Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-16 Bd Comm minutes FINAL/APPROVED ¢ x ){i YLibrary MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LTBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR HEfiTING THURSDAY, Hay 23, 2002 5:00 PM Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Shaner Magalh~es, Lisa Parker, Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, Tom Suter, Jim Swaim, David VanDusseldorp StaffPresent: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubarofl; Liz Nichols, Others: Joel Miller, Building Project Coordinator; Joe Fowler, Director of Parking, Chris O'Brien CALL TO ORDER: Parker called the meeting called to order at 5:01 pm PUBLIC DISCUSSION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: After a motion was made and seconded by Dellsperger/Magalhaes, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 25 were approved unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Building Project Project Manager Miller gave his report on the progress of the construction. He pointed out that the one change order reflected in his report is the same as seen previously. It is for the expense of taking the transformer out of the basement of the building and placing it in the sub alley. There are no other big changes. Another proposal has to do with Mid-America's energy saving proposals. They are expensive to install but over the course of time will save money. This will be seen in the report next month. The gravel portion of the basement is done and walls are poured. Steel will be coming by next week. Miller expects that by the third week in June, the roof will be on the patio area. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES May 23, 2002 Page 2 Parking Parker reported that she and Craig exchanged memos with City Council, followed by attendance at a City Council meeting. At the suggestion of Council, Parker, Swaim and Suter met with Joe Fowler, Director of Transit and Parking, and Chris O'Brien, Parking Manager. A report from their meeting was in the packet. Fowler and O'Brien attended the Board meeting in order to respond to any questions Trustees may have. Surer reported on a visit with the President of the Downtown Association who indicated support and offered to recruit volunteers from the DTA to join us before the Council. Dellsperger asked Fowler and O'Brien about the percentage of permit parkers in the various ramps, and how they are spread out over all those ramps.'? She suggested that the two parking ramps that would be the easiest for library patrons would be the Dubuque Street and Chauncy Swan Parking ramp. She asked if some permit holders could be moved further away leaving more spaces for library visitors in those two ramps? Fowler said that all permits on Dubuque St ramp are on the 3rd floor and above. A big difference between Dubuque Street and Old Capitol Ramp is that Dubuque has a daily maximum, which causes people to choose the Dubuque street ramp, but that could be changed. Fowler suggested writing a proposal to take to Council. He and his staff cannot make changes without Council's approval. Removing the daily maximum from the Dubuque Street ramp, moving permit holders to Tower Place and Capitol Place could bring in additional revenue. Fowler said he did not have a problem with taking 50 permit parkers and moving them to one of the other ramps. Craig then proposed enforcing meters downtown from Clinton to Gilbert, Iowa to Burlington until 8 pm. This would also bring in income since it would create more turnover. At issue is the number of people who live in that area who park after 4:00 pm and stay for hours. Fowler pointed out that enforcing meters until 8 pm could be a security issue and perhaps require additional staff. Evening hours have been proposed in the past to Council but never implemented. Parker suggested that the Board write a proposal to City Council, prioritizing options. Fowler advised the Board to think about where we want to be before the new construction on 64 I A is completed. Ddlsperger recommended that a memo to City Council might include suggesting moving the greatest number of permit holders possible from Dubuque Street Ramp, remove the daily cap, and move permit holders up one more level. It was also suggested that the memo include the option of chalking tires and Craig's suggestion of enforcing meters later in the evening. Another option put forth was to allow the Library to offer tokens for Chauncy Swan ramp. These would be short-term solutions until such time as more long-term solutions could be addressed. A memo will be sent. NEW BUSINESS ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES May 23, 2002 Page 3 Policy Review: This is a regularly scheduled review of the Circulation Policy. It was pointed out that this policy has many little pieces with different revision dates. Craig explained that it is the oldest policy we have and these pieces got added in before the days of word processing. The policy is full of more detail than most of the policies because it lays out specific rules related to getting a library card. We will reformat the policy so that it is one document. There was a question about Fee Cards for Institution applications for which, according to the policy come to the Library Board. This does not happen very often. In-house use card: The purpose of this card is to allow anyone the use of in-house services without having a library card with borrowing privileges. Currently these are for a small population of users who use the Intemet, although we might consider using this card for other in-house services like watching a movie, etc. In response to a question, a fee card provides access to a whole household. Interlibrary loans do not cost us much money. Other Iowa public libraries do not charge however, some out of state institutions are beginning to charge. Suter moved approval of the policy, as proposed, with format changes. VanDusseldorp seconded. All were in favor. STAFF REPORTS Circulation, Information, Community & AV Services Departmental reports were included. There were no questions. Fence painting. Deanne Wortman is painting the fence around the construction site. There will be large areas where she will outlining only and people will be encouraged to come and paint. Publicity will be coming. Children's Day is June 9. Report on National Library of Medicine grant. Dellsperger said that since 9th grade students are required to take health, using these sites for extra credit would be attractive to students. A question was asked about computers in outreach sites in community. Logsden described where computers have been placed. PRESIDENT'S REPORT Parker reported that the Homeless committee met again. The people at Wesley House are interested in providing services. They are beginning to talk about finding some funding. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES May 23, 2002 Page Magalhges said current budget proposals cut state library funding drastically; including Enrich Iowa and the Department of Cultural Affairs. A rally is being organized for next Tuesday at 9 am, before a special session of the legislature. COMMUNICATIONS An e-mail regarding parking was included with parking information. Committee Reports Dellsperger reported that the Art Committee has narrowed proposals from over 120 artists to 5 and will meet again next Wednesday. They will winnow it down to 1 or 2 who will be invited to visit and present a proposal. Evaluation Committee: Magalh5es reported that half of the people have responded. Hopes to get more results. The committee will then get together with Craig. DISBURSEMENTS Dellsperger moved approval for Disbursements. Prybil requested that we allow time to discuss Disbursements more thoroughly. She had a question about an expense from Upstart. Craig responded it was for a large summer reading program supplies order. Parker offered to move the Disbursements up earlier in the agenda but no change was made. Magalh~es seconded and disbursements were approved unanimously. The Board moved to Meeting Room D for a demonstration of My Millennium by Barb Black. This enhancement of the catalog system will be coming this summer. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR JUNE MEETiNG Follow-up on parking Annual Friends Foundation Meeting. Approve slate of officers Director's evaluation Building update ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 7:00 pm Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - April 15, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson; board members absent: Bev Smith. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:05 p.m.), Staff Kellie Tuttle and Cherice Wyckoff present. Aisc in attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD. CONSENT CALENDAR The Board discussed an article from the Press Citizen that incorrectly reported an increase in police misconduct complaints. A correction was reported Tuesday March 26th that the complaints had actually decreased. Horton had a question about the minutes regarding a motion by Hoeft, seconded by Smith to accept the "public" report. Horton thought that this may appear that there was also a private report. Turtle informed Horton that it is standard to refer to the reports as "public." Hoeft had a concern about the two items that were added to their packets by Councilman Pfab. Hoeft felt that items should not be added to their packets by Council Members because of impartiality issues. Stratton said that he will look at them carefully in the future before placing items in the packets and may only list items as being available in the Clerk's'office. Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 03/12/02 · ICPD Department Memorandum 02-17 · ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2002 · ICPD Use of Force Report- February 2002 Motion carried, 4/0, Smith absent. OLD BUSINESS · PCRBVideo The Board discussed the PCRB video. Turtle stated that editing the reference to "problem" from the racial profiling comments may not be able to be done without cutting the entire discussion, The Board did not want to lose the whole discussion on racial profiling and decided that if it could be Police Citizens Review Board April 15, 2002, Minutes Page 2 edited without damaging it in any other way to do so. If this is not possible, then the video should be left as it is. · Age of Consent The Board discussed the policy of using the age of 12 as the cut off point for officers accepting permission to enter a house from a juvenile. The age of 12 was selected because the State of Iowa defines under the age of 12 as children and above 12 as juveniles. Pugh commented on distinctions. A warrantless search is never okay unless it is with consent, a search incident to arrest or exigent circumstances exist. There is no in between - it's either exigent or it's not. The three things that define exigency are 1.) There is a danger of violence or injury; 2.) There is risk of the subject's escape; and 3.) There is a probability, unless taken on the spot, evidence will be concealed or destroyed. Furthermore, the considerations on which an officer could move in case of an exigent circumstance are: whether there is a grave offense involved, whether a suspect is reasonably believed to be armed, whether there is probable cause that the subject committed a crime, whether there is strong reason to believe that the subject is on the premises, a strong likelihood of escape if not apprehended and that entry, although not consented to, is peaceful. When deciding on the age of consent, the circumstances should not be taken into consideration because if there is exigency, the officer can enter no matter what - with or without consent and regardless of the age of the people at issue. The age of consent consideration is for non-exigency situations. Previously the case law decided this matter, so there is no clear statutory law about this. The rule has been that minority age alone doesn't mean that an officer can't ask for consent. There have been case by case considerations of the maturity, responsibility and level of control of the minor. A community standard can be narrower, but there's still overriding common law that says it is not illegal to ask a minor for consent to search. Pugh informed that the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. So the question is: What is reasonable? Most jurisdictions have not set an age. Instead the analysis considers whether the person has 2 Police Citizens Review Board April 15, 2002, Minutes Page 3 control over the premises, understands why the officer is there, and understands that they have a right to say "no." Iowa City is trying to create stronger criteria for the officers to follow by adopting this policy. Hoeft informed the Board that this situation happens very infrequently. Hoeft said the court has ruled on the subject and has not come up with any better solution. So he is comfortable with that unless the court makes any decision to change it. He is comfortable with the Police Chief and the City attorneys to make that decision. He will choose to vote to keep the situation the same at 12 years of age. Horton stated he felt a community standard was hard to define because there is no objective way to poll the citizenry about the matter, which would bring about a meaningful result. It is unclear about how the age of 12 can be accurately determined. He felt that any age picked is arbitrary because the capacity for giving consent is different from person to person. Therefore, he felt that the present policy (General Order Number 01-06) is a reasonable one and he will not agree to any change. Pugh said that no matter what the City adopts, the test will still be case law. Even if they follow the policy, it still may be unreasonable. Watson stated that he thinks it is reasonable to ask for consent of a minor. However, he has a problem with the age of 12. He feels more comfortable with the age of 14. A fourteen-year-old can work, drive with supervision, and has some discretion about deciding where to live (they can talk to the court). They are treated as someone with judgment. Furthermore, a 14-year-old is well into junior high and is much more street smart. Stratton stated that he believed the policy should be 18 years old. He feels that most young teenagers would accede to authority. The Board had considerable division within itself. After a thorough discussion, there was no recommendation. The Board decided that Stratton would write a letter to the City Manager to summarize the thoughts from the PCRB. Police Citizens Review Board April 15, 2002, Minutes Page 4 Stratton will also call board member Smith to get her opinion as well. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed their speaking experiences at eight MATS training programs. They discussed some of the reactions from police officers such as: · Creation of the Board · Being Supervised in a special way by the Board · Board Members being biased because of occupation · Low number of complaints · Attendance of Police Department at PCRB Meetings · Board viewed as irrelevant because they have no power or sanction. Stratton reconfirmed that the Board members do not know, nor have any interest in knowing, the particular officer that was the subject of a complaint. Watson thought that the theme he was most disappointed in was a general lack of appreciation for the advantages of accountability to the Department. He felt it could be looked at from a positive standpoint that there is an independent review board, and with the Board the Department comes out looking pretty good most of the time. Captain Widmer felt that it was very good that the Board spoke at the MATS training. He thinks the Board adds credibility to the Department, however, he understands why the officers do not appreciate the Board because it is another layer of oversight on them. He stated that the Board was doing just what they should be doing, but don't expect the officers to like the oversight. The officers do feel good when a complaint goes through the Chief's process and then on to the Board, and the Board agrees with what the Chief did. Stratton mentioned some officers challenged the competence of the Board to judge them since most of the Board members don't have the experiences of a being police officer. Stratton said that this is irrelevant because it is not necessary to understand completely the officers nor Police Citizens Review Board April 15, 2002, Minutes Page 5 the complainant's feelings when looking at the facts of the complaints and the law. Judges just look at facts and apply them to principles. The Board would like to come back to speak at the training in the future if they are invited. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion MEETING SCHEDULE · May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · June 11,2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Horton mentioned an article in the Daily Iowan about the age of consent issue. The article contained two errors. First, it incorrectly said that an 11-year-old girl gave police permission and secondly, the quote that Watson made was attributed to Horton. STAFF INFORMATION · PCRB Staffing The Board introduced themselves to the new minute taker, Cherice Wyckoff. ·Summer Schedule/Absences Tuttle requested summer schedules from the Board members so that she would be able to reschedule meetings if necessary. The Board members are to call the Clerk's office with any updates of their summer schedule. Pugh mentioned being contacted by a person asking her the "skinny" on an officer. The person was incredulous when she explained to him that the Board members do not know who the officers are. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Hoeft. Motion carried, 4/0, Smith absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:30. 5 F1NAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - June 11, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Loren Horton, John Stratton, John Watson, and Bev Smith (7:09), Board members absent: Bill Hoeft. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh, Staff Julie Voparil. Also in attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar as amended. Watson suggested two changes to the minutes. First, to delete the word "the" in the second sentence of new business on page 3. Secondly, he suggested replacing the second "in" with "for" in the second sentence of the first paragraph under new business on page 4. These amendments were accepted. - · Minutes of the meeting on 04/15/02 · ICPD Use of Force Report- March 2002 · iCPD Use of Force Report - April 2002 · ICDP Department Memorandum 02-30 (Use of Force Review) Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Smith absent. OLD BUSINESS · PCRBVideo Voparil distributed a copy of the cablevision invoice on the cost of the video. The $1,365 cost could be cut in half by showing it on public television Government Channel 4. After discussion there was agreement to utilize Government Channel 4 to reduce the invoice cost; provide t~vo copies of the video for the Library and two for the City Clerk's office; send people (former Council Members and PCRB Members) appearing in the video a letter to see if they would like a complimentary copy of the video; general public could purchase a copy of the video through the Clerk's office for $13; and acknowledged all costs would come from the PCRB budget, Watson suggested through a mailing to offer to show the video to service clubs. The Board decided to do the mailing in the fall, but issue a press release notifying the public that the video is available after July 1, 2002. NEW BUSINESS · PCRB Annual Report Copies of the draft Annual Report were included in the mailed packet. Stratton explained that he left out the history of the Board and just PCRB-Page 2 June 11, 2002 referred to Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code. On page 1 Stratton suggested moving the last sentence under General Responsibilities up ahead of the next to the last sentence. Smith questioned the complaint history of officers, and whether it is known if the same officer has had multiple complaints. Watson informed Smith that it was numerically tracked. Smith asked if a pattern of complaints were evident would the Board still not address the complaint history of the officer specifically. Watson said that the Board can go into the history if it so desires. However, as of yet the Board has not felt that it would be appropriate to do so. Pugh said that since the Board does not have any disciplinary function the officer's history is not really useful to the Board. Stratton said that the Board could call the pattern of complaints to the attention of the Police Department. Watson stated that the Board could release the name of an officer if there is something in the overriding public interest. The Board agreed that it should be very cautious with releasing names. Watson said that it would be useful to have the number of instances of force versus the number of total instances. Widmer stated that - information is available in a bi-monthly and an annual report. This is the fourth year that use of force has been tracked. Widmer stated that they also track the total number of complaints, both unfounded and founded. This information is given to the Chief and is used in internal investigations. Watson said that the Board used to get that information, but they felt it made them too prejudicial. Therefore, they looked at each incident individually. Stratton suggested that they go through the report page by page. On the second page Stratton felt that Complaints, Number and Type of Allegations could be shortened up. The first sentence could eliminate "The Board Received" and just say, "Four complaints were filed during the fiscal year July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002." The next sentence could delete the word "filed." Finally, the words "There were" in the third sentence could be deleted to make it, "Four public reports were completed..." There were no suggestions for changes on page three. On page four Watson wanted to know if there was a way to highlight the sustained allegations. Horton suggested moving the sentence beginning with "The Board reviews" up into the previous paragraph and let the sustained allegation sentence stand alone. Pugh suggested deleting the words "released as" from that sentence. On page five under Complaint Histories Stratton suggested dropping part of the last sentence to read "City ordinance requires that the annual report of the PCRB must not include the names of complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a form that protects the confidentiality of information about all parties." Thus deleting "while providing the public with information on the overall performance of the Police Department" because it is redundant. Horton said then the last sentence in that section does not need to be a separate paragraph. On page six Stratton explained that the PCRB-Page 3 June 11, 2002 reason for so many unknowns in the Compliant Demographics is that the data accurately reflects the characteristics voluntary provided by the complainants not "as we know them" from the complaint form which is confidential. Smith asked about the category of color. Watson said that it is in the code and it means the person felt that they were discriminated against by the color of their skin. Stratton and Horton pointed out that there is also a race category. Horton also pointed out that Jewish is not a national origin. Stratton said that the information is relatively useless for statistical purposes. The Board wanted to see the Annual Report in its final form at its next meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS Horton will not be at the August 13, 2002 meeting. Horton will also not be at the October 8, 2002 meeting. Stratton said that the Board may not meet for the August meeting. July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · September 10, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · October 8, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Stratton reported he was contacted by a City Council Member about the Board's lack of a recommendation to the Council on Age of Consent, policy. Stratton was also contacted by a citizen about a sexual harassment complaint involving an officer and a friend of the citizen. Stratton advised the citizen to come to the Board or the Police Department to make a complaint. The citizen was fearful of retaliation. Horton distributed Iowa City Press Citizen and the Iowa City Gazette articles regarding the Board's response to the City Council about the age of consent. STAFF INFORMATION No staff information. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Watson. Meeting adjourned at 7:58 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Jerry Hansen, Ann Bovbjerg, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Adams, John Yapp, Shelley McCafferty, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Peterson, Betsy Boyd, Bill Prowell, Frank Wyrick, Cindy Parsons, Andrew Ives, John Shaw, William Buss, Don Gringer, Robert Downer, Mark Anderson, Dave Clark, Dee Duwa, Pat Heiden, Gary Watts, Carol Winter, Larry Schnittjer. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB02-00005, an application submitted by Kennedy Hilgenberg Enterprises for an amended preliminary plat and 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, subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction documents prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB02-00007, an application submitted by Jerry and Clarine Halverson for an extraterritorial final plat of Lacina Meadows, a 79.94 acre, 23-1ot residential subdivision located in Johnson County in Fringe Area C, west of Dane Road and north of Osage Street SW subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction documents prior to City Council consideration of the extraterritorial final plat. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:36 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 by signing up for a board or commission. Bovbjerg announced the Iowa City Parade of Homes event was occurring through the weekend. She encouraged persons to visit all homes in the Parade, especially the "accessible home" on B Street, which was sponsored by the City and designed by Shelley McCafferty. Bovbjerg said she thought this home in particular would be the 'Look of the Future' for everyone. REZONING ITEMS: REZ02-00004, discussion of an application submitted by Apehouse, LC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Conservation RNC-20, to Sensitive Areas Overlay Neighborhood Conservation (SOA- RNC-20) for a 41-acre property located at 341 N. Riverside Drive McCafferty said there were regulated slopes on the site. The project was proposed to be a two-story, 10- unit apartment building with below grade parking and one handicapped accessible parking spot on grade. Elevations from the applicant's architect had been received since the last meeting McCafferty said a couple of new issues had recently come to light. Previously there had been questions regarding the retaining wall and its purpose The applicant had provided a drawing of the proposed retaining wall and information regardin9 its purpose. A pipe which would run down through the retaining wall into the wall would remove stormwater drainage from the parking area and dissipate it into a rock spreader to reduce the velocity of the drainage. Due to the neighborhoods' concern about the hydrology of the site, McCafferty had visited the site on Sunday, May 31, 2002, after a rainstorm downpour She displayed Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 2 photographs that illustrated a significant amount of runoff from the site. McCafferty said it had been determined by City Engineering staff that pipe extends east from the drain intake on Ridgeland. The outlet of the pipe was at the base of the slope, which caused the significant water runoff from the site. Those particular issues had brought up an additional engineering issue with regard to the drainage and additional scrutiny of the proposed grading plan for the site. The City Engineer had not previously understood that it was necessary for the grading plan to be looked at not only under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAC) but also as a grading plan. McCafferty said that had been overlooked. The engineer had determined there was a deficiency in the grading plan and was concerned about overland drainage on the south side of the building. It had been determined that the proposed building would block the existing drainage, forcing more water onto the adjacent property. This issue would need to be resolved. McCafferty said at the informal P&Z Commission meeting she had informed the Commission of the requirement of a buffer around the protected slopes. The applicant had proposed to develop and encroach into the buffer for the man-made slope, and had requested a reduction in the buffer as allowed by the ordinance. A memo from Ralph Stoffer, a civil engineer, had been included in the Commission's information packet. The memo explained why the buffer needed to be reduced and why it would not cause any instability to the slopes or create any additional public hazards. McCafferty said in light of the new information regarding the site and recommendations from Public Works staff and the City Engineer, Staff recommended that REZ02-00004 be deferred until the next meeting. That would give the engineer a chance to resolve the drainage issue on the south side of the proposed building. McCafferty said the applicant had verbally agreed to a deferral. Shannon asked who owned the pipe that was currently there. McCafferty said it was a City storm sewer pipe. There was some damage to the pipe, so it would need to be upgraded by the City. Miklo said it had already been scheduled to be rebuilt in Summer, 2003. Anciaux asked if the pipe would then be tied into a regular storm sewer. McCafferty said the City was still looking at that particular design issue, as they were not sure which side of Riverside Drive and the right-of-way the pipe would be located on. Bovbjerg said it was her understanding that the stormwater from this project would flow into the new stormwater pipe. McCafferty said Public Works was looking at recommending that, but it had not yet been determined whether or not it should. She said that was a Public Works design issue and should not affect the Commission's recommendation. McCafferty said one of the things the Public Works engineer had recommended was that all the roof drains be tied into the storm sewer as opposed to going overland. Bovbjerg said it appeared there was no choice for the City. The Commission would be derelict in their duty to allow water going overland when there was a pipe available. However, that storm sewer emptied out somewhere above the sidewalk. Bovbjerg said that was not right. It was wrong to plan for disaster as the amount of non-absorbed water would be increased. Anciaux asked if the City was going to fix the storm sewer pipe. McCafferty said at this point she was not clear on and did not know how that particular issue would be resolved. McCaffer[y said she would clarify the issue for the next Commission meeting. Public Works was addressing the design of the storm sewer at this particular location. Behr said the Commission's scope of review in this application was the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. At this point there were three relevant issues: 1) The applicant's request to reduce the buffer zone between the development activity and the protected slope. The standard for the issue would be: The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAC) provided that the buffer zone may be reduced if a geologist or professional engineer could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that any development activity could be designed to eliminate hazards. Behr said Rick Fosse had addressed that issue in his memo. 2) The applicant's request to increase the height of the building by 3.5 feet over the standard 35-foot height,. The standard for the issue would be: The ordinance provided that dimensional requirements could be adjusted to encourage more compact development and allow transfer of density from sensitive areas to non-sensitive areas Specifically as to height, the ordinance provided that the maximum building height might be waived provided that the design of the development provided for sufficient light and air circulation for each building. 3) The grading plan. Staff had requested a deferral to allow the City engineer to further study the grading plan and make determinations in that respect. Behr said the stormwater issue was brought into play within the SAC by the grading plan. Stormwater concerns were relevant with connection to the grading plan Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 3 4) McCafferty said the City engineer had met with the applicant's engineer. Once that particular issue was resolved, Staff would recommend approval of the application. Staff had found that in every other sense, the plat was in accordance with the SAC. Public discussion was opened. Jim Peterson., 309 N. 7~h Avenue, a member of Apehouse, LC. He said they had not agreed to defer. Peterson said the Commission and the applicant had been told on two separate occasions that the application was complete, had been approved by City Staff, and Staff was recommending approval of the application only to be told later that was not the case. Peterson said more than two months ago Apehouse, LC had submitted a draff application to the City. They had been given a three or four page list of comments and requests for changes and additions to the application. Peterson said they were happy to comply, but ever since then, it had been a moving target. This had been frustrating, costly to the applicant and Petersen did not think it was fair that the applicant had to pay the cost. He said he felt they were being held to a different set of standards than to what others had been held to. He said they had submitted information on a timely basis, only to be told within hours of the Commission's meeting of the latest need for information and review by City staff, occasioned by a last minute letter from a lawyer or new issue raised by a neighbor. Peterson said the last minute tactic that was being used was unfair and should not be allowed to hold up the process. Peterson said in the ravine to the north of the Apehouse, which was also a protected slope, he had noted an intake on McLean that drained 2 or 3 blocks of McLean, dumped directly onto a protected slope. This was a slope that they had to protect when they had done the work at the Apehouse. Peterson said the most disturbing thing to him was that the neighbors concern for the protected slopes was not genuine. The neighbor's real aim was to stop any new development in the neighborhood. He said they had received phone calls to that effect. Peterson said any reasonable person who took time to visit the slopes would immediately realize that the slopes had been ignored and abused for years and years. It was only on the occasion of this rezoning request that the zeal of the neighbors was brought to light. If the slopes were left as they were, they would continue to deteriorate. Peterson said the work that they were proposing addressed the drainage problems in the current situation and would remedy them. Peterson said he respectfully requested that the Commission confine the discussion to relevant, germane comments and issues. The application, as had been noted, had nothing to do with traffic, aesthetics, or what was being built somewhere else in Manville heights. Betsy Boyd, 508 River Street, thanked Miklo and Fosse for meeting with the neighbors, and for Staff's helpfulness in answering questions. Boyd said they had followed through on the Commission's request that they meet with the developers and project manager. Apehouse, LC had willingly answered their questions, provided information and offered to stake out the proposed building so any interested party could clearly see where the building would be built. Boyd said many positive things had occurred from the process. On June 12, 2002, a neighborhood meeting would occur to form a neighborhood association in their area. The City had informed them that a traffic study of the area of the proposed building would be done. A petition addressing concerns when a building was built into a slope, particularly a natural drainage area slope, was circulated among the neighbors. The petition was signed by 257 citizens, representing 208 separate households. Concerns that the neighbors had, included but were not limited to: drainage, air quality, trees and density of environmental landscape of the neighborhood, architectural aesthetics and site lines involved, building into a slope and traffic. Bill Prowell, attorney at Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, PI.C, representing the neighbors. Prowell said they had engineers present to speak on drainage and soil stability issues. Prowell said the Iowa City Compref~ensive Plan and the SAC, which dated back to 1995, stated that environmental protection was a basic tenet of Iowa City's vision for the future. The SAC reflected that in its seven stated purposes, in pertinent part, "To permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain environmentally sensitive features and natural resources, recognizing the importance of enwronmental resources and protecting such resources from destruction. To protect the public from injury and property damage due to flooding, erosion and other natural hazards which could be exacerbated by the development of environmentally sensitive land." Prowell said they felt that was what was happening with the current application. Prowell said the SAC required each applicant to meet certain minimum standards, which the applicant was trying to do. It was the duty and obligation of the Commission to be certain that those minimum standards were met, and to apply the policies and intent of the zoning ordinance to determine if the proposed development ought to occur. Prowell said he felt the proposed structure was too large a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 4 structure for that particular piece of property. A large portion of the area that was to be rezoned was occupied by protected slopes. Prowell said they had a laundry list of ways that they felt the application and materials submitted to the City thus far were not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. They wanted to focus on two items, which were specifically addressed in the ordinance for reasons of safety. Ordinance regulations were intended to minimize flooding, instability and erosion. The ordinance said development activity could not occur in any area containing protected slopes. Prowell said that would lead one to believe that this particular piece of property alone could not be used for development because there were protected slopes on it. If the development activity were permitted, the applicant would have to demonstrate through proof evidence from a geologist or engineer that the development activity could occur without undermining the stability of the protected slopes. Prowell said it was their opinion that to this point no adequate proof had been offered by the applicant or their engineers to show that the stability of the slopes would not be undermined by the development and proposed structure of that size, especially on the western end. Prowell said they felt soil borings needed to be conducted to ascertain the content, make up and stability of the soil, and a well needed to be drilled to gauge ground water. Prowell said the second issue was the buffer zone. Because development activity would occur within the buffer zone, the applicant would need to provide the Commission with proof from a geologist or professional engineer to the Commission's satisfaction, that the development could be designed to eliminate hazards. The burden of proof was on the applicant. Prowell said it was their judgment that to date, no information had been submitted which showed the building could be designed or was even currently designed to eliminate hazards resulting from construction in the buffer zone. Prowell said they did not think it could be done. Prowell said they were also concerned about the hazard of the water coming down slope. The apartment building was not an appropriate development for the lot and would have a significant impact on the neighborhood and on the adjacent buildings. Prowell said they urged the Commission to deny the applicant's request for rezoning and to delay their decision until such time as adequate information had been submitted to the City to allow them to make a reasonable decision. Frank Wyreck, Park Road, Hydrologist and Geologist, Faculty of UI Civil and Environmental Engineering College, Professor in Geo-Science. Wyreck said he had been specifically requested to look at the drainage issue for the immediate area that impacted the property. Wyreck said the property had always been a ravine and the drainage would have to go through it to some extent. The area was 500-feet by 300-feet or 150,000 square feet or 3.5 acres of property. Wyreck said one of the most important issues for an area of this type was how long would it take the flood waters to move down through the site. Wyreck provided the Commission with an information packet that contained a study indicating that it took approximately 50 minutes after it started raining for water to flow from the furthest part into the area of question. Wyreck said for this particular site, he had done an analysis and it took approximately 10 minutes. He said when designing for a system like this, the scale of the drainage system had to accommodate that. He said the present situation had a ravine draining a 3.5-acre property that in approximately 10 minutes would reach its capacity. Wyreck said the applicant had provided an analysis that indicated that the street drainage system was adequate to handle anything that could happen. When the analysis was done, it suggested a standard 5- year storm would produce about 4 cubic feet of water per second, a 100-year storm would produce 8 cubic feet per second. The report's argument was that the 5-year and 100-year storm's water would stay in the street, if there was any over flow, it would go through the parking area and onto the property and drain away. It would not be a major issue Wyreck said he had done an analysis himself. It indicated a 5- year storm would produce a 12 to 15 to 21 cubic feet per second of water Wyreck said this past Sunday a storm produced .44 inches of rain, and he had been at the site to observe what would happen. Wyreck provided the Commission with a packet of photos of the site's runoff; the 15" drain that was at the site which accommodated only a part of the stormwater run off; the surface runoff from just 1/3 inch of rain; and two streams of water which came down the slope. One stream oame out of the pipe from the surface drainage system down the culvert, which showed it was not fully working. The second stream was the surface runoff, looking at the property from Richland Avenue, which indicated that the drain did not carry all the water, but it ran freely down the slope. Wyreck said he was not suggesting that the drainage from the site could not be managed. The amount of runoff from the site would about double when it was urbanized. He said the proposal to have internal drainage and tie it in to city sewers was reasonable. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 5 However, the rest of the drainage had to be handled. Wyreck said historically the overland flow path was through that property because it was historically through the ravine that the water traveled. The building would act as a dam and block the water flow creating problems such as water backup on the street, water going through the neighbors' property, going down through the banks, and onto the north side onto Riverside Drive. Even if the water were carried over the property and dropped over the edge, it would be carried as a water fall. Wyreck said an integrated design solution was needed. Not one that dealt with the property itself, but for the historic drainage that came through that particular area. He had had discussions with the City Engineer about it and felt there was a way for dealing with it. It needed to be dealt with up front. Wyreck said the design issue could have major implications on what could be built and how it could be built there. Drainage tied in very heavily with the grading plan and the overall design configuration of the structure. Cindy Parsons, 1131 E. Washington Street, said it was clear from the photographs and Staff's presentations that there were some pre-existing drainage problems that had existed there a long time on the adjacent property on the south. That building's large asphalt driveway drained right down to the corner and into the ravine. Parsons said they were willing to work with the City Engineer and anticipated coming up with a plan to improve the current situation. They would tie their building into the upgraded system. Parsons said they had already had conversations with the Clarks whose property was to the south. They had indicated that they would be willing to participate in efforts to improve the drainage situation as well. Parsons said she also felt frustration about finding out about this problem at 1:00 pm in the afternoon and had they known sooner, they would have been able to address the problem before the meeting. Parsons said as indicated by the pictures, the water rushed onto their property from Ridgeland Avenue and also from Clark's property. Ridgeland Avenue did not have curbs which exacerbated the problem. Parsons said there were a number of problems in that area, none of which were of their making. She wanted to reiterate that Apehouse LC would like to participate in helping to solve the problem and be given the opportunity to do it. Parsons said as all present knew, in litigations it was possible to find an expert to render opinions both pro and con. Without having had the opportunity to examine Wyreck's information, she would not say anything further.at that point. Andrew Ives, U of I Business Manager and Interim Facilities Manager, said he had spoken at the last meeting and was there again to speak regarding the Ul's concerns. The UI was an adjacent property owner. Their concerns were primarily drainage, site lines including the trees on the property and traffic concerns. Ives said he had toured the property with the applicant. They were very forthright and willing to show him what they had in mind. Ives said the parking lot for the apartments on the Clarks' property was sloped to drain into the Apehouse LC property and down the sensitive slope. At the far edge of the ridge line at the edge of the parking lot there was a storm sewer opening. It was obvious that it was not getting any water. The grading and sloping of the parking lot was such that it threw the water directly onto the Apehouse property, which had become the collection point for rainwater from the surrounding properties. That issue needed to be addressed and the drain made functional. Ives said the University had recently remodeled their Parklawn Apartments into a dormitory for freshmen which would be put into use in Fall, 2002. That building was located just up the street to the north on Riverside Drive. As indicated in several photos, the sidewalk was covered with water from that property down to the corner of River Street. Ives said that area would be a major foot traffic path for students in the future and he urged the Commission to require that the stormwater coming off this property and the adjacent property be tied into the storm sewer rather than allowed to continue to erode the slope, wash onto the sidewalk and street. It would freeze and thaw and presented hazards for pedestrians and motor vehicles. John Shaw, architect for the applicant Shaw said in regard to Ives' concerns, they would tie it into the storm sewer, it was a very simple thing to do. With respect to concerns that the building would become a dam, they would not design a building that would be a dam because they did not want a building that was a dam. Shaw said it would give their building problems if it was retaining water up-grade. The building would be designed so the water would flow around it They would provide the required tilidg and necessary drainage. Public discussion was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 6 Bovbjerg said the Commission had two options: defer if parties were interested in having more information, and more discussion among all the interested parties. If the applicant did not wish to defer, the Commission would have to vote on it yet that evening. Bovbjerg asked the applicant if they were interested in deferring the vote. Peterson said up to the present time that evening, they had not yet heard any discussion among the members of the Commission itself. He would like to ask each of the Commission members to summarize where they were at on the issue. Bovbjerg said ordinarily they did not discuss until there was a motion on the floor. Bovbjerg suggested that Peterson might like to ask the Commission if they wished to have more information. Also, that there seemed to be a concern regarding the issues raised by the neighbors, and if the applicants wished to discuss among themselves if they would be more comfortable waiting until some of the issues were resolved. Peterson said a possibility that had been mentioned was approval with conditions. That would be agreeable with Apehouse, LC. They wished to have the matter handled as soon as possible. Peterson said he had no indication as to what the conditions would be nor what the Commission was thinking about that option. Bovbjerg asked the Commissioners what their feeling were about 'subject to's' or deferral Hansen said he felt Apehouse's frustrations too. The Commissioners also got information at the last minute. What they had been given had been proven to be wrong. Hansen said he was uncomfortable putting conditions on when the conditions might or might not be met. If they knew exactly what the conditions would be, he might be more comfortable about it. He was uncomfortable with the drainage plan and felt it needed more work. Was it possible to get a plan that would work? It should have been worked out and had not been. Chair said the conditions of doing a good job and making everyone happy were way too big. Historically the kinds of detail that had been reviewed by Staff and the Commission were significantly more intricate in terms of cubic feet, size of pipe, locations and how things would be done. Chait said he felt the concerns were significant, his sentiment was they should figure out a way to make it work. What he was hearing was that the Commission did not have a problem with the project, but making drainage work. Based on that Chair said a deferral would serve the greater interest in moving the application forward. Petersen said that they had been told at the informal meeting that the application had been reviewed by City engineering and was approved. He had not found out any different until 1:15 pm that day, that was not time to resolve anything. The items could easily have been resolved if they had had more time. They had stood ready all along to provide more information, make or modify plans but they could not work miracles on such short notice. Hansen said if he was put on the spot that evening that he had to vote on the item, he would be very uncomfortable in saying yes to the project, even though he would like to see the project work. Bovbjerg said Apehouse's continuing to work with the neighbors, doing their own research and sharing that information with everyone was very helpful. The Commission did not like to approve things that were headed for disaster. Bovbjerg asked Staff where a deferral to the next meeting of 6/20/02, would put the project relative to City Council review. McCafferty said it was set for Council review on 7/2/02, so a deferral and voting at the next meeting would allow it to continue on schedule. Chair asked the applicant if they were willing to waive the 45-day limit. Peterson said they would defer until the meeting of 6/20/02. Motion: Shannon 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 (SOA-RNC-20) for a .41-acre property located at 341 N. Riverside Drive, to June 20, 2002. Chait seconded the motion Anciaux said it appeared some of the concerns were related to the City storm water system. He asked if the Commission or Staff would look at and try to rectify the problems. McCafferty said they would ask Public Works to address that issue. Anciaux said it appeared to him that the whole thing, instead of running down the hill, should be tied into the storm sewer in the middle of the road, travel down, and then be tied into a storm water at the base of the hill instead of running down the sidewalk. Larry Schnittjer said there were no storm sewer p~pes ~n Riverside Drive 13ovbjerg said this was a serious matter for the City and should not just be signed off by the Engineering Department. To not tie it in would be a dereliction of duty. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 7 Shannon asked McCafferty if in fact there would be some plan of exactly what the City was going to do or would they just review the issue. It was important to know what the City was going to do, then the Commission could go forward with their decision. Miklo said they could not promise a plan from Public Works in the next couple of weeks, but they could ask them to address the concerns that had been raised. Miklo said they were aware of them and it was his understanding from City engineers that there were plans to improve the storm sewer that ran to the south of this property in Summer, 2003. Bovbjerg asked that it be noted in the minutes that Public Works look very seriously to addressing and relieving this problem for the whole area. Freerks said she did not want to be at the same point on June 20th with questions to a lot of unanswered questions. Bovbjerg agreed saying, "Or in October when another project comes before the Commission." Hansen said they might end up at the same point if it was a capital improvement project, because no one knew what Council would do with the budget. Chait asked Behr to address an issue. He said everyone knew that you could not dump water onto your neighbor's property. There were 3.5 acres of property dumping water through this property. If the development of the property could manage the water that was coming onto and through their property, what would be the responsibility of the owner of the property? What were the development rights of the property that happened to be a ravine whether it had been that way for 100 years or not. Behr said the SAC required that a grading plan be submitted that was in compliance with the grading ordinance. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices to be constructed with the proposed grading work, a map showing the drainage areas and the estimated runoff for a 5-year return and a 100- year flood event of the area served by any drains to be installed were required. That took into consideration any pre-existing problems. Behr said if someone had diverted a natural drainage way, they might have recourse against someone else in a civil matter. In compliance with the grading ordinance, they had to deal with the land the way it lay. Chair said the Commission often approved property for zoning or annexation knowing that City services were not there yet. It would be a possibility that the capital budget and improvements from the City's end might not happen for a while, certainly not in two weeks, but the possibility existed that down the road something might happen that would work well to integrate and resolve the concerns. Bovbjerg said an urging to Public Works and the Council would be possible. It was quite a big obligation to manage water for 3.5 acres, when all the applicant was proposing to develop was less than one-half of an acre. With respect to stormwater issues, Behr said the review at the next meeting would be on whether or not the applicant's grading plan complied with the Grading Ordinance and the stormwater requirements within the ordinance. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Bovbjerg asked if any of the Commissioners wished to phrase an urging to the Engineering department. Miklo said Staff would share the minutes with the City Engineering department. REZ02-00005, discussion of an application submitted by William Buss for a rezoning to designate a Historic Landmark on 3 acres located at 747 West Benton Street. McCafferty presented Staff report. She said the property had been looked at earlier in the year for a rezoning and had recently been rezoned from Medium Density Multifamily Residential (RM-20) to Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). The applicant had applied for a historic overlay zone to designate the entire property as a historic landmark. The Historic Preservation Commission had reviewed the application and determined it met the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The State Historic Preservation Society was currently reviewing the property. Staff was waiting to receive a report from them. McCafferty said the Commission's role was not to determine the historic merits of the particular piece of property, but to determine whether it met the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. McCafferty said the Preservation Plan was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan stated in its neighborhood housing goals that it supported the preservation of existing neighborhoods McCafferty said Staff felt the rezoning was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Before a vote on the application could occur, it was necessary to have the recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 8 the State in hand. Staff recommended the rezoning of 747 W. Benton Street from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Historic Preservation Overlay (RS-8/OHP) be deferred pending recommendations from the State Historic Society of Iowa. Hansen asked if the property actually had an easement on it. McCafferty said she had distributed a letter from Mary Hitchcock, which protested the application stating it perhaps had an easement on it. McCafferty had also distributed a letter from Phil Left, attorney for William Buss, who had researched the property and determined there was no easement. Bovbjerg asked for a clarification regarding the last paragraph of Left's letter. Did it mean that Hitchcock's claim that there was an easement was not applicable or had they looked at it and found there to be no easement? McCafferty said it appeared Left's information was based on the abstract and title. Legally, in terms of an easement, that information should show up on that document. Bovbjerg asked if it were not found in the title search, then it would not have any bearing and, also, could the easement have been put there and never made it into the abstract? McCafferty said at this time Staff did not feel that the easement would be something that they would be using in the future. There were no development plans which would use that easement, and Staff did not have any indication where Hitchcock got the information regarding the easement. Miklo said Staff had spoken with Jeff Davidson, City Transportation Planner. Davidson said even if there was an easement, there was very poor sight distance in that area and he would not recommend a street in that location. Freerks asked Miklo to get Davidson's recommendation in writing for the next meeting. McCafferty said there could be some other type of easement, but that should not impact the Commission's decision. Anciaux asked why these items came before the Commission, when they came straight from the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission had no reason to comment on them. They were to review the properties, not on their historical merits, but whether they fit the Comprehensive Plan and what was in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there was some way the P&Z Commission could suggest that certain properties might be better served by having the process done privately. McCafferty said a situation might occur in which the City had urban renewal plans or other plans in which the Commission would want to deny the landmark because of the restrictions that would be put on that particular property. Anciaux agreed that would inconvenience the City, but would it also not inconvenience the next owner of the property. Freerks said they should hear from the applicant, but it was her guess that the current owner of the property had been stewards of the property and wished to ensure that the next owner would continue to steward the property. Miklo said, for example, if there were an easement on this property for a road and the City had plans for a road through this property, and it was in the Comprehensive Plan, then the Commission might wish to consider turning down a landmark designation. He said Items of this type came before the Commission, not to determine if they were historic or not, but to determine if there were City plans that the designation did or did not conflict with. Miklo said an example would be the Harmon Building on the corner of Iowa Avenue and Linn Street. Even though the Historic Preservation Commission found it to be historic, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended against landmark designation due to the City's plans to redevelop that half-block. Public discussion was opened. William Buss, 747 W. Benton Street, said when he purchased the property in 1968, Left had given him an opinion of the property and did not think there was an easement on it then. Nothing had shown up in the abstract or title, and he did not know what Hitchcock was talking about. Buss said he assumed if there was an easement, that Hitchcock would show them documentation of the easement. Hansen asked when the house was built. Buss said in 1905. The house was currently for sale, but had not been sold yet. Buss said it was his understanding that the historic landmark designation was a desirable thing. It would give the home a special status that he felt the home deserved It wou~d also benefit the neighborhood. Public discussion was closed Bovbjerg asked Buss if he would waive the 45-day limitation period to June 20, 2002 Buss agreed, but requested that it be moved forward as soon as possible Motion: Shannon made a motion to defer REZ02-00005, an application submitted by William Buss for a rezoning to designate a Historic Landmark on 3 acres located at 747 W Benton Street, to June 20, 2002. Koppes seconded the motio~ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 9 Hansen asked what were the implications if the Commission voted to approve the application, then someone purchased the property and wanted to cut it into lots. Miklo said the Historic Preservation Overlay did not affect subdivision of property. However, any new construction on the new lots would have to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission through their design review process. An example of that situation had occurred on Summit Street. A property was split in two, the existing house was retained and a new duplex was built on the adjacent lot with the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Miklo said the southern portion of Buss' lot was fairly steep, rugged, wooded, and might not be all that conducive to subdivision. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ02-00007, discussion of an application submitted by Gringer Properties LLC for a rezoning from General Industrial (I-1) to Intensive Commercial (C1-1) for 1.34-acres located west of Riverside Drive and south of Commercial Drive. Adam presented Staff report. He said the applicant had requested the rezoning because he was having trouble leasing the property under its current zoning. Adam said the Commission should consider whether the proposed rezoning fit in with the Comprehensive Plan and with the South Central District Plan for the surrounding land uses. Adam said the north 1/3 of the property was not developed. There was a building on the lower 2/3 of the property which currently contained two uses. Changing the zoning would not create non-conforming uses for the two existing businesses on the property. Adam said the change in zoning from I-1 to C1-1 was not a fundamental change, it was a change in intensity of uses. It would be a downzoning of some degree. Adam said there were three issues that were related to the rezoning that Staff recommended be attached as conditions. 1) Engineering staff noted there was an unresolved issue concerning locations of sewer and water easements from a 1997 site plan. There exact locations had never been determined. Staff requested that revised and accurate water and sewer easements be given. 2) Pursuant to Article N, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff recommended requiring the applicant to pave the parking area in the improved portion of his property prior to a change in use of the property or further redevelopment of the property. 3) The Comprehensive and South District Plans called for buffering with vegetation any public right of way, any part and parcel that was viewable from the public right-of-way. Staff requested that when the property was redeveloped or there was a change in use, the applicant be required to plant trees and/or shrubbery along the west and northwest sides of the property line, which were visible from Highway 921 (old Hwy 218). Adam said Staff recommended that REZ02-00007., an application submitted by Gringer Properties LLC for a rezoning from General Industrial (I-1) to Intensive Commercial (C1-1) for 1.34-acres located west of Riverside Drive and south of Commercial Drive, be approved subject to the three conditions listed above. Hansen asked if the autobody shop that had located into the building approximately three weeks ago would be sufficient to activate the parking lot paving requirement? Miklo said it would be. Bovbjerg asked since the building was divided into 4 usable sections, if only one section changed would just that area of the parking lot have to be paved or would the entire lot have to be paved? Adam said it was one building divided into four commercial spaces. The entire parking lot belonged to the building so the entire lot would have to be paved. Public discussion was opened. Don Gringer, 3536 Highway 1, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission had. There were no questions. Gringer said he had a paper dated 9/9/98, from his attorney at that time, Chuck Mullen, to the City of Iowa City, which stated, "1 am enclosing herewith two permanent sanitary sewer easements and two temporary construction easements." Adam said he had spoken with Denny Oannon regarding the easements. Gannon said he was not aware of the easements, but would continue to look into it. Gringer said he did not understand the requested buffer zone on the north. Did the City want him to close it off and make it not visible from the highway. Adam said the tree requirement called for one tree of a small size every 20-feet or one tree of a large size every 35-feet. Miklo said what they were suggesting was some type of screening, such as Iow growing shrubbery in addition to the trees so it was not totally blocked [rom view, but the aesthetics were improved Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page10 Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ02-0000'~, an application submitted by Gringer Properties LLC for a rezoning from General Industrial (I-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) for 1.34-acres located west of Riverside Drive and south of Commercial Drive to June 20, 2002. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ02-0000~, discussion of an application submitted by Christian Retirement Services, Inc. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) and Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) to Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-20) to allow 40-50 elder congregate housing units on 2.12 acres located north of Benton Street and east of George Street. Yapp said the property was currently occupied by seven single-family houses and a small parking area serving Oaknoll. Oaknoll had applied to rezone the property for two reasons: 1) they planned to reconstruct a parking area at the northwest corner of their site and needed part of the property currently zoned RS-8 to serve as an access drive for that parking area. 2) Oaknoll desired to commit to a design plan for future expansion of the Oaknoll facility which would occur in approximately five years. Yapp said the Planned Development Housing zoning would require adherence to the design plan approved by the City. Yapp said the proposed facility would be 43 units along with accessory facilities such as meeting rooms, a swimming pool and a chapel. Staff's main concern with the rezoning was compatibility with the single family neighborhood to the west. Oaknoll had attempted to address the compatibility issue through the design of the structure. The three modules that would front on George Street would be one story in height, similar to the one story homes across the street, before stepping up to three stories further back from the lot line. Yapp said the majority of visitors to the facility would use the Benton Street access. There was a new access proposed onto George Street primarily for residents and employees of the facility. Because the residents of an elderly housing facility and the employees would not generate much traffic, Staff did not feel that vehicular traffic on George Street would be a concern. However, the proposed use of the George Street entrance for truck traffic was a concern that Staff had expressed to the Commission on Monday evening. Truck traffic using local residential streets had been an issue in other parts of the City and had generated complaints from residents. This is evidence that truck traffic on a residential street can impact the quality of life for residents. Yapp said it was his understanding from the applicant that they were looking at redesigning that truck access location. Staff had not received those changes yet, but the applicant would explain it further in public discussion. Yapp noted a 5-year chronology of recent zoning and special exceptions by Oaknoll for the Commission's reference. Yapp said Staff recommended deferral of REZ02-0000~, an application submitted by Christian Retirement Services, Inc. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) and Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) to Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-20) to allow 40-50 elder congregate housing units on 2.12 acres located north of Benton Street and east of George Street, while further revisions were made to the George Street facade of the facility and truck traffic issues were addressed. Public discussion was opened. Robert Downer, 122 South Linn Street, attorney for Christian Retirement Services, owner of Oaknoll Retirement Residence. Downer said with respect to the truck traffic coming off George Street, the reason why the initial plans provided for access and receiving into the complex with a new access drive on George Street was because there was a considerable elevation change as the property sloped from south to north. The plan had been to have the deliveries go in at the level of George Street because Oakcrest Street was 12-15 feet lower in elevation. Downer said they thought there was possibly a way of getting access into the new facility from Oakcrest Street for shipments. One entrance on Oakcrest Street and three entrances on George Street that currently existed would be closed. There would be only one driveway on each of those streets Oaknoll felt this would facilitate the flow of traffic on George Street and also create additional on-street parking. Downer said at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors indicated they were very desirous of retaining the on-street parking on George Street Downer said Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 11 Oaknoll hoped to obtain action on this application at the June 20, 2002 meeting so the matter could proceed forward. Even though it was a long range, 5-year plan, there was one element that was needed at this time. A two-level parking structure is planned to be constructed in the fall. Downer said they needed to know by some time in August if they were not going to be able to gain access across a small lot of land currently zoned RS-8, otherwise damages would have to be paid to the contractor hired to construct the two-level parking facility at the northwest corner of the lot. Hansen asked about the time of day and the number of deliveries that would be forthcoming. Downer said they were set fodh in the Staff Report. The deliveries were not of great frequency and would be in vans or straight trucks. There would be one delivery per week by Hawkeye Foods in a small semi-truck, one delivery per week by Martin Brothers in a larger semi-truck and a once a month delivery of maintenance supplies in a semi-truck. Milk would be delivered on a daily basis, and bread and beverages are delivered a few times a week in smaller delivery trucks. Hansen asked why Oaknoll had not tried to access the delivery area off of Benton Street. Downer said that was essentially at the side of the complex where those facilities would not be located. The food service and central administrative areas were at the core of the complex. What was located along Benton Street were all residential areas. If the food service area were moved, it would involve some of the residents having to walk approximately three blocks for meals. Mark Anderson, architect, Shive-Hattery Engineers, said over the years, Oaknoll had always had an issue with image and where their front door was located. Currently to get to the front door, a person had to navigate down Qaknoll Drive and tuck back into a corner. One of the goals of the overall master plan was to give Oaknoll a new front door image off of Benton Court. To have a loading dock function there did not fit the front door image they were looking for. Anderson said he had been working with the Oaknoll facility for the past eight years. The master plan had started approximately eight years ago and what was being discussed was the culmination of what they had been working toward for that period of time. The core (middle) of the facility housed the administrative area, the chapel, the dining area, dietary and other functions. Anderson said from a design standpoint, and it had also been Oaknoll's goal, was to keep the same kind of character on George Street, residential in nature. The residents of Oaknoll also wanted a facility that felt residential in nature and not institutional. To do that, the building was stepped back from the street line and lower one story portions had been created. Those were then stepped back to the three story portion of the proposed facility. The higher portion of the proposed facility was designed to step up at the back of the current houses that were there. They were looking at ways of improving the scale of facade that was there by use of trellises and sloping roofs to break down the three story element. Anderson said, regarding the desire to maintain truck access off of Oakcrest Street, the row of arborvitaes at the northwest corner of the site would be lost during construction and new ones would be planted after construction was completed. All of the existing trees along George Street would be maintained during construction and would keep the character of George Street intact. Anderson said they were looking at the concept of creating some type of underground corridor or passageway to get into the lower part of the building, then use elevators or other mechanisms to get the materials up into the level of the building where they would be used. It would add cost to the project. They hoped by the next meeting to have something in greater detail to address those concerns. Hansen said Oakcrest Street was a considerably wider street than George Street due to no parking along the Oaknoll frontage and would be easier for the semi-trucks to negotiate~ Anderson said currently some deliveries were taken at the front door due to the construction that was in process. The bulk of the deliveries had previously been received by trucks backing into the facility and it had been a logistical nightmare for the drivers. The proposed dock area would allow the smaller trucks to drive in head first and back out. It was a much more accessible area, Hansen asked if they were going to petition to remove parking from George Street. Anderson said no, at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors had strongly requested that parking not be taken off George Street. If the plan was approved, they might look at limiting parking on both sides of the driveway to accommodate the turning movement of trucks. Anderson said in response to Staff's concerns, they were looking for a way that pup-semis could back into the facility at the lower level and offload. Downer said Pat Heiden of Oaknoll had surveyed the companies that currently made deliveries as to what access routes they followed Nearly everyone who delivered used George Street from the south or Oakcrest from Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 12 the west. They did not use Oakcrest from the east or Oaknoll Drive because of the hills and the curves. Downer said they did not anticipate anything was going to change as far as truck routes were concerned. They were looking for a way for delivery trucks to service the facility off Oakcrest Street as Staff had requested. Bovbjerg asked what would happen to the seven houses on the east side of George Street. Anderson said they would be removed from the site, he didn't know if they would be moved someplace else or simply demolished. Downer said over the years there had been a total of six houses on adjacent lots that Oaknoll had acquired and removed. Five had been moved off site, only one which was a two-story farm house in very bad condition had been demolished. Downer said Oaknoll was currently in negotiations with Habitat for Humanity to take one house as a gift by Oaknoll and remove that home from the site. Downer said a location for that particular home had not been found yet, so he did not know if that exchange would occur. He anticipated that all the remaining houses with the exception of one, whose frame would not support moving the structure, would be moved. Public discussion was opened. Dave Clark, owner of property at the northeast corner of Oakcrest and George Streets. Clark said he did not have objections to the plan. He would like to see the parking removed all together from George Street. The single family neighborhood to the west was comprised mostly of houses that were rented to students, not single families. Clark pointed out two locations where site distance was particularly bad. He said there was not an inordinate amount of truck traffic that came into the facility. Yapp said if there was no safety issue involved, the decision about whether there was or was not parking on a residential street was determined by the property owners on that street. When the City received a request, they did a block by block survey of the property owners, and if the majority desired no on-street parking, the City would put up NO PARKING signs. Dee Duwa, Oakcrest Street, said her objection was to the parking on the streets. If the trucks were proposed to travel on George and Oakcrest Streets, she wished to see daily parking totally eliminated on both streets. Duwa said Oakcrest was already a bus route, and with parking on one side of the street it was very difficult to back out of her driveway. To turn the corner off Benton Street onto George Street would be difficult for trucks to navigate. Football traffic made it nearly impossible to travel those streets. Pat Heiden, Executive Director for Oaknoll, said she wished to clarify that when she was put together the information about vendors, deliveries and truck sizes, she had gained an appreciation for the vehicles used. Approximately 12 vendors made deliveries from twice-weekly to once a month. The vehicle size ranged from U-Haul size to a semi truck that was 53-foot in length. The majority were cab style with a 28- 30 foot trailer, not the large semi trucks, Deliveries currently occurred from 7:00 - 9:00 am. The delivery trucks entered off Benton Street onto George Street down to Oakcrest Street or from the west using Mormon Trek or Melrose Avenue onto Oakcrest Street. Heiden said with the increase of 48 independent living apartments, they did not expect a large increase in deliveries, even thought there would be more persons eating in the dining room. Bovbjerg said the Commission has heard prior concerns related to truck traffic when a large grocery store was proposed near the edge of a residential area. Miklo said there had been a gentleman's agreement in terms of which street HyVee Food Store on First Avenue would use to bring in truck traffic, but the agreement had not been successful. There was nothing written nor legally binding for that particular situation. Miklo said in the present case, the concerns could be addressed through a conditional zoning agreement, but it would be difficult to enforce. That is why Staff preferred the loading areas be off of Oakcrest Street. Public discussion was closed Motion: Shannon made a motion to defer REZ02-00009, an application submitted by Christian Retirement Services, Inc. for a rezomng from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) and Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) to Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-20) to allow 40-50 elder congregate housing units on 212 acres located north of Benton Street and east of George Street to June 20, 2002 Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7 0 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 13 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 the applicant had requested a deferral to June 20, 2002. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer REZ02-00002/SUB02-00009, to June 20, 2002. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ02-00006/SUB02-00008, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington LC. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge, part 16, a 31 .l-acre, 10-lot subdivision located north of Camden Road and south of Lower West Branch Road. McCafferty said the applicant proposed to put 186 units on this particular lot, 33 townhouse-style units, three 12-plex buildings, and 110 duplex-style units. In 1995 the parcel had been rezoned from Low- Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Medium-Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). As part of the rezoning there was a conditional zoning agreement (CZA) which required an OPDH plan at the time it was to be developed. The Commission would look at whether or not the design met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood design concepts. McCafferty said the Comprehensive Plan had a number of neighborhood design concepts that needed to be reviewed. Neiqhborhood Commercial: The proposed plan did not contain neighborhood commercial, but one was planned within a short distance to the northwest. That was not an issue with this particular plat. Housing Diversity/Compatibility: The Comprehensive Plan stressed the importance of quality design for multi-family development when it was integrated into lower-density neighborhoods. Staff felt the use of townhouse-style units to transition from apartments to duplex-style units was a good solution. The exception was there was a parking lot behind the apartment units which still needed additional buffering. Efficient and Compact Desiqn: The proposed plan would result in a density of approximately 7.5 dwelling units per acre, which was more dense than a conventional RS-8 zoning of 5-6 units per acre. Interconnected Streets: The applicant had proposed a modified grid pattern, with three north-south streets proposed. The trail from Stone Bridge Estates would be extended to the east so it connected at Anna Street. Staff had requested that the trail be wide, have a wide right-of-way and landscaping be used to demarcate the entrance to the trail. Streetscape and Pedestrian-Orientation: The applicant had been working with Staff and had proposed public and private tree-lined streets and landscaping all around the town square. The duplex units had front-loading garages. The applicant had added front porches to a number of the units and designed a unit specifically for this development which would have a front porch and garage located approximately 4- feet behind the face of the entry to de-emphasize it. McCafferty said Staff had an issue with Lot #9. The townhouses faced to the rear yard/property line rather than the street. Pubic Works and Staff were concerned that locating these addresses would be difficult for both emergency personnel and the public. With respect to Code items, McCafferty said the density fit within the RS-8 zone. Stormwater management would be provided and would be developed as neighborhood ponds. A variation would be needed to allow apartments in the OPDH-8 zone; a dimensional variation in the required distance between the principle buildings would be necessary; a variation would be needed to permit multiple duplex- and townhouse-style units on the same lot as well as three 12-plex apartment buildings; and a variation in width of Churchill and Broadmore Lanes to be 25-feet wide rather than the standard 28-feet wide. Outlot A, .76 acres, had been dedicated as open space. Based upon the density of the development, the requirement would be 1.34 acres. A deficit of .58 acres of open space would need to be Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 14 addressed. The applicant would also be responsible for improvements to Lower West Branch Road (LWBR). The costs for the improvements had been calculated to be $3,122 per acre. Public Works established the cost for improvements to LWBR to be $500 per foot. The traffic on LWBR was projected to be one-half arterial traffic and one-half to be collector traffic from the adjacent developments. The $500 was divided in half, and the applicant would only be required to pay for improvements to LWBR from the center line to the south. McCafferty said in general the proposed plan complied with many of the neighborhood design principles contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the next meeting, Staff anticipated receiving elevations on the multi-family buildings. Staff recommended REZ02-00006/SUB02-00008, an application submitted by Arlington LC. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge, part 16, a 31.1-acre, 10-lot subdivision located north of Camden Road and south of Lower West Branch Road be deferred. Upon resolution of the deficiencies noted in Staff's report, Staff would recommend approval. Hansen asked how many bedrooms were located in the 12-plex units. McCafferty said they were two bedroom apadments. Public discussion was opened. Gary Watts, Arlington Development, Inc. said there were approximately 300 acres in Windsor Ridge and the vicinity. In the existing Windsor Ridge, there were 276 single family lots, 200 had been sold for $250,000 - $700,000. Within the CN-1 zoned area at the end of Court Street there would be some neighborhood commercial. A 3.5-acre park would be located within the neighborhood commercial area. 38-acres of open space currently existed in Windsor Ridge, 2 fishing ponds, and 4.5 miles of interconnected trails which were heavily used. The condominiums on Camden Road; town-houses, single-story homes and ranch style homes in the area were selling in the price range of $77,000 - $185,000. The 160 single family lots, 60-feet by 130-feet, located in the Stonebridge area were in the price range of $185,000 - $230,000. Watts said they worked closely with Staff for this project. They had provided an information packet to the Commission, which showed the eight different types of housing proposed for this area which were of varying elevations and provided housing diversity for the public to enjoy. The ranch style, single-story homes proposed to be located in this area were projected to attract retirees, elderly persons, empty nesters or first-time home buyers. Price range would be $139,000 - $200,000. Ranch designs built on a slab without steps and ranch designs with a raised garage and floors poured straight through, also with no steps, were also proposed. They had been found to be particularly attractive to an older crowd or for wheel-chair access. Watts said it was extremely good of the City and Staff to be proactive in the development of LWBR. That would help to promote the area and future developments in that area. Watts said they would have additional design changes to be presented at the next Commission meeting. Koppes asked how much of the dedicated open space would actually be open city park space. Watts said they had written a letter to Terry Trueblood to give parts 9 and 10 to the City. However, the City would not accept the open space until 90% of the homes were developed and had their yards in. Shannon asked Watts if he still planned to build four 18-plex buildings at Arlington and Court Streets. Watts said their goal had been to have it as a retirement center. Marketing analysis had shown that the cost to build versus sale price, would not make it a profitable venture. At present, they were sitting on that land. He said they hoped to eventually attract a retirement or assisted living center to the area Bovbjerg said she had several concerns with the project. It was very dense, there were very few areas that were truly open. One of the proposed green areas would retain water. She would like to see replacement of what would truly be usable open space to the south, east and west. Bovbjerg also had a concern with two of the roads being private instead of public. She said narrow private streets caused problems for the City in plowing and with private repairs. If and when the streets became City property, there were problems with width and construction of the streets. Bovbjerg said the construction of 12-plex apartments was pushing urban development where it was essentially suburban development and she had the same concern with the townhouses that were very garage appearing. Bovbjerg said the northern part was very crowded. She would like to see the area as essentially all duplexes with a few townhouses What was proposed was overwhelming for this property and for the two adjacent properties. Watts said Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 15 with respect to open space, residents could hop on the trails and find open space as they went south. The town square to the north would go on to the adjacent property and become a very large square. The City wanted the square to slow down traffic, it was to become a collector street. The trails had a very wide easement and there would be 44-feet of open space between the units to try to address the issue. Watts said they were working with Staff to change the design concept so the garages were not so prevalent. The 12-plex units on the town square were a good way to frame the square. They had a town-house type of look, as did all the buildings which framed the square. Watts said there was density on the site. The trails, Scott Park and golf course near by gave people ample space to enjoy. Bovbjerg said under planned development, there would be tradeoffs between the City and the developer. She felt the City had to be clear about what they were getting and what they were giving up. Bevbjerg said she felt they were giving up more than they were getting. She wanted to see a very good reason for some of the requested variations. Watts said Staff and the City, from 1993 - 1995, did not want to have everything inside Windsor Ridge being $300,000 - $750,000 houses. They wanted diversity in housing stock. When Court Street was extended and Watts knew the City was willing to work with him, he had gone back to Council to get the various zones. City Council had been very strong on diversity of housing. Watts said he heard all the time, 'it depended on the site'. What he needed from a marketing standpoint and what he felt would sell was the ranch-style single story house. The three 12-plex units gave diversity of housing stock, a different kind of product and were framed on a square that would be double the size that was shown. Watts said they were going on what they were told when they had the zoning at RS-8 back in 1995 or 1996. Freerks said she saw the deficit of open space as a problem as well, but did not see the 12-plexes as being a problem. The Commission talked about diversity of housing and having different types of people living together. Freerks said this was an effort to try to accomplish that, but the lack of open space bothered her. Hansen said the Comprehensive Plan stated that no more than 24 units should be located at any given intersection. The proposed plan had 3-buildings (36 units) sandwiched between two connected streets. How would that be addressed? Hansen said his biggest concern was also the open space and Outlet A being so small. Hansen asked if Staff had looked into what the open space deficit was in that area. Miklo said there was no deficit, given Scott Park and the potential for additional open space. Staff would calculate it again, but usually where they ran into deficits was in the already developed neighborhoods. Hansen asked if the duplexes were rentals or for purchase. Watts said for purchase. Watts said their market was for more of an older crowd, empty nesters and the elderly who did not desire stairs. The young families would locate in Stonebridge and into Manchester. Windsor Ridge had a lot of families with young children, they used the trails all the time. Hansen said when he heard $140,000 for an affordable house, that seemed to be more for entry level young couples raising children who wanted to live in a nice neighborhood. Watts said he felt the school site would revert back to them in 2005. The lC School District was looking to the west and north and toward Coralville and North Liberty. Miklo said Staff would provide numbers in terms of acreage of open space versus population and how that compared to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the next Commission meeting. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer REZ02-00006/SUB02-00008, an application submitted by Arlington L.C. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge, part 16, a 31.1-acre, 10-lot subdivision located north of Camden Road and south of Lower West Branch Road to June 20, 2002. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 REZ02-00008/SUB02-00010 discussion of an application submitted by NICK Partners for rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) to allow 23 single-family lots and 13 townhouse style residential units and the preliminary plat of Village Green, Part Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 16 XXII, a 9.31-acre 24-1ot residential subdivision located west of Scott Boulevard and north of Wellington Drive. Miklo said this property was the last vacant portion of Village Green. In the past there had been concern expressed on the part of the Commission that most of the newer parts of Village Green had consisted solely of attached condominiums and the Commission wished to see more diversity. The applicant had proposed an OPDH-5 in order to allow some of the lots to be slightly narrower, 55-57 feet wide, than the normal 60-foot required width. When the lots became 50 feet wide or less, it became a concern, because on narrow lots, with the required setbacks and a two car garage, more than one-half of the lot was taken up with the garage. Miklo said for these lots, that was not a concern. The proposed Lot #24 would consist of 13 townhouse-style attached condominiums in two-unit buildings and one three-unit building, centered around a landscaped area with 10 off-street parking spaces. An 80-foot yard/buffer between the proposed condominium units and Scott Boulevard landscaped with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees to create a buffer had been recommended to the applicant as a condition of approval because the lots were double fronting, meaning they had addresses on one street and a rear on another. A 4-foot landscape buffer was proposed for the single family lots that back onto Scott Boulevard. Miklo said the open space fees were paid at the time of the previous approvals for Village Green. There would be no sanitary sewer tap on fee. There would be a water main extension fee of $395 per acre. Miklo said they had received a revised plan on Friday which complied with all the regulations. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ02-00008/SUB02-0001q, an application submitted by NICK Partners for rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) to allow 23 single-family lots and 13 townhouse style residential units and the preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXII, a 9.31-acre 24-1ot residential subdivision located west of Scott Boulevard and north of Wellington Drive including the variations mentioned. Miklo suggested because it was a rezoning, the Commission defer the item to the June 20, 2002 meeting. Koppes asked if the trees along Scott Boulevard could be cut down once the lots were sold. Miklo said they could, but probably the property owners would not want to. That could be addressed by an easement which stated the trees had to remain in place along Scott Boulevard. A similar buffer had been required along Sycamore Street and an easement was put into place that required that the trees remain in place and also prohibited a fence. Miklo said that easement was currently not part of the proposal. If the Commission wished to do so, they could require such an easement. Koppes requested that an easement be added to the plat. Bovbjerg said she had inquired about a berm. Dirt would have to be moved around anyhow, screening was valuable so a berm would be even more valuable. They had been effectively used in suburban and semi-suburban areas outside Chicago. Miklo asked if there was a majority of the Commission who wished to pursue a berm as a condition of approval. The majority affirmed. Public discussion was opened. Carol Winter, 1550 Somerset Lane, asked questions regarding the townhouse section. She said a street traveling north appeared to dead-end in Lots 5 and 6 with no apparent turn-around Miklo said the fire department had reviewed the plat and did not ask for a turn-around. He thought that was because it was a fairly shod street and after the loop, only served 3 or 4 dwelling units. Winter asked if the townhouses would have single or double garages. Miklo said they would be double garages. Winter said she was concerned about putting the most densely populated area next to Scott Boulevard and Wellington Drive. Scott Boulevard was already a very busy arterial and Wellington Drive was turning into a very high-speed speedway for students. Winter said she had walked the area and was very familiar with it. To the very west part of the development there appeared to a storm sewer or culvert with water running through it. Children had placed boards across the creek so they could play there. Winter asked if the oak, maple and cottonwood trees could be preserved, as they were the only mature trees on the 9-acre plot. Winter said her best idea would be to flip-flop the plan, recoofiguring it so all the traffic would not be going in / out of the townhouse area so close to the intersection of Scott Boulevard Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said he did not have a problem with an easement for landscaping so long as it was worded so that dead trees could be replaced. Schnittjer said the client had initially asked him if he thought a berm would work there Schnittjer said he did not want to see a dirt wall along Scott Boulevard. A good share of the area drained toward Scott Boulevard, Schnittjer didn't want to see a water Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 17 channel running parallel to Scott Boulevard. In this particular case berms would be problematic. That was the reason he had used evergreen trees instead of shrubs in the landscaping plan. Schnittjer said when the development started a number of years ago, there were no trees there. They had come up in an area that could not be farmed most recently due to the storm sewer that outletted from Village Green, Part 12. The design was such so that all proposed streets lined up with existing streets and drives. He had looked at other alternatives but there was no way to meet the offset requirements for streets of a minimum of 125 feet between intersections. They would be regrading the storm sewer, and channeling the water through pipes until it got to the stormwater basins on the south side of Wellington Drive. He said the trees would have to go, there would be too much happening there in order to save them. Schnittjer said their concept was to put single family next to single family and townhouses across the street from existing townhouses, adjacent to the arterial. Hansen asked Schnittjer to explain further about the drainage on the east side of the property. Schnittjer said if Chamberlin Drive had been extended straight south, instead of angling to the south-west, that whole portion of the land and possibly more to the west, sheet flowed to the south-east to Scott Boulevard. That would be changed with the development. The whole sight sloped toward Wellington. If a berm was built next to Scott Boulevard, a drainage channel would be on the west side of the berm running from Lot 1 down to Wellington. Schnittjer said he did not want that much water running in one spot. Miklo asked if there could be openings in the berm. Schnittjer said that was possible, but there would be additional design considerations and also concerns of whose yard had openings and whose did not. Schnittjer said he did not like planting big trees on a berm as you didn't get the root structure that was obtained on flat ground or a uniform slope. Bovbjerg asked if Schnittjer had planned to plant deciduous trees and evergreens along Scott Boulevard because they would be sturdier with that much water. Aisc, where did the water go -- onto Scott Boulevard? Schnittjer said at his house they had planted 100 saplings in a windbreak. Even though the plantings were 16 feet apart, it created a very nice secluded area. A large number of shrubs were not needed to create a space. Schnittjer said the trees would not change the water sheeting down toward Scott, but would mitigate it some. The back pads of lots 1-4 and 7-13 would obviously head to the south and east. The water would flow onto Scott Boulevard, as it did today. Schnittjer said everyone's front yard from the house to the street flowed toward the street. Miklo said the plan met the City's stormwater management requirements. Miklo said given the discussion, did the Commission wish to pursue the berm. The Commission said they did not wish to pursue the issue. Winter said she wished to speak in defense of Schnittjer's plans to plant deciduous and evergreen trees along Scott Boulevard. North of that area up to Muscatine Avenue, the property owners had installed 6- foot and 8-foot fences which were not attractive. The trees would be much more attractive. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ02-00008/SUB02-00010, an application submitted by NICK Partners for rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) to allow 23 single-family lots and 13 townhouse style residential units and the preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXll, a 9.31-acre 24-1ot residential subdivision located west of Scott Boulevard and north of Wellington Drive to June 20, 2002. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: SUB02*0000~, discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy Hilgenberg Enterprises for an amended preliminary plat and 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 Staff recommended approval subject to Staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to City Council's consideration of the final plat. Public discussion was opened There was none. Public discussion was closed Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 18 Motion: Shannon moved that SUB02-00005 be approved as written subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration of the plat. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUB02-00007, discussion of an application submitted by Jerry and Clarine Halverson for a final plat of Lacina Meadows, a 79.94 acre, 23-1ot residential subdivision located in Johnson County Fringe Area C, west of Dane Road and north of Osage Street SW. Miklo said Staff recommended approval subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council's consideration of the final plat. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks moved that SUB02-00007 be approved subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council's consideration of the final plat. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on e vote of 7-0. VAOATION ITEM: VAG02-00001, discussion of an epplication submitted by Diane Williamson for a vacation of the right-of- way along the frontage of the Oarousel Motors property at 80g HWY 1 West. MikJo said as had been discussed at the informal meeting, Staff had requested that the applieant provide a landscaping plan that showed substantial landscaping in the right-of-way adjacent to Hwy 1, in lieu of a 30-foot lendscape buffer thet had been required of other developments along Highway 1. A landseaping plan had been submitted by the applicant that included burning bushes, day lilies and some tree dusters. Miklo said Staff did not feel the plan addressed the spirit and intent of what Staff was trying to achieve. Therefore, Staff recommended deferral of the item to allow the applicant time to provide a more intensive landscaping plan. He said if the Commission felt the lendsoaping plan was sufficient, they could recommend that the Oity goun¢il approve the vecetion. ghait asked if the Gommission could simply deny the application. Miklo said it would end the whole process, he would recommend deferrel. If they did not come back with a better plan, then the OommJssion eould deny the applioation. Bovbjerg $eid if the item was denied, it would also entail more money for re-submittal. Public disou$$ion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: C;hait moved to defer VAO02-00001 to ,June 20, 2002 to allow the applicent more time to submit a revised more intensive Jandsoaping plan. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MAY 16, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: An¢iaux made a motion to accept the minutes as printed and c:orrected. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Page '~9 ADJOURNMENT: Anciaux made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 pm. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill