Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-02 Bd Comm minutes FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2002 - 5:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Peter Jochimsen, Loret Mast, Tim Weitzel? STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Charley Capp CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: ']'here was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1178 E. COURT: McCafferty said the contractor was available to discuss the proposed work. McCafferty said the project would add on to the rear of a house in an historic district. She referred to drawings of the proposal in the packet and passed around actual photographs. Gunn said the siding is nearly off and asked about the original siding underneath. Capp said he can tell that the siding is '~ by six beneath. He said that down below there are one-bys nailed all around on the bottom four feet with siding over that. He said there is a one by eight base and a wood drip cap with ~ by six up to (don't know what's here). Capp said for gingerbread, this was fairly bald. He said he did not know what style the house is. McCafferty said it could be considered a craftsman bungalow. Capp said he plans to repair the wood siding. He said the house only has 1,000 square feet, and the owners would like to have more room and therefore are planning the addition. Capp said the addition will function as a library and will contain a bathroom and laundry room. McCafferty asked if a portion of the addition would have a flat roof, and Capp confirmed this. McCafferty asked if there were a bedroom beyond the second floor dormer, and Capp said there was. Capp said there has to be an egress window, and that is the reason for the flat roof. Smothers asked what type of material would be used, and Capp said it would be a membranous material. Smothers asked if the eaves would be carried around the full extent of the roof. Capp confirmed this. He said that the pitch was a pretty educated guess to make things work out. He said the eaves would be continuous. McCafferty asked if it would be economically feasible to rework the window to get a higher pitch and still have the egress. Capp said he did not know if it would be possible. Capp said he thinks the fiat part will mostly not show from the front. He said from Court Street it will look like a peaked roof, even though it's not. Carlson asked if the new windows would match what is currently there and if they would be double hung windows. Capp said they would be new windows and that they would appear to match. McCafferty discussed a project she had seen done with a higher-pitched roof, one that was done using a slider window. She produced a sketch showing a casement window and added that even though it is not typical of this style of house, it would provide egress. She said there could possibly be a pitch of four to twelve. McCafferty stated that brackets could be added to carry through with the character. She said, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 25, 2002 Page 2 however, that this might add expense to the project. Capp responded that in some ways it would be easier to not have a flat roof, and some expense could be saved that way. Gunn asked about the setback of the addition and the preserving of the original lines. Capp said he suggested having a setback to the owners. Gunn said he likes to see a foot, and the guidelines suggest at least eight inches. He said that even four inches would be good to see, but a setback of eight to twelve inches would improve the project a lot. Gunn asked if the corner boards were a different color. Capp said they are not corner boards but are mitered corners. Capp said without corner boards, he did not know how much would be accomplished by having a setback. He said he is not opposed to it, but it would be a concern. Regarding the window, Capp stated that he could probably get a slider that would look a lot like a pair of double hung windows. He said he is probably not opposed to changing the window, and the total cost might be a wash, considering that a fiat roof requires expensive framing. Gunn said if there were corner boards, the addition would look a lot better with setbacks, but the argument is weaker with mitered corners. He stated that he still would look for a setback to keep the original corners showing. Gunn said he dislikes the long continuation of the addition on the first floor. Capp said he thought about an offset but didn't like the look of it. He said he thought it would scream addition. McCafferty asked about the gutters. Capp responded that they would be one-half rounded gutters, and there was no fascia board. Gunn said he is fairly confident that with the proposed changes, this would be a good project. Capp said he agreed and said it would make the project easier. He added that there are corner boards on the dormers. Capp asked that if there were space difficulties, would the Commission have any problem with the lengthening of the addition by two feet from 16 feet to 18 feet. Gunn said he thought that would be acceptable. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for proposed construction work at 1178 E. Court with the following changes: changing the roof to a 4/12 gable, using a new slider window up on the dormer that looks like a double-hung, having an addition setback of at least eight inches, and allowing the builder the discretion to lengthen the addition by up to two feet if the extra space is needed. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6- Capp asked if the Commission would reconsider the project if the homeowners had any problem with the approved changes. McCafferty said the Commission could revisit the issue and noted that Capp should call her with any questions he might have. PROPOSED COLLEGE HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT: Gunn referred to the map he drew as a recommendation for the College Hill Conservation District. He said the map shows a hastily-decided boundary for discussion purposes. Gunn said the bold outline shows the possible boundary of a conservation district that would contain within it two existing historic districts. He said it would be good to protect historic property that may not be included in an historic district. Gunn said naming a conservation district would be a way to address the one area in the City that is probably most susceptible to having the buildings be demolished and remodeled. Gunn said the proposed map is an idea to be studied. He said the advantage of a conservation district is that there is greater flexibility, and the process is fairly quick and easy. Gunn added that there would be one set of guidelines for the entire College Hill neighborhood. McCafferty stated that Maharry had done a survey of the area, including documenting the addresses of the properties. Maharry said he surveyed most of the area but did not include Iowa Avenue, because a professional survey has not yet been done there. He said he missed about six properties but had surveyed the rest of the area. Maharry said the count of everything north of Burlington Street would come to 117 properties. He stated that at least 82 of those properties were documented as historic in a previous Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 25, 2002 Page 3 site survey, although he added that some of those properties have been updated since the survey was done. Maharry said the pementage of historic properties of the total he was able to survey would then be 70%. Maharry said the properties south of Burlington would greatly decrease the percentage that is considered historic. He said that other properties around Washington and Summit Streets have a good concentration of contributing properties. McCafferty commented that a conservation district is required to have 60% or less of its properties be properties that would be considered contributing to an historic district. She said the two existing districts increase the percentage of contributing structures so that this may not be allowed as a conservation district. Maharry pointed out that there were still six properties he had not seen, plus two properties he was uncertain about. McCafferty said a district with 70% contributing properties could not be a conservation district. She said the key here is to look at the criteria. Gunn said the historic district criteria were used as a basis for this. He said that since the standards for a conservation district are less stringent, the percentage of contributing properties would actually go up, not down. Maharry said the Iowa Avenue properties were not included. Gunn said the Iowa Avenue properties would probably increase the percentage. He questioned why the historic districts were not bigger in the first place. Gunn asked about the zoning in this area. McCafferty replied that it is zoned RM-12 and RNC-20. Gunn said most of the Northside and Goosetown is single-family homes and duplexes. He said the area under discussion is one of the few areas where the zoning is incompatible with preservation. He said the guidelines make it almost impossible to tear down (something) in an historic district. Gunn said there really is not a huge difference between the conservation and historic districts, although public perception might be different. He said the Commission has a good track record of getting new districts approved without too much hassle. Gunn said going after this district might be controversial. He said the Commission could select an easy neighborhood for which to work toward a district but not one that would do any more good than this area. He suggested the Commission try to designate this area, even if it turns out to be controversial. Maharry said walking through the area, he found a lot of multi-family properties that used to be single- family and also found apartments. He said the area is fairly stable, especially the eastern part and along Burlington. Maharry asked if the next step would be to survey Iowa Avenue. McCafferty said there is hot an architectural survey for Iowa Avenue and part of Jefferson. She said that is planned for next year as part of a CLG grant. Gunn pointed out that a national historic district is different from an Iowa City Historic District. McCafferty said she would find out what the State requires, specifically if a professional site survey is needed and if a site survey form is required for each property. She said the State reviews any proposal for a local historic district. Gunn said that if a survey is needed, that will take a while. He said there is no doubt that most of the properties on Iowa Avenue will be found to be contributing. McCafferty said she will speak to Kerry McGrath about this and said she would probably have a response before the next meeting. McCafferty added that if this area were one big historic district, then the Commission would be smaller by one member, and the City Council has expressed concern about the growing size of the Commission. Ponto asked if it would be appropriate to include the Woodlawn District in the big district, since that neighborhood is contiguous. Gunn said that the Woodlawn District is very unique. He said the neighborhood consists of a lot of houses that meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards, but there isn't a sense of a cohesive district in that the houses are so different from each other. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 25, 2002 Page 4 Carlson asked if the Commission would be prepared to defend why it would like to see one large district made from an area that included two smaller districts. Carlson asked if the housing stock in the area has changed much since the two smaller areas were designated. Smothers said the designation of the larger area would provide protection for the future. She said that there shouldn't be historic districts with bookends on the corners. Carlson said he didn't disagree but wanted the Commission to be able to present a strong rationale. Gunn asked if the guidelines for a national district require a minimum or maximum percentage of contributing structures. Smothers said there is no requisite percentage on the national level. Gunn suggested that when this area was done in 1995, perhaps the Commission felt that politically only the two smaller areas could get done. Ponto asked if the districts follow the zoning, and Gunn said they do not - that the zoning is piecemeal. Widness said Ruedi Kuenzli, a former Commission member, has always felt that there should have been one big district here instead of two smaller ones. Commission members discussed the failure of the nomination of the Northside as the City's first proposed district. Widness said at that time, this was a new concept, and there was not enough education. Maharry suggested that if the Commission tries for an historic district here and fails, it should be easier to get a conservation district. Gunn pointed out that the City ordinance says that if more than 60% of the properties actually are contributing, then this can't be a conservation district. Maharry said there is then no choice; the Commission must decide if it wants an historic district here or not. Gunn said that the more land area that is designated historic, the more likely it is that buildings outside the historic districts will come down. Gunn said since Goosetown and the Northside are zoned so that they won't be inundated with apartment buildings, he would like to see the Commission give this most susceptible area a try. McCafferty said if the designation should fail, the Commission could always apply for a rezoning. She stated that the Karen Howard study says that it would not make any difference to rezone. McCafferty said she would provide a copy of the study in the next packet. Gunn said the Commission would keep this on the agenda for the next meeting, and hopefully, McCafferty would have an opinion from the State at that time. Maharry asked about the next step if the Commission goes ahead with this. McCafferty said the issue is contributing versus non-contributing properties. She said the report for the State would include a map with the addresses of the properties with the status of each listed. Gunn said that guidelines are needed to nominate a district and asked how big of a job it would be to survey Iowa Avenue. McCafferty said that the Commission does have two experts in Carlson and Smothers. Carlson said site forms would be required, and that would take a while. He asked if it would be acceptable to take photographs of each property and write a sentence or two about each. Carlson said the Commission members could do the forms themselves but said the process would then take a lot longer. Gunn asked how much it would cost to hire someone and if grant money would be available. Carlson estimated that a survey could cost up to $10,000. McCafferty said the properties will have to eventually be surveyed anyway. IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK UPDATE: Gunn said when a problem has come up during the past two years with regard to the handbook, he has made note of it and has therefore come up with the list indicating that it's time for the handbook to be updated. Commission members discussed item one, which disallows the use of electric grinders for removing mortar. Gunn said he felt this requirement was too stringent, as he has seen the careful use of electric grinders do an efficient job in the past. Smothers said that on a large project, doing the work by hand can end up breaking the brick anyway. She said that a masonry blade used lightly and carefully can get most of the mortar out, and the rest can then be removed by hand. Smothers suggested using a mixture of eight parts sand, four parts lime, and one part Portland. Gunn said the handbook contains a mixture that is pretty close. He said the language was passed down from the original guidelines in the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 25, 2002 Page 5 Carlson said the handbook could say that hand work is recommended but could specify that an electric grinder may be allowed with Historic Preservation Commission approval. Gunn agreed that a new sentence could be added giving the Commission the right to approve a modification on a case-by-case basis. He said the disallowance would then remain, but there would be an exception allowed for within that. Widness suggested the language say, "The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its discretion, allow for the use of electric grinders by a qualified professional to remove mortar." The new language was approved by the Commission by consensus. The consensus of the Commission was to remove the bullet, on page 15 of the handbook under disallowed, that forbids installing metal of vinyl storms. Regarding item three, Gunn said the Historic Landmark guidelines were composed with neighborhoods in mind. He said, traditionally, it is preferred to add on to a residence with the same material as the original structure. Gunn said, however, that for a large commercial building, the new material is probably not going to match the original, and it may even be preferable that it not match. He said the guidelines don't have the flexibility to recognize this. Carlson said the proposed language could read, "Alterations and additions to Historic Landmarks must generally comply with the Iowa City Guidelines. For non-residential property, however, more design flexibility will be considered by the Commission." Commission members agreed with Carlson's suggested language by consensus. The Commission agreed by consensus to remove "hardness" from the third bullet under recommended on page ten of the handbook. The Commission agreed by consensus to add handrail specifications according to code to page ten of the handbook. There would then be a bullet under recommended as follows: Providing balustrades (guardrails) on porches as required by code. When a porch floor is more than 30" above grade, the balustrade must be 42" high except for single family and duplex structures where it may be as Iow as 36". Spindles must be placed so that no point between the spindles exceeds 4". The Commission agreed by consensus to add a list of Iowa City Landmarks to the handbook. The Commission agreed by consensus to add Iowa City Landmarks to the demolition guidelines on page 20 of the handbook. The Commission agreed by consensus to provide for simple back stoops. The agreement was to change the language under the bullet on page 18 regarding pre-cast concrete steps under disallowed to read, "Using pre-cast concrete steps on the front or side elevation. They are acceptable on the rear elevation." McCafferty added that the table of contents was set up so that the maps, the landmarks, and guidelines could be easily added to. Gunn said there are only five or six houses in the Moffitt District. He said there are other Moffitt houses that are nice but are not contiguous as required for a district. Gunn suggested the Moffitt District could be disabled, as there is no advantage to being a district over being a landmark. He said there is more stringent protection for a landmark. MINUTES: March 14, 2002 MOTION: Widness moved to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. March 28, 2002 MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as written. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 25, 2002 Page 6 INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 2002 Historic Preservation Awards Update McCafferty provided photographs of two late nominations by Steve van der Woude. One project was for a rebuilt porch and painting job for which Van der Woude applied for a certificate of appropriateness, and the other was for the Burger House, which is near St. Wenceslaus Church. Gunn said the Burger House is in the style handbook as an example of modest Italianate architecture. He said the project appears to have improved the house. McCafferty said the invitations will be mailed out soon, and everything appears to be on schedule. Widness said she is having trouble finding a bank willing to finance the refreshments for the program, which she expects to cost from $200 to $225. She said that Hawkeye State Bank has shown some interest but would like more recognition than the small print on the program. Widness pointed out that the name of the bank providing refreshments has, in the past, been on the 600 invitations that have gone out, besides being on the 100 printed programs. Gunn said if the bank was okay with providing the money without its name being more prominent than the other groups on the program, since its name is on 600 invitations, then that would be acceptable. He said otherwise, he would like the Commission's money to pay for refreshments, and the Commission would worry about funds for next year later. He said he did not want to run the risk of offending two or three groups for this money. Gunn reminded Commission members that the program would be May 15th at St. Wenceslaus Church. McCafferty said the speakers would be Jenny Anciaux, Marybeth Slonneger, and the priest from St. Wenceslaus, with a short introduction by Gunn. Gunn said that last year, because the program was only one hour, no one left the program early. He said that in prior years, when the program ran 1% to 2 hours, many people left early, which was unfair to those receiving awards. McCafferty said she would tell the speakers to keep their presentations short, and Gunn said he would remind the speakers of the time frame on the night of the ceremony. 2001-HRDP Grant- N. Linn, N. Gilbert, and E. Jefferson Historic Districts: McCafferty said this information was included in the packet for Commission review. She asked Commission members to consider where the Northside should fit into the Commission's agenda and to consider whether this should be resubmitted or written as a CLG. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MAY 9, 2002 - 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Jochimsen, Michael Maharry, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Buss, Susanna Strode, Aaron Gwinnup CALL TO ORDER: Due to lack of a quorum, Chairperson Gunn announced that the Commission would hold a work session. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 315 BROWN STREET: Susanna Strode asked if her project could be approved without a quorum. Gunn said that without a quorum, the Commission cannot vote to approve a certificate of appropriateness, although it may not be necessary for her to return to another meeting. Strode said the project consists of a porch restoration. She said she wanted to use more appropriate and different columns as well as railings all the way around, except for the two small steps on the west side of the house where there is a door. Regarding the columns, Strode said she has not yet decided on the type of column but is learning toward using turned columns. She said there are currently turned columns on the back porch. Strode said she plans to use straight, rectangular railings. She said she would use a 32-inch rail height, because the porch is only about fourteen inches off the ground. She said she believed it would be more appropriate to have a lower railing than the standard of 36 inches. Widness said the project looks very appropriate, and Carlson agreed. Gunn said Strode does not necessarily have to make a second appearance. Gunn said, however, that because Strode is still a little unsure about the columns and there is no detail on the spindles, he would like to see what is actually going to be used. Gunn said if Strode will be using standard items, then he would like to see a photocopy out of a brochure or from the lumberyard that would allow the Commission to see what it is approving. McCafferty suggested Strode discuss with her at her convenience what she will be using in order to get a sense of whether it is appropriate or not. She said it is then up to Strode's discretion as to whether she wants to attend the next meeting. Enloe asked what year the house was built. Strode said the abstract states that the house was built in 1915, but the Brown Street Historic District pamphlet lists the house as being built in 1896. Carlson said the year 1896 seems much more likely for the year of construction. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 Page 2 Gunn apologized for the fact that a decision would not be made until a later meeting but added that, in any event, he would still like to see a more exact rendering of what will be put on the porch. IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK APPLICATION: 747 WEST BENTON STREET: McCafferty introduced Bill Buss, the applicant, who recently had his property at 747 West Benton Street downzoned. She said he would also like to have his property designated as a local landmark to protect the property. McCafferty said the application was prepared by Tallgrass Historians. McCafferty said the Commission needs to set a public hearing regarding having the property designated as a landmark and then make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to initiate the rezoning process. Gunn said the public hearing could be held at the Commission's next meeting in two weeks. Buss said, in the interest of full disclosure, that a former resident of the house, Penny Willis, visited the house the day before and told him that the barn was burnt down and then rebuilt in 1931 on the foundation of the old barn. Carlson said that information would not change the eligibility of the property. Enloe commented that the Commission is not recommending this designation in terms of its association with the life of a significant person, in this case, Cyrus Ranck. Carlson said it would have been beneficial to have that addressed in the information provided. Buss said Jan Nash informed him that she thought Ranck's ownership of the property might have made a basis for the designation, as well as the architecture, but he added that the application was not written up that way. Carlson said the application states that the house was built between 1905 and 1908 but does not give a basis for that estimate. Buss replied that the date was based on a combination of when the Rancks bought the property and when the mortgage was taken out, as well as Mr. Ranck's date of death shortly after the purchase of the property. Carlson said he thought the application could be approved as is but felt there were a few things that could be better supported. He said, however, that on the whole he was convinced. Carlson gave Buss a newspaper article that stated that the house was built in 1905. He also said he did not think that this is a vernacular house and believes it was almost certainly built by a local architect. Carlson said there is just more to the house compared to other houses around that were designed by an architect. Gunn said the public hearing would be held in two weeks, probably at the same place and time. He stated that this is a rezoning, so there will be a series of steps involved. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL FOR 1133 MAPLE STREET: Aaron Gwinnup of Cornerstone Restoration said he represents the owners of 1133 Maple Street. He distributed blueprints of the proposal. Aaron said the house is a ranch house built in 1962 that is essentially a big rectangle. McCafferty said this property is a non-contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District and added that Maple Street is in the Longfellow District and has a series of 1960s and 1970s vintage houses. She said it was excluded from the National Register nomination, although it was included in the local designation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 Page 3 Aaron said the concept of the addition to be put on the back of the house is to change the character of the house. He said the homeowner wanted a big family room, and the proposal is for an octagon-like structure on the back of the house. Aaron said the front elevation shows the projection to the right of the new addition extending past the west side of the house. He showed photographs of the front and rear of the house. Aaron said this would be a two-level addition, with most of it on the ground floor. He said it is the lower level that projects past the west side of the house and would be visible, although it is not very tall. Aaron said the ground floor of the house is two feet below grade. He said the upper section that comes out extends eight feet to the side and does not extend past the side of the structure. Aaron said there are two contingent items that may change. He said all around the octagonal lower addition are double hung windows that are proportional to the existing windows in the house, but they have trapezoid transoms over the lower windows. Aaron said the trapezoid windows may or may not happen for either budgetary reasons or as a suggestion of the Commission, He said if he didn't use trapezoid windows, he would fill that space with similarly sized windows without the angled tops. Aaron said the other contingent item concerns the mansard roof about 14 inches tall that is around that. He said he considered putting scalloped shingles there, but might opt for straight three-tab shingles to match what is on the house. Aaron said the homeowners want to add character to the house. He said the only unusual feature of the house is the gabled eaves that go from nothing to about 14 to 16 feet, and the fascia as well grows with it. Aaron said the only opportunity to copy that is the second floor extension to the south. He said the second floor extension has a bit of a built-in bay, so the projection there helps with the big-angled eave to come out and cover that bay. Aaron said one item is obviously visible from the front of the house. He said part of the work is the addition of a master bathroom in the front part of the house. Aaron said there would be no change to the exterior except for the addition of a skylight. He added that there is an existing skylight with the same dimensions and similar placement that is almost perfectly centered on the house. Gunn said, in the districts, the Commission normally deals with additions to historic properties. He said the guidelines are pretty clear in discussing the concepts of matching, sympathetic, or compatible with the details. Gunn said the language also holds true for a modern structure. He wondered how appropriate the mansard roof and trapezoid windows would be here. Gunn said it seems like the house is trying to be old in its look, but it is not an old structure, and he had some reservations about this. Aaron replied that the trapezoid top windows can be switched out for square top windows. He stated that there is a functional reason for the mansard roof. Aaron said he needs to use 12 to 14-inch TJIs for the roof framing there. He said all of the rest of the windows in the house are tucked right up underneath all of the overhangs. Aaron said if he didn't build that down, he would have to have wall area between the tops of the windows and eave. McCafferty suggested using some layered fiber-cement board built up going around to end up with a wide board. She produced a sketch showing a couple layers of fiber-cement board to get a nice, wide band that might look like a crown going around. Aaron said the house has masonite siding, and that's what he planned to use for the rest of it. He asked if McCafferty's plan would have an overhang, and she responded that it would not. Aaron said he considered at one point, instead of a mansard, having siding above the windows with just a regular thickness overhang. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 Page 4 He said he decided it would be better to have some sort of overhang, since this is the south side of the house and there is a great deal of glass all the way around. Aaron said the overhang would protect it to some extent. Aaron said the back of the house up above there has three-foot overhangs. He said the mansard is virtually at eye level. Aaron said it would be nice to have a little sun protection from the windows. Aaron said the choice was between a thicker mansard or continuing the siding above the windows with a regular 2x6 or 2x4 overhang. He said he was open to other suggestions. McCafferty suggested keeping this simple and more modern. Gunn asked about the deck material. Aaron said the roofing material would be EPM rubber with sleepers and nice decking material. He said the rail would be fairly simple square 2 x 2s. Carlson said he agreed with Gunn's comments about the guidelines. Gunn said what the Commission didn't want to have happen when the guidelines were written was for someone who had a 1970s house to put an 1890 addition on the back. He said the language was written so that additions would be compatible. He said he had no concerns about the size, but it is a matter of the architectural style of this. Aaron said the homeowner is open to suggestions but did want to copy every detail of the existing house. McCafferty suggested that Aaron meet with her the next afternoon to discuss other possibilities regarding the mansard roof and the trapezoid windows. Gunn said those were his two concerns. Aaron asked if it would be acceptable if the homeowner used windows with the width and height of the same size but square on top, and the consensus of the Commission was that the windows would then be acceptable. Aaron agreed to work on the overhang issue with McCafferty. PROPOSED COLLEGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT: McCafferty showed a map prepared by Maharry. McCafferty said she has read through the College Hill material but did not find any documentation as to why this wasn't a conservation district. She said at the time of the designation of the historic district, there was no conservation ordinance. McCafferty said Nash felt that until a conservation ordinance was adopted, it was premature to evaluate any of the College Hill area for potential conservation district status. She said she needs to talk to Nash further to determine why the boundaries were drawn as they were for the historic district. Gunn said a significant percentage of the properties have already been determined to be contributing to an historic district. McCafferty said Maharry has found that about 70 to 75% of the properties would be contributing to an historic district, based on Nash's surveys, which would put this into the category of a local historic district, as opposed to a conservation district. McCafferty said the historic district designation provides a little more stringent guidelines, although both types of districts would offer protection. She said, however, that legally there cannot be a conservation district where more than 60% of the properties are contributing. McCaffer~y said she would do more research, including talking to Nash. She stated that, in walking through the neighborhood, one sees that the properties that are non-contributing are essentially the in-fill structures. She said that everything else appears to be contributing. McCafferty said that there has been some improvement in some areas since the surveys were done in 1994, so there may be some change in status. Gunn said the Commission is waiting for an opinion from the State regarding whether or not an official survey is needed before a local designation can be done. He said this item would continue to be on the Commission's agenda pending more information. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 Page 5 MINUTES: APRIL 25, 2002: The minutes were not available in time to be mailed in the Commission's information packet. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 2002 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS - UPDATE: McCafferty said everything is on schedule for the awards presentation. Widness said Hawkeye State Bank is sponsoring the refreshments, and they will be provided by the Cottage. She said it would be a good idea to post signs to the front door from the parking lot, because there are a lot of doors there. She said the refreshments would be downstairs in the Fellowship Hall. McCafferty said she thought the awards ceremony would be held in the sanctuary. She said she would contact Father Phillips to confirm this. Widness said if the presentation is held in the basement, it would be impodant to get people upstairs to see the church, since the program concerns the sanctuary. Widness said Hawkeye State Bank is funding the refreshments. She said the bank may be interested in funding other similar events. McCafferty said there would be a PowerPoint presentation. She said Gunn would introduce the program. Gunn said he could mention the Commission's accomplishments during the past year, including the Longfellow District and the Carnegie Library. McCafferty said she could put some photos of the library on PowerPoint for this. McCafferty said there would then be a brief word from Father Michael Phillips about St. Wenceslaus. McCafferty said Marybeth Slonneger would then discuss Goosetown and its early history, and Jenny Anciaux would discuss the history of St. Wenceslaus. McCafferty said the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission would make one award for cemetery restoration. She said Sue Licht would then present the Historic Preservation Awards, separated into residential awards and commercial awards. Widness asked if the presenter, Licht, would ge on a tour of the properties during the day of the presentation, as in past years. McCafferty said she would find out if Licht would like to do so. Gunn suggested seating award recipients near the front to save time between presenting awards. McCafferty said one other item the Commission might want to proceed with is the redesignation of the Moffett Cottages as historic landmarks. Gunn asked if that would require a zoning change in the usual sense. McCaffedy said she would find out. Gunn said the Commission would put it on the next agenda. Carlson said the Commission should make certain with the State that the Commission has the grounds to dissolve the district, even though there is nothing inherent to the district that makes it no longer eligible. ADJOURNMENT: The work session was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Historic Prese~ation Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 Page 6 Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Lori Bears, Amy Correia, John Deeth, April Gutting, Gretchen Holt, Rick House, Kathleen Renquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Boyer, Bill Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Tracy Hightshoe, Jeff Vanatter, Stephen Long OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Burns, Alaina Welch CALL TO ORDER Chairperson House called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. Approval of the Minutes from March 14 & 21, 2002: Correia moved to approve the minutes from March 14 & 21, 2002. Holt seconded. The minutes were approved as submitted (7-0) Public/Member Discussion of Items Not on the Aqenda: Alaina Welch stated that on April 3rd Burns & Associates found out that Metro Plains did not meet threshold criteria for the tax credit round and, therefore, was not funded because of compliance issues with IFA and HOME Funds through IDED. She said that they plan to submit a letter asking for utilization of those funds. Nasby advised that there was a letter from Metro Plains appealing the ruling, which will be distributed in the next packet. In response to a question from Renquist, Nasby said this was the Longfellow Neighborhood project from last year. In response to a question from Holt, Welsh said that the handout given by the Iowa Finance Authority indicated that they had 8823s, which is an IRS form issued for noncompliance with the tax credit program and HOME issues. Bob Burns said that the 8823 would be for noncompliance with existing tax credit properties they currently have in this state or other states, not this particular project. He said that they did not elaborate on the "HOME issues". Deeth asked if they could have gotten caught up in some other issues. Burns said he believes the HOME issues related more to the application for the current application to IFA, because this year the applications for IFA was combined with the Housing and Community Development Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 2 application for State HOME funds to IDED. He said the HOME issues would have been referred to by IDED. In response to a question from Correia, Nasby said that Metro Plains faxed the City a letter because they have so many days to file an appeal, and the Petter would be included in the next packet. He said that Metro Plains currently has a purchase option on the property, and they are working through some issues on the purchase agreement. In response to a question from Renquist, Nasby stated that he believes the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) appeal process is 60 days. Correia stated that she would like to keep on top of this issue because there are other groups who are looking for land. She would like to make sure that the Longfellow Manor project could go forward if someone else were interested. In response to a question from Holt, Nasby stated that if the appeal is lost, the money comes back to this Commission and the Commission should figure out what to do with it as quickly as possible. He said that the policy in place if money is returned is that projects that were not fully funded would be looked at first, and projects that were not funded at all would be looked at second. In response to a question from Renquist, Nasby affirmed that new projects would have to be competitive. In response to a question from Deeth, Nasby said they were talking about $250,000, all of which is HOME funding. He confirmed with Steve Long that this project is from FY02 funding. Housing Rehabilitation Discussion: Rental Rehab/Accessibility Nasby stated that at the funding meeting, Correia had asked whether the Everett Connor Center proposal to do the rental accessibility rehabs were something that could be done by another agency such as Housing Rehab. Nasby said that he had mentioned that they had some issues with lead paint and some other things, but he offered to bring a staff person to this meeting. He asked Jeff Vanatter to come to the meeting to talk about some of the challenges of rental rehab. Vanatter prepared a memo, which was included in the packet for this meeting, and was available to answer any questions. Correia said that she thought Nasby had said that a rehab that cost under $5,000 did not require lead paint investigation. Nasby confirmed that if you disturb more than 14 sq. inches that is Housing and Community Development Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 3 another threshold. He said they could replace a furnace for less than $5,000 if they did not disturb more than 14 sq. inches of wall area. Vanatter said that is a State regulation. He said the federal regulation is 2 feet in disturbed space. In response to a question from Correia, Vanatter said that any common areas were included. He said that once they do something they have to address any potential lead hazards, and the City's risk management does not let the City staff complete those, so they hire someone and this is costly. He said that anything that is deemed a hazard has to be repaired. In response to a question from Correia, Vanatter said that structures built after 1978 were exempt because there was no lead used after that. Correia said that there could be criteria that if the building was deemed to have no lead in it, they could use that for eligibility. Nasby said that the City was concerned about discrimination. Vanatter said that someone of a lower income could live in an older building and they would then be eliminating them while helping someone who could afford a little nicer apartment. Correia asked if the City Attorney could be asked these questions to make sure they are covered. She said that accessibility is a huge issue in the City Steps and they have not done that much about it. Bears asked if there was anything in the ADA regarding accessible housing. Holt stated that there is, but it is passed when the law was passed, so property built before the ADA was passed does not have to be redone. Holt said that she believes it could be argued in a way that would not be discrimination, because you have to have a good reason if you are going to discriminate. She said they would have income guidelines anyway. She said that most of the people would probably have some kind of subsidy. Correia stated she understands that Down Payment Assistance stopped providing downpayment assistance for homes built before 1978. She asked if that could be a similar precedent. Holt said that Rick got the information about the new rules in the Down Payment Assistance program, Vanatter said the City's biggest concern was that it could potentially go into one place and spend all of the funds. Correia asked if they could do smaller projects for a year to see how it goes. Nasby stated that even a ramp is $3,000 to $5,000. He said that HOME funds could only be used for comprehensive rehab. Vanatter said that potentially they could have to repair everything in the building for the life of the building through HOME funding. In response to a question from Correia, Vanatter said that they could use CDBG funding for these Housing and Community Development Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 4 types of repairs, but they have very limited CDBG funding this next year, and two or three comprehensive rehabs would deplete these funds. Nasby said that they are looking at the mobile home program and home repair program. He said that with the homeowners, the funding is mostly in the form of loans. Vanatter said that paying HACAP for a cost of risk assessment is running anywhere from $500 to $'1,200 just to have someone come to do the inspection. He said they then have to pay for a clearance test. He clarified that these are only for buildings pre-1978. He said the City's risk management does not want staff to conduct these assessments for liability purposes. Correia asked if the committee could be supplied with a listing of how the money was spent last year, including number of families served and incomes, to get a sense of how the funding is used and what for. Holt stated that one concern she had with the Connor project was the need. She said she would like to see it happen, but doesn't know if she'd like to see it tied to the Regency. Renquist said that the committee used to get a list of client served and costs when the City used to apply for funding. Nasby said that the City took less money in exchange for a flat allocation. Vanatter stated he would put together a listing and provide it to the committee. Discuss Recommendation to Council: FY03 Annual Action Plan: In response to a question from Correia, Nasby said that the Fair Housing Action Plan is put together by the Human Rights office. He said that "Al" is the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, which is a HUD employed document. The Analysis identifies barriers to housing. He said it also has several fair housing components to it, such as ads in the paper, posters, and what the City's plan is for dealing with fair housing complaints. He said the City is in the process of updating it. Copies can be obtained at the Civil Rights Department. Correia asked if any of the complaints listed as public accommodation were regarding housing. Hightshoe said that she would ask Heather and e-mail the response to the committee. Correia asked what the Gaps Analysis numbers were. Nasby said they were numbers that were plugged in when the City received the Supportive Service Star Grant application. Nasby referred to Appendix A and said that the numbers indicated the estimated need, and are put together as Housing and Community Development Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 5 part of the grant application. He said the estimates came from providers, and the number is the estimate to meet the need "today". In response to a question from Correia, Nasby said that "other commercial/industrial improvements" under economic development referred to the category for commercial and industrial improvements in the City Steps. He said there was land acquisition, infrastructure development, building construction, and other needs, which refers to working capital. He said they take the City Steps priorities and determine the needs. In response to a question from Correia, Nasby stated that the Aid to Agencies funds goes into the same pot that the City uses to fund the local non-profit agencies. This pool of money consists of the City's General fund allocation and the $105,000 CDBG allocation. He said that there are fourteen agencies in the Aid to Agencies pot, and for ease of administration, instead of giving everyone a small amount, they work to see who the top three were. He said that MECCA, ESI and UAY have typically been the top three agencies regarding how much money they get out of the Aid to Agencies pot. He said they take the money and start subtracting until they get to partial funding of the third one with CDBG funds. Renquist asked if the committee could have a listing at their next meeting of the last year's funding and this year's funding for Aid to Agencies, including which ones specifically were CDBG funded. Renquist added that she thought the document was well done and credited Community Development staff. Nasby reported that there is a typo on page 33 of the Action Plan, close to the bottom. He said that the 30-day public comment period actually expires on May 6, not on May 7 as stated. In response to a question from Correia, Nasby said that this document was included as a live link in the Council packet, which is on the City's website. He said it is also available at the Public Library. Hightshoe said that a website for the planning department is in the process of being updated, and they do have the capabilities of putting the packets on the site as a link, or they could be e-mailed out. The consensus was that the committee prefers to receive the packets. Renquist moved that the commission approve the FY03 Annual Action Plan. Correia seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Housing and Community Development Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 6 Old Business: Correia brought up the issue of the 64.1(a) sale of the Library lot, referring to the appraisal stating that there is no value. Renquist said that the appraisal was a result of the restrictions that were put upon the land. She said that the City required businesses on the bottom, with a hotel and convention center, residential townhouse units, parking, and grocery store. Holt said that when the appraisers took into consideration cash value of the business, the land would be a negative value. In response to a question from Correia, Nasby stated that the restrictions were placed because Council wants to see a nice type of development with the last urban renewal parcel. Correia expressed that the project would create a loss of tax revenue. Nasby said that a building valued at $22 to $24 million would bring in considerable tax revenue. Correia asked if there was a way to obtain a percentage of the tax revenue for CDBG funding for a few years. Hightshoe said that the committee could formulate a proposal and submit Pt to the City. In response to a question from Deeth, Nasby said that the Council is debating the merits of the appraisal and the project, and it has not been placed on the agenda at this time. In response to a question from Correia, Nasby said that the City originally owned the land as a parking lot, then the City (parking department) sold it to the City as an urban renewal plot. Holt suggested that the City could require that some of the housing be set aside for Iow to moderate income. Nasby said that had been discussed and not selected as an option. New Business: Discussion of National Community Development Week Celebration House stated that the committee needs to discuss the celebration. Long said that last week was the National celebration, and the City likes to highlight a project and hold the celebration in the summer. Long said they typically try to select a date before the Legislature goes back into session, which would be before the Past week of July. Housing and Community Development Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 7 Long said they need to select a date, put together a program and pick a theme. Holt said the last week of July was Ragbrai. The committee felt the week of the 15th of July would be a good week. In response to a question from Bears, Correia said that the celebration would be on a bus route. Nasby said that Pathways and MECCA have volunteered their locations for the site of the celebration. Long reminded the committee that they also have a housing project they just finished. Long suggested that a committee be selected to put together the program, select a theme and a date. In response to a question from Renquist, Nasby said the national theme was patriotic. Long said the City usually picks their own theme. Holt, Renquist and Bears volunteered to serve on a celebration committee. Nasby confirmed that the committee would look at the week of July 15th. In response to a question from Deeth, Correia said that the celebration is usually 4-6pm on a weeknight. Long said that traditionally it has been a Wednesday or Thursday. In response to a question from Bears, Correia said that the celebration is a reception or open house, with displays and pictures of other CDBG projects and a tour of the facilities chosen for the site. In response to a question from Bears, Nasby said that the celebration would be on the City's cable channel. Gutting moved to adjourn. Holt seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Rick House, Chairperson MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002- 6:30PM CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Lori Bears, Amy Correia, John Deeth, Rick House, Kathleen Renquist, Christine Boyer, Bill Stewart Members Absent: April Gutting, Gretchen Holt (resigned) Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Stephen Long City Council Members Present: None Others Present: Bob Burns, Alaina Welch, Maryann Dennis, James Thomas Call to Order Rick House called the meeting to order at 6:33PM Approval of Minutes of April 16, 2002 MOTION: John Deeth moved that the minutes for April 16, 2002 be approved as submitted. Lori Bears seconded the motion. All in favor; motion passed 7-0. Public/Member Discussion of Items not on the Aqenda Bob Burns of Burns & Burns L.C. submitted a letter to the commission, requesting funds that would be recaptured from the Metro Plains project. The commission accepted the letter. He commented that he knew that the Metro Plains project had been denied tax credits and that they had submitted an appeal of the decision, which was, in turn, denied. Long commented that Metro Plains had faxed him a letter, which they asked for him to pass out to the members. The commission accepted the copies. They requested that the $250,000 be released so that they can purchase the land now and reapply for tax credits. They would like to have a special meeting on May 29 to discuss this matter. Renquist commented that she went to the Council meeting on May 7 and came back very discouraged because of the feeling that she got from several of the council members regarding homelessness. She passed out copies of something that a minister gave her. Local ministers were very upset by the meeting. She noted that this is a commission, not a committee, and as such, a commission has more authority than is being recognized by the City Council. She recommended that commission members view a tape of the May 7 meeting and then discuss it afterwards. This will be added to the June agenda. At the meeting, FY03 HUD allocations were discussed. HCDC had recommended allocation of funds for the Emergency Housing Feasibility project. During the discussion process, there was a motion by Kanner and seconded by Pfab, that funding for Elder Services Inc.- Small Repair Program come out of the CDBG-Economic Development set-aside. Vanderhoef said that the money was all allocated, but Renquist added that she did not know what for. Therefore, the motion was turned down. Renquist says that she felt that there was more interest in repairing homes for elders, and thereby supposedly increasing the housing stock for the City of Iowa City, so that maybe a homeless person could buy a house. Renquist said that she doubted that a homeless person could ever buy one of these homes and also that Eider Services Inc. does very small repairs that do little to preserve the housing stock. She said that it was a shame that the study was turned down, because a feasibility study could very well show that the city needs to expand their services for the Housing and Community Development Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 2 homeless, with the goal of their becoming self-sufficient. Bears commented that she heard, before she got on the committee that there could only be thirty people at the shelter per night. If they have more than that, the fire marshal has to turn people away. All members expressed frustration with the city's decision. Renquist added that someone watching the meeting on t.v. will be giving the Emergency Housing project full funding for the feasibility study out of his or her own pocket. Renquist also revisited the idea of having a HCDC member present on the Council Economic Development Committee. She said that the public and HUD need to know that someone is watching over that CDBG money. This was recommended at one point earlier and will be investigated further. Renquist also said that she found it interesting that the Council spent a lot of time on Burns & Burns' loan increasing to 3%, which would then mean that Burns & Burns would have to decrease the amount of units that they could give. The result, she said, was that the city would be getting back more money, but the city people would be getting less housing. Correia asked what the difference in money to be paid would be from 2% to 3%. Burns answered that based on their application for the $500,000, that it would mean an additional $400 a month in interest and raise the rents $40 a unit, worst-case scenario. Correia was upset that City Steps was changed from 5% to 9% for economic development after many commission members recommended against it. She asked whether there is a way to lodge a complaint with HUD about this. Long said that she can write a letter expressing her displeasure. Hightshoe commented that Council has ultimate prerogative to follow or not follow recommendations. Stewart said that if she, as an individual wanted to lodge a complaint that would be okay. Hightshoe added that Correia would have to show that the Council received additional input from others besides this commission when making their decision. The commission recognized a comment from James Thomas, Iowa City resident and former Housing Director in Florida. He noted that HUD directs cities to do their will and cities direct commissions to do their will. He said that the problem now is how to correct the situation if the will of the people was not carried out. He said that it would be fair to petition HUD, but he was unsure whether they would reply. The commission members must now decide whether or not to act or to acquiesce to the Council's ruling. Greater Iowa City Housinq Fellowship Request for Project Revision- Student Built House: Maryann Dennis invited the members to the Open House at the Student Built House on Tuesday, May 28 at 5:30PM. Mr. Statlander, the teacher who has been the vocational mentor for over thirty years is retiring, so he will be honored. Dennis continued that when they wrote the proposal to purchase this lot, they looked at a multiple listing service through the Association of Realtors and came up with an average of what they thought they could find a lot for, but ended up finding a lot for considerably less. They have a signed purchase offer, and Dennis is now asking the commission for around $10,000 for down payment assistance for the homeowners. The house is on the market now for $109,900. These homeowners make just over $60,000 and hopefully US Bank will do the loan. Dennis has talked with Fannie Mae and they may be able to do a silent second mortgage with a 4-10 year declining balance forgivable loan for the down payment assistance. House pointed out that his would only benefit one family and that there is a down payment assistance program already in place for $5,000. Long confirmed this and said that there is around $40,000 available in that fund (lead based paint restrictions have made the monies available only for houses built after Housing and Community Development Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 3 1978 which are not as affordable as earlier homes). The buyer must match these funds. Correia asked when the closing date would be, to which Dennis responded, mid June. House commented that this was a lot of money to give to one family. Dennis pointed out that the Housing Authority has provided much more assistance to one household. Dennis compromised and asked if the commission would give $5,000 this year and $5,000 for the next student built house. Dennis also reminded them that this house would be affordable for at least the next 99 years. MOTION: Kathleen Renquist moved that the commission allow Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship to use the $10,000 that they did not expend in FY02 CDBG funds, to split that so that $5,000 can be used as down payment assistance for the current buyer and $5,000 be used for next year's student built house. Discussion followed. Hightshoe pointed out, that before the commission votes, they could commit only the $5,000 for this year and then staff would check if feasible to allocate FY02 funds for a FY03 project. MOTION: Kathleen Renquist moved that the commission approve $5,000 of the $10,000 that was provided in FY02 for the Student Built House, for use by Greater Iowa City Housing to be used as down payment assistance for the current home and the other $5,000 to go into a marked contingency fund. Discussion to follow. Correia seconded, but was not recognized since discussion had begun. Hightshoe noted that options for the remaining money from the CDBG fund will be put on the June agenda to talk about further. Dennis pointed out that in her request she asked for a forgivable declining balance for 10 years. Renquist incorporated this into the above motion. Long observed that the one normally done is for 5 years and is slightly different. Dennis added that the way the land lease is written, it encourages the homebuyer to stay for at least 10 years. MOTION: Kathleen Renquist moved that the commission approve Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship's request to offer the buyer of the house, a declining balance forgivable 10-year loan of $5,000 to be used as down payment assistance for the FY02 Student Built Home. Correia seconded. All in favor; motion passed 7-0. Monitorin.q Reports MECCA, ESI, and UA ¥- Aid to Agencies (Holt): Holt not present. Hightshoe reported that Elder Service Inc. (ESl) spent all funds minus 1 penny due to a check entry error. A penny was given to ESI to complete the FY02 award. United Action for Youth is almost spent out and MECCA only has one more disbursement. All groups expect to expend their entire funds by the end of the fiscal year. The monies were spent on operating costs. Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship- Student Built House (Gutting): Gutting not present. Dennis spoke in her absence, This is the project of nine units in Coralville and nine units in Iowa City, She said that they are 72% done with the project. They have a signed purchase offer on a duplex on E. Court St. A tenant that has been there for 18 years currently occupies one side of the duplex; new boilers will be put in. With these last two, they will have the full nine units in Iowa City. On Taylor Dr,, the Wetherby Neighborhood Association asked them to look for rental properties for sale in the Taylor Dr. neighborhood. They were able to purchase a nice 2-bedroom unit duplex on Taylor Dr. The units have walkout basements and screened-in porches, though they Housing and Community Development Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 4 were not in very good shape. Over $50,000 was put into renovations for the units. These costs included new front doors, all new exterior siding, landscaping, etc. She noted that this was the first time that a neighborhood association has invited the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship into their neighborhood and she felt that Wetherby would be pleased with the results. Metro Plains Development- Affordable Rental Units (House): Already covered earlier. MOTION: Kathleen Renquist moved that the commission hold a special meeting on May 29 at 6:30PM to discuss Metro Plains and Garden Prairie projects, as well as recommendations for the $5,000 for the Greater Iowa City Fellowship. Boyer seconded. Ail in favor; motion passed 7-0. Will be discussed more at a special meeting on May 29. Metro Plains and Burns & Burns will be present. Habitat for Humanity- Land Acquisition (Gutting): Gutting not present. Renquist reported that she went to the Habitat for Humanity groundbreaking. She said that it was very nice and that she even gave a speech as a representative of the City of Iowa City. Hightshoe said the HFH had spent their money by January. They bought four lots: two will be single lots and two will be duplexes. Old Business Rehab. Program- Rental Accessibility Pilot: Long reported that the City will launch this program, with up to $1,500 per project and a total program cap of $9,000. Work cannot disturb lead-based paints. Hightshoe said that a packet went out to the City Manager, who thought the housing rehabilitation program was great and he wanted staff to contact the press to do a feature. Discussion of National Community Development Week Celebration: The celebration will be held the week of July 15. A new committee has to be formed since many previous members are no longer present. Hightshoe noted that she would want to talk about having a non-profit grant-writing/capital campaign seminar the same week as the celebration next year. Correia suggested contacting RAC at the law school. Long noted that their intern is starting Monday and will help pick a date. Bears will chair the committee. New Business Review of Allocation Process- Creation of Subcommittee: Hightshoe asked if there was anything done this year that the committee would like to see done better next year. Renquist commented that she felt that the internal process went more smoothly this year than in the past. Stewart said that he missed not having the people there to tell them about their applications/programs. Correia suggested giving more time for speaking, perhaps 10 minutes. The tours were appreciated. No subcommittee was required. Discuss Summer Schedule: Housing and Community Development Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 5 Long observed that traditionally the committee takes a month off in either July or August because of summer travel. August seemed to be favored, but there was no consensus. On Sept 1, three new members will come on board. Renquist and Stewart are not re-applying. Boyer is uncertain and Holt resigned today. Correia suggested attaching the meeting to the CD Celebration. This was well received. Adjournment MOTION: Bill Stewart moved that the meeting be adjourned. Correia seconded the motion. All in favor; motion passed 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:37PM. FINAL/APPROVE MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 16, 2002 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Mascari, Michelle Robnett, Mark Anderson, Alan Ellis STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes o£the April 16 and April 25, 2002, Commission meetings were approved as submitted. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari asked if there were any instances of the 100LL pump not working? ONeil said none had been reported to him. Mascari asked about the bill for runway light parts? O%leil said it was £or wiring from the lights to the transformers. Mascari asked about the repairs for the access gate. ONeil said this bill was for replacing the motor. He said the gate gets extensive use and almost all o£the original parts of the gate have been replaced. He said part of the problem is that people give out the access code to people that don't need to be in that area. O~Neil said he might leave the gate open during the day when he is around to monitor ~ra£fic and close it at night. Mascar~ asked about the bill to IOW Aero. O~Neil said that was the remainder o£the bill for the interior renovation on Building D that the Commission agreed to pay IOW. Anderson asked O~Neil i£the money was hudgeted. O'Neil said he would have to de£er some other maintenance to pay IOW. Mascari made a motion to pay the bills. Ellis seconded the motion and the motion passed 4 - 0, with Ruyle being absent. Anderson suggested not leaving the gate open during the day. Mascari said the Commission needs to keep a tight lid on spending. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were presented. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park 1. May report - O2qeil said that because the meeting date was changed, Tracy Overton could not be at the meeting. O2qeil circulated Overton's monthly report. He said Overton emphasized the Commission move forward as quickly as possible to pursue the idea of selling the lots as opposed to long-term leases. He said the interest from potential tenants has been in purchasing property. Anderson asked O2qeil if there had been any response from the letter he sent to the Mayor, indicating the Commission was going to investigate selling the property? O2qeil said that as of the Commission's meeting time, he had received no response from the Mayor. O~eil said some response is required to move forward with attempting to get the grant assurances modified and to get the appraisal updated. Oq',!eil said that he received a positive response from the City Manager and the Finance Director when he discussed this issue with them. Anderson suggested O~eil contact Casey Cook to see how much it would cost to update the appraisal and how soon it could be done. He will contact the Mayor and discuss the idea of selling the property. O'Neil asked if the Commission was ready to make a recommendation to Council to sell the property. 2. Other issues - O~eil said the revised listing agreement was in their packet. It was the view of the City Attorney's office that is would be the responsibility of the Council to hire a realtor if the property was sold. There is a penalty in Overton's contract if the Cormrflssion terminates the agreement early. Overton would wave that fee if he was the realtor selected to sell the property. Because Overton is familiar with the property, it would be a good decision to have him market the property. Mascari and Ellis are the subcommittee for the ACP. They will develop a strategy for how to proceed with the marketing of the ACP. Ellis said he thought the Commission should hire an outside attorney to assist with the negotiations with the City Council. He said that the City Attorney is reviewing any agreement for content only, not to advice on what the best deal is for the Airport. Anderson asked how an outside attomey would be paid for? Robnett said she would check with AOPA legal services. b. Fuel site - upgrade software- O~eil said that the Commission has discussed updating the software for the 100LL-fuel pump. This would allow the FBO to do multi-pricing and to download the daily receipts from their computer instead of directly from the pump. O~Neil said he did not think the Commission had officially agreed to upgrade the software. Mascari said he thought this is something the FBO might want to invest in. The Commission directed O~eil to contact Jet Air to see if they are interested in changing the software. c. Gordon lease amendment- Anderson asked Dulek to explain how an increase based on the CPI would work. Dulek said that if Gordon exercised his five-year lease option, the rent would increase by the same percentage as the CPI increased during the first five years of his lease. Anderson asked if Gordon understood this amendment. O~Neil said that Gordon is the one that asked for the rent to be tied to the CPI. Anderson said he would prefer Gordon agree to the lease amendment before the Commission acts on it. OqXleil said Gordon's real concern is that his rent will be increased based on tenant-paid-for improvements. He recently spent several thousand dollars painting the interior walls and hangar floor and did not want a rent increase based on improvements he paid for. Ellis suggested Gordon be invited to the next meeting and make sure everyone was in agreement with the amendment. Ellis and Robnett will meet with Gordon before the next meeting. 2 d. Obstruction removal project- OrNeil said Stanley Engineering had given him a Scope of Services for the project. He had included a copy in the Commission packet. O2qeil said the subcommittee would need to review the scope and give him their comments. O~Neil said the consultant fee suggested in the scope were about 17%. Anderson said that since this is a State grant, O~Neil should see if IDOT would review the scope for content and cost. O~Neil will contact the State Aviation office and see if they will review the scope. O'Neil said there are some things that can be eliminated from the Scope of Services. e. Environmental Assessment and Section 106 project- O~Neil said H.R. Green has developed a Scope of Services. O~Neil said Dick Blum said Green's environmental experts stated the 106 study alone could cost $100,000. A letter sent to SHPO indicated that the entire Airport could be eligible as a historic district. This is not something that was initiated by the Airport Commission or the City of Iowa City. This was brought to the attention of the Public Works Department in conjunction with the Mormon Trek South project. O2qeil said he and Blum, from H.R. Green, will be in Kansas City next month and will discuss the EA and historic study with FAA officials. £ Long-term parking- O~eil said the Commission had not decided on what they wanted in a policy recommendation to the Council. Dulek had advised the Commission that it was her opinion that only the Council could set parking fees. The Commission directed Dulek to draft an ordinance for Council, but did not give final direction on what they wanted in the ordinance. Anderson said that because the Commission was not sure what they wanted, he thought the issue should be dropped at this time. Mascari said he agreed, but his idea was that it would have been a way to generate income. Ellis said the long-term parking should be included as a more comprehensive parking plan for the Airport. Robnett said this could be part of the business plan. g. North t-hangars leases- This was deferred from last month's meeting. Ellis said he had some recommended changes for the lease. One of the things Ellis suggested was an annual compliance inspection of the hangars. He said he is getting a lease from a U-Store-It company to see what kind of restrictions they have on storage. Ellis also wanted all tenants to provide a cleaning deposit. He said storage of hazardous materials should be addressed. He also thought a set of Airport roles should be developed and included in the leases. Ellis said he thought there should be annual rent increases. He thought there should be a charge for electrical use for each hangar. Ellis said he thought that before the Airport does any maintenance to a hangar, the tenant should be given written notice. All insurance requirements should be specified in detail. Ellis said all tenants should be notified if there is a speciaI event at the airport. Mascari said one of the complaints from tenants in the original version of the lease was that it was one-sided. It stated tenant responsibilities but did not list airport responsibilities. Dulek said the Commission is suppose to be advocating for the Airport. The tenants should be invited to comment on the lease, but are responsible for speaking up for themselves. Robnett said there is some responsibility to the tenants for customer service. h. Buildings A, B, & C - overdue rent- O~Neil said he received an e-mail from PS Air, saying they would pay about 1/3 of the money they collected for the Airport. Instead of paying the rest, they would turn over debt owed to them by Iowa City tenants for the Commission to collect. The amount of money owed to them is about $ 2500, which is more than ICFS owes the Commission. Dulek said the tenants owe the money to the Commission. Because they sent the rent to PS Air instead of the Commission is not the commtssion's fault. PS Air was supposed to return the money to the Commission. Mascari said the Commission should direct 02qeil to send a letter to the six tenants, telling them that they owe rent and will have to try to get their money back from PS Air. O'Neil said he would send letters to the tenants. Dulek said she would review the letter before it was sent. i. United States Army Reserve lease- O'Neil said the USAR leases about 24,000 square feet of airport property to store construction equipment. The lease expires in August. They are paying about $.075 a square foot. Mascari asked what fair market value would be? O'Neil said the Iowa City School District is paying about $ .10 a square foot for the acre they lease in the ACP. O"Neil said thc question is, does the Commission want to renew the lease? Mascari said he thought the Commission should renew the lease. The Commission agreed. O~Neil will send a letter to the USAR and this will be on the agenda this summer. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Anderson said he had nothing to report. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mascari said the abandon parallel taxi way for Runway 18 should be marked closed. Robnett gave the Commission additional information on public service announcements. She will contact IDOT to see what they are doing for marketing. Robnett said she contacted the University of Iowa Business school for help in writing the business plan. Robnett said the Commission should set a date to work on the business plan. Anderson said it should be a separate meeting. The Comnmssion decided to meet on Saturday, July 13, at 9:00 a.m. Anderson said he may be able to have someone from his office facilitate the meeting. Ellis wanted to know what the Commission wants to do about hiring an attorney. Mascari said he does not know how the Commission can afford an outside attorney. It would probably cost somewhere between $ I00 - $ 200 per hour. Robnett will investigate costs. Ellis said he thinks there should be sthcter rules about the bulletin board in the Flight Service Room. He does not think Jet Air should have free advertising. Ellis said the Commission should review the memo from O'Neil about how to save money at the Airport. Anderson said this would be on the next agenda. Ellis wanted to know if the Commission could pay for the O'Neil to go through the AAAE accreditation program? Mascari said when he sends someone to a class or school, his business pays for the schooling. Ellis said that could be taken out of the education and training budget. O~Neil said there are only a couple of AAAE certified members in Iowa. Mascari said that something needs to be done about having all five Commission members. He said he thought that City code said that if you miss two or three meetings in a row, you are automatically out. O2qeil said the Commission would have to discuss this as an agenda item. This will be on the agenda for the next meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Jet Air will be hosting a Chamber of Commerce Business P.M. O~qeil said there was a vacation notice memo in the packet. O~Neil discussed the summer meeting schedule with the Comrmssion. The meetings are scheduled for June 6, July 18, August 8, and September 12. There is also the meeting scheduled for July 13. A memo was sent to the Council explaining T-hangar occupancy. In order to help reduce the budget, the cleaning service for the Terminal Building will be reduced from three times a week to two times a week. O2qeil said there was a memo in the packet conceming a land lease from Toyota to lease about a half an acre of land. This will be on the next meeting agenda. O2qeiI said Iowa City Schools lease an acre of land in the northeast comer of the Airport. It is on a year to year lease. This will be on the agenda for the next meeting. The Police Department trained at the Airport on May 13, from about 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The training will be evaluated by the Police Department and may be something that is done on a regular basis. Because University Hospital is working on some of thc elevators, the helicopter pad at the hospital can not be used for at least the next three weeks. Air Care will transfer all patients to ground transportation at the Airport. Some special equipment will be stored at the Airport so they will not have to transport it back and forth for every patient transfer. The City Attomey has advised that the Council, boards and commissions should Iimit what is said at the agenda time sent aside for individual members. Items can be raised for future agenda discussion, but specific discussion of items not on the agenda should not be discussed by the Commission at the time on the agenda for Commission members' reports. This means no discussion or action. Ifa majority of the Commission is interested in an issue, it should be scheduled on a future agenda. Ellis had asked how much it would cost monthly to individually meter all the hangars. O2qeil said there would be a minimum monthly charge of $10.00 per meter. Also in response to Ellis, OXqeil said the runway lights on Runway 07/25 cost about $2.50 per day, based on a twelve-hour day. McLoedUSA is waffling on their pay telephone contract. They are suggesting that in order to keep the pay phone at the Airport, it will cost $100 per month. It is free at this time. O'Neil is looking at alternatives. Dave Larsen, who is affiliated with John Dane on some property west of the Airport, requested leasing some Airport property to install a real estate sign. He has already installed the sign without permission. O~Neil said he told Larsen he would need to remove the sign until the Commission discussed a lease. This will be on the agenda for the June meeting. A memo was sent to the City Manager concerning an insurance claim for Building K. A letter was sent to the Cedar Rapids tower, requesting a temporary tower for the fly-in on August 25, 2002. O~Neil said there was a memo in the Commission packet, suggesting areas the Commission may want to consider to reduce the 2003 budget. Discussion of the budget will be on the June agenda. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Cornnmssion meeting is scheduled for June 6, 2002,at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Mark Anderson, Chairperson MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Gidal, T.J. Brandt, Vince Maurer, Dennis Keitel MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Paul STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Gary Hughes, Larry Meyers, Tom Gelman, John Fitzpatrick, Steve Ballard CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Keitel, Gidal, Brandt, Maurer present. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 9, 2002 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Gidal moved to approve the April 9, 2002 minutes. Keitel seconded. Motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC02-00006. Discussion of an application submitted by Hughes & Associates for a special exception to permit residential dwelling units above ground floor commercial uses in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone at 522 S. Gilbert Street. Howard stated that the Community Commercial Zone in question is next to a high-density residential zone, and is currently a commercial corridor with some existing businesses in that location. She said the proposed design of the building originally called for 1800 sq. ft. of commercial on the first floor. She stated that the application has been revised, with a floor plan of 1600 sq. ft. of commercial on the first floor and 9,000 sq. ft. of residential above, consisting of five 5-bedroom apartments with parking located below and underneath the building. Howard said no building plans have been submitted other than the site plan, and they have not submitted any side elevations at this time. The commercial space appears to be secondary to the residential use of this proposal. She said the bulk of the residential units would be located above the parking lot. The building would be cantilevered over the parking lot. The building is designed with the maximum number of dwelling units with the maximum number of bedrooms. In order to provide enough parking spaces for the proposed 5-bedroom apartments the commercial space has been reduced to 1600 sq. feet. Howard advised that the standards for residential dwelling units in the Community Commercial Zone are that, 1) the dwelling units must be located above or below the ground floor of a principal use allowed in the zone; 2) the density must not exceed one dwelling unit per 1800 sq. ft. of lot area. Howard said that this proposal does not meet the specific standards because the dwelling units are located above parking. Parking is not a principal use permitted in the CC-2 zone. She said that the CC-2 zone is largely intended for commercial uses. Residential uses Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 2 can add an element of vitality to a commercial zone, however, they are not intended to predominate or erode the commercial character of the zone. Howard said that Staff recommends the Board deny this application because it does not meet the zoning requirements. Regarding the general standards, Howard said that there are other issues about the design of the building which are noted in the staff repod. She said those are secondary to the fact that it does not meet the zoning requirements. She noted that the building design as submitted in the application will not meet the Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards (14-5H-5N). She said there is also a problem with the entrance to the building. She said that the residents would have to enter the apartments from the parking area underneath the building. This would not be a very pleasant or safe means of access for residents particularly if one walks to or from work or school. The design at this point is not well thought out, and staff feels the special exception does not meet either the specific or general special exception review requirements. Therefore, Howard said that staff recommends that EXC02-00006, a special exception to permit five dwelling units above ground floor commercial uses for property located in a Community Commercial Zone at 522 S. Gilbert Street be denied. In response to a question from Brandt, Howard stated that when the applicant was informed that they had calculated the parking requirements incorrectly, they came back with the second site plan with the commercial space reduced to 1600 sq. ft. to fit the additional parking spaces. She said the residential units will require 20 spaces, and the commercial will require 8. In response to a question from Maurer, Howard said that the current property at 522 S. Gilbert used to be an auto part store. Brandt said that Foster Maytag used to be located at this site. Howard confirmed that the one-story building currently on the site would be removed. Howard said that she did receive a call today from the manager of the Mansion, the neighboring property, who had some concerns about the design and the number of parking spaces and the impact of that amount of residential on the small lot, based on his experience with other residential in the neighborhood. She said she received an e-mail, and she provided the e-mail to the Board prior to the meeting. Howard also noted that before the Board meeting, the property owner on the other side of the property had submitted an e-mail that was in the Board's packet, but he has submitted a letter basically stating that he has discussed this project and feels more comfortable with the project. She said she provided that letter to the Board as well. Public Hearing Opened Duane Musser of MMS Consultants stated he prepared the site plan and the application. He said the plan was a three-story building, with the first floor commercial and the second and third floors located above the first floor will be residential. He said that in order to get the required parking, the parking will be at-grade coming off the alley and will slowly slope underneath the building, ending in an underground parking garage. He said the building will appear from Gilbert Street to be a three-story building, with a flat roof design to make the height requirements fit, and also to be more consistent with the buildings across the street. Musser said that a new plan was submitted with the correct number of parking places. He said with the parking available, the commercial first floor would be 1600 sq. ft. He said that does not necessarily mean that the footprint will only be 1600; that will be the space that they can advertise for rent, lease or sale based on the number of parking spaces. He said the footprint could be bigger for mechanical equipment, stairway, hallways and stuff like that. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 3 Musser said a portion of the second and third floors will be cantilevered over the parking area. He said that in order to get underneath the building they have to stair step the building to keep the minimum clearance for the underground parking garage. Musser said they feel they still meet the intent of the Code as far as being located above the primary use of the commercial. Musser said that they don't believe the building plans are a requirement as far as submittal. He said they have not designed the building plans since they don't know how the review process will end up. He said they started with a simple design and have met with Howard and some other people from Planning and have talked basically about what they foresee as something that would be approved by staff, and they are in agreement as far as revising the elevations to meet staff's wishes to better fit into the neighborhood. However, he said they did not have time to do that before the meeting and did not want to go to all the expense of drawing all the elevations and building plans for the special exception application. In response to a question from Keitel, Howard said that they did meet with the applicant and talked about the design of the building and the fact that it didn't meet the Zoning requirements, so the applicant was aware before the meeting. She said staff asked the applicant if they would like to defer the application to go back and try to redesign the building so it meets the Zoning requirements, but they decided they would like to go forward with the application. Howard said that the current plan puts the residential above an accessory use and this is not permitted in the Community Commercial Zone. In response to a question from Keitel, Howard stated that the objection by staff is that the building is largely residential and the amount of parking that is required for the residential is reducing the amount of commercial that is possible on the lot. She said the commercial use of the building seems secondary to the residential. In response to a question from Gidal, Musser said that the applicant is at the maximum density of dwelling units (five units permitted). He said that they could not find anything in the Code where it specified what percentage has to be the primary use versus what percentage can be the secondary use, so they feel the primary use is the first floor commercial and their residential units are located above that. He said as far as they read the intent, they feel they meet the intent; they meet the parking requirements with the revised site plan for both residential and commercial. Musser clarified that the plan includes five 5-bedroom units. Howard clarified that the Code says five units are permitted but does not specify the occupancy. She said that a 5-bedroom unit is still considered to be one unit. In response to a question from Keitel, Musser reiterated that the primary use is considered to be the commercial use. Keitel asked if the owner intends to obtain more revenue from the commercial space, and Musser declined to answer because he is not involved with the revenue from the building. Musser said that he did not know that it was considered that the primary use was based on which one generated more revenue. Keitel said that is how he would define it. In response to a question from Maurer, Musser stated that the parking requirements have been met. Howard clarified that the revised site plan with the reduced commercial space would reduce the parking requirements and would add three more spaces to their lot. Maurer asked for clarification as to how close the application as presented is to what would fit the multi-family design standards. Howard said there are a number of mandatory standards that would have to be met. She said, in addition, there is a point system for elements that add to the design of the building, and you need at least 30 points to meet the standards. She said that the Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 4 applicant does not meet the mandatory requirements; and a committee decides how many points are assigned to a building and she does not believe this project would get 30 points. However, she said the design of the building is secondary to the Zoning requirements in this particular case. She said the applicants have stated they are willing to work with the design of the building and would have to go through site plan review to have that approved. Gary Hughes identified himself as the applicant. He said he disagrees with the City's position that this building does not meet the intent of the law. He said they have researched the Code, and there is nothing in the Code for revenue, size or anything else to place restrictions on the primary use as commercial. He said they feel very strongly that this plan does fit in. He said this is commercial zoning, and that Howard had advised him there were several different commercial zones. Hughes referred to properly built on Burlington & Dubuque, which is very similar to the building he wants to put up. He said half the building is surface parking and the other half is commercial with three floors of apartments above. He cited this as a precedent in Iowa City, and said this is only one example. Hughes said they did not go to the expense of doing building plans because he has already invested quite a bit of money and did not want to expend a lot more funds if the project was not going to fly. He said that Musser met with Howard, and with Boothroy at the Building Department and he has met with Howard several times also. He said he did tell Howard they will do everything they can to have the building fit in with the neighborhood and to comply with the infill ordinances. Hughes pointed out that there is not really any opposition other than the one e-mail that was just received from the Mansion. He said the project fits in well with the area; the area is commercial and apartments. He stated that the City has way too much commercial now in the City which stands empty. He said he does realize the zoning is commercial and he wants to comply with it, and the plans are to put in 1600 sq. ft. of commercial with apartments above, which are needed in Iowa City. Hughes said that the current building has been deteriorated significantly over the last five to six years. He said the building was added onto four or five times, and is an eyesore. He said they intend to replace the building with something that will be an asset to Iowa City and fit in much better than the current building and generate a lot more taxes. Maurer stated he felt it was a problem that the building has not yet been designed, and questioned how the Board could approve something that has no design. Hughes said that he is aware that you cannot get a building permit without the City's approval, and you have to meet the new infill guidelines, so he understands that there would be a lot of negotiation with the City on the design. In response to Maurer's concerns, Howard said that the staff bases the analysis on the materials submitted with the application. One special exception, and the special exception requirement is that they have to meet all regulations of the City. She said that in her report she noted that it is unlikely the project will meet the Central Planning Design Standards from the application materials received to this point. In response to a question from Keitel, Hughes stated that the project would not be economically viable if the apartment density was reduced. He said he paid less than the assessed value but the project is borderline right now, and will definitely not work if the residential is decreased. He said he does not feel the owner will drastically reduce the price of the property. Howard stated that the building on Burlington Street that was referenced by Mr. Hughes was in a different zone and subject to different regulations. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 5 Holecek said that she did not believe staff has commented on the number of bedrooms because there is no standard to regulate the number of bedrooms. She said staff's contention is that this is a commercial zone; that the primary use is to be commercial and the fact that you have 1600 sq. ft. on the ground floor as the primary use does not meet the intent of the commercial zone as opposed to the remaining ground floor use being parking, which is an accessory use. Hughes said he feels the first floor office or retail will be much more visible so he feels that makes it the primary use, and he has not seen anything in the City Code that says it's not. Maurer asked if the City is always going to insist on more commercial space when they have too much now. Holecek said that it would be an assumption that the space would be non-rentable. However, in the absence of a Code amendment to change either the Zone or what is required on the ground floor to allow the residential above, the Board cannot approve the exception. Greg Rocco identified himself as the broker for the property. He said he takes issue with the fact that the parking is an accessory use. He said the parking is a principal part of this lot because you still have to provide parking no matter what is on the lot. He said a principal use for parking would be if it were a parking lot and he was renting it by the space. He said that the proposed use is a part of the property. Rocco said that the Code says you can put apartments over a commercial use; it does not say you have to provide more income from the commercial use, nor does it say the commercial use has to be the primary thing. He said the Code says you can put so many units per square foot of lot; it does not define how you do it. In response to a question from Gidal, Howard advised that the formula for parking spaces required is different for residential apartments as opposed to commercial, and that different uses generate different parking need. Howard clarified that there is nothing in the Code that talks about revenue. She said the uses permitted in the Zone are listed in the Zoning Code; commercial uses are listed as a permitted use in the Community Commercial use with dwelling units allowed above a permitted use by special exception. She said the question here is that the bulk of the residential dwelling units are located above the parking, and parking is defined in the Zoning Code as an accessory use; it is not a permitted use in the Community Commercial Zone. She said it is not an interpretation; that is the way the Zoning Ordinance reads. She said the issue of "intent" is not for the Board to decide; that role is reserved for the City Council. In response to a question from Gidal, Howard stated that if the entire first floor was commercial and the parking located below the first floor, the use would fit within the Code. She said as long as the apartments are located above the commercial space, that would be permitted. She said she is not aware of whether this is feasible on this property. Holecek clarified that she believes the question by Keitel regarding revenue was for his own fact finding; the City has not taken a position that revenue is one of the issues to be looked at in deciding a principal an accessory use. Keitel expressed his agreement. Larry Meyers identified himself as a landowner of properly across the alley from the proposed special exception. He said he does not have enough information to be opposed or in favor at this time, but had some questions. He asked if the vehicles would exit onto the alley from the parking, or if there was a route onto Gilbert Street as well. Hughes stated the egress would be all on the alley, which is what the City preferred in discussions. Meyers stated he had concerns Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 6 about the traffic situation in the alley. Hughes stated that there are other places in the City that have this same type of situation, with some areas having more density than this area. Brandt reiterated that the parking and safety issues are always a big concern for the City. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Gidal moved to approve EXC02-00006, the application submitted by Hughes & Associates for a special exception to permit residential dwelling units above ground floor commercial uses in the Community Commercial (CC.2) Zone at 522 S. Gilbert Street. The motion was seconded by Keitel. Findinqs of Fact Maurer asked for clarification that the motion was for the special exception to be accepted. Holecek affirmed that all motions are phrased in the affirmative. Gidal said he would find to deny the exception. He said it seems clear it does not meet the specific standards for the zoning, particularly in regard to the pracement of dwelling units above a principal use, given the ruling that parking is not considered a permitted principal use in the Community Commercial Zone. Beyond that, all the questions of the general standards and the absence of a specific design seem secondary. Keitel stated he is sympathetic with the applicant because he is aware parking is an issue, particularly in this part of Iowa City. However, he said is bothered by the amount of the ground floor of this building that would be dedicated to the primary commercial use versus the amount that would be dedicated to the residential use and the resulting amount of parking required for the residential use. He recalled a similar request a few months ago on S. Capitol Street that was denied because it seemed to go along the same lines, and he said he does not want to go against what the Board has previously approved. He said he would vote to deny. Maurer said he would vote to deny, although he feels that there could probably be some changes made in the commercial zoning due to vacant properties. However, he said that until the Code is changed he will deny the application. Brandt stated he agrees with the Board from the standpoint that the Code specifically states that parking is accessory. He said that he does not feel it is within the Board's jurisdiction to work outside the Code, so he feels the application must be denied. He said he would vote to deny. Keitel said that he felt the staff gave the applicant ample opportunity to defer this application to try to work out some of the primary objections to the accessory use versus the primary use and they elected to go ahead. Maurer asked for confirmation of what a "yes" vote would do. Holecek clarified that the motion was framed in the affirmative, so a yes would pass the exception. The motion was defeated on a vote of 4-0. OTHER Discussion about whether clarification is needed regarding a condition placed on the Board's approval of EXC02-00001, a special exception to allow parking for 721 N. Linn Street on a separate lot at 222 Ronalds Street. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 7 Brandt recused himself from the discussion due to the fact that he was not in attendance at the Board meeting during which this matter was heard. Keitel took over chair of the meeting. Howard said that staff felt they may need clarification that the motion that was passed met what the Board intended with the special exception, given the fact that this property slopes from west to east and water flows downhill, making it difficult to meet the condition that was placed on the special exception. She asked whether the Board would like to discuss whether the condition should be reworded. She said staff suggested rewording to say that the drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent a net increase in the flow of water onto adjoining property. Keitel said he agrees, and would like to further clarify that by saying not only a net increase, but a net increase in the intensity of the flow of water. Holecek said that the fact that it is a pre-platted residential lot would not subject it to the stormwater management requirements. She said there were two portions of the special exception: one was relative to the upper portion of the parking structure that was built and those two spaces above, which were granted. She said what this condition related to was the lower spaces, which was originally shown on the site plan as a patio. Holecek said that there are two principles applied as far as the flow of water onto adjoining properties. She said that in discussing this with HIS, who would be the enforcing agency, she felt a clarification of the Board's intent was, as to whether it would be a net increase or whether we were taking about an absolute no-flow onto adjoining property. Keitel said you can't say an absolute no-flow because that would be like saying you cannot allow the natural flow. However, he does feel that if you cause a net increase in intensity such as it damages a downstream property, then the downstream property may have recourse for damages. He said something has to be done about the intensity of the run-off. Gidal said he felt the intent was clearly a net increase in the flow of water. He said he would like a little more clarification on intensity. He said he knows there was some discussion about the design and the question of the rate of flow of water, but he felt it may be an additional point. Holecek said that Keitel had some concerns about drainage, and his engineering expertise was in the previous record. Gidal said his concern was, by adding "intensity" how does that change the meaning from what is currently written in the decision. Keitel said that the "time of concentration" would mean the point that it takes the farthest drop of water to reach the point of discharge. He said what you do when you make the surface less impermeable, you reduce the time of concentration, so that increases the intensity of the run-off at the point of discharge. Gidal asked if the decision as written now would account for that. Keitel said he agreed with the calculations as presented at the meeting regarding causing a net increase, but the expert did not really address the intensity of the run-off. Keitel said he feels that intensity is going to be the major problem. Holecek noted that reviewing either standard you look at for the City, through the site plan review process or the other standard that would apply to this property in particular (where you encroach within three feet of the property line), neither standard says anything about intensity or velocity. Maurer stated that the decision already states the condition that drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of water onto adjoining property. He said the intent is to prevent the increase of the intensity of the flow. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 8 Keitel stated that his recollection was they left it up to the two parties to work out this issue. He asked for input from the parties as to whether they have worked it out or if this is the time to worry about it. Public Hearinq Opened Steve Ballard identified himself as an attorney for Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, the adjoining property owner. He said that after the previous hearing, he reported to his client that the issue was workable, they would work with the neighbor and they have some protection from the City ordinance. He said that a month ago he received a notice with the approved minutes, and then five days ago, he received a copy of a letter telling the Board that the applicant and the adjoining property owner were notified the Board would be discussing the matter again. He said that he and his client have not had a chance to review the proposed change to the decision, and hire an engineer if necessary to padicipate meaningfully. He said that, at best, he would ask the Board to defer consideration of a revision that apparently comes at the suggestion of some other part of the City government which was aware and had plenty of notice in March that this was under consideration. Ballard stated that the language in the special exception came directly from the ordinance. He said that if the ordinance says something, this Board does not have the authority to ignore it; they must apply it. He said that they did not have a water calculation, but he listened to Mr. Jacobs' water calculation and reviewed it in the minutes, and his recall of Jacobs' testimony was that the upper pad would drain to the north to the alley and everything else would drain to the fraternity, and if you apply no absorption coefficient due to the concrete and calculate what the net square footage is that will drain on the fraternity, and compare with the total square footage before the concrete when it all drained to the fraternity and applied a 60% absorption coefficient, then the net run-off to the fraternity would be decreased. Ballard said he does not agree that the upper area all drains to the north. (He presented photographs to the Board on this issue.) He urged the Board to go to the property and view it. Ballard said the northwest corner of the pad is sloped, not raised up at an angle to divert all water into the alley. He said the northwest corner bends and it will come down the sloped and paved incline, as shown in the photographs. He said that there has been or will be a net increase in the run-off to the fraternity. He said he also feels the intensity of the flow has materially changed. Maurer asked if there was a permit obtained when the concrete was initially placed. Holecek said that the permit was to allow the concrete to be placed; the Board's decision is whether or not it can be used as a parking area. He said the concrete will remain; that is approved. Maurer expressed a concern that they are discussing an issue which the Board has no authority over. Ballard said the Board does have authority; the original application said this area was a patio. He said his understanding is that the mechanisms of review in the City, therafore, did not take a look at how the creation of this patio would affect surface water drainage because it is not part of the review criteria. He said when someone later says they want to use the patio as parking, then the City's review criteria say you have to look at how this sun'ace is going to change the drainage, and you have to pitch things or curb them. Maurer said that he thought this was no change in plans; this was intended not to be a patio but a parking space. Holecek said the plan that was approved for the building permit said "concrete patio, not to be used as parking." Ballard said the intensity of the water flow is a big issue. Maurer said that the water would flow the same way whether this is a patio or a parking lot. Ballard said the City's ordinances protect Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 9 the City and the neighboring property owners depending on use. He said the City Building Department review criteria can only be placed into effect based on what an applicant says. Those protections, diverting water in parking areas, were in place when the application was submitted and would have been triggered if the application had said parking. Gidal asked what the current state of agreement between the parties was on this issue. Ballard said he has communicated with the attorney for the other party, and he hopes something can be worked out. Gidal asked if changing the language would affect in any way the parties' ability to negotiate an agreement. Ballard said it would change negotiations because the change would put the onus on the adjoining property owner to come before the Board and say there has been a net increase and they feel there is a violation of the special exception. Keitel advised that if they Board changes the language, it does not put the onus on his client; it would only clarify the Board's decision. Ballard pointed out the retaining wall in one of the pictures of the property, and indicated an ADS drainage tube opening at the base of that retaining wall. He said that before water ran from the Fitzpatrick property and onto the fraternity property; now there is a hose draining that water onto the fraternity property. Keitel said that, from an engineering standpoint, that is a good thing for the fraternity because it will reduce the intensity if installed and designed correctly. Ballard said the point is, they don't feel there is any need to change what was said, but if they consider a change, he would ask for a deferral of consideration. He said they are trying to talk with Mr. Fitzpatrick and plan to continue. Tom Gelman appeared on behalf of Mr. Fitzpatrick, the property owner. He said he was surprised to receive the reconsideration. He said they are somewhat ambivalent, although his major surprise was that the condition that is subject to reconsideration was stated in the written decision. He said his recollection of that meeting was that they talked at length of the drainage issue, but that ultimately the resolution of that was it was a private property rights issue that should be resolved between the parties and was not a material factor in the special exception. He said that if a problem has been created, he believes his client is willing to participate in a reasonable solution. However, he thought the Board had reached the conclusion that the flow of water was a matter of property rights. Gelman stated that he does not believe the neighbor objects to the parking issue from the exception request; however, he has heard great concerns about the drainage. Gelman said that the plan was submitted to the City for approval, showing the lower level and top level being parking; it was designed to be parking. He said that Mr. Boothroy indicated that it would not be approved with that much parking because that was more parking than was permitted on the lot without a special exception. He suggested that the lower level be designated as a patio until such time as a special exception may be granted. Gelman said that, to his knowledge, it was designed as if it was going to be parking, and the building permit was granted as if there would be parking there, but they didn't want any parking there unless and until a special exception was granted. Therefore, as far as he was aware, the permit met all of the requirements of the City Building Department for a parking lot when it was built. Gelman said that the requirement the City put in its report is not a requirement of a special exception; it's a requirement for a building permit. He said it really does not relate to the question of parking; that issue is can Mr. Fitzpatrick park on the upper level, which is sloped into the alley, which is curbed, which does direct the water into the alley, and the decision of the Board of Adjustment previously was that was okay up to three spaces, but only up to two if he could not otherwise satisfy his parking requirements. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 8, 2002 Page 10 Gelman said the concerns expressed by the neighbor about the drainage are recognized, they are corresponding, and hopefully it will be resolved. He said that if it is not resolved, he does not believe any parties are giving up any remedies or defenses in connection with the Board's decision, and he does not think the objections are with the parking, which is the subject of the exception. He said even if the Board had not passed the special exception, there would still be a drainage question. Public Hearin,q Closed Keitel said that he believes both parties have indicated that at this point in time they don't consider the condition to be a problem. Holecek stated that she had raised the issue because between the findings of fact, talking about a net increase, and the condition, which was an absolute, they did not match. She said she wanted clarification as to what it was they were requiring. The consensus of the Board was that they would leave the decision as written; no clarification is necessary. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Howard stated that prior to the meeting, Gidal had asked if the Board could be e-mailed a notice with the type of agenda items that were submitted, so that they can have an idea of what is coming at the next meeting. The Board concurred that would be a good idea. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn, seconded by Maurer. The meeting adjourned at 6:23 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002, 4:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, IOWA CITY CiViC CENTER, 410 E. WASHINGTON IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Wayne Maas, Anna Buss, Gary Haman, Tom Werderitsch, Doug DuCharme, Tim Fehr STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Bernie Osvald (Plumbing Inspector), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Vrban (Vrban Fire Protection), Traci Huffman (Aquarius Sprinkler Co.), Barney Murphy (Sprinkler Fitters Union Local 669), Dan Smith (Chamber of Commerce - arrives 4:30 P.M.) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:05 P. M. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the May 6, 2002 meeting were reviewed. Werderitsch asked that the spelling of his name be corrected and one typo be corrected. MOTION: Buss moved to approve the minutes. Werderitsch seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Continued discussion and possible recommendation to council, re.qardin,q maintenance and installer licensing of fire alarm and sprinkler systems contractors. Roffman asked for comments, questions or additions on the proposed licensing ordinance for sprinkler and fire alarm installers and maintenance contractors. Murphy asked for clarification on the continuing education requirements. Henries stated the eight credit hours would be required per code cycle. Hennes clarified the different types of licenses and stated that the fees for licensing and testing will be the same as other types of contracting licenses. The Board agreed that the Experior tests would be adequate for testing for these licenses for the initial interim period. There were some suggestions to clarify the language of the proposed ordinance. Hennes asked if the proposal for new licensing could be combined with the proposals for the new building codes so everything would be submitted to council at the same time. Roffman asked for a motion to approve the licensing section. MOTION: Werderitsch moved to approve the new licensing section to the Iowa City code which would add license requirements for fire alarm and sprinkler installer and maintenance contractors and would combine all of the required contractor's licenses in to one new section. VOTE: Motion passed unopposed 7-0. Continued discussion re.qardin.q the adoption of the 2000 International Building Code and the 2000 International Residential Code. Hennes stated that there are still some revisions that need to be made to the appeals section and the universal design section but other specific items could be addressed. Buss asked that the amendment requiring mechanical rooms in multi-family buildings be locked with a separate keyed lock be eliminated. She stated that often circuit breaker boxes and water heaters are located in these rooms and, in emergency situations if the tenants do not have a key or can not find the separate key, a bad situation can develop. Hennes stated the housing inspectors concerns that when these rooms are available to tenants, they store items in them and stack combustibles too close to the furnace. MOTION: Buss moved that the proposed additional paragraph to Section 302.1.1 of the IBC requiring separate key locks on mechanical rooms in multifamily buildings be removed. Werderitsch seconded. VOTE: The motion passed 6-1 with Roffman voting no. Discussion continued on the buildings codes concerning demolition permits and handrail height and length. Questions were asked about how the universal design requirements would be tied to public funds. Hennes said that the language would be clarified. Discussion reqardin.q the adoption of the 2000 Uniform Plumbinq Code. Several issues were discussed including redundant roof drain systems, fixture requirements, drinking fountains, and when plumbing permits are required. Hennes reiterated that the code being discussed was the 2000 Uniform Plumbing code not the 2000 International Plumbing Code so there would not really be many changes. Discussion re.qardin.q the adoption of the 2000 International Fire Code. Hennes stated that there was no one from the fire department to discuss specific issues. He brought up three items for the Board to think about for the next meeting. Proposed amendments included the addition of a "Knox" box (keyed entry box) to all new secured multi family buildings, required sprinkling for 12 unit buildings (already in place because of the building code), required sprinkling for single family (Group R3) dwellings, and the elimination of allowed outdoor campfires. Discussion was tabled until the next meeting when a representative from the fire department would be present. Discussion re.qardinq the adoption of the 2000 International Mechanical Code. Only amendment to be added is the deletion of the fee section and the adoption of the fees set by resolution of council. Hermes noted that the 2000 IMC allows for unrented gas appliances (such as gas wall fire places). He suggested that it be left in place and the inspectors would deal with it on a case by case basis. The licensing of mechanical contractors was discussed. Discussion reqardin.q amendment to the appeals sections of the code. Hermes stated that the plan was to pull out each separate appeals section from the different codes and combine them into one consolidated appeals section. This would provide for greater consistency. Also the grounds for appeals would better specified. Hermes asked how the Board wanted the grounds for appeal to be stated. Hennes said the building department could make decisions on some issues administratively and if the builder or home owner disagreed with the decision, they could still appeal to the Board. The consensus of the Board was to keep flexibility and use the modification and alternate materials sections of the code that they have been using. Other Business: The next meeting was set for June 3, 2002 at 4:00 P.M. This meeting will also be set for public discussion on the adoption of the new building, plumbing, mechanical, and fire codes. ADJOURNMENT: Haman moved to adjourn the meeting. Buss seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:37 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chair Date DRAFT MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, JUNE 11,2002, 4:00 P.M. TRANSIT BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM, 1200 S. RIVERSIDE DRIVE, IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Anna Buss, Tom Werderitsch, Wayne Maas Doug DuCharme, Tim Fehr MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Haman STAFF PRESENT: Tim Henries (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Andy Rocca (Fire Chief), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as Minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Rob Phipps (Mitchell Phipps), Dan Smith (Chamber of Commerce), Joan Teimeyer (Iowa City Homebuilders Association) Kevin Hochstedler, Gene Nissely (Frantz Construction), Mark Buell ( CLB Design), Ben Moore (Moore Construction) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended by an unanimous vote (6-0) that the 2000 International Fire Code with approved local amendments be adopted by City Council. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:08 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the June 3, 2002 meeting were discussed. MOTION: Buss moved to accept the minutes. Maas seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Continue discussion reqardin.q the adoption of the 2000 International Fire Code. Fire Marshall Jensen presented the revised amendments to the 2000 International Fire Code. Section 903.2.8.2 (required sprinkling systems in Group R-3 occupancies) had been revised to only require sprinkling systems in those occupancies that were constructed with public funds. He provided the Board with the information requested at the previous meeting concerning the costs a fraternity or sorority could expect to incurr if required to retrofit an automatic sprinkling system. The basic costs for installing a new 4" water service, the piping and heads for a sprinkling system, a monitoring contract, DRAFT and a backflow system would run somewhere between $20,000 and $28,000. Jensen stated that Madison, WI (University of Wisconsin)and Chappell Hill, N.C. (University of Noth Carolina) had both adopted a similar ordinance. He stated that Ames, IA is considering a similar ordinance and they expect to adopt it in fall of 2002. Werderitsch asked if any thought had been given to the cost of maintaining the aesthetics of a structure when considering costs. He mentioned one fraternity that had been retrofitted and kept the pipes in the sleeping rooms exposed but had the pipes in the common areas hidden. He asked also what type of alarm system would also be required. Jensen said that only the water flow monitor would be required. Buss stated that it was a large amount money the fraternities and sororities would be expected to come up with in five years. Buss asked Hochstedtler and Nissley from Frantz Construction what the costs of adding an automatic sprinkling system to 4,000 s.f. of new construction would cost. They stated approximately $18,000. Buss reiterated that that was a lot of money to add to the cost of construction. Werderitsch asked about Champagne, IL and Columbia, MO. Champagne (University of Illinois) is at the same stage as Iowa city and Columbia (University of Missouri) is waiting on pending state legislation. Rocca stated that fraternities and sororities were only given two years to put in the required second exit and they were able to comply. He said also that the University has instigated a plan to retrofit all of the residence halls with automatic sprinkling systems within ten years. The University wants that same protection extended to the fraternity and sorority houses. They feel that the off-campus houses should be as safe as the on-campus dormitories. Jensen stated that there have been catastrophic loss of life fires at some campus and even here in 1994, the Fire Department had to rescue fraternity members off of a roof during a fire. Werderitsch asked if any of the fraternities and sororities had been contacted concerning this issue. He stated that he felt their input would be appropriate. A letter had been sent 6/6/2002 to the Interfraternity Council at the University in order to start the notification process. Since it is currently summer break, no one is actually at the fraternities and sororities to notify. Buss stated that the financial burden that would placed upon the fraternities and sororities if retrofitting of automatic sprinkling systems is required would be extreme. And to place that burden on them without allowing them the opportunity to respond or provide input would not be right. Rocca stated that he wanted a very concise statement from the Board if they chose not to include this item in the recommended amendment.. He stated that he wanted the record to be very clear if a situation arose in the future. The consensus of the Board was they did not want to dismiss the amendment completely but preferred to readdress the issue later in the fall when the fraternities and sororities would have the opportunity for input. Dulek stated that the Board could simply not include this particular amendment in their recommendation. The next amendment discussed concerned the sprinkling of single family and duplex dwellings. Jensen had revised the amendment so that sprinkling would only be required in those new single family and duplex dwelling that were constructed with public funds. Moore stated that only requiring sprinkling in publicly funded dwellings would be discriminatory and unfair. He used the Peninsula project as an example where two houses could be right next door to each other and one might be required to sprinkled and the other might not. Moore said that adding $3,000 to $4,000 to a new structure that is being built as affordable housing (such as the student built house) is DRAFT unreasonable. He stated that building statistics showed that, out of Iowa City, Coralville, Johnson County and North Liberty, Iowa City had issued the least number of single family dwelling permits last year and he could see a trend. If Iowa City adopts this amendment, as a builder, he would recommend to customers that they build elsewhere. Werderitsch told Rocca that he understood the principal behind the amendment but asked if there was another overriding concern that was bringing this to the forefront now. Rocca replied that people die in single family dwelling fires and sprinkling systems save lives. Buss asked how many have died in Iowa City. Rocca said he did not have the actual statistics but he estimated 15-20 in the last 20 years. Moore stated that building codes have been updated and are become more strict in the last 20 years and the changes in building codes help prevent fires. Rocca stated that it all about managing risk - if you want to spend more money on fire stations and firefighters that's an option. However, Iowa City has had problems funding the new station. Jensen stated that people will not necessarily like the right thing; there was resistance to smoke alarms. There was continued discussion. Hochstedtler quoted FEMA statistics that showed fires were down 21%, deaths in fires were down 28% and property loss from fire was down27% across the country. These same statistics also showed that 90% of house fires are in homes built before 1972. Hochstetdler agreed that the current required building codes have done a great deal in preventing house fires. Buss asked if automatic sprinkling systems in homes would also require a backflow prevention system. Hennes stated it would and there would be the initial installation costs and a yearly recertification cost. Werderitsch told Rocca and Jensen that he would expect the fire department to recommend automatic sprinkling systems in single family homes; however, he felt that it is social engineering that he could not recommend. Buss and Maas stated that they would not recommend it as well. Roffman stated that the Board would decide what would be included in the amendments when they made final recommendation to Council. The amendment that would ban outdoor portable fireplaces was discussed. Werderitsch asked why the fire department wanted this ban. Jensen stated they receive complaints about smoke from neighbors who are burning in these fireplaces. He said that smoke from cooking grills was short term but fireplaces could burn quite a while. He stated that the fire department felt that these fireplaces were already banned in the current code. Discussion occurred concerning how H.I.S. and the fire department interpreted the current code differently. Dulek said that what was currently in place was irrelevant, the Board needed to decide if they wanted portable fireplaces allowed and then to make that specific in the code. Roffman asked if there were any other concerns or questions about the proposed amendments to the 2000 International Fire Code. Hochstedtler asked for clarification on Section 506.1 on when the approved key boxes would be required. He was told they would not be required on townhouse type structures. Roffman asked the Board to determine its final reccommendation to City Council. MOTION: Maas moved to adopt the 2000 IFC with amendments except for Sections 307.1 -307.4 (parts concerning banning portable fireplaces), Sections 903.2.8.1 and 903.2.8,1.1 (required retrofitting of fraternities and sororities with automatic sprinkling DRAFT systems) and Section 903.2.8.2 (Required sprinkling of single family dwellings). Buss seconded. DISCUSSION: DuCharme stated that he would like to the three items voted on seperately. Maas withdrew the motion. MOTION: Buss moved that Section 307.1-307.4 be changed to allow portable fireplaces. Maas seconded. Dulek stated that she would provide the language for the amendment that would still ban outdoor burning but would allow portable fireplaces in approved containers. VOTE: The Board voted 4-2 to approve the motion with Roffman and DuCharme in the negative. MOTION: Maas moved to delete Sections 903.2.8.1 and 903.2.8.1.1 that would require the retrofitting of all fraternities and sororities with automatic sprinkling systems within 5 years. Buss seconded. VOTE: The Board voted 6-0 to approve the motion. MOTION: Buss moved to delete Section 903.2.8.2 that would require automatic sprinkling systems in all new single family and duplex dwellings constructed with public funds. Werderitsch seconded. VOTE: The Board voted 6-0 to approve the motion. MOTION: Maas moved to recommend that the 2000 International Fire Code with approved amendments be adopted by City Council. DuCharme seconded. VOTE: The Board voted 6-0 to approve the motion. Other Business: None ADJOURNMENT: Buss moved to adjourn the meeting. Werderitsch seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:42 P.M. MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM May 24, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Kennedy, Lyra Dickerson, Jim Anderlik STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Mejia, Karen Jennings, Fire Chief Andy Rocca, Fire Lieutenant Bob Henry OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: Chairperson Kennedy called the meeting to order at 8:10AM. First order of business was certification of the hiring list for the position of Firefighter. Mejia presented to the Commission a rank order hiring list of candidates recommended by the interview committee. Kennedy moved and Dickerson seconded a motion to certify the hiring list for Firefighter to the City Council as presented. All were in favor. The certified list will be forwarded to City Council as part of official correspondence. Old Business: None New Business: Mejia informed the Commission that there had been a request for information on the Police recruitment from a City Council member. The Commission was provided with a copy of the Application and Advertising Summary for the Police Officer recruitment that was provided in response to the request. Mejia further noted that she will be preparing a memo for the City Manager at Council's request describing the City's recruitment efforts in the recent police officer recruitment and would supply the Commission with copies of that memo. She also indicated that any input from the Commission regarding future recruitment efforts would be welcome and asked whether the Commission wanted to hold a meeting to discuss police and fire recruitment efforts. The Commission did not find it necessary to hold an additional meeting but Dickerson noted that it may be helpful for the Commission to be made aware of ads to be placed in advance of the next recruitment in case there are additional recommendations from the Commission. Kennedy concurred. Dickerson moved and Kennedy seconded a motion to adjourn. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:20AM. FINAL/APPROV Iowa City Human Rights Commission Council Chambers May 28, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Warren, Lisa Beckmann, Sue Joslyn, Paul Retish, Charles Major; Bob Peffer MEMBERS ABSENT:Rick Spooner, Lucia Page, Keri Neblett STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Beckmann asked for approval of or any changes in the minutes from the April meeting. Motion to accept the minutes by Warren, seconded by Retish. Minutes unanimously approved. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. 4. NEW BUSINESS: Shank is taking a medical leave of absence for at least 30 to 60 days. Anyone that needs to get a hold of Shank should call her at home. 5, OLD BUSINESS: Pride festival: Beckmann reminded everyone that the festival is on Saturday, June 15, 2002 at the College Green Park. It will run from 11:00 to 4:00 p.m. Beckman indicated she would bring a card table. Shank will have the materials for Beckmann the Friday before the event. Beckman said she would be there from 10:30 to 12:30. Peffer agreed to assist her. The second shift from 12:30 - 2:30 will be attended by Major. Warren indicated that she hesitated to volunteer for this because she could be paged and called away from it at any moment due to her work. However, Warren said she would do it if someone could be there with her if she was called away. Beckmann said she would swing back by 4;00 p.m. to pick up the materials and table, etc. In addition, Beckmann indicated she would call one of the Commissioners that were not in attendance and ask them if they would be able to join Warren at the table. The Commissioners decided to use the sign that has been used for years. Lafino conference: Warren asked for a report on the conference. Beckmann said the brunch was "awesome" and Governor Vilsack gave a very good speech. Shank said that the panel discussion was terrific. A fellow from the Mount Pleasant Commission was inspiring. The City and the Commission as well as the public participate in "Community Voices." When new people come to town everyone goes all out to welcome them. Mr. Artega indicated that the support of the Mayor and the City Council has gone a long way to make this program work. The Mount Pleasant Commission has not had a complaint in three years. Warren asked if the taping went well and whether it was being shown on the cable channel. Shank said the Cable Dept. was only available to tape the brunch but it should be shown soon if it hadn't already occurred. People should look in the newspaper for the schedule or call the Cable Dept. In response to Retish's query, Shank indicated that someone had indicated that as much help, as possible was needed for the reception in the museum. Retish said that he thought everyone that attended did the honorable thing but he thought the people that organized the program had to take the responsibility. Retish said the Commissioners were put in a difficult position when they were called at the last minute. Beckmann said that she did not think the reception was as well attended as it was suppose to be. Shank said that the majority of the people in the area where the children performed were quite angry because there were very few chairs. Shank was told to protect the art and not let people stand against the wall or sit on the edge of the platform on which a statute stood. Warren said that to be fair the people that organized the event were volunteers, Beckmann thought the museum was inappropriate because there was an area that was blocked off because the artwork was inappropriate for children. Shank added that many people were located in a tiny little area. Warren asked about the proclamation and Beckmann said that it did not go very well because there were no microphones and no one was able to hear either the Mayor or Pittman who read the proclamation in Spanish. Beckmann added that she was standing 20 feet away and she couldn't hear anything. She did not think the acoustics were meant for this type of presentation. Beckmann asked whether the gentleman from Mount Pleasant could come and inform the Commission regarding their Community Voices program and why Mount Pleasant had not had a complaint for three years. Shank said she would contact the two men she knew were Commissioners. Vacancy: Beckmann also asked about advertising for the vacant position on the Commission. Shank indicated that an advertisement ran in the DI for ten days and posters have been up in strategic places in the Civic Center. Shank handed out posters to the Commission. Peffer said that when he applied he found it on the Internet. Shank said that City policy prohibited her from sending out a press release regarding a vacancy. HR Breakfast - Beckmann stated that she wrote a letter to the editor about the breakfast. She has given the letter to Shank for her to review. Shank passed around ticket/nomination forms. She asked the Commission to share the information with other interested people. Shank said that she has decided to send the ticket/nomination forms to people who have attended in the past rather than to people on labels from the Chamber of Commerce. Web Page - Beckmann indicated that the web page for the Commission needed to be updated. Shank told the Commission that she was unable to update the web page but would send corrections to Lisa Mollenhauer, the person responsible for making the changes. Preamble language - Beckmann stated that she didn't think Retish received her e-mail regarding the preamble language because he always responds and this time he didn't. Retish indicated that Dilkes had made some very good points when the committee met with her. Retish said Dilkes suggested looking at the City Charter. Shank said she would put a copy of the charter in the next packet. 6. Commissioner Reports Retish indicated that he took part in conciliation and he found the whole process to be very interesting and frustrating. He learned a great deal and some of what he learned did not endear him to the process. He also said that it did not do much change his stereotype of lawyers. Shank indicated that the conciliation process has been discussed several times with the City Attorney's office and she believed there was a consensus that the process was not very helpful because the lawyers are unable to acquire a copy of the file prior to the meeting. This prevents people from having a full understanding of the facts that were gathered during the investigation, therefore puffing the respondent's attorney at a disadvantage. Shank said this was the process used by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Assistant Attorney General, Rick Autry at the State indicated the process could not be changed. Major said that recently he has been a little bit south of Tacoma and Seattle and he found it to be very diverse. He was on an army post. Everywhere he went there was a big poster of the Post General and the EEO policy in simplified language. Seattle and Tacoma was impressive and Major took care of several patients. Joslyn wished to thank everyone for the wonderful experience she had while being part of the Commission. She invited the Commission to come to Cedar Falls to convince the Commission there to add sexual orientation to the Human Rights Ordinance in that City. Beckmann said that the Supreme Court was going to review the law on cross burning and determine whether it is an unconstitutional ban on free speech. Warren reported there was a movement in the government to overturn Title 9 in response to litigation of collegiate wrestlers. There is a web site you can go to and you can send letters to the President. Title 9 and equality in women's sports has not even begun to be fulfilled. The action could happen as soon as tomorrow. Warren read it in the Chronicle of Higher Learning. Retish reported that the state of Civil Rights according to Harkin is similar to the McCarthy era. The Commission needs to be aware of this. Status of Cases: Commission members signed the opinions that Shank brought to the meeting so no other action was necessary. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at 7:50 p.m. FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 2LrNE 12, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Toni Cilek, Mat~ Pacha, Rex Pruess, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Ginsberg, Craig Gustaveson, Nancy Ostrognai, A1 Stroh STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Tcn'y Tmeblood FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Boyd, seconded by Pruess~ to approve the April 10~ 2002 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Pruess~ seconded by Boyd~ to accept the southern half of the "square" in Windsor Ridge, Part 16 and the necessary fees-in-lieu to make up the remainder of the neighborhood open space requirement as proposed by the developer. Unanimous. WINDSOR RIDGE~ PART 16 Trueblood indicated on the plat the location of the open space. It is the southern half of what will eventually be the "square" as indicated in the Northeast District Plan; others own the northern half. Trueblood stated the proposed dedication is .76 acre and is short of the requirement by approximately .5 acre; the developer has proposed paying fees-in-lieu to make up the difference. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Boyd, to accept the southern half of the "square" in Windsor Ridge~ Part 16 and the necessary fees-in-lien to make up the remainder of the neighborhood open space requirement as proposed by the developer. Unanimous. NEIGllBORIIOOD OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE Tmeblood stated due to an Iowa Supreme Court ease, the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance will be reviewed for potential changes. A more detailed report will be provided at a later date. REAP GRANT BUDGET REDUCTIONS Tmeblood reported due to the state's budget problems, REAP funding for the upcoming year has been eliminated, and there is a question as to whether or not it will be reinstated in FY04. The Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation and the Friends of Hickory Hill Park had each planned to apply for a REAP grant to help in their efforts to purchase land. The City was also planning on applying for a REAP grant for the Waterworks Park project, Pacha asked how the City planned on making up the difference; Trueblood stated there might be a possibility to obtain enhancement funding to assist with the trail projects, and a park infrastructure grant might be possible for the park shelters. Trueblood noted the entire prairie grass seeding may not be completed until additional funding is received. SAND PRAIRIE FUNDING Trueblood distributed a copy of a letter from Amy Bouska on behalf of the Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation, who noted due to the cut in REAP funding, they may need to request funding from the Parkland Acquisition Fund. The developer has hired a nationally renowned planner to design a new conceptual plan for the proposed development. He is noted for his expertise in working around environmentally sensitive areas. Parks and Recreation Commission June 12, 2002 Page 2 of 3 ANNUAL PARK TOUR After a brief discussion, Pacha requested that this item be placed on next month's agenda to determine the date (tentatively September) and possible sites for the annual park tour. CAPITAL PROJECTS Tmeblood reported on the following capital projects: Riverside Festival Stage Seatine Proieet. The project has been completed and many positive comments have been received. Cilek noted she had been asked about the funding for this project; Trueblood indicated it was approximately a 50/50 proposition between the City and Riverside Theatre. She asked the same question with respect to the facility; Tmeblood indicated the City paid for the construction of the facility mad Riverside Theatre paid for the lighting and sound equipment. Production costs for the Shakespeare Festival are paid by Riverside Theatre, and they pay $1 to the City for each ticket sold for the use of the facility. The City owns the facility, and is free to program it for other uses. Skate Park. The project was delayed again due to a disagreement between the engineering firms, but work should begin again soon. Highway 6 Trail. This project is under construction and is moving along well. City Park Entrywa¥. A large identification stone will be placed at the entryway to lower City Park noting the park's name and when it was established, as opposed to a traditional park sign. COMMISSION TIME Cilek indicated she had been questioned about how the decision is made to close the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park due to rain. The questions resulted from a Saturday when it mined early morning, the sun came out around 8:00 a.m., but all games were canceled for the entire day. Moran stated the decision is based on the conditions of the fields. Robinson stated the decision is made by 7:00 a.m. and they may know the fields may be playable at 10:00 a.m., but it is based on the policy of Iowa City Kickers. Cilek noted these were not Kickers game, but competitive league games. Robinson stated when the park is closed it is closed to everyone, because it is impossible to close only a portion of it. Moran also noted the fields are used heavily and the City has to be more protective or the fields would be destroyed. Robinson noted that once the drainage issue is addressed it will be possible to open in on days where it has been closed in the past. He stated staff walks the fields and tries to get traction. If they feel they cannot get good footing, the games arc canceled because the fields create a safety hazard for the children. Westefeld noted he has received many great comments about the trails in City Park. They especially enjoy being able to walk, jog or ride their bikes all along the river. Boyd asked if there was any interest in a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commissions of Coralville and North Liberty to share information on what they are doing in their communities. Pacha indicated staff already networks with various communities across the states as members of the Iowa Park and Recreation Association and the National Recreation and Park Association. Pruess asked if Coralville and North Liberty conducted an annual park tour, noting this may be an opportunity to share information. Westefeld suggesting someone assessing if there is an interest from these communities and reporting back; Parks and Recreation Commission June 12, 2002 Page 3 of 3 Boyd indicated he would do so. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Vacation. He will be out of the office from June 22 through July 6. 4th Of July Fireworks. The Jaycees will be conducting their annual fireworks show on July 4th, shooting them from Terrell Mill Park over the river as they have in the past. Temporary Skate Park. Once the new skate park is opened at Terrell Mill Park, the current temporary skate park at Mercer Park will most likely be removed. The City's Risk Manager does not want it to stay based on liability concerns. The components were built two years ago and were designed as temporary structures. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Jerry Hansen, Ann Bovbjerg, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Eldon Prybil, Merlin Lawrence, Darrell Smith, Jim Peterson, Cindy Parsons, Ralph Stoffer, Rick Fry, Andrew Ives, Gary Klinefelter, Ann Connors, Judy Felder, Mike New, Christopher Merrill, Steve Fox, John Rummellhart, Tom Summy CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said a listing of current vacancies on the various City Boards and Commissions was posted in the outer lobby. She encouraged members of the audience to become involved in making Iowa City a good and better place by signing up for a board or commission. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: REZ02-00002/SUB02-00009, discussion of an application submitted by Dial Corporation for an amended OPDH-12 plan for Silvercrest to allow four 4-unit townhouse style buildings and four 24-unit independent living buildings for elderly residents and a preliminary plat of Silvercrest Residential Community, Part 2 a 7-lot subdivision on 12.18 acres located southeast of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road. Miklo said a detailed staff report had been presented two meetings prior. A revised plan had been received which removed two units and added a small detention basin. The property had also been divided into eight lots so that each lot could be financed individually and so that each building was on an individual lot. Miklo said this did not have a bearing on the overall layout of the property. If lots were sold off separately, the new owner would have to build the buildings to the current plan's configuration or go back before the City to get approval for any change. Due to the division of the property, some of the buildings did not meet the underlying setback or height requirements. As part of the OPDH process, the Commission could waive those if they saw fit. Miklo indicated two buildings which did not meet the set- back, but Staff felt that the setback in those two locations was reasonable. He said the subdivision configuration also resulted in all the interior lots not having 35-feet of frontage on a public street. Staff felt that was also a reasonable waiver. The four buildings with underground parking exceeded the 35-foot height limit. The limit was automatically waved in the zoning ordinance if the building was set back an additional 2-feet from the property line for every one-foot increase in height. Miklo said due to the addition of lot lines, the plan did not achieve the extra setback, so it would require an increase in height from 35- feet to 45-feet in order for the project to be built. Staff felt that was a reasonable trade-off. Miklo said Staff had asked the applicant to submit a lighting plan to address concerns raised by the neighbors about the brightness of the lights in the existing development to the west. The lighting plan had been submitted and Julie Tallman who dealt with lighting inspections was fairly comfortable with the plan. Miklo said Staff recommended that any approval be subject to Tallman's sign-off of any final lighting plan before a building permit would be issued. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 2 The applicant had submitted several elevation drawings of the planned development showing the general architecture of the buildings. The buildings would have a combination of masonry and hard-board siding. Staff recommended if the plan were approved and the reduction in setbacks, etc. were granted, the applicant be required to adhere to the general plans when the buildings were built. The Public Works office had reviewed the revised drainage plan and found it to meet storm water management requirements. Miklo said the other technical concerns had been resolved. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ02-00002/SUB02-00009, application submitted by Dial Corporation for an amended OPDH-12 plan for Silvercrest to allow four 4-unit townhouse style buildings and four 24-unit independent living buildings for elderly residents and a preliminary plat of Silvercrest Residential Community, Part 2 a 7-lot subdivision on 12.18 acres located southeast of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road, including the waivers specified in the memo to the Commission subject to the development generally conforming to the submitted plan development, the landscaping plan, the elevation drawings including buildings with masonry facades and hard-board siding and Staff approval of any exterior lighting plan. Bovbjerg said as an OPDH, the Commission had been looking at the whole acreage and how everything was laid out. She asked if there were any changes or alterations beyond what was approved, would it have to go back before the Commission. Miklo said that was correct, the plan stayed with the land regardless of future ownership. She asked about the back side of the property where some of the buildings were against the lot line. Were the setbacks within the ordinance? Miklo said they were, all the perimeter setbacks either met or exceeded the ordinance requirements. Public discussion was opened. Eldon Prybil, E & L Prybil General Partnership. Prybil asked if the storm water displayed on the overhead was version 2000 or 2002? Miklo said the one on the overhead was not the latest version however the Commission did have the latest version. The difference was a second storm water basin had been added to the (southwest) corner. Staff did not have an overhead display of the latest version, only a paper copy. Prybil asked if the plan on the right hand lower corner was the one Staff recommended. Miklo said the overhead was not the exact drawing that was being approved. A paper copy had been received earlier in the day was an update, that would be approved. Miklo said additional storm water area had been added on the east and a new storm water basin had been added on the west. He gave Prybil a copy of the revised plan. Prybil said his land was basically composed of Tama soil, which had very good texture, structure and was well aerated. It drained water very well. ']'he current detention pond probably also had Tama soil. Prybil said the problem with moving the storm water area 80-feet closer to his property was that he was already getting some leaching of water from the pond and Dial wanted to move it 80-feet closer to his property. Prybil said he had gone over this problem a couple of years ago with the Commission and it disappointed him to be before the Commission again. The only time there had been any resolution and the only time there had been an agreement to have the pond the way it was in 2000, was because the Prybils had initiated it. Prybil said they were about through fighting, they had hired a firm earlier in the day to represent them. Prybil said the pond could not be moved closer to him. It would affect his farming operation and that was why he had to spend more money to fight the situation. Prybil said he wanted to be a good neighbor, he loved Iowa City. Prybil said speaking for himself, not for his partner, he had come to the conclusion that they were not going to be good neighbors. Prybil said he had minutes from a meeting dated September 17, 1998, in which the parties had been convened to try to talk the problems over. Now the proposal was to move the pond 80-feet closer to his property. He said after the April 18, 2002 Commission meeting, he spoke with the Dial representatives who guaranteed him they would talk to him in a couple days to try to resolve the issue before the next Commission meeting. Prybil said he had heard no words from Dial Corporation. Prybil said he had an agreement with Dial signed July 20, 2000, that indicated where the stormwater retention would be, how the water would run, and the size of it. Prybil said they had not reneged on the agreement and they would not allow anyone to renege on what they had signed. The next step would have to be the Commission's, Dial Corporation's or someone else's because the actions of the Prybils' was very clear in the future. Prybil said he was still open for communications, but he would not initiate them. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 3 Bovbjerg asked Prybil if the water might or did go from the storm water basin to underneath his ground. Prybil said water did strange things. He had seen a little bit of seepage into his property at 150-feet. If the pond was moved 80-foot closer, they would have some real problems. Prybil said the worst thing about the whole business was he felt that the issue could be resolved by great people. The Commissioners would not be in their places if they were not doing something special. Prybil said he felt it was horrible to be that kind of a neighbor. He felt there were possibly some other avenues to resolution. He was a steward of his soil and he would fight it to the end, in this case things had gone a little too far. By communicating with friends and neighbors, things could get resolved before they got as far as they had. Prybil said it was not his project, he was the one receiving damages. He should not be the one trying to get everyone together. Hansen asked Prybil if he was saying that the detention pond had Tama soil like what was on Prybil's property. Prybil said it would have to have some. There had been so much bulldozing done it was probably a conglomeration of different soils. The sub-soil under the farm Prybil farmed was probably 70- 80% Tama soils. He said it was a beautiful soil for agriculture. Down below would be a Muscatine type soil, a dark heavy type of soil. On the ridges was Tama soil. Merlin Lawrence, representative for Dial Land Development. Lawrence said they had been working on the detention problem since the last meeting and also had their engineers working on it as well. He said they had added the small detention pond in the corner and were developing a plan with a dry detention cell on the property so they would have to move the pond only a small amount, not nearly what was planned. When the original detention pond was put in, Lawrence said he had assumed that it was for the entire area of the property. The fact that more detention was needed was for what they were doing now. In the two areas they had the right to build 140 units but they had reduced that by 28 units, as opposed to what they could have built. They were working on the detention and a dry cell on the west side. Lawrence said when they were finished he thought maybe it would call for only a little bit of movement of the pond, they would have some exact figures as they went forward. They had not been letting it sit idle. They had also submitted lighting information to the City, the type of lighting would be less bright to the neighbors. They were not attempting to be bad neighbors. Lawrence said they were addressing the problem of the detention pond to the best of their ability. The one thing they obviously had to do was to meet City code, they were trying to please everyone, but not to be a bad neighbor. Hansen asked Lawrence if he would care to comment on contact between Dial Corporation and Prybil. Lawrence said he had been here at that time. He said he had told Prybil of the special circumstances that existed at that time. What Lawrence thought he had heard was that Prybil would be contacting the president of Dial Land Development. That had happened. Lawrence said they had been working furiously to get back on the Commission's agenda. On the plans, they had eliminated the one double unit, re-done the road, worked on the detention pond, and done some work in the corner in response to neighbors concerns about the water there. They had pulled out as much soil as possible due to the rain but it was not completed yet. The detention pond would be expanded. Lawrence said they were looking to do more dry detention which would bring them pretty close to City requirements. Koppes asked when would all the detention pond plans be finalized. Lawrence said as soon as they could get them done and submitted to the City. He said even if the Commission approved the plans as they were, they were still going to go ahead "and try to do that." Hansen asked Lawrence if they would be willing to extend the 45-day limitation period. Lawrence said he would prefer that the Commission vote on it with a notation that Dial would submit additional detention pond information for approval. They were working on it and did have some preliminary drawings, but they wanted to make sure they were right. Lawrence said the engineer was present and could provide more information. Freerks requested the engineer to do so. Darrel Smith, Van Winkle-Jacob Engineering, said the storm water plan the City currently had showed a small pond in the south west corner and a bigger pond in the south east which would be closer to the Prybil property. They were looking at the potential of making the south west pond bigger. Currently the design was to have all the hard surface from the 4-plex unit go to the south east pond. They were going to change the design grade so it would go to the south west pond, to the new pond area and also making the pond bigger than what was illustrated in any drawings the City had. In preliminary drawings, the existing south east pond would increase 10,000 cubic feet. He did not know how much closer to Prybils' property line the south east pond would be. He thought it would be closer to Prybil's property only Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 4 minimally. Currently it was proposed to add 80,000 cubic feet to the south east pond, so they were decreasing the proposed increase by 7/8. Anciaux said it was his understanding the detention pond would be a wet one. He asked when a detention pond was designed, were the existing soils in the area used or was there something like a bentonite plug or something similar used. Smith said for most detention ponds they did not worry about bentonite. That was for lagoons and things where it was essential to keep the water in. Smith said they had not really looked at the soils. Their analysis was that there may be some wet soils out there in the whole area to begin with. Smith said he had not personally looked at the soil survey maps to make that determination. Anciaux asked if the wet pond that was there now was constructed of existing soils. Smith said he believed so. He was not there when the construction was done, but he didn't think they had imported any special soils. Hansen asked Smith if he could guarantee that the pond would not leach any more than it already did into the farm field that was next to it. Smith said he didn't know if anyone could make that guarantee. Hansen said he had asked Smith that question because Smith had said he had not looked at any soil types, yet he was designing a pond without looking at the type of soil he was putting it on. Smith said when storm- water detention ponds were done, the leach factor was not a concern, it was not a fact for stormwater detention. Hansen said that would be a concern for the neighbors. Anciaux asked if the pond would hold water year round because it was a wet pond. Smith said he believed there would be a little fill water there most of the time. Anciaux asked if the pond could be leaching out year round as opposed to a dry one. Smith said he didn't know what the difference in elevation between the adjacent farm land and where the normal elevation for the water level was. Lawrence said on the west side of the pond there was a pipe that connected with the storm water sewer system on Scott Boulevard. An overflow pipe was also present. Anciaux said it appeared to him that if there was a wet pond there now that was, or was not, leaching out, and it was extended further, and it might or might not leach more, it was a definite concern that everyone should look at. Lawrence said that was why they were trying to make the minimum of change. The City required them to meet certain standards. That was why the pond was the way it was on the drawing. They were trying to minimize it by using dry cells other places on the property. Lawrence said whether the pond was leaching or not, he did not know that for a fact. He hadn't had an engineer or anyone else tell him that it was. If Prybil said he thought it was, that was his opinion which was fine, and he might have some hard evidence of it. Lawrence hadn't seen nor had he been presented with hard evidence that it was leaching, except for perhaps verbally. Lawrence said he did not doubt Prybil's word, but it apparently had not been enough of a problem that anyone had bothered to contact them. Freerks asked Miklo to further explain the discussion and the difference in the plans that were being discussed versus the materials the Commission had. Miklo said the Commission did not have the storm- water management plan. Planning and Zoning did not review that as a matter of course. It was reviewed by City engineers in the Public Works office. The plan which the applicant currently had, had been reviewed by Denny Gannon, Assistant City Engineer. It met City requirements and was approvable. Miklo said it sounded like the applicant was considering changing those plans with the intent of making the eastern pond smaller than what was on the plans before the engineers right now and making the dry bottom pond on the west larger. They could make some changes as long as they still met the minimum requirements of the Stormwater Management Ordinance. The actual very specific plans for the detention basin would be approved at the time of the construction drawings at the time of the final plat and before building permits were issued. Miklo said the plans City engineers had seen earlier in the day which moved the pond further to the east did meet minimum City requirements and were approvable. Freerks asked who had looked at the soil and studied it in detail. Miklo said when looking at stormwater facilities, City engineers did not look at soil types unless it was an extreme circumstance. What they looked at was the structure that held the water and directed it toward the stormwater facilities. Bovbjerg asked if the currently submitted plans for stormwater management which the engineers had, had been signed off on? Miklo said at that stage they had a preliminary conceptual plan for stormwater management. A final plan would have to be submitted before anything could be built. Miklo reiterated that Gannon had said what had been submitted for a preliminary plan was acceptable. Bovbjerg asked if the developers wished to have changes or worked with the neighboring property owner to make changes, would it then go back before the Commission. Miklo said if the change resulted in the reconfiguration of the site or moving of roads or buildings, it would have to go back before the Commission. If it was simply Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 5 the design of the stormwater facility, the City engineer would sign off on that. Bovbjerg asked if it would be a reasonable 'subject to' if they voted on the item yet that evening. Miklo said they could make it a 'subject to', but it was a matter of course that approval of construction drawings would occur before any building activity occurred. Any changes in stormwater control would have to be part of the final plat. Anciaux asked Behr if for instance there was a legal problem and Party A said the pond leaked, Party B said it did not and it met City design criteria, would the Commission get involved or was it between the parties? Behr said City approval of the plan would not affect the enforceability of any private agreement the applicant had with any adjacent property owner. The City was not in a position to enforce the agreement. The City's scope of review was compliance with City ordinance. Anciaux asked if Party A had leakage onto his property and could they come back against the City? Behr said Party A's recourse would be against the adjacent property owner presumably on the agreement he had referred to. It would not be against the City as long as the plan complied with the City ordinance. Anciaux asked what if during construction or due to weather or wear and tear, the pond sprang a leak at some time in the future, would the two parties have to resolve the matter between themselves? Behr said the City would have an easement. The applicant would be required to maintain it as a stormwater detention basin as it was designed, if the applicant didn't do that, the City did have the ability to enforce that. If as designed it met the City ordinance but it caused what the adjacent property owner perceived as problems, then the adjacent property owner's recourse would be against that property owner based on common law or the agreement that had been referred to. Hansen said an ordinance for design standards existed, but Miklo had said soil structure and types were not looked at as a matter of course. Some soils were more permeable than others, so the design might be fine but it could be being built in the wrong place. If the Commission approved something that had inherent flaws in it, where did they stand? Behr said the engineers reviewed for compliance with the ordinance. If the item had been reviewed and was in accordance with the ordinance, the recourse would be with the adjacent property owner. Miklo said the Stormwater Management ordinance was intended to control overland flow of water. It did not get into seepage or underground travel of water. City engineers had said that was a very difficult thing to determine if it was even happening or not. It would be difficult to regulate that on the fly without an ordinance in place that addressed it. Prybil read from Commission meeting minutes of September 3, 1998. He had given Chapter 467 in the 1962 Iowa Code to the Commission, about moving watersheds. Prybil read, "According to our firm it was quite possible that the watershed that exists today was never put in the right place." On September 17, 1998, Prybil said Sarah Holecek had said with respect to responsibilities, "This would generally be a civil matter. But it also depends what the City's role was in the approval process. Prybil could sue the City." Prybil continued reading from the meeting minutes, "Gibson said it put Prybil in a difficult position of having to take action by himself. He (Prybil) stated that it is terrible to put people in that position deliberately without getting things sorted out ahead of time when everyone still had a stake in serving things." Prybil told the Commission they would have to draw their conclusions on what the could do or could not do, but he hoped they would not approve something that would adversely affect him. He said he was still open for conversation with anyone or department. Public discussion was closed. Hansen said he was bothered by the situation. There was no conclusion on which to hang one's hat. Hansen said he would like to ask Lawrence for a longer time to have the City Engineer, Prybil and Lawrence's corporation reach some type of agreement on the issue. Freerks said it seemed to her that there were a lot of questions yet, although it might be legal and right with the ordinance. She felt it would be nice to waive the 45-day limitation, it was a good project, but there were questions that needed to be answered. Freerks said it would be wise to try to resolve it now during the next few weeks rather than go through lots of legal battles and eventually have to come back before the Commission. Bovbjerg asked Behr and Miklo to advise the Commission as it appeared there seemed to be a number of recourses possible. Miklo said in terms of the stormwater management, conceptually City engineers said the plan worked and should not create an overland flow problem for Prybil or the other neighbors. The final design of the detention basin would be determined at the final plat stage. Miklo said he didn't think a 'subject to' would do much good because it was a matter of course that it would be taken care of. Miklo said he was not sure Prybil's concerns could be addressed based on his conversations with City engineers or that there was any evidence of seepage. It was a very difficult thing to determine and to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 6 prove that seepage was happening. Miklo said as the Commission had already done, they could request the applicant to defer the item to the next meeting. However, if the Commission were uncomfodable with other aspects of the plan such as setbacks or increase in height, they could deny on those grounds. Miklo said based on what the engineers had said, he didn't feel there were enough grounds on stormwater reasons to deny the application. Behr said there was not a basis for denial on the stormwater issue. The applicant could defer if he so chose. Behr said he agreed with Miklo, a 'subject to' really would not add anything to what would take place in the engineering division review of the final plat. At this point the engineering division said it complied with stormwater management. Bovbjerg asked if any changes the applicant made would be in the final plat which would come before the Commission. Miklo said that was correct. Lawrence said he would prefer to see the process move forward since they were in compliance. He had tried to assure the Commission that they were working to minimize anything they had to do on the south eastern pond. That was why the west pond was added, more dry cell detention pond was added and they were tilling the land toward the southwest. He said they were trying to do things to minimize what would have to be done and also stay within the City codes of what they had to meet. Lawrence said they were working on it, they did have some preliminary drawings of trying to increase it on the west side and decrease the expansion on the east by 7/8. Freerks asked if Lawrence had had a chance to talk to Prybil about the proposed reduction. Lawrence said no, they had had their engineers working on it, he had just received it earlier in the day himself. If they could put something together and find the space so the pond would not have to be moved at all, Lawrence said, "Why wouldn't we do that". Lawrence said he could not guarantee that because they had to have City approval. They were attempting to minimize any change. If the engineer's proposal worked, then most of the expansion would go away. Miklo reminded the Commission that they were approving the site plan. Bovbjerg said as the motion came together, it needed to be understood that what they were approving was not exactly the stormwater basin that was on the overhead, but the plan the engineers had. Miklo said the version the Commission had showed the general easement and the general layout of the basin. If the Commission approved it, Dial would have the ability to build that plan with the engineers sign off. However, if Dial decided to make the basin smaller and compensate by putting a basin on the western side, they would be able to do that also with the engineer's approval. Bovbjerg asked if the western basin that was being discussed was not what the engineers were looking at? Miklo said in question was the size of the western basin and what its capacity would be. Miklo said it needed to be clearly understood that if the Commission voted yet that evening, they were accepting the plan that showed the basin to the east being enlarged. That plan met the law, there was no law that said the basin had to be set back so many feet from Prybil's property. Smith said he wanted to clarify what plan had been submitted to the Engineering Department: A plan that showed a smaller basin to the west which still did not reduce the size of the eastern basis by as much as Dial wanted to, but they were working on it. They didn't have all the numbers finalized so City staff had not seen that plan yet. If they were able to make the western basin as big as they wanted then that would make the eastern basin considerably reduced in size to not much bigger than it was now. Bovbjerg asked if it came up for a motion, since the design was in flux, should they pinpoint that? Miklo said he did not think that was necessary. As a result of a different plan for the basin, if it changed the configuration of the site plan before the Commission the applicant would have to go back before the Commission. Miklo said they had three options: approve the motion as it was before them; ask the applicant to defer to June 6, 2002; or deny it. Denial could be based on concerns or waivers the applicant was asking for. The design of the basin that the City engineers had looked at met the standards of the law. Freerks asked if it was correct that they had no guarantee that anything new submitted would ever be carried through. Miklo said that was correct. Hansen said why should the Commission vote on something that Dial Corporation didn't even know what they were doing. If the Commission voted on the application that evening, they were voting on the larger retention basin. Behr said it appeared that the Commission did not have a legal basis to deny the application based on the stormwater basin. The fact that they were faced with the issue was a result of the limitation period. The applicant had submitted something that complied, but Miklo had given them their available options. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 7 Hansen asked Behr what was the City's Legal Department position if the Commission approved the stormwater basin that was designed to standards, yet it still caused damage to a neighbor's property. What was the City's position? Behr said the quote that Prybil read simply said the City could be sued. Behr said the City ordinance was what the City had control over. As long as the ordinance was up to current standards for stormwater detention, which they believed it to be, they didn't have liability as long as it met the design and the standard was enforced at the time of approval. Behr said the City did not have liability if they had enforced their ordinance and the ordinance was up to current standards. Hansen asked about liability, if proven, would it go to Dial Corporation. Behr said there were a lot of steps in between, but that was where the recourse would be. Miklo asked if, for the applicant's information, would it be appropriate to ask if there was a majority of the Commission who wished to defer to the next meeting. Behr said that was possible. The applicant could defer right up to the vote. The majority of the Commissioners indicated they would prefer to defer. Lawrence said he would make things doable. He said they were working on plans without a doubt, but apparently the Commission felt uncomfortable and did not want to approve the stormwater detention as it was. Lawrence said they would defer until June 6, 2002 and submit plans on stormwater detention. Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer REZ02-00002/SUB02-00009, discussion of an application submitted by Dial Corporation for an amended OPDH-12 plan for Silvercrest to allow four 4-unit townhouse style buildings and four 24-unit independent living buildings for elderly residents and a preliminary plat of Silvercrest Residential Community, Part 2 a 7-lot subdivision on 12.18 acres located southeast of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road, to June 6, 2002. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said she felt it was a good project. She wanted to try to eliminate some of the possible legal hazards and thanked Lawrence for deferring. Koppes said she wanted to thank the applicant also. Hansen echoed the same sentiments. He said at times the limitation period put the Commission in a spot. Bovbjerg said it was a good exchange with the applicant, Staff and the Commission. Anciaux called the question. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ02-0000~, discussion of an application submitted by APE house, LC, for a rezoning from Neighborhood Conservation (RNC-20) to Sensitive Areas Overlay Neighborhood Conservation (SAO- RNC-20) to allow a 10-unit multi-family building on a .41 acre property located at 341 N. Riverside Drive. Bovbjerg said the applicant had submitted a letter requesting the Commission to expedite their decision by voting on the application at the May 16, 2002 meeting. McCafferty presented Staff report. The site was located along Riverside Drive overlooking Hancher Auditorium and backed up to Ridgeland Avenue. The proposed building was a 10-unit apartment building approximately 2¼ stories high with parking underneath. Nineteen parking spaces would be located below grade, 1 handicapped parking space would be located at grade. The below grade parking would be accessed by Ridgeland Avenue. McCafferty said the site had regulated slopes on it, so it was being reviewed under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). There would be no change in density or use of the property. The site had three types of slopes located on it: steep (18%-24%) slopes, critical (25%-39%) slopes and protected (over 40%) slopes. Both natural and "humanly-altered slopes" were on the property. McCafferty said in terms of the SAO, development could occur on a steep slope provided that it complied with the design standards for regulated slopes. The design standards had a minimum construction area, which the project complied with. Grading and excavation would be minimized; the grading would blend with existing contours; street right of way and public utility corridors would be minimized; and existing vegetation would be retained to the extent possible. McCafferty said the reason for the standards was to minimize any potential instability in the slope and erosion. If any building was to be done on critical slopes, a grading plan was required in addition to meeting the design standards. Staff had not yet received a grading plan from the applicant. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 8 McCafferty said in terms of the protected slopes, which were the steepest slopes, a buffer was required from the development to the natural slopes. Based upon the ordinance, for this development an 18-foot buffer would be required, which had been met. If any grading were to occur on the "humanly altered protected slopes", then further information would be required in terms of engineering to ensure that no deep-seated instability would be caused by the proposed development. Without a grading plan, Staff was not certain any grading would occur on the protected slopes, based upon past conversations with the applicant. The site plan included a retaining wall on the east side which would be visible from Riverside Drive. Dumping and construction debris were on the site prior to the applicant's acquiring it. The applicant had requested that in lieu of doing a minor modification, an administrative procedure done through the Building Department, a 10% height increase be approved. That would change the building's height from 35-feet to 38.5-feet. Under the SAO that could be done if the applicant were trying to minimize encroachment on the regulated slopes. The applicant had located the building to the south and pulled it back to the west to minimize encroachment and avoid any development on the protected slopes. The applicant had requested the Commission to expedite the application by voting on it during the Commission's meeting. However the grading plan wes still missing. McCafferty said the Commission could approve it subject to approval of the grading plan by the Building Department and the engineer, or it could be deferred to the next meeting. Bovbjerg asked about the line that went down the center of the proposed building and out to the east. McCafferty said that was a proposed trench drain. There was a potential for a future storm water line which was a joint project between the City and the University. The City engineer had asked the applicant to provide the City with calculations of runoff to determine if in fact they should be required to tie in to the storm sewer or if they could deal with it as shown on the plan. That was not an issue that had to do with steep slopes. Hansen asked McCafferty to address the concerns regarding inadequacy of notice, buffer requirements and a ban on grading as noted in the letter received from Rick Fry who represented Casey Mahon. McCafferty said upon receipt of the letter she had looked closer at the ordinance. The Staff report that had been compiled and given to the Commission erred on the very conservative side by making the assumption that there might be some development within the steep and critical slope. If the grading plan showed that no development would occur within the protected slopes, that would be all the additional information that the applicant would have to provide to the City for the rezoning. The soil borings would still have to be done in order to do the footings. The Building Department would deal with footing design. A certified engineer would have to design the footings and borings would be required. However the applicant did have some reasons as to why they did not do borings at this early stage. Miklo said from what Staff could tell the design met the buffer requirements. It was a 9-foot vertical rise so an 18-foot buffer was required. A grading plan would be necessary to confirm that. When Staff was notified on 5/15/02 that the sign was missing from the property, two new signs were posted. He said a serious typographic error had been made in the notification letter sent to the neighbors. Instead of saying construction of 10-units, the letter had said conservation of 10-units. Staff had sent a new letter advising neighbors of the potential meeting on June 6, 2002 so they would have notice. Bovbjerg said she had received a phone call from Jackie Blank on behalf of another person. Blank was interested in things such as soil borings, conservation issues, the building itself, and the missing sign. Anciaux asked about the footprint of the building. McCafferty said it did not encroach on any protected slopes. The 18-foot buffer was in compliance with the ordinance. The applicant had proposed to build on critical and steep slopes, but not encroaching on protected slopes. Miklo said recently the Commission had a similar case with Hickory Heights. The road and building lots went into steep and critical slopes, but none went into protected slopes. The plat had identified construction and non-construction areas. Public discussion was opened. Jim Peterson, 309 N. 7th Avenue, principal partner of APEhouse LC. Peterson said he and his partner were also the owners of the adjacent project, the renovation of the old fraternity house. The project had recently received a historic preservation reward. Petersen said this application had been prepared after a sedes of meetings with City Staff that stretched back for over one year. They had done their best to understand, identify, comply with, and address all the requirements and ordinances that would be Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 9 applicable in this case. Petersen said he had written the letter to the Commission requesting an expedition of the vote. The characterization of the application as being "non-controversial" was not his, it was given to him by City staff and APE house's professional consultants. Hansen asked Miklo with respect to the sending of a revised letter of notification, where did that put the Commission. Miklo said they could vote or defer the item. Given the public interest through letters and phone calls, Miklo suggested deferring the item to the next meeting. Cindy Parsons, 1131 E. Washington Street, principal partner of APEhouse LC. She said they had made every effort to downsize and push the building as far to the west as possible so they would not impact the slopes. Parsons said she didn't think notice of the proceeding was required by code. Notice would come into play at the stage where the approved project went from the Commission to the Council. Behr said he would need to double check on that, but if the item were deferred there would be adequate time for notice to be given. Miklo said the State Code didn't require notice, but as a matter of courtesy the City had the policy of sending letters to properties within 300-feet and posting signs. Parsons said much of the grading plan was submitted on the site plan. They would submit it separately if it was required and it would confirm that no grading would take place on any of the protected areas. McCafferty said upon review of the plan, the contours were missing, but a number of other items were met. Ralph Stoffer, 535 Southgate Avenue, Site Engineer. Stoffer said the contours took a lot of time to do and he preferred to put them off to the last possible minute in order to prevent having to redo them several times and having to charge persons for doing it several times. There was also a lot line adjustment in progress which was being delayed until the last minute so the engineer knew exactly what was being done in order "to do it once and to do it right." Stoffer said soil forecasts on the site had been discussed. It was a Fayette soil, not a good soil but the dominant soil of the county. The buildings on both side of the project and all around it were built on the same kind of soil. A soil boring program was so a proper bid could be received on the design of the building. It always stated that the actual footing and the dirt below the footing would be inspected. Stoffer said they were going to go directly to that stage and take a gamble on what they would find and make a decision at that point. With respect to the funnel, Stoffer said it was actually a reverse funnel. The only water that would get into it was 1) in the ramp that went down to the basement and 2) a certain amount of drippage from the cars, if they drove in wet for example. He said relatively speaking, it would handle tea cups of water. Ridgeland Avenue was paved like an alley with an inverted crown in it. In addition, they were going to build a small mound to exclude stormwater from getting into the building. The actual drainage pattern went around the west side and down to the adjacent parking lot. He felt that should be addressed with the storm sewer system. It was actually slightly south from the APEhouse property. Stoffer said the only construction that would be done east of the retaining wall was the construction of the retaining wall itself. The construction project limit of 25-feet east of the building was to allow the machinery to get in to build the retaining wall. After it was built, they would limit activity to the retaining wall site itself, the 8-foot platform was big enough to build the building. Bovbjerg asked what happened to the rubble, would it be taken off. Stoffer said the rubble was stable. They were leery about moving it because it was very steep. It was not attractive but it was stable. He said dumped rubble took a one-on-one angle of repose. He said to be honest they were really not quite sure what to do with it. Stoffer said he was leery to go in and clean it out as the trees had gotten used to having the rubble at their feet. Oak trees did not like to have their reots disturbed. His recommendation was to leave it alone, but to remove some of the construction materials. Stoffer said there probably would be rubble under the building which would be removed. At one time it had been a drainage way which had been filled up with rubble, dirt and who knew what else. The part within the building site and retaining wall would be cleaned up and hauled away. For the part east of the retaining wall, they didn't want to do more damage to the mature trees, it might do more damage to clean it up. Bovbjerg asked if the disposition of what would happen on the slopes would be part of the grading and erosion control plan that the applicant would submit? McCafferty said for submission of the grading and erosion plan, Staff would require them to state that the area was protected. Part of the intent was to not disturb the trees. McCafferty said the applicant would probably clean it up to a degree of public safety, but under the SAO Staff would prefer to not see the area disturbed to protect the mature trees. Miklo said the Commission might want to put a condition that once the grading plan was submitted and the limits of Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 10 necessary activity were established, that there be no activity or removal of plants or other materials in that area. That had been done for Hickory Heights and other sensitive areas development plans. Shannon asked what would be the height of the retaining wall. Stoffer said about 8-feet at the deepest part tapering down to zero, which would be 3-feet higher than the lower level elevation with the lower wall which was an aesthetic consideration so there would not be so much of the exposed foundation visible. Rick Fry, representing Casey Mahon who resided at 226 MacLean Street. Fry said he had faxed a letter to the Commission earlier in the day regarding several issues. With respect to notice, the application was filed April 25, 2002. A letter dated May 10, 2002, was sent to neighbors arriving after that date. Fry said that was not much time for such an important issue. Many neighbors had lived there a long time. Fry said to his knowledge the site had always been natural, there had never been a building on it. He said the letter was misleading and was late. Out of fairness, the neighbors were entitled to know what was going on. There had been no soil boring samples taken and, no grading plan was available. The Commission was being asked to take it on faith and a gamble. Fry said the neighbors had the right to look at these things and comment on them. That had not happened. Fry said he was not sure the owners had done their homework. He did not agree that the dumping of construction materials down a hill rose to the dignity of the classification "man-altered slope". Someone working the area with a grader would perhaps be different. If the slope was not "man-altered" a waiver could not be granted. Fry said the owners were seeking the waiver to permit some of the undone homework to not be done or to be done later. The Commission had an obligation to see the homework, to check it over, and permit the neighbors to see it as well and have an opportunity to be heard. Fry said the matter should be delayed, more information should be made available and the persons who resided in the area should have the opportunity to have their own tests conducted if they so desired or were concerned about the integrity of the slope. Once things had begun, it would be hard to turn things around. Fry said actions should not be taken on assumptions and on plans to be submitted later. 25 days from date of filing to date of vote was not sufficient time for a project of that magnitude. Andrew Ives, University Business Manager, said they were a neighbor to the east, across Riverside Drive. Ives said their concerns were limited to the site line and the drainage concerns. He said the University was investing a large sum of money in their utility and drainage system near by. They were concerned about the bluff, which to this time they had believed to be a natural bluff. The bluff ran to the west of their interests. Ives said he would be interested in understanding the drainage plan and the result of potentially more concentrated drainage through what had been described aa a rubble site would do in terms of erosion to the slope and impact on the University. Ives said the footprint of the building showed where trees were located. He said if it was an accurate rendering of the site, then a couple of trees would be lost in the middle of the building. In the photograph the trees looked to be at the site of the ridge line. He asked the issue be pursued, it was a significant concern. Sensitivity to the plant materials that were holding up the slope was of great concern, they would hate to see the major trees on the site removed. The University was concerned what that would do to drainage concerns to their property to the east. Gary Klinefelter, Project Manager, said there were trees shown to be in the foot print of the building. They had had Pete Devins from Devins Tree Service inspect a large tree, remove it and leave the stump. The inner 2/3 of the tree was rotted, the tree was at the end of its life. Klinefelter said there would be no other tree disturbances or vegetation removal necessary for the project to take place. The tree could have fallen across any of the adjacent properties. Everything that was shown in the photograph that Bovbjerg referenced was intended to stay. Klinefelter said neither the retaining wall nor the building would necessitate the removal of any trees of substantial size. There were some suckers from 2-inches to 2-foot that might need to be removed to put in the retaining wall. No medium or large specimen would need to be removed. The construction only needed to go just enough to get a footing in, it would be held as close to the building's foundation as possible. Stoffer said the silt fence was required to contain any silt from the site, it would disturb the ground a little bit. The six-inch mound would need to be moved further to the west to ensure that all of the water from the site was spread out along the fence rather than concentrated. The funnel was actually a pile of rocks that would stop the water and spread it out over a 12-foot wide path to cut its velocity and damage potential, rather than having it shoot out like a garden hose. All the disturbance would be uphill from the silt fence and earthen dam. Stoffer said he hadn't noted the plan detail close enough, but the earthen dam did need to be brought closer to the retaining wall. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 11 Ann Connors, 301 Richards Street, said the notification letter was received just the night prior at approximately 5:00 pm. A large group of neighbors from the Eastern Heights Manville Neighborhood Association had wished to be present, but were previously committed to attending a meeting with the University of Iowa regarding traffic issues on River Street and Riverside Drive. Connors said everyone had requested that Connors make a statement on their behalf to urge the Commission to defer the vote so that more of the neighborhood could explain the impact and voice their opinions. Had they received the notice more timely, Staff would have received a lot more letters and phone calls, there would also be more persons in attendance. Connors said the neighborhood had some of the most beautiful oak trees in all of Iowa City and some very interesting landscape and ravines. They had been working with the City and the U of I regarding the stormwater project and drainage in that area. Connors said evaluation of the proposed project for drainage, the slope, conservation, conservation of trees was very important to the entire area. There were other issues that they would also like to bring up. Connors said she thought there had been more vegetation removed prior to the application than just the one referenced tree. Connors complimented the applicant on the renovation of the adjacent property and said she hoped they would bring more vegetation through the landscaping of the project. Judy Felder, 335 Beldon Avenue, said she understood that it was not necessary by law to notify the neighbors. She did appreciate that the City had a policy to do so. Seeing that that had not been followed as it usually was would be a good reason to defer the request as was the neighbor's interest in and availability to speak regarding the proposed project. Felder said she didn't know if she was in the 300 foot notification range, but she had not received a letter. Miklo said several of the speakers had spoken about the need to defer the issue. It was consuming a great deal of time getting that point across. Miklo asked if there was a majority of the Commission who agreed with the need to defer so the public would not feel the need to speak to that point. A majority of the Commission agreed that deferral was necessary. Felder asked regarding density in an RNC-20 area. It allowed for 16-24 units per acre so for .5 acre would that mean 8-12 units? McCafferty said for each unit 1800 square feet was required. For 10-units, 18,000 square feet of property would be required. The applicant had met that requirement. The property was .41 acre which put them slightly over 18,000 square feet. Felder said she was unclear where the tract ended on the north side. McCafferty said currently there were two lots, Lot #8 and Lot #9. Lot #9 was where the development was proposed for. The applicant was in the process of doing a lot line adjustment which would move the lot line approximately 10-feet to the south. When the lot line adjustment was completed, it would still be in compliance. Felder said a very nice wooded ravine was located between the lots. The ravine had not been discussed yet. Anciaux asked Felder to clarify the ravine she was referring to. Peterson said the ravine was on the north side of the APEhouse. That property was not under consideration. Mike New, 212 Ferson Avenue, said he felt the process was an issue. For over twenty years he had been president of the Housing Corporation for the 309 Templin Road Corporation which was the location of the Delta Phi Fraternity. There were a series of fraternities in that area, he had tried to reach some of the members of the organization to see if they had received letters of notification. He had not been able to reach anyone, but said his point was that these were not neighbors who were in a position to respond quickly. Many were from Des Moines, Omaha or Davenport. It took them a while to get and share information among themselves and to prepare a response. New said he felt it was an issue of unusual circumstance. New said he also wished to comment on the section in applicant's letter that said the project was small scale and non-controversial. New said he would submit that the project was not non- controversial and scale was a matter in the eye of the beholder. Issues of scale in that particular neighborhood were heightened after the construction of a condo/apartment building on the corner of River Street and Ellis Avenue. The neighbors were sensitive to scale. He was concerned with the additional height of the proposed building. New said he was also concerned with the environmental issues such as drainage, the discussion of rocks being used to catch water, and the use of an 8-foot retaining wall on Riverside Drive. New asked the Commission to consider the issue very carefully, as a neighbor and as someone who cares about the community. Christopher Merrill, 216 McLean Street, said when he moved into the neighborhood several years ago, he did so because it was a great neighborhood. On his short block there were six kids, on Beldon there were seven children and going north and south there at least three or four more. Merrill said his concern with the area was the large amount of traffic. By his count in the last year with the renovation of the fraternity, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 12 addition of the apartment house on River Street and now this proposed project, there would be at least 50 more cars daily traveling the very short stretch of road. Merrill said traffic was already very dense. The prospect of 50 more cars racing by was a disaster in the making. He said since they were talking about zoning, they should also start talking about the quality of life with afl the new people moving in, all the cars and traffic combined with all the children who currently resided in the area. Steve Fox, 320 River Street, said he had lived on River Street for 40 years. He said they should not underestimate the wonder of Manville Heights, it had a historic tradition. The residents tried to maintain it as best they could. It was not only an asset to the persons who resided there but to bicyclists, walkers and persons who frequented the area for their own pleasure. Fox said Manville Heights was a sensitive area, not for soil erosion and such, but for the quality of life of the whole neighborhood. It was a place for children to grow up. It was endangered and always had been due to the presence of a row of fraternities only a block away, tremendous potential for noise, activities and noise from the band field, and the assorted late night activities that occurred. He said they tried to be tolerant of all of it. Fox said the idea of rezoning to accommodate further erosion of the neighborhood was a question he raised. Rezoning was usually requests for downgrading, not upgrading. Fox said if the building could accommodate the condition as it was, that would be acceptable. Otherwise he would encourage the Commission to defer the issue. There was a huge number of persons who had a concern for the area and the impact of adding traffic and density to the area. He said the notification had been minimal and very late. Fox said he hoped the dialogue would encompass a wider conception of what sensitivity and quality in Iowa City meant as opposed to simply responding to the ever increasing demand for commercial interests. Fox said it was more than just the engineering specs, it was the visual quality, the personal quality, the quality of their lives, their homes, and real estate. Hansen encouraged the Neighborhood Association to contact APEhouse LC and talk before the next Commission meeting. He said many of the items could be resolved before the project ever came before the Commission, since the majority of the Commission was willing to defer the vote. John Rummelhart, 204 McLean Street, asked Staff for specific definition for "humanly altered" slopes and could APEhouse LC still build on those slopes. McCafferty said when the grading plan was reviewed by the engineer and it was determined that there would be no development in the areas of the protected slopes, the issue of whether it had been "humanly altered" or not would not be an issue. If there was no proposed development in those areas, then the only requirement the applicant would have would be to meet the design guidelines for regulated slopes and to submit a grading plan. If grading or development would occur within the slopes, then the issue of whether it was "humanly altered" or not would come into play. McCafferty said from what she had heard from the applicant, she would assume that it would not be an issue. Rummelhart asked about Lot #8 and #9. McCafferty said Lot #8 had the existing fraternity house, Lot #9 was where the proposed development would be. She did not know if the two lots had ever been combined as one lot. Miklo said stormwater management was required for residential developments of two acres or larger, the properties combined would be less than one acre. Rummelhart said the applicant had said they had been having conversations for over a year with the City, yet no one ever talked to the neighbors who would be immediately impacted. He said that was the sad part of the day's discussion. Hansen said he would like to mention to the audience that one of the suggestions the Neighborhood Housing Relation Task Force was bringing to City Council was the suggestion that the Good Neighbor Policy be made mandatory. That would require talking by a developer to the neighbors. Hansen said the audience might like to support that with City Council. Fry said he would like to ask the applicant if they would be willing to permit engineers or surveyors or personnel to go in and review the property to prepare for the next meeting. Bovbjerg suggested they talk to the applicant which would be a good neighborly and applicant item to discuss and work out. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ02-00004, an application submitted by APEhouse, LC, for a rezoning from Neighborhood Conservation (RNC-20) to Sensitive Areas Overlay Neighborhood Conservation (SAO-RNC-20) to allow a 10-unit multi-family building on a .41 acre property located at 341 N. Riverside Drive, to June 6, 2002. Hansen seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 13 Hansen said he strongly suggested that the Neighborhood Association and the developer get together. He saw no better time to do so than now. Anciaux called the question. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB02-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy Hilgenberg Enterprises for a final plat of Wild Prairie Estates, Part 4, a 35.86-acre 24-1ot residential subdivision located north of Goldenrod Drive and west of Duck Creek Drive. Miklo said the applicant had requested that the item be deferred to June 6, 2002. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer SUB02-00005, to June 6, 2002. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC02-00001, discussion of an application submitted by Diane Williamson for a vacation of the right-of- way along the frontage of the Carousel Motors property at 809 HWY 1 West. Miklo said the full Staff report had been presented at the Monday work session. The applicant was the only person in attendance and also had a copy of Staff's report. Miklo said a concern had been raised regarding lighting on the vacated right-of-way. Staff had the site plan for the property and it was their understanding that no additional lighting was proposed in the right-of-way. Once the property was sold, the new owner would have the legal right to place lights there. Any lights would have to be downcast, shielded and comply with the Lighting Ordinance. Miklo said if the Commission was not satisfied with the current lighting ordinance and did not want to allow lighting in the area the City would be selling to the applicant, the Commission would have to condition the vacation upon that. Behr said the City did not have an obligation to vacate property, so the Commission could make that a condition of selling the property. Miklo said the site plan that had been submitted showed a building and not a sales trailer. It would be the same dealership selling multiple lines of vehicles. Miklo said the property, as it was, was allowed three free standing signs. The vacation of the right-of-way would not result in the ability to put more or less signage on that site. Staff had expected a landscaping plan, but it was not available yet. Miklo said in the absence of the landscaping plan, Staff would recommend deferral of VAC02-00001, to June 6, 2002, to give Staff time to review the plan. However, Staff did recommend approval of VAC02-00001, an application submitted by Diane Williamson for a vacation of the right-of-way along the frontage of the Carousel Motors property at 809 HWY 1 West, subject to the four conditions outlined in Staff's report. The existing frontage road being closed at Ruppert Road; 2. A new access point being created to the property at 809 HWY 1 West further south on Ruppert Road, with said access point and final design to be approved by City staff; 3. The majority of Highway 1 frontage of the property being landscaped with shrubs, flowering shrubs, and/or landscaped beds with flowering and other plant species, and the existing street trees being retained; 4. The Carousel Motors properties being incorporated into one single property, or an access easement being created to the triangular property at the west end of the frontage road. Miklo said they would also like to add a utility easement for any utilities that needed to be added to the property. Koppes asked if Transportation staff had looked at the road closure and relocation of the driveway. Miklo said Staff had looked at the situation. Although it was not ideal, it was the best that could be done. Public discussion was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 14 Tom Summy, Director of Marketing, Knutson Construction, said they had accomplished everything listed as conditions in the Staff report with the exception of the landscaping plan. Summy said they would ask that all of the automobile dealers along HWY 1 West be treated equally. Currently there was a lot of variance going on. The primary purpose of any dealership was site lines. HWY 1 did set above the site so the proposed greenage and bedding would be of a lower height to allow visibility. Summy said lighting on the site plan was designed to meet the minimum City codes. As a private pilot, he flew in and out of the Iowa City Airport, and was well aware of night time lighting concerns. They were trying to balance night visibility so it didn't shine up into the eyes of motor vehicle traffic on HWY 1. The design lights that had been proposed were what the Nissen Corporation had given to them to use. Nissen had used the architectural firm, Ginsler, which was one of the top five architectural firms in the nation, for the design of the proposed building. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer VAC02-00001, an application submitted by Diane Williamson for a vacation of the right-of-way along the frontage of the Carousel Motors property at 809 HWY '1 West, to the June 6, 2002 meeting. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MAY 2, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Koppes made a motion to accept the minutes as printed and corrected. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to cancel the July 1 and July 4, 2002 meetings. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Hansen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:06 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill