Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-15 Bd Comm minutes2b 1 Airport Commission April 29, 2010 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION APRIL 29, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Howard Horan, Minnetta Gardinier, Greg Farris, Steve Crane Members Absent: Janelle Rettig Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Van Miller, Randy Hartwig RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action)• Recommend Council Accepts Purchase Offer of Lot #10 in Aviation Commerce Park by Van Meter Industrial, Inc. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: Consider a Motion recommending sale of Lot #10 in Aviation Commerce Park -Miller gave an update to Members on the negotiations for Lot #10. Gardinier asked about Miller's impression of the current market and the impact of accepting less than the asking price on the land. Miller responded and stated that he felt this offer was within the market value of land in the area. Horan commented that when this land was being priced and marketed was when the real estate bubble had been forming and pushing values up. Gardinier asked why the buyer didn't move to Lot #6, to which Miller responded. Miller stated that during the negotiations, that there was a request from the City that the buyer consider lot #6 in lieu of #10. Miller stated that the buyer had looked at lot #6, but due to its configuration wanted to stay with Lot #10. Members discussed the offer amount versus if there was a better offer amount that they could get. Crane responded that based on his knowledge the offer was as good as they were going to get from this entity. Members responded they hope the buyer's intentions of creating additional employment would turn into reality. Farris moved to recommend to council to accept the offer on Lot #10 in Aviation Commerce Park. Gardinier seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0, Rettig Absent. FY2011 State Aviation Grant Application -Tharp recalled the conversation from the previous meeting and that after discussions with Jet Air, that construction of a large bay storage hangar at this time wasn't feasible. He noted that following that he discussed with the engineers, the possibility of constructing several smaller hangars that would be large enough to house large twin aircraft such as the King Air model, or Citation jet models. Tharp noted that he had been Airport Commission April 29, 2010 able to contact some groups on the hangar waiting list and had been able to get tentative commitments to the hangar designs. Horan asked about the configuration of the hangars with north facing doors. Tharp responded that while that isn't ideal, the configuration would also potentially allow for parking and access on the south side. Tharp noted that they have a north facing hangar now in building K that they have been able to manage. Gardinier asked about the number of small aircraft that could fit into these, and Tharp responded that there could be 2 aircraft per hangar if they were single engine aircraft. Farris asked about the grant and what they would. be applying for. Tharp discussed the funding numbers with Members which would include funds from the Lot #10 sale. Tharp discussed having a good relationship with the state and that the State has worked with the airport in the past about not being able to fund a project to the asking levels, and asking if the airport can reshape the project to fit the available funds. Tharp discussed the overall funding amounts of the project and gave members a breakdown of funding sources. Tharp discussed the features of the grants and that he would recommend that these hangars be treated more like the corporate type hangars on the field rather than the T- hangars. Tharp also stated that they would need to hold a more detailed discussion about amenities once the full amount of available money was known. Tharp gave members a brief update on recent T-hangar turnovers. Gardinier asked about the layout of the "L" shape and asked if there could be 5 in line, and if that would impact the construction costs. Farris stated that he felt they should go forward with the grant process based on Tharp's recommendation. Farris moved the Airport Commission submit the FY2011 State Aviation Grant, based on Tharp's recommendation. Seconded by Gardinier. Motion carried 4-0, Rettig Absent Crane asked about when the Airport Commission would know if they were going to get a grant or not. Tharp discussed the schedule for the grant awards and noted that in June the state program is presented to the state Transportation Commission at which time they'll know if they've been recommended for a grant. ADJOURN: Farris moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:36 P.M. Crane seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Rettig Absent. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 29, 2010 AIRPORT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 NAME TERM EXP. 1/21 2/18 3/18 4/15 4/29 Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X O/E X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 X X X O/E X Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X O/E Steve Crane 3/1/14 --- --- --- X X NAME TERM EXP. Greg Farris 3/1/13 Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 Howard Horan 3/1/14 Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 Steve Crane 3/1/14 KEY: X = Present O = Absent OIE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 2b 2 Airport Commission April 15, 2010 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, Steve Crane Members Absent: Minnetta Gardinier, Greg Farris Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson Others Present: Matt Wolford, Toby Myers, David Hughes FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. FY11-15 STRATEGIC PLAN: a. Consider a resolution adopting FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan -Jeff Davidson noted that they are ready to consider adopting the FY11-15 Strategic Plan. He quickly highlighted the revisions from the last meeting. He noted that Horan has some photographs to add to the plan. Davidson added that the April 27 City Council formal meeting is when the Strategic Plan will be presented to the Council. Rettig moved that Resolution #A10-03 adopting the FY2011-2015 Airport Strategic Plan be considered for approval. Seconded by Crane. Motion carried 3-0. Gardinier and Farris absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The minutes of the March 18, 2010, Airport Commission meeting were reviewed. Rettig moved to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2010, Airport Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Crane. Motion carried 3-0. Gardinier and Farris absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. 2 Airport Commission April 15, 2010 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp noted that the offer and counter-offer on lot #10 have lapsed. Dulek then provided some background information on the offer and counter-offer, noting that she had not heard back from the broker on this deal by the 5:00 PM deadline. Members then gave new Member Crane some background information on Aviation Commerce Park. Rettig moved to adjourn to executive session to discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation. Crane seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Gardinier and Farris absent. The Commission went into Executive Session at 6:19 PM and resumed open session at 6:23 PM. b. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM i. Runway 7/25 8~ 12/30 -Hughes addressed the Commission, stating that they are finishing up seeding and grading, and some miscellaneous clean-up items. Rettig asked about the pavement markings and how they fared. Hughes noted that one area had problems -the taxilane in the south T-hangars. They will be repainting this section. ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Hughes noted that they are still back and forth on this with paperwork on the United hangar. They have talked to the FAA and there are still two items outstanding. Hughes will get some information to Dulek for a possible letter and follow-up. iii. 2010 Pavement Rehab -Hughes stated that they finally have an agreement for review. He will get this to the Commission soon for their review. c. Building H -University of Iowa Hangar Expansion -Tharp noted that there is some seed work yet to finish up here, and then they will be ready to close it up. Rettig moved to authorize the Chair to sign a release to AECOM Technical Services (fka Earth Tech) for obligations on Building H. Crane seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Gardinier and Farris absent. d. 2011 Air Race Classic -Tharp stated that he does not have any further info on this at this time. Horan explained to Crane what this event is, noting that the Iowa City Airport will be the 'launch' site for 2011. e. Corporate Hangar "L" -Tharp stated that there is aviation funding at the State that is being looked into. He further noted that they have received a couple of estimates on different building sizes, one being 100 by 100, and the other an 80 by 80. For Airport Commission April 15, 2010 grant purposes they are looking at both sizes, with the 100 by 100 having project costs of about $870,000, and the 80 by 80 having project costs of about $695,000. Tharp responded to Members' questions, further explaining how they would like to proceed with this project. Members discussed in further detail how this project might get funded, with Tharp explaining how the aviation grants might be utilized with the matching funds from the City. The discussion turned to building a set of T-hangars versus an 80 by 80 corporate hangar. f. Airport Operations; Strategic Plan Implementation; Budget; Management - Horan stated that he is very happy with the Strategic Plan that has been created. Rettig briefly gave Crane an overview of the Airport's budget. She questioned a couple line items, and Tharp stated that he will look into these further. Tharp noted that he is still working with the Public Works department to get the asphalt work done. He received an estimate that was higher than expected, and is awaiting revisions on this. g. FBO /Iowa Flight Training /Whirlybird Reports -Toby Michaels with Jet Air introduced Matt Wolford, Phillip's brother, adding that he will be coming to Iowa City full time in May. Michaels noted that the Jet Air crew has been working on getting everything in shape for the spring season. Michaels stated that they have acquired another ambulance sled' and that things have been picking up for them. Charter flights have increased, according to Michaels, but they are still trying to make up for the past two years. Wolford then spoke to Members, noting that he graduates in May from Western Illinois University and will be moving to Iowa City. He added that in addition to increasing fuel sales he also plans to work on sales and marketing for Jet Air. He shared a flyer with Members, noting an open house on May 22nd being held by Jet Air. There will be various seminars held, as well as helicopter and airplane rides. Michaels then spoke about the growing air ambulance service and some of the partnering he is doing with this. Tharp added that Whirlybirds has been doing more advertising. h. Subcommittees' Reports -Horan noted that there is a list of subcommittees in the packet this week. He briefly explained the various subcommittees to Crane. Tharp noted that he is working with Document Services downtown on getting display information set up for the viewing area. Rettig stated that it would be nice to have a completed viewing area by 2011, in time for the Air Race Classic. Commission Members' Reports -Rettig noted that unless they have a special meeting, this will be her last Commission meeting. She noted the accomplishments they have made as a Commission and stated that she believes the Airport's future is sound. She thanked everyone for the time they have served together. Horan noted that Rettig has been a great addition to the Commission, and he thanked her for her service. Crane introduced himself and noted that he served on the Housing and Community Development Commission for four years. j. Staff Reports -Tharp stated that the Iowa Aviation Conference is next week, Wednesday and Thursday. Crane will be attending the first day of the conference with Tharp. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING: 4 Airport Commission April 15, 2010 The next regular meeting is set for Thursday, May 20, 2010, at 6:00 P. M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: Rettig moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 P.M. Crane seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and Farris absent. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 15, 2010 AIRPORT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 NAME TERM EXP. 1/21 2/18 3/18 4115 Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X O/E Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 X X X O/E Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X Steve Crane 3/1/14 --- --- --- X NAME TERM EXP. Greg Farris 3/1/13 Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 Howard Horan 3/1/14 Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 Steve Crane 3/1/14 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 06-15-10 2b 3 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 13, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Anderson, Thane Kading, Ann Khan, Dennis Kirkwood, Marion Love, Owen Wagner RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) The Commission voted 9-0 (Thomann absent) to recommend approval of the revised Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook to the City Council. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 617 North Johnson Street. Kuecker said that the applicant has withdrawn this request at this time. 1143 Maple Street. Kuecker said this is an application to build a garage with the dimensions of 24 feet by 32 feet. She said the height to the peak is just over 20 feet. Kuecker said the materials and design are intended to mimic the style and detail of the house. Kuecker stated that this is a ranch-style, non-historic house on anon-historic street in the Longfellow Historic District. She said the proposed garage would be located to the rear of the property. Kuecker added that the driveway is a single-lane driveway to start with, expanding to two car widths in the rear. She said the impact on the street would be minimal, and in fact there is already a small driveway coming off the street there now. Kuecker said the reason for the size of the garage is that the owners would like to store a sailboat, which requires the additional height. She said staff believes the proposed garage meets the historic preservation guidelines. Kuecker said because the property is anon-historic property on anon-historic street, there will be no impact on the historic integrity of the house or the neighborhood, and staff recommends approval as presented in the application. Michaud asked about the garage doors and if there would be two rows of windows. Kirkwood confirmed this and added that there would just be one garage door. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for a garage at 1143 Maple Street, as proposed in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent . 1207 Muscatine Avenue. Kuecker said that this application was submitted by the City. She said the property was purchased as part of the University Neighborhood Partnership. Kuecker said that $50,000 worth of rehabilitation will be put into the house, and then the house will be resold as affordable housing. She said that there is a requirement that the house be owner Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 2 occupied for at least ten years, as part of the City's effort to influence some of the areas that are partially rental and partially owner occupied into being more owner occupied with more ownership in the neighborhood. Kuecker said that the rehab specialists submitted a memo that outlines the project. She said that there are several aspects to the project. Kuecker said that first, there will be a repair of the porch column, taking out the pier, jacking up that corner, rebuilding the pier, and then rebuilding the stairs to match what is existing. Kuecker said the second part involves the replacement of the door with a taller door, reusing and replicating the trim. Kuecker said the third part involves the windows, where across the bottom of the windows is the back of a kitchen counter. She said the proposal is to make the windows shorter in order to change this when the kitchen is remodeled. Kuecker said the fourth part involves the window in the bathroom where the applicant would like to install a shower. She said the applicant would like to come up with a solution that does not require the removal of the window, but if that is not possible, the applicant is asking for approval of the removal of the window at this time. Kuecker stated that the fifth part of the project involves the garage. She said that currently there is a large gasoline tank near the corner that will need to be removed to make sure there is not any contamination of the soil. Kuecker said that the applicant is concerned that the removal of the tank will make the already unstable garage even more unstable. She said the applicant wants to seek approval ahead of time rather than forgiveness should that happen. Kuecker said that staff feels that all those requests are reasonable and recommends approval of the application with the condition that the window and door specifications be approved by staff. Swaim said that since the Commission is concerned about outbuildings and because they are going away, perhaps the Commission should keep a catalog of Iowa City outbuildings just for the Commission's own use so that there are samples available when someone asks for specifics about what something should look like. Kuecker noted that that was a good idea and something she would begin doing. Wagner said that he felt there is no way to get the tank out of there without destroying the garage. Kuecker said there are also no footings or a foundation under the garage. Wagner said the blocks are not in bad shape, but all of the mortar is gone. He said the framing of the roof is fairly square. Wagner said it is coming down; the question is whether it should be taken down to rebuild it. Kuecker said that if this is taken down the intention is to recycle the blocks. Downing said there are three doors on the house -front, back, and side. He said that on other foursquare houses, there is a short side door, because of the landing of the stairwell. Downing said he believes that short door is a defining feature of a foursquare house. Downing said they may not be able to raise it. Downing said that he would be reluctant to change the height of the door. He said that for the window, we are not seeing a floor plan of the bathroom, so it is hard to evaluate. Downing said that there are other options. Wagner said that in another house, where the shower stall went in, the solution was a solid piece of glass and the all the way around the window with glass on the inside. He said that from the outside, one would never know. Michaud said there is a pair of windows on the northwest corner of the house. She said those would be the right size to replicate for the replacement kitchen windows. Swaim said she has no problem with short windows. She said that when there are a variety of windows, it is best to line them up across horizontally, when possible. Michaud asked if the replacement windows over the kitchen counter would be metal clad or wood. Kuecker confirmed this, saying the material will need to be approved by her. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1207 Muscatine Avenue with the condition that the window and door specifications be approved by staff. Swaim seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 3 Downing said that he would not vote in favor of this, because of the bathroom window and the door MOTION: Downing moved to amend the motion to not allow the applicant to change the height of the door and to not allow the removal of the bathroom window. Baldridge seconded the motion. Baldridge said it seems that it would be less expensive to retain the window and just keep the appearance from the outside. Ackerson said that with a window that can only be accessed from the outside, if any repair work needs to be done, then the siding must be torn off to get at it. Wagner said that if the aluminum storm window was left, it could be unscrewed, the sashes could be removed, and the glass would still be there. He said the whole wall is the except for the glass that is set into the tile. Regarding the door, Trimble asked if there are other doors on other houses in the neighborhood similar to the current one that are taller than six feet. Downing said that one could probably find a foursquare with a taller floor-to-floor height that might have a taller side door. Trimble stated that if this is a really identifiable feature of a foursquare, then it should be retained. The amendment to the motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent). Baldridge said that the City is going to be rehabbing this house and has no idea who is going to buy it. Kuecker confirmed this. Wagner asked Kuecker if they City plans to replace the door or just wants the option to replace it. Kuecker said the City wants the option to do it. Baldridge said that if the HPC denies the modification, then someone would have to come back and make the case for why it is not acharacter-defining feature. Michaud said that changing the door would just bring it up to modern standards. She said it is the door someone would use to get into the kitchen. McMahon said that this is why the Commission needs to discuss how strongly people feel about this, because the motion might have just been left to be worded "as recommended by staff," versus a strong recommendation that it not be changed. The main motion as amended carried on a vote of 8-1 (Michaud no, Thomann absent). 1107 Clark Court: Kuecker said this project involves the reconstruction of a porch. She said the concrete is crumbling, and the applicant proposes to replace the concrete with a wood deck, referring to a drawing in the packet. Kuecker said that staff has some concerns about changing to a wood deck. She stated that this minimal house does not have many colonial features, but one of them is a concrete stoop. Kuecker said that staff feels this is a character- defining feature, and the design, as proposed, increases the width and the depth of it. She said staff recommends that the stoop actually be replaced with concrete. Kuecker said that a balustrade and handrail would likely be needed when the porch is replaced, and staff feels these should be approved by staff, because it is not 100% clear in the drawing what is being proposed. She said if the columns are decayed and need to be repaired or replaced, they need to be repaired or replaced with similar, round columns. Kuecker stated that the design should be approved by staff, with the width of the porch not being increased. She said if the owners are committed to wood, then abetter-drawn design needs to be submitted for review. McMahon asked if anyone knew what the price difference would be for a concrete stoop. Kuecker said she did not know. Wagner asked if the concrete stoop is original, and Kuecker said she was fairly certain that it was. Michaud said she believes it is best to replace it as it was. She said the house might have the shutters, but the windows are still originals, and she did not see any reason to add an artificial feature to it with a wood deck. Baldridge said he does not really see what is gained by this expansion. Kuecker said she believes the reason this is being expanded is because the owners were planning to build the wood deck on top of the old without removing it. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 4 Ackerson said that the interest in having railings is to assist going in and out. Kuecker responded that once the steps are reconstructed, they might be of a height that would require railings. Swaim asked, if the owners built a new cement stoop, if the railings would not be needed. Kuecker said that railings might still be needed, because the top step may be greater than 30 inches off the ground. She said that if the owners are replacing what is original, they would be required to have railings to meet code. Wagner asked about the rise on the first step. Kuecker said that the step is broken. She said that all of the new steps would have to be even. Michaud asked if the owners could get by with a pipe railing. Kuecker said she believes so but would have to consult the building code. She said that a metal railing of some sort would be more appropriate than a wood railing here. Kuecker said the owners will have to have a railing if the steps are replaced so that they will have to propose something. Swaim said that the bottom step is only five inches, as opposed to the others. She said that they all need to be equal now, so if the owner does not want to raise the top of the porch, that would need to be accommodated by making the other steps shorter. Wagner said that the minimum rise is 7 '/4. He said that with four steps, the owners could make this less than 30 inches, perhaps by just lowering the top to get the whole thing under thirty. Wagner said that then a railing might not be required. Michaud suggested using a ramp to just slope it upward. Kuecker suggested that if the Commission is leaning toward requiring the new to be in concrete, then that should be voted on, rather than trying to come up with a design right now without knowing the dimensions. Michaud said that it does behoove the Commission to suggest the owners lower the total height of the stairs. She said that it is going to require this banister otherwise, which is not appropriate to this era of house. Baker suggested that this could be moved and voted down, requiring the owners to come up with a new plan. Kuecker said that if the owners rebuild this with concrete steps, it might not even come before the Commission, because it might be eligible for a certificate of no material effect. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for the porch at 1107 Clark Court. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-9 (Thomann absent). 923 Dearborn Street. Kuecker said this is anon-contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She said that the applicant would like to raise the roof of the house approximately 7 '/x feet to make the upper level usable as living space. Kuecker said the owners would also like to add dormers to each side. She showed rear and side elevations of the proposal. Kuecker said that the guidelines in general recommend against vertical additions, because it often impacts the historic integrity of the house. She added, however, that because this is anon-contributing house and most of this end of Dearborn Street is non-contributing as well, staff believes this change in height will not significantly impact the historic integrity of this house or the district. Kuecker said that staff does believe there should be more second story windows of the same double-hung type as the ones on the first floor on the front elevation in order to create a more balanced fapade. She said this will help prevent large, interrupted areas of siding on the front elevation. Michaud asked if shutters would have to be added to all of the windows. Kuecker said that shutters are not something the Commission typically regulates but said the owner was at the meeting to answer questions about the project. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of the project with the conditions that the siding, trim, and other details match the existing appearance of the house; the new windows being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood windows; and the front elevation including additional windows, with the final front elevation to be subject to staff approval. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 5 Baldridge said that this is one of four houses here that are virtually the same. Michaud said that there are five on the other side of the street, for a total of nine on the street that are very similar. Baldridge pointed out that they are all non-contributing. Kuecker agreed that they are all non-contributing, and the site inventory forms state that they non- contributing because of their architectural style. Michaud asked the owner if she plans to do anything with the partial brick wall in the front. Khan indicated that was not part of the project. Downing said it is not the Commission's job to consider the structure of the house. He suggested the builder think about the structure, because adding a second story to a two by four wall underneath might cause a structural problem. Khan said that the contractor is going to talk to an engineer. She said it is not going to be a big enough change, based on what that is already there, and is just adding on a couple of feet to the sides of the house. Kuecker showed a drawing with the current line of the roof and then the proposed line. She said that the difference is about 7 '/z feet. Kuecker said that the pitch of the roof would be the same, but the way the rafters are being used will make the interior pitch different. She showed the pitch that would be on the exterior, the same as the existing at 8:12, but showed how the interior pitch would be shallower. Khan said she hopes that the house will still have acottage-like feel to it, with the dormers, and that there will not be a large difference in terms of how it is now. She said she wants to add to the living space but still try to keep some integrity of the design that was there before. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 923 Dearborn Street with the conditions that the siding, trim, and other details match the existing appearance of the house; the new windows being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood windows; and the front elevation including additional windows, with the final front elevation to be subject to staff approval. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent). 730 North Linn Street. Kuecker said that this project is for an addition, part of which is a garage. She said this house is a Queen Anne style house on the corner of Linn and Brown Streets, with the main facade facing Linn Street. Kuecker said the applicant proposes to construct atwo-story addition on the south side of the property, essentially in the location where the screen porch is but coming farther to the south. She said the ground floor is proposed to be an attached garage, with the garage door facing Linn Street. Kuecker said that the proposed material type has not been submitted, but the applicant indicated that everything would be matched to the existing house. Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for construction of compatible additions but also recommend against attaching garages unless they are designed to be compatible. She said the guidelines also recommend vehicular access to be off an alley when available and only from the street when alley access is not feasible. Kuecker said that this house does have frontage on Brown Street, Linn Street, and an alley. Baldridge said the owners are using the alley access now, and Kuecker confirmed this. She said the proposed attached garage would have access off of Linn Street. Kuecker showed the west elevation, which would be the Linn Street elevation. She showed what would be the front of the house, with the garage to the south, accessed off Linn Street. Kuecker showed the change on the Brown Street elevation and the south facing from the alley with the addition section. Kuecker said that staff has concerns about the scale and mass of the addition, that it is not compatible with the house. She said it is taller than the existing roofline and changes the appearance quite a bit. Kuecker said staff is also concerned that the proposed vehicular access is not off the alley, which is what the guidelines recommend. Kuecker said staff does believe that there is a way to construct an attached garage to this property without having the design overwhelm or distract from the historic character of the house. She said staff also believes a detailed material list including siding, roofing, foundation; windows, door, etc. will need to be submitted before a full review can be done for this project. Kuecker said staff recommends that a design professional be employed for such a large addition to such a historic house. She said the applicant has been notified of staff's concerns, and staff is recommending deferral until all these issues can be worked out. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 6 Kading, one of the owners of the house, said they really wanted to go ahead and get the opinion of the Commission on this design. She agreed that this is a large addition but said that the roofline is not larger than the height of the existing roofline. Kading suggested that they use some type of dormer to make it more similar to the Victorian look that the house has. Kading stated that this should not be as big of an issue as it seems to be, because it is anon-contributing property. Kuecker stated that this actually is a contributing property. Kading asked if it would make a difference if they put in a dormer. Michaud said she did not think that another gable is needed so much as the windows that the builder drew in look like 1990s suburban, cathedral windows. Kading said they would be double hung windows. Michaud said there are so many windows, so that the massing of the windows exceeds what the historic massing would be. She said the windows do not correspond with the windows on the rest of the house. Kading said that if they use double hung windows, they would correspond with the other windows. Downing said that the problem is that the windows in the house geometrically are completely different than any of the drawings. He said the house has very long, tall narrow windows, and the sketches show contemporary windows. Michaud added that typically, the Commission just says that windows have to be the same size and proportion as the windows on the house. Michaud said that there is already one triangle, so that could probably be repeated. She said however, the number and placement of windows does not look like a Victorian distribution of windows. Downing said that the house is the largest, single investment of one's life, and the addition would be a huge part of that. He said that the effort made in the owners' representing it to themselves and to the Commission is probably ten minutes worth of effort. Downing said it is impossible for the Commission to evaluate the proposal based on the submitted drawings. Downing said that one problem is the design. Swaim said that it is too hard to get a sense of the depths and the addition and such, because it is all kind of a flat plane. Downing said that the Grant Street proposal shows a much more comprehensive design proposal. Kading asked for a copy of that proposal, and Kuecker provided one. Baldridge asked about the garage and if the owners would be willing to have access off the alley. Kading said that her husband really does not want to have access off the alley, because they are the only double lot there and want to keep this as a double lot. She said that if they ever want to split the lot, however, access off the alley would not allow for that. Baldridge said that having driven on Linn Street, access from Linn Street into the garage directly would be much more cumbersome than going via the alley. Wagner said he was also not certain that a curb cut could be put that close to the intersection and still meet the zoning regulations. Swaim said it is hard for her to imagine an attached garage on a Queen Anne. She said that it would be worth the owners' time to get some suggestions or examples of this. Swaim said it might work, but she has not seen it before. Kuecker showed an example of an attached garage to a house on Park Road, although the house is not a Queen Anne. She said that the guidelines list an attached garage as not recommended, not disallowed. Kading said that in walking around the neighborhood, there are many attached garages. She said it is frustrating for them as owners, because this used to be a triplex that was rotting and falling apart. Kading said they have tried to do a lot and want to keep the original structure. Downing said that the owners might not intentionally want to change the original structure but would really be shocked and surprised at how much this really would change the house. Kading said that if the Commission will not let the owners have an attached garage, then she would probably move, because she is not going to the expense of building a nice garage if it cannot be attached. McMahon said there has not been discussion or consensus on that. He said that the point for him is that he cannot see enough, based on the submitted design, to make a decision. McMahon said that this is Downing's business, and he feels the same way. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 7 MOTION: McMahon moved to defer consideration of a certiTicate of appropriateness for the application for 730 North Linn Street until a design that meets the guidelines is submitted. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent). Swaim said the Commission appreciates all the work the owners have put into this house. Michaud agreed that it looks fabulous. 604 Grant Street. Kuecker said the Commission looked at a few different applications for this house last year, including a porch construction on the front that is under way, window replacement, the demolition of the carport, and the construction of a detached garage, which has not begun. She said the owner proposes an addition to the rear of the property and an addition to the north side of the house and now also proposes to retain the carport on the south elevation. Kuecker said the owners would like to install columns on the carport, keeping the roof structure but installing columns that will match the columns on the front porch. She said the owners would also remove the chains that are holding up the carport. Kuecker said the second part of the application involves an addition to the rear of the property. She showed an elevation from the south and said the addition would be about anine-foot, ten-inch extension of the rear facade, with a fourteen-foot by nine-foot, ten-inch screened porch behind that. Kuecker said the addition would extend the rake of the existing house, and the new windows would be placed to match the existing window pattern. She said there is currently a sunroom that has the three windows, and the owner wants to match those on the upper level. Kuecker said that the siding and foundation would match the existing siding and foundation. She showed the north elevation and the rear elevation, along with a photograph of what the rear elevation looks like now. Kuecker said the two small windows on the rear fapade would be moved back to the new rear fagade. She said the proposed addition also has a gable dormer on the upper level. Anderson, the owner, said they have decided not to do the dormer, because it will make everything so much easier). Kuecker directed Commission members to therefore ignore the dormer. Kuecker stated that the rear porch has a height and pitch to match the carport roof and the proposed addition on the north. She said the piers of the porch would be bricked to match the existing foundation, and the wood lattice will be installed to match the existing. Kuecker said that all other materials will also match the existing materials. Regarding the addition to the side, Kuecker said it would be a small mudroom addition of approximately nine-foot eight by nine-foot ten. She said that it is designed to mimic the carport, which may at one point have been a side porch, and give symmetry to the house. Kuecker said the materials will again match the existing. Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for the construction of additions and recommend that additions be placed to the rear of the property or at least be offset 18 inches from the front fagade. She said that both of these additions meet those requirements. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of this application, with the condition that the dormer be removed, which the owner has agreed to, and with the condition that the foundation matches all the way around the addition. She said that one elevation shows a wood foundation on the side porch, and staff feels that it should be the matching brick all the way around, mostly because of the maintenance that the wood against the ground would require. Ackerson said the west elevation showed some stairs going right into the garage. Kuecker said there are currently existing stairs there. She said the owners would keep those, as there is a door there. Michaud said that a house at 1719 Muscatine is a very similar house that would show what this house looked like originally. McMahon said that he walks by this house every day. He said that there has been a lot of improvement made here, after the many permutations the house has gone through and is going through. Trimble said she thinks the addition is very good. She said that someone looking straight on from the streetscape would not notice anything different except that it looks better. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 8 MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 604 Grant Street, subject to the condition that the foundation should be brick on all elevations to match the existing foundation. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent). PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES: Kuecker said she had distributed one piece of correspondence regarding the guidelines from a person who lives in the Longfellow District on Grant Street. She said she had made a presentation just outlining the changes. Kuecker said she could review the important items. She said the rewrite of the handbook was done in order to make the historic review process more user friendly and make some of the smaller projects not need to come before the Commission but be approvable by staff or the chair and staff. Kuecker said the levels of review have been proposed for change. She said that currently there are four levels of review. Kuecker said the first level is currently a certificate of no material effect approved by the chair and staff when like is to be replaced with like. Kuecker said that currently minor reviews involve the review of projects on non-historic properties in conservation districts and are approved by staff. She said that intermediate reviews apply to properties within conservation districts and are approved by the chair and staff. Kuecker said that remaining are the major reviews that are done by the Commission at its monthly meetings. Kuecker said that system has been changed that so that minor reviews are still done by staff but are applied to any property as long as the application is for apre-approved item. She said, for example, that if a specific brand or type of window is approved for a specific situation, then that could be put on the pre-approved list. Kuecker said the Commission would vote on what should be on the pre-approved list. She said that then anyone willing to use what was previously approved can have approval done by staff signoff. Kuecker said if there was a situation where something did not seem quite right, she would bring it before the Commission or at least the chair. Kuecker said that the intermediate review could then be used for any project on essentially any property, except for contributing properties in historic districts. She said that anything requiring an exception to the guidelines would always be bumped up to the next higher review level. Kuecker said that a major review would still be required for contributing properties in historic districts, which would still be coming to the Commission for the review. Kuecker said the other major change is in the guidelines themselves. She said she added illustrations to help demonstrate the guidelines and make everything clearer. Kuecker said that she also added a lot of cross-referencing into the guidelines themselves. She said the guidelines have also been rewritten to incorporate more exceptions, when the Commission has had discussions on them in the past ten years. Kuecker said that she also added to the guidelines the section on energy efficiency. Kuecker said the design guidelines for multi-family buildings were changed to reflect the design guidelines for multi-family buildings in the zoning code. She said that currently, new multi-family buildings being constructed outside of historic districts have more design guidelines than the ones being built within historic districts, so those were adjusted to be in line with the zoning code. Kuecker stated that the portions of-the zoning code that are relevant have been incorporated into the new handbook. She said that because the handbook is also a general resource for people, she added a short history of the descriptions of all of the City's historic districts and updated the maps to reflect changes in the districts, including changes in the designations of specific properties. Kuecker said the Commission will vote on the handbook as written or will vote on an amended version and then send it to the City Council for its consideration. ' Swaim commented that the revision involved an enormous amount of work, and it contains many improvements. The Commission members discussed the inclusion of specifics versus the need for flexibility and accommodation, resulting from the way conversation reveals new information as an application is discussed. Baldridge said that Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 9 sometimes it is very difficult to make cut and dry decisions, and a project might be an evolution of more than one application. Regarding the minor and intermediate review process, Kuecker said she would provide the Commission with a monthly informational memo regarding these reviews that took place during the previous month. MOTION: Swaim moved to recommend approval of the revised Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, as presented, to the City Council. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent . CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 8, 2010. MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 8, 2010 meeting, as written. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent). OTHER: Kuecker referred to a couple of handouts, including an issue of The Planner discussing a feature on historic preservation month. She said the Commission is invited to two events, one of which is the Comdor CLG Conference in Cedar Rapids at the Historic Center from nine to three, regarding historic preservation and disasters. Kuecker said that at least a couple of commissioners need to attend educational conferences every year, and this seminar would qualify. Kuecker said the other event is the Historic Home Tour on Sunday, and the addresses are in The Planner. Kuecker referred to a couple of memos that she sent to City Council regarding additional information about the Dubuque economic incentives. She said that coming up with some ways to use financial incentives in Iowa City will be on the Commission's agenda after the guidelines are completed, ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O ~_ O V Z _O Q W N W a v oc O ~_ p O V W W V Z Q O Z W Q N ~ ~ ~ r r r ~ i ~ i r r ~ i ~ i O ~ r ~ ~ ~ i 07 ~ N i ~ ~ ~ i i ~ i ~ O ~ ~ r i i t0 ti ~ ~ N ~ i lid w X X X ~ X X X X X X ~ O °~° X X X X X X X p X X X ~' r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ch w w w X X X X X p ~ X ~ O O N X X X X X X X X X ~ r d M ~ ~ N O N r M N X M ~ N - ~ ~ ~ r- W ~ ~ .- ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ M M M M M M M M M W M M M H N Z ~ N p z a z oc J W Y ~ W J Z Q ~ W J Q V _ p p W ~ J O. ~ Z Q Z ~ W Z ~ Z O C7 N p O C7 Z w ~ p ? Z = ~ ~ ~ = Q O ~ Q m z z m _ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ Y ~ v V O ~ 2 Q z a m m o w ~ ~ ~ ~ a v~ F- ~- 0 T N E 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~' Z U ~ ~ m~ ~, ~ c ~ E ~ a~ ~ o ~. ~aZ~ Q~~ uZ nw~~~ oozi w Y 2b 4 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2010 - 5:00 p.m. APPROVED MEETING ROOM 6, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Members Present: David Bourgeois, Clay Claussen, Maggie Elliott, Craig Gustaveson, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld Members Absent: Lorin Ditzler, Aaron Krohmer, Margaret Loomer Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson Others Present: Andy Dudler, Ann Dudler CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. by Chairman Gustaveson. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Raaz, seconded by Westefeld to approve the March 10, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. Motion passed 6-0 with Ditzler, Krohmer and Loomer being absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None TERRY TRUEBLOOD RECREATION AREA PRESENTATION - SNYDER & ASSOCIATES: Brian Gutheinz and Don Marner, Landscape Architects with Snyder & Associates, gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. Gutheinz stated that the two goals for this evening are to update the Commission as to what has been completed and what the future holds for planning as well as get input from the Commission on ideas for the future planning Gutheinz and Marner presented a memo to the Commission outlining the park programming and master plan (copy attached). They will revise the master plan for TTRA based on comments and suggestions and return with a final plan to a future Commission meeting. Gutheinz noted that the trail construction has started and should be complete in mid-May. Comments and questions from Commission Members as follows: Westefeld asked about the parking lot plans, confirming that there will be four lots with one being larger than the other three. Gutheinz and Marner confirmed this to be the PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 7, 2010 Page 2 of 5 case stating that the large lot will accommodate up to 150 vehicles. This lot will be adjacent to the lodge. Westefeld also asked what the vision is for the beach area. Gutheinz reported that there is an area that has very sandy soil and is fairly flat so would be a logical location for a beach and would not require too much work to put that in place. Moran reported that staff would recommend that such a beach would not be staffed by a lifeguard. Marner reported that it was one of the last items on the priority list received from staff. Moran further stated that staff is not committed to placing a beach at TTRA. Raaz feels that with the good water quality and sandy soil etc., that there really should be a beach at this location as it would bring more kids to the park. He also asked where the closest play area is to the park. Moran stated that the closest play areas are at Napoleon and Wetherby parks. Gustaveson agreed that a beach would be a good addition to the park. There was some discussion regarding the lodge. This building is felt to be an important structure to this park as it will make a big impression to the Community. Moran reported that it will be built in such away to allow for additions if necessary down the road. The lodge will accommodate 150 people. Moran reviewed the money allocation for this project. He stated that there is a fairly significant amount of money left from Phase I that can carry over to Phase II. Phase II will include more cleanup of the property. Moran said that while staff would like to get the lodge constructed sooner than later, there is no money in place for that at this time. He said that staff can apply again for a Vision Iowa Grant this fall for FY12 funding. There is money in place to move forward with the phases in 2012 and 2013 ($2 million in 2012, $3 million in 2013). Gustaveson asked if we have to have a certain amount of funding in place prior to applying for the Vision Iowa Grant. Moran said that the money that was previously raised can be accounted for in that case as long as none of it has been spent prior to that. Moran noted that there is still concern with acquiring more property requires more maintenance staff and will address this issue with Council in June. Westefeld commented that he likes that the north side of the park plan provides for more activity while the south side provides for more private quiet areas. Moran asked for comments from Commission regarding fishing piers, specifically if they would like to see the piers go out over the water or just along the lake. It was consensus that they do not need to be built out over the water. Moran noted that Snyder & Associates staff will return to Commission with a finalized master plan in the near future. SPRING/SUMMER OPENINGS & DEDICATIONS: TTRA Trail System: Moran asked Commission if they would like to schedule this dedication upon completion of the trail or perhaps schedule it on the anniversary of the passing of Terry Trueblood which would be July 3. Moran will confirm date and let Commission know soon. Wetherby Splash Pad: Moran reported that staff had originally planned on having a soft opening Memorial Day weekend and then a formal dedication the following PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 7, 2010 Page 3 of 5 weekend. However, as Arts Fest is scheduled that particular weekend, staff has since decided to have soft opening in mid May and then a formal opening Memorial Day Soccer Park Statue Dedication: Robinson will contact Waunita Trueblood to discuss her schedule and then will plan a date for this dedication. COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Claussen asked Commission if they would like his wife to come and give a presentation regarding fundraising opportunities as she works for a firm that can help determine where best to go for donations etc. Gustaveson said that that request would be better presented to the Parks and Recreation Foundation. Moran and Claussen will discuss. Westefeld complimented staff on a great Summer Activity Guide. He also noted that he has visited Waterworks Park and Court Hill Trail and noted that they are both getting a lot of use. Raaz asked what the concrete columns are that have gone up at Pheasant Hill Park. k. Robinson reported that they are called "plinths" which are part of the Public Art process. High School art students will be decorating similar to the bench that they did in the past. Raaz would like Commission to be better informed of these projects. While he understands that it was Public Art money and their project, it would be helpful if Commission was informed in instances where they are asked questions about projects. Elliott praised Linda Schreiber for her efforts on cleaning up the downtown area. Westefeld asked about some no parking signage that has been placed at the Iowa River Power Company side of the river where the bridge is located stating that the way they are written and placed is quite confusing. Moran stated that that is handled by Coralville CHAIRS REPORT: Gustaveson said that he would like to have affiliate groups come to Commission meetings on a regular basis to report their activities. He suggested that Dog PAC present at the May meeting since Commission will be revisiting their contract in May as it comes up for revote in June. Gustaveson reminded Commission that he would like to have members make presentations at Council meetings on a quarterly basis. Members to let Moran know if they can attend. Gustaveson would like to schedule a future Commission meeting at the Beckworth Boathouse. Moran will look into doing this. DIRECTORS REPORT: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 7, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Gifts/Naming Policy: Dale Helling received five responses from boards and commissions. As he was disappointed in such few responses, he has asked for more before moving ahead on this. Superintendent Search: Moran, Robinson and other City Staff will be interviewing candidates this week. Moran hopes to make an offer by the end of April with a new Superintendent starting in June. He received 87 applicants and will be interviewing 4 in-house candidates and 4 from the outside. Affiliate Group Update: Council removed this item from their April 5/6 agenda. They will place on the April 26 work session and April 27 formal meeting agenda. Moran will be writing a memo to Council to explain the process. Kickers have written a letter to Council regarding their concerns. Commission members encouraged to attend. Moran will report back to Commission following this meeting. Council Meeting Schedule: Future council meeting dates are as follows: May 10, June 1, June 15, and July 12. Moran will keep Commission informed of these dates in his Friday Updates. Trail Counts: Moran noted that there is a trail count report in their packets for their information. DogPAC: Staff and DogPAC have discussed the agreement vote coming up in June. DogPAC is very supportive of the idea of hiring staff to monitor the dog parks and paying from the revenue received. Moran suggested that perhaps Commission discuss doing this on a one year trial. Moran and Dudlers' noted that they have been monitoring the park recently and have found that about 75% of patrons are not paying entry fees or have obtained tags for their dogs. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Claussen to adjourn the meeting at 6:40. Motion passed 6-0 with Ditzler, Krohmer and Loomer being absent. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 7, 2010 Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 NAME M M O r O r ti O N ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O N TERM .- ~'' N M v N ~O ti oo °' ° ~ !- EXPIRES David 1/1/11 O/E O/E O/E X X Bourgeois Clay 1/1/14 X X X X X Claussen Lorin 1/1/13 O/E X X X O/E Ditzler Maggie 1/1/13 X X O/E X X Elliott Craig 1/1/11 X X X X X Gustaves on Aaron 1/1/13 X O/E X X O/E Krohmer Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E O/E X X Loomer Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X O/E X X X John 1/1/14 O/E X X X X Westefeld 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