The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-01-07 Bd Comm minutesAPPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002 EMMA J. HAP, VAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Jochimsen, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Michaelanne Widness STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: John (did not sign in), Dennis Nowotny, Brad Houser, Philip Lutgendorf, Susan Licht, Nila Haug CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 656 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET: McCafferty stated that a certificate of appropriateness is being requested to demolish the structure at 656 South Governor. She said the property has been condemned by the City, because it has been deemed a public hazard. McCafferty said the property has been abandoned and is therefore considered a liability to the City. She added that the house has a collapsing foundation. McCafferty said the property is in the GovernodLucas Conservation District. She said it is a non-historic property because it is less than 50 years old and is therefore considered non-contributing. McCafferty said it is a single-family home. She added that the Historic Preservation Commission will review the building plans when the purchaser applies for a building permit for this lot, after the house is demolished. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. McCallum asked if the Commission is therefore being asked to give permission for this demolition. McCafferty responded that this certificate of appropriateness would be to grant permission for the demolition of the house. McCafferty stated that the contract with the purchaser requires the house be demolished and the site filled in. McCallum asked if the house is deemed worthy of saving. McCafferty replied structurally and historically it is not. She said the Commission would have little basis for not issuing this certificate of appropriateness. She said if the demolition was not approved, the purchaser, Gary Hughes, would have a basis for breaking the contract. MOTION: Enloe moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 656 South Governor Street. Weitzel seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 2 Gunn read the guidelines regarding demolition. "Before a certificate of appropriateness can be approved for a particular site, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission must approve a certificate of appropriateness for the structure that will replace the one being demolished." McCafferty answered that the building and legal departments have requested that the building be torn town as soon as possible because of the liability associated with a public hazard. Gunn said the guidelines were written so that the owner would know what would have to be done following the demolition of a structure. McCafferty said the legal staff has met with Hughes, and the legal staff has informed her that Hughes is aware that whatever he builds will have to go through the Commission, meet the guidelines, and be compatible with the architecture of the neighborhood. Gunn said if the purchaser is aware of what can and cannot be done on the property, then this motion is acceptable to him. Weitzel added that it was clear at the meeting with Hughes that a new structure on the site would have to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. SCHEDULING OF ANNUAL PLANNING MEETING: McCafferty said the Commission's annual informal planning session is typically held in the fall over the course of a morning or afternoon. The consensus was to hold the meeting on December 7~h. McCafferty stated that she would send an e-mail message to all members to confirm this date. INFORMAL DISCUSSION: PROPOSED COLLEGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT: Maharry stated that at the last meeting four people from the public spoke in favor of the conservation district and four against. He stated that one of the reasons people cited for being against the designation was that the district would diminish the value of properties in the CB-2 zone. Enloe said he felt this designation would be a hardship to property owners of the CB-2 properties. He said people have already invested money in the properties in this location because they are zoned CB-2. He added that it would likely be difficult to get the designation through the City Council if this designation significantly lowered the values in the commercial area. McCallum said he had difficulty with the implication of the facade dimensional requirements in the proposed district guidelines in the event a rebuilding is needed. He said he would be comfortable including the CB-2 properties if the dimensional requirements are removed. Currently, the maximum allowable fa(;ade dimension is 1200 square feet. Many buildings in the proposed district exceed this dimension. McCafferty said the CB-2 zoning dimensional and use standards are quite generous She said on a 60 foot x 150 foot lot, a 9,000 square foot building would be allowed in up to 10 stories. Approximately 10 dwelling units above a commercial first floor is allowed. For a two-bedroom unit, 1.5 parking spaces would be required. Maharry said in theory a ten-story building could be built next to a house. McCallum asked if the Multifamily Infill Guidelines would apply. McCafferty said the guidelines only apply to the Central Planning District. The CB-2 area is located in the Downtown Planning District. She stated that in the residential portion of the proposed district, the intensity of land use is similar to the maximum intensity allowed by the underlying zoning, therefore there is not the incentive to demolish existing buildings and construct larger ones. In the CB-2 area, the intensity of use is significantly less than the maximum allowed in the zone. Carlson said he looked up the value of a number of properties on the tax assessor's website and found that there was not a significant difference between the values of properties in the CB-2 portion of the proposed district and similar properties in the residentially zoned portion. He said he did not see that there would be a huge decrease in value. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 3 McCallum said the tax assessed value is different than the value an appraiser would put on a property. He said appraisers take into account the potential redevelopment value, and that is why people buy property. Cadson said that, with few exceptions, the assessed value and the last sales price of the properties are in the same general ballpark. Maharry suggested the Commission look at the properties in the CB-2 zone building by building. He said if the Commission's goal is to preserve, then it could examine these properties to see if any are threatened or could potentially be demolished. Maharry said the lots at 505 and 507 College Street are occupied by the Community Mental Health Center, and would not be threatened if they are not included in the proposed conservation district. He said 505 through 521 Washington Street are all very well restored properties. He said it would be a shame if they were sold, and questioned whether given the investment in the restoration if they would be demolished. He said the Haunted Bookshop is located at 520 Washington and he was not certain of the safety of that building. McCafferty pointed out that the Haunted Bookshop was moved to that lot from another location. Maharry said properties on Iowa Avenue are either non-contributing or not significantly threatened by development. He said the Commission needs to keep in mind current and possible future uses, while being responsive to people with concerns. Weitzel asked if these properties could be included in the proposed downtown historic district. McCafferty said a historic district must contain contiguous properties. She said there are probably not enough historic properties between the CB-2 properties and the downtown area to justify making it part of the downtown district. McCafferty said the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan recommends that financial incentives be established for preservation. She said tax incentives are available. McCafferty said that a State law that has been adopted by Johnson County allows tax abatement for the significant rehabilitation to historic structures. McCafferty said the rehabilitation plan requires approval by SHPO, and the tax on the improved value of the structure can be abated for fours and then increased gradually until 100% of the tax is paid in the eighth year. McCafferty said another financial incentive involves establishing an urban revitalization district. She said this would be locally controlled and approved by City Council. McCafferty said that all tax abatement within the urban revitalization district would be approved by City Council. She said this would involve the City's own standards and would not necessarily require a substantial rehabilitation. However, such a district would have to be limited in size and with carefully defined boundaries. McCafferty said there are other tax credits at both the Federal and State level that also require a substantial rehabilitation. The rehabilitation would have to meet the Secretary of Interiors Standards. McCafferty said the State provides a 25% tax credit, but the program is backed up so that there is about a three-year waiting list. She added that the federal program gives a 20% tax credit. McCafferty said another common preservation incentive is to establish a loan pool providing Iow or no interest loans for approved projects. She said the difficulty is finding the funds to establish the loan pool. In terms of the City providing the funds, it would have to come from the general fund, however given the budget of the City, this may be difficult. Another alternative would be to find a local bank(s) to provide the loan pool. McCafferty said this is usually a good incentive for single-family homes. McCallum asked about CDBG funding. McCafferty said given the priorities of the Housing Commission, they would likely reject the request for CDBG money, as it has more pressing issues than historic preservation. Maharry asked what would be considered a substantial rehabilitation. McCafferty responded that it would depend on the depreciation of the building, but is typically around 50% of the value of the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 4 Weitzel said one concern stated in a letter from a property owner, who owns a 10ounit, non-contributing apartment building in the district, was that if the building burned down, according to the proposed guidelines it could not be reconstructed to the same size. Gunn said that if a larger-scale building is demolished or destroyed beyond repair it should be possible to rebuild. He said this area is predominantly original single-family homes with few exceptions, which is the predominant character of the neighborhood. Gunn said the guidelines were written to fit the single-family character of the neighborhood. He said there are large structures that may in time need to be reconstructed. Gunn said the intent of the guidelines is to prevent the accumulation of multiple properties in order to construct a single large structure. Gunn said there are RNC-20, RM-12, RMC-12, and RM-44 zoned properties in this area. He suggested the Commission study a comparison of property values with the same zoning both in and out of the district. Gunn said that should be possible since the College Green Historic District has been in place since 1997. He said a comparison of land values would be a good check of how the historic district designation has affected values. Gunn said he did not want to see the Commission do something to devalue property. He added that normally, property values increase in a historic district. Gunn stated that if being in a historic district immediately alters the value of the land, that should be apparent already. Gunn said that the guidelines prevent the accumulation of several smaller properties for the purpose of construction of a single larger building. However, by not allowing the demolition of existing structures, it essentially changes the density allowed by the underlying zoning. The Commission should be aware of this and address this issue. He said if the structure is a single-family contributing building it should not be demolished. Gunn said there are a number of issues to be addressed. He said that normally a district is comprised of RS-8 or RS-5 properties, although the College Green Historic District is made up of mixed zoning. He said mixed zoning and use is something the Commission needs to be aware of and this may take further study. McCallum asked about the consequences if a non-contributing structure in a conservation district is demolished. A member of the audience who did not sign in (John), asked the Commission to distinguish between contributing and non-contributing properties. Gunn said the guidelines are more lenient in a conservation district for non-contributing properties than for contributing. He said if the foundation of a house in a historic district is brick, then any replacement foundation would have to be brick. Gunn said in a conservation district, the concrete foundation could be painted brick red. He said there are about 20 cases in which there is more leniency for non-contributing properties. Gunn said it only makes sense that if a newer ranch house is altered it shouldn't have to look like the rest of the district. Gunn said, regarding the demolition of non-contributing property, the key is that primary contributing structures should be protected, and some of these guidelines should not apply to noncontributing structures, so that it is easier to demolish a noncontributing structure. McCallum read from Section 14-6T of the zoning code, which allows for the reconstruction of a nonconforming structure in a historic district. He asked if it should also apply to conservation districts. McCafferty pointed out that staff is working on cleaning up the zoning code and will need to add conservation district with historic district where appropriate. McCallum asked if a building with a fa~:ade of greater than 1,200 square feet burns, as the proposal stands, the owner would have to rebuild to the criteria of the guidelines. McCafferty said that is true, as she understands the proposal. She said since Gunn primarily wrote the guidelines, he might consider proposing a provision to accommodate an exception for such a case. Histodc Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 5 Gunn said the proposed guidelines are based on the predominant character of the neighborhood. He said this issues was not anticipated in the guidelines and should be clarified. Gunn said the Commission did not anticipate the possibility of a twelve-plex burning. Enloe suggested the language of the building facade guidelines be changed to clarify this issue. McCallum said that in the zoning code, if a nonconforming building is in a historic district and is damage to an extent greater than 100% of its assessed value, it may be reconstructed and originally built. Houser said he owns a duplex on Summit Street that burned and had damage of 100% of its assessed value. He said the market value is considerably different than the tax assessed value. He said if the assessed value of a properly is $60,000, it is easy to do $60,000 worth of damage. Houser said in this case, the structure would not be rebuildable under this ordinance. McCallum said the insurance settlement is also a factor. John said he thinks everyone is in agreement that it sounds like this is an issue that needs to be explored and make sure everybody is comfortable with what happens when what is now a conforming twelve-plex, or whatever it is, is destroyed by a casualty, what impact the statutory ordinance or provision will have on the ability to rebuild. John said there are enough questions out there now that it sounds like there is going to be more research and thought into it. Gunn said he is not certain the Commission does anything to make the property non-conforming. He said that is zoning code definition regarding the compliance of the building and use with the code. McCallum said it says no more than 1,200 square feet for the front facade. He said the point he is making is that there are many buildings that are more than 1,200. He cited the example at 232 South Summit, which is a 1918 RM-44-zoned building with 16 units. McCallum said the current building size, by estimating the height of the building, is about 15,000 square feet. He said right now, RM-44 zoning limits the building height to 35 feet. McCallum said this building has two facades, so that 1,200 square feet on either side would limit it to 34. He said the owner could therefore only build a 34 by 34-square foot building, which is about 1,100 or 1,200 square feet per floor, which would give a building size of approximately under 5,000 square feet. McCallum said, in working through the rationale on this, a building would be reduced in size by two-thirds, if there is no provision in the proposal allowing for the building to be rebuilt. He said that doesn't take into account the underlying dimensional requirements of parking that would probably kick in or setbacks that the underlying zones already have as well. McCallum said this is a very complex situation, and unless you analyze a property on a very specific, case by case basis like this, all of a sudden it is a situation where the property owner is limited. Maharry said the intent of what the Commission is trying to do is not to change what is already there. He said he lives next to giant apartments, and if those burned down, the owner should be justified in building the same dimension of apartments. Maharry said the only control he would like to see the Commission have would be to make the fa(;ade look more compatible with the predominant character of the area. As far as size, he said he does not believe it is the Commission's intent to restrict an owner to putting up a smaller building if a larger building burns down. Enloe said the guidelines state that existing buildings should not be expanded to exceed 1,200 square feet; it does not address existing buildings with larger than 1,200 square feet facades. Gunn said there is some uncertainty between what is a new structure and what is an old structure being rebuilt; he said there are some other ordinances that apply. He said the Commission will have to clarify this issue and that it is not the Commission's intention to require that large buildings that have burned down be replaced by small houses. Gunn said the zoning change requires multiple meetings, and so that there is input and time to change and make adjustments. McCafferty asked if a Commission member had a proposal to add to the guidelines for the conservation district. She said the Commission might want to consider simply adding a clause to allow buildings of a particular size, that if destroyed, could be rebuilt to its previous size. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 6 McCallum said he would rather just take the dimensional requirement out to alleviate the situation. Enloe said he could not agree with that. He said he would rather put in an exception for grandfathered situations so that existing buildings could be rebuilt to their previous dimensions. Enloe said the Commission also needs some scale control over totally new construction. Enloe said the whole point of this is to protect the character of the neighborhoods, not to punish landlords nor to keep them from being able to continue the scale of use and the scale of occupancy, but also not to let it get out of control by going beyond what we already have. McCallum asked if these areas would be covered by the infill design guidelines, versus the CB-2. Gunn said infill guidelines would not apply in an historic or conservation district. McCafferty said the design review would be in the hands of the Historic Preservation Commission, rather than the Design Review Committee in a district. Enloe suggested a clause be added that states, "Reconstruction of destroyed buildings can be equivalent to their pre-existing architectural dimensions." Gunn agreed that the Commission would want to stick to elevation and not get into square footage. He said a building can be a certain size on the facade and long, or it can be shallow; the square footage can vary quite a bit. Enloe suggested then, "Buildings can be reconstructed to the fa(~ade dimensions to match the original." McCallum asked McCafferty if she were comfortable with the section in the zoning code (14-6T-4A) that dealt with reconstruction of nonconforming structures in historic districts and if that the provision for conservation districts simply needed to be added to this section. McCafferty said that ordinance needs some revision. She said that is going to be another issue, and she would not be comfortable just taking that exact language to resolve the issue being discussed. Gunn said an additional problem would be that you could destroy the assessed value rather easily, and then it would apply. He said that is not much protection, and what the Commission is considering is much more protection. McCafferty said some of the staff's proposed zoning revisions have been reviewed by the Commission and will be reviewed again before they go to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that the Historic Preservation Commission can make any additional recommendations. She said staff is reworking the Preservation Handbook and the zoning regulations so that everything is a more consistent, compatible and user-friendly. Maharry asked for a restatement of the addition to the guidelines. Enloe said, "The facade dimensions of a rebuilt existing structure can be allowed to match, but not to exceed, the original facade dimensions." John said he is trying to understand why, if he has a picture of a twelve-plex from before the fire, why he should not have the right to build the exact same thing. Enloe said that is what the Commission is trying to do. John said he understands the issue regarding the size of a structure, but disagrees with going one step farther and controlling the aesthetics of the building. He has the right to put in the same sized structure, but he should not have to come down here and say, "Okay, folks, here's what I want to build; here is what it is going to look like," and the Commission has the right to say, "Well, you know, that is next to those beautiful buildings on Summit Street, the co-op, and they have double hung windows, so I think you need to put double hung windows in. And, by the way, you've got that roof and the wall that has shingles on it. We don't like that; we think you need to put in a tiled roof or something, because that is consistent with the neighborhood." McCafferty said that issue is already on the books. She stated that in the Central Planning District, which encompasses most of the older Iowa City areas, multi-family infill housing is subject to the Infill Housing Guidelines. McCafferty said there are guidelines in the ordinance that basically say you need to be compatible with the context of the neighborhood. She said in the case of a building being within a district, rather than going through the Design Review Committee to determine whether or not the requirements are met, one must go through the Historic Preservation Commission. McCafferty said that essent!ally is already a requirement. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 7 Houser said that is on a new construction though. He said what John is talking about is a rebuild, and he did not think that was the same. Houser said if you are doing what he did on Summit Street where he was in-filling on a lot, he had to go in and meet all of the guidelines. John agreed that he is talking about a casualty situation. He said, clearly if he comes and bulldozes the place, he needs to meet the current requirements. John stated that he is talking about the casualty situation. He said he thinks he has the right, if he chooses, to rebuild what is there today in terms of its appearance, although he said he understood that the building people may have their say in terms of what goes on in the inside. John asked the Commission to keep in mind that once the building burns down, most insurance policies have a business interruption clause that is limited by one year. He said you have to get your money and get your structure up and have it done within a year. John said if it takes longer than that, if you get bogged down in an argument with the City about exactly what is going to go up and what it is going to look like and it takes longer than a year, you're going to be without insurance coverage on lost rents after a year, because generally the maximum coverage on the policies he has read is a year. He said you need to have a fairly efficient process to be able to put something up. McCallum said most zoning in these areas limits building heights to 35 feet, that's existing zone, even in the RM-44. He said he came up with the calculation, assuming you will build to your height limit, which is 35 feet, then that might limit your width on a frontage to 34 or 35 feet. McCallum said so if you're under that, then his read of this is that you would be able to rebuild your existing structure, and if you're over that, you wouldn't. He said he wanted to point out that as a result of searching the internet, there are at least ten or twelve properties that way exceed 1,200 square feet of frontages in this zone, with some as high as 3,000. McCallum said a lot of them are the Greek houses, and some of them are the old, historic houses, representing some of the best architecture in the City. McCallum said he wanted to point out that to him this is an urban zone; it is a predominantly multi-family zone. He said if you did a survey of the properties, there is probably predominantly rental property in this area. McCallum said while he wants to see the conservation zone go through, he does not have a problem with density, although other people may feel differently. McCallum said he is on the side of at least being able to rebuild what is there. John said the size is perfect; the only question he had is whether it is equitable to stop there, but go farther to say, "Look, this is what he had before, and it's a casualty, not a voluntary decision to him to build or put something up." John stated that he should have the right to come down and rebuild what he had before. McCallum said John may have already lost that right because of the design infill guidelines which are already in place on there. Houser said they do not apply, because it would be reconstruction, not infill. He said his point is, in this type of scenario, you ought to be able to rebuild that structure, if there is a fire casualty; otherwise you're hampering the value of the property greatly. Houser said if he can't build again the way it was, he's definitely limited, plus what he is saying is if he has to come back for design review and have everybody give their opinion, you're looking at three to six months. He said he'll lose that; it will take him nine months to a year to build that property is the best case scenario. Maharry said it doesn't take the Commission three to six months to review a project; it takes one night to review the proposal. Houser said his property took a lot longer than that. Maharry asked if that was with the Historic Preservation Commission. Houser said yes. Enloe said that depends on the proposal. He said if the applicant is going to propose something that looks like a spaceship, it is true that the Commission will not give its approval. Gunn said suppose the building was extraordinarily expensive to rebuild and ugly as sin. He said the owner wouldn't want to be limited to rebuilding exactly what is there. Houser said that is his choice. He said he can always come back then, and it's an infill; he can then come back and say, "Here's what I want to do." Gunn said he is not certain he agrees that it is the owner's choice. He said to rebuild it should be the owner's choice, but to rebuild it any way he cares to, even to be limited to rebuilding exactly, he may not Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 8 want to do that either. Gunn said therefore you want to rebuild it exactly as it was or some other way that makes sense or is maybe more economical. He said it is hard to put that in extremely clear language. Gunn said an owner may not want to rebuild it like it was and wouldn't want the language to say it has to be built exactly the way it was. McCafferty suggested the Commission review the intent of a conservation district. She said the intent of a conservation district is: 1) to conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods, including their architectural, historic aesthetic values, and 2) to provide for design review of new construction or alteration of existing buildings to ensure compatibility with existing character. 3) encourage the retention and rehabilitation of existing dwelling units in older neighborhoods, 4) stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods, and 5) to protect the environmental setting of histodc landmarks in historic preservation overlay zones in close proximity or surrounding a conservation district. McCafferty said that is the criteria the Commission has to use in determining whether or not this conservation district should be recommended. Maharry repeated the proposed change to the guidelines as, "Facade dimensions of the rebuilt structure should not exceed the dimensions of the original structure." Enloe said that worked; it captures the Commission's intent. Public discussion: proposed College Hill Conservation District: Brad Houser, 3693Johnston Way N.E., North Liberty, said he owns a property just north of the Midtown Diner at 14 North Dodge that he invested in to finance his children's education. He said he would like his property to be excluded from the conservation district. Houser said he plans to demolish the building in the spring and replace it with a new, larger building. He said the property is non-contributing, and there is not a benefit to including it in the district. Houser said it is not on Iowa Avenue and is not a beautiful property. He said the building is a long-term investment for him. McCafferty referred to a picture of the house in the draft of the Iowa Avenue survey. Dennis Nowotny, 517 Washinqton, said he is still curious why apparently it is considered an economic benefit of having historic preservation. He said he guesses that if it is an economic benefit, he is not quite sure why the co-op wasn't included in the historic area. Nowotny said himself, granted, it is really not as nice a looking building as the Haunted Bookstore, but it could be, with a little help. He said if that is the goal, it should have been included. Nowotny said he is not even interested in doing anything to his property; even though it is CB-2, he has no intention of doing anything particularly. Gunn asked Nowotny what the zoning is on his property at 528 Washington. Nowotny responded that it is zoned CB-2. Gunn said that doesn't match the map. He asked what 530 Washington on the corner is zoned, and Nowotny replied that it is RNC-20. Nowotny said he has building permits that state that his property is CB-2, unless the inspectors are wrong. Gunn said he was trying to make certain he knew which property it is. Nowotny said it is the second house, and the white house on the corner is RNC-20. Gunn said he is not questioning that it is zoned CB-2 but wanted to make certain he knew the house. Nowotny said he is not really interested in it for the CB-2, other than the fact that he doesn't want to be hampered, He said obviously there is value there, whether or not he is going to bulldoze it tomorrow. Nowotny said he doesn't like being hampered. Carlson pointed out that the zoning map shows the Nowotny property as RNC-20. McCafferty said she would verify the zoning of the proper[y, since it is a little unclear, given that it is right on the line. Philip Lut,qendorf, 911 Iowa Avenue, asked if the Commission anticipates this plan to have any effect on property values within the broader conservation district and if homeowners should be concerned about that. Weitzel said the intent is not to reduce values in any way. He said the assumption is that when a conservation district stabilizes neighborhoods, it retains value for areas that otherwise would continue to drop before they are demolished and eventually rebuilt. Weitzel said the idea is to preserve the integrity of Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 9 the neighborhood for the character and the feel of that neighborhood, so that it retains a neighborhood feeling, rather than that of an apartment zone. Lutgendorf said that makes sense to him, and he personally did not have any problem with this. Carlson said he wrote his master's thesis on this, so he knows something about it. He said in his study of other cities, in every single city he looked at, there was no appreciable difference in either the rising or lowering of property values. Carlson said that basically the property values in historic districts rise at about the same rate as property values elsewhere in the city for comparable buildings in comparable neighborhoods. McCafferty asked Carlson if, before an area is a historic district, if there is typically reinvestment in the district and then there is momentum to designate it a district. Carlson answered that that is typically the case. McCafferty asked if that applies to a historic district, not a conservation district, and Carlson confirmed this. Houser said, regarding value, he sells and also develops real estate in town. He said you've got a very mixed use in this district. He said it's RM-44, it's CB-2, it's RNC-20. Houser said at least from his perspective of selling, which he has been doing for 15 years, he does not understand how it doesn't hurt values if you're going to limit somebody on what they can build or rebuild on a property. Houser said to clarify on what was said earlier, people are bulldozing houses to put up apartments because they have an RM-44 or PRM zone or something and they can build at a lot higher density. He said, yeah there was a house that was built there in 1942 or 1922, but it's definitely going to devalue that property; that house is only going to have so much value. Houser said right now property values close to campus are selling anywhere from, at the Iow side, $20,000 per unit to as high as $50,000 per unit. He said that is not a commercial zone; that is a residential zone for a multi-family structure. Houser said when you take that and you've got a lot area that holds ten units, if it's $40,000 even, you're looking at $400,000 lot value. The existing house may be only worth $200,000 right now. He said if you're on Summit Street where all your houses are consistently similar in style and zoning, there is more of an even balance. Houser said, but in this particular case, you've got stuff all over the board, and he thinks it's definitely going to have a value effect. Susan Licht said she owns property in the proposed conservation district. She said she is a former twelve-year member of the Commission. Licht said she has been looking carefully at the proposed district and the proposed district guidelines being considered and had a few comments. She said the most important point she wanted to make is that the letter that has been mailed out twice to property owners in this proposed district has some seriously misleading statements. Licht said she thinks the Commission owes it to the property owners to correct this with some kind of a new mailing so that it clearly states what these statements were and what their corrections should be. She said, in particular, number four states that the conservation district will stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods. Licht said she knew that was a topic for a lot of discussion here. She said currently, in neighborhoods, this statement is true in residential neighborhoods that are zoned R5 or RS. Licht said she thinks in this town, in particular, because you don't have any other conservation districts that are outside of that, except for the Governor/Lucas Street District, which has some RM-12, you can't really say that. Licht said in this current district, the majority of the properties are multi-family zoning: RM-12, RNC-20, and RM-44, and there is no proof that this is true. She said she encourages the Commission to research this particular issue before it votes, because this can be seriously misleading, especially to absentee landlords in particular, because until you can verify that that's the case, we have a situation here where you have higher density zoning, where their values are based on the density, and not necessarily on the building that's there. Licht said it goes back to the adage of highest and best use of the property in its Hist0dc Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 10 zoning. She said she understands what the Commission is trying to do here but just wanted to clarify this so that this is not misleading people to think that this isn't going to impact their zoning, because it is. Licht said the other thing she thinks is misleading is the statement that the conservation overlay zone does not change the density or use defined by the underlying zoning. She said this is absolutely not the truth. Licht said there are two things that the overlay does that makes this a false statement and therefore misleading. She said it prohibits demolition and, secondly, its guidelines that at least are written and enclosed in the packet restrict the full development of that property as allowed by the underlying zoning. Licht said to publicly claim that the property owner still has all the rights of density and use by the underlying zoning is a false statement and could lead to serious problems down the road for the Commission. She said if the property owners in these zoning areas are made aware that these limitations arc going to be on their properties and don't object, then by all means go ahead and put the district into place. Licht said but what has been presented to them so far has been somewhat misleading. Licht said she wanted to point out for the record that she is in favor of historic districts and also of conservation zones, but she thinks that this particular letter has been somewhat misleading to people, who, especially absentee landlords, are (blow-de-dohing?) along thinking that their properties are not affected. She said, if after they receive the letter and have adequate time to respond, if they still don't respond, then by all means, go for it, because they've had due process. Licht said, in particular, she thinks it has been fairly misleading. Licht said in this proposed conservation district, we have a variety of high-density zones: CB-2, RM-44, RNC-20, RM-12, and R8. She said her other objection has to do with the way the design guidelines have been written - that the proposed design guidelines for this district have been written for buildings that basically fall into an R8 category. Licht said there are no guidelines written that apply for the higher density zonings; therefore when you apply the design guidelines for this district on any structures that are zoned for higher density, you're basically going to restrict their ability to fully realize the potential allowed by their underlying zoning. She said she is in favor of districts; she is just also in favor of making sure that the people in this potential zone have the adequate information in order to come forward if they want to. Licht said she was also requesting once again that the Commission remove from consideration from this district all the CB-2 properties. She said these properties stand to take a serious economic hit by the application of this overlay zone. Licht said the value of many of these properties is based on the zoning and not on the value and not on the buildings themselves. She said for those people who use their property value as leverage for other investments, this single act could eliminate all their equity plus more, and leave them in a position of being upside-down with their lenders. Licht asked the Commission to please take its time with this district if it had to - table it until it does a little bit more research and then make a decision after that. Regarding the letter sent out, McCafferty said numbers one through five are taken directly from the zoning ordinance which states the purpose of a conservation district. McCafferty said it does not state that it will specifically increase property values, but the purpose of the ordinance is items one through five, read earlier, and part of that does involve to stabilize and improve property values. McCafferty pointed out that the letter gives specific information and where one can find all of the guidelines, and within the guidelines, which are on the web and available to anyone, it discusses the demolition. She said all the information has been spelled out with regard to this conservation zone. Nila Hauq, 517 East Washinqton, said not everybody has a computer, and not everybody gets onto the web and is able to do it. She said she thinks it would be better if it were sent in a letter, as Licht proposed. Haug said there aren't that many people, absentee landlords or anybody else in the district, that it wouldn't be in the best interest of everybody if they were notified. Haug said not everybody is as knowledgeable on these codes and on these guidelines as the Commission members are, and it would be best if it were spelled out so people don't have to do their own research, since it has already been done. She suggested that letters be sent to them also. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 11 Public hearing closed. Maharry asked Commission members for questions, concerns, or opinions regarding the western edge of the proposed district. Gunn replied that he thought that the guidelines as well as other zoning issues need to be reviewed. He said the fact that the College Hill Historic District exists already and has for a number of years with both RM-12 and RNC-20 zoning in it would be a very good thing to look at and useful for looking at property values to see if any differences just because it is an historic district can be detected. Gunn said that would be a very reasonable thing to do and should not take a long time to do. Gunn said he thought that should be done and thought the CB zoning is something that needs to be looked at. He said it certainly has never been one of his intentions to hurt anyone's property values with an historic district. Gunn said at the same time, to deny the demolition of a small building that is zoned for something larger if something larger is possible, shows that the Commission needs to be aware of what it is doing, and the people who own the properties need to be aware of what the Commission is doing. He said there is a good district in place to study that type of issue. Weitzel agreed that the Commission needs to have some research and data, in order to make its decisions based on sound evidence, not just supposition. Maharry asked exactly what the Commission would be researching, if it would be studying whether property values have gone down since 1997. He said he lives at 907 East College, and his property value has gone up. Maharry said he lives in that historic district and property values have not gone down but have gone up. He said the value of the house has gone down; the value of the property has gone up. Enloe said the Commission needs to determine what it will define as a property value, whether it is determined by the tax assessor or determined by the potential for sale or development. He said Licht made a valid point in that many of the guidelines were written from the perspective of residential neighborhoods, largely owner-occupied but not entirely. Enloe said the consideration of the CB-2 zoning is something that is quite different. Enloe said there are RM-12 and RNC-20 existing properties in the historic district; the conservation district would expand the area included under the Commission's guideline control substantially. He said when this moves over into the CB-2 stuff, it really changes the character of the Commission's control. Enloe said whether he likes it or not, property values are determined by the developmental potential. Enloe said if the Commission were trying to protect neighborhoods, what does it mean by neighborhoods. He said for him, neighborhoods are where people live. Enloe said controlling a zone of warehouses doesn't particularly interest him, not that he is saying apartments are warehouses. He said it is appropriate in the residential areas of the proposed district, but he does have concerns about the CB-2 property. Enloe said Licht has raised a valid point, and that is the clearest issue that would allow the Commission to perhaps consider changing the proposed boundaries. McCafferty said that a couple of years ago City Council had requested that staff do a study of some areas in the older neighborhood east of downtown to determine if there was incentive for redevelopment within the neighborhood or whether in fact additional downzoning might be required in order to protect the neighborhood. She said the conclusion of that study was that essentially the properties were being used to an intensity that was similar to what was allowed through the underlying zoning, and in fact, there are a number of properties that are non-conforming with a higher intensity use. She said there has been some work done with regard to that issue, whether there is the development incentive within this neighborhood. McCafferty said certainly with the CB-2 zone, it is being used at an intensity that is significantly less than that which is allowed through the zoning code. Gunn asked if portions of this area had been recently downzoned. McCafferty said that is correct. She said the RNC-12 area was downzoned from RM-20. McCafferty said RNC-12 will allow non-conforming Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 12 uses to continue and be grandfathered in. She said, however, if the use is abandoned or there is a change of use, then the property will have to conform with the RNC-12 zoning. Gunn asked if RNC-12 is the zone that doesn't allow increased density from what currently exists. McCafferty said the density of the previous zone will continue to be allowed, as long as the use continues, and it will continue as a conforming property, but the density of a new use cannot be increased to be non- conforming. Gunn said a small property in the RNC-20 or even RM-44 does not guarantee that one can build a very large building, as that is based on square footage. He said he does not know all the ins and outs of this. Gunn said it is fairly complicated and warrants some pretty careful study. Gunn said it has only been since June 20, 2000 that the Commission could successfully deny demolition. He said the Commission discouraged demolition prior to that, but since June 20, 2000, the Commission has clear language to permit it to deny the demolition of good, sound historic properties in historic districts. Gunn said he presumes the Commission and future commissions would be likely to deny demolition of sound historic properties. He said the Commission has to be careful with that when it gets into this kind of zoning. Gunn said he personally thinks this will work, as it works fine in College Green. He stated that these are small, historic properties that are likely to remain small, historic properties. Gunn said their preservation enhances the properties, and if he had a large apartment building in a nice historic neighborhood, he would want the neighborhood preserved. He said it would increase the attractiveness of his apartment building. Gunn said he would not want everyone else to tear down those buildings and put up apartment buildings, as he would rather own an apartment building in the College Hill area than on Johnson Street. He said if he already had his large building, he would think he would be rather happy at having an historic district. Gunn said however, he did not feel as confident as he would like to in is this case. He said he still thinks it is a good idea to have a conservation district here, but he would have to have some research done. Gunn said he is entirely comfortable with denying demolition of historic properties; if the Commission is not going to do that, then what is the point of having a district at all. He said people need to be aware of that and added that this is a complicated issue. Maharry said Enloe has discussed the western edge, the CB-2 properties. He asked Enloe if he would be willing to go ahead with the rest of the district, possibly by excluding the area of CB-2. Enloe replied that he would be willing to go ahead with that condition, as it is the most egregious disparity that he could see. Maharry said he is now of the same opinion, as the Commission needs to be responsive to people who come with concerns. He said he would be willing also to move ahead with proposing the district with the changed guidelines to include the properties that essentially are not in the CB-2, essentially east of the dividing line from CB-2. Maharry asked if there were a consensus among the members to go ahead with that. McCafferty said there is a zone, residential office, that is intended to be a transition zone between the Central Business District and residential uses. She said this area is essentially used in that manner. McCafferty stated that staff is studying the entire zoning code, rewriting it, and looking at current zoning, but at this point there are no recommendations. Carlson said his concern is that at least for a National Register Historic District, National Park Service Guidelines explicitly state that a boundary should not be drawn at a zoning change but where the historic properties end or change or become non-historic. Carlson said that would not be what is happening in this case. He stated that the Commission may not have to follow National Register guidelines for a conservation district, but at least for one type of district that the Commission designates, that is the standard it uses. Carlson said he wanted to make sure Commission members knew this would be different from that standard if it goes ahead with lopping off the CB-2. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 13 Enloe said that by the same token, that argument could be used for moving it into the RNC-20 structures and just moving the boundary arbitrarily east, not to make it coincide with the zoning border. Carlson said that was correct, since this involves an arbitrary movement of the boundary anyway. Enloe said he hears the objection but is not certain he agrees with it, in terms of what the Commission's actions should be. McCallum said State law makes no mention of a conservation zone, so he is assuming that is an Iowa City creation but asked if a conservation zone is a recent creation. McCafferty said the statute for historic districts is established by State law, and therefore the City has to comply with the State law guidelines. She said a conservation district is basically a municipal entity so that the City has basically established its own guidelines for a conservation district. McCafferty said, however, because the City is a Certified Local Government, it qualifies for CLG grants and technical assistance from the State. She said it is in the City's best interest to take the State's opinion into account. McCafferty said the State has basically said the City's conservation districts are sufficient, with the one criticism being that the City should designate historic landmarks within the districts Maharry asked McCallum for his opinion regarding the proposal. He said he is still uncomfortable with the same dimensional requirement, because it is similar to the CB-2 issue. McCafferty said there will have to be two motions regarding this issue. Because there are three people on the Commission who own property within the College Hill Neighborhood in the historic district and those properties would be subject to the guidelines, she stated that those three members will have to abstain from voting on the guidelines. McCafferty said there will have to be a motion regarding the district boundaries that the entire Commission will be allowed to vote on and another motion regarding the guidelines for which those owning property that would be affected by the guidelines will have to recuse themselves. Gunn asked if there is a quorum for voting purposes if three of the six members present abstain from voting. McCallum suggested that even if there is a quorum, perhaps the Commission should wait to vote until more members are present to make sure the vote is more of a consensus. Enloe suggesting voting on the district boundaries to start with. MOTION: Enloe moved to adopt new boundaries for the proposed College Hill Conservation District, excluding the CB-2 zoned properties. McCallum seconded the motion. Weitzel said some of the data he would also like to see gathered and one of the things that still remains unclear is that if something is zoned a certain way it indicates the potential, but it doesn't guarantee that potential is gained by a sale. He said there is a certain amount of speculation involved in a real estate transaction; you don't know you're going to get that amount of money. Enloe mentioned the $400,000 figure. Weitzel said zoning does not guarantee you a price. Houser said that is what it is selling for right now. He said that is current. Gunn said the $400,000 applies to a certain sized lot. Houser answered that is based on the number of units, based on density and is based upon what you can do with the lot. Gunn asked how many square feet is a $400,000 lot. Houser said right, but you're also going to be limited by based upon also what you can build on it. He said if you hamper it, based upon designs and upon things like that. Weitzel said the lot size will limit the size of the building that can be built. He said there is a physical limitation based on the size of the lot. Houser said you have the requirement of lot width for different zones, you have depth, you have sideyard requirements, depending on which zone you're in, and you have a height restriction. Weitzel said if the lot is smaller than what you're allowed maximally, you're still out that. Houser asked if Weitzel was talking about if the lot is less than what is required to build something. Houser said yes, there are a few of those lots. He said there is one right next to him, but there are also a couple next door that could hold four units or another that could hold eight units. Houser said it just depends, and people speculate when they buy property based upon what the zoning is, and when you take away that ability, which is what you're doing, you're changing that ability. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 14 Maharry asked Weitzel if he was specifically discussing those areas within the CB-2. Weitzel said he was specifically speaking to CB-2 and if those areas actually have the potential to have a ten-story building or would the footing be so wide you'd be outside your lot and setback. McCafferty said there are a lot of variables when developing a property. She said, depending on the number of bedrooms, there are different parking requirements and there are floor area ratios so that it is difficult to reply with a simple answer. Weitzel asked why people aren't building those buildings right now if the potential is there right now. McCafferty responded that the market is not there. She said you're speculating that in the future there will be that market there, and you'll be able to sell it for that pdce. McCafferty said there is currently not the market incentive, but again, it's speculation. Gunn said he believes the CB~2 area should probably be removed from the district if, for nothing else, the uncertainty of it. Weitzel said he concurred with that. Cadson asked if there would be any problem with the State, regarding the boundary, since this is sent to the State for approval. McCafferty said the Commission does send this to the State for its recommendation, and that has to be done before action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said she did not believe this would be an issue at the State level. Enloe asked if the proposed boundaries as they existed before the motion were sent to the State. McCafferty said the proposal has not yet been sent, as the State did not want to receive a partial report. Enloe repeated the motion to exclude the CB-2 zoned properties and to forward the proposed boundaries of the College Hill Conservation District on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Gunn said the motion is now to exclude CB-2 and to send it on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Carlson said he would be voting for this. He said there are some questions about the property values in this area that he would like to see looked into, but he did not want to delay forwarding the whole district until that is looked into. Carlson said it is a relatively small part of the district that would be omitted at the edges, and in the interest of seeing this go forward, he would be voting in favor. The motion carried on a vote of 6-6. Regarding the motion on the guidelines, Maharry said if three people recuse themselves, it limits the number of people able to vote. McCafferty said in a similar situation recently before the Board of Adjustment, in fact the Board was not able to proceed. She recommended discussing the guidelines further at the next meeting. Maharry asked how many would be needed to vote on the guidelines motion. McCafferty stated that she believed four voters would be necessary, but she would check with the legal department to be certain of how many voters would be required. Gunn asked if the size of the Commission is reduced by those who cannot vote. He said because the Commission has ten members and three cannot vote, seven would vote, and four would be a majority. McCallum said the by-laws state that a majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum at any meeting, and a majority of the votes cast at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election. McCafferty pointed out that that does not bring in the issue of members having to recuse themselves and whether or not they are then subtracted from the requirement for a quorum. Nouser asked how Commission members can vote on the district if they live in that district but cannot vote on the other part. McCafferty said there is an historic district in the College Hill Neighborhood, and there is a proposed conservation district. She said the three members recusing themselves live in the historic district and their property would be subject to the guidelines. McCafferty stated that they do not live in the conservation district. Houser said it is all-encompassing the same thing. McCafferty stated that it is not. She showed on the map the district boundaries, pointing out the histodc districts and the proposed conservation district. McCafferty said the three members recusing themselves live in the historic districts Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 15 and would have to abide by the guidelines, which apply to the historic district and conservation district. She said they do not own properly in the conservation district. Gunn said there is also a clarification that needs to be made about rebuilding properties, although the Commission seems to be in agreement about allowing the rebuilding of a property as it was. He said that has not yet been addressed by the guidelines. McCafferty asked Gunn if he would address those issues, as he has been the primary writer of the guidelines. Gunn said he would be glad to try to clarify that issue. MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes, as written. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of Maharry pointed out that information regarding other guidelines and tax incentives was included in the packet. Gunn requested that McCafferty send Commission members, as soon as possible, the study of the zoning and the density and whether or not it is maximized now. McCafferty said she would do so. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2002 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Dennis Keitel, Vince Maurer, Eric Gidal, T.J. Brandt MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Adam, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Gerry Ambrose, Greg McDonald, Keith Gerling CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, Keitel, Brandt, Gidal, Paul present. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 11,2002 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Paul moved to approve the September 1t, 2002 minutes. Gidal seconded. Motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC02-00019. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception to allow a drive-through lane and window for a redevelopment project in a Community Commercial (CC-2)zone at 1601 South First Avenue. Adam stated that the applicant is redeveloping existing parking at the former Plamor Lanes. He said that one of the proposed uses would be a dry-cleaner on the west end, which would have a drive through window. He said that the special exception is required, as this is an auto- and truck-oriented use in a CC- 2 zone. He said that the Board would consider possible effects the proposed use may have on surrounding traffic, as well as how the drive-up impacts internal circulation on the lot. Adam corrected the record to state that since the time the application was made, the Engineering Department has assigned permanent addresses for this property, to be 1621, 1641, 1661 and 1681 S. First Avenue. Adam stated that the proposed group of uses are not unusual to the area. He said that the auto-oriented use will be well screened and located behind the buildings. He said that staff has considered pedestrian traffic in assessment of this development, and has spoken to the architect about providing a pedestrian connection to the building. He said that a revised plan, connecting this to the pedestrian access ramp that was in front of the building, was provided to staff late today, and he provided that to the Board. Adam stated that the development will replace a large parking lot, forming a more continuous, urban line along First Avenue and will not diminish property values in any way. He said that staff does not feel this will impede development of surrounding properties. He said the applicant and the neighboring property owner have signed a utility and shared access easement agreement. He said that the west curb cut is existing and is used as egress only from 1705 First Avenue currently. He said the agreement states that sharing access will improve circulation between the two properties. Adam said that, in staff's view, this only works if a two-way flow is possible between the two properties. He said that after some discussion with the applicant, he was able to speak with the neighboring property owner and a verbal agreement was made to re-stripe the parking lot so two-way traffic is possible for Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 2 1705 S. First Avenue. He said he is expecting an agreement in writing from Dave Cahill, the neighboring property owner. Adam said that staff has concerns that queuing problem could arise at the western driveway because it would be emptying 1705 First Avenue as well as this proposed development. He said it will also be the natural route for the drive-through. He said that staff has suggested to the architect that driveway be expanded to 32' to allow two lanes exiting, one with a dedicated right-hand turn lane and the other with a dedicated left-hand turn lane, and one lane for ingress to the property. He said that this change was included on the new site plan provided to the Board. Adam said that traffic counts at Varsity Cleaners, who have a drive-up window. He said the numbers were not large, averaging to about one car every six minutes. He said staff is satisfied that with the current orientation there would not be a large problem with stacking. Adam said that except for the specific regulations applicable to the special exception, the proposed development does conform to the requirements of the zone, including parking, landscape and dimensional requirements. He said the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it supports commercial development. He said the applicant has done a fairly good job of providing landscaping, pedestrian amenities and so forth. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC02-00019, an application for a special exception to establish an auto- and truck-oriented use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone be approved on condition that the parking lot on the neighboring property at 1705 S. First Avenue is re-striped to allow two-way traffic flow prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed development; that a pedestrian connection between the sidewalk and the proposed structure is provided; and that the western driveway is widened to contain painted, right-turn only and left-turn only exit lanes if so doing can be accomplished while still meeting their tree requirements and having the pedestrian connection mentioned above. He clarified that since the applicant has demonstrated that can be provided, the last clause starting "if doing so" can be deleted. In response to a question from Gidal, Adam said that he had looked at the site plan and spoke with staff in Housing Inspection Services, and that the property at 1705 First Avenue has a 22-1/2 feet aisle, with 60° parking that is angled. He said that with a 22-1/2 feet aisle between them, they would be able to reorient the half against the building in the other direction to allow two-way traffic. In response to a question from Brandt, Adam stated that the parking proposed along the old Plamor property will be shared parking, which was accounted for during site plan review. Public Hearinq Opened Gerry Ambrose identified himself as the applicant and presented himself for questions. In response to a question from Maurer, Ambrose said that the proposed project is almost directly across from the Eastdale Plaza entrance. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Keitel moved to approve EXC02-00019, an application for a special exception to establish an auto- and truck-oriented use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1621 - 1641 - 1661 - 1681 South First Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1) that the parking lot on the neighboring property at 1705 $. First Avenue is re-striped to allow two-way traffic flow prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed development; 2) that a pedestrian connection between the sidewalk and the proposed structure is provided; and 3) that the western driveway is widened to contain painted, right-turn only and left-turn only exit lanes. The motion was seconded by Paul. Findinqs of Fact Paul said he would vote in favor of this application, He reiterated that Mr. Ambrose has met the general standards for special exception review requirements as stated by staff, He stated it won't be detrimental Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 3 or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property; will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; and will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. He said there are adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and so forth, and adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress and to minimize traffic congestion on the streets. He said this application conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Paul congratulated Mr. Ambrose in taking another step forward on the southeast side and feels it should be a great addition. Maurer said he would vote in favor for the reasons stated by his colleague. Keitel said he would vote in favor. In response to a question from Keitel, Holecek confirmed that the special exception is not use-specific and will run with the land. Gidal stated he would vote to approve for all the stated reasons. Brandt said he would vote in favor for the previously provided. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. EXC02-00020. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Greg McDonald for a special exception to reduce the required front yard setback and to allow dwelling units above the ground floor of an office/retail use for a redevelopment project in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 230 Kirkwood Avenue. Adam said that the corner at Gilbert & Kirkwood has long been occupied by a small building in the midst of a large parking lot. He said the owner has offices across the street and wishes to build a new facility containing offices with dwelling units above. Adam said there are two special exceptions to consider in this case: 1) the reduction of setback along Gilbert Street and Kirkwood Avenue; 2) the addition of dwelling units above the ground floor of a commercial use in a Community Commercial zone. Adam stated that this application meets the general standards. He said that, of the two special exception requests, the only one that might be worrisome would be the setback reduction. He said that staff does not feel that is a cause for concern in this case. He said there are similar setbacks, as well as smaller setbacks, in the downtown area; this type of urban redevelopment pattern is favored by staff to increase density in an area where more housing closer to campus is favored. Adam said that surrounding properties allow a mix of uses by special exception, similar to what the applicant is requesting, and the permitted uses in the other zones or surrounding zone do not produce negative externalities that might lead to possible conflicts between the proposed use and any future development in the area. Adam said that staff has worked with the applicant to correct a few minor deficiencies that were perceived in the site plan, and staff is satisfied that the proposal now conforms to the requirements of the zone. Adam stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls out consideration of compatibility of less intense uses such as dwelling units above a commercial use in this type of zone. He said this area is not the most beautiful, but it is slowly redeveloping. He said staff feels this proposal is another step in that direction, giving a more urban feel, creating a market base to demand different types of uses in the development of this area. Adam said that the specific standard of density of dwelling units has been met. He said this development is not being overwhelmed by the housing aspect of it. Adam stated that the unique situation here is that a few years ago the frontage on Gilbert Street was reduced by 10' in anticipation of a future need to widen Gilbert Street. He said that effectively moved the Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 4 setback to 30' from what it had been before. He stated that if the applicant had developed the property before that, this exception would not have been necessary. Adam said that, at staff's suggestion, a sidewalk along the north side of the building was added and some parking reconfigured to increase the number of full size spaces and to create space for required parking lot trees. He said that the building would need to be moved 6' into the Kirkwood Avenue setback to accommodate this. He said that the Board has the old site plan that does not show these improvements, and showed what the shift would look like on the overhead. Adam said that the reduction along the Gilbert St. frontage would be 3', or 15% of the required 20' setback; along Kirkwood the reduction would be 6' or 30% of the required 20' setback. He said that staff does not feel these are substantial as to be dangerous to traffic or pedestrians. He said this is a controlled intersections. He stated the building across the street is right along the right-of-way line, which is not ideal in this case. He said that with the proposed development there is substantial setback remaining. Adam referred to the staff report, wherein he stated that the capital improvements program project for the widening of Gilbert is unfunded. He said that he had been told that in 3-5 years this may be funded; however, the director has advised him that may be an ambitious estimate at this time. He said when the time comes the City may wish to obtain more right-of-way along Gilbert Street. He stated that last time this was up before Council, they voted to take the right-of-way from the other side of Gilbert Street. Adam stated that providing enough parking was one of the factors in the layout of this development, and that was brought about by the reduction of setbacks a number of years ago. Staff feels that, more importantly, this will create a more urban feel for this corner, defining the edge. He said that parking is more or less hidden due to the public face of the building facing Gilbert Street. Adam sated that staff recommends that EXC02-00020, an application for a special exception to allow dwelling units above a ground floor principal use and a special exception to reduce the required front setback for property in a Community Commercial Zone at 230 Kirkwood Avenue be approved. In response to a question from Keitel, Adam stated there will still be a sidewalk along the south side of the building. Public Hearinq Opened Grog McDonald identified himself as the applicant, and offered to answer questions. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Keitel moved to approve EXC02-00020, an application for a special exception to allow dwelling units above the ground floor principal use and to reduce the required front setback for property in a Community Commercial zone at 230 Kirkwood Avenue, clarifying that this is reduction on both Gilbert Street frontage and Kirkwood Avenue frontage, in accordance with the revised site plan. The motion was seconded by Gidal. Findin.qs of Fact Keitel stated he would vote in favor of the application. He said that precedence has been set with buildings in the vicinity being closer to the street, and this will not be as close to the street as Aero Rental. He feels it will be a great improvement to the intersection. Maurer stated he would vote in favor of the application. Gidal stated he would vote to approve. He said the general standards and specific standards ali seem to be met. He said the proposed development is at the maximum density allowed and below the maximum number of roomers allowed. He said that in terms of specific standard 14-SQ-4B, it is clear that this is a unique situation; there doesn't seem to be any detriment to the intersection in terms of allowing the setbacks. He said he also feels this is a definite improvement to that particular intersection. Brandt stated he would vote in favor of the exception. He said he feels this will be a definite improvement to the neighborhood and the intersection. Iowa City Board ofAdjustment Minutes November13,2002 Page 5 Paul said he would vote in favor of the application. He said that the general standards have been met in terms of the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare, as well as the use and enjoyment of the property. He said it will not substantially diminish or impair the values in the neighborhood and it won't impede normal and orderly development of the surrounding properties. He said that utilities, roads, drainage and infrastructure issues have been addressed, as well as ingress and egress. He said it also conforms to the standards and regulations of the zone in which it is located, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. EXC02-00021. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Iowa City Family Moose Center for a special exception to allow the addition of camping facilities to an existing club in a Medium-Density Multi- Family (RM-20) zone at 3151 Highway 6 East. Keitel stated that he is a member of the Moose Lodge and recused himself from deliberation. Adam stated that the Moose was granted a special exception in 1997 to locate a clubhouse and outdoor recreation facilities in the Medium-Density Multi-Family zone with frontage along Highway 6. He said they now request the addition of four recreational vehicle pads for Moose Lodge members who stop over in Iowa City on their ways to and from other locations. He said that the Moose Lodge has been providing this service on an ad hoc basis, which Moose Lodges across the country routinely do. He said that formalizing this service requires the approval of the Board of Adjustment because it is an expansion of the club. He said that the RV facilities shall be for the sole use of Moose members. Adam said that staff regards this facility as a private recreational use, but there are no particular regulations pertaining to racraational vehicles. He said that, lacking that guidance, staff has examined what steps should be taken to mitigate any possible negative externalities, and have come up with some possible recommendations to the Board. Adam said that since each RV pad will be equipped with its own water, sewer and electricity hookups and the primary concern with exposed sewer dumps is the possibility of contamination with foreign objects or materials, staff recommends that the sewage dumps be capped and locked when not in use and that all utility hookups are inspected and approved by the City. In addition, Adam said that the applicant would like to pave the RV pads on a five year phased basis. He said that the statement requesting that phasing-in is attached to the staff report. Adam said that staff recommends the applicant make use of only what has been paved - in the first year it would be one RV pad; in the second year, two pads, and so forth. He said that the applicant had advised him that should not be a problem because they generally only have one person, sometimes two, staying at a time. Adam said that if general lighting is provided for each or all pads, staff feels the impact on surrounding properties should be regulated. Therefore, staff feels they should be no more than 10' in height and shall otherwise conform with the illumination standards pertaining to light trespass on the neighboring residential properties. Adam said that RVs have generators, which have a tendency to be loud. He said that staff recommends that the Moose Lodge not allow any generators to be operated after 10:00 p.m. on any night. Adam said that the Saddlebrook development is constructing new 12-plex buildings directly adjacent to the Moose property. He said that a parking lot will be next to the proposed site of the RV camping area, and the camping area would be well within sight of the 12-plexes. He said that since the visual impact of RVs is greater than that of most vehicles, buffering commensurate with the parking lot screening is advised. He said that when the original special exception was granted, screening was provided to screen the parking area. He said it is mostly pyramidal arbor vitae, about five in a row broken up by trees and continuing on. He said this was a fairly thick and attractive screen for the parking lot. He said that staff recommends therefore that the applicant plant a screen along the 180' adjacent to the RV pads, as measured from the south side of the Iris garden as shown on the site plan, and that it closely follow the pattern established along the parking lot edge already existing. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 6 Adam said all adequate utilities will be provided, and in staff's opinion, the addition of more impermeable surface will not create a very large impact. He said that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress. He said the additional traffic will be minimal at best. He said that the proposed exception conforms to the dimension requirements of the zone, and the proposed use conforms to the general provisions for the zone, including its definition as an accessory use. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC02-00021, an application for a special exception for the expansion of an existing club in a Medium-Density Multi-Family (RM-20) zone be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Sewage dumps shall be capped and locked when not in use and that all utilities hook-ups are to be inspected and approved by the City; 2. The applicant may pave pads and drive at whatever rate they are able to, but shall make use of only those pads that are paved; 3. If general lighting is provided for each or all pads, the lights shall be no more than ten (10') in height and shall otherwise conform with the illumination standards contained in 14-6S-SD, pertaining to light trespass onto neighboring residential properties; 4. Recreational vehicles shall not be allowed to operate generators after 10 P.M. on any night; and 5. The applicant shall provide a solid planting screen along the 180 feet adjacent to the RV pads continuing from and following the pattern of the screening established along the parking lot and incorporating existing vegetation, such planting to be established before April 2003. In response to a question from Paul, Adam clarified that the screening would be deciduous trees, which would grow to 60' eventually. He said that not all of the greenery would be oak trees; but that staff suggests that the applicant continue the current pattern of arbor vitae broken up by oak trees. Paul raised a concern whether the three-level 12-plexes would be screened from the RV park. Adam said that, short of building a tall fence, staff believes this answers concerns about screening. He said they were more worried about screening ground level vision. He said that they don't expect vehicles often, and staff does not feel this is a concern. Brandt stated that it looks like Saddlebrook has paved parking lots abutting the screening, and he does not believe there will be a concern. Adam said that staff feels the screening will be neighborly. Public Hearing Opened Keith Gerling identified himself as past-president, past-administrator of the Moose and offered to answer questions. He stated that they have had an excellent ongoing relationship with the residents of Saddlebrook, and they want to treat their neighbors very well. In response to a question from Gidal, Gerling stated that all the conditions staff has posed are acceptable. He said they consider them self-serving. In response to a question from Brandt, Gerling said that they usually do not have much warning when someone wants to use a site. He said the sites would not be used much - he said it is a courtesy thing with members, and that they have found during their three years in the facility, that sometimes someone will come to the University Hospital for testing, or occasionally to a spor[ing event, or someone just criss- crossing the country. He said that Moose International publishes a directory of lodges so that the roughly million and a half members can stop in. He said it is not used a lot, but they thought it would be nice to offer. In response to a question from Maurer, Gerling said the sites would be used for RVs, pull-type campers, or any type of camping vehicle. He said that they have had a couple overnight instances of people plugging into the existing outlets on their light pole in the parking lot. Keitel stated that he is a member of the Moose and did the original site design. He said the area was originally slated to be a tennis court, so it was designed to be hard surface, so there would be no negative effects with stormwater. Public Hearin~ Closed Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 7 Motion: Gidal moved to approve EXC02-00021, an application submitted by Iowa City Family Moose Center for a special exception to allow the addition of camping facilities to an existing club in a Medium-Density Multi-Family (RM-20) zone at 3151 Highway 6 East, subject to the following conditions: 1. Sewage dumps shall be capped and locked when not in use and that all utilities hook- ups are to be inspected and approved by the City; 2. The applicant may pave pads and drive at whatever rate they are able to, but shall make use of only those pads that are paved; 3. If general lighting is provided for each or all pads, the lights shall be no more than ten (t0') in height and shall otherwise conform with the illumination standards contained in 14-6S-8D, pertaining to light trespass onto neighboring residential properties; 4. Recreational vehicles shall not be allowed to operate generators after 10 P.M. on any night; and 5. The applicant shall provide a solid planting screen along the 180 feet adjacent to the RV pads continuing from and following the pattern of the screening established along the parking lot and incorporating existing vegetation, such planting to be established before April 2003. The motion was seconded by Paul. Findin,qs of Fact Paul stated that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that he agrees with the general standards as articulated by the City staff. He said that the special exception review requirements have been met also. Paul said that the infrastructure, access roads and so forth are all in place, and ingress and egress issues were taken care of. He said this exception does conform with the regulations and standards of the zone in which it is located. Gidal stated he would vote to approve for the same reasons. Maurer stated he would vote to approve. Brandt stated he would vote to approve. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0, one recusal. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Adam stated that the questions regarding Budget Rent-A-Car's special exception on Riverside Drive will be addressed through a meeting with the applicant next week. He said the applicant will be asked to comply, and will be given options if he does not comply: to appear before the Board again or to be cited and go to Court, Holecek said they will attempt to gain compliance through voluntary means without court intervention, and will report back at the next meeting. Paul asked that a luncheon be arranged to thank the outgoing Chair for service. Adam will make arrangements. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 11,2002. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn, seconded by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 5:53 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES 4~~ IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington St. October 15, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Paul Retish, Lucia Page, Jan Warren, Charles Major, Rick Spooner MEMBERS ABSENT:Nick Klenske, Keri Neblett, Bob Peffer STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:08 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Beckmann asked for approval of minutes and/or changes in the minutes from the September meeting. Motion to approve minutes by Page and seconded by Warren. Motion: Minutes unanimously approved. 3. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: None 4. NEW BUSINESS: Homeless Task Force- see letter, review questions, provide input as to answers. Beckmann asked Shank if she was on the board. Shank stated she was actually on the focus task force and she asked whether the members had information about housing in Iowa City she could bring to the meeting to share. Warren brought up the subject about the DHP facilities and how they have a beautiful shelter and can only staff it three nights a week due to state budget cuts. Major talked to a man named "Brian" who works in a VA homeless program. Brian tries to get the homeless some help and refers them to the various services available. Major will get back to Shank with Brian's last name. Major said the services they have in Davenport are a bigger operation than in Iowa City. Page suggested Shank call Steve Nasby and Steve Long in Planning and Zoning as they know a great deal about the homeless. Shank indicated she would also contact the Housing Inspection Services. Warren recalled an article in the Press Citizen that spoke of the police and the problems with the homeless and the challenges that they face in dealing with them. 5. OLD BUSINESS: Breakfast Evaluation: Shank reported that there were 191 people in attendance and 198 tickets were sold. Warren stated that the presenters were too lengthy. Page suggested that it might be best to have the presenter not be the person that nominated the winner. She added that it might be good to have someone else write the presentation on behalf of the person who nominated the winner. Shank stated that she thought that at times the focus seemed to be more about the presenter than the winner. Possible suggestions to shorten the length of the presentations included a timer, time card, press announcements setting forth a specific time frame for the breakfast, etc. Beckmann suggested getting the presenters together for a meeting right before the breakfast to reaffirm the time limit on their presentation might work. Warren suggested a five-minute limit for the presenters and then somehow let them know their time is up. Shank said that some people left early to get to work before all the presentations were done. Beckmann added that the Commission could set the breakfast for a specific ending time, which would be printed on the ticket. Warren reminded the Commission that it had added awards over the years, therefore it added more time to the entire event. Shank suggested to Beckmann that maybe the Commission could announce the five-minute limit at the beginning of the breakfast to all in attendance. Beckman indicated that if the Commission announced the speaker had three minutes left, nominators would go five. In the alternative, the Commission could announce when five minutes are up and then stop them. Beckmann would also like to see the breakfast start earlier. Warren would have liked to see the order of awards changed, placing the Lifetime Achievement award at the end but overall she thought the event was great. Retish said that he was unhappy with the price of the breakfast. He believed it was too high. He indicated that he thought coffee and doughnuts would be sufficient. Beckmann asked how much the IMU would charge the Commission for coffee and rolls. Retish asked Shank about the cost of the breakfast this year not including all of the other costs. Shank stated that the breakfast was $8.50. The rest of the money that makes up the cost of the ticket goes toward advertising, printing, plaques, etc. Retish said that he was not aware that the $15 cost was for anything but the price of the breakfast. Shank said if the Commission did go with just coffee and rolls the ticket price can go back to $10, as the cost is $5.50. Beckmann asked Shank if the Commission made a profit this year and Shank reported that she is still paying the bills. Check requests have been sent to accounting in the amount of $1800 to the Union, and $300 to the Gazette. She still has to pay for the plaques. Beckmann asked Shank if the cost of the breakfast included the room rental. She said yes. Beckmann wondered if the room cost would increase if we go to a cheaper breakfast. Shank said it's possible, but she said that the IMU is not supposed to charge for the room rental if the event is catered. Beckmann would like the final costs of the breakfast and any profit from the breakfast to be tabulated and brought to the next meeting so it can be discussed. Retish indicated that when the Commission charges $15 for a breakfast, it sends the message that it is looking for a specific group of people to attend. Warren pointed out that the breakfast attendees are the family and friends of the award winners and she does not see the $15 price as that much of a problem. Retish disagrees. He thinks the breakfast should be used more as a tool for educating the public as to what the Human Rights Commission is and what it can do. Retish said he would like to see new faces at the next breakfast. He pointed out that the $15 was a hurdle for persons who couldn't afford to attend and he said that maybe the Commission was presenting a certain image by charging $15.00, such as, "these folks in Human Rights are really catering to a very elite group." He doesn't want that image to be projected to the public and the Commission needs to make every effort to lower the price and to find a bigger room so more people can attend. Page suggested the possibility of a sliding scale fee. Shank indicated that she and her friends buy tickets for people who can't afford it. Retish asked if it was legal to write a grant to support the breakfast, possibility to the Stanley Foundation. Shank said that it might complicate things, such as the decision making process and who is in control of the breakfast. Beckmann suggested possibly sending out packets of tickets to businesses to sell. Beckmann further added that the public knows very little about the breakfast. She said that people had mentioned to her that they believed that $15.00 was too much to pay for a ticket. Beckmann agreed with Retish that the price is too high. She also suggested that the Commission work harder to invite people to the breakfast as opposed to just advertising. Warren asked the Commission what it believes to be the true purpose of the event. Warren also suggested having people at the breakfast fill out a short evaluation of it after the awards are given. It was determined that Shank will bring the accounting of the breakfast to the next meeting. Shank indicated that any money remaining in the breakfast account would remain in there. The account is separate from any other city accounts. After all of the bills are paid, any additional funds will go towards reserving the room for next year and for costs associated with the 2003 breakfast. Survey: Beckmann started the discussion by asking (1) what the Commission wanted to do with the survey data, (2) where the Commission wanted the survey to go next, and (3) how the Commission wanted to change the survey. It was agreed that people who filled out the survey were confused as to how to respond to question #1. Major agreed to prepare a spreadsheet setting forth the results of the survey. Spooner thought the survey was biased as the questions were set forth affirmatively and this he thought made people respond in a falsely positive way. Warren stated that the questions were staggered, positive and neutral to balance out the questions. Spooner stated that you couldn't make a true assessment of the data unless the questions are neutrally based. Page thought the "hotspot" was the question regarding tenants and landlords. Beckmann would like to see the survey go out to two groups a month starting with the Senior Center and UAY and Shank agreed to take it to them. There was a spelling error on # 13 changing the word tenants to tenets. It was also decided that the data would be put onto an Excel spreadsheet. Registration-Diversity Conference: Page went to the conference and enjoyed it very much. She brought back some materials that she gave to Shank to put in the packet for the next meeting. She stated that the highlight of the conference was the play that Graffiti Theatre put on about white privilege. New Protected Categories in SF: Shank included material in the packets that set forth guidelines for persons in San Francisco regarding the addition of weight and height to their Civil Rights Ordinance. The Commissioners found the material interesting. Shank spoke with an employee at the Commission in San Francisco and learned that a public hearing was held before the legislation was passed. The employee indicated she would send Shank more material, but it hasn't arrived yet. Beckmann asked if this is something the Commission should look into further. Warren said that it was a good idea and we should discuss it further and explore all aspects of it. All agreed. Out of date Commission web site-Geonet: Afon said he would fix the problem and direct persons to icgov.org/humanrights: Shank asked Warren to check on Geonet and see if Afon took the outdated information about the Commission off the website. 6. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS: Retish no report Major talked about the Northern Ireland Parliament being dissolved and how Northern Ireland has returned to British control. He indicated that he remembered the last time Britain had control. He indicated that there were a lot of human rights abuses at that time. Warren expressed her sadness over the eleven immigrants that were found in the train car in Denison, Iowa. She also mentioned the new restrictions for International students in the area of employment. The student's paperwork must be in perfect compliance with the law or they will be fired. Page stated that the library has a display for Human Rights Day, which is December 10th and suggested that anyone interested should check it out. She also spoke of an article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette about people apologizing for folks in their racial group who had committed an offense of some nature. She indicated that she found it ironic that white people do not do that, but if you're a member of a minority group then it's almost expected. Page discussed another article she read that was about a lesbian who was moving out of Iowa because she did not feel comfortable or safe to live here. Spooner no repod. Beckmann no report 7. STATUS OF CASES: Shank indicated that they are just waiting for Peffer to finish reading a case. No additional cases are in legal at this time. Beckmann stated that she would be out of town from the 18th until the 25th. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Warren to adjourn, seconded by Retish. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. ( Iowa .C.i . FINAL/APPROVED Pubhc Library MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING - 2nd floor Conference Room THURSDAY, November 21, 2002 5:00 PM Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Shaner MagalhSes, Lisa Parker, Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, Jesse Singerman, Tom Suter Members Absent: Jim Swaim, David VanDusseldorp Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Others: Terri Byers, Bill Reese, ICPL Staff, Paul Harbor from Dawn's Hide & Bead Away CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:05 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Harbor attended in order to extend an invitation to the Board to come to Dawn's Hide & Bead Away. Their business is interested in our future lease space. Byers and Reese, library staff members, are serving on the AFSCME Union negotiation team. They came to the meeting to introduce themselves and let the Board know that negotiations opened two weeks ago. The City's proposals an-ived today and negotiations will begin on the 11th of December. Nichols represents management from ICPL. Craig used the occasion to review the bargaining unit system for Board members. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Prybil and seconded by Dellsperger to approve the minutes of the special meeting of October 17, 2002. MagalhSes noted that he did not attend the meeting although minutes reflected his presence. They will be corrected. All were in favor. A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 24 was made by Dellsperger and seconded by Prybil. All were in favor. Board of Trustees Page 2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Miller was not present for his monthly update and tour. Craig reported that the plastic is down on the west side, and almost all of the dry walling is done in the basement. It is beginning to look like a finished product. The move is still planned for April. No big change orders are expected through this month. Architects will be here this month and work is beginning on signage. Schnack reported that Craig and Miller gave a fine program at AM Rotary this week. Craig then took Trustees on a tour of site. There was a question about ordering fumishings, etc. Craig said no new fumiture would be ordered for Phase I, except for TS who will be moving to their permanent location. Furniture will be ordered for them as well as some new millwork in some of those areas that do not change in Phase 2. Main furnishings will be bid in the late winter of 2003, early 2004. Equipment packages will be bid then as well. County Funding Update: Terrence Neuzil met with directors of Johnson County Public Libraries in early November. He warned of budget cuts. Directors responded accepting cuts in funding would be hard to accept when city residents are already paying significantly more per capita. The library directors talked about getting the Boards together after the upcoming Legislative Reception in order to talk about the issues of County funding. Schnack suggested that the Fact sheet be used to emphasize disparity. Suter has had conversations with Neuzil and suggested that we invite the supervisors to have a tour of the building site. It would be a visual way to point out that Iowa City users spend more money per user as compared to the County. Neuzil has mentioned the possibility of reimbursing rural people for their cards. Craig said that she would not recommend entering into an arrangement for reimbursing for library cards. In response to a question, Craig explained that each year the City asks Craig for cimulation numbers for the county. The amount the County pays is calculated based on our contract. The City accountant sends a bill to the County. If the City plans a budget that includes the County's share, and the County cut their funds, the City would not necessarily make up the loss. Parker will check with the other Boards regarding any contact with the Supervisors, county residents, etc. Parker asked who would be attending the Legislative reception on December 9 at Coralville Public Library. The reception is scheduled for 5:30 pm. An informal meeting among library board representatives regarding county funding would be at 6:30. Prybil suggested that people who live in the County be informed. The question was asked when supervisors plan to make a decision about their budget. Craig thinks both counties and cities have to certify their budget for 04 in March or April. At some point in January or February, they'll have to have a serious discussion. Suter said Supervisors would not have enough money unless they raise taxes. The State has cut a large amount from the County's road budget. It is a political decision that has to be agreed upon by 3 of the 5 supervisors. Since it is a political decision, it was suggested that perhaps County Library board presidents write an opinion piece. Parker asked that people let her know if they're interested in attending the meeting. The situation will be monitored carefully and discussed again. Board of Trustees Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Policy Reviews: Volunteer Policy- No changes recommended. No action was taken. Bulletin Board Policy: There were some minor changes recommended. Surer moved approval, seconded by Singerman. All voted Aye. Public Pamphlet: Dellsperger moved approval of this revised policy. Prybil seconded. Magalh~tes asked a question about the phrase "lack of general interest". Clark responded that if pamphlets were left untaken for a period of time, they might deny the space. A vote was called for. All voted Aye to adopt policy as revised. Display Policy: Approval was moved by Magalh~es and seconded by Suter. There was a discussion regarding the Art Advisory Committee and how members were appointed. Singerman asked if there were term limits. The terms are currently three-year terms and once members get appointed, they can be reappointed. Craig was directed by the Board to see that openings were advertised when they came up, then approval could be put on the agenda. The Board wants to be aware of the appointments and how long members have been on committee. After the discussion, Parker called for a vote to approve the policy with recommended revisions. All were in favor. STAFF REPORTS CIRCULATION: There was a question about the Circulation department report. Singerman asked about the reason for the fine payment figures included in the report. Lauritzen explained that they were to document the use of the credit cards and the additional expense item requested in the 04 budget. The $10,000 for the software is a one-time expense. It is seen as a customer service item, not a revenue producing item. CAVS: The new Channel 10 automation software is very popular with the CAVS staff. Dellsperger was pleased to see Melrose Meadows added as an outreach site. Magalhaes asked about plans to publicize the preferred searches function. There will be an article in the upcoming WiNDOW and signs on catalog terminals promoting preferred searches. Book Gala: $1600 was raised for two hours of ~vork. The Foundation Board will consider ~vays to increase awareness of this program in order to raise more funds. Reaching for New Heights Campaign is moving along slowly. Parker appreciates Curtin's good management of expenses. A reminder of the Iowa Library Association Legislative agenda was included for the Board. The Board of Supervisors is also invited so it may be a good opportunity for some conversation. Board of Trustees Page Miller and Craig went to two Rotary meetings and have plans to do a Kiwanis and Sertoma service club presentation on the building project. PRESIDENT'S REPORT Parker reported that she sent e-mail to the Board outlining goals for the committee to look at regarding the leased space. Singerman, Schnack and Suter are the committee to work on these goals. Parker has asked Craig to gather information to help them in drafting guidelines. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS Dellsperger reported that there would be a luncheon at Old Capitol Center Friday at noon featuring Steve Atkins, Marc Moen and Bill Nusser. They will be discussing the future of downtown Iowa City. COMMITTEE REPORTS Magalhges, one of the Trustees serving on the Foundation, gave a report. The poor market has caused the investment funds to go down this past fiscal year. They are down $41,000. Hopefully things will turn around and funds will go up. He reported that the Foundation Board would like to see the Book Gala made into a bigger event in order to raise more money. The BookEnd committee made a plea for books, cd's, etc. to sell. Sales are slightly down and they need fresh stock to sell. From the fundraising committee, Michael Lensing stated that all board members need to contribute to the annual appeal. Singerman inquired about whether or not the BookEnd could open on Sundays. COMMUNICATIONS None DISBURSEMENTS Disbursements for October, 2002 were approved unanimously after a motion made and seconded by Dellsperger/Prybil. All in favor signified by saying Aye. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR DECEMBER MEETiNG ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned unanimously after a motion by Magalh~tes/Dellsperger. FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Toni Cilek, Doug Ginsberg, Craig Gustaveson, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Al Stroh, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Boyd STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS: Ruth Baker, Barbara Buss, Judith Klink, Mary Knudson FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Ostro.qnai, to approve the September 4 and October 9, 2002 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Stroh~ to accept Outlot A of the Ruppert Hills development as recommended bv staff, and to oursue purchase of the adjacent 1/2 acre. Unanimous. RUPPERT HILLS Trueblood stated the neighborhood open space requirement is 1.41 acres, and the applicant has proposed the dedication of Outlot A (1.5 acres) for expansion of Miller-Orchard Park. This complies with the concept plan for this property in the Southwest District Plan. Also, a 15-foot wide pedestrian walkway easement is to be granted. Trueblood noted the 1.5-acre parcel is part of the 2-acre pamel that the City attempted to purchase from the Ruppert family in the past. He suggested pursuing the purchase of the additional 1/2-acre, which would fit in with the Neighborhood Open Space Plan for a 4-acre park in this area. Stroh asked if the developer could build on it; Trueblood noted there are many trees and did not think it would be very conducive to construction. Judith Klink noted under the conditional zoning agreement that the neighborhood agreed to include trail easements in this development, and sidewalks will be constructed to accommodate the trail. Stroh expressed concern with cadain trail sections due to the terrain. Trueblood stated with the parkland there would be development issues to address regarding safety concerns with Benton Street. Stroh noted city plans to reconstruct Benton Street included an overpass; Trueblood indicated his understanding that such a possibility still exists, but probably not in the near future. Mary Knudson suggested that a fence between the park and Benton Street be erected adjacent to and as near the street as possible to discourage people from crossing the street; Ruth Baker agreed. She was against a sidewalk along this area. Stroh felt the City should not jump into this until it is ready to do it right. Moved by PruessI seconded by Stroh1 to accept Outlot A of the Ruppert Hills development as recommended bv staff, and to pursue Durchase of the adiacent 1/2 acre. Unanimous. Judith Klink noted they have contacted the developer through his attorney asking if it was possible to redesign the pedestrian/bicycle easements to fit the intent of the South District Plan. The developer's original plan was to fence the property. Klink felt it would be cheaper for the developer to build trails than to fence the property, and that access by students to the trails should be encouraged. She stated she hoped that the plan would include an attractive and immediate usable trail system from the beginning. Klink noted if the Calloway Ranch plans could be developed to fit in with the plans for Parks and Recreation Commission November 13, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Ruppert Hills, it would help make for an integrated, attractive and usable trail system that ultimately would enhance both developments. FY04 FEES AND CHARGES Trueblood briefly reviewed the preliminary draft of the proposed FY04 fees and charges, budget requests and capital improvement projects. The draft will be finalized and brought back to the commission next month. Trueblood noted some concerns/issues for future discussion such as the cost of swim passes, the generic fee system used for Scanlon Gymnasium activities, fees for Special Populations Involvement activities, decrease in participation in some programs, and wage increases for temporary/seasonal staff. With respect to swimming, Stroh stated staff needs to look carefully at the pool when it is at recreation mode, noting staffing is the same regardless of how many people are in the pool. Staff should do whatever it takes to get usage of the pool up. He noted it is related to exposure and knowledge of the facility, and staff needs to get people in by making it attractive. Gustaveson stated the City is loosing ground and revenue when it comes to swimming pools. Iowa City residents are going to the new pool in Williamsburg and North Liberty will soon be building one. Westefeld suggested offering free swim days and linking another activity such as a concert or festival to get people to the pool, which would raise the possibility of their return. With respect to the capital improvement projects, Trueblood noted the City's ClP committee is in the process of ranking the top 15 priorities on a citywide basis; this process has gone through phase one, and is not yet completed. Stroh stated the commission needs to zero in and focus on two or three projects instead of ten. Gustaveson stated one of the problems is that the commission has had a wish list but has not been proactive by going to the City Manager or City Council to press its case. Westefeld noted the commission needs to identify what those projects are and the mechanism or process to use to emphasize them to the City Council. Trueblood stated in the past the commission has chosen to get priorities in front of the City Council by establishing a CIP priority list and attending a Council meeting during the time set aside for boards and commissions. He noted another avenue is to request an agenda item or to speak during time designated for public discussion. Cilek stated the commission needs to obtain community input; Westefeld agreed that the commission should be taking it to the public. Stroh suggested that the commission look at its top ten ClP priorities to ascertain how a project might be packaged, such as the Waterworks Park with the Montgomery- Butler House. Pacha agreed the commission should review its priorities and pick three projects they would like to target. Trueblood noted that past CIP prioritization has not had staff's input. He asked if the commission would like staff's perspective; the commission as a whole agreed they would like to receive it. Trueblood stated he would provide more narrative on the projects for the January meeting. NOMINATING COMMITI'EE Pacha noted that in the past the nominating committee has consisted of outgoing members; Pruess and Cilek agreed and will bring a slate to the December meeting. COMMISSION TIME Pruess expressed his appreciation for the curb cut on Irving Avenue connecting to the Willow Creek trail. He noted he would like to see the 8-foot sidewalk along Shannon Drive connected to the Willow Creek trail Westefeld noted the Skateboard Park is getting a lot o! use. Trueblood noted staff will start to do Parks and Recreation commission November 13, 2002 Page 3 of 3 official counts next spring/early summer. The official grand opening will be held next spring. Ostrognai asked about the present state of the washed out trails in Hickory Hill Park. Trueblood indicated quite a few improvements and repairs have been made. Staff is still working on rerouting a section by the creek, building a boardwalk area and reducing the wetland area. Further repairs will need to wait until warmer weather. Gustaveson stated he felt the commission could be more proactive and suggested establishing small sub-committees to formulate a course of action for particular projects. Pacha felt the commission has been proactive in some cases, noting the commission's involvement with the Parks and Recreation Foundation to raise funds for the Scanlon Gymnasium. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha reported five applicants have applied for the commission vacancies. The terms of Cilek, Gustaveson and Pruess expire January 1, 2003. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Tennis Courts Liohtino Proiect. The project to redo the lighting at the City Park and Mercer Park tennis courts is underway, with the target for completion bein§ next spring. Montoomerv-Butler House. Colette Pogue wrote a letter to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission asking that they move the project up on their priority list for future development. AD.IOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21,2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Dean Shannon, Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Beth Koppes, Benjamin Chair STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Shelley McCafferty, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Oehley, Joe Holland CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said there was currently a vacancy on the Airport Zoning Board and also one on the Airport Board of Adjustment. Persons who were interested in serving in those capacities should see the City Clerk. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB02-00021., an application for a 3-lot subdivision with one outlot that is to be dedicated to the City for open space and REZ02-00018, an application for rezoning from Medium Density Mulfifamily (RM-20) to Sensitive Areas overlay and Planned Housing Development Overlay (RM-20/OSA/OPDH) to allow the development of a 198-unit apartment complex and clubhouse located at Highway 1 and Ruppert Road be approved with an allowable maximum building height of 58'-6". REZONING ITEM: REZ02-00018/SUB02-00021, discussion of an application submitted by Callaway Development Inc. for a rezoning on 10.15 acres from Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) to Sensitive Areas Overlay and Planned Housing Development Overlay (RM-20/OSA/OPDH) to allow the development of a 198-unit apartment complex and clubhouse and an application for a preliminary plat of Ruppert Hills for a 22.91- acre, 4-lot subdivision located at the Northwest corner of Highway 1 and Ruppert Road. McCafferty said the application was for a 4-lot subdivision with one outlot to be dedicated to the City for open space. Since the Commission's last meeting, Parks and Recreation had reviewed and accepted the proposed dedication. They are considering purchasing an additional .5-acre tract to expand park area. At the November 7, 2002 Commission meeting there had been a number of deficiencies and discrepancies with the applications, all of which have now been corrected. Additional information had been received from the applicant and reviewed by Staff. McCafferty said the application for the subdivision was in order. On the overhead site map, she indicated the location of an easement for potential future access to the west. The easement went only to the property line. She said there was no obligation or plans for the City to build a road there. A neighboring property owner had raised concerns about that issue. The rezoning was for sensitive areas and an OPDH. The property was recently downzoned to RM-20 with a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The CZA was reviewed at the November 7, 2002 Commission meeting. McCafferty said with the submittal of the new application, everything was in order relative to the CZA. The applicant had requested some relatively minor changes/modifications since the last Commission meeting: · The removal of three parking spaces in the lot south of Harlocke Street in order to provide additional landscape buffer where the emergency access gate to Harlocke Street was located to further discourage the visual connection. An emergency connection with a gate had previously Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 21, 2002 Page 2 been proposed, but there had been concerns expressed that its presence needed to be diminished. Therefore the applicant had proposed additional landscaping in that area. · The applicant had requested the potential for construction of a future gazebo between the private open space and the above mentioned parking lot. At this point in time there were no plans to construct Such a gazebo. · Expansion of the clubhouse area in order to provide for ~ a basketball court which would reduce some of the parking area and the addition of carports adjacent to the clubhouse. McCafferty showed new sketches of the proposed clubhouse design, clubhouse with extedor materials/finishes (stone, wood, fiber-cement board siding) and carport locations. She said Staff had had a particular concern as to how the applicant would architecturally handle the parking area below Callaway House since the applicant had requested a variance in height from the maximum allowed by the underlying zoning. Due to the below grade parking areas, the additional height would be on the downhill side of the slope. The applicant had proposed painted textured concrete and berms with landscaping to conceal the below grade parking areas. McCafferty said Staff had reviewed the application and the applicant had met all the submittal requirements. McCafferty said there were two issues which the Commission needed to consider. Relative to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), the applicant had proposed to disturb 65% of the slopes. Under normal circumstances, Staff might feel that the percent of disturbance was too high. However, given the constraints of the CZA and the topography, it was Staff's opinion that the proposal was acceptable. The second issue, also under the SAO, was whether the increase in height to 58'-6" was acceptable. The underlying zoning allowed for a 35' building height. Under the OPDH and SAO procedures a variance in the maximum allowable height could be requested by an applicant and approved by the Commission. McCafferty said Staff felt that given the applicant's proposal architecturally with the parking, landscaping and berms, and given the character of the site with the topography and the other constraints on the site, Staff felt that the variance in height was also acceptable. McCafferty said Staff recommended that both the subdivision and the rezoning be approved. Bovbjerg asked if the berms would cover only the lower level of the parking or both levels? McCafferty said it varied based on the topography. The site sloped from the north to the south and the west to the east. Bovbjerg asked with the reduction in parking spaces adjacent to the clubhouse, would the total number of parking spaces still be within the required amounts? McCafferty said yes it would be. McCafferty said the tree count was also correct. Public discussion was opened. Keith Oehle¥, San Antonio, TX, architect for this project, said he was there to address any questions the Commissioners might have. Bovbjerg said she wished to ask about the berms. She was aware that the front was being excavated to make it appear not so high and to screen the parking garage. How was that going to be addressed? Oehley showed a diagram and zoom-in diagram of what they planned to do. He said his intent was to make the berms as high as possible. Schnittjer had said with the nature of the soil, they needed to exercise caution with the angle of repose, which was effectively how steep the slope could be made. Oehley said they would like to try to anchor it with some boulders in order to get the berms up as high as possible to screen the parking levels. Most of the berming would cover the first level of parking. The trees would be planted in such a way that it looked like a mowed green meadow, to reflect other sites in Iowa City. Oehley said he felt they could achieve more screening with landscaping than by trying to decorate the facade of the building itself. He said it was a two line of defense, cleverly manipulating the earth banks trying to get them up as high as possible and trying to plant trees in between the berms so that what the berms didn't screen, the trees would. The trees would be planted one half of them located on the berms and the other half not on the berms. A third line of defense would be to make the skin of the garage as elegant as they possibly could. Oehley said at this point in time they were not sure if it would be a pre-cast concrete skin or a poured in place skin. Either way the skin would be painted and textured to try to minimize the impact. He said he was assuming they would use earth tones for Callaway Lodge Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 21, 2002 Page 3 derived from the great lodges and the ads and craft movement, but requested the Commission's input on possible color scheme or preferences. Joe Holland, Iowa City. Holland said he was at the Commission meeting on behalf of Southgate Development, not to oppose the project but to speak to some issues involved with it which in particular related to a prior project on South Gilbert Street that Southgate had proposed. Holland said he had no involvement with Southgate when they were pursing the earlier project and he had had no involvement with the Callaway project. Holland said he was present on behalf of Southgate to remind the Commission that everyone who owned or developed property in Iowa City wanted a level playing field when they went to the City with plans for property. That the process would be the same, and the same elements and concerns that people had both property owners and the community would receive the same consideration before the Boards and Commissions of the City and the Council. That there would be the same opportunities for public input into the process and the merits of a project. Holland said he wished to compare the Callaway Project with the Southgate Project and passed out a hand-out to the Commission. Holland said he felt there was a real drive for these types of projects in the community. There had been two relatively similar projects within the span of just a few months. The Commission might see more projects, possibly more from Southgate Development. There would be more activity on the site on South Gilbert Street going back before the Commission. Holland said the site that Callaway was working with was 2/3 the size of the site that Southgate had worked with on South Gilbert Street. There were more units; more units per acre; more bedrooms per acre; more potential tenants in the property; all by significant factors. Holland said they were not talking just a little bit of difference they were talking about a very very dense development. Holland said he had read through the Staff reports, a mountain of documents dealing with the South Gilbert Street project and there were some specific concerns that were worth thinking about and addressing in connection with the Callaway project or othem that came before the Commission. Holland reminded the Commission that he was not there to object to the project, but to simply stress the need for similar consideration for similar projects. Holland said he had not heard some of them considered nor had he talked to anyone in connection with the project who had. Holland said one issue he felt may have dominated in a subconscious way and at times conscious way were the discussions over the South Gilbert Street project, what the project would be populated by and what was it going to be. It was clearly oriented to be student housing. He said he thought the expectation was that the Callaway project would be student housing also. Holland said there really was no such thing as student housing in Iowa City except for what the University provided. Everyone recognized that complexes such as this one were built with the expectation that students would live there. There had been discussions and an email from Matt Johnson, ICPD, and from the fire department about the effect of concentrating that many people in one place in terms of being able to provide City services and overwhelming the fire department, overwhelming the police. Statistics had been listed for a Sterling project in Ames. Holland said he had not seen or head any of that addressed in connection with this project. He said he was not saying that it was a reason that the Commission should vote against the Callaway project, but he felt it was a factor. If it was talked about for one setting where a large apartment complex was being discussed, it should be talked about in another setting for a large apartment complex. Holland said as a result of that, Southgate had a number of agreements that he did not see in the CZA for the Callaway project. Holland said the other item he would request on behalf of Southgate Development was that the South District Plan be put back on the front burner. Growth in the southern part of Iowa City was a logical growth area for Iowa City. The Southwest District plan had been just approved and adopted on 10/8/02. It had not been that many years since the South District Plan had been put into place. The project proposed by Southgate indicated that the southern area of Iowa City was a logical area for growth. The Callaway project, although it was further west, also illustrated a logical growth pattern. Holland said he hoped that the Commission would put it onto the front burner to reconsider the South District Plan. Holland said he didn't know if the Commission was aware or not that the improvements to upgrade South Gilbert Street near Napoleon Park were now on the City's 5-year capital plan. That area clearly would face an increase in potential for development as the streets were improved. It was a logical place for people to want to live next a City park. That area would be a growth area. Holland said aside from self interest on the pad of Southgate Development, he felt it was important for the City to be looking at the South District in an even handed way where there was opportunity for public input as there had been in the Southwest District Plan and where there was opportunity for people who owned land in the area to have input. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 21, 2002 Page 4 Holland said the reason he was speaking before the Commission was to ask for two things: 1) Even handed consideration of like projects. In a lot of ways apples to apples were being compared with the two projects. Looking at the two projects in comparison they were strikingly similar. 2) To put on the front burner and pursue a prompt review of the South District Plan. That was important to both the City and important to Southgate and also to other people in the area. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chait made a motion to approve SUB02-00021, an application for a 3-lot subdivision with one outlot that is to be dedicated to the City for open space and REZ02-00018, an application for rezoning from Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) to Sensitive Areas overlay and Planned Housing Development Overlay (RM-20/OSA/OPDH) to allow the development of a 198-unit apartment complex and clubhouse located at Highway 1 and Ruppert Road with an allowable maximum building height of 58'-6". Shannon seconded the motion. Hansen said he had been the one on the Board who had been questioning exactly what Holland was talking about. Hansen said he did not understand except that it had been explained to him that since this was an SAO instead of an up zoning of vacant ground, the City had focused on the development plan rather than the rezoning. Hansen said personally he felt that both projects should be considered on their merit and both of them were almost exactly alike. Hansen said since the only things they were allowed to discuss with the Callaway project was the critical slopes and the height, there didn't seem much that could be done about it. Hansen said he was sympathetic to Southgate's plight. Shannon said he was very pleased and amazed that someone had found a way to develop the property and still make a profit on it, it was a pretty wild looking site. Shannon said he had voted for the development on South Gilbert Street. Shannon said one of the reasons he did and also agreed for this one, was because on three different instances in the City persons had gotten together and downzoned whole neighborhoods because they didn't want student housing to destroy existing housing. He had voted against those downzonings because he felt that builders and landowners should have the right to do what they wanted with the property. It had gone through Council and the areas had been downzoned, so what did that leave? To have student areas like the one being proposed. Shannon said if you couldn't have one, you had to have the other. That was why he was in favor of the one on South Gilbert Street and that was why he was in favor of this one. Shannon said if Iowa City was going to have students, you had to put them someplace. Freerks said enrollment at the University continued to increase, there was a need for that type of housing. She was not familiar with the South Gilbert Street project as she had not been on the Commission at the time it was before them. Freerks said this was a unique property and the developer had worked well with many of the concerns of the neighborhood to try to make it as appealing as it could be. It was a nice looking project, she hoped it worked and was an asset to the community. Anciaux said he liked the Callaway development, that the applicant had agreed to pay for improvements to the intersection and there was a lot to be said for the look of the apartments. It would be a nice asset for the community. Chair said he wished to acknowledge the level of quality of the project and that it had been masterfully done. He was very impressed with the work that went into it and the quality of the product. He would vote for the project. Bovbjerg said others had said some of the things she would have said. Some of the constraints were the property, some of the constraints were the SAO which was what they were looking at. The CZA was already in place so those types of things were somewhat restrictive. Bovbjerg said they were also looking at land use, which was the same problem with the other project that had been mentioned. When looking at land use they could look at some other things but they had to make sure that they related to the land use and that their voting was based on the land use. They had had some real reservations about the project that was being alluded to. Some of the differences that had been brought up by Southgate's council earlier in the evening were considerations at Council level and would be considerations at Council level. If they were going to be discussed it would have to be at that level because it was not strictly Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 21, 2002 Page 5 speaking a land use level. She said looking at the Callaway project itself, where it was, its restraints and constraints, its looks and what they were being offered, it looked like a very approvable use of land. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Bovbjerg said Council had already set the first public hearing for this item to be on December 10, 2002. OTHER: Bovbjerg said she would like to formally thank the Staff for the Southwest Plan. She asked how the Code re-write was coming along. Miklo said they hoped to have something for the Commission in December. Miklo asked if everyone was in concurrence with the memo that had been distributed on Monday regarding the proposed schedule for distdct plans. He said that tonight they had received the request from Joe Holland to revisit the South District Plan. It was the consensus of the Commission to complete the Code re-write and then provide to the Central District Plan, followed by the Southeast, Northwest and then North Corridor. They had had a request to go back to the South District Plan. Anciaux asked for a clarification regarding the appropriateness of comparing two different projects on two different parcels of land. Shouldn't each project be considered on its own medts. Bovbjerg said that was correct. It would not be fair because it was not even on the agenda. They should not say I am going to vote for this because I voted for that or I am going to vote against it because I voted against thaL Koppes said she would be absent from the 12/30/02 and 1/2/03 meetings. Bovbjerg asked how many persons would be absent, did they even wish to meet during that week. Anciaux and Chair said they would be out of town. Miklo said there was an item that would likely be on the 12/19/02 agenda that would likely require two meetings. He would tell persons that there would be no meeting 1/2/03, anything that was on the 12/19/02 agenda that required two meetings would not be voted on until 1116103. CONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as printed and corrected. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Hansen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 pm. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill shared on c~t yn t/pcd/minu te slp&~Jp &z 11-21-02c.doc MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Hansen, Beth Koppes, Don Anciaux, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon, Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg announced that a listing of current vacancies was posted on the bulletin board in the outer lobby. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB02-00022, an application for a four-lot, 26.74-acre subdivision with four outlots located in the Public/Intensive Commercial zone on the south side of Ruppert Road be approved subject to the approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB02-00022, discussion of an item submitted by the Iowa City Airport Commission for a final plat of North Airport Development Part Two, a 26.74-acre, four-lot commercial subdivision with four outlots, for property located in the Intensive Commercial, C1-1 zone on the south side of Ruppert Road. Miklo said in 2000, a 17-1ot development was approved. The intent of the Airport Commission at that time was to long term lease the lots and use the lease revenue to support airport operations. The Airport Commission now believes there is more of a market to sell the lots as opposed to leasing them. The four outlots which border airport property would need to comply with height and use restrictions in accordance with Transitional Safety Zone requirements. Miklo said staff recommended approval of SUB02-00022, an application for a four-lot, 26.74-acre subdivision with four outlots located in the Public/Intensive Commercial zone on the south side of Ruppert Road subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. Bovbjerg asked if a Conditional Zoning Agreement or any concessions were involved. Miklo said no, there was not. She asked if the Iowa City Municipal Airport would retain ownership of the four outlots. Miklo said that was correct. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve SUB02-00022, an item submitted by the Iowa City Airport Commission for a final plat of North Airport Development Part Two, a 26.74-acre, four-lot commercial subdivision with four outlots, for property located in the Intensive Commercial, C1-1 zone on the south side of Ruppert Road subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Page 2 OTHER: CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 21, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to accept the 11/21/02 meeting minutes with minor corrections as submitted to Miklo. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 pm. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote 7-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill shared on cityntJpcdlminuteslp&zlp&z12-~5-O2doc FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - November 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton and John Watson; board members absent: Bev Smith and John Stratton. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle were present. Also in attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD and Vanessa Miller of the Iowa City Press Citizen. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Reports on Complaint #02-03 and #02-04. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Watson and seconded by Hoeft to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 10/22/02 · ICPD Use of Force Report- September 2002 · ICPD General Order #00-08 (Weapons) · ICPD General Order #99-05 (Use of Force) · ICPD General Order #00-01 (Search and Seizure) · ICPD General Order #02-01 (Temporary / Light Duty) · ICPD General Order #99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits) · ICPD General Order #99-11 (Arrests) · iCPD General Order #99-12 (Field Interviews and "Pat Down" Searches) Watson noted that it was difficult to know what updates or changes have been made on the general orders. Widmer offered to note the changes on future general orders so that he could go over them with the Board if they had questions. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. FINAL/APPROVED BOARD INFORMATION Watson reported on his presentation of the PCRB video to the Noon Kiwanis Club. He said it went very well and that there were a lot of questions. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle verified with the Board members if it was their intention to distribute the PCRB brochure when giving presentations of the video. The Board agreed that they did want to distribute the brochures. Tuttle stated that she would need to know ahead of time the date of the presentation and the number of brochures that would be needed. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Hoeft and seconded by Watson 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, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. Open session adjourned at 7:10 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:41 P.M. Motion by Watson, seconded by Hoeft to accept the Public Report as amended and forward to Council for Complaint #02-03. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. Motion by Watson, seconded by Hoeft to accept the Public Report as amended and forward to Council for Complaint #02-04. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. FINAL/APPROVED ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Hoeft and seconded by Watson. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith and Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:47 P.M. MINUTES FINAL/APPROVE~ SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lori Benz, Joanne Hora, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Charity Rowley, Jim Schintler, Deb Schoenfelder, Carol Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Allan Monsanto STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Susan Rogusky and Julie Seal. Meeting Facilitators: Constance Todd, Director of the National Institute of Senior Centers a subgroup of the National Council on the Aging, and Geery Howe, Morning Start Associates. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Kopping introduced Constance Todd to the Senior Center Commission and staff. Todd spoke and led a discussion on "Senior Center Trends and Emerging Trends." Todd's presentation included information related to the following topics: A brief history of senior centers in the United States Emerging and leading trends in senior centers across the country Senior center populations How to attract the next generation of seniors while keeping the current population Technology Collaborations and partnerships Membership fees and cost sharing Outcome measurement Strategies for attracting younger seniors Change the name Senior Center?. Getting the message across BREAK NOVEMBER 2002 COMMISSION MEETING TIME CHANGE--HONOHAN Motion: to have the November 19, 2002 Commission meeting and goal setting session time changed from the originally scheduled 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. to 4-8 p.m. Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Hora/Kelly. GOAL SETTING SESSION--HOWE Kopping began by reviewing information included in a handout showing a summary of the operational budget for FY04 and examples of several fee-based revenue generating strategies. She also distributed membership and participant fee information on several C:\TEMP\November12.doc MINUTES DRAFT SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION 2 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002 popular education oriented programs for retirees across the country. (Documents Attached) Kopping stressed that the sample fees were intended to show that retirees are willing to pay for programming and services if they are interested. They were not intended as specific suggestions for implementation at the Center. Howe noted that the Commission needs to focus on two sets of problems. First, how to meet this years budget deficit. Second, what the Senior Center will become in the process of solving the budget problems. Commissioners participated in a lengthy discussion of the Center's target audience and how membership fees might impact programming and participation. It was noted that when people are asked to pay a membership fee it creates a sense of ownership for those who participate. In other words, when people pay a fee they will feel more a part of the program and therefore more connected to the Center. Concern was expressed over the effectiveness of Iow-income subsidy programs for participation fees and the possibility that lower-income residents might feel excluded even if a subsidy program was implemented. Howe offered the following summary of the evening's discussion: The Senior Center will need to focus on beginning to serve the boomers, 50 plus, in new ways by building a new pipeline for people to come in. This can be broken down even fudher, 1. The Center needs to continue to serving the silent generation in new and current ways while also maintaining and building the pipeline for the Boomers. 2. The Center needs to keep an open door for all for social components. 3. People 80 years of age and older should receive honorary memberships. There also was discussion of establishing a tiered fee structure that offered basic and premium memberships. Commissioners will discuss membership fees in more depth at their meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 Motion: to adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Rowley/Schoenfelder 12/30/2002c:\temp\november12.doc