Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-26 Bd Comm minutes3b 1 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2008 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS EXCUSED: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. Miklo introduced Christina Kuecker, a new Associate Planner who has been with the City for a few months. Kuecker started as a part-time planner in January and began working full-time in May. Kuecker has a Bachelor of Architecture from Iowa State University, and a Master's in City Planning from the University of Iowa. Kuecker will be working 20 hours per week dealing with historic preservation issues, and 20 hours on planning and zoning matters. This is Kuecker's first planning and zoning case. REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00005/SU608-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Ike Akabogu for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone and an 11-lot residential subdivision for approximately .88 acres of property at 442, 446, & 452 Benton Street and 719 & 723 Michael Street. The 45-day limitation period is August 7, 2008. Kuecker explained that the application is to rezone the corner of Michael and Benton Street to a high- density single-family (RS-12) zone. The plan calls for attached single-family townhouses. The intention is to tear down the five existing single-family structures to construct a 6-unit, a 2-unit, and a 3-unit townhome, which would be on 11 individual lots. The neighborhood currently consists of medium-density multi-family and medium-density single-family residential. The Comprehensive and Southwest District Plans designate this area as single-family residential or duplexes. Previously, the applicant had submitted an application to rezone the upper two parcels on Michael Street to Medium Density Multi- Family (RM-20). That application was denied because it was not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Under the current zoning of RS-8, it is possible to further subdivide the land into six or seven lots, provided there is an alley or rear driveway. With the new RS-12 zoning, the applicant would be able to have a smaller lot-area minimum and would therefore be able to get a maximum of 11 attached family houses. The Southwest District Plan had expressed concern about the future loss of the smaller, more affordable homes in the neighborhood, and the plan does make an effort to stabilize and revitalize the Miller-Orchard neighborhood by encouraging rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. The houses on these lots are quite small and without basements. It is not necessarily feasible that those lots, even if rehabbed, would be appealing to modern households. Freerks said she believed some of them did have basements based on the documentation. Kuecker clarified that the units along Benton Street did not have basements. She believes it is feasible to think that redevelopment could give the opportunity to build new homes that have amenities that longer-term tenants or owner-occupied households would desire. Kuecker said that staff sees merit in this rezoning because the new construction may be more attractive to long-term renters or homebuyers than the current houses. But staff is not convinced that the 6-unit building on the northern edge would fit into the topography and be compatible with the other houses in the Planning and Zoning Commission July 14, 2008 -Informal Page 2 neighborhood. Obviously, Kuecker said, amulti-family structure will be larger than the other single-family structures in the neighborhood. There could be some adjustments to scale, fenestration, landscaping that could make the building more compatible. Staff believes that more of these kinds of design details should be shown before approval could be recommended. Kuecker said that it should also be noted that there are steep slopes on the site, the maximum of which is approximately 25%. These slopes would qualify for a sensitive areas review by the Staff. The steep slopes do make it difficult to create useable open space in the front and rear yards. They also make creating a maneuverable drive more difficult. Staff does not anticipate traffic difficulties arising from this development. Under the current zoning there are approximately 49 vehicle trips per day. Under the new zoning, with 11 households, there would be approximately 77 trips. In light of the traffic on Benton Street, that is a minimal increase. Currently there are no sidewalks along Michael Street. With a subdivision, the developer would be required to install sidewalks. The current right-of-way on Michael Street is 41 feet; the current requirement is for 50 feet. The applicant would be required to dedicate an additional 4.5 feet of right-of-way. Staff sees merit in the proposed rezoning and redevelopment. The current homes lack some of the amenities that households are looking for. The redevelopment gives the opportunity to provide homes that are attractive to long-term tenants and owner-occupied units. However, because it is infill development in a fairly sensitive neighborhood, Staff would like to see a more detailed plan demonstrating how the redevelopment would fit into the neighborhood. The applicant is hesitant to spend more money on design without some indication that this could be approved. The primary areas of concern that Staff has are: the maneuverability of the driveway, lack of useable open space, the slopes and the challenges they bring, the large scale of the building, and the lack of landscaping. Kuecker shared two elevations that the applicant submitted; however, the drawings do not take the slope of the site into consideration at afl. Freerks asked if there was any verification that the increase in right of way would make the lots smaller than the minimum for the zone. Kuecker said that there would have to be a reconfiguration of the plan because some of the lots are right at 3,000 and some are bigger, so there may need to be some shifting around. Eastham asked if an exception would be needed or if the applicant could make them the proper size by moving things around. Miklo said that Staff was not sure at this point. Kuecker shared some photographs demonstrating the change in the grade. Miklo pointed out that the street would be too narrow for on-street parking, which makes the maneuverability of the drive in back even more critical. Kuecker shared photographs of other houses nearby in the neighborhood. Miklo said he would like to emphasize that Staff does see some merit in up-zoning to RS-12. The plan submitted shows the maximum number of units that could be developed here under RS-12. If this was not an infill development and was a fairly flat piece of land then Staff would not have as many issues with this. Given the grade, the street and the challenges of fitting into the neighborhood, Staff's impression is that the six units are just too much to fit into the space. Staff has advised the applicant to look at doing four or possibly five units, but the applicant questions whether that would be financially feasible. Miklo said Staff is not comfortable endorsing the plan that is before the Commission. Freerks said that she questioned how this plan helps support the stabilization and revitalization of the neighborhood that is cited in the Southwest District Plan; a feature of the plan that had a lot of time and effort invested into it. What kind of precedent might this set for other neighborhoods if a project that seemed to run counter to the imperatives of the Southwest District Plan was approved? Miklo said this was a good question and one that Staff has struggled with as well. In this case, Miklo said the current size and condition of the housing units that are there is a factor. Freerks countered that this was what the neighborhood was like. Miklo said that these particular houses were some of the ones in poorer condition. He said that the City would not want to send the message that if a property owner lets their house run down that a benefit in the form of rezoning would be granted. However, Miklo said, it could be argued that the size and condition of the current units actually have a destabilizing effect on the Planning and Zoning Commission July 14, 2008 -Informal Page 3 neighborhood, and that newer construction with more amenities that is designed to fit into the neighborhood (something Staff has not yet seen in this case) could be more stabilizing than maintaining the status quo. Miklo acknowledged that it was possible that someone would invest in these properties to fix them up, but Staff discussions deemed it less likely that an owner-occupant would invest in these properties than in a new townhouse. In this market, Miklo said, it was possible that new townhomes could attract residents at the hospital or graduate students, a population that is less transient than the current renter population and less likely to move out every year. While Staff is looking for some stability for the neighborhood, the neighbors do not necessarily agree with Staffs perspective. In short, Miklo said, this would be an opportunity to help stabilize this corner rather than having houses there that are not in great shape and do not invite investment. Miklo said that this case is different than other properties in the neighborhood in that this property does have RM-20 directly to the north of it. Miklo said that another property owner in the neighborhood has said that if this rezoning is granted then she expects her rezoning to be granted as well. Miklo said that he did not necessarily agree with that assessment of the situation. Freerks said that there was a bit of a "creep" effect, in that if this rezoning was approved then there would be RS-12 across the street from RS-8 and the same argument could be made again. Technically, Miklo said, these would be single-family housing units. Freerks agreed that whether the units were owner-occupied or rental would not really be a part of the Commission's decision. Busard said that one of his concerns would be how to make these townhomes fit into the neighborhood. Busard said that he had a lot of questions regarding: parking, green space, and the lack of a designer. Busard thinks that particular attention needs to be paid to the scale of the buildings to make sure they fit into the area. Freerks said that it seemed as though at this point the buildings clearly overpower the area. In terms of the expense, Miklo said, the topography makes the project difficult. Because this is not the average, fairly level lot, apre-drawn plan cannot simply be implemented; a design that takes the steep slope into consideration is needed. Miklo said that while Staff sympathizes with the applicant's concerns for spending money on a designer to design something that could potentially not be allowed, more detailed plans are needed. Miklo said that he suspected there would be neighborhood opposition to the plan, and that it was for all of these reasons that staff believed it would be good to have the public meeting on the matter to get some of these questions on the table so that both the neighbors and the applicant know what the issues are and what needs to be the next step. Eastham said that in reading the Southwest District Plan he came upon a passage stating that results from a survey done in 2000 said that one-third of all single-family homes in the Miller-Orchard neighborhood were in need of major repairs. Eastham asked if that survey had been updated. Miklo said that he did not know but would check on it. Eastham said the reason he was interested in this was because it would speak to what the state of housing in the general area is. Eastham also asked Staff to determine what the current total living area of the present houses, and what that of the proposed townhomes would be. Eastham said he did not see the proposed total living area in the computations provided, and that he would also be interested in knowing the bedroom configurations. Miklo said Staff could provide some estimates. Eastham asked what code provisions would be cited in giving the Commission control over the design of this development. Miklo said there would not be anything in the code, that the question was one of zoning. The conditions placed on the design would be authorized by the state code which gives cities the right to place conditions on zonings above and beyond the code in order to address a public need. In this case, the public need would be to fit into the topography and the neighborhood. Eastham said he was trying to understand the land-use scenario for the Southwest District Plan in general and this neighborhood in particular, and to determine if RS-12 zoning is contemplated for this area. As Eastham understands it, the types of housing outlined in the Plan's appendix could arguably include or not include RS-12 zoning. His understanding of it is that the only area specifically calling for RS-12 zoning is in the Rohret south sub-area; almost all of the other areas have single-family/duplex designation. Eastham asked if townhomes had been allowed in any of the other sub-areas in that single- family/duplex designation. He asked, is there precedent for fulfilling this request? Planning and Zoning Commission July 14, 2008 -Informal Page 4 Miklo responded that he did not believe there was a precedent. However, he said that the plan had been done before the RS-12 zone was modified to encourage townhomes and other attached smaller single- family lots. That is why there is some discrepancy between the way that plan was written and the current zoning. Miklo said given this gray area, this makes it all the more important that the Commission, Staff, Council and the neighborhood be comfortable allowing townhouses in this neighborhood. Freerks asked if the Commission felt that these townhomes were appropriate infill in this neighborhood, and if the Commission would feel the same for any other area of town. Freerks said she did not know that she would. Eastham said he was not committed either way, but was trying to determine a reasonable zoning that would preserve the single-family nature of the area (not necessarily detached) under current economic conditions. Freerks said she sees the other side of the coin in looking at this proposal. She sees the focus on the Plan's mandate to stabilize, revitalize and encourage rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. Eastham agreed that that could be a sticking point. Eastham asked what programs have been available for successfully rehabilitating single-family, owner- occupied, existing housing stock. Busard asked to what extent conditions could be placed on this project. Greenwood-Hektoen said the conditions would have to be directly related to public needs generated by the rezoning. Busard asked if building scale or landscaping could be addressed in terms of how the buildings fit into the neighborhood. Typically on a sensitive infill site like this, Miklo said, Staff would recommend that the developer do a planned development. This project is just shy of the required one-acre minimum for doing a planned development. With a planned development, Miklo said, the City is given a very specific plan of what the planned development is going to look like on the outside, how it is landscaped, etc., and any significant variation would have to come back before Planning and Zoning or City Council in order to change it. In this case, Staff sees a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) as serving in lieu of a planned development. Eastham asked if there could be a condition to have the area developed as a planned development even though it doesn't meet the requirements. Miklo said it could not. Eastham asked if additional submissions by the applicant were expected before the formal meeting. Miklo said he did not think so, that the applicant was simply requesting direction at the meeting. Miklo said that the applicant has indicated that in order for the project to be financially feasible he would need the full 11 units. Miklo said the applicant also has the option of developing under the current zoning. In terms of the issues that the Commission has discussed and the compatibility of the development with the neighborhood, Miklo said he believed that getting them on the table in a public forum would be beneficial. Weitzel said the neighbors have communicated that they believe these proposed units are intended to be affordable housing. Weitzel asked Miklo if this was true. Weitzel asked if the Commission could take into account that the current units are affordable and require that the units replacing them also be affordable. Weitzel said that neighborhood was also concerned about student rentals. Miklo said he had no indication as to the population living in the current units. He would caution against getting too involved in those matters for the purposes of a rezoning. Eastham said that he hated to be contrary, but that in looking at the Big Ten Rental proposal the Commission actually made the decision on that proposed rezoning in part based upon the proposed occupancy of the units. There, Miklo said, either zoning was going to allow the five-bedroom units; it was the number of bedrooms, not who was occupying them, that was at issue. Eastham said that there was a discussion about bedrooms, but that there was also a discussion about the number of bedrooms per unit, and the fact that it was a design primarily marketable to undergraduate students. Eastham said that it was discussed that this design was specifically not marketable to families or professionals. Freerks recalled that the concern was one of a lack of variety in units. Miklo agreed that the Commission had gotten into it somewhat with those units, but that he would caution against doing that in this case. He said that requirements for owner-occupied versus rental would not be appropriate, but that number of bedrooms was one way of swaying that in certain directions. Some of the initial applications on this Planning and Zoning Commission July 14, 2008 -Informal Page 5 property were for RM-20; the applicant at that time said that he needed to have 4-bedroom units in order to make the project financially viable. Staff informed him that that was not something they could support and he eventually came around to the idea of RS-12 zoning. Greenwood-Hektoen said that even during the Big Ten Rental discussions it was acknowledged that the Commission should not delve into the occupancy of the units and then the Commission backed off of those discussions. Eastham said he felt that it was appropriate to discuss those issues in land-use planning because there is a large student market in the community. There are significant neighborhoods, Eastham said, where everyone is trying to balance the student needs with the needs of families and home-owners. Greenwood-Hektoen said that the problem was that there was no telling who would actually rent a given unit and that this was why who would be living at a property could not be focused on by the Commission. In terms of affordability, Freerks said, it was reasonable to assume that a couple with a child could not afford a 5-bedroom unit. This is just one factor in many, Freerks said. Eastham said that he believed the Commission actually had some information on what types of unit-design was attractive to a particular market. Miklo said that one issue that did come up with the applicant was that it was the applicant's goal to make these units affordable. Staff asked the applicant if he would be willing to put covenants on the property making it affordable over time or on a certain number of units, and he said that would be willing to discuss that. Then again, Miklo asked, if the applicant is trying to make this work financially, should the City get into that detailed level of telling him what he can charge for his units? Eastham said that if the applicant were receiving tax breaks or public assistance those conditions would be on the units. Busard said he wished to reiterate his concerns for the design scale on the site, and asked Miklo if he expected any concept plan from the applicant. Miklo said that he believed the applicant's intention was to hear from the public and the Commission at the formal meeting. If the Commission indicates that RS-8 is the appropriate zoning for the area and they would not consider an RS-12 plan, then the applicant will not spend the money to develop more detailed design plans. If there is some indication that RS-12 was open to possibility but not for the maximum number of units given the sensitivity of the neighborhood and the slope, then he would consider taking his design to the next level. Freerks stated that this was not the usual way of doing things; generally, she said, people do not first test the waters and then come back later with a more concrete plan. Usually, Freerks said, things are at a more fixed point before the Commission even sees them. Miklo said he felt it was important to both sides to have the public hearing because there are a lot of gray areas; there are some positives to this application and also some questionable things. Done correctly, the development could be much better for the neighborhood than what is there now; or, if it is done poorly, it could have a destabilizing effect. Giving some direction after there has been a public hearing will help the applicant and Staff to know the best way of moving forward, Miklo said. Busard said that he felt uncomfortable with a Conditional Zoning Agreement. He cited the original 1989 Wal-Mart example of a significant change from the original plan as part of his reason for this discomfort. Miklo said he believed the City was much better at conditional zoning at this point. Busard said he felt the Commission should pick the zoning that it felt most comfortable with, not allow for the zoning applied for and assign so many conditions upon it that it was essentially reduced back to the original zoning. Freerks advised everyone to read the plan and the staff report and think them over carefully prior to the formal meeting. Eastham noted that it would still be single-family, regardless of whether the zoning was RS-8 or RS-12. Miklo said that the City may want to go back and re-examine some of their plans now that the zoning is different. At the time the plans were completed, Miklo said, townhouse meant RM-12 zoning. Miklo said he believes there is a gray area. If the plan is read literally, one might conclude that townhomes would not be appropriate for this area. If one recognizes that one of the zoning codes has been rewritten to encourage townhomes since the plan's adoption, then the answer becomes less clear. Freerks said that at the time of the new Zoning Code's adoption there was much discussion about infill and the townhouse structure and of how several of these neighborhoods were not appropriate fits for such structures. Miklo said that he believed that was why the question is one of whether or not this is a neighborhood in which infill should be encouraged, or is what is there now, or what can be achieved in the RS-8 zone, satisfactory. Planning and Zoning Commission July 14, 2008 -Informal Page 6 Eastham asked if the applicant has looked into the possibility of doing single-family detached on narrow lots, something that would be allowed under current zoning. Miklo said he believed it was the applicant's preference to do the townhomes. Weitzel asked if a series of duplexes had been considered. Miklo said that was a possibility. Freerks added that duplexes could be created that fit into the neighborhood. Miklo said that he believed in this case it would be zero-lot lines, but that it would certainly be a possibility. Eastham asked if there was arear-drive requirement for duplexes in an RS-12 zone. Miklo said he believed that was correct for narrower lots. Weitzel said that his concern was about having one large structure on a hill. Miklo said that the drawings did not accurately reflect the elevations as the buildings would be stepped. Even with steppes though, Miklo added, there are still concerns. Freerks said that the way in which this rezoning would affect all other plans and its further ramifications must be taken into consideration. Eastham said that if the Commission was really good they would come up with something that actually can be used in other parts of the community and will actually help in terms of stabilizing the neighborhood. Freerks said that she could not yet reconcile the mandate to try to rehabilitate existing housing stock with a plan like this. Eastham said that Freerks had an interesting question, and wondered if rehabilitating a fifty year old house that had an expected life-span of fifty years was really workable. Miklo added that of these five houses, some of them were actually built better than the others. Miklo's concern is that the basic structures of some of the buildings are not adequate to really do too much rehabbing. He said that it did keep the building affordable, however. One negative is a positive in another light, Freerks commented. Miklo said that the Commission was welcome to go by and take a close look at the structures, and noted that the one on the corner units was presently empty. There were no further questions, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. C O •N .~ U '`v c v •C ~ O ~ N ~ o ~ C N Q1 ID C ~ •C C C ~ ~ ~ as U 3 O C7 Z H W W g~ i 0 LL X X X W \ I.L. \ 1 I 1 X I O O I I 0 I I X X X X X 1 1 X 1 I I 7 '- ~ _ ~ ` X X X X ? I 1 X J ~ ~ ~ ~ X X X X ~ i X i i ~ ~ X X X X X X X 1 ' i '~ 1 i O I X X X 0 ~ X I I X I I X X X _w 0 _w 0 w 0 I I rn ry O ~ ~ M N 0 00 .- M I'-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ V! th Y C ~ O fA Y O ~ R t r•+ N i y ~ 7 = c C • t r,, - d ~ O m W m w~ i Y a R N • y - Z m ~ U Q LL I ~ p H H a~ U X W c ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q d Q II ~+ II II L1J N ~ YXOO 3b 2 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel, Josh Busard MEMBERS EXCUSED: None APPROVED STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Ike Akabogu, Anna Buss, Mark Cannon, Mary Knudson-Dion, Josh Neuman, Ann Kohl RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00005/SUB08-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Ike Akabogu for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone and an 11-lot residential subdivision for approximately .88 acres of property at 442, 446, & 452 Benton Street and 719 & 723 Michael Street. The 45-day limitation period is August 7, 2008. Kuecker reported that the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the five properties listed from RS-8 Medium-Density Single-Family to RS-12 High-Density Single-Family Residential in order to redevelop the site into 11 single family attached townhomes. Kuecker said there would be a six-unit structure, atwo- unit structure, and athree-unit structure. Kuecker described the existing buildings on the property as small, single-family homes from the mid-1950's, which are currently rental properties. To the north of the property, Kuecker said, are several Medium-Density Multi-Family structures, but on all other sides, the zoning is RS-8 Medium-Density Single-Family Residential. Kuecker stated that the applicant had previously submitted a request for rezoning for the two Michael Street properties, which he wished to change to RM-20 Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential. That application was denied due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan, which designate this area to stay small-lot, single family residential. The current zoning of RS-8 could allow these five properties to be subdivided into six or seven single family detached units, with potential for a duplex on the corner lot. The new RS-12 zoning has a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet, and would allow a maximum of 11 attached single family units to be built. The Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District plan note that any redevelopment of this area should be sensitive to the existing neighborhood. Under RS-12 zoning, the units are on individual lots, and are single family residential. During the planning process, the citizens of the neighborhood expressed concern about the loss of smaller houses and affordable single-family homes in the Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 2 neighborhood. As a result, the Plan states that there should be an effort to stabilize and revitalize the Miller Orchard neighborhood by encouraging rehab of existing housing stock in the area. This will help to maintain the balance between owner-occupied and rental housing. Kuecker stated that although the proposed rezoning is not rehabilitating existing housing stock, it would add new single-family units to the housing stock. There have been concerns expressed by current residents that the increased density resulting from this project would detract from the efforts to stabilize the neighborhood. Staff does see some merit in the redevelopment of this corner: three of the existing homes do not have basements; all of the homes are quite small, and may not be as attractive to homebuyers or more long-term tenants as a new townhome may be. However, Staff also believes that any redevelopment does need to be sensitive to the neighborhood, and Staff believes that if this is approved, there should be conditions attached which ensure this new development is integrated into the neighborhood appropriately. This proposed development would be a 2-unit and 3-unit structure along Benton Street, with asix-unit structure on Michael Street. Staff believes that with some attention to detail such as landscaping, window placement, trim, porches, rooflines, etc., the larger structures could be made more compatible with adjacent, detached single-family homes. However, plans have not yet been submitted that illustrate that these buildings will fit in with the site and the neighborhood. Additionally, the challenge which the steep slopes provide has not been adequately addressed, and Staff feels that resident access to the building could be an issue because of this. The maneuverability of the driveway and the parking in the area are a concern as a result of these steep slopes. Staffs primary concern with a 6-unit structure along Benton Street is that it would result in very little open space for the residents. The five units along Michael Street have a greater setback that would allow for a nice front yard. The applicant did submit some elevation drawings showing the general concept for the exterior of the townhomes. The drawings are preliminary and would be amended to allow for additional design work to ensure that the structures fit into the neighborhood and the site. For example, the current drawings do not show the way in which the buildings would move up the hill along Michael Street. Because there are steep slopes in the area, Kuecker said, there would be a need for a Sensitive Areas review of the site. However, the review would be performed by Staff, not the Commission. Estimated vehicular trips would rise from approximately 49 trips per day, to approximately 77 trips per day if 11 units were built. Staff believes that given the traffic along Benton Street, this increase is minimal. Currently Michael Street does not have a sidewalk. Wth this new development, the subdivision code would require the applicant to put in sidewalks along his side of the street, thereby improving the pedestrian nature of Michael Street. Because the street is very narrow with apaved-width of only 20 feet, there will be no on-street parking available to residents. Kuecker stated that the current homes lack some of the basic amenities that homeowners are looking for. The proposed redevelopment could create homes that longer-term tenants or owner-occupied homeowners desire; however, because of the sensitive nature of the neighborhood, Staff would like to see a more detailed plan that demonstrates how the development would fit in with the neighborhood, before recommending it for approval. The applicant has asked the Commission to give some indication as to whether this project would be recommended to City Council for rezoning, and what conditions would be necessary to achieve the approval. Some of the issues that Staff has with this project as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan are: 1) the vehicular access and the parking, 2) the lack of open space, 3) the steep slopes and how they are handled, 4) the scale of the building as it relates to the neighborhood, and 5) landscaping, and how it is used to help this development blend in. Kuecker stated that at the informal meeting the Commission had requested answers to a few questions they had regarding the application. The first concerned the 2000 Housing Commission Survey in which one-third of all homes in the area reported being in need of major repair. Commissioners had asked if Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 3 this survey had been updated, and, if so, what the current statistic was. Kuecker said that the survey was updated in 2007, and that while no official report was done, Staff that had administered the survey reported that one-third or more homes in the area still were in need of major repair. The Commission had also requested information on funding that might be available to rehab homes in the neighborhood. Kuecker reported that there is a locally funded source called G.R.I.P., General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program, (formerly known as T.A.R.P.) available. So far, Kuecker said, there has only been one successful project north of Benton Street in the neighborhood, and several on Douglass Street and Douglass Court. Kuecker said that there have been many applications submitted for properties in the neighborhood, but for various reasons, no others have been successfully seen through to the end product. Kuecker stated that a second funding source was the federally funded CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and HOME (HOME Investment Partnership programs) which cover repairs only and often are conditional upon occupancy, or are low-interest loans. All of these funding sources are only available to owner-occupied units, not to rental units. Kuecker said that the Commission had expressed an interest in what the current total living area of the five properties is, and what the total living area of the proposed properties would be. The total living area in all five houses combined is 3,904 square feet. By looking just at the footprint submitted by the applicant, and not considering the units as two-floor structures, Kuecker said that the total square footage of the proposed property could be estimated at just over 10,000 square feet. Kuecker said if you allowed for the fact that there are two levels planned, that takes the number to over 20,000 square feet. Total living area, Kuecker said, increases quite a bit with this plan. Kuecker noted that the Commission had been interested in discovering what the code said as it pertains to placing conditions on the design in a rezoning. Kuecker said that in the Iowa Code, there is a section that sates that additional conditions can be applied on a rezoning, but that those conditions must be reasonable and satisfy a public need(s), which are directly caused by the requested change. In this case, Kuecker continued, the conditions would have to ensure that the redevelopment was an asset to the neighborhood and not a detriment. Miklo added a couple of points at the end of Kuecker's presentation. He asked Kuecker to give the average square footage of the existing units, which, she replied was 672 square feet (without basements) along Benton Street, and 1,076 and 812 for the existing units on Michael Street. Miklo reiterated the concern Staff had for having six units on Michael Street. While Staff believes the units on Benton Street could be designed to fit in with the neighborhood, because of the steep slopes of the street itself and the design of the property, the six units on Michael Street could represent a problem. Staff is concerned that perhaps there should be fewer units in that area, maybe only four. If the RS-12 zoning is approved, Miklo said, 11 units is the maximum that the zone allows. However, because of the topography, and the character of the neighborhood, Staff does not feel that six units could properly fit on the Michael Street side. Staff shared some photographs of what they deemed well-designed, well thought-out townhomes and duplexes. Given the Comprehensive Plan's goal of improving and stabilizing the area, these examples of recent in-fill development fit in with the character and quality of design, and the breaking up of large buildings into smaller components which Staff would recommend. Miklo asked the Commission to give Staff and the applicant direction as to how best to proceed after their public hearing. Weitzel asked if historic significance could be a concern in redeveloping this area, and asked if there was a survey for this neighborhood. Miklo replied that he did not believe there was. Eastham asked if his understanding that the proposed units had approximately 20,000 feet of living space was correct. Kuecker said that it was. Eastham asked if Staff knew what reinvestment/redevelopment had occurred in the area over the last ten years. Miklo said that there has been some development on Orchard Street, and he believed there was a house built on Hudson or Miller recently, but that they do not currently have an exact figure. Miklo said that Staff could certainly check building permits to get a more conclusive picture. Eastham asked if Kuecker knew the dollar amounts of assistance that had been Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 4 received in reinvestment assistance such as CDBG and HOME funds in the Miller Orchard neighborhood. Kuecker said she did not have the numbers on hand, but could get them for the Commission. She said that she knew that one home north of Benton had received approximately $40,000. Eastham requested more specific details and information regarding reinvestment funding that had gone to neighborhood homes. Freerks opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Ike Akabogu, the applicant, stated that when he and his wife saw the opportunity to buy rental properties on Benton Street, they saw it as an opportunity to give back to the community that had given them so many blessings. Akabogu said that the properties they had purchased kept deteriorating, and that he and his wife have spent thousands of dollars trying to do work on them. However, Akabogu said, the properties are not the kind of properties that you can just spend money on and expect it to keep getting better without having to raise the rent. Akabogu said that they were very conscious of wanting to keep the rents low and the units affordable, but that it just was not working financially. Akabogu said that he and his wife had been participating over the last few years in a program that takes families from renting to owning their own homes, and Akabogu said that this was their goal and their mission, and what they have in their heart to do. Redeveloping these sites, Akabogu contended, would give the opportunity of eventual homeownership to other low-income families in the community. Letting the properties sit the way that they are, Akabogu said, would work against the idea of working together to improve the community aesthetically. Akabogu said that he has met with the neighborhood to get their input, as well as with Staff. Akabogu said that he is not trying to force something on the neighborhood, but that on the last two meetings he went to, he felt he was basically yelled at and shut down rather than anyone giving ideas of things that they thought would work. Akabogu said that he and his wife want to do something that works for everyone and makes the city a more beautiful place. He said as it is, the numbers show him losing $114,000 by building the 6-plex on Michael Street. Akabogu said that if this was part of his charity work, he would have no problem going for it, but, Akabogu said, needing money to pay back the bank, they feel they must do what the bank says, which in this case, is building at least a 6-plex on that site. Akabogu said that Staff has informed him that a more full and complete plan must be submitted before approval could be recommended. He said that what he was hoping to get from the Commission was direction. If the Commission could see a way that the rezoning might work, then he could spend the money necessary to get more detailed plans developed. Eastham asked Akabogu about the square footage per unit. Akabogu said that currently the estimates are for 1,800 square feet per unit. However, he said, that number is going to change because as they draft and work with the building, changes that need to be made will come up. Akabogu said that the square footage will definitely be almost double what is offered by the current units. Each unit will have a basement, which, Akabogu said, is a common request when renting to families. Busard asked if the 1,800 square feet figure included the basement, and if the basement would be a livable space. Akabogu said that the basement will be finished into a family room. Weitzel said that with such a size, the average unit size will be dramatically increasing. Considering Akabogu's pledge that he wishes to keep the units affordable to families, Weitzel asked how Akabogu planned to do so, given the large size and cost of the units. Akabogu said that what he has done in the past is refer families to organizations that can really help them. He said that through these organizations, families have been able to learn how to save and to make better money, eventually purchasing homes of their own. Akabogu said that to him, this is more about the work he does for Almighty God. He said that he is not a developer and has never developed before, and that this was a chance to give back to people. Busard asked Akabogu if it was correct that the bank had told him that in order to get a loan he had to have a minimum of 6-units. Akabogu stated that this was correct. Eastham asked if this meant that Akabogu must have 11 units altogether in order to receive his loan. Akabogu said that this was correct, and that the bank was looking at it from a perspective of how could this project make money for the bank. Right now, Akabogu said, the numbers for him are $114,000 in the negative, and the bank needs him to Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 5 show how he is going to make it work financially. Akabogu said that he is looking at the project as a long- term ambition, and that he is counting on spending significantly less on maintenance in the first few years of the new buildings' lives in order to counteract the high costs of building. Plahutnik asked Akabogu if his ongoing plans to have tenants first rent and then buy his units specifically included these particular units. Akabogu said that it did. Plahutnik said that even at roughly $150 per square feet, a relatively low cost for housing in the current market, which would price the units at approximately $270,000-$275,000 per unit, a price that would presumably be out of the range of low- income families. Akabogu said that the 1,800 square feet figure was subject to change, and that nothing was yet set in stone. Akabogu said that if the units were $275,000 he would not want them and he would not sell them to anybody; he said this would erase the whole purpose for him of making it low-income. Eastham asked if Akabogu had a sale price in mind. Freerks interjected, saying that while she believed Eastham's question was important, it was not really the biggest issue in terms of rezoning. She acknowledged that it was something that needed to be looked at, but felt that it needed to be looked at in the context of it being one of the many things that are considered in a rezoning. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she agreed with Freerks and that financial feasibility is not one of the primary factors in a rezoning decision. Eastham said that his thinking in this line of questioning was that financial feasibility does have an effect on size and scale. Freerks said that she did not believe that this could be answered at this time. Greenwood-Hektoen said that it is not a condition of the applicant's plan that the housing be affordable. She said that while he is representing orally that it would be affordable housing, that is not really what the Commission is considering at this point. Eastham asked if it could be a condition of rezoning. Miklo said that Staff would have to look at it. Freerks said that it is for the applicant to decide how much he wishes to rent his units for. Akabogu said that the numbers could still change from that 1,800 square feet figure. He said that as they work on the designs, this is something that he will work through with Staff. Busard asked if Akabogu had considered designing the project to have more open space. Akabogu said that he has talked with the project's engineer regarding the slope of the land and that one option they had discussed is trying to add more dirt to better level the lot into useable open space. Busard asked if Akabogu had thought about a shared open space with the larger community. Akabogu said that something like that could be looked at, but that, again, because he did not yet know if the project was a possibility, he had not spent the additional money on design needed to consider such possibilities. Busard also asked about parking, and what the applicant's plans for parking entailed. Akabogu said that there were two car garages for each unit and that in the course of this project he would be widening Michael Street and installing sidewalks. Freerks asked if other members of the public would like to speak about this application. Anna Buss, 525 W. Benton Street, a neighbor and property owner in the area said that a master plan had been developed for this neighborhood a few years ago, and that a lot of time and taxpayer money went into developing that plan. She stated that if the Commission decided to amend the plan in favor of this project, she and her neighbors would thank the Commission from the bottom of their billfolds. Buss said that Akabogu had implied that his properties were too old to maintain; Buss said that all of her properties are older. Buss said that Akabogu had stated that his properties cost too much to maintain; Buss wondered if perhaps he was penny-wise and pound foolish, and said that all of her properties also cost a lot of money to maintain, but that nevertheless maintenance is done on a very regular basis. Buss said although Akabogu had pointed out that he was a doctor, she had been in the rental property business since she was 19, and is now 58. Buss said that she evaluates properties for a living, and she wonders how he is able to maintain his rental permits with his properties in such a disparaged condition. Buss said that Akabogu has 38,160 square feet which he is proposing to develop. Directly across the street from Akabogu's proposed development site, Buss owns 51,000 square feet ready to be developed the minute the area is rezoned to accommodate Akabogu's project. Buss said that she has talked to her neighbors, and that all of them have expressed interest in redeveloping their land if Akabogu's rezoning went through. Buss said that she had pulled up the number of rental permits that were issued for her Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 6 neighborhood and found the following: on Miller Avenue, 9 of 16 houses had rental permits, although not all of the 7 without rental permits were owner-occupied; on Hudson, 18 of 33 houses have rental permits, the remaining are not all owner-occupied. Buss pointed out that there were 9 acres of undeveloped land on Miller Avenue just after Benton Hill Park, and that if the area was rezoned this would all be developed immediately. Buss said that if Akabogu successfully got his property rezoned, all of the neighborhood's property owners would be coming before the Commission to ask for rezoning too. Buss said that she has wanted a rezoning such as this for years and that she wanted to put duplexes all down Miller Avenue, but that she was basically shot down because of the Comprehensive Plan. Buss said that she owns five lots on J Street that she has considered developing, and that based on the figures she has calculated for development, she sees no way Akabogu can maintain affordability with his proposed units. She said that if Akabogu could find a builder to work for $125 per square foot, which she doubted was possible, six units of 1,800 square feet each would be $1,350,000, or $225,000 per unit. If he builds 11 units, Buss said, the price is $2,475,000. Buss said that if Akabogu reduced the units to 1,200 square feet per unit, the price would go down to $900,000 for six units or $1,650,000 for 11 units. Buss said she would defy Akabogu to even find a builder who would do the development for $125 per square foot. Buss said that affordable housing does not exist in this town because the City will not work with the builders to get the prices down. Buss said Akabogu bought his properties knowing full well the condition they are in. She said he bought them knowing that he intended to develop there, and that the properties are in the condition they are in because he has not taken care of them. Buss said that every one of the properties she owns on Miller and Hudson are older than Akabogu's, and all are well kept up. She said that her newest properties in that area were built in the 1950's, and that she would bet that any one of the Commissioners would live in any of her homes in a heartbeat. Buss said that if there are no modern amenities in Akabogu's units, it is because he has not put them in. She said that she has no problem renting the three homes she has that do not have basements. Buss said that if you keep your property up, then one tenant to the next will rent them. Buss invited questions from the Commission Koppes asked Buss if she owned any property on Michael Street. Buss replied that she looks at Michael Street all of the time. She stated that her residence was at 525 West Benton, and asked Koppes what part of the statement "across the street" she did not understand. Buss said she owned a number of properties in the immediate area but none on Michael Street. Plahutnik asked if he was correct in his understanding that Buss lived right amongst all of her properties. Buss said that she did not for several years, but that she does now after having remodeled this property. Buss said that all that is necessary to do to have properties that look good is to put the right amount of money in the right places with the right people doing the work. Eastham asked Buss how long she had been investing in her rental properties. Buss replied that she purchased her first rental home in 1988. Buss said that for a time she had owned everything on Miller except for two houses, but that she had sold a few of those homes because the City was not going to let her do what she wanted with them. Buss said she knows all of the people who bought those homes and that she has informed them of what is coming, and that all of them are willing to band together to do something new and wonderful if this rezoning goes through. Mark Cannon, 706 Miller Avenue, said that he had attended the University of Iowa in the 1960's and 1970's and that after having lived elsewhere for a number of years, he returned to Iowa City in 1992. Cannon said that he returned to Iowa City because he knew that it was a progressive and forward-looking city, and that it was this spirit he wished to invoke in these discussions. Cannon expressed his apologies to Akabogu if he had felt yelled at in his meetings with neighborhood residents, and assured him that this had not been the intent. Cannon said that he is not against change. He said that his neighborhood is not a very nice one from an aesthetic standpoint, and that both the commercial and residential zones in it are in jeopardy. Because of these deficiencies in his neighborhood, Cannon said, he is not against change at all. His concern, however, is that this development will increase the density of the neighborhood with detrimental effects. Cannon said that he is certain that allowing townhomes in the area will encourage Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 7 student-living and absentee landlords. Cannon, who is committed to the neighborhood and who wants to see the neighborhood grow and be attractive, believes that it will become his job to call the police every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night to quell parties. Cannon said that he believes that if the Commission takes an honest look at neighborhoods that are dominated by students they will acknowledge that this is a reasonable assumption of what could happen. While Cannon is not against students, having come here himself to study, he feels that areas with high student populations need to be managed carefully and well, and that that would probably not be the case in this area. Further, Cannon said, there is no way that these units can be low-income; the cost threshold is just too high. Part of the firustration of the neighbors, Cannon said, is that when questions such as the amount of rent he intended to charge were asked in the meetings with Akabogu, he would often reply that he had not yet thought about that sort of thing. Cannon asked what kind of security that gave neighbors in believing that these units would actually be low-income -something that Cannon says he would welcome. Cannon reiterated that he is not against change, but that if the neighborhood moves in that direction then a lot of out-of-the- box, progressive thinking must be done to make this an enticing, stable neighborhood. Mary Knudson-Dion, 725 W. Benton Street, said she wished to express her objections to the proposal. Knudson-Dion thanked Akabogu for holding discussions with the neighborhood and stated that she felt the discussions had been collegial and productive. Knudson-Dion said that she likes the diversity of her neighborhood and its proximity to downtown, Oaknoll and the stadium. She noted that the neighborhood is an interesting but fragile one. She stated that a few years ago the Southwest District Plan was worked on and that a goal of this plan was to preserve and stabilize this neighborhood. Knudson-Dion said that she believes that the increase in high-density housing that comes with this proposal runs counter to that goal. She said that high-density is already a concern in this neighborhood and that this tends to make the neighborhood more transient. She is afraid that approving this plan will create a slippery slope because there are more units in the neighborhood that are renter-occupied than owner-occupied. She believes that more and more proposals will be put in for rezoning, turning the neighborhood into predominately duplexes and higher density units. This sort of activity would not fit in with the idea of preserving and stabilizing a neighborhood. Knudson-Dion expressed concern for the cost of the units and what type of people that might attract. If the costs are high, she believes more students will be attracted to the units than families. While she is not against students, she does want to make sure there are people in the neighborhood who want to preserve its richness and to watch it grow. Knudson-Dion expressed a concern for the lack of green space in the plan, particularly along Michael Street. If families will be living in the units then it is critical to have green space for children and adults to enjoy. The design is also a concern for Knudson-Dion, as it does not appear to fit in with the overall neighborhood design. The rest of the neighborhood consists of single units with a lot of yard, and Knudson-Dion would like to see that continue. So often, Knudson-Dion said, neighborhoods are in a position of simply reacting to things as they come along. One positive thing to have come out of these discussions is that the neighborhood has decided to proactively set forth a plan of what they want for their neighborhood. Josh Newman is the former owner of one of the properties Akabogu wishes to replace with the townhomes. The home, Newman said, is identical to the other two that Akabogu owns on Benton Street. Newman described the homes as pre-fab houses built in the 1950's that are built not with 2x4's or 2x2's, but out of a composite frame with %< inch plywood as the outer walls. Newman said that living in the home, as he did for three years, was very unpleasant. Newman said the homes are in terrible shape and are deteriorating. He recalled that when large trucks would drive by on Benton Street the walls and windows would actually rattle. Newman stated his support for Akabogu's proposal. Freerks asked how many square feet Newman had in the home he had lived in. Newman replied that the house had 686 square feet. Ann Kohl, 709 Giblin Drive, has lived in the neighborhood for almost 35 years. Kohl said that when she purchased her home there was a nice grassy slope behind her house, but now there is a three-story apartment building. Now she has a brick wall and three stories of windows staring down at her backyard. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 8 While Kohl believes Akabogu has good intentions, she feels his plan is simply too big for the area. Kohl said she is asking the Commission to vote against a higher density because she feels there are too many apartments in the area already. She believes the plan Akabogu has presented is unworkable, despite his good intentions. A smaller project that would not require a change in zoning would be a much better choice in Kohl's opinion. Freerks asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission. As no one came fonnrard, Freerks invited those wishing to speak a second time to the podium. Buss stated that she was very good at organizing her fellow-landlords, and no one that she has called has objected to hiring someone to represent their interests. Buss said that the Commission might want to think about that. Buss suggested that if Akabogu wanted better, more affordable housing, he should tear down the current homes and put up small single family units or duplexes to replace them. Buss invited the Commissioners to come sit in her yard and watch the traffic, and to then ask themselves if they really wanted more little kids on Benton Street. Buss said there were many things to consider and that Akabogu had no clue at this point what he intended to do. Buss said she has floor plans and building plans, but cannot find a builder to get her the price she needs to redevelop her property. Buss said that she is also areal-estate broker and that her specialty is selling apartment homes. She stated that there is no way these homes can be affordable housing. Buss said that if Akabogu tore down his houses and the Commission rezoned it, the land would be worth more than the houses sitting on it. Buss said that if Akabogu's rezoning goes through there will be 100,000 square feet in the immediate area whose owners also will demand a rezoning. If he gets it, Buss said, we want it too. Buss thanked the Commission for their time. Akabogu again addressed the Commission. Akabogu said he wished to remind the Commission that the lots being discussed are next door to an RM-20 zone, which has an apartment building on it. Akabogu contended that rezoning his property to an RS-12 only helps to blend the apartment buildings into the community. Akabogu took issue with Buss expressing concern that students would live in these dwellings. Akabogu requested that the Commission ask Buss what percentage of her homes in the area were occupied by students. Freerks requested that comments be directed to the Commission and remain on the topic at hand. Akabogu said that he was trying to show that his drive is to rent to families, and that the majority of people to whom he rents are families. The students are not his target and he hopes this knowledge reassures the community. Akabogu said that he wishes to work together with the community to keep the neighborhood peaceful. However, Akabogu said, all around these properties are huge apartment buildings in an RM-20 zone, units which a family could not possibly buy. Akabogu said that if the Commission resolves his application in the way he is asking, families will actually be able to buy his properties. That, he said, is his goal. Freerks invited anyone else to speak. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed Freerks stated that a motion needed to be entertained prior to holding discussion and that her suggestion would be to defer the matter because there are so many issues to address. Eastham moved to defer items REZ08-00005 and SU608-00005, an application submitted by Ike Akabogu for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone and an 11-lot residential subdivision for approximately .88 acres of property at 442, 446, & 452 Benton Street and 719 & 723 Michael Street, until the Commission's next meeting on August 7, 2008 Weitzel seconded. Freerks called for discussion from the Commission Freerks advised Akabogu that this was somewhat different from the way the Commission usually goes about things because generally a proposal is relatively firm by the time the Commission sees it. In this case, Freerks said, she understood that the applicant wanted the Commission's feedback prior to going to the expense of creating more concrete plans. Miklo offered to help frame the discussion. The question, Miklo explained, is one of going from RS-8 to Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 9 RS-12. If the Commission feels there is some merit to pursuing that rezoning, the next question is: are there conditions the Commission wants to require in terms of the amount of open space, the number of units, etc. Staff's concern for the property on Michael Street, Miklo said, is that six units may be too many. Staff has looked to see if given the lot area and the slope it would be possible to fit six in, but because of the minimum lot width and dimensions of the RS-12 zone, this is probably the most realistic design. Miklo said that he does not see how the lots could be arranged any differently in an RS-12 zone to create more open space, and for Staff, that is a concern. Miklo allowed that there may be a very creative idea that the applicant could come up with to show six units more comfortably located on the lots, but he did not see that happening. That, Miklo told the Commission, would be their next question: should there be a condition on the number of units? Once those big questions are addressed, the details about design and parking and open space can be addressed. Freerks noted that those questions would be addressed if the Commission felt the application had merit. Miklo said that it was possible the Commission would determine that there is currently appropriate zoning for these properties and that there is no need for further discussion. Eastham asked what the RS-8 zoning actually permits. Because the RS-8 zone requires a larger lot area, it only allows duplexes on corner lots. Staffs calculations were that you could definitely get six single-family lots on this property. That would be single-family homes, not duplexes. This type of development would be a subdivision and because Michael Street is substandard, more lot area would need to be taken from the lots in order to make the Michael Street right-of-way wider. Miklo said there was some question as to whether a seventh lot could be created or perhaps a lot that would be big enough for a duplex. Eastham asked if that would be one duplex or two duplexes. Miklo replied that it would be at most one duplex. This type of redevelopment would require no rezoning, but would require subdivision. Busard asked if it was required to have a duplex on a corner and Miklo responded that it was not. Kuecker clarified that if the corner lot was asingle-family then there would only be room for six single-family units on the property; if it was found that there was sufficient space to make the corner lot a duplex, then there would be room for seven total units on the property. Plahutnik noted that staff documents state that both the Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan indicate that the property should remain single-family or duplex residential. Plahutnik asked if rezoning the property to RS-12 would mean that the property would not be single-family or residential duplex. Miklo replied that RS-12 is single family. The Southwest District Plan does not show townhouses here, Miklo acknowledged, but added that since that plan was adopted the zoning code has been amended to allow attached townhouses in the RS-12 zone to be built more easily. Miklo said he felt it was a gray area as to whether the townhouses match the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks recalled that when the Commission worked on the code the intention was more for new development, not necessarily for infill. Miklo said that the main intent was to create new areas where it would be easier to build townhouses. Under the previous code, it was very difficult to build townhouses without doing a planned development. If one reads the Southwest Plan literally, then townhouses were not anticipated in this area; however, small-lot single-family was anticipated, and this, Miklo said, creates a gray area. Miklo said that there are two ways to approach it: 1) if the Commission felt it was a good project and really wanted to make it work, the Comprehensive Plan could be amended to show townhouses in this area; or, 2) because it is a gray area, RS-12 zoning could be adopted without amending the Comprehensive Plan if the commission determined it was in compliance with the intent of the plan to promote small lot single family and duplexes in this neighborhood. Freerks said that she keeps returning to the Southwest District Plan because she knows how much time and community input went into that document, and she has grave concerns about the precedent that rezoning this property could set. She said that she has real concerns about the implications of making a change like this. Freerks stated that she was not saying that the properties could not be redeveloped, but that she is not sure this particular redevelopment matches the Comprehensive Plan. Further, she said she was not sure the units could be affordable, even if the full 11 units requested in the rezoning were allowed. Freerks said she was concerned how this rezoning would trickle around the corner and across the street, and what that would mean for the neighborhood as a whole and the stated goal of the Southwest District Plan to preserve it. Koppes agreed with Freerks that up-zoning this property seemed to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Koppes stated that 1,800 square feet is a huge unit, noting that her house is only 900 square feet. Koppes said that if affordable housing was the goal, the units could be down-sized. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 10 Eastham said he has been striving to keep an open mind about the application and how it pertains to what the Comprehensive Plan says about the area. Eastham said it seemed to him that if townhouse development would help to achieve stabilization in this neighborhood, then one possible way to proceed would be to change the Comprehensive Plan so that townhouse development was allowed in this specific area and not another. Freerks replied that she was not prepared to look at the whole Plan. Eastham said he understood that and was just thinking his way through the process. The larger question, Eastham said, is how to do redevelopment, if redevelopment is necessary for stabilization of this neighborhood, within the confines of the existing zoning. Eastham said that he had heard comments suggesting that that may be possible for this area. Other statements suggested that stabilization may be occurring because owners are investing in their properties, something Eastham said he really had not heard before about this area. Eastham said he wanted to focus on the fact that half or more of the properties in that area are rental and a third or more are judged as being in need of major repair. So while some investment is going on, Eastham said, not enough to convince him that it is at the level that could achieve stabilization. Eastham said that he thought the proposal for 11 units currently before the Commission was probably not going to work for these five lots for all of the reasons Staff had suggested. He said the plan did not allow for adequate green space and vehicle access, and that 1,800 square foot units did not, to him, speak to neighborhood stabilization. The scale of the plans and the per-unit size would need to come down. Townhome developments, Eastham said, are actually supposed to allow for smaller units that are well-designed at a little bit higher density. Freerks stated that she just was not sure that townhouses were right for that neighborhood. Eastham said they may or not be, and that he was trying to maintain an open mind. Eastham said that Staff had asked the Commission to provide clear guidance on the matter, but that Staff had also stated that six units would not work on Michael Street. Miklo clarified that what Staff was saying was that Staff is having a difficult time seeing six units on Michael Street, but that they are open to being convinced by the applicant; after several weeks of discussions with the applicant, a plan that could properly demonstrate 11 units as feasible has not materialized. Eastham said that he would have a difficult time envisioning a plan in which six units could work on Michael Street, whether they were townhomes or detached single family homes, because of the topography of the area. Eastham said he was willing to entertain as a possibility somewhere between seven and nine units on the lots, although he was not committed to the idea. Busard said that it seemed like the Commission kept returning to the current zoning in their discussions. Busard stated that even if the area was rezoned to an RS-12, all of the conditions the Commission had discussed basically take it back to an RS-8 again. Weitzel said that he did not see it that way, but that he felt there were topographic problems and financial constraints on the applicant that make it un-doable in his opinion. Weitzel said he was not convinced that the zoning was worth it. Freerks said she felt the Commission needed to look at the basics. First and foremost, she said, the Commission is being asked to rezone something. The property could be rezoned and the applicant could sell it the next day. That may not be the applicant's intention, but it is a possibility the Commission must take into account. That is why, Freerks said, the first step is to go back to the Comprehensive Plan and determine what zoning, not what plan, is appropriate for the area. Busard said he that he just was not comfortable rezoning an area and then placing condition after condition upon it. Weitzel pointed out that the Commission is allowed to do that. Busard said he agreed that the Commission was allowed to do that, but that he felt it put them in danger of being developers rather than a Planning & Zoning Commission if extensive conditions were applied to each rezoning. Freerks maintained that conditions were part of the flexibility the Commission had and that sometimes they were necessary and others they were not appropriate at all. Plahutnik said, Akabogu had submitted a plan, but had not asked the Commission to redesign the plan. Frankly, Plahutnik said, he did not get paid enough to do so. In making his decisions, Plahutnik looks at what the applicant stands to gain with a vote of yes, and in this instance, the value of the property is increased enormously. Plahutnik also looks at what the community stands to gain because he feels that it is his job as a Commissioner to act on behalf of the community. The positive that the community stands to gain is the removal of a handful of undesirable houses. This positive must be weighed against a whole Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 11 series of negatives that could result for the community. In this case, Plahutnik said, the applicant stands to greatly gain, but the community does not fare so well. This makes his decision relatively easy, he said. Plahutnik said he is not looking to re-design the property to make it work for the applicant because that is not his job. Miklo wished to clarify a couple of points. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, Miklo said, the Plan calls for small-lot single-family in this area. The RS-12 zone can be developed as small-lot single-family; it does not require townhouses. The difficulty for the applicant, Miklo said, was that without doing the townhouse design the rezoning would not be of any great benefit. Miklo said he just wished to make it clear that RS-12 can fit into what the Comprehensive Plan currently calls for here; the question of whether townhouses can fit is a gray area, making it a judgment call for the Commission. Plahutnik said he did not have enough information in his packet in terms of the applicant's design to make that determination. Miklo said it would be a goal to provide more detail at the next meeting. In terms of conditions, Miklo said if this was a newer neighborhood and a flat piece of land, there would be no need for the conditions being discussed. The reasons for concern with this project are because of its infill nature and its topography. The sensitivities of this neighborhood present challenges that Staff feels could be ameliorated with conditions. If this was a new subdivision with some RS-5, some RS-8, and some RS-12 zoning, the conditions would not be necessary because the concern with fitting in with existing properties would not be as great. Koppes asked if Miklo would expect similar conditions to be applied to the next RS-12 that came up for the area. In terms of the next RS-12, Miklo said that each would have to be examined on a case by case basis. He said he feels that the fact that this area is next to an RM-20 does open up some possibilities for some transitional zoning. Freerks stated that there would then be an RS-12 across the street from someone and this could all result in a trickle effect of up- zoning. Miklo said he did not know if they should be speculating on the next application because any application would have to be reviewed on its own merits. Koppes said that considering the surrounding area was a part of taking an application on its own merits. Eastham said that one of the most interesting things to have come up in the meeting was the idea that the people of this area are intending to sit down and think about what they want in terms of redevelopment and for neighborhood stabilization. Freerks said she was not sure that the resident had discussed redevelopment. Eastham said he would certainly be interested to see what the neighborhood came up with. Freerks said that she considered that plan to be the Southwest District Plan in many ways, as there was a great deal of community investment in that document. Weitzel stated that his discomfort in rezoning came in part from the fact that there was a lot of planning and effort that was involved in creating the Southwest District Plan, and into the zoning code that was amended since that time. Weitzel said he would be more comfortable if there was a neighborhood meeting to find out if the neighborhood in general was in favor of townhouses, before doing anything that would result in revisions to the intentions of plan. Weitzel said he has no problem with redeveloping the property but that attached property comes along with a rezoning to an RS-12. Miklo noted that it would be possible to condition RS-12 to detached houses only, although he did not know that there would be any merit to doing that in this case. Freerks asked if that condition would then be applied to the whole neighborhood and, if so, how does that fit in with the whole Southwest District Plan, which calls for stabilizing existing housing stock. She stated that she had a lot of concerns here, and that if she were to tip her hand she would have to say that she did not see how this would necessarily work out in terms of rezoning. Miklo asked if there was any particular information the Commission would like Staff or the applicant to bring to the next meeting. Weitzel stated that the plan was very preliminary and it was subsequently difficult to make judgments on some of the details. However, he could say that for him open space was still a problem, as was the scale of the units, driveway access and parking. If units had to be removed to address these issues, Weitzel said, then the Commission would need to ensure that happened. Koppes asked Miklo to provide the Commission with the minutes from the last rezoning to occur on Michael Street. Freerks stated that there had been a motion and a second for deferral and asked if further discussion was needed prior to a vote. No further discussion was requested. The motion to defer carried on a 6-0 vote. Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008 -Formal Page 12 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 30 and July 3, 2008: Koppes moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 6-0. OTHER: Miklo introduced Christina Kuecker, a new staff member who started full-time in May. Kuecker will be working half time with the Historic Preservation Commission and half time on Planning and Zoning issues. Kuecker has Bachelor of Architecture from Iowa State University and a Master's in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Iowa. Busard announced that he had to travel for work the week of the next informal and formal meetings, August 4`h and 7"'. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. All voted in favor of adjournment, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. c H .~ O U~ C1 O c ~ G ~ N va otf ~ o ~ R N C ~ ~C y C ~ R Q a U c0 3 O x x x x X i i X n ~ O X X X X ~ ~ x w X X X X X ~ ~ X ~ ~ w ~ 1 I X X X w O l l X 1 I X ~ X X X X ~ ~ X ~ ~ X ~ X X X O I I X J J ~ ~ X ~ X X X X X O I ~ ~ X i X X X X X X ~ 0 M X ~ X X X X X ~ ~ ~ W O I I X X X X X w I O I ~ x ~ x x x x o x ~ to ~ ~.~ O r ~- .- ~ r M r N .- O r 00 O ~ .- M .-- I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y ~ L W Y fq 41 Y_ C +' C O C L N O O L R Vl 3 +.+ tR 1C y O ~ O ~ !~ . C N . C r .. _ . ~ _ d a= m m w w Y ac nc n 3 z m -i U Q LL1 3 0 F-F - X X X O O I l x i X X X X X ~~ X 7 j ~ ~ ; X X X X ;; X J r W = i i ~o I xxxx I I x ~ ~ , ,x ; xxxxxx ; ~ , 1 N O I xXXOOx 1 a X! x x x w w w 1 o oo I N OO~~MNOaO.--M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I"'w 000000000 Y C N N C O Y~t ` N+'' C 61 7 ,~ O N N a0i ~ ~ =._ N~ 7 R~ O !a r~ N Emopwl~lav~vi3 zoo'cidui3o~~ a~ X W C ~ C ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q a Q II ~, II II LLj N ~ Yx00 os-is-os 3b 3 Final June 2008 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION Ji1NE 17, 2008 ROOM 208 Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM Members Present: Chuck Felling, Nancy Wombacher, Jay Honohan, Sarah Maiers, David Gould, Michael Lensing Members Absent: Robert Engel Staff Present: Emily Light, Michelle Buhman, Craig Buhman Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL-Honohan None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 20, 2008 MEETING-Honohan Motion: To accept the minutes as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Maiers/Gould. PUBLIC DISCUSSION-Honohan None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS-Honohan Wombacher will write the web article for the June 2008 meeting, Honohan will report on June 2008 meeting to the Board of Supervisors, and Lensing will report on the June 2008 meeting to the City Council. Honohan will write the web article for the July 2008 meeting. CONSTRUCTION UPDATES-C. Buhman Buhman reported that the Senior Center is withholding 5% of the payment from the ADA restroom renovation project as the last odds and ends are wrapped up. VSP Engineering has come on board with the boiler/chiller project and assumed the liability for the drawings. A problem arose with floor in G13. The maple floor was marred by the shoes of a dance group that was using the space, and the floor will have to be sanded and refinished. The room will have to be closed for a few days while it is being repaired. The group was very forthright with the Final June 2008 problem and brought the problem to the staff's attention right away. The group has met with staff members to discuss this and make sure it doesn't happen again. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW-M. Buhman Buhman reported that the Senior Center suspended all activities at the Center for the week of June 16 due to the floods. The City Manager of Iowa City released a request to City departments and area residents to avoid and discourage non-essential road travel, as heavy traffic has been a problem with bridge closures and re-routing. In order to accommodate that request, Center activities will remain suspended until Monday, June 23, though the building will remain open. Buhman has been working to make it known that the Senior Center is available to help with flood relief in whatever ways it can. Light has been working on last minute purchases to round out FY08 budget expenditures. Craig Buhman is in the midst of interviewing for the open maintenance position. Second round interviews will occur upon the coordinator's return from vacation. Light suggested choosing a later date than July 10 for the volunteer appreciation breakfast. The Commission was agreeable to the suggestion, but the date was not finalized. Lensing suggested that the Senior Center host aprogram/screening of the documentary Bill, which played to a full house at Hancher Auditorium. The subject of the film is notable Iowa City figure, Bill Sackter, for whom Wild Bill's Coffee Shop and Uptown Bill's Small Mall are named. Honohan noted that the Boomer Bash appeared to be a great success. He suggested the event be made an annual tradition. Wombacher noted that the Generations of Jazz, an intergenerational jazz band event, is scheduled for November 17 at the Englert Theatre. COMMISSION DISCUSSION-Honohan Honohan asked about the free counseling services being offered by Counseling Psychology PhD candidate Derek Turesky. They are free services being offered to anyone dealing with depression, stress, anxiety, or loss. Honohan noted that this is a great service and would like to find some way to promote the service. Lensing suggested having a program on different types of losses, including death, divorce, unemployment, etc. He referred to a hospice program that he worked on to help people journal about loss in order to document their experience. Lensing suggested the Senior Center could organize a similar program, especially in light of the many people coping with the loss of their homes because of flooding. The program could include involvement of SCTV and/or a journal of memories, similar to the Legacy Letters to narrate and document participants' experiences. Lensing described the program as a way for people to look at loss as an opportunity to start over and grow. The Commission and staff members had an extensive brainstorming session about how the Senior Center could best serve the community in the context of the flood crisis. Many ideas were Final June 2008 shared, and M. Buhman said that she and other staff will work to carry out any of the suggestions they can. Some suggestions included: Hosting a panel discussion to make information resources available, including a FEMA representative, alocal governmental authority figure (mayor or city manager), a police representative to present information to help victims avoid scams, a counselor or psychologist to discuss emotional recovery, and a health care representative to discuss flood-related health risks. Such a panel discussion could have broadcast possibilities to take the information to the wider community, through SCTV, KXIC, WSUI, KGAN, KRUI, etc. • Making space in the Center available to flood victims for meeting/gathering. Neighborhoods may need a space to come together after being spread out by the flood. • Allowing the Senior Center to be a site for flood-related fundraisers. • Collecting necessities for seniors who have been displaced; preparing care packages to distribute to affected seniors. Lensing suggested seeking donated items from Oral B and Proctor & Gamble. Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Maiers/Lensing. Final June 2008 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2008 Name Term Ex Tres 2/26 3/18 4/15 5/20 6/17 7/15 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 12/16 Bob En el 12/31/08 O/E X X X O/E David Gould 12/31/08 X X O/E O/E X Chuck Fellin 12/31/09 X X X X X Ja Honohan 12/31/10 X X X X X Michael Lensin 12/31/10 -- O/E X X X Sarah Maiers 12/31/09 X X X X X Nanc Wombacher 12/31/09 O/E O/E X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a member 3b~4~ MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 9, 2008 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Karen Leigh, Michelle Payne, Caroline Sheerin, Ned Wood Members Excused: Edgar Thornton Staff Present: Karen Howard, Sarah Holocek, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen Others Present: Robin Chambers, Mark McCallum, Bu Wilson, Esther Baker, Michelle Campo, Hillary Sale RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Ned Wood at 5:03 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Leigh, Payne, Sheerin and Wood were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 11, 2008: Sheerin motioned to accept the June 1 1, 2008 minutes with corrections noted for the record. Payne seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Thornton absent). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard and Robin Chambers for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback from 21 feet 6 inches to 14 feet 10 inches for property located in the RS-8 zone at 907 Fifth Avenue. Karen Howard noted that the property in question had not been surveyed and as a result Staff wished to adjust the principal setback so that it was not so specific. The agenda item will be changed to read "from approximately 21 feet to approximately 14 feet" where it currently reads " 2] feet 6 inches to 14 feet 10 inches." Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 2 Sheerin and Wood noted that the agenda and staff documents list the property as being in an RS- 8 zone, when in fact it is in an RS-5 zone. Howard noted this error, and confirmed that the property is in an RS-5 zone. Howard explained that the request is for a reduction in the front setback from the current City requirement of 15 feet to allow the applicant to replace the existing front deck with a front porch. Howard said that one of the requirements for a setback reduction is that the situation be peculiar to the property. In this case, Howard said, the property is smaller in size than many of properties in the neighborhood and is not as deep, leaving less room for open space to the rear of the house. The homeowners would like to create a porch in place of the deck to provide asemi-private space for outdoor recreation. There is some practical difficulty here, Howard noted, due to the size and configuration of the lot. In this case setback averaging applies, and along the street-frontage all of the properties are set back five feet further than the required setback. Because there are only three properties along this frontage and the other homes are setback further than the required setback, this property actually has a required setback of approximately 20 feet. Replacing the existing deck with a porch would require the setback to be reduced to 14 feet. Howard stated that granting this special exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations, which help to maintain privacy between neighbors, and to maintain light and air separation. Staff does not feel that any of the stated purposes of the setback regulations would be affected by this setback reduction. Open air porches are intended to provide a transition from the public street to the private realm ofthe residence. They provide a semi- private function and are very common features in residential areas. According to the specific approval criteria, any potential negative effects resulting from the setback reduction are to be mitigated to the extent practical. In this case, the applicant has agreed to build an open-air porch and has agreed not to enclose the porch over time. Staff is recommending that this agreement be a condition of approval. Howard noted that the porch could really enhance the appearance of this particular dwelling. Howard said that it is a more common feature to have a front porch rather than a front deck. This improvement could encourage other improvements or reinvestment in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that EXC08-00012, an application for a reduction in the front principal setback to fourteen feet to allow construction of a front porch, be approved subject to the porch being constructed and maintained as an open-air porch. Sheerin stated that she was a little confused on the front setback requirement as to whether it was 15 feet or 20 feet for this property. Howard stated that the code requirement for the RS-5 zone is 15 feet; however, because properties have already developed at a greater distance than the standard requirement, setback averaging is applied in order to keep a general building line on a given street. The averaging provision in the City code uses the established setback of the closest building to the street right, which in this case is approximately 21 feet. The reduction is to Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 3 accommodate the footprint of the existing uncovered deck, which is allowed to be in the setback and is set approximately 14 feet from the front property line. Howard reiterated that approximations must be used because the property has not been surveyed. Wood noted that, in effect, all the applicant wishes to do is put a roof on the existing deck. Howard said that this was correct. Once you put a roof over something then it becomes part of the principal structure and is thus subject to the principal setback requirement. In this case, Howard explained, the deck, though attached to the principal structure is not subject to the setback requirement; a porch with a roof is. Wood asked if there were other questions for Staff. Payne had a question regarding item #6 in the General Standards. The Staff statement read "Other than and front setback, the existing house ..." Payne asked what this statement was supposed to mean. Howard explained that she believed it was a typographical error and should instead read "Other than the existing ..." There were no further questions for Staff, and Wood invited the applicant to address the Board. Robin Chambers, the applicant, stated that she and her husband had purchased the home in 1984, and that from the moment they laid eyes on the property they knew that it needed a front porch to appear complete. Chambers said that the front deck was built two years ago with the hope of eventually putting a roof on it. The deck is not being replaced other than the posts which will be changed out for longer and heavier porch posts. Chambers offered to answer any questions the Board might have. There were none. There was no one else who wished to speak in favor of or against the proposed application, and the public meeting was closed by Wood. Leigh made a motion that EXC08-00012, an application for a reduction in the front principal building setback to allow construction of a front porch, be approved subject to the porch being constructed and maintained as an open-air porch. Sheerin seconded the motion. Howard noted that Staff recommended the wording "to approximately 14 feet" be added to the motion so that the property record is clear. Wood, Leigh and Sheerin agreed to this amendment. Wood invited discussion from the Board. Leigh stated that she had driven by the applicant's property and noted that the shape of the applicant's lot is peculiar, being nearly square. Chambers explained that her lot had originally been part of a larger lot that had been divided in half. Chambers agreed that it is a small lot that is nearly square. Chambers said that the back yard is slightly larger than the front yard, but that is nearly unusable, and that they are "front yard people" anyway. The new deck and patio have already made a tremendous difference to their Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 4 sense of place, Chambers said, and the open-air front porch is something they are very much looking forward to. Leigh said that she absolutely agrees with Staffs assessment, and feels that it looks like a more suitable place for the Chambers to enjoy their yard and their property. Given the shallowness of the lot, Leigh said, the front porch addition makes all the sense in the world as an outdoor space. Leigh said that she also agreed that the front porch will maintain light, air and separation for fire protection. In terms of the general standards, Leigh said that the extra wide right of way is not going to reduce visibility for anyone. Fire protection will not be an issue. Leigh said that in general it appears that the rest of the standards are not particularly applicable. Payne noted that she agrees with the Staff report which states that the porch will not be out of scale with the neighborhood and will be compatible with the neighborhood. These two attributes meet the criterion that the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The porch addition will not infringe on the side or rear property lines, and the required three-foot distance from those property lines will be maintained. The property is in an already developed area in an RS-5 zone, so the exception will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Payne said that she agreed with the staff report that the porch will enhance the appearance of this dwelling, and could potentially encourage other improvements in the neighborhood. This porch, Payne said, will not stand out as something that is out of place in the neighborhood. Because of the wide right of way, the porch will not impede traffic on the public street. The house appears to meet all of the other zoning requirements, and the Comprehensive Plan encourages this type of preservation and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods. Sheerin said that she agreed with everything that had been said. She added that, personally, she had jogged past this property a number of times and had noted that the house seemed to need a porch on the front. Sheerin said that she definitely believed that the porch would improve on the appearance of the house. She said that she thought the Chambers currently had a great deck and that they would have an even better porch. This addition could encourage other improvement and reinvestment in the neighborhood, Sheerin said. Sheerin agreed that there would be no resulting reduction in light or air for neighboring properties and stated that she would be voting in favor of the application. Wood stated that he felt that all of the specific criteria and general standards had been addressed clearly by his colleagues. He added that he thought this was an unusual property in an unusual neighborhood and that he thought this porch would be a wonderful addition. Motion passed on a 4-0 vote (Thornton absent). Wood declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 5 Wood noted that the next item on the agenda was one involving a property down the street from his residence. As a result, Wood recused himself to avoid any conflict of interest. Michelle Payne took over the role of Chair for the Board. EXC08-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark McCallum for a special exception to allow a change of use under the non-conforming use regulations in order to convert a non-conforming rooming house to a 13-unit apartment building for property located in the RNS-12 zone at 932 East College Street. Howard noted that prior to the meeting she had distributed a letter from Jim and Ann Estin. The letter was received by Staff after the Board's packets had been prepared. Howard explained that this special exception is a new special exception in the zoning code, added in 2005. Howard stated that non-conforming uses are created when a zoning designation is changed or when zoning regulations themselves are changed such that an existing lawful established use no longer complies with the zoning code. The exception is intended to provide some flexibility for properties and buildings that were not built for uses that are currently allowed. This exception allows anon-conforming use to change to another non-conforming use in a different category, as long as it is the same or lesser intensity of use. The Board of Adjustment has the chance to weigh in on that relative intensity according to the code. Howard stated that the approval criteria for this exception are based on the idea that 1) there is a building that is designed for a use no longer permitted in the zone, 2) the City wants it to be reused over time and some flexibility is needed in order to do that. In this case, Howard said, the applicant, Mark McCallum, is requesting a special exception to convert an existing rooming house located 932 East College Street to a studio apartment building. He proposes to remodel the interior and eliminate common living, dining, and bathroom areas. These areas will be incorporated into new efficiency apartments that each has its own bathroom and kitchen. The small sleeping rooms will be combined to create more livable spaces within each efficiency apartment. The proposal is to keep the maximum total occupancy at 13 persons. Currently, Howard explained, this property is legally established as a rooming house, allowing a maximum of 13 persons. The proposal maintains the maximum occupancy at 13 persons. Howard said that it should be noted that there have been a number of variance requests associated with this property relating to its use and occupancy. In 1997, Howard stated, a variance was granted to allow the property up to 30 roomers subject to compliance with the principles of what was called the "Leighton House Business Plan." Because the property is not currently operating under that plan, it reverts back to what the legal occupancy was prior to that variance, which is 13 persons. There have been other variance requests over the last several years and an appeal of the City's decision to limit the occupancy of the building to 13 based on the fact that the 1997 conditions were not being fulfilled. In 2007, the Board upheld the building Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 6 inspector's denial of a rental permit due to over-occupancy. Those matters all concern the history of this building. However, the question before the Board today, Howard stated, is for this particular special exception. The specific standards in the zoning ordinance are for a special exception, not a variance, and, therefore, are not as high a hurdle as a variance would be. The first specific criterion for this exception states that "the proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is not currently allowed in the zone." This building was originally built as a sorority house, a use categorized as fraternal group living which is no longer allowed in the RNS-12 zone. The second criterion requires that "the proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the existing use." Staff believes that this standard is met because: 1) the proposal is to limit the occupancy of the building to the same number of people currently allowed, 13; 2) by reducing the large common areas and combining additional bedrooms and space into single apartment units, the change in use will discourage over-occupancy and will reduce opportunities for nuisance activities such as excessive noise, parking congestion, and overflowing garbage resulting from house parties or other large communal gatherings that are often associated with fraternities, sororities, and rooming houses that feature large common areas; and, 3) since the proposed use will not increase the occupancy beyond what is currently allowed, staff finds that it is unlikely that the new use will increase parking congestion in the neighborhood. While Staff does note that parking is a problem for the neighborhood in general, Staff does not believe that this particular special exception will increase that problem. The third criterion is that "the proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site." Howard stated that the building was built for numerous occupants, and that changing it from a rooming house to an apartment building is not going to change the exterior of the building. The final specific criterion is that "the structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the non-conforming use." Howard reiterated that the alterations will take place in the interior of the building, not the exterior. Howard stated that Staff's findings for the general standards are described in the staff report. Staff does not feel that the proposed exception will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Because the occupancy would continue to be 13, the conversion of the house is not expected to generate any additional traffic. Additionally, because the existing common areas will be substantially reduced, nuisance effects may actually be lessened. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The same reasons previously stated by Staff apply to this standard as well, Howard said. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 7 The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. The surrounding neighborhood, Howard said, is already fully developed. The RNS-12 zone is intended for a mix of residential uses, but is intended to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhood. Howard noted that this area has been designated a Historic Conservation District and that by rehabilitating and maintaining this property with a viable use, a historic structure will be preserved. There will be no change to the utilities, access roads, drainage or necessary facilities, and all are deemed adequate. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards ofthe zone in which it is to be located. The building itself is non-conforming in terms of required setbacks, Howard said. However, because there will be no changes to the exterior of the structure, there will be no change to the setbacks. Howard noted that the parking is a bit complicated for this property. The concept of "ghost parking", a provision under the code, is applicable in this instance. This provision gives a property credit for the parking that would be required if the use was established under the current regulations. In this case, the property would get credit for ten spaces, even though there are actually only two spaces provided on the property. With the change to amulti-family use, the parking requirement would go up to 13. However, Howard said, because the apartments will each be limited to one person, Staff feels that it is reasonable to keep the required parking spaces to 10. The applicant has proposed to make additional parking spaces available to his tenants at 932 East College at a property he owns one block to the west at 811/819 East College, where there is surplus parking. If the Board decides to require these additional off-street parking spaces as a condition of approval of the special exception, Staff recommends that the Board then require the applicant to execute a covenant reserving that parking on the other property. Staff feels that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The subject property is a contributing structure to the College Hill Conservation District. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive re-use and preservation of such structures so long as the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In Staff's opinion, the proposed exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that EXC08-0001 3, an application to allow conversion of anon-conforming Independent Group Living Use to anon-conforming Multi-Family Use located at 932 East College Street be approved subject to: 1. The converted use, specifically aMulti-Family Use, may not exceed a maximum total occupancy of 13 residents and said occupancy limit will be recorded on the rental permit for 932 East College Street. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 8 2. The converted use shall consist of 13 single-occupant multi-family dwelling units or, alternatively, 11 single-occupant multi-family dwelling units and one 2-bedroom, double occupant multi-family dwelling unit. 3. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 4. Upon applicant applying for a building permit to establish the conversion, variance VAR97-00004 shall be extinguished and no rights shall continue to exist thereunder. 5. Additionally, upon steps being taken to establish the conversion, any right to re-establish a rooming house on the property shall be extinguished. 6. If the Board decides that additional off-street spaces are necessary to satisfy parking demand or to preserve neighborhood integrity, Staff would recommend that the Board require the applicant to execute a covenant dedicating two to three parking spaces on the property located at 811/819 East College Street prior to establishing the conversion of the subject property. Howard asked if there were questions from the Board. Leigh asked how one occupant per unit would be enforced. Howard stated that it would be on the rental permit and that the units would be inspected just like every other rental property in the city. Leigh asked if it had been established by Staff that there was surplus parking at 811/8l9 East College Street, and that providing those additional spaces would not cause any zoning violations on that end. Howard replied Staff had established the adequacy of the parking at 81 ] /819 East College Street. Payne asked about the parking requirements. As she understood it, 13 spaces would be required, the property gets credit for ten spaces, and it has two spaces. Howard stated that the zoning requirement is to provide additional parking spaces above and beyond the ones that are there currently. As a result, the multi-family use will require 13; they get credit for ten; they already have two; but they would actually need three more spaces. The two spaces do not count toward the total because they were pre-existing. Payne asked about the covenant portion of the recommendation, asking exactly what a covenant means for the property owner. Holecek explained that a covenant is a document that is recorded and would basically state that the designated parking spaces at 811 /819 East College Street would be dedicated to this particular use. This would allow those spaces to be counted for required parking for the 932 East College Street property, rather than at 811/819 East College Street. The covenant would state that there could not be any change in the terms of that parking arrangement without the participation and agreement ofthe City. The parking would be essentially dedicated to 932 East College Street. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 9 Sheerin asked if her understanding was correct that if the property at 811 /819 East College was sold at a later date with a covenant in place, the parking spaces would continue to "belong" to 932 East College even with a change of ownership. Holocek stated that this was correct. The covenant would come up in the property's abstract and in the title opinion until and unless it was released by the City or some other material change happened. Sheerin asked if this was routinely done. Holocek stated that it pertained to everything from shared access drives to off-site parking arrangements and was not uncommon. Sheerin noted that there was a request in the letter from Jim and Ann Estin to somehow avoid having motor-bikes parked on the lawn. Sheerin asked if there was a remedy for that problem. Holocek stated that the Board was being asked to require that bikes and motorcycles be parked at the rear of the property. Howard stated that there was no City requirement for any other property in the neighborhood for bikes to be located in the back. Howard said she felt it would be unusual to require only one property to park their bikes in the back. Sheerin stated that she believed that the concern was that there will be so many more people living at this property than at most others in the neighborhood. Howard said she believed that, technically, parking a motorbike in the front yard would not be allowed under code. Sheerin said she had driven past the property and found the front yard very crowded with bikes and scooters. Payne asked if there were further questions for Staff. As there were none, she invited the applicant to address the Board. Mark McCallum, the applicant, said that he has lived in Iowa City for some time. He said that he created the Brown Street Inn (a bed and breakfast), and that he later sold the Inn to buy the property at 811/819 East College Street, where he currently resides. McCallum said that he is very attracted to buildings that are adapted for re-use, and that he does not fit the typical landlord mold in Iowa City. By this he meant that he was attracted to hardwood floors, and other old, unique features in buildings. McCallum said that he had actually reduced his parking at 811/819 East College Street to provide additional green space. He stated that there continues to be a surplus of six parking spaces at that property. McCallum said that he is creating bike racks at 811/819 East College Street in the rear of the building, and that that would also be what he would do for 932 East College Street. He said that he too dislikes what is presently seen at the front of the subject house. McCallum said that he is worried about the implications of having covenants on the 81 ] /819 College Street property. This is a project that McCallum would have to leverage, and part of the value in that property is its potential for redevelopment, perhaps as condominiums. McCallum said that his property is actually under-utilized and that most of his one and two bedroom units are occupied by single individuals. While he is comfortable with that model, he understands that not all landlords would be. McCallum said that when he bought 811 East College, it was a building that had a good reputation and was occupied by mostly graduate students. McCallum said that those types of small living spaces tend to attract a certain type of person, versus a rooming house which attracts a different type. McCallum stated that he has no interest in Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 10 owning a rooming house. McCallum said that the parking at 811/819 East College would be available to the 932 East College Street residents for as long as he owned it, but that he was not comfortable with the idea of a covenant between the two properties. McCallum said that he is a realtor as well as landlord and that in this situation, he would advise a client that such a covenant would adversely affect the value of 811/819 East College. McCallum said that it is his intention to own both the property at 811/819 East College and the property at 932 East College, as they are a good fit together and are in close proximity to one another. McCallum typically rents to graduate students and some working professionals, as well as to some very quiet undergraduates. In his rental contracts he forbids smoking in the building and has a no keg policy. He also informs potential tenants that the landlord lives on site, which, serves as its own kind of filtering mechanism. McCallum said that he plans on maintaining a presence in both buildings, keeping a unit at both 932 and 811 for himself. He said that anyone who knows him is aware that he is a very active landlord and runs a very different type of operation. That said, if McCallum runs out of money -as sometimes happens in redevelopment projects-he may want to consider selling 811/819 East College Street in order to finish the project at 932 East College Street. McCallum said that one of the things that is attractive to him about the property at 932 East College Street is that there is significantly less snow removal to contend with; as he does his own snow removal, this is something he thinks about as he ages. McCallum said that his plans are to recreate the space while maintaining the integrity of the building. There will still be the very attractive front parlor at the entrance to the building. In redesigning the second and third floor units, McCallum plans to combine two rooming units, putting a bathroom and kitchen on one side and then attaching them to another room. This would result in units of approximately 400-450 square feet with 3-4 "rooms," with each delineated living space being called a "room." McCallum said that his target rent is $600 per month with the heat, water and electric paid by the landlord, a rent he feels is affordable in this marketplace. He said that he did not believe he would have to separately meter each unit. McCallum already plans to address the issues that are currently a problem in the front yard, such as the bicycle and motorbike parking and the wading pool. The vision that he has for the property includes a wrought iron fence around the front to discourage parking of any kind, and a bicycle rack on the east side of the property, out of sight from the front view. McCallum said that although it is perhaps not the most convenient mode of parking, he did believe there may be an opportunity to do one more stacked space to the north of the building. He said he would be happy to look at reconfiguring other spaces such as the dumpster location if it would help address the Board's concerns. The marketing plan for this building is to try to do an academic-term lease, and to attempt to increase the number of international students and others who do not bring cars. He is, however, doing the leasing for the property right now as a rooming house, a process which he said has been interesting. McCallum said that if he already had 13 studio apartments he believes he would have signed 13 leases last week. However, McCallum said that rooming units are not something that people want, and that those who do want rooming units are not necessarily the Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 1 1 people you would want to have as your neighbors. McCallum reiterated that he is not interested in owning a rooming house. While he believes the property has wonderful potential, his interest in it will wane if the building cannot be changed from a rooming house to apartments. McCallum stated that the challenge with this property is that the property taxes are over $20,000 per year. With so few occupants, McCallum asked, how does one pay for all of that square footage with heating, water and electric and still manage to pay the bills? He said that he does not believe that it would be possible to do with 13 rooming units. Again, McCallum stated, that .there is very little demand for rooming units, whereas there is a very high demand for studio units. He noted that the zoning code does not seem to encourage the development of small units, and that this helps to ensure a healthy market for him. McCallum stated that he had eight vacancies at 811 East College this year and that they were all filled between March 1St and April 15th McCallum asked the Board if they had specific questions or concerns. Leigh asked about the potential for a third parking space that McCallum had mentioned. He replied that the area was currently unpaved and leads up to the back door, and that he believes he can pave to his lot line. Leigh asked if space was on the alley-side of the property. McCallum replied that it was on the north side of the building where the existing parking is, which, he believes to be a shared driveway rather than an alley. Leigh asked if it would be possible for McCallum to include in his lease agreements that any motorized vehicles be parked in the back. McCallum said he fully agrees with that idea. Leigh said she hated the idea of stacked parking because then someone will be unable to easily get out of their parking space. She did, however, like the idea of reserving that space for mopeds, scooters and motorcycles. McCallum noted that he has found scooters to be more of an undergraduate phenomenon, whereas the graduate students at his units seem more likely to have bicycles. He said that the Board could be confident that the scooter issue will go away August 1St. McCallum said that bicyclists seem to want to park their bicycles where they can get easy access to them, and that space in the rear of the building would be made available for bicycles. McCallum said that he did have a contract with the current owner to buy the property subject to a number of provisions, one of which is that the current owner secure a rental permit. McCallum said that it was his understanding that the current owner had issues with the rental department and that he did not wish to inherit any portion of that problem. McCallum said that he had wanted the current owner to secure a rental permit prior to closing on the property, and he asked if this was inconsistent with Staff's recommendation to have the applicant apply for a rental permit in order to establish the conversion. Holecek said that there is currently pending litigation regarding whether or not the current owner is in compliance and if a rental permit can be issued. Holecek stated that if McCallum applied for a rental permit for 13 occupants the issue could be resolved. Howard clarified that the special exception would be in effect when the property was converted, even if only partially converted. Holecek said that the way the recommendation is structured the Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 12 conversion process would begin upon McCallum's application for a rental permit. The building permit, which McCallum would get prior to beginning interior renovations, would extinguish the other remaining issues, including the variance for the higher density and the rooming house re- establishment. McCallum said that it would take at least a year to complete the conversion and that during that time it would be sort of a hybrid house. Holecek said that this would not be an issue so long as McCallum's occupancy was limited to 13 persons. McCallum said that his plan is to sign short-term rooming leases while the building is converted, leaving one side of the building unoccupied in order to facilitate construction. As the rooming leases expire and the studio apartments are finished, there will be a time period during which the house is occupied by both roomers and studio dwellers. Sheerin disclosed that she believed that McCallum had been the realtor that had represented the buyer for her house. McCallum said that he had indeed been the realtor for the purchaser, but that this was the first time he had met Sheerin as she had not been at the closing when it happened the week prior. Sheerin stated that she did not feel a conflict of interest in continuing to participate in this decision. Payne asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of this special exception. As no one came forward, Payne invited those wishing to speak against this exception to come forward. Bu Wilson stated that she and her husband purchased their home at 1110 East College four years prior. Wilson said that this was the fourth time in four years that she had had to attend a Board of Adjustment meeting concerning the property at 932 East College Street. Wilson said that it was something of a nuisance that the residents of the neighborhood had to attend yearly Board meetings to defend the rights given to them by the City's zoning codes. Wilson said that it is also a nuisance to have a property in the neighborhood that is so poorly maintained that it has turned into an unrestrained party house on more than one occasion. Wilson said that it was quite a nuisance that the City took five years to legally establish that the Leighton House was not in compliance with the 1997 variance. Everyone in the neighborhood, Wilson said, was fully aware of that fact. Wilson said that the current owner has two appeals of the Board's decisions in the courts at present. She said that she supposed that that was a nuisance for the City, and that it was certainly not how she would care to have her tax money spent. Wilson stated that she considered this property and its current owner to be nothing but a nuisance. She acknowledged that the building has been such a nuisance that any halfway reasonable proposal for a change of ownership was likely to look like manna from heaven. Wilson said that this proposal may turn out to be halfway reasonable. She said that based on the written documentation and the testimony given by McCallum, the proposal has a lot better than a halfway chance. The application, Wilson said, attempts to outline point by point the proposed usage in such a way as to meet the legal minimum requirements for an exception. However, Wilson stated, only a handful of sentences within the document suggest why a change of usage would be desirable and in the public interest. Wilson read from the application a sentence stating Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 13 that the change in usage would "offer an affordable alternative to some more expensive extended stay facilities." Wilson said that this may or may not turn out to be true, and that while McCallum has had that experience with another property, one must keep in mind that the Leighton House developers believed there was a market for an upscale women's dormitory, and that their expectations were not realized. Wilson continued, "The proposed use is a logical fit for this building." Wilson asked what this phrase actually meant, as it invokes certain ideas in her mind, but may invoke entirely different ideas in McCallum's mind. Wilson said that while McCallum has elaborated on his ideas before the Board, she wishes to see those elaborations documented for the record. "The new model would better utilize the building space and reduce structural non-conformity," Wilson read. Wilson stated that she was not sure how relevant this argument was as whoever owns the building has considerable latitude to reconfigure the interior space with or without a change of usage, so long as the basic minimums of the assigned usage are met. "The proposed use will eliminate issues associated with group living or rooming houses," Wilson read. Wilson stated that McCallum does not say in his documentation precisely what those "issues" are, although his oral remarks have been slightly more forthcoming. Wilson said that McCallum emphasizes his track record of being a good neighbor in his application documents. She said that a good neighbor at this property sounds like manna from heaven to her, but it does not sound like a good reason for the Board to grant a special exception. Wilson reminded the Board that the exception will be granted to the property and not the person, and that the next owner of the property might be another neighborhood nuisance. Wilson stated that she wanted documentation of McCallum's intentions. Wilson said that she was sure everyone in the room had their own ideas regarding what those rooming house issues are and how this proposal might reduce or eliminate them. However, Wilson said, ideas do not go into the record unless they are expressed in words or through documentation. This applicant, Wilson went on, has not provided enough words. She said that the minimalist floor plans offered in the application raise more questions than they answer about the functionality and social engineering of the spatial reconfiguration. Wilson stated that she could understand why McCallum was hesitant to expand his cryptic remarks in written form. Apparently, Wilson said, he is still negotiating the purchase of the property with the current owner, and because of this, may prudently be avoiding criticizing the current owner. Nonetheless, Wilson said, the applicant has not provided sufficient explicit explanation and specific information to make his intent clear and give the Board an adequate justification for granting this exception. The staff report, Wilson stated, makes assumptions about the restructuring of the building and how its usage might be in the public interest. The staff report, she contended, practically puts words in the applicant's mouth. As a resident of the neighborhood, Wilson wants the record to show what the prospective owner intends, not what the City's staff hopes he means. Wilson said that she understands why the staff might be tempted by this manna from heaven, saying that she is sure preparations for these meetings require a lot of frustrating time and effort. Despite Staff's best efforts, there are lawsuits that result from the Board's decisions, such as the two lawsuits pending regarding the Leighton House decisions. If this Board accepts the staff Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 14 recommendations, the City will not have to go to court to defend the decisions of previous boards, Wilson said. Wilson said that even if Staff did not have a problem with this apparent conflict of interest, she did. This property, Wilson stated, is in a Neighborhood Stabilization Zone. As the owner-occupant of asingle-family house in the neighborhood, Wilson said that she believes this proposal is detrimental to her interests unless it is more fully documented that it will make an improvement to the neighborhood. Wilson urged the Board to deny the applicant's request or to table it until such time as the applicant is willing and able to provide adequate documentation of his assertions and intentions. Wilson thanked the Board for their time and consideration. Leigh asked exactly what kind of documentation Wilson was hoping to see. Wilson replied that what she is really concerned about is not McCallum, but the next owner. Wilson said that she would like to be sure that there is a clear benefit to the neighborhood if the Board rules in favor of this exception. Wilson said that in looking at the documentation it reads as if there is no problem with the current situation and as if a "swap-out" of a rooming house for a studio apartment building would be all that is taking place. Wilson said that she is very much more reassured by the oral arguments presented by the applicant than she was in looking at the documentation only. Wilson said that what she is worried about is that if the owner keeps the building for quite some time as he has indicated he wishes to, no one will be around to explain in the far-off future what was intended by the Board in granting this application. The only things that will be left to explain are words on a piece of paper or blips on a computer disk; the record of these proceedings may be the only thing that constrains the next owner. Holecek said that she could address this concern. She stated that the decision of the Board is recorded and becomes part of the abstract for this property. As such, it would very clear to any purchaser or potential purchaser that this property is subject to a maximum occupancy of 13 persons. The City, Holecek stated, has tools to enforce those occupancy caps, as well as any other conditions outlined. Wilson said that in having seen the City's tools in action, she was not comforted by this explanation. Payne stated that one of the staff recommendations was to add a condition stating that in the future no one could take. any steps to re-establish a rooming house at the property. Wilson replied that she rather wondered what would happen if it gets converted to condominiums. She said that she believed that the proposal was such a welcome one that it was perhaps not looked at with a sufficiently critical eye as to what may happen to the property beyond this owner. Payne responded that she did not wish to seem argumentative, but that she believed that the same was true of any property in any neighborhood. One never knows what will happen at a given property. Wilson agreed that this was true, and acknowledged that she certainly did not want the current owner of the property to maintain ownership. Payne said that given the property's recent Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 15 history she certainly understood Wilson's hesitation to accept a proposal without question, adding that she believed she had been present for three of Wilson's last trips to the Board regarding variances for this property. Wilson said that part of the reason her statement was so strongly worded was because she felt it might be the only way that she could get some of those issues into the record. Payne asked if Wilson had any experience with the other property on College Street owned by McCallum. Wilson replied that she walks past it every week day and that McCallum seems to have made wonderful improvements on the property and that it seems very well-managed. Wilson said that this is the man she wants to own College Hill House, but that his application was not sufficiently documented. Wilson repeated the point that if the exception was granted by the Board, her statement may be the only way that some of these issues enter the record. Payne clarified that all of McCallum's statements are as much a part of the record as anyone else's comments made at the meeting, and that although some of the things discussed are not in McCallum's written application, they are nonetheless a part of the official record by virtue of McCallum's having said them on the record. Wilson said that she believed that a number of things had been clarified for her. Esther Baker said that she believed that part of Wilson's concern was not just that some of the issues discussed be a part of the record, but that they be a part of the motion. Baker stated that some of the things that had been verbalized by McCallum -things that the neighbors very much approve of- do not appear on the written application. Baker said that while she was not wishing any ill on McCallum, it was possible that he could be "run over by a bus" immediately after the special exception was approved. If that were to happen, the special exception would now be a part of the property and would match what was written in the application and the way the Board's motion was framed, but would not match the way that McCallum had explained his plans for the property tonight. Baker advised the Board to be very careful to use language in their motion that includes some ofthe things that do not appear in the application but were verbalized by McCallum at the meeting. One example of this would be the fact that McCallum had expressed his desire to remove the concrete area in the front of the building to discourage parking. Baker wanted to ensure that the language of the motion conveyed the notion that whether it is McCallum who completes the project or someone else, that these things are a part of it and have been made a condition of approval. Baker said that she wished to express that she likes this proposal, and likes the fact that it limits occupancy to l 3 residents. McCallum has been a responsible member of the community and the neighborhood. As a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, Baker said that she appreciated McCallum's experience with historic preservation, and has faith that he will respect the historic integrity of the building. That aside, Baker said that she and her neighbors do have concerns. Baker noted that the application is for 13 studio or efficiency apartments, single occupancy units. The staff report added the idea that it could also be 11-unit studio/efficiency apartments and one 2-bedroom apartment. Baker said that a unit with two bedrooms invites over-occupancy. Baker said the applicant only asked for 13 studio efficiencies, a good model for this property, and she does not understand why Staff would make this suggestion for an alternative. Baker said that she has Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 16 concerns that this alternate option changes the model a little bit. Baker asked what would happen if the building were converted to condominiums; even if it began as owner-occupied, they could then turn around and rent them out and over-occupancy would again be an issue. Baker said she did not know if there was any way of addressing that issue in this exception, but that it was a concern. Baker said that parking has been discussed each time this property has come before the Board. Baker said that while she understands that a covenant on McCallum's other property makes resale a little difficult, failing to require a covenant makes the parking issue the neighborhood's problem. The three additional parking spaces needed for this project will have to be absorbed by a neighborhood that already has serious parking shortages. Requiring the covenant as part of the Board's motion would be a great relief to neighborhood property owners. Baker reiterated that she is not against this proposal in principal, but that she just thinks that there are some things that need to be addressed in the way the Board moves to approve it. Sheerin noted that both Baker and Wilson had mentioned things that had been verbalized in the Board meeting but were not included in the staff recommendation. Some of the things mentioned were swimming pools as a nuisance in the front yard and a desire for moped parking in the back. Sheerin asked if there was anything else the neighborhood residents had heard in the meeting that they felt needed to be included. Baker said she would push very strongly for the parking covenant. Sheerin stated that covenant was already a part of Staff recommendations. Baker replied that as a member of the Historic Preservation Commission she knew that Staff recommendations were not always followed to the letter. Baker said that McCallum's idea of having a wrought iron fence would be both beautiful and a good preventative for parking on the front lawn. Baker said that while she did not know if it was possible to require a wrought iron fence as a stipulation for approval, it was her feeling that if the owner intended to put one in anyway, the condition should be added as a way of preventing some of the problems that have occurred at this property in the past. Payne noted that in the staff recommendations it stated that in order to establish the conversion the applicant must apply for a rental permit. Payne explained that in order for any of this to happen it is McCallum who must apply for the rental permit. If indeed McCallum is hit by a bus immediately after the Board approves his exception, Payne explained, any new owner of the property would have to begin the process all over again. Baker thanked Payne for this clarification. Jokingly, Leigh advised McCallum to look out for buses with all of this talk of his potential untimely demise. Leigh pointed out that the first condition of approval in the Staff recommendations reads, "The converted use, specifically aMulti-Family Use, may not exceed a maximum total occupancy of 13 residents and said occupancy limit will be recorded on the rental permit for 932 East College Street." Leigh asked if this reassured the neighbors regarding fears ofover-occupancy. Baker said that she understood that 13 would be the maximum allowed, but said that in her neighborhood they know from experience that over-occupancy happens. Baker pointed out that Leigh had asked the question earlier of how to enforce such a limit. Baker said Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 17 the answer given was through inspections. She said that there are ways of fudging on inspections and that if rooms are larger or if apartments have multiple bedrooms it is really easy to sneak additional residents in illegally. McCallum explained that the 2-bedroom discussed in the staff report had been the owner's quarters under Leighton House, and is a very nice apartment. McCallum said that while he did not ask for that configuration (11-studios and one 2-bedroom), he had thought that it would make an excellent owner-occupied apartment. McCallum said that the 2-bedroom would be the last thing he would be converting and could be made into two really nice studio apartments. McCallum admitted that he could not predict what a future owner might do, but he reiterated that he has a track record as a property owner and that he does go the extra mile to create aesthetically pleasing properties. He noted that he does all of his bicycle parking in the rear, that he creates green space, and that he has gone to considerable expense to improve his properties, spending $50,000 on landscaping alone. McCallum said that he had not fully decided to buy the property when he put the application together and that if the current owner had not kept dropping the price, he would probably have stayed quite happily in his current arrangement. Leigh recalled McCallum's own words in which he stated that properties have reputations, and then advised him that 932 East College Street had one. McCallum stated that he wished to change that reputation, and said that he is asking the Board to consider the reputation of the buildings that he has already redeveloped. McCallum said that he is a neighbor of this property, too. He is a part of the neighborhood, and he is trying to do the best he can under the circumstances. McCallum said that his intentions are good and that he does not have to take on this project. From a typical landlord standpoint, McCallum said, a lot of the things that he has done with his properties do not make any sense at all; at the end of the day he is almost like anon-profit, putting any excess money he makes back into the properties. However, McCallum said, if the exception is denied, he will quite happily go back to working on the grotto he is creating in the back of his property at 811/819 East College Street. Michelle Campo said that she has been a resident of East College Street since shortly after it was rezoned to RNS-12, a rezoning which was a strong incentive for her family to move into the neighborhood. Campo stated that many would agree with her when she says that McCallum is loved by his neighbors for what he has done to neighborhood buildings. Any negative things she might have to say about the application are in no way intended to convey a lack of trust in McCallum as a neighbor. Campo said that she agreed with Wilson and Baker in their emphasis on the fact that this would be a variance to the land and not to the person owning the land. The current variance on this property was issued to the LLC, not the land, Campo said. Campo said that even if McCallum was not hit by a bus tomorrow, he could incur financial difficulty or have some other cause to sell this property, and Campo said that she wished to emphasize that eventually someone else will own the building, and as a result, the more specific the Board can be in their motion, the happier the neighborhood will be. Campo said that she wished to note that the staff report stated that three additional parking spaces would be needed for this property; however the staff recommendations say two to three Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 18 parking spaces are needed. Campo said that even if the covenants are put in place - a move she strongly endorses-the property will still be in reality eight parking spaces short of the occupancy of 13. Campo pointed out that the neighborhood will still be taking on that parking burden. Even if McCallum's renters do not own cars, Campo said, their visitors may own cars; the tenants living there under the next owner may own cars. Campo said that she also believed that a 2-bedroom unit option, which was not a part of the original request, invites the opportunity for over-occupancy. Campo said that she wished to express her frustration with this property and with the number of times the neighbors have had to come before the Board. Every time a bad business decision has been made on this property, or a landlord has not properly maintained the property, Campo said, it is the neighborhood that has had to pay the price. Campo's concern is not with the proposed buyer, she repeated, but for the long-term implications for the property. Hillary Sale said that she was happy to get to speak with McCallum this evening. Sale was personally pleased to hear that McCallum was interested in buying and operating this particular property. The news that McCallum would be involved gave Sale confidence that whatever was executed on the property would be well done, as he has a great reputation. Sale said that she personally would like to see McCallum own and develop this property. Sale said that she is on the side of the opposition to this project because she has questions and clarifications that she hopes the Board will take into consideration if they are inclined to grant this special exception. Sale said she began coming to Board of Adjustment meetings concerning this property in 1997. Sale said she believed it was fair to say that all of the proposals to which neighbors have objected have been due to the Leighton House's bad business judgment. The current proposal is a refreshing change from that because it is an attempt to use the property at the allowed density, and to try to be consistent with the building as it exists. The proposal does not promise any grand scheme that cannot be fulfilled, which Sale finds encouraging for the stability of the neighborhood. It is important to Sale that the record reflects that if this particular building plan turns out to be anon-starter, the neighborhood should not have to pay the price with additional variances or special exceptions to try to somehow make this plan work. The staff report, Sale said, refers repeatedly to the fraternity/sorority building. Although this building was originally designed and used as a fraternity/sorority house, that has not been a legal conforming or non-conforming use for a very long time, Sale said. When the variance of 1997 was granted, the property was not a legal fraternity or sorority house under the code operating at that time. Sale wished to clarify what she sees as the standard for the special exception, which as she understands it has a lower threshold than that of a variance. Sale said she has concerns about the staff proposal, not so much the applicant's. Sale said that the first thing she wanted to mention was the 11-2 configuration mentioned in the staff report, as opposed to the ] 3single-occupancy units proposed by the applicant. Sale said that regardless of the overall density, the impact on the neighborhood is not the same with these two configurations. In the neighborhood, Sale said, there is a house with a legal occupancy limit of three people that last year had seven people Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 19 living in it; the house had seven rooms, so seven people occupied it. Sale said that it is not that the City staff are not responsive, but that it is a lot of work to deal with over-occupancy situations and are very hard for the City to prosecute and prove when mattresses go out the back door as inspectors come in the front door. Sale said that because of this, she personally has a strong preference for 13 single units on the theory that they are less likely to be over-occupied. Sale stated that a lot has been learned from the Leighton House experience about use and enforceability. It was originally approved as a women's dormitory. It then became a fraternity house, which was of course an illegal use. After that, it became a group house for the men's track team, also, presumably, an illegal use given the number of people living in the unit. Currently, Sale said, it is operating as what appears to be a party house. Sale noted that Friday morning not only were there a lot of beer bottles and broken furniture in the front yard, but that the special exception sign had been severely damaged. Sale said that despite the fact that there were all of these concerns, Staff really did not or could not deal with the over-occupancy until 2006-2007. Sale said that this property has been down-zoned, and the 13 single-occupancy units would help protect the stability of the neighborhood, while allowing the property to continue in a non- conforming use. Sale urged the Board to adopt the parking covenant recommended by Staff if the Board chooses to grant the special exception. Parking is a consistent issue. The tenants in the house over the last few years have repeatedly parked on the lawn, which is a tricky issue to enforce. Sale urged the Board to include McCallum's idea of putting up a wrought iron fence as a condition of the special exception because she thinks it would eliminate the problem of parking on the lawn. Sale said that she felt it was important to clarify that any special exception granted be solely for an apartment building, and would not carry over for another change in multi-family use such as a condominium conversion. Sale said this was a very important clarification because if condos are owner-occupied they are, like single-family homes, not subject to occupancy limits. If the exception was granted only for an apartment building, the rental permits would delineate the occupancy limits. The concrete slab in the front yard which has served as a basketball court, a swimming pool pad, and a parking lot, was to be removed in 1997 as a condition of the variance, Sale said. Sale said that she would encourage the Board to include the removal of this concrete as a condition for the special exception. The concrete encourages all kinds of degradation of the property, Sale said, and is a relatively easy way to try to preserve the character of the property. Sale added that McCallum is obviously great with gardens as his other building is spectacularly beautiful. Sale stated that it was not clear to her, based on the Board's discussions of the staff report, when the rights to the rooming house would actually disappear. Sale said that she had read the staff report as saying that if McCallum applied for a building permit, the rooming house rights would disappear. However, Sale said, McCallum has stated tonight that he wishes to operate the building in a sort of transitional state -part rooming house, part studio apartments-while he Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 20 converts the property. Sale said she could understand the need for that, but that she believed if the special exception was granted, there would need to be a very clear delineation as to when the rights to the rooming house would go away permanently and the building would become solely a 13-person studio apartment building. In summary, Sale provided a list for what she deemed to be ideal conditions for any special exception granted: 1) 13 single occupancy units, 2) a covenant for parking spaces at 811/819 East College Street, 3) a requirement that all motorbikes and bicycles be parked at the rear of the property, 4) a fence around the front of the property to ensure that there is no parking on the lawn, 5) the rooming house provision goes away at some reasonable point that would allow for the development of the studio units with a clear sunset provision, 6) removal of the cement pad in the front yard, 7) a clarification that any special exception is for single occupant apartments only, and 8) the elimination of any common space in the building other than hallways and the front parlor. Sale thanked the Board for their time, stating that the neighborhood appreciated it. Sheerin disclosed for the record that she works with Hillary Sale, but that no conflict existed because of this. Wilson wished to clarify something that she had said earlier regarding the staff report. Wilson said that she found some of the diagrams troubling because the diagrams looked a lot like flats to her. Wilson said that she is willing to accept that the applicant knows how to manage this sort of property because he is doing it now, and doing it very well. She said that she would not want the applicant tied to the specific diagrams that he proposed. Wilson said that she thinks that he knows from experience how spaces work, and she thinks the record should show that. She does not think the record accurately reflected the applicant's experience in managing this sort of property. That being said, Wilson continued, neighbors don't always agree. Wilson said that she disagreed with Sale about eradicating common spaces because she thinks the common spaces in the house are very nice. Wilson said that everyone has their own opinion and now it was up to the Board. McCallum clarified that there would be a common laundry room and a separate common room off of it for folding laundry. The rooms he intends for this purpose have nice historic features which he wishes to preserve. There will be nonetheless a considerable reduction in the common space from what is there now. Payne invited any other speakers wishing to speak for or against the special exception to come forward. As no one did, the public hearing was closed. Howard offered some clarification on how this particular special exception works as far as a timeline. There is a provision in the zoning code that says that a use is deemed converted when an existing non-conforming use is terminated and a new use commences and continues for seven consecutive days. In other words, Howard said, if McCallum was converting it, that portion of the code gives some direction on when the rooming unit was changed over to an apartment. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 21 Once the rental permit for an apartment is in place, it could not be converted back to a rooming unit. Howard said that she believed that code did allow some provision for McCallum to change the rooming units over time, and there is a provision in the zoning code that says once it is converted for more than seven days it cannot be converted back. Howard said there is also a provision in the housing code that specifies what needs to be included to consider a unit an apartment. Howard said that because she was not the staff person who wrote the report and met with McCallum she was not exactly sure why the alternative option of allowing 11 studios and 1 two- bedroom unit was put in the staff report and suggested that perhaps the applicant could enlighten the Board on conversations he may have had with Staff regarding this option. McCallum said that in looking at his budget he does not know that restricting it to 13 studio apartments was necessarily going to cause any issues. McCallum said he would probably stick with the 13 units, unless something unexpected came up and he was forced to sell 81 l /819 East College. He said that he tries to focus on the most pressing issues at hand; for example, he did not do the gardening at 811 until he had all of his units remodeled and rented. McCallum said that he was walking away from this meeting wondering what to focus on first. McCallum asked why any landlord would want to convert back to a rooming house once the conversion to apartments had been made. Rooming units, in his opinion, are un-rentable. McCallum stated that he was likely to live on the property and while he was currently single, that the 2-bedroom unit could be a nice option if he were to marry. He said that he tended to live in his rental properties but that he had never before had two buildings. At some point, McCallum said, he might sell 811 College, and at that point the owner's quarters at 932 East College would be a very attractive place for him to live. However, McCallum said, if he gets two apartments out of it, then that would also fit with his business plan; either way the issue is not a major one for him. What would be a deal breaker for him, McCallum said, would be a covenant for parking tying 932 E. College and 811 E. College together because it really skews the value of 811 East College and he is not sure his bank would like that. To him, the covenant would not be logical, nor a good investment. He said he would work very hard to meet the standard for parking but that he simply could not tie the two properties together in that way. He said he would, however, be happy to work with the Board on all of the other issues. Leigh asked McCallum if he had any other options for resolving his parking issue. The parking situation in this town and in this neighborhood is exquisitely sensitive, she said. McCallum said that he understood that the issue was sensitive, but noted that any other applicant would not necessarily have another property in the same neighborhood and would therefore not be asked to execute a covenant for it. He acknowledged that he had in a way touted owning the property and brought it up himself, but he really felt that such a covenant would be severely detrimental to the value of 811/819 East College Street. He said he would happily make it available to tenants of 932 for parking, but that he just could not go along with a covenant. He reiterated that it is his intention to own both properties for as long as possible, but said that in the event things did not Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 22 go as he planned, he may need to be able to sell one to keep the other. He said that he did not want to do anything that would limit the salability of 811 East College. Payne asked if McCallum intended to rent the parking spaces to his tenants at 932 East College or to simply include the option of parking at 811 as part of the rental package. McCallum said that he did not rent parking spaces to his tenants, but that parking as a feature of a rental is a value in this town. Payne said that even if McCallum had a covenant that said there were three spaces available at 811/819 East College Street, it does not mean that the tenants will necessarily park there. The tenants could still choose to park on the street rather than walk the extra distance from the parking lot. Payne said that if tenants rented the parking space they may be more apt to park there. McCallum agreed and said that the fact that the building will have six parking spaces in one form or another will make his units easier to rent. McCallum said that it was his understanding that it was technically against the code to rent parking spaces. He said that his intention was to rent to a clientele that tended not to have cars, but that he could not say that none of his tenants would have cars. McCallum pointed out that the impact, parking-wise, that his tenants would be making would certainly not be any worse than the situation is currently. McCallum noted that there was a misconception about the number of bedrooms the house has; the staff report says there are 15 bedrooms, but there are actually 17. McCallum said that by bringing the building into structural compliance the opportunity to over-occupy will be reduced significantly. Sheerin said that she understood that McCallum did not wish to legally dedicate parking spaces from 811/819 East College to 932 East College. She asked if the three spaces being discussed at the property were currently in use by tenants of 811/819 East College Street. McCallum said that they were used by tenants and visitors and that he had several vans parked on the property. He said his actual need at 811/819 East College was for 17 spaces and he has 24 spaces. Sheerin asked how McCallum would enforce that the three parking spaces would be only for the residents of 932 East College Street. McCallum said that he did not currently assign parking in his lot, although he did take down license numbers when completing rental agreements with tenants. Visitors are allowed to use the lot, McCallum said, but he asks that they use a visitor pass to identify themselves. He said that he gets to know which cars belong and which ones do not over the course of the year because he lives on site. Sheerin asked if he would identify three spaces as being only for residents of 932 East College. She said that her concern was that there would not in actuality be parking available if there were 17 people plus their boyfriends and girlfriends parking in his lot. McCallum said that this was not a practice he currently engages in, in part because the parking spaces are not delineated by lines. Payne asked for McCallum's opinion on the feasibility of the building being converted to condominiums if he were to sell it at a later date. McCallum said that he has been watching the condo-conversion of a building on Dubuque Street. That building has had only one sale, McCallum said, and the units are over-priced. McCallum said that once he has converted 932 East College to 13 units, it would be unlikely for someone then to come in and reconvert the units to condominiums. It could be physically done, McCallum said, but the financial cost to do Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 23 something like that would be great. McCallum said the condos on Dubuque Street are going to run $400,000-$500,000 each, and while that market may be there, he did not believe it was there for this area of town. If he thought that market was there, McCallum said, a better place to have done that would have been 811 East College. McCallum repeated that he thought it was fundamentally unwise to tie together two properties a city block apart with a covenant. In regard to the condominium issue, Holecek said she has serious trouble finding a nexus for the special exception to say that a form of ownership is something that the City can legally impose upon this property. In granting a special exception, Holecek reminded, the issue is never about "whom" but is always about "what." If the land use is appropriate in this particular place, Holecek said, then the form of ownership does not matter regardless of whether it is owner- occupied by a condominium regime, or whether it is a rental. McCallum said that there is a disincentive to convert to condominiums in that each unit would have to be separately metered and have separate cooling and heating units. As a result, McCallum said, the financial path to condominium development is very high, which is one reason that he is not pursuing that. McCallum noted that his property taxes would drop by half if the units were condominiums rather than apartments because there would be a residential rollback and the property would not be commercially taxed. The costs to make those changes, however, would be astronomical, McCallum said. Payne said that her question about the feasibility of creating condos in the property was intended to address concerns some of the neighbors had raised. McCallum said that he did not believe it was feasible. Holocek asked if he believed it was not feasible even once the units were converted into 13 separate studio apartments to make it into a horizontal property regime. Holecek clarified that she believed the concern of the neighbors was that the 13 separate units would be turned into small condominiums. Payne asked if the units would be fire-walled. McCallum replied that the existing walls would be used. The only walls he intends to build are those necessary to create the bathrooms. Payne asked if it would not still take a huge amount of money to convert the units to condominiums and redo the wiring and plumbing that would be necessary for separate meters. McCallum agreed that it would, and said that he did not know if it would even be possible to put 13 separate furnaces in these units. Holecek stated that she did not know if it would be necessary for each unit to have its own physical power plant, but she said that she did know that to do an apartment to condominium conversion one must bring the property up to the current building code standards. McCallum said that the current building code standard would include all of those things. Holecek said that she had not been into the building code that deeply, but that she knew that bringing things up to current code standards has served as a disincentive for apartment to condo conversions. Howard stated that there is no distinction in the zoning ordinance between amulti-family dwelling unit and a condominium unit. Howard said that the only difference between the two concerns ownership and the zoning ordinance does not speak to ownership. If there is more than one condominium unit in a given building then it is considered amulti-family building. Holocek said that this was consistent with the principal of land use being about "what" not "who." Payne [owa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 24 clarified that she was not really considering putting restrictions on ownership as a condition for the special exception; rather she was investigating the feasibility of the neighbors' concerns about condominium conversion coming true. Howard stated that her understanding of the neighbors' concerns was not whether the property was owner-occupied or renter occupied, rather that it could become over-occupied. Given that, Howard asked Holecek if a covenant could be recorded on the property, not just on the rental permit, that limited occupancy to 13. Holocek said that the special exception would become part of the abstract, and therefore would be recorded on the property as well as the rental permit. Howard said that this being the case, even if it was feasible for the units to be converted to condominiums, the occupancy still would not be able to be higher than 13. Holocek said that this was correct. Holecek said that she believed the neighborhood's concern with a condominium regime versus a rental regime is that with a rental regime there is a rental permit, and with it, an ability to enforce based on periodic inspections. Holecek said that if there is any reasonable belief that there is over-occupancy, even if it was in a condominium regime, the City could get a search warrant to make an investigation into the over-occupancy. Leigh clarified that regardless of the status of this property, whether it is owner or renter occupied, there would be a limit of 13 occupants. Holecek stated that this was correct. Leigh told Sale that her wish list was incredible, and that she has wish-lists like that in her own neighborhood. Leigh said that she just was not sure that once a person has purchased a property that the Board could dictate that a person must remove a concrete pad, and must have a fence. Holecek stated that a requirement for a fence could be made, but that a wrought iron fence in particular could probably not be required. Leigh asked Holecek about the 11-2 versus 13 issue. Holecek said that she thought the Board could require 13 single-occupant units, and acknowledge that McCallum would be going through a transition and try to put adate-certain for the end of the transition. Payne asked if they could explicitly state that the applicant had two years to accomplish the transition, not 20 years. Holecek said that the Board could do this. Sheerin asked about the bicycle parking in the back. Her understanding of the discussions was that this could not be required. Holecek said that she believed it would be fine to require that. McCallum said that he would do that regardless. Leigh asked McCallum if it was the case that of all the issues discussed by the neighbors the only issue he truly could not support would be the covenant. McCallum said that this was the case. He said that he would have no interest in owning the property if the covenant was required. Sheerin said that her understanding was that McCallum was opposed to the covenant, but that he would still provide the parking. McCallum said that this was exactly correct. McCallum said that he simply could not impose on a future owner this relationship with a house down the street. As a realtor, he would never advise a client to do that, McCallum said. McCallum said that he had a list of properties for sale that had such covenants on them and that it made things very complicated and difficult to enforce. Leigh agreed that enforcement was an issue. McCallum said that such a covenant would be a potential conflict and could inhibit a buyer from purchasing 811 East College Street. He added that he did not intend to sell the property and that he intended Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 25 to die there, joking that this was in part to avoid the capital gains tax. Sheerin noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about McCallum's mortality during the course of the meeting. McCallum added that other than the covenant, the issues mentioned were matters that he intended to do anyway and that he had demonstrated a willingness to do with his other properties. Payne stated that the public hearing had already been closed, and thanked McCallum for his additional comments. Payne invited discussion from the Board. Holecek noted that there was no motion on the floor. Leigh asked if the proper procedure would be to make a motion that includes a wish list. Payne said that they could if that was what they wanted. Sheerin clarified that they would discuss first and then make a motion. Sheerin said that she understood the neighbors' concerns about a covenant, but that it did not sound like the covenant would necessarily mean anything even if there was one, as there is no way to enforce it to make sure that people are indeed parking in those spaces. Payne said that the parking situation was kind of afree-for-all. Leigh said that the tenants would know who has a parking space and who does not, and the enforcement could be up to them. Payne said that the only reason for a parking covenant is to alleviate congestion on the street, not to make certain a given tenant has a place to park; it is not intended as a convenience for the person renting the apartment, but as a convenience for the neighborhood. Leigh maintained that in not insisting on a parking covenant the Board would be adding to the congestion on the street. Payne maintained that by requiring the covenant they are also not guaranteeing that those tenants will not park on the street. Leigh said that failing to require the covenant would be taking parking away from the neighborhood. Sheerin said that even with a limit of 13 residents, there could be more than 13 cars if some of them had more than one. Payne said that when she read this application, the first thing she thought of was that this was a street that was already congested with parking and she thought about what would be the right thing to do for the parking issue. Payne said that she did not think that putting a covenant on another property would necessarily fix the problem. Sheerin noted that the covenant could in fact make 811 East College Street a problem if a covenant would make it undesirable for purchase. Payne agreed that a covenant could be a detriment to the other property. Payne said that the variance that was done in 1997 seemed like it was done for the right reasons, but in the wrong way, and that she did not want to make that same mistake. Leigh said that it sounded to her as though the Board was talking about "who" rather than "what"; that this seemed like the right plan and the right man for the plan but that the issue is one of place. Leigh said that to say that the Board would allow for 13 dwelling places but only three parking spots was really problematic for her. Sheerin said she had the same problem with this plan. Payne pointed out that currently 13 people can live in the building and there are only two parking spots; the same problem is going on there already. Sheerin said that it would be an ongoing problem. Holecek reminded the Board that they had previously made a determination that the building is actually over-occupied and that there are more than 13 people living there. Payne said that the Board knowingly has a situation with more than 13 people living on the property and there is nothing done about the parking. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 26 Howard noted that Staff had contended that there would be no increase in parking congestion with this plan because there would not be an increase in the number of people allowed to live in this building. The special exception is to allow conversion from one non-conforming situation to another non-conforming situation that is of the same or lesser intensity. The staff report acknowledged that this neighborhood like many other neighborhoods is congested with parking because there are many buildings that were constructed at a time when there were many fewer cars. The question, Howard said, is whether the parking congestion with the proposed use would be the same or lesser intensity than the current situation. Staff's recommendations were based not on creating something new, but rather that the proposed conversion would not increase the demand for parking and therefore would not increase the intensity of the use. Sheerin said that if there were a better plan, she did not know what it would be; it is not as though the Board can create a parking lot, she said. Payne joked that they could require McCallum to build a parking ramp. Leigh asked if there was any way to require that future owners provide three additional parking spaces. Sheerin said that she believed this would create the same problem that a covenant would place on 811 East College. Holecek said that the property is currently laboring under a scheme of unenforceable conditions, which goes to Sheerin's question of what to do with this building. Payne said that she believed the Board should go back to the Staff recommendation that the proposed use is of the same or lesser intensity. Sheerin said that that is the bottom line for her; at least it will be better. Payne reiterated that the intensity is not any worse. Payne read from the staff analysis, "It is the intent of the Zoning Chapter to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property." Payne said that what seems to be going on in the building now is intruding on the adjacent properties. Payne asked if by putting a covenant on another property the Board would also be intruding upon an adjacent property. Leigh said that this was true of any covenant that exists, and that there are many of them in the city. Leigh said that she knew of properties on the north side of town that have off-site parking established through covenants. Sheerin asked how the other Board members felt about the 11-studio apartments and one 2- bedroom apartment configuration versus the 13 studio apartments. Payne said that the applicant's plan was for the 13 studios so she felt that was the way to go. Sheerin asked if the motion should include the moped parking in back, the fence, and other items mentioned in the public hearing. The Board discussed that the recommendation by neighbors to prohibit condominiums in the future was not possible or necessary. Payne asked Holecek if the Board could make the removal of the concrete pad a condition of approval. Holocek said she believed the Board could because it tied in with requiring all parking to be in the rear and removal of the concrete was removal of an attractive parking spot. Payne recommended that the language for "rear" be changed to "north" to make it clear what side they intended. Leigh asked McCallum if the entryway he wished to preserve would be adequately described as a parlor, if the language was crafted in such a way as to eliminate all common areas except the hallways, laundry and parlor area. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 27 Payne said that 13 single-occupancy units could be added to the first staff recommendation. Holecek and Howard advised that if the Board was trying to eliminate the alternative configuration which includes a 2-bedroom unit, they could simply leave out the second half of that sentence. Leigh made a motion that EXC08-00013, an application to allow conversion of a non- conforming Independent Group Living Use to anon-conforming Multi-Family Use located at 932 East College Street be approved subject to: 1. The converted use, specifically aMulti-Family Use, may not exceed a maximum total occupancy of 13 residents and said occupancy limit will be recorded on the rental permit for 932 East College Street. 2. The converted use shall consist of 13 single-occupant multi-family dwelling units. 3. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 4. Upon the applicant applying for a building permit to establish the conversion, variance VAR97-00004 shall be extinguished and no rights shall continue to exist thereunder. 5. Additionally, upon steps being taken to establish the conversion, any right to re-establish a rooming house on the property shall be extinguished. The conversion shall be completed within three years of application for the building permit. 6. The application is also contingent upon: A) All parking of motorized or non-motorized vehicles will be to the rear, the rear being the north side of the building. B) A fence will be erected in the front, the front being the south side of the building, to ensure that that area of the yard is not used for parking. C) The cement pad in the front of the building will be eliminated. D) All common space with the exception of the front entryway, front parlor, laundry facilities and hallways will be eliminated. Sheerin seconded the motion. Payne began the findings of fact with Specific Standards (14-4E-SB-2). A. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is not currently allowed in the zone. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 28 Payne stated that as rooming houses and fraternity/sorority uses are not allowed in the RS-12 zone, the uses for which this structure was originally designed and subsequently modified are not currently allowed in the zone. Thus, Specific Standard A is met. B. The proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the existing use. Payne stated that through the Board's discussions, they have found the plan for 13 single- occupancy studio apartments to be of equal or lesser impact than the 13 unit rooming house for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is to limit the occupancy of the building to the same number of persons as permitted under the current non-conforming use, 13 residents. 2. By reducing the large common areas and combining additional bedrooms and space into single apartment units, the change in use will discourage over-occupancy and will reduce opportunities for nuisance activities, such as excessive noise and overflowing garbage resulting from house parties or other large communal gatherings that are often associated with rooming houses that feature large common areas. 3. Since the proposed use will not increase the occupancy beyond what is currently allowed it seems unlikely that the new use will increase parking congestion in the neighborhood. C. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site. Payne said that the building has more than 8,700 square feet of floor area, so it is clearly suitable for the proposed use. Establishing a maximum occupancy of 13 studio apartments will ensure that the new use will not increase the intensity of use. D. The structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the non-conforming use. Payne stated that a number of interior renovations will be completed in order to accommodate 13 studio apartments. These alterations will not enlarge the building's non-conforming use and will not alter the building's exterior. Payne continued with the General Standards (14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements). 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Payne stated that this conversion is not expected to generate any additional traffic beyond what would be expected of the 13-resident rooming house. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 29 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Payne said that incorporating much of the existing common area into separate apartments will reduce the likelihood of nuisance activities that are typically associated with similar properties featuring large amounts of shared space, such as parties, excessive noise, overflowing garbage, etc. These measures will help counteract the poor reputation that the house has under its current use, which will in turn help the surrounding neighborhood to better enjoy their property. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Payne stated that the surrounding neighborhood is fully developed. The Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) Zone acknowledges the mix of residential uses in the neighborhood, but is intended to preserve the predominately single-family residential character of the neighborhood. This area has also been designated a Conservation District, which is intended to encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, particularly those that contribute to the historical, architectural, and aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood. The applicant is attempting to do that by maintaining this historical building in this neighborhood, and by not over- populating the lot that it is on or the building that it is in. The applicant would not be changing the exterior in order to do that, so it will not impede the surrounding property for uses in the zone. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Payne noted that all necessary utilities and drainage are already in place. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The proposed exception will not result in changes to ingress or egress. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone on which it is to be located. Payne stated that the building itself is non-conforming in terms of required setbacks for multi-family uses in this zone, however there is no proposed change to the exterior of the building so there is no enlargement of the non-conformity. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 9, 2008 Page 30 Payne noted that the subject property is a contributing structure to the College Hill Conservation District. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive re-use and preservation of such structures so long as the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. By preserving this structure in this neighborhood, this proposal seems to be consistent with what the Comprehensive Plan intends. Sheerin wished to add to the findings of fact that by requiring all parking to be in the rear and removing the concrete pad in the front of the building, McCallum would be improving the aesthetics of the building, thereby improving the neighborhood in general. Hopefully, Sheerin added, the same would be true of the common space: its removal would reduce the likelihood of over-crowding in the building. Leigh said that she wished to reiterate that in light of the specific standards, the general standards, and zoning in general, a compromise had to be made somewhere. Leigh remarked that this is a big building and something has to be done with it; it has to have a use. Because the application proposes a use that is of the same or lesser intensity as the current use it is not going to add congestion. The alterations to the interior are not going to enlarge the non-conformity. Leigh stated that she believed the compromise on the parking issue was necessary. A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-0 (Wood recused, Thornton absent). Payne declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: There was none. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: There was none. ADJOURNMENT: Leigh motioned to adjourn the meeting. Sheerin seconded. All voted in favor of adjournment, 3-0 (Thornton and Wood absent). The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. O ++ O ~ N ~ I r ~ N O 'C d Q ~ o °~ v -p c ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ Q 0 N r N r r O r O r Q>' M r X X X X ~ X X O X X tD r X X X X r~ ~ X X X X X ~ X X X M M ~ I X X X X N ~ ~ Q1 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 1 Z Z Z Z N o0 O M O O O ~ ~ N ` O \ ~ ` '~ [~ r L X T O l O r O l O O O ~ LLJ O O O O O O w .~ C . ~ O ~ ~' ~ i ~ Z -Q ~ d O O~ t as _ ~ O ~+ i R N t O ~ N 'v O ~ ~ ~ d O al' . v = U J ~ O ~ F- ~,,, _~-~ ~, > > U o Y~ Z W ~ ~ ~ X C N E W N C N ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~p O d Q Q Z Z II x II o II W 'o II z II w Y 3b 5 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Ponto, Victor Tichy STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Ken Duffey, Greg Duffey, John Martinek, Kevin Monson, Kirstin VanGilder, Mike Wombacher CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Wombacher introduced himself as one of the two owners of 803 East College Street. He said that neither he nor the co-owner of the property could attend the July 10th Commission meeting regarding this property. Wombacher asked for reconsideration of the Commission's decisions and said he did not intend to do things in an improper order. He said that this property was as close to demolition as possible, because he knew of someone else who was planning to buy it. Wombacher said he bought the property, because he believes in what the Commission is doing. He said that he likes restoration and likes antiques. Wombacher said that the porch was not up to standards. He said he rebuilt the porch, exposed all the decorative shingles underneath the siding, and took out the metal posts on the back porch and replaced them with cedar decorative posts. Wombacher said he knows that the eaves on the house were a big thing; he said they were extremely rotted and actually quite unsafe. He said he did extend out and should have known they can't be that way. Wombacher said that unfortunately the contractor said that he cannot go straight out and just cover over the gutters. He said there is ice damming in the winters, and this is a flat surface. Wombacher said that it would have been a lot cheaper, and he would have loved to have done that. He said that the way it is, he spent $36,000 just redoing the roof and eaves. Wombacher said that to have them go back now, they've got it all back on, and put up flat, yes, it could be done, but what expense, he did not know, because his current contractor will not do it, and even then there will be the same problems with the ice dams. Wombacher said that one could not have that and still be structurally sound to the property. Wombacher stated that they did put in a vinyl window in front, because there was a canopy window. He said he took off the vertical siding, because it is not of the period. Wombacher said he got the siding the best he could to match front and back of the carriage house. He said he would take that window out and maybe would use the suggestion of making it look like carriage doors. Wombacher said he wanted to ask for reconsideration on the eaves, because it is just unfeasible. He said that when one looks at the property that is rotting and in disrepair, one hasn't seen very much of the total work involved -very little of the cost of repairing the building is seen from the outside. Kuecker said that in order to reconsider the motion, one of the commissioners who voted against it must make a motion to reconsider. She said that if a motion to reconsider passes, all that can be discussed is the merits of a reconsideration. Kuecker said the application would then need to be put on the next meeting's agenda to give notice, as for any other application. Wombacher said that if he is allowed to keep this as it is, he would put a frieze board under it. He said he had always intended to put the decorative brackets back up. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 2 MOTION: Baldridge moved that the Commission reconsider the denial of a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 803 East College Street that resulted in the requirement that the roof be returned to its original configuration. Swaim seconded the motion. Swaim said she voted for the option of leaving it as it is now with the frieze board and the brackets in place. She said she wished it could be the way it was, but given the circumstances of ice dams and the expense that was already invested, she continues to think that option is the best one. Swaim said it is very hard to make these decisions when something has already been done. She said the fact that the owners followed all the other guidelines suggests that something wasn't clearly understood about the project. Baker said she also has great sympathy for the situation and the fact that this is, has been, and will be a huge expense. She said her concern is that there are other people who have done very expensive work who have come before the Commission, and the Commission has required them to change the work back. Baker said this is a slippery slope -that by agreeing to reconsider this one, it opens up the floodgates to reconsider all of them. She said it is a dangerous precedent to set. Swaim said that the difficulty here involves a communication gap. She said that the owner and staff person do talk quite a lot in these situations but wondered if there is a beefed-up procedure that could be used. Swaim said that some of these situations are falling into that area where it's not clear. She added that so many of the other features of the house are being restored that she felt one could live without this one. Baldridge said that part of it is a failure of education. He said the ability to reach the populace is difficult. Baldridge said the Commission needs to carry out its responsibility to inform the community of what needs to be done with historic structures. Wombacher asked if there is a way to notify buyers at the time of purchase. Kuecker said that when the property is in a historic district, it is a zoning consideration and should therefore come up at the time of sale. Trimble said the permit that was issued said that it would be exactly the same, so it is not necessarily a lack of education in this case. Wombacher said that he was stranded for some time in Cedar Rapids and had discussions with Kuecker on the phone. He said the question that was asked of his partner is, is there any exterior change, and his answer was no, because they didn't look at that as being a change to it. Wombacher said that if it were kept flat, the only other way was they were going to put rafters to fill in the L part, which would be the same to him. He said he wasn't changing the pitch of the roof, just extending it. Wombacher said that once the carpenter got into it, that's what he did, because that's what he saw as the only way to correct it. He had no intent of taking the chimney out and had gotten a bid of $3,400 to retuckpoint the chimneys. Wombacher said his intent was to retuckpoint the chimneys, but the one of the workers leaned on it and literally took it down, and the other one was split all the way up. He said that when they dismantled it, they dismantled it brick by brick; there was just sand in between. Wombacher said it was after the fact, three days later, that he found out they had taken it down. He said it was a safety factor for them. Kuecker said that on the original application for the roof, under exterior appearance: changes, it says none. She said the certificate of no material effect for the roof was issued based on that information -that there would be no change. Swaim said there is another layer of communication between the owner, the staff person, and then there's the contractor and the builder. She stated that the chance of everything getting conveyed down to the builder is another place where everything seems to be vague or pragmatic. Wombacher said that he is trying to fix this up. He said he has pages of things to be done from the building department, and all of a sudden, the thing is not available for a rental permit when it was a rental before, because so much has happened since they bought it, because the past inspectors obviously passed it to get rental permits. Wombacher said that from windows to storms to the fire protection to doors and hardware, Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 3 that it passed all those years, and all of a sudden they're getting two pages of stuff inside again. Wombacher said it's not the Commission's issue, but they are getting it from both sides. Ken Duffey stated that he has been a general contractor for 40 years, doing primarily residential remodeling and new construction. He said regarding ice dams, that he has seen an increasing amount in the last several years. Duffey said he is really familiar with built-in gutters, and if there is one design in a house of any age that is more prone than others to water incursion, it's built-in gutters. Duffey said that some of the things that have changed in the recent past that this is may be a little different than okaying other projects because of cost or whatever brings up a new current issue, which is mold. He said that when one has water incursion, one gets mold almost immediately. Duffey said that from his experience, the built-in gutters pretty much guarantee that is going to happen to a house. He said that can be seen in Cedar Rapids, where the FEMA trailers are being returned because of mold. Duffey said that he has won historic preservation awards for some of the work he has done. He said that there are just some things that have to be updated because of conditions that come up, especially mold. Downing said the Commission has allowed the covering up of built-in gutters frequently. He said when that has happened, they were covered up, but the roof still was not changed. Downing said that the profile of the roof can be maintained with a standard shingle over it. Trimble said since she has been on the Commission every time someone comes before the Commission and wants to get rid of the built in gutters they allow it. She said they have never changed the roof. Wombacher said that shingles cannot go past a certain grade; they will not be guaranteed. Downing said that one could shingle on a 3:12 with an asphalt shingle. He said that this house is probably more like an eight or tenawelve. Wombacher said that is where they are saying he will get ice damming, because it goes under the shingle. Downing said that his house goes from athree -twelve to a twelve -twelve at the breaking point. He said one can do that because shingles flex. Wombacher said it was a misunderstanding then, and he wishes he would have known that. He said it would have been a lot cheaper. _The motion to reconsider this at the Commission's next meeting carried on a vote of 5-2, with Baker and Trimble voting no. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 629 Oakland Avenue. Kuecker stated that this property contains abungalow-style house. She said the owners want to put a porch addition on the rear of the house. Kuecker showed where the porch would be located, saying that the stairs and door would be removed and a new window would be placed in the location of the door. She said that the other door would become functional again. Kuecker showed the elevations of the proposed porch. She said it would be a screened-in porch, using wood frame and metal screening. Kuecker said she considered putting this on the consent items agenda but was hesitant to do so because it is an addition. Kuecker said the owners would use a wood construction, with all the details including the brackets, barge board, rafter tails, and trim to match what is currently on the house. She stated that the siding at the gable end will be wood siding to match the siding on the house. Kuecker said that the piers and the skirt will match the front porch, and the front stairs will be made of wood with a wood handrail to meet the guidelines. She said that staff recommends approval of the project as proposed in the application. Kuecker pointed out that the piers on the back porch will be shorter than the ones on the front porch to allow for the screening. She added that they will be clad in brick to match the foundation and the piers on the front porch. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 4 Swaim asked about the concrete piers sided with stucco-textured fiber cement board mentioned in the staff report. Kuecker said that was a mistype left over from an application for a different property. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 629 Oakland Avenue as proposed. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 502 % Clark Street. Kuecker stated that at its last meeting, the Commission discussed the location of the garage proposed for this property. She said the applicant wanted an exception from the guidelines in order to site the garage to front of the primary structure. Kuecker said that the reason the Commission approved the exception was because of the unique situation of this property in that there is no street frontage, and there is an entire another house in front of where the garage would be located. Kuecker said the owner is now back with the design of the garage and the paving that would be needed for the driveway. She said that because there was an exception to the guidelines granted, the Commission is allowed to discuss the paving and the makeup of the paving. Kuecker stated that six months ago, the applicant received approval for an addition, re-siding of the house, and reconstruction of the front porch. She showed the front and east sides of the garage as proposed, as well as the south and west sides. Kuecker said the siding, windows, and trim would match what was previously approved for the house. She referred to information in the packet that describes the garage door design. Kuecker said that the only deviation from the previous application is that the owner had proposed just a 20 by 22-foot garage and is now proposing an eight by twelve garden room/tool shed/bump out. She said that even though it was not previously approved in the site plan, it does not detract from the original intent of the application. Kuecker said that at the previous meeting, the Commission also asked the applicant to minimize the amount of paving. She said that the applicant and staff worked together and came up with a new proposal for paving. Kuecker said the sidewalk would be brick or pavers of some sort. She said staff is recommending a decorative brick edge around the driveway, and if a path is needed between the two stairs, recommends making it some sort of stepping stone design to mitigate the amount of concrete that would be needed in the front yard of this property. Kuecker stated that staff is recommending approval of this application as presented in the application, with a specific site plan and with the requirement that there be one and one-half feet of open space between the edge of the garage and the sidewalk as shown, to allow for some planting on that side. Martinek said he was at the meeting to represent McDonough Structures and was available to answer questions. He said the applicant is very willing to accommodate staff regarding the concrete and decorative plantings. Swaim asked if there was any thought toward making the driveway narrow in the middle to give it sort of an hourglass shape and then making it wider as it gets closer to the two doors. Kuecker said there is a chance it could get a little bit thinner, but cars will be backing out of the garage and will need enough room to be navigable. Michaud asked how long the driveway would be. Martinek said that it is about 28 feet to the curb and 45 feet total. Baldridge asked about the purpose of staff's original suggestion about having a permeable surface in the driveway. Kuecker said the Commission had discussed that at the last meeting, but what the City Building Department will allow has not been explored. She added that it would be more expensive. Baldridge said Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 5 that the County plans to use such a substance for one of its parking lots, and he had wondered about the feasibility of that. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 502 '/: Clark Street as presented in the application and site plan, with the requirement that 1.5 feet of paving be removed from the east side of the garage to allow for a landscaped area, as shown on the plan prepared by staff. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 9 South Linn Street. Kuecker stated that this property is one of the City's National Register and local landmark buildings. She said it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 for architectural significance and for its association with the lives of George and Harriet Van Patten. Kuecker said the applicant is proposing several changes to the building in order to make the building ADA compliant for a new tenant. She said that in order to do that, the applicant does not want to alter the front of the building at all and wants to make as many of the changes to the rear and side of the property, keeping the impact on the only visible side to a minimum. Kuecker said the first alteration is the construction of a ramp on the south side of the property. She showed a wood gate that would be removed, with a ramp to be constructed up to what is now an enclosed porch. Kuecker said another alteration would be to open up the porch and restore the floors and some of the other elements of the porch. She said the applicant is requesting to be able to install a synthetic porch floor rather than a wood porch floor. Kuecker stated that the Commission has allowed synthetic porch flooring, primarily in cases where moisture may be a problem, and in this case, moisture could be a problem because of the proximity of neighboring buildings. Kuecker said there are several window wells along that same pathway that are quite deteriorated. She said that the applicant would like to fill those in with a synthetic material. Kuecker said that one of the window wells is still a window, but most of them have been filled in with wood. She said that because of the proximity of the other two buildings, no light gets into these, but because of the paving between the two buildings, moisture does get in. Kuecker said the applicant is also proposing to install a wrought iron gate for security purposes and also a gate on the north side, where the dumpster enclosure would be removed. Kuecker said that staff is recommending approval of this application as presented, subject to the conditions that the porch decking material be approved by staff; the gate design be approved by staff; and the rear door, which would be made bigger to meet ADA requirements, be subject to staff approval. Monson thanked Kuecker for getting the project on the agenda past the due date for the meeting. Monson said that the ramp itself and the deck are actually on shared property. He said that the property line is actually centered between two buildings, and he would have to receive approval of the adjacent landowner to make certain he also approves of this. Monson said there also may need to be another gate. He said that to the north there is a narrow pathway that leads to Iowa Avenue that needs to be closed off. Monson said that it is not on his property, so he will have to coordinate with a neighboring property owner. Monson pointed out that there are windows on the north that he would be closing up. He said that on that narrow path there are some foundation openings that he would like to close up. Monson said his intent is just to close them up slightly via the back of the face of the brick detailing and the window openings will still be there. Monson stated that after he submitted this application he began to have roof problems, and now he will have to replace the roof. He said the building has a membrane roof that it is obviously not original to the building. Monson said that the roof is not visible, so he did not know if he would have to submit another Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 6 application. Kuecker responded that it would require another application but might be eligible for a certificate of no material effect. Downing asked where the dumpsters would be moved if they are removed. Monson said that his goal is to confer with The Yacht Club owner and share a dumpster with that building as well as with the Vogel House. Michaud asked if there were any drawings for the restoration of the porch. Monson said that he had not yet produced drawings. He stated that it is a very unusual porch and may have extended beyond the base of the brick at one point. Monson said that it has since been truncated, and the wood trim and the enclosures are not original. He said his intent is to restore the metal and repair it, but he did not know how it would deal with the back, because it is not original and never had the proper overhang. Swaim said the porch is therefore not being repaired to look as it currently does, and Monson confirmed this, saying he is not yet certain how it will look. Swaim said that is something the Commission would need to know before giving approval for this. Monson said his intent is to restore the columns that were metal columns, taking out the infill that has been added and going back to the original. He said his hope is not to add new fabric at all but actually restore the original and take out the additive pieces that were not originally there. Monson said the floor would be brought up, because it would be the platform for the ADA access ramp. He said that the porch does not have a wood floor in it; it is concrete, and there a cellar access. Downing asked where the lot line is to the west. Monson showed the west lot line on a map of the property. Baldridge asked Monson if he had looked at the fire plans at the Historical Society, because they would show the extent of the original porch. Monson replied that he has not seen those. He said he feels the porch was added on sometime in the 1900s. Bunting Eubanks said that the Commission could approve a porch design to be approved by staff or the chair and staff. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 9 South Linn Street with the following conditions: the porch decking materials, the gate design, and the door are to be approved by staff; the windows on the north side are to be filled in as those on the south side will be; and the porch design is to be approved by staff and the chair. Baker seconded the motion. Michaud stated that on her house, the original porch was L-shaped, and it was then built into a square by 1920. She suggested that the original L-shaped or extended porch footprint would be on the earlier fire maps. The motion carried on a_vote of 7-0. 330 South Summit Street. Kuecker said that this property is on the northeast corner of Summit and Court Streets, and the applicant is proposing an addition to the rear of the property to accommodate the needs of the owner on the first floor. She said that the current owner did restore the front porch to match some historic photographs of the property. Kuecker said that the owner is a proponent of historic preservation and has done other work on the property that meets the guidelines. Kuecker showed the location for the proposed addition. She showed the site plan for the addition and the east elevation. Kuecker said that the proposed addition has a three and one-half to twelve hip roof, and the siding will be fiber cement board siding and trim to match the profile of the existing wood siding and trim on the house. Kuecker stated that the new windows are intended to match the existing windows on the Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 7 house, and the foundation of the addition would be rough-faced concrete block to match the existing foundation. Kuecker showed the south elevation and the north elevation. She said the guidelines do allow for additions to historic homes, provided the addition is compatible with the design of the historic building and does not detract from the structure. Kuecker said that staff has some concerns about the pitch of the addition roof looking a bit strange with the pitch of the existing roof. She added that a steep pitch is not very practical for cone-story addition, and a shallower pitch may be more appropriate. Kuecker said the guidelines also state that additions that are near the front of the property must be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane. She said that although this is on the rear of the house, it is on the front facade of Court Street, so in order for it to fully comply with the guidelines, it would need to be set back at least 18 inches from the Court Street facade of the house. Kuecker said that as part of the addition project, the rear porch would be removed, and a new rear porch would be constructed on the addition. She said the specifications for the balustrades, handrails, and columns were not given, but based on the drawings, they are fairly simple, as are what is currently on the porch. Kuecker said that in general, staff finds that the application meets the guidelines for additions. However, she added that the Longfellow Neighborhood design guidelines regarding site and scale state that, "On Summit Street only, the rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 from the front street." Kuecker said this restriction is intended to preserve the openness of rear yards. Kuecker showed where approximately 125 feet from Summit Street would be located, based on the drawing and the assessors' site, which would leave the applicant only about five feet in which to construct the addition. Kuecker said staff feels that if the intent of the guideline was to preserve the openness of the rear yards, an exception may be warranted in this case. She referred to an aerial photograph showing that this lot is by far the widest and one of the deepest lots on this side of Summit Street, and the addition would not deter from the openness of the backyard in this case. Kuecker said that even with the addition, this lot would have 4,000 more square feet of open space than any other lot on the east side of the street between Burlington and Bowery Streets. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for this addition with a few conditions: that the roof pitch be altered to be more shallow in order to be more compatible with the existing house, that the final roof design be subject to staff approval, that the Court Street facade of the addition be set back 18 inches from the existing elevation, and that the windows and doors be wood or metal clad wood to match the existing windows and doors and be subject to staff approval. Greg Duffey said that on the south side of the house from Court Street, one can barely see the house because of the vegetation. He said that they would like to not have the 18-inch offset there Greg Duffey said that if one looks at the floor plan, that is the narrow part of the house with the bathroom and hall. He said he was not certain how well that would work to change that. Greg Duffey said that also, along the south side, there is an existing screened porch that is much farther, and there is also a bay window. He said the addition is well back 18 inches from the porch or the bay window. Greg Duffey said he would prefer to have just a different trim board at that location to delineate the structures. Ken Duffey said that the porch roof could possibly be changed to a lower pitch. He said that he has done preservation work and remodeling on a lot of the old houses in town, and it is not at all uncommon to have lower pitched roofs on additions and what often started out as porches to begin with. Ken Duffey said it is not at all uncommon to have several different roof lines on houses of this age and style. Ken Duffey said the architect has indicated that the roof slope would be lower than this anyway, because he is trying to miss the windows above, and there was a correction in that. He said it will be lower than that no matter what. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 8 Michaud asked if the window on the right side is single-pane or casement. Ken Duffey said that it is a double-hung window that was not drawn in well. Baldridge said that he would not like to see the pitch of the roof any flatter than it is so that it misses the window. Greg Duffey said that is what he would prefer too, from a practical standpoint. Baldridge said that is true even from an architectural standpoint. Regarding the setback from the house, Swaim stated that there is shrubbery there now that might not always be there, and then the area would be quite open. She said that without a setback, it begins to look unnaturally long for a house of that era. Swaim said given the sense of Queen Annes having lots of little add-ons, it would seem appropriate to have it be a little bit narrower. She said that this is such a glorious house and did not think a change in the trim board would be sufficient to distinguish the addition. Greg Duffey asked if he set it back 18 inches in a change to the east a couple of feet and then came back out to that house line if it would be acceptable. Ken Duffey suggested installing another bay window as an offset. Greg Duffey said that the 18-inch is the narrow part of the house. He said there is a bathroom, a hallway, a laundry room and a kitchen right across that area. Ken Duffey said that the house has horizontal demarcation all the way around the two-story part. He said the flare there will be the roofline here, which will be kind of a continuation to tie it together. Ken Duffey said that one could see some of the porch and the second-story sleeping porch, and then there is a bay area about 12 feet back. He said that when one looks at this and then sees the south elevation and the whole thing, it's about ten feet from the corner of the house to the bay. Ken Duffey said that where he is tying on and putting the one-story addition actually meets what the Commission is talking about as far as being the multi-faceted Queen Anne style, in that there is one story, two stories, a bay, and two differently pitched roofs. He said that he could make a good argument that an 18-inch setback would make this busier than it needs to be. Bunting Eubanks said the issue is being able to tell where the historic structure is and where the new addition is. She said that even with a little alcove, if one looks straight on, one won't be able to see the difference; it will look just like an extension of the house. Bunting Eubanks said that is why there is a setback requirement, for a clear delineation between the old structure and the new structure. Swaim said that having all one plane without some change in it would result in the shadow and scale being wrong. She said the house has a very square look because of the porch that extends around. Swaim said that extending it even longer will not do justice to it, although she understands the needs for the planned space on the interior. Greg Duffey asked if the addition could be bumped out a little bit to delineate it. He said he could put a little bay in there. Kuecker said the guidelines say that the addition has to be set back. Ken Duffey said as he understands it, that guideline is there so there are not big block facades on the fronts of buildings. He said he understands and agrees with that. Greg Duffey said that if one is going strictly by the regulation, then this is way beyond the 18-inch setback from the front of the building. Swaim said that is because the front faces Summit. Greg Duffey responded that the front of the building on Court Street is twelve feet beyond where this is at. He said that from a strict regulatory standpoint, that would easily meet that criterion. Kuecker said there is a distinction between the front of the building and the porch. Greg Duffey said that the bay is definitely part of the building, and the bay is well beyond the 18 inches. He said that he did not know if he is to meet a strict regulation or a guideline, and if this is not a strict regulation, which he thinks he has already met, then he would need some sort of guidance on the guideline. Bunting Eubanks said the concern is that an addition is delineated, that it is set back so that one knows where the addition is versus the original structure. Greg Duffey asked if going from two and one-half stories to one story and having a different roof pitch does not delineate this. Bunting Eubanks said that it might affect the status of the property if the addition is not done appropriately. Kuecker confirmed this. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 9 Kuecker read from the guidelines, "An addition at or near the front of an existing building must be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the historic building. It must be differentiated by a change of the roof line or by other means." Greg Duffey asked if the guideline says the addition has to be set back at the point of the addition, and Kuecker reiterated that it has to be set back from the front plane of the historic building. Greg Duffey said that makes him believe that this is set back 18 inches from the bay on the side. Bunting Eubanks said the guideline needs to be followed to make sure the status of the building is protected. Ken Duffey agreed that the family would certainly want to maintain that. He said it is a question of interpretation. Michaud asked for clarification regarding the elevations. Ken Duffey stated that they are mislabeled and corrected the error. Bunting Eubanks asked if the interior needs could be met if the addition was one foot deeper but set back 18 inches. Greg Duffey said probably not, because it's so narrow already. He said they probably will require the width to get everything they need. He said that it possibly could be done. Greg Duffey said what is driving this is getting the living quarters all on the first floor Michaud asked if just the bedroom could be made 18 inches narrower. Greg Duffey said that it is already not a very large bedroom. He said that it is 14 by 1 1. Baldridge said that because of the configuration of the house on Summit Street with the width of the porch and the extension of the bay window, this would meet the guidelines, in his opinion. Michaud agreed that the porch is so much of a statement, with the sleeping porch above it, that a case could be made that it is well within that, but one would have to have a vertical delineation. Greg Duffey asked if possibly just the trim could be done, with all the considerations of the setback from the front, if that would be acceptable. He said they want this to remain a historic house. Baker said there was a property with a similar scenario. She said the house had a bump out, and the solution was to accept that as the front plane, and the owners put in a vertical trim board. Baker said her only concern in saying this could be done here is the question of whether this would negate the property as an individually historic structure. Bunting Eubanks said that might be a question for the State Historical Office. Ken Duffey said that some of the houses he has worked on have a certain style, and this house already has a portico on the north side. He said he has seen houses with a wing wall that comes down with an archway through it into the garden. Ken Duffey asked if something like that would be appropriate here. Swaim replied that she didn't think that would match the style of that era. She said that it would be more of a cottage look than this house would have. Ken Duffey asked if something added to that side of the house in the gardening arena would be acceptable to add some structure attached to the house to delineate that. The consensus of the Commission was that it would not. Michaud asked about the porch. Greg Duffey responded that the new porch would be ten feet by six feet. Bunting Eubanks referred to a closet in the plans and said that if one could swing that back on the side, then one could have the desired bedroom space with the setback. She said that would be going longer for the house but would give the setback with the bedroom size being the same. Bunting Eubanks said that it would be about four feet more out and then the porch. She said it would look the same profile wise but would have the setback. Ken Duffey said something about interior space for sunlight with windows on exterior walls. He said that a blank wall probably wouldn't look as good on that side of the house as the one with windows in it from the exterior. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 10 Swaim asked if the applicant would like to do more brainstorming with staff. Bunting Eubanks said that she would like to know how the status of the house would be affected by a potential decision. Kuecker said that she thought the Commission could get a fairly prompt review from the State offices in order to get an answer to the homeowner as soon as possible. Swaim said that she would have to have a more intellectual understanding of the setback guideline and how it works with the Department of the Interior Standards. Baldridge said that if the Commission is going to submit this to a higher authority, there will need to be precise dimensions of the porch and bay, etc. He said that he would also like to have clarified what the influence of the side yard facing the street is, as opposed to the front of the house. Baldridge asked if, because this is a corner lot, that 18-inch requirement affects any of the two facades or is it just the front of the house. MOTION: Baker moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 330 South Summit Street to the Commission's August 14'h meeting in order to get clarification regarding what the setback requirements are and how the status of this property as a contributing structure would be affected. Swaim seconded the motion. Ken Duffey asked, should this not change the historic status of the building, the Commission would be okay with the plans. Bunting Eubanks agreed that would be a possibilty. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Kuecker asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the Summit Street setback issue, regarding the 125 feet from Summit Street guideline that restricts the rear wall to being within 125 feet of Summit Street. She said that if the Commission feels that is something that needs to be upheld, then the application altogether would not be approvable. Swaim asked if that would include the porch. Kuecker said that it refers to the rear wall and would not include the porch. She stated that currently, the rear wall of the house is at about 120 feet from Summit Street. Swaim said that did not concern her, because this is such an enormous lot. Baker agreed. The consensus of the Commission was that the addition would be approvable if the status of the property is not changed by the addition. Greg Duffey asked if there is a way to expedite the process in order to get the project started. He added that the owner will be out of town for the next meeting. Greg Duffey asked if the Commission could approve a motion so that if the State approves this, it would pass through the Commission and he could get started on the project. Swaim said she would be comfortable with staff and the chair making that decision after the State Historic Preservation Office weighs in on the status of the building. MOTION: Swaim moved to reconsider the previous motion to postpone consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 330 South Summit Street. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Swaim moved to allow staff and the Chair to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 330 South Summit Street, with corrected dimensions, subject to staff consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the continued status of the building. If there is any remaining uncertainty, the application will come back to the Commission for a final decision. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 10, 2008. Downing said that in the motion regarding 530 East Washington Street on page two, the word "College" should be changed to "Washington." MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's July 10, 2008 meeting, as amended. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 11 Bunting Eubanks said that she sent a letter to Tim Toomey to thank him for his service on the Commission Bunting Eubanks said that a grant was received. Kuecker stated that the RFPs were sent out to five different consultants. She said that the deadline to have them back is August 20`h so that the Commission can review the proposals at the second August meeting and select a consultant. Bunting Eubanks said another issue brought up earlier in the meeting is communication with the community. She said that is important, and, especially if one is not a builder, a lot of the information can be confusing to homeowners. Bunting Eubanks asked what the status is on the streamlining of the new guidelines. Kuecker responded that they are being worked on. Bunting Eubanks suggested using some kind of card with the website address that Commission members could take to their neighborhood meetings. Burford suggested that the Commission put together a pamphlet to list the benefits of historic preservation. She said that what happened on Iowa Avenue could be used as an example. Burford said that Cedar Rapids hardly had any designated, protected areas. She said that it makes a huge difference to the property owner in terms of dealing with restoration and insurance. Downing agreed that homes in Cedar Rapids that had a designation get priority and also get additional funding. Bunting Eubanks said that people need to understand that there is easy access to the regulations. Kuecker said that the letter sent to affected property owners does not list the benefits of historic preservation but mostly just reminds homeowners that they are in a district. Bunting Eubanks said that every homeowner in town gets a water bill, and there is a pamphlet included with that bill that includes information that could be utilized. Trimble said she feels that it is also very important to get this information to contractors. Swaim said that she would be willing to work on something that looks more like a brochure, as opposed to a letter from the City. She suggested mailing it to realtors and contractors as well. Baker suggested getting this information on the agenda of the Board of Realtors meeting. Burford said the information could be included on the assessors' information as well. She said that the designation does not attach to the abstract, which is exactly where it should be. Baker asked if there is a way of finding out whether other historic preservation commissions already have information regarding the benefits of being in a historic district. Swaim said that the benefits cannot always be quantified, but there are many intangible benefits. Bunting Eubanks added that the Preservation Plan has a wonderful introduction detailing what is great about historic properties. Bunting Eubanks asked anyone with ideas regarding how to solve the communication issue to a-mail them to Kuecker. Regarding Manville Heights, Baldridge referred to a document stating that the west boundary is Rocky Shore Drive. Kuecker responded that that was the boundary established in the Historic Preservation Plan as the survey area. She said there may be more than one historic district in that area after the survey is completed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte c 0 N N .~ 'a O v U ~ C O pp d ~ = O Z ~N d ~ NJ C L ~ a~ ~a `o 2 n X X ~ X X X ~ X ~ X o X X W ~ W ~ X X X ~ , , ~ X , , X X ~ ~ X X X O O x O , ; ~~`' X X X X ~ X ~ ~ X X , ~ ~ o x x x o x x x x x o x w o w o x x x w o w o x x ; ; M ~ X O X X X ~ X ~ X X X N x o x x x x o o 'o X x X x o x x x x " ' o ~ ~ a ~ o o ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ ; ~ o o ~ a H W N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M m ~ ~° ~ C ~ C '~ Y ~ 'O = o E ~, ~` ~ d a ~ ~ Y ; ° ~ ' V C °O R 3 V O ~ y z m m m o w ~ a V i i= F°- ~ 3 N 7 X w C ~ N Q N ~ Q „ d Q II ~ II II W YXOO 3b(6) MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL Members Present: Patrick Carney, DaLayne Williamson, Annadora Khan, Jan Finlayson, Terry Trueblood Members Absent: Mark Seabold, Rick Fosse Staff Present: Marcia Klingaman, Nate Kabat Public Present: Shirley Wyrick, Washington Hills Neighborhood Representative; Jill Harper, Pheasant Hill Park Project Designer RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval of the Washington Hills Neighborhood Art Project at a funding level not to exceed $16,600. Moved by Williamson. Seconded by Khan. Motion passed 5:0. CALL TO ORDER Finlayson called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Carney shared a cigarette machine art package example with the committee. He told the committee the small packages of art can be dispensed from old cigarette machines and serve as "art to go". Carney said the packets might work to raise money and awareness for public art. Klingaman wondered if purchasers of the packets would know what they are getting. Carney thought the cigarette machines could be made to allow for that. The committee agreed this is a good idea and it should be further explored for next month. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 15. 2008 MEETING MOTION: Williamson moved to approve the minutes; Carney seconded. The motion passed 5:0. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Nothing to Report DISCUSSION OF UPDATED WASHINGTON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ART PROJECT CONCEPT Jill Harper presented revisions to the Washington Hills Neighborhood art project plans. She explained the animal sculptures were replaced by a mosaic plinth that would hopefully reduce the potential for vandalism. Harper plans to create 10 four-sided plinths leading up to the playground area. This would allow for the artwork of 40 elementary Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes June 5, 2008 Page 2 students from Hoover and Lemme Elementary Schools to be displayed. The plinth would display the child's name and grade with a mosaic creature design on top, with the goal of keeping as close to the original design as possible. Along with the plinths, Harper plans to place a cement bench at the entrance of the park which would be covered in a mosaic design. The bench she proposed could be bought from Kay-Park which is a distribution firm. This design would incorporate the name of the Pheasant Hill Park so the bench would double as an entrance sign to the park as well. On either side of the bench, Harper also plans to place two plinths that would be slightly taller than the other plinths that will be in the park. Klingaman reported the cost estimate of $6100 received from All-American Concrete for manufacturing the cement plinths. Shirley Wyrick asked if that included installation. Kabat explained the cost estimate was vague, but he and Klingaman did not believe the total included installation. Khan asked if a circular post might help to decrease cost. Harper explained a circular post would limit the number of children who could be included in the project. Harper suggested the square plinths could be made narrower to decrease costs. Kahn wondered if a PIN grant could be combined with public art funds, but Klingaman clarified PIN grant monies are already being used for the bench. Kahn asked how much money could be allocated to the project by the committee. Klingaman explained the final total was up to the committee. The committee figured the total cost of the project based on the estimate from All-American Concrete would be $16,590 without installation. Williamson asked if there was any flexibility on the number of plinths to be installed. Harper said the number could be decreased, but 12 is already less than originally planned. Klingaman suggested the estimate may be too expensive and other options should be explored. All agreed. Harper asked the committee if concrete would be needed underneath the bench. Trueblood explained maintenance of the bench would be better with a concrete pad under the bench. He also said it would be the cheapest and most viable option. Trueblood offered to assist with installing a concrete pad and the bench. Harper asked if the bench could be installed in the summer, since it would be easier for her to work on the project at this time. Trueblood explained it would need to be known how much time is needed to get the bench before an installation date could be set. Wyrick asked if there are any placement requirements for the bench. Trueblood said the main concern would be what might be beneath the ground like utilities. Klingaman added access to the park might also be an issue. All agreed the Kay-Park bench would be good. MOTION: Williamson moved to approve an amount for the Washington Hills Neighborhood Art Project up to $16,600; Khan seconded. The motion passed 5:0. Klingaman explained to Harper and Wyrick that a contract would be drawn up and the exact costs would be found. TRAIL ART Klingaman suggested narrowing down a couple of options which the committee would like to consider for a possible trail art project. She further suggested the South Leg of the Iowa River Corridor Trail might not be the best option due to current construction in the area. Trueblood reminded the committee the original waterworks trail plan called for a Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes June 5, 2008 Page 3 sculpture garden, however this has not happened. Klingaman added the waterworks trail would be a good location for interpretive signage whereas a neighborhood trail would be a good place for art that would announce the trail to the community. Carney asked about the amphitheater planned for the waterworks park. Trueblood explained the amphitheater will be very simple and geared towards school groups and small gatherings. Finlayson asked if a layout of the park and proposed amphitheater would be available. Klingaman said a map of the park's trail network could be brought to the next meeting. Trueblood added plans have been developed to create a hospice memorial garden in the park around 2012. He explained the project is in the same vein as the Willow Creek Park memorial but it will be about 5 times larger. He suggested this project could present an opportunity for additional public art. He offered to bring a concept map of the project to the next meeting. The committee agreed the Waterworks Park would be the best place for a possible trail art project. UPDATE ON ROBERT A LEE RECREATION CENTER POOL WALL ARTWORK The committee expressed disappointment with the temporary misplacement of the glass panels at the tempering plant. Klingaman informed the committee the panels had been recently found and went through the tempering process. She explained the panels should now be completed and ready for delivery. Klingaman relayed her disappointment that the panels would not be revealed in conjunction with the Artsfest and the delay will make installation more difficult since summer pool lessons are now in session. The art work will now be revealed in August since the artist, BJ Katz, cannot come until August 7th. The installation contractor is creating fully stainless steel fasteners to hang the piece; this material will be able to resist corrosion from the pool chlorine. Klingaman informed the committee the project was approved not to exceed $15,000 for lighting and installation. However the total cost is now at $17,400 without lighting. Trueblood asked if the lighting contractor is the supplier or the installer. Klingaman explained it is the supplier. ADJOURNMENT Trueblood motioned to adjourn; all seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:05 pm. Next meeting scheduled for July 3, 2008. Minutes submitted by Nate Kabat a~ a~ .~ E 0 U O .~ Q Q U ~ ~ 3 O d >+ N Uui~' m m ~ 3 ~ m o ~ d ., s e~ o ~" V ~a 00 •~ " °o '~ C N 'C ~ C Yom, ~ .~.. ~.. D a ~ ~ ~ ~ o x o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M i i i ~ O N i i O ~ ~ ~ ~ O X ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-, .-~ .~ .-~ ~ o ,-r .-r o ,~ o~ o ~ X 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~i O C .w C~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ U ~ O O i L. ~ C a z d ~,,, a, A C ~ C~ ~ ~' a v a i. F U k W ~--+ L: ~ ~ ~ a., ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ W ~ ~C O O 3b 7 MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Steve Crane, Marcy DeFrance, Andy Douglas, Charles Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe Others Present: Karen Kubby RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): FY06 Annual Action Plan Amendments: City of Iowa City Downpayment Assistance Program -Cancelled. $30,000 (CDBG) original allocation, $1,000 spent. The Housing Fellowship, Affordable Rental Project -Cancelled $175,000 (HOME) FY08 Annual Action Plan Amendments: City of Iowa City, Lead Based Paint Project - $25,000 (HOME) administrative change Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity, Property Acquisition - $117,000 (HOME, CDBG) to purchase 3 lots. Habitat will purchase four lots. Hart motioned to recommend to Council to accept the Annual Action Plan amendments as discussed; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 9-0. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 17, 2008 MINUTES: Hart noted that on page 7, second paragraph, where it says: "He added that the consultant used the standard 30% on this item for rental housing but that they used a 50% standard for ownership housing," it does not specifically state what the 30 and 50% standards are. She suggested adding something to the effect of "median income" or "average income" to make this clear. Drum moved to accept the minutes of the April 17, 2008 minutes as amended; seconded by DeFrance. Motion carried 8-0. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY l5, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. (McMurray arrives) STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe stated that the Annual Action Plan was approved and has been forwarded to HUD. A member asked if anyone from the Housing Commission was present at the Council meeting where the annual recommendations were approved. Douglas noted that he read something about Southgate putting their money together with the Housing Authority's, and he asked what precipitated this. Hightshoe stated that the Housing Authority requested a meeting with Southgate and Lakeside (Dolphin), hoping that they would put all of the downpayment assistance money into one pool available for applications citywide. Dolphin was not interested in doing this and wanted their allocation to remain for their specific project. Southgate was interested as they felt they had potential buyers interested in their site and would apply as soon as the funds became available. Hightshoe stated the Council reviewed this request at a work session and decided to consolidate the Housing Authority and Southgate's allocation; however at least 70% of the households served must be at 60% or less of area median income with all households having to be 80% or less of area median income. Anthony shared what he heard at both the work and formal Council meetings, as well, noting that the discussion was rather involved. The discussion then turned to homeownership versus rental. Hightshoe stated that they should continue this conversation later in the meeting, when they are addressing the allocation process. PRESENTATION BY KAREN KUBBY REGARDING A CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Kubby addressed the commission, stating that the group she is representing is an informal housing group made up of a variety of people. They have been meeting since the fall of 2006, typically at 7:30 A.M. on Tuesday mornings. She stated that they have been working all this time on their consensus statement. Kubby then stated that she wanted to share who all worked on this statement -non-profit housing developers, Al Axeen from HACAP, Maryann Dennis from the Housing Fellowship, Mark Patton from Iowa Habitat for Humanity, Andy Johnson, from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County; for- profit, Association of Realtors, Cheryl Carroll-Nelson, C. Gordon from AM Management, Glenn Siders from Southgate Development, Dan Smith from the Land Development Council, and Joan Tiemeyer from the Greater Iowa City Homebuilder's Association. Kubby continued, stating that they also had John McKinstree representing the Council of Religious Communities, and she is a representative from FAIR. She added that FAIR is a group that went to the Council saying, `We think there should be some form of inclusionary housing in Iowa City.' She stated that they gave the Council an array of research about this issue, adding that they believe if a change in policy is going to result in actual new units of affordable housing, that mandatory inclusionary 2 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL zoning is needed. Kubby continued, noting that the Homebuilder's Association, both nationally and locally, will not agree to any form of inclusionary zoning. Kubby stated that even though the members of this informal housing group cover a wide range of interests, they were all able to agree that what is currently happening "is not good enough" and that there needs to be a regional approach to housing. Kubby shared how through JCCOG they are attempting to show that this needs to be a regional approach, and that JCCOG has a task force with all of the entities, which will be helpful in this endeavor. She further shared how the group is working towards identifiable annual goals that will be reported to the community. Kubby continued, stating that they have had a difficult time finding someone from the University to join their group. She stated that there has not been any new University-based housing since 1969, but that there has been a huge growth in student population since that time. Housing has been lost in the community due to the University Hospital expansions, for example, with no replacements being built. Kubby stated that the consultant who did the affordable Housing Study forwarded them information on how university communities have impacted affordable housing positively, and she is trying to read through this information. She stated that her group is trying to challenge communities to have housing policies within the next six months, hoping that the results of the City of Iowa City's study and this group's consensus statement might be merged to be the basis of a housing policy. Kubby said that the group has talked a lot about changes to the development process. She added that it was interesting to hear both the non-profit and for-profit developers talk about the challenges in working with development staff. One example is when there is a zoning change, especially to a planned development, it can open up the possibility for conditional zoning agreements and additional burdens put on the development. Another perspective is that this creates additional opportunities for environmental protection, for affordable housing, or for other community values. Kubby stated that one of the things they came to a consensus about is the need to challenge the development process, to say how can it move faster so that developers aren't spending six months getting approvals. She noted some of the items that the group has discussed at length, one being if there is some basic criteria that have to be met for approval, that once those basic criteria are met, anything above and beyond that would be at the developer's discretion. She added that having some type of bonus involved in this process is also an important concern of the group. She gave some examples of development and how to work around the issue of mixed housing types. Kubby stated that they are interested in incentives that would also foster partnerships between non- and for-profit developers, something that currently does not occur. Also discussed at length were local governments figuring out how to be more proactive about using tax credits, and the streamlining of this process. Kubby stated that the group also agreed that there should be some earmarked portion of bonding capacity in each entity's budget that would be specifically for affordable housing. The group also discussed how they could be supportive of policy makers making what can be very difficult zoning changes, especially with increased density in already established neighborhoods. This was specifically geared towards trying to figure out a system where FAIR and the HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Consultation of Religious Communities might have some people who would be willing to go to public hearings to voice support for increased density. Kubby added that if it were someone from the neighborhood under discussion; that would be even better support. Some of the areas where this group could not agree, according to Kubby, included inclusionary zoning. She stated that the Homebuilder's group would not agree to this, but that there were some private developers who felt that there are some areas of inclusionary zoning that they could work with. Another item of contention involved anything that is done should be revenue-neutral to the for-profit developers, and FAIR could not agree to this. Kubby added that some of the discussion involved suggesting a 2% less in net gains, which was not agreeable. Kubby stated that the group is not exactly sure what their next step will be. What is important, according to Kubby, is the breadth of people involved in this group and the discussions they have been having. She hopes that the group will continue in a support capacity for those applications they deem worthy. Kubby then offered to answer questions for the group. Anthony noted that the range of people involved in this group is very impressive, as is the consensus Kubby shared. Kubby added that they hope to have a press conference and/or release with their statement, as they feel it is important to get this information out. A member asked if the group has been able to get University participation yet, and Kubby stated that Sandy Boyd has inquired about participating in this group. Anthony spoke about some of the past discussions regarding University housing, noting that around the 1960's the University found it was cheaper to let the community take care of housing needs. Anthony asked Kubby if, in regards to the inclusionary zoning issue, she believes the developers would participate in a conversation with developers in other parts of the country who are very much for inclusionary zoning. Kubby stated that she believes this would be extremely helpful, that she has hoped to find a Midwest developer who was once against inclusionary zoning, but who now is very much for it. She added that getting some testimonials from these developers, and then setting up small informal meetings would be very helpful in this process. Shaw asked Kubby further about the distinction between the type of developers and Homebuilders, and also what the Homebuilders' opposition is. Kubby stated that nationally the Homebuilders' group is against mandates in general. They want to develop however they decide, without these types of restrictions. She added that the Homebuilders represent a broad range of developers, and not all private developers belong to the Homebuilders Association. Kubby stated that the goal is to have policies that truly work, in order to be functional and actually increase the number of units of rental and ownership. Anthony asked about FAIR's stance on the revenue-neutral inclusionary zoning policy, and Kubby stated that they believe everyone should contribute. Kubby spoke further to some of the specifics discussed by her group, explaining the overall goals they have in mind. The issue of "fees in lieu of 'was touched on briefly. Kubby added that they did discuss possibly having the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County be where these were housed and disbursed from. Anthony stated that there currently is a "in lieu fee" program currently in the City, and he briefly spoke to 4 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL this. He added that the money has to be used within five years, or it has to be returned to the developers who paid into this fund. The discussion continued, with Kubby noting some of the core issues that the housing group has discussed. Richman asked if the group has an opinion on the notion that there shouldn't be more affordable housing south of Highway 6, or if they believe otherwise. Kubby stated that as a group they do not. Anthony asked if there was any discussion by developers on why they do not use the incentives currently in the Zoning Code. He briefly explained what these are, noting that very little is occurring in the residential areas. Kubby stated that there was not, that the discussion was more on the process. She gave several examples, noting that depending on whom you are talking with about this, the perceptions vary greatly on the problem areas. Kubby reminded members that they can go the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County's web site to see the full statement of the informal housing group, and she thanked them for their time this evening. ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENTS: Hightshoe noted that there has been some activity in this fiscal year regarding current and prior projects that require an amendment to their applicable annual action plans. Two projects from FY06 were cancelled due to lack of activity and low expenditure rates. The first was the FY06 Iowa City CDBG Fund Downpayment Assistance Program. Originally allocated $30,000, only $1,000 was spent for one homeowner after two years. Due to lead-based paint regulations, the lending environment and how the process worked few homeowners were interested in proceeding with this program. HUD recommended the reallocation of these funds. The second project cancelled was The Housing Fellowship's (THF) FY06 Affordable Rental Project that was allocated $175,000. THE was unable to secure land after two years and the funds were recaptured and reallocated with the FY09 allocation based on HUD's request. There was an administrative change with the FY08 HOME lead allocation. Hightshoe stated that due to the way it must be reported on HUD's system, a new project number will not be created, but current HOME projects will receive increased funds to pay for the necessary lead requirements until the funds are gone. The last project is Habitat for Humanity. They received $117,000 in FY08 funds to purchase three lots. They plan to purchase four lots. As this is over a 25% change, staff must complete an amendment. Hightshoe responded to members' questions, further explaining some of the amendments to projects. Hart moved to accept the Annual Action Plan amendments as discussed; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 9-0. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CELEBRATION & ALLOCATION PROCESS: Hightshoe stated that the Community Development Celebration subcommittee met today. A couple of dates were contemplated: July 9th or 10th. Three or four locations were considered, however a host has not been confirmed yet. The first choice was Melrose Ridge. Hightshoe noted that Melrose Ridge was a FY06 project of 18 units of affordable HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL rental housing for persons with chronic mental illness, and is located by Chatham Oaks. Richman asked about transportation, and Hightshoe stated that there is already public transportation to this location. If this is not possible, staff will speak with the other agencies considered. Hightshoe then spoke briefly to the awards they present at this celebration, asking Members to send her names of any organizations they may wish to consider for these awards. Richman suggested some type of recognition for Kubby's informal housing group, noting that they have made some significant contributions. Hightshoe noted that the Allocation Process subcommittee also met. She noted that they would be fine-tuning the application process. Drum and Crane both spoke briefly about the various issues they addressed in this subcommittee and what they hope to accomplish. Anthony then spoke about the public service allocations, sharing what he gleamed from the recent City Council work session where they were discussing the allocations. Hightshoe responded to members' questions about the allocation amounts and the changes in recent years. Hightshoe stated that the Allocation Process subcommittee would need to meet again to finalize some of the discussed changes. Members briefly discussed the points given to each application and how this needs to be reviewed, as well. DISCUSSION OF THE HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS: Anthony asked if they could hold off on this discussion today, considering their last discussion and today's presentation by Kubby. He asked that the members take a detailed look at the Housing Market Analysis so they can be better educated to respond to it. Hart asked for clarification on student housing in this study, and Anthony responded. MONITORING REPORTS: HAWKEYE AREA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM -TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (RICHMAN) -Richman stated that he has not made contact yet, but will do so before the next meeting. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES -FACILITY REHABILITATION (DOUGLAS) -Douglas stated that he spoke with John Watson, and they are doing some replacement and renovation of their First Avenue facility's loading docks. They receive a lot of their donations and computers at this location. He stated that Goodwill has signed a contract for the work. Hightshoe added some details, stating that they have apre-construction meeting on the 20`h. Douglas stated that they hope to have this project completed by the end of August. IOWA CITY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC -ACCESSIBILITY (RICHMAN) -Richman will make contact prior to next month's meeting. BLOOMING GARDEN IHA LP -HOMEOWNERSHIP (DOUGLAS) -Douglas stated that he received a message, but has not yet spoken with the owners. He noted that they hope to start construction in June and have people moving in the first part of 09. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL THE HOUSING FELLOWSHIP - CHDO OPERATING (ANTHONY) -Anthony noted that he would have contact with the Housing Fellowship prior to next month's meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY -FACILITY REHABILITATION (DEFRANCE) - DeFrance noted that she also has not made contact, but will do so for next month's meeting. Shaw then brought up the issue of complaints that may come through the Commission, and if this Commission is to be part of that process. Hightshoe asked for clarification, and Shaw stated that if there is a service user who complains about one of the organizations funded through this allocation process, is the Commission responsible in any way, or are they a part of the "complaint process," since they allocated the funds. Hightshoe stated she is not sure if there is a formal process for something of this nature, but noted that she will check on this and report back to the commission. ADJOURNMENT: Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 PM.; seconded by Defrance. Motion carried 9-0. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 19, 2008, at 6:30 P.M. at City Hall. 7 c 0 .N .~ 0 v c E` O avi d~ a~i ~ o ~ = N A ~ -~ ~_ ~~ a O U o!f c .N O ~ x x x x x x x x x ~ ~C ~ ~ X ~G X >C >C ~ N x >C X X X >C ~C X X M ~ x x x o x x x x x M X ~ ~ N ~C >C ~C ~C O O a X X X X X ~ X X X N 1 O ~ ~ ~ x ~ O Q N o N ~ ... 00 0 .--~ O~ 0 r-. O~ 0 .-~ 00 0 ~ O ~ .-~ O ~ ~ ,-.» 00 0 .-. O ~ ~ Q~ 0 ~ W 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.I d U A A .~ ti ~ ~Y ~ z L ti y ~ cC ~ ~ ~ x a aa ~ b ~ L ~ ~ '~ •~ ~ \ ~ J--+ ~ ~ O a¢¢zz ~xooz ; FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -July 1, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Loren Horton, Donald King, and Greg Roth Elizabeth Engel Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle None Captain Richard Wyss of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-01 (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-02 UtS-Lli-Utf 3b(8) CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by King to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. , • Minutes of the meeting on 06/10/08 • ICPD General Order #00-02 (Harassment and Sexual Harassment) • ICPD Department Memo #08-23 • ICPD Use of Force -March 2008 • ICPD Use of Force -April 2008 Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. OLD BUSINESS Future Forums -The Board discussed the September forum and decided to hold the forum in Emma J. Harvat Hall. Roth report that he had spoken with Chief Hargadine and there would be a representative from the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) to give a presentation of the ICPD formal/informal complaint process. The representative will be there for the presentation only and will not be involved in any discussion. Promotion of the forum will be by postings in City buildings, a listing on the main City webpage, and a general City news release. The Board directed staff to check into posting at neighborhood centers and start promoting towards the end of August. NEW BUSINESS PCRB Annual Report -The Board reviewed and made changes to the draft of the FY08 Annual Report. Motion by Horton, seconded by Roth to approve the PCRB FY08 Annual Report as amended. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. PCRB July 1, 2008 Page 2 STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle received a letter addressed to the PCRB. The letter mentioned an incident that occurred in May of 2000. The Board is unable to review the complaint because it is not in accordance with City Code sections 8-8-3 (C), complaints to the Board shall be in writing and on forms provided by the Board and 8-8-3 (D), complaints must be filed with the City Clerk within 90 days of the alleged misconduct. The Board directed staff to respond to the letter. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Roth and seconded by King to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Open session adjourned at 5:58 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:37 P.M. Motion by Roth, seconded by King to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-01 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Motion by Roth, seconded by King to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-02 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • August 12, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room(RESCHEDULED TO 8119) • August 19, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • September 9, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • September 16, 2008, 7:30 P.M., Emma J. Harvat Hall -Community Forum • October 14, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room PCRB July 1, 2008 Page 3 Motion by Roth, seconded by King to reschedule the August 12th meeting to the following Tuesday, August 19th. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:43 P.M. d O 3 w W~ a w H W U a 0 a 0 U ~- ~ A V N til z ~ A ~ ~ W H ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M z N Z z z z ~ o o ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 0 W ~, w a a ~. a s W .~ .~ ~ a ~~ ~ ww ax ~ ~a a '~ 6> i^ y y ~ ~ ~~~ W.,~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 w~~zz ii u u u ii ~coOZ POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 July 1, 2008 To: City Council Complainant Michael Lombardo, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board O ~~ c v~ C) -~ -=~ c~ ~r o~ ~~ D N c r-- N -v ~. Ln .~. Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #O8-Ol This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-01 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that ~~ the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on February 22, 2008. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief s Report was due on May 22, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on May 20, 2008. 1 The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on June 10, 2008 and July 1, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation". FINDINGS OF FACT Iowa City Parking Department personnel located a vehicle that had multiple unpaid parking fees. Towing service was notified. Before the tow truck arrived, the vehicle owner (Complainant) arrived and arranged to pay the unpaid parking fees. The tow truck arrived and the vehicle owner refused to pay the "show-up" fee. The Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) was notified, officers arrived. Complainant placed himself between his vehicle and the tow truck, refused to move, and refused to cease talking on his cellular telephone to talk with the officers. Officers notified the Complainant that if he did not remove himself from between his vehicle and the tow truck, he would be arrested. Complainant did not move, and an officer placed one hand on the Complainant's arm and held handcuffs in the other hand. Complainant pulled away from the officer, and then was sprayed with pepper spray and taken to the ground for handcuffing. After arrest the Complainant complained of a health problem and was taken to the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. There he was treated, released into ICPD officer's custody, taken to the Johnson County Jail and taken into custody by officials there. The Complainant asserted that his arrest was unlawful, that improper force was used, and that he was verbally abused during the arrest process. The Chiefs Report contained findings on each of these Complaints, against each of two officers involved. The PCRB agreed to consider the Complaints against both officers collectively, and issue a Report with findings on the three Complaints. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Complaint and the Chiefs Report, the Board concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. Statements by the Parking Department personnel, the tow truck operator, and video tape of the scene indicate that the Complainant did resist arrest after multiple requests to submit, and that no improper force was used in making the arrest. Evidence supports that ICPD regulations were followed during the arrest, including LEG-02.1 and OPS 03.1. Video tape of the scene at the hospital does not support the Complaint that officers used verbal abuse during this period of time, but does show the Complainant being verbally loud and officers requesting that he calm down so as not to disturb the other patients. D «~ Allegation # 1 -Unlawful Arrest. NOT SUSTAINED. ~ ~ ~ '~ Allegation # 2 -Improper Use of Force. NOT SUSTAINED. c~ -~ ~ Allegation # 3 -Verbal Abuse of a Prisoner. NOT SUSTAINED. ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~ N A 2 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 July 1, 2008 O .~- v ~ ~ 'Tl To: City Council ~ `~ ~ ~ Complainant ~ ~ N ~ Michael Lombardo, City Manager O ~ ~ Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police ~ ~ ~ Officer(s) involved in complaint D ~,, From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-02 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-02 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his fmdings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on February 26, 2008. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief s Report was due on May 26, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on May 20, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on June 10, 2008 and July 1, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation." Allegations On February 26, 2008, the Complainant filed a complaint with the Police-Civilian Review Board (PCRB) against the Iowa City Department and two specific sworn officers. The Complainant alleged the following complaints: 1) On January 14, 2008, Officer A cited the Complainant with reckless driving and two additional traffic citations. Complainant stated she was cited because Officer A does not care for her. 2) On January 15, 2008, the Complainant's car was issued a parking ticket by Officer B for parking on the curb. Complainant claimed her car was parked in her driveway. 3) On February 17, 2008, the Complainant called in a request for service involving a vehicle blocking her mailbox. Complainant stated the police did not respond to this call for service. Complainant called in the same complaint about the same vehicle on February 18, 2008. 4) On January 14, 2008, the Complainant called the police department in regard to an assault on her son. Complainant alleges the police would not allow her to file a complaint. Police Department Investigation The Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) did an investigation of the allegations (PCRB #08-02) filed by the Complainant on February 26, 2008. The investigative report was filed in the City Clerk's office on May 20, 2008 and was reviewed by the Board at the June 10 and July 1, 2008 meetings. To investigate the four allegations, the police department interviewed the officers involved, retrieved documents from the Clerk of Court regarding citations issued to the Complainant, reviewed police in-car video logs from several officer's cars, reviewed call for service logs, parking ticket logs, parking ticket appeal logs and attempted to interview the Compliant. ~ ~ ~o n ~ Board Findings n ~ ~ ~ Allegation #1 ~ n N The Board finds allegation #1 to be Not Sustained due to the following: _; r ~"' ~ O~ ~ - Officer A did issue citations to the Complainant for violations of Driving~~l Dm~sing on Right-Hand side of Roadway. ~' ~ i t s l nan a - In-car video clearly supports the citations that were issued showing Comp vehicle on the wrong side of the road in violation of Right-Hand Side of Road Way statute and approaching the officers in a dangerous manner supporting the Reckless Driving citation. - In-car audio picks up an officer warning other officers of the dangerous approach of the Complainant's vehicle further supporting the Reckless Driving citation. - In-car-audio picks up an officer stating that the verbal warning about the approaching vehicle saved the life of an officer declaring the Complainant's vehicle would have struck an officer if the warning was not given. This further supports the Reckless Driving citation. In-car audio picks up the sounds of the Complainant's vehicle skidding to a stop supporting the Reckless Driving citation. An error was made in the issuance of a citation for Failure to Give Notice of Address Change. The officer mistakenly cited the Complainant for not having her vehicle registration address up to date when the citation should have addressed not having her driver's license address up to date. There was probable cause for a citation but the wrong code section was cited. Corrective measures were taken by contacting the County Attorney's Office to have this citation dismissed. The officer was acting in good faith when the citation was issued and the error did not unduly impact the Complainant. - Documentation was provided showing the Failure to Give Notice/Address Name Change was dismissed through the Johnson County Attorney's Office. Allegation #1 Conclusion -The danger of the situation and basis for the citations is clearly supported by the in-car video and audio. The Board does not find any facts that suggest the r,r, citations issued, or the incorrect code section used on a citation, were issued becaus~ffice~ does not care for the Complainant. p ~ ~ -y1 c~ -~ ~ -' ~' '~' ~.= i°T'i -` r -t~ m 3 Allegation #2 ~ ~ N ~'' v, The Board finds allegation #2 to be Not Sustained due to the following: - A citation was issued to a vehicle registered to Complainant for having the right wheels on the parking. Complainant claimed the vehicle was in her driveway on the date and time the parking ticket was issued. - The parking ticket was issued by Officer B. - A search of the City of Iowa City Treasury Department showed a parking ticket issued on January 15, 2008 to a vehicle registered to the Complainant. - The Complainant claimed to have photographs and a witness that her vehicle was parked in her driveway on the day and time the parking ticket was issued. - An interview of the Complainant was scheduled for March 27, 2008 at 1 pm. Complainant did not show up for interview. There was no evidence, real or testimonial, presented by Complainant as to where the vehicle was parked on the day and time of the parking ticket. - The date and time of the issuance of the parking ticket is consistent with the issuing officer's police in-car video of that same day and time. - The officer's in-car video of that day and time clearly shows the Complainant's vehicle in violation, by being parked partially on the street and partially on the parking, and not in the Complainant's driveway. .Allegation #2 Conclusion- The in-car video, consistent with that day and time, clearly supports the issuance of the parking ticket by Officer B to a vehicle registered to the Complainant. The parking ticket was upheld on appeal and there is no evidence to contradict the rightful issuance of this ticket. Allegation #3 The Board finds allegation #3 to be Not Sustained due the following: - On February 17, 2008 and February 18, 2008, Complainant filed a request for service with the ICPD in regard to a vehicle blocking her mailbox. - Complainant stated neither call on either date was responded to. - Two calls for service were located from the Complainant on departmental logs. - Police records indicate the call of February 17, 2008, was responded to by a sworn police officer at 1312 hours. The identity of the officer is not relevant since this is a . complaint against the police department and not a specific officer. - The initial responding officer claimed he could not get to the area without a 4 wheel- drive vehicle. It is assumed access was limited due to weather conditions (snow or ice). This maybe consistent with this winter although the conditions on certain dates were not presented in the Chief's Report. - The call was responded to at 1527 hours, that same date, by a Community Service Officer with a four wheel-drive vehicle. - The call log indicated the vehicle in question was 5-10 feet from the mailbox. - Attempts to contact the Complainant in person and by phone were unsuccessful. - On February 18, 2008, Complainant filed another request for service regarding the same complaint and vehicle. - The call log indicated a sworn officer was dispatched at 1025 hours and a Street Storage sticker was placed on the vehicle in question. Allegation #3 Conclusion -The call logs and related officer dispositions, show tl~ both dills for service were responded to. Action was taken by trying to contact the Complaint both.in person and by phone, and by placing a notice on the vehicle in question. n ~ r ~ ~ ~-- N ~ r ~~ Allegation #4 Y Ln The Board finds allegation #4 to be Not Sustained due to the following: - January 14, 2008 the Complainant came to the ICPD in regard to an alleged assault on her son. - Complainant alleged the police department would not allow her to file a complaint in regard to the assault. - Complainant identified a suspect in the assault. - The victim of the alleged assault, the Complainant's son, identified three different suspects than the Complainant but did not name the same suspect as the Complainant. The alleged victim's identification of suspects was recorded on an in-car video, audio log on January 14, 2008. - The Complainant's son was taken to juvenile detention for offenses committed earlier in the day. - Complainant came to police station and requested information about the incident. Initially, an officer not involved with the incident spoke with the Complainant. An officer directly involved with the complaint was then called into the station to speak with Complainant. - An officer at the scene came to the station and spoke with Complainant. - The officer informed Complainant that her son (alleged victim) identified different offenders until he was charged with an offense and then stated the same suspect as the Complainant. - Complainant was told to come to station with her son when released from juvenile detention and officers involved would initiate an investigation. Complainant was told that interviewing her son (alleged victim) would be imperative to investigation. - Complainant supposedly stated she was alright with this option and left the station. - As of the department's report to the Board the Complainant has not contacted the police officers to further the investigation. Allegation #4 Conclusion -The police Call for Service log shows Complainant identified one suspect of the alleged assault. An in-car video/audio shows the alleged victim identifying multiple suspects that are all different than the one identified by the Complainant. Documents provided show that alleged victim was in juvenile detention for theft and disorderly conduct (fighting) on January 14, 2008 when Complainant came into station to speak with officers about the alleged assault. Due to the different identification of suspects, and the change of identification of suspects by the alleged victim, this alleged assault investigation required the re-interviewing of both Complainant and alleged victim. The Complainant was provided with the opportunity to speak with officers after her son was released from detention but did not exercise this option. N A .,..~ ~~ ~ n~ ~ --i C7 -~ ~ ~ m -ta ~ ~~ 3a IV <fi