Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-20 Bd Comm minutes Approved ~ MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCalrum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCaffer~y OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Bowers, Brad Houser, Melissa Molleston, Anthony McMillan CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: McCafferty said the City Council held its public hearing on the conservation district, and no one spoke against the district. She stated that Cecile Kuenzli and Maharry spoke in favor of the district. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 14 North Dodqe Street. McCafferty said this project by Brad Houser was reviewed previously by the Commission. McCafferty said Houser has revised the design somewhat and has put the balconies on the back to incorporate them with the stairway and also added a canopy over the entry. McCafferty said she and Houser have discussed the brick to be used, and she showed a sample of the brick they had selected. She said the brick would work in this district and also fits into Houser's criteria for size, price range, and availability. McCafferty also provided Houser with ideas for the brackets on the canopy that would be more appropriate. She recommended not using the small brackets, considering the scale of the building. Maharry asked about the design for the areas on the side elevations that looked like bricked-in window openings. McCafferty asked Houser if he would be laying the brick diagonally in these areas. He said it would be either diagonal or the same pattern as the rest of the wall. Carlson asked if that would be recessed slightly. Houser confirmed this, saying it would be just like it is on the windows. McCafferty asked Houser if he would do the header course and jam brickwork around the bathroom windows. Houser said it would match the other windows. Carlson asked if it would have a stone key, and Houser said it would. Carlson and McCafferty said a stone key might not be needed there. Gunn asked if all the brick would be the same color. Houser confirmed this. He said he discussed this with McCafferty, but they agreed that on this three-story building it would be better to have this all one color, with the limestone sills used to break it up. Gunn asked whether putting the brick horizontally and changing the mortar color would be enough contrast. Houser said he ruled out the mortar color because of the extra cost. Gunn said there needs to be something to break up the solid brick wall, although it doesn't have to be dramatic, as diagonal brick would be. Gunn asked about the other side of the building. Houser said with the exception of the stair tower, it is a duplicate. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 2 MOTION: Smothers moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a building at 14 NoAh Dodge Street, subject to staff review of the brackets to be used on the building. Carlson asked if the Commission would need to review the point system for design guidelines for infill. Gunn said the Commission should go through the point system for a building that would be close, but this building would be well over the requirement. Carlson said the Commission had not seen the site plan yet. Gunn agreed that there are some mandatory items having to do with the site plan. McCafferty said she and Houser have discussed where the building needs to sit on the site. Houser said he pulled the building forward on the site as far as possible to still be within Julie Tallman's directive. He said the building is now a little over 11 feet off the front. Houser said that gives more green space in the back. He said the dumpster area will now be moved back under the corner, and then he will have an area for snow removal. McCafferty said Houser had agreed to mount the light at a height of under 15 feet. Houser agreed and showed the two potential locations for the light on the plans. He said it is a directional beam light that comes straight out. He stated that on the sides of the building there will be a top and bottom spot, with two on the sides and two of them on the alley side. McCafferty said the lighting standards for multifamily buildings in the Central Planning District require that the light cannot be mounted over 15 feet high. McCafferty said Houser also has to meet the provisions of site plan review regarding the screening of the mechanical equipment/utility meters. Houser said he believes that has been laid out by MMS to be tucked away. He said he will tuck them away as best he can with the approval of MidAmerica. McCafferty said the guidelines state that the meters should be at the rear of the property, but if that cannot be achieved, they may be located at the side of the property, provided there is extensive landscaping. Houser said he would prefer to have them on the alley side, but he does not have much choice, as this is dictated by MidAmerica. He said he would be sure to screen them if they have to be located on the side of the building. Sueppel asked about the garage on the property. Houser said he would be getting rid of the garage. He added that he has offered Friends of Historic Preservation the opportunity to salvage anything from the garage that they would like. Carlson said between the architectural details and the all-masonry building materials, this project would earn pretty close to 20 points. He said with the other things this easily rates over 20 points, in his opinion. Sueppel seconded the motion. McCallum said he would recuse himself from the vote, as he is a co-worker of Houser's. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, with McCallum abstainin,q. 503 Melrose Street. McCafferty said this certificate is for an application for window replacement to the addition of the historic Pratt-Soper House on Melrose Avenue. She said the application originally slipped through the cracks because of a software problem. McCafferty said Merit Construction was hired as the contractor and went through the process of applying for a building permit. She said Merit Construction was issued the building permit, and at the time the permit was issued is when the tag came up that said this is a landmark property. McCafferty said she could not issue a certificate of no material effect, because there are some changes in the bay window. McCafferty said the applicant proposes to replace all of the windows on the addition with the same style of arched windows that are there now. She said the bay window is planned as a four-panel bay window. McCafferty noted that this addition did not originally have any windows at all; they were added at a later date, probably in the fifties or sixties. McCafferty said the contractor is concerned, because these windows have all already been ordered, made, and delivered to Iowa City. She said, regarding the arched-head windows, she would recommend that the Commission find those acceptable. McCafferty said she did not know if the bay window is a Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 3 custom window like the arched-head windows. She said the windows are clad in a cream color to match the trim of the house. Carlson said if the windows are vinyl-clad, they would be impermissible. McCafferty said the guidelines state that wood windows with metal cladding are acceptable. Carlson said the plans don't actually say what the windows are clad with. Sueppel asked about the bow window, and McCafferty responded that it is a very shallow bow and has a steel seat and headboard. She showed a drawing of what the proposed bow window would look like. McCafferty said she did not know specifically how they are boxing out the front but had assumed they would leave the seat and the head in as it is and just put in a new unit, but she could clarify that. Weitzel asked if Merit Construction already had the replacement for the bow window. McCafferty confirmed this. She said she did not know if it is a custom window, as all the circle-head ones are. She stated that this is not an appropriate window anyway, given the ere. Weitzel asked what would be appropriate for the windows. Maharry said, in his opinion, the replacements are better than what is there now. Gunn agreed. He said he did not have any problem accepting this, given that things got fouled up in the Building Department process. Carlson asked if the Commission is now saying that vinyl is a paintable material. Gunn said the Commission has talked about windows quite a lot. He stated that vinyl windows and vinyl-clad windows are not something the Commission wants to see, and the guidelines were written with that in mind. Gunn said that is why the guidelines specify wood windows and metal-clad paintable windows, excluding vinyl windows. He said this doesn't particularly disallow vinyl-clad wood windows, but vinyl is not the thing. Gunn said in this case, this slipped through, but in general, he would not see vinyl as an acceptable material. Carlson agreed that the Commission should make it clear that, if this is approved, it is not a general shift in policy. Sueppel asked if all vinyl windows are unacceptable. Gunn said even vinyl-clad windows are unacceptable. He said the Commission made this decision because there are paintable, reasonably priced options available. Gunn said the Commission does allow vinyl to stay on a house. He said in this case, if the windows were not already on site, he would not approve the vinyl-clad windows. Sueppel said that vinyl is paintable. Smothers said the guidelines are based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Gunn said the Secretary of the Interior's Standards disapprove of vinyl. Smothers said the only other option she could see is, if this is an all-wood window anyway, that the vinyl be removed and painted and then finished out with trimwork. McCallum said sometimes the outer coating is not indicative of what is underneath. Sueppel said the warranty would be totally voided in such a case also. Smothers said this would send out the wrong message. She questioned whether there might be a return policy. She said Marvin and Pella both make great windows. McCafferty said the arch-head is in all likelihood a custom construction. Sueppel said the windows are not returnable if custom made to a specific size. Carlson asked what happened when the permit was first applied for to cause this to be missed. McCafferty said the Building Department didn't notify the applicant when he first came in for a consultation. McCafferty said when the applicant consulted with the Building Department, the Building Department brought up the property, and it was not shown to be in a district. She said in this case, because the building is a landmark and not even close to a district, the Building Department just missed making that check. McCafferty said whether a property is flagged depends on how it is entered into the computer. She said they are trying to change the software to give a warning, regardless of how the address is entered. McCafferty said secondly is the issue of the fact that the addition did not have windows historically and asked if the replacements are inappropriate, given that fact. Weitzel said the problem still exists that an applicant could order windows and then show up for a building permit with no consultation and still have the same thing happen. Sueppel pointed out that the applicant Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 4 applied for this permit on January 23rd, so the Commission is awfully late on this. He said if the Building Department made a mistake, it should have been picked up a long time ago. Weitzel said he did not think the Commission should get in the habit of modifying its opinion based on the mistakes of the Building Department. He said there have been several cases like this, and, in the future at least, the Commission should be mindful of this and not allow this to become what the Commission does. McCafferty noted that this may be one of the issues where the Commission needs to take more action in terms of education and ensuring that people are not specifically relying on the Building Department to know about their property. Sueppel said on the buirding permit where it refers to historical preservation review, it says no, that the applicant doesn't have to do it. He said that means the City made the mistake. McCafferty said the Commission could find these windows to be unacceptable. Maharry said the applicant would appeal this to City Council, and the City Council would allow these windows for a financial hardship reason. He said if it were the applicant's mistake, it would be different, but since this was the City's mistake, he did not think the applicant could be penalized. McCallum asked if a building permit is needed for window replacement outside of an historic district and excluding the landmark properties. Sueppel said a building permit is needed for replacement of any bedroom window. Gunn said he believed a building permit was only required if it altered the opening. Sueppel said if it is in a bedroom, egress comes into play, and no matter what size the window is, a permit is required. McCafferty said this is an instance where there is a Group R Division 3 occupancy, which is basically a single-family residence. She read from the building code amendment, "Work exempted from the permit: It is exempt provided that the window opening sizes are not altered and conforming rescue and escape windows are present in all sleeping areas." McCafferty said therefore, if the window size is altered, a permit is required. Regarding the number of cases that have slipped by, Maharry said there were three in the last eight months: the balusters on a porch, the vinyl siding on Johnson Street, and this application. Sueppel said, regarding the siding on Johnson Street, he said he went to get a permit for that, but the Building Department said he did not need one. Maharry said the City is the last resort before an application gets to the Commission, and, if nothing else, the City has to flag these applications. McCafferty said the software needs to be altered so that the historic preservation tag comes up regardless of how the address is entered. Maharry said he might send the Building Department a letter encouraging the timely upgrading of the software. Weitzel said he is not trying to penalize people for things that are not their fault, but setting a precedent like this is bothersome to him. Carlson mentioned also that there have been so many of these recently. Sueppel said it really bothers the guy who goes down to get a permit and is told he doesn't need one, and then he gets halfway done with the project and has a stop order put on it. He said contractors would obviously rather be stopped when they request a building permit before they have anything invested in the project. Smothers said she really does not agree with the use of these replacement windows. McCafferty said the Commission needs to vote on this, rather than holding it over for another two weeks. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for replacement windows for the building at 503 Melrose Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-2~ with Smothers and Weitzel votin~ no. Gunn said if someone comes in for a building permit, it is the Building Department's place to fix this to make certain they are giving out correct information. He said the number of districts and properties changes all the time, as this is an ongoing process. Gunn said there are currently over 1,000 properties/structures under the Commission's purview. He said this is not a no-brainer; it takes a while to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 5 get things straightened out. Gunn said the place to fix it is in the Building Department, and he thinks they try. He said if some things get by, he did not feel the owner should be penalized for it. Gunn said there is nothing simple about this to someone who doesn't do it all the time. 825 North Gilbert Street. Molleston said she is the owner of this single-family residence. She said she forgot to add to the application that she would also like to add a deck off the first floor and a balcony off the patio doors on the second story. McCafferty pointed out where that is shown on the plan. Molleston stated that four years ago she put a two-story addition on the house, with a kitchen on the bottom and a master bedroom on the top. She said the house is a four-square, and the addition is a rectangular project on the back. Molleston said at the time, the windows in the back were supposed to be lower and have a transom above them, but they were put in a little too high. She said also the modern window pairs come stuck together in the middle, but she had assumed her builder was going to spread them appropriately to have 3 ¼ inch mullion that would match the rest of the windows. Molleston said that didn't happen, and she did not find out until the project was completed. She said she had asked her contractor to order wood windows on the sides but ended up with Anderson metal-clad windows. Molleston said the upstairs bedroom was never finished. She said originally there was only one window in the back, but she decided to have two. Molleston said they had to be egress, so they ended up being too wide next to each other, and she has never liked the way they look. She said she had the windows on the sides of the addition put in to match the top height of the windows on the side, but they were always too high. Molleston said this is her way of correcting the mistakes made four years ago. Molleston added that her architect, John Shaw, has suggested that the central windows in the back be replaced with patio doors to give access to the backyard and deck. She stated that the doors would be French doors, not sliding doors. She said he also suggested putting a balcony door up on top instead of windows. Smothers asked if the west elevation faces the bluff with the ravine. Molleston confirmed this. Carlson asked if the entire wing was four years old, and Molleston confirmed this. Molleston showed on the south elevation where the house used to end. Carlson asked if all the changes are being made to the new addition, and Molleston said that is correct. Cadson asked what the brackets under the balcony are intended to match. McCafferty said they are to match those on the front of the house. Carlson asked if the Commission would want to require any particular look to the doors. McCafferty said the house does not have any divided lights. Carlson said the balcony is the only thing that strikes him as a little non-historic. He said everything else is making it look more like the rest of the house. Carlson said he did not have strong feelings about it, but it is noticeable to him. Ponto said given that this is on a new addition already and not visible from the street, he is not as concerned about the balcony as he would be otherwise. Carlson stated that he can't absolutely say that such things were not on houses of this era. Smothers said houses of this era actually did have balconies on them. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for work to be done to the structure at 825 North Gilbert Street. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 1121 Seymour Street. Bowers said he is the contractor for this project. He said he would like to do an 18 x 26 addition in the rear. Bowers said he also would like to change the entry from the rear into the new addition and move the stairway into the new addition so that the new kitchen is very usable. McCafferty said this property is in the Longfellow District. She said she had originally told Bowers that she thought the property was in the conservation district. McCafferty said this house is actually in a historic district, which means that the guidelines are a little bit stricter. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 6 McCafferty added that this is a contributing structure and is currently clad in vinyl with wood corners. She showed a photograph of the front of the symmetrical, Cape Cod-style house. McCafferty said the back of the house was previously altered so that the roof pitch was changed in order to get basically a full two stories on the back of the house. McCafferty asked Gunn for an interpretation of the guidelines, since the guidelines don't allow vinyl in historic districts, but the house is already completely clad in vinyl. Ponto said it seems unusual that this house would have been classified as a contributing structure, since it is sided in vinyl. Gunn replied that vinyl alone won't make a structure non-contributing. He said from the front, the alterations to the roof pitch in the back are not as noticeable, but that kind of alteration on the front would have made the house non- contributing. Carlson said the Longfellow District contributing structures were built up to the mid and late 1940's, and this house appears to have been built in the 1940's. Carlson said the guidelines state that vinyl should not be allowed on additions to contributing structures. He said he was not aware of any leeway there for vinyl, even if the rest of the house is now vinyl. Gunn said under recommended, the guidelines read: "Applying siding to a new addition that matches the size, shape, texture, and material of the original siding. Substitute material in place of wood siding only if the substitute retains the appearance and function of the original wood." Gunn asked the applicant what is under the vinyl siding. Bowers responded that there is only Tyvek and an inch of sheathing under the siding. He said the original wood siding was removed before the vinyl siding was installed. Bowers said there may have been some insulation put back once the wood siding was all torn off. Bowers said the windows are Anderson windows for the replacement window. He said he had not taken off the windows to see exactly what the windows are, but he believes they were a complete Anderson wood unit. Bowers said it is all stained on the inside, and he is pretty sure the outside is clad on all the windows. He said he was proposing to re-use the three windows off the dining room area and put them on the side of the new addition. He said it would be an exact match of the existing structure, the same window but just in a different location. McCallum asked if this house was built in the 1940s. Bowers confirmed this. Maharry asked for opinions on the general design of the layout. He said the pitch of the roof adds a third angle, but the house was already modified before. Bowers said the reason for the pitch was because of the existing bathroom window with the wood trim around it. He said he planned to do a field measurement to see if he can increase it as much as possible. McCafferty produced an alternative plan for the addition that she said might appeal more to the Commission. She said the pitch isn't the same but said she basically took the room and turned it 90 degrees. McCafferty said the pitch would be lower, but there would be a gable end with a cornice return. Bowers said he talked about putting a straight gable roof on the addition, which would probably be acceptable. Regarding turning it, he said he and the owners haven't really talked about the possibility. Bowers said one of the problems could be where the stairs were to come down, he was going to have the opening into downstairs through the old existing block wall. McCafferty showed him where the stairway could be placed and still function the same. McCafferty said the addition would still be 18 x 26, the exact same footprint as proposed. Bowers said he could go to three windows and still put the angled fireplace in. McCafferty said her proposal shows what could be done, while still achieving the goals of the owner. Smothers said she likes the fact that it would be another gable. Bowers said the plan with the gable is probably acceptable. Regarding the windows, Bowers said he believes the current windows are all a wood vinyl-clad, with the small-pane appearance, and he asked if they could be re-used. Gunn said the guidelines were written with the presumption that historic properties have historic materials. He said this is an historic property without the siding, without the windows, and with the appropriate pitch to the roof. Sueppel asked if the Commission would be penalized if it approves the adjusted plan with vinyl siding and windows. Gunn responded that the guidelines are obligations that the Commission should follow. He said Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 7 the Commission can't and shouldn't be able to decide to implement something more stringent. Gunn said, by the same token, the Commission should not be able to disregard the guidelines. Gunn said if the guidelines mean anything, they should be followed. Gunn stated that if this were a property that had standard four-inch siding underneath, it would be clear that the addition would require four-inch wood siding or a substitute such as Hardi-plank, with the anticipation that the vinyl siding would come off the house some time in the future and the siding would then all match. He said this is complicated, because there is no siding under the vinyl. Weitzel asked if this should possibly have been classified as a non-contributing structure. He said it would not have been known at the time of designation that there was no wood siding underneath. McCafferty said the consultant makes a recommendation for the classification of a structure, and the Commission then reviews that recommendation. She said the issue is that the map that specifies contributing and non-contributing properties is part of the ordinance. McCafferty said she spoke with the City attorney, who informed her that a classification cannot be changed without going through the entire process, because the guidelines affect the land use issue for that property. Gunn said a reclassification would not help here anyway, because the property is in an historic district, where vinyl is disallowed regardless of the classification. Ponto said the wood cornerboards on the house do help the look of the house a little. McCafferty said the house has a wide friezeboard with scalloping on it, which is probably an original detail that was retained. Gunn said, regarding the shape of the house, that nowhere in the guidelines is there language referring to "front of the house" or "visible from the street". He said the Commission was very careful to eliminate anything that sounded like that in the guidelines. Gunn said otherwise, what was heard many, many times was the owner saying, "Well, you really can't see it from the street." Gunn said that may be true in the summer but not necessarily in the winter, or depending on where you stand. He said everyone was debating whether or not it was visible and how visible, so that now that is all gone from the language. Gunn added that the mass and roof pitch apply in the back as well as the front. He said a change in the roof pitch is therefore in order per the guidelines. Regarding the siding, Gunn said it doesn't make sense to him to try to guess what the house had originally and put it on. He said, from the guidelines, "applying siding to a new addition that matches the size, shape, texture, and material of the original siding" becomes difficult when there is nothing to match. Gunn said the intent was never to re-side the entire house based on the addition. He said one possibility is using the same thing that's on the house now, with the same wood cornerboards, same vinyl siding and same details. Gunn said no one has been more opposed to vinyl siding than he. He said if there were wood siding under there, he would have no trouble requiring it on the addition. Gunn asked what the current vinyl siding looks like. Bowers replied that it is triple three-wide vinyl. Gunn said it looks like a three-inch exposure on wood siding. He said the Commission could require Hardi-plank to match the vinyl in appearance. McCafferty said if the assumption is made that if there is wood underneath then some day the owner will remove the vinyl and restore the wood, one could also make the assumption that someday the vinyl siding will be removed and re-sided in an appropriate material. Gunn said the Commission knows wood siding is expensive, and the no-vinyl policy was not written until there was a reasonable substitute in the form of fiber cement board. Carlson asked if the Commission had any discretion if the guidelines explicitly say vinyl is disallowed. Gunn read from page three of the guidelines regarding alternative designs: "Alternative designs or exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines, the Multi-family Construction Guidelines or individual district guidelines may be considered by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. The intent in considering designs is to allow architectural flexibility in exceptional circumstances. The intent is not to reduce the scope or quality of the work as required by these guidelines." Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 8 Gunn said the Commission anticipated a situation for which it could not clearly write specific guidelines. He stated that he thinks it would be reasonable to require fiber cement board or wood, and it also looks like the vinyl would be a reasonable material. Gunn said he believes those are the only two options. McCafferty said the first issue is the configuration of the addition, and the applicant seems willing to work that out with her proposed plan. She said the Commission may want to have final approval subject to staff or staff and chair review of the final drawing. McCafferty said the other issue is the use of vinyl siding. Sueppel said the intent is to keep things historical. He said there is no way to make this historical without changing the whole thing. He asked what harm the Commission would be doing by allowing the applicant to continue. Sueppel said this would at least keep the design the same, and he personally does not see this as an historical building. He said if the applicant changes the design, he would be willing to approve the application. Maharry asked if anyone had a problem with rousing the windows. He said he had no problem with it, as he has no problem with recycling. Carlson agreed. Gunn said he is not opposed to using vinyl siding to match what is there currontly. McCafferty asked if the use of any additional windows to match the current would be acceptable. Carlson asked if there are any original windows on the house, and Bowers said thero aro not. Gunn said 100 years from now, the district should look moro like it did 80 years ago than it does right now. He said this is a long process, usually taking decades and decades. Gunn said allowing long, flat pitches would not look right in the district. He said the siding issue is different because of the unique situation. Carlson said because the original siding isn't thero any moro and there is no way to replicate that, the Commission can treat this as an exceptional circumstance. McCallum agreed. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition to '1121 Seymour Street, with the mass and roof pitch modified as discussed and with siding and windows to match the existing siding. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Gunn said when writing the guidelines, the Commission tried really hard to remove from the guidelines any language that concerns only the front elevation and allows alterations if they aro on the back or not seen from the street. He said some exclusions have been written in for setbacks and additions. Gunn said if the Commission doesn't like it, it shouldn't approve something because it is on the back of the house. Sueppel said, regarding the Gilbert Street house, he would not have approved those posts being open on the front of the house. He said where the deck is, thero are open 4 x 4 posts underneath it without skirting or anything. Carlson stated that the Commission has had a problem interpreting decks as porches or how exactly to treat them. Carlson said the Commission should probably come up with deck guidelines at some point. Maharry had to leave the meetinq. Carlson took over as Chair. 826 Rundell Street. McCafferty said this application concerns a non-contributing structure in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. Carlson stated that the vinyl is therefore acceptable here. He said the applicant wants to replace the current aluminum siding with vinyl. Ponto said the owner also wants to remove the single-car garage and replace it with a double-car garage. Carlson said the age of this house appears to be about at the upper limit of the conservation district. Weitze[ estimated it to be built sometime in the 1940's and asked why this one would not be contributing. Carlson said, in any case, if the structure were contributing, the Commission would have to pay more attention to the removal of the existing garage. Weitzel said any original material that is there should stay, including wood siding if there is vinyl over it. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April10,2003 Page 9 Carlson said he believes removal of distinguishing historical features even on non-contributing structures is disallowed. Gunn confirmed this. He said that just because synthetic materials are allowed, it doesn't mean that anything goes. He said that everything else still applies when you're talking about materials. McCafferty said since there are not specific drawings for this, what she would do is write on the certificate of appropriateness that this is approved and it is the recommendation of the Commission that no window trim, original trim boards, etc. be altered and that only the aluminum siding is to be removed and replaced with synthetic siding. Ponto asked if the Commission wanted to say anything about the width of the vinyl siding. Gunn said he believes it is reasonable to say it should have exposure to match the original. He said the aluminum can be peeled back to look at the original, since they have to take it off to do it anyway. Gunn said this would be an improvement over the wide aluminum siding. Gunn said it is also worth noting that the wood siding may be all right. He said it need not be a condition, but there are a lot of houses where synthetic siding has been removed, and the wood siding underneath has been okay. McCafferty said she would make the certificate subject to the items previously suggested but would include a recommendation that the owner consider restoration of the original wood siding. Sueppel asked if, since the garage is being torn down anyway, the owner is at least required to match the roofline and the pitch. Gunn said the garage should look reasonably close, including the use of cornerboards. McCaffedy said then that the roof pitch, eave, friezeboards, cornerboards, window and door trim should match the existing garage. Gunn read from the district guidelines for Longfellow Neighborhood on page A2 referring to an inflll property in a conservation district. He read, "Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed at the rear of the primary building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. On Summit Street, attached garages are disallowed. Garages and other buildings should be clearly subordinate in size to the primary structure." Under architectural guidelines for new outbuildings he read, "Building styles: new outbuildings behind contributing primary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind non-contributing primary structures should reflect historic outbuilding styles in the neighborhood." Gunn said since this garage is behind a non-contributing structure, it should just look like it belongs to the neighborhood. He said there are probably not historic two-car garages in the neighborhood. Gunn said, given the neighborhood, this should be a garage with a lower pitch than the house, probably a four in twelve or five in twelve pitch. He said there should be cornerboards; horizontal lap siding; overhangs of 16 inches or more; trimmed openings; not a brick mold around the garage door but a fiat, trimmed mold; if there is a window, it should be a small double-hung window or barn sash; and a walk-in door that is framed. Gunn said that would make it typical of everyplace in all of Longfellow. McCafferty said she would include those guidelines in the certificate. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for removal of aluminum siding and replacement with vinyl siding on the house at 826 Rundell Street and removal of the garage at 826 Rundell and replacement with a double-car garage, subject to: 1. Original wood trim on the house, including window casings, frieze boards, and decorative moldings, shall not be altered. 2. The exposure of the replacement siding shall be similar to the original wood siding. 3. The garage shall reflect the styles of historic garages in the neighborhood or the design shall be similar to the existing garage. 4. Any garage windows shall be double-hung or a barn sash. 5. All garage door and window trim shall be fiat lx wood or fiber cement board. Brick mold is disallowed. 6. Garage doors should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doom may be used. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 10 The Commission also recommends that the owner consider restoration of the original wood siding, Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS: Selection of nominees. McCafferty showed photographs of properties to be considered for historic preservation awards. The consensus of the Commission was to approve the following awards: The University of Iowa for Calvin Hall Stewardship Carnegie Library Commercial rehabilitation Gotch-Price House Stewardship Welch House Rehabilitation 2155 Prairie du Chien Addition/new construction 709 Summit Street Addition/new construction 419 N. Gilbert Street Addition/new construction 512 Church Street Rehabilitation 409 Ronalds Street Porch rehabilitation 1122 College Street Paint and exterior finishes 1178 Court Street Paint and exterior finishes 900 N. Johnson Street Paint and exterior finishes 1120 Burlington Street Paint and exterior finishes 1136 Burlington Street Paint and exterior finishes 1040 Court Street Paint and exterior finishes 519 Summit Street Paint and exterior finishes 819 Dewey Street Paint and exterior finishes 204 McLean Street Paint and exterior finishes 506 Brookland Drive Rehabilitation? 10 Bella Vista Paint and exterior finishes Regarding a potential award for the house at 815 Ronalds Street, Sueppel said there are a lot of broken boards all over and a for sale sign on the lot. McCafferty said it could be considered for a porch restoration award, since there was such a dramatic improvement to the porch. Sueppel said he would not have a problem giving an award if the owner was not selling it, but giving it an award might encourage the sale of a house with cracks all over and paint falling off. Gunn asked how this property was nominated. Smothers said she found this property but had no idea that it was for sale. Gunn said there seems to be a lot of properties worth nominating. McCafferty suggested putting this property in the "maybe" group. The consensus of the Commission was to put the house at 506 South Governor Street in the "maybe" group for a porch rehabilitation award. Carlson said there is a sufficient number of other houses where siding has been removed, and the Commission has liked the results better. He said the Commission does want to show some examples of removing siding. Regarding the house at 1029 Bloomington, the consensus was to consider it next year if the project is complete. Gunn commented that a lot of properties are eligible for painting awards, and that category may have to be narrowed down further. Regarding 506 Brookland Park Drive, McCafferty said the owners have done a lot to this house. She said it is in beautiful shape and is in an endangered area near the University. Sueppel said a lot of work was done on the stucco of this house, and he sees this more as a rehabilitation. McCafferty said she will send out letters to the owners and will try to find out if this is a rehab or not. McCafferty said there were three or four other paint jobs in which nothing was done to the sashes, and because the numbers for that award are sufficient, she eliminated those from the award category. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 11 Ponto said there are about 20 properties to receive awards if a couple end up being eliminated. Gunn said that seems like a reasonable number for the program. McCafferty said she sends letters to the nominees and gives them a deadline to respond by returning the form giving the description of the project. She said if the owner doesn't respond, she assumes he does not want the award. McCafferty said the awards presentation will be held Tuesday, May 6th at the Masonic Temple. She said refreshments would be available at 5:30 p.m., with the program to begin at 6:00. McCafferty said Bradd Brown would speak about the restoration of the Old Capitol. She asked who the Commission would like to have present the awards and suggested John Shaw. That was acceptable to Commission members, and McCafferty said she would ask Shaw to present the awards. Schedule and tasks. Smothers said she is working on refreshments, and Iowa State Bank will assist with providing refreshments. McCafferty said most things are on schedule and under control at this point. She said she could use help photographing the properties, and Weitzel volunteered. McCafferty said the digital camera should be used and suggested waiting a couple of weeks for things to green up a litfie more. Regarding the guest editorial, Gunn said Michaelanne Widness did this in the past. Smothers said she would ask Widness what was needed for this. Carlson stated that it involves having a story in the paper during preservation week that details some aspect of historic preservation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 13, 2003. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, subject to typographical corrections and clarifications to be submitted by Carlson. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Approved MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2003 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothem, Paul Sueppel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Hogan, Patricia Kane CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Maharry said that the College Hill Conservation District passed its first reading at Tuesday's City Council meeting by a vote of 4-2, with Kanner and Pfab voting no and Vanderhoef abstaining. Maharry said the City Council members had questions to be answered before the next vote. He said he would probably attend the work session on Monday to answer questions, as he thought it would be more efficient than answering questions at the formal meeting. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 19 Evans Street. McCafferty said this is an application by Hogan and Kane to put a Iow deck with no railings on the back of their house, which is in the Woodlawn Historic District. She showed a photograph of the rear of the property, stating that the deck would come to just below the existing skirt. McCafferty said the owners also want to reconfigure the stairs with the landing so that the stairs come down to the side. McCafferty said Gunn called her to relay his opinion regarding this application. She said Gunn feels that because the deck would be Iow to the ground, would not be obtrusive, and would have no railing on it, it would be fine. She said Gunn also stated that the stairs should be done in an historic manner. Kane stated that they would like to make the stairs match the stairs on the other side of the porch. Hogan added that they want to make the spindles match the wood spindles that are on the front porch. Kane said they want to make the deck as Iow as they possibly can. Ponto asked if the screen door would remain in the same location. Kane responded that it would. Carlson asked if any original material would be removed as part of the project. Hogan said the latticework might be removed. Kane said they would like to use a crisscross lattice, because that it what is on the front of the house. Hogan said everything else would be the same. Carlson said as long as the stairs and latticework would be redone in an historically appropriate matter, this would be acceptable to him. McCafferty said she could specify in the certificate that the crisscross lattice would be acceptable. MOTION: Smothers moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a deck to the rear of the house at 19 Evans Street. Sueppel seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 826 Rundell Street. McCafferty said a project at this address was reviewed at the Commission's last meeting. She stated that when the applicant came back to the Building Department, he included plans for a pre-fabricated greenhouse to be attached to the side of the two-car garage that was approved by the Commission at the last meeting. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 2 McCafferty said the previous application involved replacing the aluminum siding on the house with vinyl and the removal of the single-car garage to be replaced with a two-car garage. She said the Commission set some standards that said that the original material on the house should be preserved and that the new garage should look like the garages in the neighborhood. McCafferty said the new application includes the lean-to type greenhouse on the side of the garage. She said the owners did not think they would need a building permit for this, because an accessory structure that is under 144 square feet does not require a permit. McCafferty stated, however, that if this is to be attached to the garage, it would need a building permit. McCafferty said Gunn informed her that greenhouses are not uncommon in historic areas. She said Gunn felt that as long as the greenhouse is done in such a manner that it could be removed without damaging the garage and its siding, then it would be acceptable. Smothers asked, referring to the floor plan, how the concrete would be poured for the flooring, assuming that the greenhouse would have a concrete floor. McCafferty said the Commission could say that the slabs for the garage and the greenhouse have to be separate, with a seam between them so that the slabs could be removed without damaging the foundation of the garage. Smothers said if the slabs are separated, she would have no problem with the greenhouse going on the garage. McCafferty stated that if the owners don't attach the greenhouse to the garage, they would build a detached greenhouse, although it would be at a greater expense. Smothers said the concrete could be poured all at once and then one could just slide a saw down the seam. Sueppel said he thinks they will almost have to pour the slabs separately anyway. He said he doesn't see anything wrong with making them separate the slabs, with separate footings for both the garage and the greenhouse. Carlson asked if greenhouses were historically built onto garages. McCafferty said one could see this as a garden structure attached to the garage. Carlson said a new structure in an historic district should be something that you could have seen, historically. Smothers said she has seen farmhouses at which smaller barns have been made into the garage and then the lean-to is for wood storage. Carlson said that since both greenhouses and garages by themselves would be acceptable here, he did not have a problem with a greenhouse against the garage. He said he just wanted to ensure that this is within the guidelines. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a greenhouse to be attached to a two-car garage at 826 Rundell Street. Sueppel seconded the motion. Sueppel asked if the Commission could disapprove this, if there is anything to disapprove. McCafferty said with this particular project, the Commission would look to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. McCafferty said if this were disapproved, the owners could build this as a freestanding structure of under 144 square feet which would not require a permit or COA. The motion carried on a vote of 5-1, with McCallum votinR no. 520 Grant Street. McCafferty said this application for alterations to a sun porch on a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District came through the Building Department. She said the proposal is to remove all the existing screens and windows, filling in with walls and smaller new windows. McCafferty said the windows now on the porch appear to be the original windows. She said this is a three-season porch, where windows could be added. McCafferty stated that she doesn't think this project would meet the guidelines. She said this significantly alters the character of the house. Smothers said she considers this an alteration to the principal structure. McCafferty agreed that this is part of the original sun porch. McCafferty read from the applicable section of the guidelines, "repairing existing porches and conserving as much of the original material as possible." Maharry said this wouldn't be a repair project, since nothing Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 3 is broken here. McCallum added that this project basically involves making a three-season porch into a four-season porch. McCallum asked if the door-like structures are removable panels that could come out so this can be an open porch or a closed porch, with screens and storm windows that can be alternated every year. McCafferty confirmed this. Sueppel said he doesn't think the Commission has enough information to go on. He said it is still unknown what will happen on the side that isn't shown - if there are to be windows there, if they want to close the whole thing off, and what they want to put on as replacements. McCallum asked if the building still has the original wood siding. McCafferty said she believed that was correct. Smothers suggested the Commission deny this application, based on the proposal to alter the fenestration of a contributing structure. She said the Commission could come up with suggestions, for whatever the owners want to use this for, that wouldn't alter the fenestration and that would allow them to have privacy. MOTION: Smothers moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for a project involving a sun porch at 520 Grant Street. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0, with McCallum abstaining. Sueppel asked if this application could be resubmitted with more complete plans, and McCafferty confirmed this. DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE. Amendments to the Bylaws. Maharry said the possibility of this subcommittee has arisen again because the Commission has an ever- increasing amount of design review to do as historic and conservation districts are added. He said the official rules are that the final determination has to be made by a quorum of the Historic Preservation Commission. McCafferty said that at the Commission's previous meeting there were three fairly complicated certificates to consider. She said the Commission may want to consider putting a Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) in place in case it is needed in the future. McCafferty said the DRS would review the projects and make recommendations to the full Commission. McCafferty said the DRS cannot make a final decision without a quorum of the Historic Preservation Commission. She said there would have to be an amendment to the Commission's by-laws, and there has to be public notice of the DRS meetings. McCafferty referred to minor amendments to the by-laws, along with the proposed DRS amendment. She said one amendment would concern the membership and expiration of membership terms. McCafferty said there has also been a recommendation for an amendment to allow ex parte contacts, so that there may be discussion regarding projects between Commission members or Commission members and owners, etc., and such discussion would be acceptable if the whole quorum is informed of the discussion. She said she has proposed a resolution for consideration, and the resolution has to be approved by the City Councd. McCafferty said she hopes to have the resolut on on the Cty Counc I s May 6 agenda so that it would be in place for the summer construction season. Sueppel asked about the change in terms for members. McCafferty replied that the term expiration date of March 29t~ had always been used, although it had not been defined in the past. She said this would clarify the issue. Carlson said he had a couple of typographical corrections to submit. He also said that in Section 1 under Article II, the first sentence could end with at-large, and the rest of the sentence could be deleted, since Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 4 term of membership is already addressed in Section 3. McCafferty agreed that phrase could be deleted, as it is redundant. Maharry asked how many people would serve on the DRS. McCafferty suggested three, or possibly four members. Smothers said she thought three would be a good number, because if two members view the guidelines differently, the third person can help resolve such differences. Sueppel asked what the term would be for serving on the DRS. McCafferty suggested that it be left flexible, as people can or want to serve on the subcommittee. She said she did not believe that the term had to be defined. Ponto said since it is only an advisory role, he didn't think it would need to be defined in the by-laws. Sueppel said it sounds like it might take a significant amount of time, and he is not always available. He said it would be better, if he were on the subcommittee, if there were someone else who could step in if he were gone. Ponto stated that, theoretically, there could be two different design review subcommittees working simultaneously and each could do half the work, because everything is reported back to the Commission as a whole. McCafferty said one point is that once the DRS is in place, the regular meetings should go faster and won't need to be held as frequently. She said if people are anxious to have their projects approved, then the Commission could still hold two monthly meetings in the summer, but the time should be cut back quite a bit. Smothers suggested that DRS membership rotate through the Commission's members. McCafferty said then if someone were unavailable, the DRS would be aware of that and would have a back-up person. Carlson suggested that inserting a sentence to describe how the subcommittee would operate would be a good idea. Sueppel said he would not want to see the same people making the decisions all the time. He said he likes the idea that a member can be part of the subcommittee but not committed to being available all the time. McCafferty said that very simple items could probably still be routed through staff instead of the subcommittee, before they come to the full Commission. Maharry said it might be an extra burden on the applicant to have to attend both the subcommittee and Commission meetings. McCafferty stated that if all of the questions are asked by the DRS, it is less likely that the owner would have to show up at the Commission's meetings. Sueppel said, regarding the three applications the Commission had just reviewed, the two that were approved had almost everything there for the Commission to look at. He said, regarding the application that was denied, that there are still questions about what is being done there and why. Sueppel said if there had been a DRS, at least those questions would have been answered already. He stated that it gives the owners two opportunities to present their case. Maharry discussed the items at the last meeting and asked if a design review subcommittee would have made that meeting more efficient. He said if the issues such as the vinyl going up on the house that had no original siding left would be completely resolved, and the rest of the Commission is assured that they are, then he thinks it would go quickly. McCafferty said on an item like that one, the DRS would make a presentation of the project and give its findings and reasons for them. She said it should expedite the thought process. McCafferty distributed a new application for certificates of appropriateness, saying that it should actually have more information on it so that the applicant has a better understanding of what information is required. Smothers commented that at the last meeting when the Commission considered the historic landmark certificate, the owners had purchased materials before the Commission saw the request. She said she would like to see those people in front of the Commission from now on with an example of the purchased materials, as opposed to just a photograph and just sliding it through. Smothers said the reason she was concerned about that application is because this is the reason the Commission is in existence; those are landmark properties. She said usually the owner has bought such a property because of its character. Smothers said therefore, she would assume that if someone spent that kind of money, when they are looking for new windows, they would put a lot of time and effort into it. She said the Commission should be sending a different message. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 5 Smothers said the Commission should really be looking at materials. She said she would like to educate people, even if it is just by word of mouth. Smothers said even if someone has already bought something, it should not mean that it is a clear shot to put whatever he wants to on the building. Sueppel said he has been educated, and when he requests a building permit, the first thing he asks is if the property is in an historic district. He said it's very important for contractors to be informed. Smothers agreed. She said she is just asking for a little more thought as to how real estate people can be approached and educated. McCafferty said she now has an intern whom she has asked to contact the Board of Realtors to get a mailing list of area real estate agents as well as the Homebuilders' Association, and the Remodelers' Council for a list of contractors. She said the Commission could then do a mailing with a map showing the areas and addresses that need to be considered. Carlson asked Smothers if she is suggesting that the applicant bring the materials to the Commission or to the subcommittee. Smothers said someone could go to the site to look at the materials. She said however, that it bothered her that no one was at the meeting to represent the owners, and she didn't get to see the window that was going in. Smothers said certain cities actually require specific windows. She said that on a landmark property, the Commission should certainly look at the quality of the materials. Regarding education and technical advice, McCafferty suggested the Commission put together a list of acceptable products, especially for windows, where there could be more than one acceptable alternative. She said there could be a list of things that are acceptable in different price ranges. McCafferty suggested that the DRS be composed of at least three members. Sueppel suggested just putting in three members, so that it remains a flexible committee. McCafferty said that would be reasonable. McCafferty said she would be the president and suggested the Commission wouJd want one person to give continuity to the process and interpretation of the guidelines. She said that would most likely be Gunn, because he is most familiar with the technical aspects. McCafferty said, for the other members, there could be three or four standbys who could serve as needed. She said she would add to Section 10 that the subcommittee shall be composed of three members. Regarding Section 9 and the last sentence that states, "If a project that will likely come before the Commission...", Sueppel said a lot of people talk to him about their projects. He said he informs them when necessary that they are in a district and will have to have their project approved before he can give them any sort of a bid. Sueppel asked, if the language says every time he has a contact, he'll have to make a speech to the Commission every time. Maharry said the language in the section reads, "should", instead of "must", which makes the sentence pointless. He said it is not a directive but a recommendation. Maharry asked if the intent is to avoid a potential conflict of interest or if the intent is something else. McCafferty said that typically it is not recommended that Commission members, such as Planning and Zoning Commission members, speak with developers regarding a project. She said, given the nature of some of the other commissions, such communication is discouraged. McCafferty said this section points out that the Commission does offer advice and acts in an advisory role, but a member must make certain that the whole Commission is informed when he or she acts in an advisory role. She said it also ensures that the person seeking advice realizes that the final decision lies with the entire Commission. · McCallum agreed that one of the Commission's goals is to interact with the community. Maharry said it is partially the responsibility of the member to give a disclaimer saying, "We can talk about this, but this isn't official advice coming from the Commission." McCafferty suggested in the second sentence, changing "should" to "shall". She said that is probably the most important aspect of this section. Maharry asked whether the last sentence should be deleted. Ponto said when McCafferty has spoken with an applicant, she provides the Commission with a brief synopsis of the conversation, which seems reasonable. Revisions to the last sentence in Section 9 were Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 6 discussed. The consensus of the Commission was to change the last sentence in Section 9 to, "When an application for a certificate of appropriateness is reviewed by the Commission, any discussion of the application outside the regular meeting by staff, subcommittees, or members shall be disclosed to the full Commission." McCallum said that since he is a realtor, he would be willing to be a liaison between the Commission and the Board of Realtors. He said he thought it would be fairly easy to get a mailing list of realtors. McCallum said he thought he might also be able to do searches on recently sold properties through the MLS, with its permission. He said the Commission could then send a letter to new owners of landmark properties or properties in historic or conservation districts. Carlson asked if something should be added to Section 10 regarding rotating memberships. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the section as written so that it will remain flexible. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve changes to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws as proposed by staff, with the following amendments: 1) Article II, Section 1., the first sentence will end with the word "at-large", with the rest of the sentence being deleted; 2) Article IV, Section 9., in the first sentence, there will be a comma after "staff"; 3) Article IV, Section 9, in the second sentence, "should" will be changed to "shall"; 4) Article IV, Section 9., the last sentence will read, "When an application for a certificate of appropriateness is reviewed by the Commission, any discussion of the application outside the regular meeting by staff, subcommittees, or members shall be disclosed to the full Commission."; 5) Article IV, Section 10, in the second sentence, the word "advice" will be changed to "advise". Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. McCafferty said the changes to the by-laws will go on to the City Council, where there will be one vote on the resolution. DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT: Maharry said there was a meeting of the Downtown Subcommittee the previous evening. He said two of the four members were present, and they essentially went over the timetable that McCafferty had proposed for the project. Maharry said the subcommittee finalized the map of the properties that it desired be included in a downtown district and added on both sides of College Street downtown, which were not in Marlys Svendsen's original recommendation. McCafferty said she would need to do a little research to see if the Commission can get Svendsen to make that recommendation regarding the inclusion of College Street. Sueppel asked what blocks of College would be included. Maharry said it would only be the one block of downtown from Clinton Street to Dubuque Street. McCafferty said that block was not originally included, as Svendsen tends to be very tight in terms of defining the districts and the contributing properties. McCafferty said that the north side of College Street does not have much integrity left to it. She said Svendsen cut the district off at the alley behind that, which then leaves the buildings on the south side of College Street cut off from the district. McCafferty pointed out, however, that buildings on the south side of Corlege Street still have a lot of integrity, and one of them is a landmark. She stated that there has been some concern that there should be some review over that block, because there are some very significant buildings in that area. Maharry said the north side wasn't included because the district must be contiguous according to State law. He said Svendsen wanted to create a separate conservation district for part or all of that block of College Street. McCafferty said if the Commission is going to include College Street and the numbers work out in terms of pementages, it is important to have the State and/or Svendsen approving the proposal. She said more research would have to be done with regard to College Street. Sueppel asked what the status would be of brand new buildings in the middle of the district. McCafferty said they would be non-contributing structures, and there would be different guidelines for them. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 7 McCallum said the Davis Hotel Building might be a building that is at risk. McCafferty said it is on the National Register but is not an Iowa City landmark, as the owners did not want that designation. McCallum said the building on Clinton Street next to the gas station and the Bread Garden might also be at risk. McCafferty said that is not a landmark; she said it has had quite a few changes to it. McCafferty suggested that at the next subcommittee meeting, the maps could be put together with the boundaries drawn out so that both the State and Svendsen can be approached with the proposed district. McCailum asked if the Commission wants to see a tight district so that it has the easiest chance of getting approved. Maharry said he did not think the Commission would choose based on what is easiest to get through. He said there was some criticism of the Commission, with a suggestion that it chose things based on how easy it is to get them passed, rather than on the merits. Maharry said obviously the Commission selects a project on its merits, whether it be difficult or not. McCafferty said what is important about designating a downtown historic district is not creating a false history but creating a sense of place. She said an historic district would contribute to creating a sense of place, which is important in terms of marketing downtown as a place people want to be, shop, eat, etc. McCafferty said a district gives the opportunity to have some control over design issues that support a common theme. McCafferty said she has compiled articles to go through, including photographs and images, to find points that the Commission can use to sell the district. She said the photographs can be used to show how downtown was, how downtown is, and how downtown could be. Maharry said the subcommittee also compiled a list of downtown property and business owners who are already supportive of the project. He asked Commission members to let him know of any other parties who would be supportive. McCafferty said the owner of Zephyr's plans to redo the facade on that building, and the owner of Panchero's will be doing some maintenance work on the exterior of that building. Regarding financing, McCafferty said that Karin Franklin, the Director of the Planning Department, believes there is probably support to do a facade improvement 0 to 1% interest loan program. McCafferty said the City Council may be willing to earmark $60,000 to $75,000 for that program. McCafferty said there are tax credits available at the State and federal levels that are often used for downtown revitalization. She said, however, that is often done in areas where there are not already high property values. McCafferty said that in Iowa City, there are probably not a lot of property owners doing a substantial rehabilitation when the buildings may already be worth half a million dollars and $250,000 would have to be invested to reach the investment threshold. McCafferty said that the Commission could initially do a facade improvement revolving loan program, for which it would have to write an application. Sueppel suggested talking to Hills Bank about redoing the facade on that building. He said he thought they might be receptive to doing something, and that might get the ball rolling. McCafferty said that, according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, that would be a non-contributing building. She said that based on the standards, one could say either 1) reconstruct the facade from historic photographs or 2) redo the facade in a manner that is distinctly contemporary but fits in. Maharry said he expected the downtown subcommittee to meet again before the Commission's next meeting. HISTORIC DOWNTOWN BROCHURE: McCafferty said everything is essentially written and compiled for the brochure. She said she just needs someone to put the whole thing together graphically. McCafferty said she spoke with Joan Benson of Benson and Hepker, who gave her a bid of $3,000 to do the initial preparation for printing and a mock-up. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 24, 2003 Page 8 McCafferty said that would give the Commission something to show people who might be interested in helping with printing costs. McCafferty said Friends of Historic Preservation is willing to commit some money to the project, possibly $500 or so. She said Bob Miklo has informed her that there is no money for this in the City budget. McCafferty said one possibility would be to apply for a mini-grant of up to $2,000 from the Humanities Iowa organization. She said there is not a specific deadline for this grant; it is presented every month. McCafferty said it was suggested to her that the Lions Club might be willing to make a donation. She said she is also looking for ways for people other than Benson & Hepker to do some of the preparatory work. Maharry commented that the Iowa Humanities grant is a matching grant, so the Commission would need initial money to be matched. McCafferty said that is correct. She said the downtown brochure would seem to meet the qualifications for such a grant. Carlson asked McCafferty about printing costs, and she expected them to be at least $3,000. Carlson said that half the resources would be going toward the mock-up. McCafferty said the mock-up should be done well, but could be cut back from a four-color piece to a one-color piece if necessary. Maharry asked McCafferty if she had spoken to the Convention and Visitors' Bureau about a downtown brochure, and she said she had. Maharry said if the Bureau had something to look at, they might be more supportive in contributing to the next phase, which would be printing the brochures. Smothers said most granting agencies want signed promissory notes to show that the initial money to be matched is available. McCafferty said she would try to get a fetter from Friends of Historic Preservation and would try to get $500 from the City and possibly $500 from another organization. She said she would work on the funding possibilities and said that the design phase is the real hurdle. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS: McCafferty said everything is in order for the awards. She said a couple of people did not respond to her letters, and a couple of owners felt their properties were not complete enough for this year's awards. McCafferty said Smothers has procured donations of $100 from two banks to pay for refreshments. McCafferty added that Friends of Historic Preservation will install the signs shortly, and the program should be printed in the next week. McCafferty said last year the program did not recognize those properties that either became local landmarks or were entered into the National Register. She said she would like to go back two years and recognize the properties that were missed. Ponto asked McCafferty if she found a nominee for a business facade award. McCafferty said she did not, although she had looked for one and had wanted to find one in the downtown area. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 10, 2003: The minutes were not available for approval. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte data on citynUpcdlminu[eslhpcO4-24~3.doc MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Dennis Keitel, Vince Maurer, Carol Alexander, Eric Gidal MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Adam, Mitch Behr, Sarah Holecek, Doug Boothroy OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Clark, Joe Holland, Ronald Wade, John Moreland, Marc Moen, Tim Schroeder CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Paul called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M. ROLL CALL: Alexander, Keitel, Paul, Gidal, and Maurer present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 12, 2003 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Maurer moved to approve the March 12, 2003 minutes. Gidal seconded. Motion carried 5-0. APPEALS.: AP03-00001. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by James Clark appealing a ZCIP ruling that the installation of a pass-through door between adjoining dwelling units in multi-family residential buildings would create a single dwelling unit. Adam reported that the applicant had inquired in 1996 about installing pass-through doors between side- by-side units in more than one of his multi-family properties, and was told that the presence of the doors would create a single unit. The applicant appealed to the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel, which affirmed that conclusion based on the definition of a dwelling unit as found in the Zoning Chapter. Adam said that there is nothing to prevent the applicant from installing the doors; however, once they are installed it may be problematic going backward and restoring the wall. He said that not every situation can be anticipated. He stated that the outcome of this appeal would affect the regulation of nearly every multi- family property in the City, not just those owned by the applicant. Adam reiterated that under the definition of a dwelling unit in the Zoning Chapter, the installation of pass- through doors would make the units into a single dwelling unit because they would be adjoining habitable rooms with cooking, eating, sleeping and living facilities. He said multiplying any of these facilities is immaterial from a definitional standpoint. There is no rule saying that a dwelling cannot have more than one kitchen, bathroom, living room or family room. He said that how the unit is leased is immaterial from an administrative perspective, because they can be leased bedroom-by-bedroom or as a single unit, but it remains by definition a single unit. Adam said that the problem occurs when the definition is treated as a fluid thing; flipping back and forth changes calculated density, calculation of required parking, and other zoning factors. He said that some uses exist as legally conforming uses; that is, they become nonconforming because of a zoning or ordinance change, but are allowed to continue as nonconforming uses until redevelopment occurs, or until the use changes or the use is discontinued for a year or more. The degree of nonconformity cannot be increased; you cannot go from nonconforming, to conforming, then back to nonconforming. You must comply with the current zoning requirements. Adam said that parking calculations are done on the basis of bedrooms; two 2-bedroom units would require four parking spaces, and one 4-bedroom unit would require three parking spaces. Therefore, you could have a situation where you have enough parking, but if you revert to two 2-bedroom units you might be short. He said it would depend on a case-by-case basis. He said that once the two units are made into one unit, they could not be made back into two units as though nothing had changed. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 2 Adam said that staff maintains that the definition of a dwelling unit can only be interpreted as it has been outlined, and it would take a substantive change to the definition in order to read it any other way. Therefore, he said that staff recommends that AP03-00001, an application to reverse the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling dated 25 March 1996, and subsequent affirmation of said ruling dated 1 April 2003, be denied. In response to a question from Maurer, Doug Boothroy, Director of Housing and Inspection Services, stated that the practical issue is enforcement. He said that when there is a wall, there are obviously two separate units, and occupancy and density are computed on a per-unit basis. He said the installation of a doorway would confuse that determination; the City would not know from one time to the next whether there are two units or one unit, and not being able to determine occupancy could lead to abuse in some of the older neighborhoods of the community. He said the City has been consistent in determining that if there is no wall separating "units", they are considered one unit. He said that this is carrying out the legislative intent of the ordinance, which approves buildings at a certain density. In response to a question from Paul, Boothroy said that, in a practical sense, the City would not know when the doors are open or closed. He said that they just spent a year with the Neighborhood Task Force dealing with the issue of occupancy, and right now they are dealing with controversial issues with regard to occupancy. He said it is a very real issue on the Northside and in other neighborhoods, and to allow the fluidity and greyness in what is a dwelling unit and what is not a dwelling unit is going to create a lot of confusion and possibly make it chaotic in the sense of enforcing occupancy standards. In response to a question from Maurer, Boothroy said that the applicant wants to install doors so that the two units can communicate. He confirmed that the two units each have separate doors. Maurer asked if the distance between the outside doors and the proposed inside door is at issue. Boothroy stated that the point is that the City cannot tell if there are two separate dwelling units anymore. He said this undermines some of the principles of the Zoning Code in terms of density. He said that once you install an opening between two units so that they can communicate as one, there is no way to regulate whether the door is closed and it is to be considered two units, or the door is open and they are one unit. He said there is no way to regulate and enforce that effectively, and it can create problems, maybe not so much with newer buildings, but in older homes where you have dwelling units in attic areas or walk-out basements and those kinds of situations. Maurer compared the current proposal to the Sheraton Hotel, which has a series of adjoining rooms. He questioned whether the apartment situation would operate the same way. Boothroy said that is regulated as a motel and is not comparable. He said that the City does not regulate density in a motel Keitel suggested that the apartments, for zoning purposes, be defined as two units at all times, whether there is a door or not. Boothroy said that by definition, the opening that is created between two units makes them one unit. He said that once they have breached the wall, they have created the opening, which creates one unit. As an example, Boothroy stated that, in a single-family house you double the density by putting the door in. By opening or shutting that door, you double the density. Therefore, if someone complains, the City investigates and finds that they have a finished off basement and there are people living down there, the occupants may say this is a non-conforming separate dwelling unit, separated by a door. He said that the City does not buy that you can double the density, and neither do the neighbors. Keitel asked if they would have to have separate kitchen, bath, etc. to be defined as a separate unit. Boothroy said it does not make any difference. He said they issue permits where there are two fully equipped kitchens in a house, with a door separating the facilities, but it is not considered a duplex. It would have to have a separate wall. Boothroy said that the other thing to consider is that the interpretation was made by three different points of view, not by one person. He said that the ZCIP consists of the Director of Planning, which is the department that typically writes the Code; the Director of Housing & Inspection Services, which is the body that enforces the Code; and the Legal Department, which acts as the City's legal advisor. This gives three areas of expertise looking at the definition and the common sense usage of it and coming to the conclusion that once you create that hole for the purpose of making one unit, you have created one Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 3 dwelling unit. He said that all staff is saying is, follow the rules of the Zoning Ordinance and when you convert it back, comply fully. Paul asked if the essence of this appeal is the definition of a dwelling unit and the interpretation of that. Boothroy stated that is the issue; whether the Board feels the ZCIP made an error in the interpretation. Behr clarified that the question before the Board is whether the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel made an error in its interpretation. He said that the Board's determination as to how this particular definition is to be interpreted will apply throughout all zones and all settings. Boothroy said that if the Board feels the ZCIP's interpretation is reasonable, then the Board should support that interpretation. He said that if they don't like the interpretation for other reasons, the applicant should appeal to the Council to legislatively change it. He said the Board should not conjure up an interpretation because they don't like this one, but they should support the ZCIP or determine they made an error. Public Hearin¢l Opened Joe Holland introduced himself as the attorney for the applicant. He said that he thinks there are some misconceptions created by Mr. Boothroy's statements, with some serious differences of opinion in interpretation of this ordinance. He said that, in his opinion, if anyone has conjured something up, it is the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel and not the applicant. Holland said that the Board of Adjustment has somewhat of a unique role in this situation because, under State law, when you are hearing appeals you are a quasi-judicial tribunal, which means they are acting somewhat like a court and interpreting this and deciding what the meaning of this zoning ordinance is. Holland said that the concept is to place a doorway with two doors between two apartments. He presented a floor plan to the Board of a representative unit in which something like this might happen. He pointed out two mirror image units with a common wall. He said they were talking about putting a doorway through this common wall, connecting two apartments. This would allow people to pass back and forth to visit. He said this will consist of two doors, with each apartment having a door that can be locked, opened and closed at their discretion. He said the doors cannot be opened from the other side; there are no knobs on the internal sides of the doors. Holland presented a diagram to the Board illustrating this concept. Holland said that the opening would be 36" wide, in a wall that is almost 24' in length. He said this would not be an archway, french doors, or any type of big connection between two apartments. He said the door would be a one-hour fire rated door on each side, on magnetic latches to automatically close if the fire alarm system in the building goes off. He said that from a building code standpoint these doors don't exist; they are a wall because they have a full one-hour fire rating. He said that he does not believe there is any issue over the legality of putting in these communicating doors. Holland said there will be no other change made in the apartments; each still has a full kitchen, all the pre-existing rooms, each has a fully separate plumbing system, separate electrical systems, all have separately metered utilities, and remain two fully independent, functional apartments. He said that an obvious question is, why would a tenant want to live in a place like this? He said that the reality is that tenants in a lot of apartment buildings want to live next door to their friends so they can regularly visit. He said they specifically request apartments next to each other but want to keep their privacy. He said the proposed doorway allows the tenants to visit one another without having to go out into the common hallway, which is probably a 20-30 foot walk. He said there are other side benefits, including a sense of additional security. Holland said there will be two leases, which is a benefit to the tenants. He said that it is harder to sublease a four-bedroom apartment than a two-bedroom unit. He said that right now, you can have five tenants in a two-bedroom apartment under the zoning ordinance if you have sufficient square footage. He said you can have five tenants in a four-bedroom apartment if you have sufficient square footage. Therefore, the density goes down from 10 people to 5 people maximum if the door creates a four- bedroom unit. He said it does not make any sense to say it permanently becomes a four-bedroom Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 4 apartment and that becomes an issue for density. He said the applicant wants to maintain the pre-existing density, not increase it. Holland said another question would be, why would a landlord want to do this? He said that the rental market ebbs and flows and evolves as lifestyles change, as student populations change. He said it is all about trying to give tenants what they want. Holland said that if you follow the ZCIP interpretation literally, it says when those doors are unlocked it becomes one unit. Therefore, just putting the doors in does not create one unit. He said the problem in that interpretation is that, because of parking or other zoning requirements a unit may lose its grandfathered status and, instead of having two 2-bedroom units, you have an apartment that cannot be used in that fashion under the interpretation at appeal. Holland said that he feels that the interpretation is a flawed interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the ZCIP assumed, without any explanation, that people in these apartment would essentially live together. He said, in fact, each unit is fully functional as an independent living unit and the mere ability to pass back and forth to visit does not determine that those people are living together. They could do the same thing by going down that common hallway; this doorway just makes it easier for the residents of two units to visit one another. Holland stated that the real issue for the Board is, was the interpretation correct. He said the 1996 ruling quoted three factors the panel looked at: 1) definition of dwelling unit in the zoning ordinance; 2) existence of common areas shared by both units; and 3) whether there are separate entrances. Holland said them would be separate entrances to all of these apartments. He said the panel stated in their 1996 opinion, that whether the units become one hinges on whether there are common areas shared by both units. He said they assumed there would be common areas; nowhere in the opinion is a definition or example of common area. He said that you do not assume in a decision - you look at the ordinance to see in fact if there is something there. He said he was unable to find a dictionary definition of common area, but there are some areas of the law which give definition to that. He quoted a passage from a criminal text, under the context of search and seizure law, a tenant doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a common area. He said that police essentially don't need a warrant to go in and search a common area. He said that cases that deal with common area say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. He said that the two doors which can be locked from either side, means that no resident has a reasonable expectation they can enter the other unit or that that is a common area. He said they can be restricted by the turn of a deadbolt to their own apartment and cannot get into the other side. He stated that common area implies a right of use. He said the hallways are public areas, every tenant has a right to use those. He said there is no right to use either apartment in the situation at hand; you have a right that is controlled by the occupants of the other apartment. Holland said that the definition of a dwelling unit sounds deceptively simple. He said that Boothroy said you put in a door and create one unit, but did not give any explanation as to how that happens. He said that the 1996 panel ruling and the staff report talk about the definition being adjoining habitable rooms. He said the question is what adjoining means. He said it is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that when you are dealing with statutory interpretation, you don't go by what you think something means, you look for a definition. He said there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance which says that if there is a term that is not defined, you go to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Holland presented the Webster's definition of adjoining: "Touching or bounding at a point or line." He said that in that sense, these units are already adjoining - they share the common wall. He said he has heard no explanation which says that opening a door makes these units any more or less adjoining, or that unlocking them makes them any more or less adjoining. Holland asked if opening the adjoining doors between two hotel rooms forever make that one room? He said you have to set aside some of the nuances of the Zoning Ordinance, but he does not believe you would think you could not close those doors, lock them from both sides and make them into two rooms. He said they would be rented again as two rooms, and these apartments are not any different. Holland asked the Board to keep in mind that this appeal is about what the ordinance says. It's not about what the City staff would like it to say. He said when courts interpret laws, they are bound by what the Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 5 lawmakers said, whether it is the legislature, city council, or whoever it is, and not what they might have said. Holland said the staff report says the problem occurs when the definition of a dwelling unit is treated like a fluid thing. He said that what makes this fluid is the stance that the City staff and the ZClP have taken. He said they say, if you put a door in we can't tell if it is two 2-bedrooms or one 4-bedroom. He said the easy answer is to say that door doesn't make any difference - it doesn't change anything. He said if you are looking for a logical and straightforward interpretation, the interpretation you need to follow is that it stays what it is, the door doesn't really make any difference. He said that if it were a 10' archway, it would make a difference because then you don't have the right to restrict it. Holland said he does not see this as something subject to widespread abuse. He said this two-door system would have a one-hour fire rating, a magnetic latch on it connected to a central system, and there is no real harm that needs to be prevented here. He said there would be no more occupants in these apartments than there are now. He said there may be visitors, but those visitors can come in the front door as well as they can come through a communicating door. He suggested that if you want to keep this enforceable, have the City staff know what's what - don't get into the issue of whether the door is installed, unlocked, opened. He said the easy answer is, this doesn't make any change in use, it just preserves the status quo. Holland asked that the Board look at the control, or common area, issue. He said that is what makes two dwelling units into one. He said that requires some right to use that common area - not just the ability to walk in if the door's unlocked. He said he feels the ZClP did not look at this issue in enough depth - they didn't think through how to make it enforceable. He does not feel they thought through what the term adjoining means. He said that he thinks that when you look at the ordinance, the provisions of it, and the issue that is squarely in front of the Board, that their analysis is wrong and the Board should overturn the decision. Gidal stated that he does not feel adjoining is the key word. He said it's an odd definition, because as he reads it, a dwelling is defined as any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. He said that what is odd to him about the definition is, it's defining a dwelling unit as a single unit. He said the word adjoining just seems to be about making the point that you wanted to have rooms in one par[ of the building and rooms in a different part of the building, but he does not see how the decision was based on a weird interpretation of adjoining. He questioned how Mr. Holland feels the Board is to interpret the phrase, "and forming a single unit". He said that seems the central part of the question, nat the word adjoining. Holland said that was not really anything the ZClP looked at when they analyzed. He said that in their opinion, they specifically quoted the adjoining part. He said that he thinks a single unit is a group of rooms which has all the facilities there which are legally required or practically necessary to live there, which means you have to have hot and cold running water, you have to have a water closet, you have to have a shower or tub, cooking facilities. He said that holds true if you are looking at an apartment or single-family residence. He said that you could also look at rooming houses. He said a dwelling is the entire structure which is intended for use for residential occupancy, not the apartment. He said a single unit is one which can be operated on its own without receiving services from an outside source. He said that he doesn't think it makes any difference here because you have two units that are completely functional and independent; each is a single unit. Therefore, he does not understand hew putting an opening with a couple locking doors in it turns two single units into one unit. Gidal asked where in the finding the word adjoining becomes the central point. Holland stated that the ZClP quoted the definition of adjoining habitable rooms, and on page 2 of the staff report, it states that under the definition of a dwelling unit in the zoning chapter, the installation of pass through doors between adjoining units makes them a single dwelling unit: they would constitute adjoining habitable rooms. He stated that by putting "adjoining habitable rooms" in quotes, staff is indicating that those three words indicate why the Board should support the ruling. Holland stated that the ruling seems te hinge on the creation of common areas, and he does not feel that by any stretch of the imagination you can say these doors create common areas. Holland said he prefers the term "communicating doors". Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 6 Keitel stated that it is easier for enforcement people to police common doors in a hotel situation. He asked how the City should enforce whether both doors are in place and functioning, have not been removed by the tenants, etc. Holland said that is a problem with any Code issue. He said the tenants could knock out the walls themselves, and the City would only know it every two years. He said that it's like any Code violation - if the inspectors go in on routine inspections, they cite the landlord if the doors are not there. He said he does not see it as a material issue - it is like any Code enforcement issue. He said the real problem lies in determining whether you have one or two units for occupancy purposes. He said that he feels the real nightmare is in the wording by the panel, that it becomes one unit when the doors are unlocked and you can't revert back to two units by locking the doors. Jim Clark, applicant, introduced himself. He said that all of their apartment units are from 1970 on. He said the two bedrooms are large, and if they were combined into one 1,800-2,000 sq.ft, apartment, they will lose control. He said that they plan to stay with a two-bedroom lease. There would be a door in between, but they are not changing the character of the apartments. Clark said that the hotel door supports their position. He said two couples get together, take rooms side by side, they may have cocktails or something then they go back to their own room, lock the door and have their privacy. He said the students like this - they need the comfort of having people, but when it comes time for bed, they like to shut the door, turn the lock and feel secure in their own apartment. Clark said this door also gives a second exit if there were a fire problem, especially if you are on the third floor. Clark said that he had just talked with Boothroy today on some issues. He said that if the City's interpretation is maintained, they would have two apartments in one apartment. He said that in the RNC- 20 area, they could possibly put in a large apartment with five efficiencies with doors in between, and this would create one apartment. He said this interpretation does not work well in some other areas. In response to a question from Gidal, Clark said that he wants the doors for a number of reasons. First, he said kids today want to socialize together, but not live together. He said this is a way of satisfying that need in the community, helping to rent apartments. He said it also gives the kids a better chance to sublet. Cost-wise, Clark said the lease would only be $600-$800 a month, whereas if it is classified as a four bedroom, the lease would be $1,200-$1,600. He said this proposal would have so many advantages, and will really help the students and parents out. Boothroy stated that the Board should not focus on Jim Clark's application; we need to look at the application for the City as a whole. He said the City has no control once the doors are installed; they don't know how the spaces will be used - in common or separate; they don't know what the occupancy will be. He stated that, in his experience, the highest occupancy will occur under certain circumstances with cedain landlords, and there will be abuses. Boothroy stated that if the Board overrules the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision in this case, they take away any kind of discreet or absolute way of determining the difference between what a dwelling unit is and what it isn't. He asked the Board to keep that as clear as possible for enforcement purposes. Boothroy said that there are no standards in looking at this interpretation. He said there is nothing in the Code that requires certain things, and the Board is not in the position to make those kinds of decisions. He said the Board is here to decide whether the ZCIP made an error- to uphold the decision or overrule it. He said this brings a lot of jeopardy because, while it sounds very idealistic with Mr. Clark, there are many out there that would not take the initiative and the City will still be enforcing and still have to deal with over-occupancy. Boothroy said he does not see any reason to cloud the issue, confuse it, or to make enforcement of occupancy in this community more difficult. He said the ZCIP interpretation is reasonable and it mirrors practice for the last 20 years. Gidal questioned whether Boothroy could imagine a legislative distinction or change being made to allow the kinds of circumstances Mr. Clark wants to follow and still give the City the enforcement power they are concerned about. Boothroy said he thinks it is possible to write legislation with specific standards built in. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 7 He said that was not what the ZCIP was looking at, and he suggests that if this is a good idea, that steps should maybe be taken to look at the process to amend the Code, coming up with appropriate standards. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Gidal moved for the reversal of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling, AP03-00001, on effect of pass-through doors between adjourning dwelling units in multi-family residential buildings. The motion was seconded by Alexander. Findinqs of Fact Maurer stated that, as he understands it, the question before the Board is whether the breaching of the wall and the installation of the doors constitutes a change in use as to the number of units. He said that, in his opinion, the installation of the doors does not per se constitute a change in use as to the number of units. He said he believes the location of the proposed doors versus the doors that are already there does not change the situation - it's a difference in distance between the current doors and the proposed doors only. Also, from a pure practical standpoint, he does not see how it makes any difference. He said the units will be rented and handled separately. He said even though it is different from a hotel situation, it operates pretty much the same way. He said it seems to him that adjoining habitabre rooms means having contact. He said you already have contact - that wall runs the whole distance. He said it also says when you are touching or it's next to, and it already does that. Therefore, he doesn't see that it makes any difference. He said he does not see where it will open up a Pandora's Box as far as everyone rushing Jn to put in two locked doors between two different units, and if it does, he does not feel that is the Board's problem today because the issue before the "court" is this particular application. He said the Board needs to look at this application and determine if it conforms or not within the issue of that statute. Because of those reasons, he will vote in favor of the applicant. Gidal stated he will vote to deny the applicant. He said he agrees that the question of adjoining reoms is irrelevant. He feels the definition is problematic to begin with because it's a kind of cimular definition, wherein a dwelling unit is defined as a single unit, and the question is what is a unit in this context. He said that, as he understands it, the Board's decision is, did the ZClP make a reasonable interpretation of the definition that was given to the Board. He said their explanation in the third paragraph of their finding hinges on this question of do these units become one unit. He said they find that depends on a) are there common areas shared by both units, and b) are there separate entrances to each unit. Albeit the term "common" is a little odd, he feels it is quite clear that what they are after is, do these units in essence become one in terms of their actual use, and it seems quite clear that if they were not going to become one in terms of their use, there would be no point in installing the door. Therefore, he thinks the Code itself is not weJJ written; it is very ambivalent. Nonetheless, he thinks the original finding was a reasonable interpretation of it and to make this distinction between the different concerns, between apartments and houses that are being split up, would require a change in the drawing up of the zoning. Keitel said that when he started researching this subject, he reviewed the Cedar Rapids and Marion Zoning Ordinances, and their definition of a dwelling unit is almost identical to Iowa City's with the addition of three more words: intended to be used by "one familial unit". He said his feeling is, for the Building Department to say that putting a door between these units creates one unit is a crock. Therefore, he will vote in favor of the appeal. He said that maybe the City needs to revise the definition of a dwelling unit, because finding that putting a door between two units and creating one unit is not a correct interpretation. Alexander stated that everyone has made terrific sense, though on different sides of the argument. She said that when she started, she was basing her judgment on the words in the definition. However, sitting here today the issue is not so easy. She said that, feeling constrained by the fact that the Board is just making a judgment as to whether this group made an appropriate interpretation, she does not feel she can find it was an inappropriate interpretation, so she is going to vote to deny. Paul said that, for the reasons Gidal cited, he will vote to deny as well. The motion failed on a vote of 3-2, Gidal, Alexander and Paul in the negative. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 8 VARIANCES: EXC03-00003. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by S & M Properties for a variance to allow an additional sign along the frontage of a tract that has reached its allowable limit in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1570 S. First Avenue. Adam stated that the wording in the Agenda, "exceeded", should be changed to "reached" its allowable Adam said that the applicant proposed to install a monument sign in front of his building at 1570 First Avenue, containing smaller signs for the businesses in the building. He said that the sign ordinance allows up to three signs along any single frontage if the frontage length exceeds 300 feet. He said the signs must be spaced at least 150 feet apart, and no more than four signs are allowed per lot. He said a tract is a group of lots linked by internal drives, and is considered to be a single lot for the purposes of the sign ordinance. He said that in this application, there is a tract consisting of all the businesses and the related parking lots from the DeliMart up to Eastdale Office Park, immediately east of the applicant's building. He said the frontage length of this tract is approximately 1,000 feet, and there are three free- standing signs along this frontage. Adam quoted from Section 14-6W of the Zoning Chapter. He said that the first test is whether or not the variance is not contrary to the public interest, meaning will it threaten neighborhood integrity or have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area. He said that staff finds that the application does not meet this test. He said the addition of one more sign along this stretch of First Avenue will not radically alter the streetscape, but at some point one more becomes too many. He said that the City Council had determined in July 1999 that three is the limit. He said that if you have a corner lot, you can have four (three on one side and one around the corner, or two on one side and two around the corner). However, you are limited to three along any one side. Adam said a variance in this case would be tantamount to a Code change and would establish a pattern that would be difficult for the Board to ignore in future cases. Adam said that another component to this test is whether the proposed variance will be harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the application does not meet this test. He said a sign could meet the 150 foot spacing requirement in that there are 311 feet between the Eastdale sign and the Eastdale Office Park sign, but the frontage already has its permitted number of signs. He said the additional sign would counter the intent of the Zoning Chapter, which is to avoid visual clutter. Adam said that the second test is, is there unnecessary hardship. The first part of that asks whether or not the property in question can yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. He said staff finds the application does not meet this test. The applicant has already leased some of the office space and is enjoying rental income from the dwelling units in the apartment above. He said the building design provides for the placement of facia signs visible from the roadway, and these are not currently being utilized. Therefore, he said the applicant is not disadvantaged by a restriction on signs. Adam said the owner's situation is neither unique nor peculiar to the property in question. He said the redevelopment of any of the properties in this tract would create the same situation. He said there is nothing so unique about this tract that a property owner in a similar tract would not have similar signage choices, including use of the facia signs. He said that staff feels that granting a variance in this case would convey a special privilege to the applicant. He said the hardship of the applicant's own making. He said the office agreement the applicant has with his office tenants promised space on a sign near the roadway. He said such agreements were made prematurely and are not valid reasons for granting a variance. Furthermore, he said the applicant has alternatives: facia signs, or moving the DeliMart sign around the corner onto Lower Muscatine Road. Adam said that, because the application does not meet all the tests, the Board cannot legally grant a variance in this case, so staff recommends that VAR02-00002, an application submitted by S & M Properties for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than three free-standing signs along Iowa City Board of A~ustment Minutes April9,2003 Page 9 one frontage ora singlet~ctinthe Community Comme~ial(CC-2)Zone at1570 FirstAvenue be denied. Gidal asked for clarification on what constitutes the actual property for the variance. Paul asked that the linkage of the property be clarified also. Adam stated that there are internal drives that circle around Eastdale Mall, continuing back behind apartments and parking, Eastdale Office Park, and end next to Wendy's. He clarified that the roads do not have to be in a straight line, so long as the commercial access is contiguous. Adam stated that one sign belongs to Eastdale Office Park; one sign belongs to Eastdale Mall; and the third belongs to DeliMart. However, the signs belong to the whole tract, which is considered a lot for the purposes of the sign ordinance, even though the properties within the tract are owned by different owners. Keitel said that on his review of the Ordinance, he fails to see how the City can integrate the DeliMart property with the rest of the frontage. Adam said that DeliMart has an exit south of its gas pumps directly into the parking lot of Eastdale Mall. He said that the Housing Inspection Services provided him with this determination. He said it does not exit directly onto Lower Muscatine Road, but goes into the aisles and drives of the Eastdale Mall parking lot. He said the tract is comprised by all the properties that are linked by internal drives. He reiterated that there are three signs allowed along a single frontage of a tract, no matter who owns it. Keitel stated there was a sign there previously when Papa Murphy's was there, and asked how the City explained that sign. Adam said it could have been an oversight. Keitel asked about grandfathering that sign in, and Adam said there was a complete change of use and reconstruction, so the property is subject to the current rules. Adam said he cannot speak to the issue of why there was a sign there previously in that he does not know what the circumstances were. Gidal asked Adam to clarify why the Wendy's sign is irrelevant for this application. Adam said that Wendy's has uncurbed parking spaces but no driveway opening onto the tract, so Housing Inspection said it is not counted as part of the tract; it has its own complete internal circulation pattern independent of all the other lots. In response to questions from Maurer, Adam said that the two signs there currently are free-standing. He said that a monument sign is basically shaped like a gravestone, and he said he believes they are permitted 50 square feet in signage area, 25 per side. He said the height limit could be 25 feet, depending on the zone. He said they have to be internally lit. In response to a question from Maurer, Adam said that no matter what type of building was built on the lot, there would be no free-standing or monument sign allowed due to the Zoning Ordinance. He said they would have options for facia signs. He said that the applicant could use up to 15% of the building facade in signage. Public Hearinq Opened John Moreland introduced himself as the applicant. He said that he did not ask for a pole sign at the time he came before the Board regarding apartments above the commercial space because he had talked with people in the Building and Planning departments, who advised him that they were in the process of reviewing the sign and zoning ordinance, so he should wait. He said that when Eastdale was built, all the property was connected by a common frontage road because First Avenue is a very busy street. He said the City wants to restrict the amount of openings onto First Avenue. He said if all the properties were separate, they could put signs up every 150 feet without problem. He said that it flows better by connecting all the driveways, and keeps the City happier because there are very few entrances onto First Avenue. Moreland said that there are so many power poles, and he does not see how one more pole sign will upset the apple cart. Moreland said that the important thing is how far those signs are apart along the street, not whether they are connected by a driveway. He said he agrees with the City that you don't want a sign every 50 feet going down a street, but he thought the City was going to change the Code to say that you could put a sign every 150 feet regardless of whether they are connected by a driveway. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 10 Moreland said that he has been unable to rent about 18% of the space. He said that he felt he had a fairly good chance of getting a sign, so there are some people who may not renew if he does not get the pole sign. He said a pole sign is light years ahead of a building facia sign. He said part of the problem is, the building sits back a way so people can go by without even seeing a facia sign. However, a pole sign kind of reaches out and grabs. Moreland said he had been deferring this application for four or five months because he thought it would be solved. Moreland said that what it comes down to is if the lots were all separate with separate access, the owners could have as many signs as they wanted. He said the Code should be written so that signs are spaced for distance along First Avenue, not if they are connected by driveway. He said he does not believe a variance in this case would open it up to problems - you have to look at each application individually. In response to a question from Paul, Moreland said that he courd not move the DeliMart sign around the corner because there is a canopy covering the gas pumps, in addition, he said there is no way of making one sign to advertise all these buildings - it would be so confusing no one would know where anything is. He said if it was a beautification issue, the power lines should be buried and off the street. In response to a question from Alexander, Adam said that large tracts similar to this exist along Highway 6 and Highway 1. In response to a question from Gidal regarding why a variance is tantamount to a Code change, Holecek said that the staff report argument is that if a variance is allowed here, the Board is effectively doing a bit of a Code change because they are allowing four signs within a tract. Keitel and Gidal stated that they feel that that is the definition of a variance. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Keitel moved that VAR02-00002, an application submitted by S&M Properties for a variance from the zoning ordinance to allow more than three free-standing signs along one frontage of a single tract in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1570 First Avenue be approved. Seconded by Maurer. Keitel stated that he disagrees with most of the staff findings, and agrees with Mr. Moreland that there is a hardship created, particularly with the limited number of curb cuts. In addition, he has a hard time integrating DeliMart with this tract because, to him, it does not seem like it is. Therefore, he will vote in favor of the variance. Maurer said that he will vote in favor of the variance for the same reasons. Gidal said he will vote in favor of the variance. He said he does not see how it is tantamount to a Code change; it doesn't seem to threaten neighborhood integrity since this is certainly not a pristine block. He said it does not seem to counter the intent of the Zoning Chapter to avoid visual clutter - they seem to be kind of subjective judgments. He said it does seem to constitute an unnecessary hardship, and he does not feel it conveys a special privilege any more than any variance. He said he does not believe the hardship is of the landowner or applicant's making. Alexander said she will vote to approve for the reasons set forth. She said she is particularly struck by the hardship issues because she does think there is much more of a hardship being placed on the property owner than is indicated in the staff report, and she feels that, in looking at what is before her, she cannot see that this is contrary to the public interest in this area. Paul said he would vote against. He said that he feels that granting this would counter the intent of the Zoning Chapter. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1, Paul in the negative. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 11 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC03-00003. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Ronald Wade for a special exception to allow a school of specialized private instruction in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone at 1565 South Gilbert Street. Adam stated that the applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a dog obedience school to lease space in the north half of his commercial building at 1565 South Gilbert. He said that the school, Spot & Co., is operated by Sue Pearson. He said the other leasable space in the building contains a real estate office. Adam said a school of specialized private instruction is permitted without any specific requirements. He said that the owner is not anticipating a class size of over 12 or so dogs at a time. He said obedience training takes place indoors on weekends and weekday evenings. He said that the current landlord for the operation has informed staff that the operations are quiet, clean and conducted responsibly. He said there would be no changes to the parking lot as a result of the exception. He said that traffic impact would take place during off-peak hours. He said that the applicant's lot is currently deficient in right-of-way trees which were lost during the 1993 floods, and the applicant will need four trees for compliance. Adam said that staff feels the proposed use will work well in this location. He said that since this is in a controlled flight zone, FAA standards leave it to the local building official to determine if the use is safe and how many people can occupy the use. Using the former load factors as a guide, he said this space could contain 73 people. However, since there are no more than a couple dozen people at any one time in the class and since there are no plans to expand the class sizes, the lower cap would not burden the use and would also be more likely to avoid a negative scrutiny by the FAA in this case. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC03-00003, an application for a special exception to permit a school of specialized private instruction be approved subject to compliance with 14-6R, Tree Regulations, and provided the operations are solely for dog obedience classes and occupancy shall be limited to no more than 35 persons at any one time. In response to a question from Keitel, Holecek said that the City plans to articulate the use to be very specific because of the airport regulations. Therefore, the Board needs to make the exception very particularized to avoid passing this exception to a new use. Public Hearinq Opened Ron Wade presented himself for questioning. He said this building has been vacant for a little over a year and he would like to get it rented. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Alexander moved that EXC03-00003, an application for a special exception to permit a school of specialized private instruction be approved subject to compliance with 14-6R, Tree Regulations, and provided the operations are solely for dog obedience classes and occupancy shall be limited to no more than ;35 persons at any one time. Keitel seconded. Alexander said she would vote in favor of the exception. She said in no way does it violate any of the specific or general standards in any of the ways that have been reviewed. Keitel said he would vote in favor. Gidal stated he would vote in favor. He said that the specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. It will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which this property is located. Adequate utilities, access road, drainage, and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed so as to minimize Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 12 traffic congestion on traffic streets. He said that in all other respects it conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the Zone. Maurer said he will vote in favor. Paul said that he will vote in favor for the reasons previously stated. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. EXC03-00004. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a special exception to allow off-street parking in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone at Lot 64-1A. Adam said that the applicant was requesting a special exception to allow off-street parking at urban renewal lot 64-1A, at the southwest quadrant of Linn and College streets. He said development would contain commercial and office space on the first two floors, with 57 residential units and 54 hotel suites above. He said the property is currently used as a municipal surface parking lot. He said that as part of the joint effort between the City and Moen Development to develop this parcel, the City agreed to initiate the process to obtain a special exception. Adam said that except for hotels or motels, private off-street parking can only be provided in the CB-10 zone through the granting of a special exception. He said the applicant requests consideration of 70 underground parking spaces and 22 surface spaces. The surface spaces will be short-term only and used for customers of the grocery store should on the site plan. He said a pedestrian bridge will link to the City- owned parking ramp to the south and serve the hotel portion. He said vehicular access to both the surface and underground lots will be from Linn Street; access to the surface lot would be via a one-way entrance and exiting traffic would leave via the public access driveway between the development and the parking ramp to the south. He said that semis will still use this access driveway for deliveries, and vehicles from the parking lot will use it for exiting. Adam said the intent of the CB-10 zone says that off-street parking facilities will be publicly provided. The policy of restricting private parking is intended to provide a high-density commercial and residential development in the downtown area, to foster a pedestrian orientation along downtown streets, and reduce overall congestion in the Central Business District. He said that individual parking lots take up valuable downtown property that might otherwise be developed for more active uses. He said the City has made effort to provide adequate parking in the downtown, representing a considerable public investment. He said the Board should also consider whether the proposed private parking will be in direct competition with public parking. Adam said there are two different facilities to consider here - the underground parking lot that will be used by residents of Plaza Towers, and the 22-space surface lot will be used for the grocery store. Both are the subjects of the request, but each has unique features. He said the underground parking will help satisfy most of the long-term parking demand that is expected with this use - roughly 1-1/2 spaces per unit. As a consequence, he said this should prevent some of the parking congestion that might otherwise occur in the vicinity. Also, since this is underground the lot can be developed at nearly full density in this case. He said downtown business owners expressed concerns in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan that encouraging more housing in the CBD would place a strain as residents compete for available space that they would like to have for their customers, so this exception proposes a solution to answer those concerns. Neither will there be excess parking that the owner may use to compete directly with public parking facilities. He said that access from the facility will be from the street, but Linn Street is not a busy thoroughfare. He said traffic tends to be slow because of the presence of angled parking opposite the development. He said this is not set amid a row of restaurant and retail uses; there is not a lot to stop and look at now so it will not be encroaching much on pedestrians because there are few hanging out around this side of the block. Adam said that even when it is developed, the only thing facing the street directly will be the hotel entrance to the north, and most likely people going to and from the hotel will be pulling up in front, parking at the Dubuque St. parking ramp, or walking from it and entering from the Ped Mall. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 13 Adam said the Plaza Towers developer contends the only way a grocery store can survive in the downtown is if it has easily accessible parking dedicated to its use. He said this is due in part to the unique nature of grocery shopping - typically this occurs at the end of longer shopping trips, or it is the sole object of the shopping trip. He said whereas public parking ramps and metered on-street parking are fine for most types of shopping, grocery shopping is either going to be quick and light or a little more cumbersome, where you are wheeling a cart out to your car or driving up. Staff believes that until the downtown has a critical mass of residents who on their own can support a grocery store, a small amount of parking now could mean the difference between the grocery store going in or not going in and subsequently surviving in this location. Adam said that, in staffs opinion, the amount of parking is not excessive for the use. He said that, for comparison purposes, in the CB-5 zone, a maximum of one space per 500 sq. ft. is allowed. For this grocery store, this would come out to 26 spaces; they want to put in 22. Adam said that the developer is not proposing an amount of parking that will exceed demand generated by the use provided so there should be no excess available for other retail uses in the area and it will not be competing with public parking facilities. He said the developer plans to use methods of controlling the parking use to make sure the lot serves the intended users and not used as free parking. Adam stated that there are three specific standards for off-street parking in the CB-10 zone. He said the site plan indicates that a hedge and planter boxes are planned in the required location, buffering the parking lot from the street. He said that all entering vehicles would be visible from the sidewalk; vehicles exiting the underground ramp would be visible from the north by a person standing on the edge of the entrance, but from the south the required hedge may inhibit visibility of exiting vehicles. Generally, he said the City recommends that there is a vision triangle measured 10 feet along both lines of the triangle and nothing higher than 2 feet can be placed in that area. He said staff arso feels it would be beneficial to have pedestrian access from Linn Street. Adam presented a view of the Dubuque Street parking lot, showing that there would be no vision by exiting vehicles of anyone who is coming alongside the building if they are close to the wall, and the person walking that close doesn't have much field of vision until the car is practically in front of them. He said that staff recommends a bump-out, or "chicane," be placed at the edge of the parking ramp that would force people to walk out closer into the vision triangle. In addition, Adam said that the concept plan does not indicate signs, but the appropriate location would be a "slow" sign from the upper slope of the underground parking. He said no sign would be required for cars exiting the south public access drive. Looking at the General Standards, Adam said that the proposed parking will add some congestion along the street, but providing long-term parking for residents will prevent the tenants for competing with on- street parking which is intended for customer parking for surrounding retail uses. He said that providing the off-street parking for the grocery store, which staff feels is a unique use, may increase the specific marketability of the retail space, making it viable for the developer to put in the grocery store. He said that the City Council concluded it would be in the best interest of the public to have a grocery store downtown; therefore, staff feels that allowing limited surface parking for a grocery store is consistent with stated policy in this case. Adam said the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that a grocery is one of the things the downtown needs to become a livable place, which is one of the objectives spelled out in the Plan. He said this project will add more residents to the downtown, which will increase the market base for grocery and other retail uses. He said the requested parking lot occupies a small area of the parcel and is designed into the site in such a way that the street wall has little interruption, and the plan shows a landscaping buffer along Linn Street, making for a well defined street frontage. Adam said that staff recommends that the Board condition approval on the retail space being used as a grocery store, otherwise this portion of the lot cannot be used for parking. He said the owner also has the option of developing the area as something other than parking. He amended his statement to say that staff feels that if the parking is available, they might still be able to draw someone; the City could lease the lot for public use until such time as a grocery store was put in. Holecek said that this means the surface lot will be useable only for a grocery store use. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 14 In response to a question from Keitel, Adam said that the City's intent is if a grocery store does not make it and is closed, the lot could revert to being leased by the City and would not be free parking. The owner could also use the lot to put up a building. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC03-00004, an application for a special exception to permit off- street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone in Block 64, Lot lA, be approved subject to the following provisions: 1. Three- to five-foot high screening shall be provided along the public right-of-way in front of the surface parking lot; 2. At the southeast and northeast corners of the surface lot, the screening shall be no higher than two (2') feet within triangular areas measured 10 feet out from the intersection point of drives and the right-of-way; 3. The surface parking lot can be used by the retail space adjacent to it only if that retail space is a grocery store; and 4. The developer shall provide for a pedestrian chicane at the northeast corner of the Dubuque Street Ramp to improve sight lines between pedestrians and cars leaving via the public access drive. In response to a question from Gidal, Adam said that there are currently a lot of public spaces on this lot. He said there are probably around 100 straight-in spaces, using the entire lot. Therefore, the proposed use should not be a huge addition in terms of what the street has experienced so far, or there could be Jess traffic movement than there is now. Gidal said he feels the idea of a grocery store is a gamble, and he wonders what will happen to the storefront if it does not work. Holecek said that if the area of the surface lot were redeveloped, the architect would take into consideration the remaking of that storefront that would be subsumed into the next building. However, the applicant would always have the option of coming before the Board if another retail use that was just as desirable to apply for the parking use. In addition, the parking could be leased to the City for publicly controlled parking. Holecek said that, in staff's analysis, the grocery store was a vital component as identified by the Council Therefore, being consistent with the analysis generates that condition. Gidal stated he just wanted to say that he was skeptical, but he is in favor of a grocery and would like it if it works. Public Hearing Opened Marc Moen identified himself as the applicant. He asked for clarification of something in the staff report that said you can have off-street parking without an exception if it is used for hotel use. Adam said that if you have a hotel you have to find parking somewhere it - for example, he assumes Moen has some of the parking in the Dubuque Street parking ramp set aside for the hotel use. Moen said his only concern is he does not want to be precluded from coming back before the Board trying to attract another retailer. Alexander asked what the methods are for restricting the lot. Moen explained that the Brewery Square lot is controlled mechanically with a gate, and tokens are required to get out. He said this lot will have to be monitored more strictly. He said he plans to investigate options, including using a code provided by the clerk of the store. He said that he visited a grocery in downtown Chicago to see how they did it. He said they allow one or two hour parking, with a human monitor, and if you exceed that you receive a large fine. He does feel it will have to be staffed by a human. However, he said the grocery is a huge part of the project in terms of attracting the residents they are looking for, so they will do what is necessary on the parking issue. ~n response to a question from Maurer, Moen said the store would be open until late evening. In response to a question from Keitel, Moen said he has a potential tenant but does not have anyone signed. He said he feels it would have to be gated off into the evening. He said the hotel entrance is adjacent to this parking lot, and the hotel will be open all night so there will be valets around. He said the underground parking is controlled with electronic doors. In response to a question from Keitel, Tim Schroeder said that the total area of the grocery store would be 14,000 feet. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes April 9, 2003 Page 15 Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Gidal moved that EXC03-00004, an application for a special exception to permit off-street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone in Block 64, Lot IA, be approved subject to the following provisions: 1. Three- to five-foot high screening shall be provided along the public rightoof-way in front of the surface parking lot; 2. At the southeast and northeast corners of the surface lot, the screening shall be no higher than two (2') feet within triangular areas measured 10 feet out from the intersection point of drives and the right-of-way; 3. The surface parking lot can be used by the retail space adjacent to it only if that retail space is a grocery store; and 4. The developer shall provide for a pedestrian chicane at the northeast corner of the Dubuque Street Ramp to improve sight lines between pedestrians and cars leaving via the public access drive. The motion was seconded by Maurer. Paur said he would vote in favor. He feels it has clearly met the specific standards in terms of screening access and signage. He said that he feels the general standards have been met, in that it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it impede the orderly development of surrounding property; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and overarl he feels it is a great idea. Gidar said he will vote to approve for the same reasons. Maurer said he wilt vote to approve for the same reasons. Alexander said she will vote to approve for the same reasons. Keitel said will vote vote in favor. He feels it is exemplary that the applicant is going to provide underground parking. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. OTHER None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Adam asked the Board to review the pamphlet from the Iowa Sate University Extension to Communities, who are having a workshop about the role of planning commissions. He said the City will pay for the workshop, and asked that anyone interested let him know by Friday so he can get the application in. He said he will be attending the workshop. Keitel stated he would be attending. ADJOURNMENT Gidal moved to adjourn, seconded by Alexander. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor da~a on cit yn [/pcd/min ute s/boa 04-09-03.doc FINAL/APPRO MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington St. February 25, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Nick Klenske, Keri Neblett, David Shorr, Alice Mathis, Paul Retish, Bob Peffer, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT:Rick Spooner STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MINUTES: Townsend pointed out that Beckmann was spelled incorrectly in the minutes and Townsend's name was not included as a commissioner that was present when in fact she was at the meeting. Under the heading of cultural diversity, 11 p.m. should be changed to 11 a.m. Townsend moved to accept the minutes as revised. Shorr seconded the motion. Motion: Approved 8-0 3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None 4. NEW BUSINESS: a. Senate Study Bill 1057 prohibiting adoption and foster parenting by Gays & Lesbians 1. Beckmann's Letter: Beckmann advised the Commission of Bill 1057 that would prohibit adoption and foster parenting by Gays and Lesbians. The full committee is required to vote on the bill by March 14. Beckmann asked Commissioners if they would be in favor of her writing a letter in opposition to the bill. Retish made a motion that Beckman write a letter expressing opposition to the bill. Peffer seconded the motion. Motion: Motion carried 8-0. The bill is currently in a subcommittee. Beckmann said it would be great if Commissioners contacted subcommittee members to express their opposition. Beckmann spoke with people employed in the Department of Human Services and they told her that they are really panicked. Beckmann learned that DHS would not have enough alternative living arrangements for the children currently residing in the homes of Gay and Lesbian foster parents if DHS was forced to remove them. If this happened some of the older children could be moved into group homes. Other children could possibly be sent back to their parents. Shank asked if Beckmann was going to share this information with the newspapers? Beckmann stated that Dvorsky was aware of the foster home shortage and that he is going to bring it up. b. Letter to Commissions re: recommending legislature adopt sexual orientation as protected category: Beckmann reported that Shank sent the letter she drafted to Commissions in Ames and Davenport. She reported that she would wait for feedback. When feedback is received, Beckmann and Shank will review it, revise the letter if necessary, and send it back out for sig natures. c. Johnson County Reads All One Book - Book selected is Bel Canto by Anne Patchett: Shank indicated this book is about terrorists that take over a birthday party in South America. It delves into the communication between terrorists and the hostages. The reader considers both the hostages and terrorists as individuals and the motivation behind the actions of both. Shank said that is it a wonderful book. Beckmann asked whether John Paul Chaisson's choice of a book by Victor Villasenior was considered. Shorr indicated that Chivy from the U of I Center for Human Rights spoke with Chaisson. Shank stated that the librarian checked on the availability of the Villasenior book that Chivy read and there was a shortage of books. Beckmann asked about the Commission's role in this project. Shank stated that over the years the Commission has provided a very small amount of money for pins advertising the book. She also mentioned that she is a member of the book committee. Generally Shank indicated that Commission members that have read the book can participate in the study groups that are scheduled throughout the Fall to discuss the human rights issues in the selected book. d. March 6, 2003 Woman & War with keynote speaker Peg Mullen author of Friendly Fire. This is a program co-sponsored by the Commission. This is the third year the event has taken place and it is part of International Women's Month. Beckmann asked for volunteers to attend this presentation. Shank stated that it begins at 7:00 p.m. at the Iowa City Library and it will be live and videotaped for future broadcast. Shank stated she would attend. e. Building Blocks to Employment- Shank reported that this event will be March 4th Beckmann, Shorr, and Shank will attend. Retish indicated that two of his students have volunteered. The supplies have been ordered, tables and chairs reserved, and Aero Rental is prepared to deliver on the 4th. Shank said it was her hope that the signs on the table will be in English, Spanish, and Arabic. Shank added that the volunteers are not expected to be experts and the group is not guaranteeing that this event will result in jobs for all of the attendees. The purpose is to provide assistance in the building blocks to employment. Shank suggested that the volunteers arrive at Eastdale at 6:00. The event starts at 7:00 p.m. 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. Memo re: cost of Human Rights Breakfast. Information sent by Phil Jones to Commissioner Retish. Agenda item deferred from January meeting. Beckmann explained that all the monies received through ticket sales paid for the meals and expenses. The issue the Commission raised was whether it was possible to lower the cost of the breakfast from the current price of $15/person. Shank gives tickets to persons that cannot otherwise afford to attend. The tickets are paid for through donations. Beckmann indicated that the advertised cost of the breakfast that the Commission received was $9.95/person. The IMU gave the Commission a discount and charged only $8.50/person. After paying for the meal, less the cost of additional expenses, the Commission had approximately $80.00 left over. Retish would prefer to change the menu to something simpler to lower costs. Several months ago, Retish spoke with Phil Jones and he asked why the breakfast cost so much? Retish thinks that the cost of the breakfast is too expensive for the average person. He believes we should try and get away from a "big" breakfast and let the ceremony itself be the main attraction. He believes that people are motivated to attend because of the award ceremony and not the food. Beckmann agreed with Retish. However, Beckmann repoded that after reviewing the costs associated with the last breakfast the Commission would have to choose a breakfast for the cost of $6.50/person in order to cover costs. She further added that a meal consisting of coffee, tea, juice, pastries would cost $4.95/person, and the ticket sales would not be enough to cover the additional costs of advertising, plaques, etc. Beckmann provided the financial information from last year's breakfast. The total receipts amounted to $2970.00. Shank paid the IMU $2,190.00, leaving a balance of $780.00 for expenses above and beyond the breakfast. The expenses were approximately $700, giving the Commission a surplus of roughly $80.00. Retish wants to see new people attending the breakfast, instead of the same folks year after year. He asked how the breakfast could be made more affordable? He believes the audience should be more diverse and represent a broader spectrum of the community. He suggested that more tickets be given to persons that cannot attend due to the price, keeping in mind the cost involved. Beckmann asked about requesting a grant from the City Council to provide free tickets. Shank said she did not believe this was going to be an option but she would mention the suggestion to Steve Atkins and talk to her boss Dale Helling as well. Beckmann believes the Commission is restricted in that there are few available places to hold the breakfast. Mathis asked whether the breakfast had always been held at the IMU? Shank stated that prior to her starting with the City, the breakfast was held at the Holiday Inn but it was rumored that the food was not very good. Beckmann said that the Commission could rent a space and cater food from someplace other than the IMU. Mathis informed Beckmann that the IMU would not allow another business to bring in food. Klenske asked whether the Commission could look at sponsorships from businesses. Shank stated that there have been several private sponsorships through individual donations. However the Commission cannot solicit funds from businesses due to an appearance of impropriety and/or conflict of interest. Retish would like to see a foundation support the breakfast, i.e. the University of Iowa or the Iowa Athletic Department. Beckmann asked if anyone had contacts at the Athletic Department? Retish requested that Shank check into the possibilities of a foundation sponsorship/philanthropic organization. b. Human Rights Breakfast keynote speaker- Beckmann asked for suggestions on speakers for the breakfast. Retish suggested Kristi Rudelius-Palmer. Palmer works for the Human Rights Center in Minnesota. Beckmann asked if she charges a fee and Shank said she did. Shorr suggested Father Robed Drinan who is a priest, and a former member of congress. Drinan serves on committees involved with human rights issues. Shorr added that there would be transpodat[on costs involved as he lives on the East Coast, but maybe he would have a sliding scale on his honorarium. Shank said that the Commission has historically used local speakers but it can change to an outside speaker. Mathis asked if the speakers receive an honorarium and whether an honorarium is budgeted? Shank said the Commission has never paid for someone to speak at the breakfast but it paid travel expenses once. Beckmann stated that the Commission needs to choose a keynote speaker for the breakfast. Mathis said that it sounded like the Commission wanted a free or very inexpensive keynote speaker that may only require travel expenses. Neblett asked about Salome Raheim, Director of the School of Social Work. Professor Raheim teaches cultural diversity classes and is a great speaker. Beckmann would like to see a local person speak and at no cost to us. The breakfast will be held this year on September 25. Retish would like to obtain a list of people in the International Writer's Workshop since some of them have been involved in human rights issues and they may be a valuable resource for a presentation. Shank indicated she would contact Christopher Merrill. Beckmann stated that the Commission has to make a decision at the next meeting. She asked Shank to put this issue on the agenda. c. Commission's changing role-future focus/plans- Beckmann stated that Commission members left the February 11th meeting asking why they were reading and making decisions in cases. The Commission learned at the meeting that if the team's probable cause decision differed from the attorneys the decision of the attorneys' would prevail. Beckmann asked Commission members to indicate what they believed the role of the Commissioner to be? Shank stated that even though other Commissions in Iowa are not involved in the process at the probable cause stage, they are involved in other areas just as important. Peffer stated that he would like to spend his time doing "other thi.ngs" and he reminded the Commission that Eleanor Dilkes said at the meeting on the 11th that she was not going to accept legal advice from lay people. Mathis responded that she thought a "lay person" added value to cases. She admitted that she has only read one case but she listened to Helling and the history of the Commission and decided that there is still some validity to the original intent of adding the voice of the "lay person" to this process. She does not support a revision in the Ordinance that would change the Commissioner's participation in the human rights process to the public hearing stage. Beckmann spoke of a past case during which members of the Commission team disagreed with the attorney's probable cause decision. Consequently, Beckmann added, the Commission found itself "out on a limb" because the lawyers decided there was no legal basis to take the case forward. According to the Ordinance the Commission makes the ultimate decision as to whether probable cause exists. The procedure in the Ordinance essentially overrides the lawyer's decision if it is different than the decision of the Commission team. Peffer indicated that Dilkes said that she would not take the case forward despite the fact that the Commission disagreed with her decision. Beckmann added that the Commission could feel that a person has been wronged, but legally there is no remedy for it, and she is not going to go toe to toe against a person with the legal knowledge. Peffer responded that the Ordinance gave her the authority to do so. Mathis said that the action in the case might not have been illegal. Beckmann emphasized that she can feel that some of the complainants have been wronged but legally there is no remedy for that. Retish has found that he learns a lot from reading the cases. It gives him a chance to visit and ask the human rights staff questions. He sees this as a learning process but he thought the learning would go both ways, that there would also be learning on the part of the staff of the City. "Not to clarify what the law states, but rather to hear our discomfort and try to deal with it not only from a lawful aspect." Retish thought there could be an examination of the law and a determination as to whether it should be rewritten. He feels that there needs to be two-way communication. Retish has no intention of interpreting what the law says, but he does have a sense of equity. "And there is a sense that at times something is just not right; aside from what the law says." Retish does not like walking away and agreeing that something is not right but knowing there is nothing more that can be done. He believes the lawyers and the Commissioners should be motivated to look at different ways to protect people. He would like to see the Commission educate themselves by reading cases. He also would like the staff in the Human Rights office and Eleanor Dilkes and Sue Dulek to listen to Commissioner concerns and "use that as concerns from the public as to the validity of the quality of life regarding human rights in the Iowa City community." Retish emphasized that he wanted the two-way communication and he would like to start listening posts around the city. He suggested that two Commission members go to the Neighborhood Centers every third month and talk in general terms about the cases the Commission has read. For instance Retish mentioned that he had read several cases filed by Hispanic complainants. He believes that this type of information and/or other general information from the cases plus input from people in Iowa City can lead to the development of programming. Beckmann indicated that she thought Retish's idea was great. Peffer asked how the Commission gets over the hurdle of the Commissioners and lawyers not being in agreement? Beckmann stated that the Commission could still read the cases for its own knowledge and education. Commission members can take away from that experience information to develop necessary programming. At the same time the lawyers do their work and make the probable cause determinations. Peffer said that the Commission would not have any reason to read the cases and Beckmann reiterated that the purpose of reading at least the summaries would be to develop outreach programs. Retish said, "The cases are decided based on the law, the law is immoral," and although he and other Commissioners do not always agree with the law, "the law is the law." Peffer asked if confidentiality issues prohibit the Commission from reading all of the case summaries? Shank said she would speak with Dilkes regarding Retish's idea and matters of confidentiality. Retish responded that the Commissioners would continue to be assigned to teams. He added that reading the summaries will give the Commission "some idea of how a percentage of people in the community feel like they are being treated; it doesn't mean they are right or wrong but there is some consistency in what we are reading." Some of the decisions are, according to Retish, "extraordinarily disturbing and there is nothing we can do about it." Retish added that if the Commission cannot make some changes legally, "then it should do so educationally, structurally from a different sense, but then challenge the City Attorneys to say, we'd like to challenge you to see, what is there that can be done legally rather than say it's case precedence and that's it." Retish doesn't like the dead-end statement that nothing can be done. Mathis responded, "It seems that they [Dilkes & Dulek] would be less inclined to have that two-way communication if they didn't have to have it." Mathis indicated that she did not intend any disrespect for the lawyers "but lawyers have not always been in the forefront of standing up for changing the law." Beckmann says that we don't necessarily need the two-way communication because the teams can get together before our meetings and read over cases and bring those concerns to the meeting and maybe set up some educational programming from there. For instance, f the summaries revolve around Hispanic issues the Commissioners can go to the Neighborhood Centers and talk about the issues that have been identified. Shorr asked, "Of the cases you [the Commission] read how many of the cases are in an "eye opening" category?" Retish said that in all the cases that he has read, he could recall only one case where the staff felt that based on the law there was probable cause to believe discrimination occurred. He asked Dilkes what percentage of the cases resulted in a probable cause determination. Dilkes responded that the percentage of probable cause findings was very small. Shank stated that many of the people who file complaints feel that they have been discriminated against, when in actuality the treatment has been unfair or mean, but not illegal. She added that the Human Rights Commission's numbers are similar to the numbers that the EEOC and the ICRC get per year. Retish stated that this is where workshops could educate the community regarding the meanness out there. Mean-spirited behavior is pad of a larger problem. Shorr wondered if root to this problem could be through the scrutiny of individual cases? Beckmann stated that of all the cases that she has read, only a few of them involved complainant's that were mad and filed a complaint as a result. The reality in those cases turned out to be that the complainant was either a bad employee, the employee used poor judgment, or something similar. Beckmann believes that in the majority of the cases she has read something has happened. "Why didn't you give that woman her pay check or you don't like...fill in the blank...type of people and so you did treat this person differently. Just because you didn't treat every person that way doesn't mean that you don't have an underlying bias against Hispanic people." With the majority of the cases she has read Beckmann thinks about the facts for three or four days afterwards. Peffer said he agreed with Beckmann and admitted that he has been uncomfortable after every case he has read and after at least half of the cases he has felt that something was wrong but the behavior was not illegal. Shank indicated that just because the attorneys find there is no probable cause, does not mean that the attorneys feel the law is always fair. Shank pointed out that she has mentioned to the Commission several times her discomfod with the restrictive opinions of the Supreme Court in disability cases. She added that as an attorney she has to follow the law and no one should assume that because she does she is cold-hearted. Shank emphasized that many attorneys feel uncomfortable with the restrictive interpretation of the courts in the area of discrimination but they have to follow the law or argue by showing that there are facts in their case that take it out of that narrow interpretation. Retish believes that the public needs to be aware that there are some "bad" employers out there. Peffer stated that the Commission's knowledge about the protection of the law is very limited and he wonders whether the Commission should continue to be in the probable cause business at all. Retish expressed frustration because a case was closed as a matter of law; the Commission did not have jurisdiction. Both Retish and Peffer were upset and Retish said that the investigator could not even consider whether the complainants had been mistreated. Retish wanted to know what happens when you're in that type position. He added that he wasn't arguing about the law. "Aside from the legal issue, there are some employers in this area who treat their people across the board ...their equally hateful to all people." Mathis pointed out that those employers are not apt to come willingly to be educated. Retish responded that whoever is sitting in that room being educated would tell their family members. I am not going to say the name of the company...but I think we need to make it public that I think we live in this dream world. People need to be a little bit more aware that you need to be more assertive and stand up for your rights. Short said that it sounded like from what has been said about the law that protection is limited. He wondered if given the limitations the Commission should actually "get out of the probable cause business. Because to the extent that the Commission is a quasi- judicial body the mandate is that you can only find discrimination when it has a chance of holding up. We are talking mostly about unsatisfying that [situation] is." Retish acknowledged that it had really surprised him. He did not envision that this would be his role on the Commission but not because anyone fooled him but until he was appointed he really wasn't aware of what the role entailed. Retish thought there was going to be more of an educational impact. Shank said that rarely has the Commission expressed a desire or put forth the effort to educate the public. She added that there has been a great deal of education of the public in the area of discrimination but that effort has not come from the Commission. Retish said that Beckmann made a very good suggestion and he wondered if part of the Commission meetings could be set aside to talk about the cases the teams are reading without divulging the identities of the parties. During this discussion Retish indicated that the Commissioners could express their concerns and assess whether the cases had commonalties that could result in educational programs for the community. He stated as an example that if the Commission found certain employers are mistreating their workers, Commissioners could go to the Chamber of Commerce and share their concerns and possibly run a workshop for businesses. Beckmann would like a group formed, possibly three Commissioners, that would meet once a month'outside of the general meeting and make it their priority to plan educational programs, maybe three a year. She fudher added that while it would be great to discuss ideas, the Commission needs to be proactive and actually go out there and do something. Peffer asked why the whole group couldn't contribute? Beckmann feels that would be less successful. The Commission has tried to do that before but nothing has come out of that. The Commission has spent time talking about ideas but then not following through. The three people could think of the ideas and bring it to the whole Commission for the opinions of the others. But Beckmann said that if the Commission wanted it on the agenda every month that was fine with her. She reiterated that the Commission needed to make a commitment and make its presence known in the community. Townsend added that she thought that after ideas for the programs were developed a smaller committee could plan the event. Beckmann indicated that she would like Shank to add educational outreach to the agenda as a permanent item as well as a list of program ideas. She also would like to have three or four educational programs offered each year in addition to what the Commission already does. Beckmann summarized the earlier discussion. She indicated that the Commission agreed that the lawyers should revise the Ordinance to allow for the attorneys to make the probable cause decisions. The Commission would continue to read cases but do it in a more structured format, like before the monthly meeting. Also the Commission would make an effort to come up with educational programming ideas and then form a subcommittee to handle all the details. Peffer asked about the Commission's role as it relates to public hearings. Shank stated the Commission's role would remain the same. However, before the attorneys revised the Ordinance, they would want to look at ordinances of other commissions that have the type of process that is being proposed. In other words, a process whereby the Commissioners do not become involved until the public hearing phase. Mathis wanted it stated for the record that she believes the Commission should continue read cases and be involved in making probable cause decisions. On a final note Retish said that the attorneys needed to ask the Commissioners how they feel about the cases they have read. "It would be healthy for lawyers to understand the world outside of the law." Peffer indicated that he knew that Shank knew how the Commissioners felt but there were other attorneys that needed to talk to the Commission. Retish added that he thought the meeting that was held on February 11 with Dilkes, Helling, Burnside and Shank was very productive because everyone listened and shared concerns. Retish thought that this type of meeting should occur every now and then. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Klenske no report Neblett no report Shorr no report Retish no report Peffer no report Townsend no report Mathis announced that this weekend is Sister Connection Conference at the University of Iowa. Neblett discussed an article she had read in the Des Moines Register that talked about elected leaders that are African-American and the article mentioned Ross Wilburn. The article stated that he was the first African American elected to our city council. Beckmann found out that Cincinnati, Ohio just recently included sexual orientation in their human rights code. 6. STATUS OF CASES: Shank reported that new cases are going down to legal and reminded Mathis that she had cases to read. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. MINUTES Approved PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2003 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Benjamin Chair, Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes, Ann Bovbjerg, Don Anciuax, Ann Freerks, Jerry Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Shelley McCafferty, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: John Dane, Joe Holland, Dan Bray, David Bright, Jim Clark, Dick Donahue, Tom Anthony RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB03-00005, a preliminary plat of Galway Hills, Parts 7, 8, and 9, a 43-1ot, 19.01-acre subdivision located at Dublin Drive. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB03-00006., a preliminary plat of Hollywood Manor, Part 8, a 6.35-acre, 22-1ot residential subdivision located on the west side of Sycamore Street. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB03-00007., a preliminary and final plat of Harney's Homestead, a 13.5-acre two-lot residential extraterritorial subdivision located in Fringe Area A on the south side of 320th Street east of Prairie du Chien Road. CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said a list of the various boards and commissions and their respective duties was posted in the outer hallway. She encouraged members of the audience to review the list and consider volunteering to serve on a board or committee. ZONING / ANNEXATION ITEMS: ANN03-00001/REZ03-00013 and ANN01-00004/REZ01-00017, discussion of a City-initiated annexation of approximately 150 acres of property located east of Highway 218, west of the Iowa City Airport and north and south of Highway 1; and the rezoning of said properties from County CH, C2, R1A, RS & A1 to P, Public; CH-l, Highway Commercial; C1-1, Intensive Commercial; and ID-RS, Interim Single-Family Residential. Yapp said the annexation involved approximately 150 acres of property which fell within the adopted long range growth boundary of the City of Iowa City which meant that it was able to be served by City sewer services. The South Central District plan identified the annexation area on the south side of Highway 1 as an appropriate area for a future commercial area. The City had determined to extend Mormon Trek Boulevard into this area, partly to encourage commercial growth in the vicinity and to enlarge the commercial tax-base. In order for that to happen, it was necessary for the properties to be annexed into Iowa City. The property purchased by the Iowa City Airport since the South Central District Plan had been completed was also proposed to be annexed into the City as well. That would require that the properties on the north side of Highway 1 also be annexed into the City to avoid them becoming an island. When those properties are annexed into the City, they would also receive full City services including police and fire protection. The City's Comprehensive Plan stated that the City looked favorably upon voluntary annexation proposals within the growth area. Each of the property owners had agreed in writing to be annexed into the City. Part of the annexation of the Dane property was by a voluntary annexation the City had received two years ago that was held up because it was not contiguous to the City limits at that time. The other property owners who had consented to be annexed, had done so indicating they would like the City property taxes to be transitioned, which was permitted by State law. Staff recommended the City portion of property taxes be transitioned in according to the transition schedule in the State Code. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 2 Yapp said with regard to zoning issues, there were essentially four distinct areas: Properties on the north side of Highway I which were occupied by Hargreve-McEleney Motors and Berge Auto. Staff recommended Intensive Commercial, C1-1, zoning, which was intended for uses that had outdoor display area and motor vehicle repair, which was essentially the character of the existing uses of these properties. The South West District Plan identified this area as a general commercial area, similar to other properties with frontage on Highway 1. These properties are also zoned C1-1 so the zoning would be compatible with the adjacent land uses on Highway 1. Property bracketed by Highway 218 and Mormon Trek B/vd extended, Staff recommended Highway Commercial Zoning, CH-l, which was intended for highway interchange locations and to accommodate businesses that took advantage of the highway interchange traffic. It included auto and truck oriented uses, hotels and motels, office uses and restaurants. Yapp said there was very little CH-1 zoning in the City, the only other area was at the Highway 1 and Interstate 80 interchange on the north-east side of the City. Intensive Commercial zoning, the other suggested zoning in the South Central District Plan, is being recommended intensive commercial on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard. Yapp said Staff felt a drainage way located at the south end of the property made an appropriate transition to future residential uses to the south. For the area south of the drainage way Staff recommended ID-RS zoning to provide a transition are to residential uses to the south and recommended Interim Development until infrastructure was in place and development plans had been proposed for that location. Entrance Way considerations - Yapp said Staff recommended that a Conditional Zoning Agreement be pursued for the undeveloped properties fronting on Highway 1. The entrance way conditions were similar to conditions agreed to by other properties along Highway 1, which included a minimum set back of 30- feet from Highway 1, no outdoor storage of materials within 100-feet of Highway 1, and any signs, if illuminated, must be internally illuminated which related to the close proximity of the Airport and not wanting upward facing lights in this vicinity. Property east of Mormon Trek Boulevard extended, west of Dane Road, Staff recommended Intensive Commercial zoning which was different than the Office Commercial zoning recommended in the South Central District Plan. Office Commercial zoning had been recommended to help to avoid the appearance of a strip commercial along the Highway and with feeling that Office Commercial was more compatible with the sloped topographical character of the area. Staff recommended C1-1 zoning for various reasons. The Airport had purchased all the remaining property with highway frontage up to Mormon Trek Blvd as Airport property so it would not be developed which alleviated the concern with strip commercial development along Highway 1. The C1-1 zone was more compatible with the Airport uses to the north and the planned industrial area to the east. This property, being bracketed by Mormon Trek Blvd - an arterial street, the Airport, and industrial intensive commercial uses would be more compatible with the industrial and Airport uses which would take place on the adjacent properties. The C1-1 zone allowed offices, so if the property owner and/or the market targeted the area for office development, it would be a permitted use under the C1-1 zone. Yapp said if the Commission concurred with the above recommendation, Staff recommended that the South Central District Plan be amended to reflect Cl-1 development in that location and that the Airport had purchased the property located along Highway 1. Property owned by the Iowa City Airport, Yapp said Staff recommended P, Public Zoning, to reflect that the property is owned by the public. Yapp said Staff recommended that the approximately 150 acres be annexed in to Iowa City, that the Dane Property application be approved as well, that the remaining properties be approved with the property tax transition and that the properties be rezoned with the Staff recommendations as noted in Staff's report. Hansen asked if there had been any discussion of assigning specific densities to the IDRS piece of property. Yapp said it would be adjacent to commercial on the north, adjacent to Highway 218 on the west and the south side would be the only residential boundary. Yapp said there had been no Staff discussions regarding specific residential designations yet. Hansen said buffers were placed between single-family homes and industry/businesses. He felt it would be a good idea to make expectations known now for what could or could not go in that area before a proposal came before the Commission. Yapp said Staff did expect the area being rezoned in the future. The Interim Development designation was to indicate that infrastructure was not yet in place and that Staff would have more knowledge of actual uses in the commercial area in the future, which they did not have at the present time. When a piece of property had a zoning designation, it had certain property rights to develop that way. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 3 Yapp said in response to a question posed by Hansen at Monday evening's meeting, he had obtained additional information from the Economic Development Office about other intensive commercial and industrial zoned areas within the City. There were approximately 20-acres of undeveloped Intensive Commercial property in the Pepperwood area; 37-acres of undeveloped Intensive Commercial in the Aviation Commercial Park; 75-acres of undeveloped Industrial in the Scott Six Industrial Park area. Freerks asked if there were concerns with the slopes in the IDRS area. Yapp said there was a stream corridor but the slope did not appear to be so steep that a sensitive areas overlay zoning would be required. Public discussion was opened. John Dane, 4082 Dane Road, said he had submitted an application for rezoning and annexation that had been mentioned in Staff's report. He was not opposed to the Staff's recommendations, however east of Dane Road it was a different story. Dane asked since he had applied for annexation two years ago and it had been deferred until now, would he be afforded the same transition of City taxes that the other properties were being given. Yapp said that would be up to City Council. The other property owners had consented to the annexation with the condition of the transition of City taxes, but ultimately it would be up to Council to decide. Dane asked if he could reapply with that provision. Yapp said he could do so, he would need to send a written request to that effect to Staffs attention. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciuax made a motion to defer ANN03-00001/REZ03-00013 and ANN01-00004/REZ01-00017, discussion of a City-initiated annexation of approximately 150 acres of property located east of Highway 218, west of the Iowa City Airport and north and south of Highway 1; and the rezoning of said properties from County CH, C2, RIA, RS & A1 to P, Public; CH-l, Highway Commercial; C1-1, Intensive Commercial; and ID-RS, Interim Single-Family Residential. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ03-00012, discussion of an application submitted by James A. Clark for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business District Service, to PRM, Planned High Density Residential for 1.10-acres of property located on the east side of S. Dubuque Street and south of Court Street. McCafferty said this particular block contained four apartment buildings and one house. The applicant owned two of the buildings, the other three buildings had two different owners whom she had not heard any response from. The area is currently zoned CB-2, which requires that there be commercial uses on the first floor of a building, currently all the uses have residential on the first floor. She said elder housing was allowed on the first floor as a provisional use in a CB-2 zone. She said the other buildings had multi- family residential housing on the first floor which would be considered non-conforming. Adjacent property uses include CB-5, PRM, CB-2 and federal building / post office/public uses. McCafferty said the applicant had stated that the compelling reason he was requesting the rezoning was that he felt due to the development of elder housing in outlying areas, the market for elder housing in the downtown area was no longer what it was when the building was constructed. The applicant would like to have the building occupied by populations other than elder housing. The Comprehensive Plan supports diversity of population. There are also services for seniors in the downtown area and it is near mass transit, so for that reason McCafferty said Staff felt that the applicant's reason for rezoning was not compelling. In reviewing the 1992 Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and because of the adjacent land uses, Staff felt there were sufficient reasons to approve the rezoning. The Redevelopment Plan illustrated the area as being appropriate for high density multi-family residential. Adjacent properties and some in the near area did have PRM zoning designations. McCafferty said Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, REZ03-00012 to PRM, Planned High Density Residential for 1.10-acres of property located on the east side of S. Dubuque Street and south of Court Street. Hansen asked if notification had been given to the adjacent property owners. McCafferty said that was correct. She had not received any formal protests or letters but had received a few questions via the telephone. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 4 Hansen asked if the rezoning would require the applicant to devote the main floor of this properly to business. McCafferty said with a PRM zoning, an entire building - ground floor and above may be multi- family residential, any population. Freerks asked if there would be changes in parking requirements. Miklo said for elder housing there was a requirement of one space per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. In the PRM zone, it was one space for one bedrooms/efficiencies and two spaces for two or more bedrooms. The Building Department would have to inspect the building to ensure there would be adequate parking with the change in use. Miklo said that would be done through the rental permit process. This particular property contained one and two bedroom apartments. Freerks asked if there were places where parking could be expanded if that was necessary. McCafferty said Clark could answer how he planned to deal with parking issues. Hansen asked if there was currently street parking on Dubuque Street. McCafferty said she would find out for the next meeting. Hansen asked what would be the procedure if there were no street parking on Dubuque Street and the applicant wished to request it. McCafferty said if there were sufficient desire from the property owners in that area to have street parking they could petition the Traffic Planner to initiate that change. Bovbjerg asked if the rezoning would make any of the properties non-conforming. McCafferty said it would actually bring properties into conformance. Currently four of the properties were non conforming because they had residential use on the first floor. The residential uses had been in place prior to the adoption of the CB-2 zoning regulations. McCafferty said this would not be considered a spot zoning, it would be a residual spot zoning which was a left over from various rezonings over the years. It was also multiple properties under multiple ownership. Public discussion was opened. Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, said the current building, built in 1984, had 28 one- and two-bedroom apartments in it. Prior to that there were two older homes on the site. At the time the property had been built, it had been considered an upscale property for the use it had been put to. Currently the building was in need of some upgrading. During the past 19-years, the area the property was located in had undergone some changes such as rezonings to PRM from previous zonings, change-overs from older wood homes and commercial properties to multi-family properties which was consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area high density multi-family residential development. The City also had plans for redeveloping an area close to this property. Holland said the specific impetus for the rezoning of this particular property were a variety of things. Cosmetic and functional upgrades to the property were needed, change over from through-the-wall air conditioners to central air units, vacancy rates had crept up - they were currently running at 10%-20% per year or 6-8 units. When the vacancies occurred, they were lengthily, not just one or two months in duration. He said with this particular piece of property, the reasons for vacancies were unusual. Persons left the building because they were elderly and were forced to do so for health reasons or due to death. The traditional termination of annual leases where persons either stayed or moved on did not apply. This situation had forced the property owner to initiate such measures as no leases, month-to-month tenancies, and no deposits on units in order to keep the building occupied. A lot of other elder housing options such as Sterling House, Walden Place and large complexes had been built since 1984. The use of the property had not turned out to be economical for the area it was located in. Holland said CB-2 zoning was not an effective land use so that was why over the years it had shrunk into little pockets which reflected the existing use. Holland said before initiating the application for rezoning they had contacted the adjacent property owners. They had received a response from the Handel's lawyer, who was also present to speak at the meeting. The two businesses to the south of this property, the veterinary clinic and Willis Law Firm Security Abstract company had been intentionally excluded from the application so as not to affect them through the proposed PRM zoning. Holland said the applicant had no major plans to immediately redevelop the property for at least 1 or 1¼ years or to sell the entire building forcing a relocation of the tenants. The proposed change in zoning would not place an age limitation on residents who could reside there, the applicant expected the tenant Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 5 population to transition naturally through attrition. It would make the building's use more flexible and bring the rest of the block into conformity with the zoning. In response to questions raised about adequate parking for the building's tenants, Holland said it was possible to purchase property in City owned parking ramps. That was the City's preference which benefited both parties. Hansen asked how many 2-bedroom units were in that building. Holland said 12 units. Hansen asked how many parking spaces were located under the building and had there been any discussion with the City about purchasing parking spaces in the Dubuque/Linn Street ramp. That parking ramp was already under a high demand for use by the convention center, library patrons, patrons of the downtown area, and City rented parking spaces to third parties. He said it might be possible that persons would end up having to walk to the Linn Street parking ramp. Holland said, "yes and no," regarding parking ramp parking space discussions. Purchasing parking spaces in a City ramp was a City initiated provision. Bovbjerg asked for a clarification regarding required parking spaces for CB-2 elder housing versus PRM requirements. Miklo said for elder housing, one-half a space per unit was required; PRM zoning required 1 parking space for 1-bedroom unit or 2 parking spaces for a 2- or more bedroom unit. Chair said the discussion regarding the number of parking spaces was not within the Commission's preview. It would be handled through City permitting processes and when appropriate Housing and Inspection Service would review the issue and resolve any problems. It was not anything to do with zoning, it had to do with the permitting processes for rental properties. Miklo said if the applicant was not able to provide the additional parking on the site or pay fees in lieu of parking in order to take advantage of the parking impact fee that applied to the PRM zone, the applicant would not be able to change it from elder housing to general housing. The Building Department would need to work it out with the applicant. Chait said that was not accurate either. An applicant could simply reduce the number of apartments and in a PRM zone still be required to have only two parking spaces. Hansen asked why was the Commission rezoning the property if the applicant could not provide the required amount of parking spaces. Miklo suggested that during the next two weeks the applicant might wish to approach the Building Department and come up with a solution to present to the Commission before they voted. Freerks asked if the applicant had any preliminary floor space plans and would there continue to be elder housing throughout the building? Holland said the applicant felt it would be necessary at some point to reconfigure the units, perhaps enlarging them to make them more attractive on the rental market. There were 24 parking spaces located under the building which was more than was required for the number of current units for elder housing. Parking in significant part would drive the reconfigured of the property into different kinds of units, as it would in any part of the City. He said at this time part of the Commission's conversation was abstract as even the Clark's didn't know what their plans were for the property. Holland said in theory, Clark could call the first floor commercial space, leave it vacant and rent out the rest of the building. There was no demand for first floor commercial in that area so they would not pursue that option. Dan Bray, 402 S. Linn Street, said he owned the oldest structure in the area. it was 103 years old. It had formerly been the Lewis-Grant Lawyer House which he had turned into a commercial use, restored it and been recognized by the City for his restoration efforts in taking an old historic structure and making it viable for new commercial use. Bray said he had requested that the property be rezoned to a commercial use so the historic building could be preserved. The Commission and Council had approved his application which complimented the City's long term objectives for preserving historic structures in commercial use form instead of turning them into multi-family residential uses. Bray said that reasoning was what created his opposition to Clark's request for the rezoning even though Clark was seeking the same benefit from the City that he had received. Bray said he felt zoning should encourage something that was important to the City. Rather than looking at the CB-2 zoning as contiguous to PRM, he asked that the Commission look at the area as contiguous to CB-5. Looking at the area and the long term interests of Iowa City, that area needed to maintain a viable commercial life as well as provide housing for its citizens. That type of situation so close to the downtown which currently had an interest as a commercial property should remain with a commercial designation. Bray said he appreciated Clark's problem, he had had the same problem too. However when he came before the Commission to seek resolution, it had been done with long-term objectives in mind. If the intent and interest was to turn that area into a denser housing area with no commercial viability, Clark's requested zoning would be appropriate. If the intent was to makes some connection to the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 6 commercial viability to the downtown, the requested zoning did not make sense. Bray said he would ask the City to recognize that zoning encouraged long-term not short-term interests and encouraged development over time, not just necessarily a modification for today. Hansen asked Bray when his property had been rezoned. Bray said 1994. It had been rezoned from PRM to CB-5 to allow for commercial use to preserve the building. Without the rezoning the building would have been turned into a rooming house by a prior owner and eventually torn down and the structure lost. Bray said zoning did have long term benefits to the City. David Briqht, 122 S. Linn Street, representing Richard and Goldine Handel, property owners of 408 S. Dubuque Street. Bright said they had received notice of the rezoning application request and had visited with Holland several times about it. As had been discussed, the rezoning would put the properties in the general area to a conforming use so at first glance the impact on his client's property would basically be favorable. It had come to his attention that his client believed that there was an easement between his property and the Clark's properly. Bright's attempts to locate the easement thus far had been unsuccessful. He had conferred with Holland regarding the possible easement as Holland had 'an extensive knowledge of the property but Holland didn't have a recollection of the easement taking place. Bright said since his client had a memory of the easement taking place, he wished to verity if the easement had occurred and if anything would impact his client's position on the application. Bright said at this time he wished to reserve judgment. Bovbjerg asked if the City had record of the easement. Behr said the City was not aware of any easement. Bright and Holland would know more about an easement if it existed. James ClarK, 414 E. Market Street, applicant. Clark said there was parallel parking on the east side of Dubuque Street. He had built the property in 1984 at the time when he thought there would be a high demand for elderly housing near downtown Iowa City. Only three persons signed leases initially, it took him 1~ years to get the property fully rented. They had had full occupancy for a limited number of years, then market conditions changed and many larger complexes with amenities such as lawns, recreation rooms and transportation services were built on the perimeters of the City. Over the years he had tried many different methods to maintain or increase his occupancy rate such as freezing the rents, initiating month-to-month tenancies instead of annual leases, no deposits on units, dropping the $10 parking fee and the occasional rental to non-traditional elderly persons such as University graduate students or physicians. Currently they were using 30-day leases. Because his tenants were elderly they were frequently forced to leave the building unexpectedly due to long-term illness or for health reasons which left him with occupied units that he did not receive rent payments on but was unable to rent either. In its present location, his building was unable to offer yard/garden space or recreation areas, which the larger complexes offered and still utilized air-condition units instead of central air which was a standard market offering. Clark said he anticipated it would be 1 or 1~ years before he would make any changes to the building. Currently he could have 20-25% of his tenants under age 55 in the building. However, he had never used that option as he felt it could create a potential incompatibility with his current tenants, many of whom had resided there for a very long time. If and when the number of units was converted to a different configuration, he would consider the options of purchasing parking from the City and/or condensing the number of current units in the building by 4 or 5 units. Clark asked if the rezoning were changed to PRM, would his building be grandfathered in with respect to the number of required parking spaces? Miklo said that was only for elderly housing. Freerks asked Clark what plan did he have to assist the current residents to transition to multi-family multi-age housing? Clark said he and his wife were Iowa City people, his wife knew most of the tenants. Clark projected it would be 1 to 1¼ years before any changes took place, if the property filled up with elderly housing he had no problem keeping it that way. Public discussion was closed. Hansen asked if the 1994 Commission minutes regarding the Bray property rezoning were available on line. McCafferty said probably not on line, but hard copies could be located. Bovbjerg said she was on the Commission at that time and remembered the Bray property. It had been an interesting case, it was the beginning of persons being conscious of historic buildings and re-use. She would also look for her minutes. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 7 Motion: Chait made a motion to defer REZ03-00012, an application submitted by James A. Clark for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business District Service, to PRM, Planned High Density Residential for 1.10-acres of property located on the east side of S. Dubuque Street and south of Court Street~ Anciuax seconded the motion. Chait said the Commission might wish to give some direction to the applicant regarding the issues of parking and density so he could work with Staff on them prior to the next meeting. Chair said he felt that those issues would be dealt with in other City departments and they were issues that the Commission did not need to know or consider, they were clearly addressed in the Code. The Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, adopted by the Comprehensive Plan, identified CB-5 zoning as stopping between Court and Burlington Streets. To change the Comprehensive Plan extending CB-5 zoning to the south and to make it an issue at this point was unfair. Chair said the Commission should not burden the applicant with presenting his plans for the property by the end of the two weeks as he had already told the Commission he was going to make changes over time. Hansen said the applicant had indicated that he was requesting the rezoning for economic viability reasons. "Will the rezoning be economically viable," was the question. It was a question that the Commission needed to consider. The Linn Street parking garage had a high demand for parking spaces. If those spaces were not available, other options needed to be explored. Hansen said that would not affect his decision regarding the rezoning. He liked the fact that the proposed rezoning brought other properties into conformity, that was good for the City. Bovbjerg said it was the Commission's responsibility to get issues resolved before an application came to a vote. It was a good that the Commission asked questions for its own information which helped to resolve issues on the table and at times bring new ones to light. Anciaux called the question. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ03-00010/SUB03-00002, discussion of an application submitted by Richard Donahue for rezoning from Medium-Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Sensitive Areas Overlay Medium-Density Single-Family (OSA-8) and a preliminary and final plat of Donahue Subdivision, a 6.89-acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located at 1515 N. Dubuque Road. Miklo said the applicant's engineer had proposed that the requirement to show all sensitive areas on the property be waived. The applicant had proposed to set aside most of the property in conservation easements and therefore would not disturb sensitive areas that might be present on the site. Staff had recommended that the Sensitive Areas Development Plan include a tree protection plan to assure that a large oak tree at the northeast corner of the property not be damaged when the driveway and water line were installed. A letter had been received from the Johnson County Health Department that indicated that a septic system could be approved for this property. Due to the steep topography of the property, fees would be collected in lieu of neighborhood open space. Staff had recommended that rather than installing sidewalks at this time on lots 1 and 2 due to grade issues further north, the applicant pay into an escrow a fund to allow sidewalks to be installed as part of a larger project to install walks the length of Dubuque Road. Miklo said the final plat was in order so Staff recommended approval of REZ03-00010/SUB03- 00002. Chait asked why fees were collected in lieu of public open space. Miklo said the ordinance was intended to produce active open space such as neighborhood playgrounds. It is not intended for City wide parks or rugged or scenic parks. The Parks and Recreation Commission would prefer fees in lieu of land in the location because the topography is not suitable for a neighborhood park. Public discussion was opened. Dick Donahue, 1515 Dubuque Road, said his proposal was to divide the 7-acres into two lots. He requested that a modification of the water impact fee be made as he was not developing all 7-acres, just 2-acres. It was a double edged sword that he was being charged for the 7-acres when he was only developing the 2-acres. Miklo said the fees were $395/acre. Behr and Miklo said there was no discretion on a waiver of the fees, it was an across the board fee. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 8 Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to defer REZ03-00010/SUB03-0000~, an application submitted by Richard Donahue for rezoning from Medium-Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Sensitive Areas Overlay Medium-Density Single-Family (OSA-8) and a preliminary and final plat of Donahue Subdivision, a 6.89- acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located at 1515 N. Dubuque Road. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Motion: Freerks made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the May 1, 2003, meeting to amend the South Central District Plan to change the future land use designation from Office Park/Commercial to Intensive or High Use Commercial for property generally located east of Mormon Trek Boulevard Extension. Anciuax seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB 03-00005., discussion of an application from Dav-Ed Ltd. for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills, Parts 7, 8, and 9, a 44-1ot, 19.01-acre subdivision located at Dublin Drive. McCafferty said the subdivision consisted of 42-single family lots, one outlot and Lot 138, a 5.5-acre lot likely be developed for a church, elder housing or similar use. Street access would be from Killarney Road, Donegal Court and Dublin Drive. Any further subdivision of the property would require the extension of Dublin Drive south to connect to Shannon Drive. A sanitary sewer tap-on fee for 9.7 acres of this subdivision to the North West trunk line would be required. 9.3 acres would be connected to the West Side trunk for which no fee was required. There would also be a tap-on fee for water. Open space requirements had been met. Since Monday evening's informal meeting the City Engineer had reviewed the preliminary plat. Staff recommended approval of SUB03-00005. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chair made a motion to approve SUB03-00005. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUB03-00006, discussion of an application submitted by ST Enterprises, LC, for a preliminary plat of Hollywood Manor, part 8, a 6.36-acre, 22-1ot residential subdivision located on Wetherby Drive south of Burns Avenue. Miklo said this was the re-approval of a subdivision that occurred in 1998. At that time the preliminary plat for Hollywood Manor Part 6, 7, and 8 were approved, however Part 8 was never final platted. A preliminary plat expired after 24 months, so it needed to be re-approved if the subdivision is to move forward. The subdivision plat was the same as what was approved 1999. A portion of the plat contained hydric soils. The plat contained requirements regarding the building of homes on those lots and special design for streets in those areas to accommodate the hydric soils. The CZA required the payment of fees in lieu of open space for this subdivision. Other fees including storm water management fees, sanitary sewer fees and water main extension fees would also apply. Miklo said the plat as submitted was in compliance with zoning and subdivision regulations. Staff recommended approval of SUB03-00006 at this time. Anciaux asked if fees collected in lieu of were earmarked for Wetherby Park or did they go into a general pot. Miklo said they had to apply to a park in the general neighborhood, most likely Wetherby. Bovbjerg asked if the only connection to the park was going up to Burns. Miklo said currently that was the case. In the long term, Staff expected a collector street that would connect the park from the southwest and that would go back to Sycamore Street. A concept plan and CZA also applied that showed a pedestrian connection at the end of two cul-de-sacs into the park. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Page 9 Hansen asked how would that plan be affected if the Park Commission acquired that land as part of Wetherby Park. Miklo said it would be added to the park and cul-de-sacs would need to be added at the end of two streets. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chair made a motion to approve SUB03-00006, an application submitted by ST Enterprises, LC, for a preliminary plat of Hollywood Manor, part 8, a 6.36-acre, 22-1ot residential subdivision located on Wetherby Drive south of Burns Avenue. Anciuax seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUB03-00007, d scussion of a preliminary and final plat of Harney's Homestead a 13.5-acre two-lot residential extraterritorial subdivision located in Fringe Area A, south of 320th Street, east of Prairie du Chien Road. Miklo said the subdivision was located within two miles of Iowa City so it was within the extraterritorial jurisdiction for subdivision review. There had been a recent rezoning of the property which conformed with the Fringe Area Agreement. The property currently was being subdivided into three tracts. The plat as submitted was in compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement and subdivision regulations. Staff recommended approval of SUB03-00007. Public discussion was opened. Tom Anthony, Landmark Engineering, said the County Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the application the prior Monday evening subject to City P & Z Commission approval. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciuax made a motion to approve SUB03-00007. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Miklo said the Commission would meet with Council on 4/21/03 to discuss the rezoning on Market and Dubuque Street. The Commission would meet afterward to continue discussion on the Code. Bovbjerg said on Tuesday Council would have a public hearing on the Pine Ridge/Foster Road area. She asked if anyone wished the Commission to say something regarding the light on north Dubuque Street regarding the Commission's discussion. Bovbjerg said she would be willing to raise it as an issue to the Council to get the Commission's view on the public record. Commission members requested Bovbjerg to attend, acknowledge the Council's action on the item, acknowledge that it was a huge concern to the Commission and positively pro-actively support the Council to act on this issue. CONSIDERATION OF 4/3/03 MEETING MINUTES: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as printed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill data on c~tyndpcd/minutes/p&z04-17-03.doc FIN.4L/.4 PPR O VED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - April 9, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: John Watson, John Stratton, Loren Horton; Board member absent: Bev Smith. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:08) and Staff Kellie Tuttle present. Also in attendance were Captain Matt Johnson of the ICPD and citizen Kevin Halstead. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #02-01. (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #02-02. (3) Amend PCRB by-laws and refer to Rules Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 03/11/03 · Minutes of the meeting on 03/24/03 · ICPD General Order 89-02 (Department Disciplinary Philosophy) · ICPD General Order 95-04 (Administration of Department Training) · ICPD General Order 99-06 (Internal Affairs Investigations) · ICPD General Order 00-09 (Organization) · ICPD General Order 02-01 (Temporary / Light Duty) · ICPD Use of Force Report- February 2003 · ICPD Use of Force Report- March 2003 Motion carried, 3/0, Smith absent. Watson questioned Captain Johnson about non-punitive action versus punitive action in the Department Disciplinary Philosophy document. Watson felt that the difference between the two was not defined. Captain Johnson explained that the Chief has the authority with the changes to this order to designate a written reprimand as a major or a minor infraction. If it's designated as a minor infraction it can be removed from an officer's personnel file due to the collective bargaining agreement. However, if it's designated as a major infraction it cannot be removed and therefore would be punitive Watson suggested explaining that more clearly in the document. Stratton commented on the Internal Affairs Investigations document. Stratton asked Captain Johnson whether the labels mentioned in the document were the categories that were used on the Chief's reports. Captain Johnson stated that they are the classifications that the investigators assign to their conclusions. PCRB-Page 2 April 9, 2003 Pugh stated that the Board shouldn't assume that those are the definitions that the Chief is implying. Pugh said it should be assumed that the terms such as "unsustained" used in the Chief's report are most likely "unsustained" as defined by the PCRB standards. NEW BUSINESS · Discussion/Motion to Amend PCRB By-Laws The Board discussed absenteeism rules. Under Article 5, Section 1, in the current by-laws there is a paragraph entitled regular meetings. Pugh wanted to separate this out into three different sections - one covering regular meetings (adding the language about rescheduling a meeting), another pertaining to special meetings to show that they are distinct from regular meetings and are not rescheduled meetings, and a third section on the agenda to show that only matters appearing on the agenda would be covered at regular and special meetings. Earlier Pugh had spoken with Tuttle and Karr about this matter and they suggested the same effect could be reached by just inserting the word "unexcused absences" into section 4 of Article 3 of the by-law which covers absences. Stratton and Horton wanted to know if an excused absence was defined. Pugh stated that excused is not defined in the by-laws. Watson thought that you could just say that the Chair decides whether an absence is excused or unexcused. The Board decided that unexcused absences would apply to both special and regular meetings. The Board agreed that the proposed change in Section four of Article 3 would now read "Three consecutive absences of a Board member, without excuse of the Chairperson, from regular or special meetings may result in recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new board member." Motion by Watson and seconded by Horton to refer amended by- laws to Council. Motion carried 3/0, Smith absent. OLD BUSINESS · Importance of Attendance The Board stressed again the importance of attending meetings so that there is a quorum to conduct business. PCRB-Page 3 April 9, 2003 PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. BOARD INFORMATION Stratton informed the Board that he will be giving a talk for the Sertoma Club at the University Club. He will show the PCRB video and pass out brochures. He will also mention the vacancy for a new Board member. STAFF INFORMATION Turtle informed the Board that so far they have received two applications for the Board vacancy. Tuttle also informed the Board that the complaint form and the brochure have both been added to the website. It's located on the Clerk's page under Departments. It's also under Boards and Commissions. The Board asked Tuttle to include the web information on future brochures. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton 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 govern- ment 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 absent. Open session adjourned at 7:39 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:55 P.M. Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to approve 02-01 as amended and forward to the City Council. Motion carried 3/0, Smith absent. PCRB-Page 4 April 9, 2003 Motion by Watson and seconded by Horton to approve 02-02 as amended and forward to the City Council. Motion carried 3/0, Smith absent. MEETING SCHEDULE · May 13, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · May 27, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · June 10,2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · July 1,2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · August 12, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Watson and Horton cannot make the August 12th meeting. The Board will wait to reschedule the August meeting until May 13th. The Board decided to meet June 10th as long as there is a quorum. It was discussed that the Board will make more of an effort to meet on its regularly scheduled meeting dates. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Watson and seconded by Horton. Motion carried 3/0, Smith absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:05. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 City TO: Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager ~ ~ r--~ R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board ~ -- RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #02-01 DATE: April 9, 2003 This is the Repod of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #02-01 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B(2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise. Section 8-8-7B{2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are" contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law." Sections 8-8-7B(2) a, b, and c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on June 5, 2002. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City code the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was due September 2, 2002. Four additional extensions were granted and the Chief's Report was filed on January 17, 2003. A summation of the interview with the Complainant was attached to the Chief's report. PCRB #02-01 Page 1 The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B(1)(a), which means the Board will review the Complaint on the record with no additional investigation. The following documents were included with the Chief's Report: ICPD Incident Report, ICPD Incident Narrative (Officer}, Charges filed against complaintant and ICPD Use of Force Report, Voluntary Statement from witness, Transcribed interviews with co__mplainant and several witnesses, summaries of phone interviews with witnesses, and a a _~rnmary/timeline of contacts with witnesses. The Board met to consider the report on the following dates: January 21, 2003; March 4, 2003; March 11, 2003; March 24, 2003; and APiil ~2003~ FINDINGS OF FACT .~ 25 On June 5, 2002 a complaint was filed regarding an incident that occurred in March 2002, in a Dubuque Street bar. The incident resulted in The Complainant's arrest for Public Intoxication, Theft in thc 5th Degree and Interference with Official Acts. He also sustained a nasal fracture, lacerations on the right side of his nose and facial abrasions during the arrest and detention process. The Complainant asserted that while on his way to the bathroom he was seized from behind and handcuffed by Officer A. The officer accused him of stealing his flashlight which the Complainant denies doing. The Complainant was quickly escorted out of the bar and placed facing the bar's exterior wall next to a brick column. The Complainant alleged that Officer A swore at him saying, "You dumb fuck, what were you thinking, you fucking idiot, trying to steal from a cop." The officer denied this, acknowledging that he might have used the word "hell." The Complainant stated that he did not physically resist the arrest but did attempt to get Officer A to explain why he was being arrested. Officer A indicated that the Complainant twisted, turned his head and straightened his legs so that a wrist lock was necessary to move him from the building. Officer A further stated that the Complainant continued to resist control, verbally challenging the officer to fight and threatening to run. Officer A stated "He turned his head and shoulder to face me, pushing against me numerous times as I held him against the corner. He kicked his feet back hitting my legs as he continually threatened and backed into me. As I felt the situation continue to escalate and felt the defendant continue to resist me, I took him from the corner and placed him on the ground. He hit his face on the ground as I placed him face down to stop him from continuing to resist." According to the Complainant, "The next thing happened so fast that all I remember is opening my eyes in a daze on the ground with blood pouring out of my face." He states that he was told by a number of his friends that Officer A had grabbed him by the head and slammed his face into the building. Since the incident occurred late in the evening there were numerous witnesses. Two officers, B and C, were interviewed and provided compelled statements. A bar employee and a young man arrested by Officer B were the only witnesses other than the officers who were not friends or acquaintances of the Complainant. Both of these individuals observed the Complainant being taken to the ground, but perceived it in different ways - one more consistent with the officer's version, the other of the Complainant's. Attempts were made by the Iowa City PCRB #02-01 Page 2 Police Department to interview all identified witnesses. A total of 24 were contacted. According to the Chief's Report a majority of the witnesses observed only part of the interaction between the officer and the Complainant, eight witnesses did not provide insight into the allegations and five witnesses were unable to be interviewed or refused to be interviewed. Information obtained from the interviews was quite varied, often lacking detail and sometimes contradictory. Some of the information that weighed in the Board's conclusion we re: (1) The admission of the Complainant that he had consumed eight or nine beers and a 'dack and Coke.' {2) Witnesses were inconsistent in regard to the officer's use of profanity and their descriptions of the Complainant and Officer A's demeanor {calm and reasonable vs. shouting and angry). (3) A number of the witnesses agreed that the Complainant offered verbal resistance to Officer A. {4) A number of witnesses reported that the Complainant seemed to be attempting to get away from Officer A, pushing, shuffling his feet, trying to turn around. Officer B reported hearing Officer A say, "Quit resisting." The bar employee also noted the Complainants efforts to escape and threats to run. (5) A number of witnesses reported that Officer A appeared to be attempting to hold the Complainant against the wall, noting variously that, ... he had his arm against his back or neck, ... his hand against his head, .... was pushing the Complainant. (6) No witness reported seeing the Complainant strike or kick Officer A. (7) No witness stated that they observed the officer slamming the Complainant's head against the wall. Many reported not observing the blood until the Complainant was taken to the ground. {8) There was considerable variation in reports regarding when and how the Complainant was directed to the ground. One witness reported it occurred in the bar, others indicated that the Complainant was first put on his knees and then pushed or nudged to the ground. Time-lapses also betw_~en kne,es and ground varied from 10-15 seconds to a couple of minutes. O (9) The elapsed time between the Complainant being removed fr6~/~:t~he ~ohr and then taken to the ground appears to be relatively short. -; ._ . .:: CONCLUSION Allegation # 1 Discourteous Behavior On Duty ~ _ This allegation is based on the Complainant stating the officer began his initial contact saying, "You dumb fuck, what were you thinking? You fucking idiot - trying to steal from a cop." No witness indicates hearing these words. Some witnesses state that Officer A appeared to be angry, one states she believed she heard Officer A use profanity. The officer PCRB #02-01 Page 3 indicated he may have used the word "hell." There is insufficient evidence to challenge the conclusion reached by the Chief. The Board find the Chief's conclusion that Officer A acted appropriately is supported by substantiated evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation # 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation #12 Failure To Provide For The Safety And Protection of An Arrested Person An arresting officer is responsible for the safety and protection of an arrested person. There is no question that the Complainant was under arrest and in the custody of Officer A when his injury occurred. Further, there appears to be no question that the injury was a result of the officer's action, although there is disagreement among witnesses as to the specifics of the action. Officer A states, "He hit his face on the ground as Iplaced him face down to stop him from continuing to resist." At issue is whether the injury occurred because of indifference, neglect or malice, or whether it was the unavoidable consequence of the necessity of controlling a resisting victim. Witness accounts because of their variability and lack of specificity are of little utility. Officer B who was close at hand writing a citation observed resistance on the part of the Complainant but did not observe him being placed on the ground. The Chief's Report states, "in (sic} effort to better control the Complainant, Officer A decided to place the Complainant on the ground. The Complainant was handcuffed and from a standing position, Officer A used the Complainant's momentum from pushing back in his direction to turn the Complainant to the right and place him on the ground. The Complainant's hands were handcuffed behind him and there was nothing to break his fall. The Complainant's nose struck the sidewalk, where he sustained the injury. There were four other descriptions from various witnesses as to how this injury was sustained." The scenario in which Officer A takes the Complainant to the ground from a standing position appears to be the most likely scenario and is supported by a number of witnesses. The Board believes the preponderance of evidence is consistent with Officer A's contention that the complaintant was resisting control. It is not clear, however, from Officer A's account whether or not the Complainant's resistance was such that Officer A was unable to control the Complainant's desent to the ground sufficiently to prevent his face from slamming into the sidewalk. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion, "that the injury was not sustained as a result of Officer A failing to provide for the safety and protection of the Complainant was," is supported by substantial evidence and is not, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. CJ ~ Allegation #3 Excessive Use Of Force ~-~,--_~-' ._-~._.: The Complainant's allegation was based on information provided to him by !friends an~i-_i acquaintances who were identified as witnesses by the Complainant. Th~_~mI~inan~ stated the witnesses informed him that Officer A- grabbed him by the ba~ of th~ head and PCRB #02-01 Page 4 slammed it against the exterior wall of the bar, causing his injury. The Complainant had no independent memory of this occurring. None of the witnesses indicated that they saw Officer A shove the Complainant's head against the wall. The investigation by the Iowa City Police Department determined that the Complainant's injuries occurred when he was placed on the ground. Photographs were provided by the Complainant taken by his father the day after the arrest that show blood spots on the pillar outside the bar showing the possibility of the injury being sustained before the victim was placed on the ground. The Chiefs Report states that, "a subsequent interview with Officer C determined that after the Complainant had sustained the injunj Officer C took control of the Complainant and placed him against or near the wall to loosen or adjust the handcuffs. This is likely where the blood on the wall come from." A peace officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using reasonable force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody. The Chiefs Report states, "Officer A's use of force involved verbal commands, handcuffing, directing motion, restricting movement and redirecting the Complainant from the standing handcuffed position to placing the Complainant on the ground in a prone position Officer A's decision to place the Complainant on the ground was based on actions of the Complainant and motivated by an attempt to establish better control of the Complainant. It is my conclusion the given the circumstances, Officer A's actions were reasonable and justified and that he was acting within the guideline of the policies and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. The Board finds the Chiefs conclusion that Officer A acted "appropriately is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious." Allegation #3 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Comment Ordinance #01-3976 requires the Board to give deference to the Police C~lSg oP.-lgity Manager's Report because of the Police Chiefs and City Manager's profes~ssional ~pertise. The Board may recommend that the Police Chief or City Manager reverse their finding only if: (a) the findings are not supported by substantial evidence, (b) the findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, or (c) the findings are contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or federal, state or local law. In the current case the Board concluded they must sustain the Chiefs conclusion regarding allegation #2, but felt some uneasiness in doing so. The uneasiness stems from the "substantial evidence" requirement. In the current case there is no disagreement regarding whether or not the complainant was in the custody of the officer or whether the injuries resulted from the officer's actions. At issue is whether the injury was inevitable or whether it could have been prevented without jeopardizing the Officer A's control over the subject. There is not a great deal of information that bears on this issue. There is, the Board believes, a preponderance of evidence to support the contention that the Complainant offered resistance to Officer A of a verbal and physical nature. PCRB #02-01 Page 5 Was this resistance sufficient to require the complainant to be placed on the ground to retain control? The decision of Officer A was "yes, it was necessary." This decision is supported by the Chieffs Report. Was the resistance sufficiently strong that Officer A could not have guided the Complainant to the ground without causing injury? Officer B did not appear to feel that the resistance was great enough to require his assistance nor did Officer A request it. The Board believes that there is no information in the Chief's Report that bears directly on this question. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back making it obvious that if he were taken, placed or directed to the ground face forward without some support he would have a high probability of injury. The Board is required to rely on the ChieFs expertise unless there is a lack of substantial evidence to support his conclusion. The Board feels substantial evidence is lacking that the injury to the complainant was beyond Officer A's control, but the Board also feels that there is insufficient evidence that the injury was the result of indifference, negligence or malice. Hence, the Board's conclusion that the allegation #2 was not sustained. The Board is concerned that when arrested individuals are substantially unable to protect themselves (as when handcuffed with their arms behind them) officers be sensitized to the possibility that this vulnerability could result in serious injury when efforts to control the subject are implemented. The Board recommends this topic be addressed in training if it is not already being done. PCRB #02-01 Page 6 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-504'1 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager >~ ca' ~ · R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police · Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board ~. ~. - ' .~.~ RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #02-02 DATE: April 9, 2003 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #02-01 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B(2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise. Section 8-8-7B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are" contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law." Sections 8-8-7B(2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 15 July 2002. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due on 14 October 2002. Two additional extensions were granted and the Chief's Report was filed on 3 February 2003. PCRB #02-02 Page I The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation and 8-8-7B(1)(e), performance by boardof its own additional investigation. ~. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 4 March 2003; 11 ~arch.!--~- 2003; 9 April 2003. Findinqs of Fact ..~.~ Officers A and B were checking identifications at a Washington Street bar in July 2002. Officer B took one underage person outside to issue a PAULA citation. Officer A found 7 of 8 persons at another table were underage and escorted those 7 persons from the building to issue PAULA citations. On the way out of the building he stopped in the entryway to talk to the proprietor. The Complainant entered into the conversation and voluntarily informed them that he had purchased a drink for an underage person. Officer A and the proprietor told him this was an offense, and that he was interrupting their conversation. The Complainant continued to interrupt and then was taken outside with the 8 underage persons. While PAULA citations were being written, the Complainant continued to interrupt the proceedings and to interfere with verbal abuse and threats. After some of the 8 PAULA citations were issued and those persons released, the Complainant was arrested for providing alcohol to a minor, and for public intoxication. A pre-arrest breath test of the Complainant indicated a blood alcohol level of .169. The Complainant was handcuffed by Officer A or B, and told to sit down on a nearby bench. He stood up several times saying that he was more comfortable standing, and that the handcuffs were too tight. One time Officer B put his hand on the Complainant's chest to ensure that he sat down. Officer C arrived to transport the Complainant to jail, checked the handcuffs, and according to the Complainant he removed the original handcuffs and replaced them with another set which fit more comfortably. The Complainant then was transported to jail, where he made no complaint about his wrists during admission procedures. The Complainant asserted that later that morning he noticed evidence of injury to his left wrist and that his gid friend photographed the injured area. No photographs of this injury have been submitted to the ICPD or PCRB. The Complainant refused a chemical test, and subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges of public intoxication and supplying alcohol to persons under the legal age. ICPD investigation included interviews with the Complainant, the bar proprietor, and 4 of the underage persons cited for PAULA that morning. Other than the Complainant, the other persons interviewed made no adverse comments about the officers behavior or officers treatment to any of them. A salient point in this case is the length of time between the original handcuffing of the Complainant, and the adjustment and re- handcuffing. The Complainant stated during his interview that this span of time probably was 3 to 5 minutes. One underage drinker estimated the time span to be 2 minutes. Another underage drinker estimated the time span to be 5 or 6 minutes, but she left the scene to use the bathroom in another bar so she may not have an had an accurate idea of the time. Another underage drinker said maybe 5, maybe 5-10 minutes. The fourth PCRB #02-02 Page 2 underage drinker who was interviewed left the scene immediately after receiving her PAULA citation and did not mention the handcuffing at all. This latter interview was with a person who was NOT at the table with the Complainant. Conclusion Allegation # 1: Rude and disrespectful behavior on the part of the officer involved. All of the persons interviewed with the exception of the Complainant maintained that the officers involved with the incident were courteous to them, but that they used raised voices to get the Complainant to be quiet, step away from the citation writing, and sit down. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the officers acted appropriately is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation # 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation # 2: Officers used unreasonable or unnecessary force to gain the Complainant's compliance, and handcuffed his wrists so tightly as to cause injury. The length of time when the first handcuffs were on the Complainant's wrists varies from 2 to 10 minutes, depending on witness interviews. The Complainant made no mention of injury during jail processing, and no photographs of injury to his left wrist have been presented to the ICPD or PCRB. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the officers acted appropriately is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation # 2 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation # 3: Rude and disrespectful behavior towards the bar proprietor on the part of the officer involved. No such allegation was made by the bar proprietor during the interview with her. She says one officer spoke to her in a fairly loud voice, and she thought he was angry with her. She says that she met with that officer later and resolved the situation between them. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the officers acted appropriately is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allegation # 3 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENT PCRB #02-02 Page 3 PROPOSED CHANGES TO PCRB BYLAWS (APRIL 9, 2003) CURRENT - ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences ora Board member from regular meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new Board member. PROPOSED - ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive absences ora Board member, without excuse o£the Chairnerson. from regular or special meetings may result in recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new Board member. CURRENT - ARTICLE V. BOARD MEETINGS Section 1. Regular Meetings. The Board's regular meeting will be held the second Tuesday of each month. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the request of three or more Members of the Board. At least one (t) full day's written notice of meeting place, time and agenda shall be given each Member and the media. Insofar as possible, only matters included on the agenda may be discussed and formal votes taken. Care shall be taken to avoid discussion of non-agenda items. PROPOSED - ARTICLE V. BOARD MEETINGS Section 1. Regular Meetings. The Board's regular meeting will be held the second Tuesday of each month. This regular meeting time max, be rescheduled unon agreement by a maioritv o£the Board, Section Z Snecial Meeanvs, Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the request of three or more members of the Board. At least one (1) full day's whtten notice of meeting place, time and agenda shall be given to each Member and the media. Section 3. Agenda: Insofar as possible, at regular and special meetings only matters included on the agenda may be discussed and formal votes taken. Care shall be taken to avoid discussion of non-agenda items. NO CHANGE TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS EXCEPT NUMBERING. Section 4. Ouomm. Section 5. Place of Meetings. Section 6. Notice of Meetings. Section 7. Proxies. Section 8. Public Discussion. Section 9. Motions. Section 10. Exparte Contacts. Section 11. Conflict of Interest. Section 12. Voting. Section 13. Roberts Rules of Order. MINUTES Approved ~ PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003 - 3:30PM Members Present: Chuck Felling, Rick Fosse, Emily Walsh, Betsy Klein, Terry Trueblood Members Absent: Barbara Camillo, James Hemsley Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Call To Order Felling called the meeting to order at 3:45 PM. Public Discussion of any Item not on the Agenda None. Consideration of the Minutes from the March 6, 2003 Meeting Felling noted that Jim Caulkins' name is spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is Calkins. Motion; Fosse moved to approve the minutes as submitted with the spelling correction of Jim Calkins. Klein seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 4-0. Discussion of the Public Art Lonq-Ranqe Strateqic Plan The committee reviewed the current mission statement and discussed how broad the scope and intent is and agreed to change the mission statement to read "To enhance the City through the selection and integration of visual art in a public environment." All agreed to define the term art as visual art in order to limit the range of the committee's involvement in other areas (i.e., visual arts vs. performing ads). The committee's objectives, focus and function were discussed. Felling questioned if the group's goal is to come up with projects and to attract funding or to wait for public input to determine need. Franklin stated the Council's general direction for public art is to reduce funding and attract alternative means, or supplemental funding. An example is the Lions Club helping fund the Weber statue. Felling noted that the art program enhances the City and should be encouraged; with the City's seed money others can partner for further development. He also noted that the attractiveness of a town has been proven to factor into the determination of where people wish to live. The group agreed to alter the objectives to better achieve their goals, as follows: 1. To involve the public in PAAC projects through various activities (such as focus groups, neighborhood meetings, collaborative projects, and so forth) as deemed appropriate. 2. To select artists and art of high quality which can be substantiated by credentials and/or reasonable standards agreed upon by the PAAC and members of any PAAC subcommittee representing the citizens of Iowa City. 3. To develop and maintain a collection of artwork which will fulfill our mission. 4. To select public art which is appropriate within the context of each location. 5. To improve the visual environment by the selection and placement of public art that enhances community spirit, values and quality of life. 6. To advocate for art as a vital component of the community. The committee discussed strategies to achieve their stated objectives. Felling noted they had involved the public through the Neighborhood Art program and collaborative projects like Dulcinea and the Weber Statue. One new strategy to involve the public might be to pursue a community-wide survey regarding public art. They discussed possibly using the City's interactive web site and the Press-Citizen as vehicles to help determine public opinion and thought. Felling stated that the process of selecting artists is pretty well spelled out in the objectives; the committee agreed. Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 2 The objective of contributing to art education was discussed. Walsh noted that a published map/directory of all art in the City, in collaboration with the University, might be a good addition. Perhaps the ConventionJisitors Bureau would partner in the project as well. Franklin noted that under the strategy of developing and maintaining a collection of artwork, the committee could focus 2 to 3 years out with definitive plans and goals. Felling noted the objective of selecting art that is appropriate within the context of each location falls back to the neighborhood art plan. The committee agreed that all the listed strategies for meeting the objectives are topics that they would like to discuss at length in the future. Updates Neighborhood Art Program - Felling Felling reported that the Longfellow neighborhood art program is moving in a very positive direction. There was a meeting with the Longfellow group two weeks ago and many more people were getting involved. Neighborhood Art Program - Klingaman Klingaman reported that the Northside/Goosetown area is scheduled to have a meeting on April 24, 2003. This will be their first meeting to discuss neighborhood art and they will also view the video. Aisc, the City Council has viewed the video, thought it was very well done and they have approved the entire project. The Wetherby neighborhood had a meeting two weeks ago and because of the combination of a meeting on the Public Power Intiative; the turnout was not what they had hoped for. Klingaman also noted that this neighborhood might be more challenging to work with due to the demographic make up of the area; the area has a large number of young, busy families. Poetry in Public - Klingaman Klingaman repot[ed that the program is going exceptionally well. The project is lots of fun and she has talked to many of the 13 professional writers working with the project. Klingaman provided an example of a finished poster that will be used in buses and kiosks. The posters will be different sizes, from 28" up to 32" in width, depending on length of the poem. The Iowa City Schools are also working with the project. All language arts teachers have been contacted and permission slips distributed to all students who wish to submit poetry for consideration. The committee voiced their approval of the project. Literary Walk - Klingaman The new Guide to Writers for the Iowa Avenue Literary Walk was distributed to the committee. The booklet was reworked a bit and now includes a photograph of the plaque along with the information about the author. Prairie Lights Bookstore has agreed to sell the books, the price has yet to be determined, and the booklet will also be able to be perused on the City web page. A booklet will also be provided to each business located on Iowa Avenue. Klingaman is also working on a new project to promote the Literary Walk. The project includes displaying enlarged copies of individual plaques from the Literary Walk on buses and downtown kiosks. Other Business None. Adiournment Motion: Fosse moved to adjourn the meeting. Klein seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 4:43 PM. *****NEXT MEETING IS MAY 1, 2003 AT 3:30 PM,*****