtkamp, the owner, to make this house livable again. Bunting Eubanks asked Holtkamp to elaborate and discuss his feelings regarding staff's comments about the parking and the siding. Holtkamp said that he owns several rental properties. He said that he wants to make the property look nice. Holtkamp said there are money issues involved, with regard to getting a certain amount of rent. Regarding having six parking spots versus four parking spots, he said it is the difference between having six people be able to live in the house or eight. Holtkamp said that, depending on how many parking spaces he can get really changes his rents from about six to eight hundred dollars a month. He said that adds $80,000 that he can use to make this much Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 6 more feasible. Holtkamp said that if he can only get four parking spots and cannot get another parking option provided, he probably would not have the money to do new windows, replace all the siding, or do the roof. Bunting Eubanks asked Holtkamp if he could keep the existing driveway for two spots and then have four in the back. Holtkamp said that he does not think it would be approved. He said that with the minor modification is because a driveway has to be 150 feet from the intersection, but in this case, it is 150 feet to the alley so no portion of the lot is farther than 150 feet from the intersection. He said the only way they will approve it is that this is an improvement, because we are moving it further from the intersection. He said they are not going to let him have two points of access. Bunting Eubanks asked if there is enough setback to plant evergreens here. Holtkamp said there is essentially two feet, so there is room for a small strip on the property line to define it. Kuecker said the guidelines say the screening can be fencing, landscaping, or a combination of the two. She said the Commission could give guidance regarding what kind of screening it would like to see and then leave that to the discretion of staff or staff and the chair. Bunting Eubanks said that she would like to see a combination of fencing and evergreens, with the final design to be approved by staff and the chair. Holtkamp discussed the possibility of keeping the tree that is currently on the property and the possibility of planting a new tree. Regarding the siding proposal, Bunting Eubanks asked if it would be acceptable to Holtkamp to do it all at once. Holtkamp said that initially he was unaware of the criteria for fixing the siding. He said his preference would be to rip all the asbestos off and see what is there. Holtkamp said that if there were a money constraint, he would probably end up patching the asbestos. Baldridge said that he is very pleased that this project is feasible. Holtkamp asked for addresses of other houses with paint schemes that would work on his property. Michaud said that all of the paint stores have information regarding what is appropriate for certain types of houses. Bunting Eubanks said Kuecker or anyone on the Commission would be glad to give color suggestions, but the Commission does not regulate paint color. Bunting Eubanks asked Commission members if, regarding the siding, they were okay with giving Holtkamp the option of repairing the asbestos or taking it all off and using the offer of free siding from Friends. Baldridge said he would prefer to see all of the asbestos taken off. Ponto agreed but said that if it's an issue of money, he thought that one could repair the existing and maintain the look for a while until there is enough money to do it right later. Bunting Eubanks asked if there were strong opinions about the number of parking spaces. Ponto said he feels that if one is going to have four spaces, six is not that many more. He said it is a chunk of paving back there, but he does not have a problem with six spaces. Baldridge said the persuasive aspect of this is that the additional spaces will help generate the income to keep the property up. Michaud said that the parking fot seems to protrude farther than the house by maybe two feet. She said it would be nice if it did not protrude beyond, and one would just see bushes from Burlington Street. Holtkamp said that would not be a problem. Kuecker said since the parking does require a minor modification, there might be changes involved in that too. Bunting Eubanks suggested leaving the final approval up to staff and the chair. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 230 South Dodge Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the applicant either repairing the existing siding or the applicant removing all of the asbestos siding and restoring the wood siding underneath if the wood siding is in good condition or, if it is found that the wood siding underneath is deteriorated or missing, there would be the option of using either fiber Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 7 cement board or salvaged wood siding with an appropriate reveal of three to five inches; replacement window locations subject to staff and chair approval; the trim to match the original; the roof as presented; and the landscaping plan for the parking area final design to be subject to the approval of staff and the chair. Thomann seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. (Downing, McMahon, Swaim, Trimble, and Wagner absent) DISCUSSION OF THE CREATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES: Kuecker said that the rough draft of the guidelines has been created, but she felt she did not have a lot of longevity with the Commission and believes it would be good at this point to have Commission input. She asked for three or four Commission members to volunteer to review what has been compiled so far, make suggestions and changes, and prepare a final draft for the HPC, the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately the City Council. Bunting Eubanks suggested Kuecker send out to Commission members what has been done so far, and the Commission members would a-mail in comments. She said each member could use his individual expertise to come up with comments. Kuecker said that both Downing and Trimble were interested in serving on a subcommittee to review the proposed guidelines. Kuecker said that every single page of the handbook has been edited. Bunting Eubanks suggested the Commission use both methods -initially using a subcommittee to make first draft changes and then having each member review online and submit comments to the draft that would then be closer to its final form. Kuecker said that some of the changes in the guidelines involve new materials that need to be reviewed. She added that the Commission has also wanted to look at expediting certain types of reviews to make the review process more efficient. Kuecker said the City Council plans to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission sometime in the next couple of months regarding the new guidelines. Ponto asked to be notified of the subcommittee meeting time also, as he might be able to attend, depending on time constraints. Bunting Eubanks said she might also be able to attend, as did Michaud. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 8s 2009. Baker said that the adjournment time should read 6:14 p.m. MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 8, 2009 meeting, as amended. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. (Downing, McMahon, Swaim, Trimble, and Wagner absent) OTHER: Kuecker discussed a new program that will be taking place in Iowa City. She said that earlier this year, staff approached The University of Iowa about creating a home ownership incentive for University employees. Kuecker said that evolved into an application for an I-JOBS grant to help with the restoration of older homes that currently have rental permits. She said the program would involve putting up to $50,000 of rehabilitation into the homes and then selling them to owner occupants who meet certain income qualifications. Kuecker said there is now one million dollars from I-JOBS for this, which would involve at least 20 homes. She showed the general area that has been designated for this program -the Miller Orchard Neighborhood on the west side of the river and the area east of the river that comprises a significant Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2009 Page 8 portion of the close-in neighborhoods. Kuecker added that the houses have to be worth less than $200,000 and need less than $50,000 of rehabilitation. Kuecker stated that as the program progresses, there would be homebuyer incentives and home improvement and preservation programs to encourage University employees and employees of other downtown employers to live close to where they work. She said that partnerships have developed among several local banks and other organizations that have all donated money toward this program. Kuecker said many of the historic districts will be impacted by this program. Baldridge said that at its last meeting, Friends of Historic Preservation discussed having this program be the target for its annual meeting in January. Kuecker said that no houses have been purchased yet, but a certain portion of the one million dollars has to be spent soon, so things will be moving quickly. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O N O U Z O F- a W N W a U 0 H O U W w U Z Q O Z W Q T X X w O X 1 O X X p X ~ X r O r X X ~ X i ~ X O X ~ X ~ X X ~ X X i ~ X X X X ~ ~ X X X X ~ X i ~ X X X X ~ ~ X X n X ~ X X X ~ X X X ~ r co X X X X ; ~ ; W O W O W O X X N X X X X ~ ~ O X X ' X ~ X X X X X X X ~ ~ X X ~t x o x x x ' x x o x x x x x x w O ~ w O x x x x M M N W O x x x x ~ ; x x x x x o x x x x X x x ~ x x r ' ' ~ a ~ W r r N M N r N M O r N M ~ r N M ~- ~- N M ~- r N M N ~ N M O r N M N r N M ~ ~- N M O r N M N r N M a Z ~ i ui ~ a m W ~ W a m ~ ~ C7 Z o D y Z ~ Y ~ W ~ v z ~ = oc 2 o a G z0 _ ~ ~ ~ a O ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~' a J z _ t9 3 tq a Q o Z Q i F- ~ ~ Q w J ~ Y Z oC W ~ o~ 0 0 N E 0 ~O a~ o U Z N X ~~ ~, ~ =N~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ Q Z o n_QnuZ uuw~~~ XOOZ