Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-17 Bd Comm minutesDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997,-4:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CIVIC CENTER PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Daryl Woodson, Bill Nowysz, Gary Nagle, Randy Rohovit, Clara Swan, Karyl Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: Martin Hayes, Phil Reisetter STAFF PRESENT: Schoon, Dulceak OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Larew and Tiffany Blanchard from the Science Center RECOMMENDATION TO CITY MANAGER: Recommend to the City Manager, by a vote of 5-0-1 (Nagle abstaining), that the City remove the white plastic fencing from the City Plaza planting beds, and that no other temporary fencing measure be taken while the City waits for the redesign of City Plaza by a consultant. CALL TO ORDER: Swan called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SIGNS FOR SCIENCE CENTER BUTTERFLY GARDEN LOCATED ON CITY PLAZA: Jim Larew outlined the proposal for horizontal signage on the sides of the butterfly garden and the banner signs. The banner signs should hang for about 45-90 days during the summer. The banner signs will also be used on the outside of the structure. Larew presented the sponsor logo sandwich board sign to be located at the entry way. Woodson questioned whether sandwich boards were allowed. Schoon said special events could use them. NaCe noted the banner design would be before the banner committee tomorrow. Nagle asked if the signs were made yet. Blanchard said the signs are being made by Technographlos and the banners are being made by another area company. Sohoon questioned the length of the banner signs that hang on the structure and if they would touch the ground. Larew said there might not be enough room but they can always make them a little shorter. Larson arrived at 4:15 P.M. Blanchard said they should be shorter than the street banners. Nagle asked if they would be attending tomorrow's banner committee meeting. Larew said they would be able to attend but they were not invited. Nagle noted the different letter style used in the two signs. Blanchard said that was the designer's choice. Woodson noted the adjustments for the width in the signs required a change in the font type. Swan asked about the use of Emily's butterflies. Larew said they are using one of her print designs on the signs and banners and others of her print designs will be on sale. Woodson questioned the sandwich board setup. Blanchard described the two separate boards and the design and sponsor logos on each side. Larew asked for other suggestions. Woodson suggested a better format may be by presenting the logos in a more organized rnanner. It was moved by Nowysz and seconded by Rohovit to approve the design of the signs/banners for the Butterfly Garden. The motion carried unanimously. Larew thanked the Committee. Larew and Blanchard then left the meeting. Design Review Committee May 19, 1997 Page 2 UPDATES REGARDING DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT SURVEY FORMS: Woodson said he had done one to see how long it was going to take. Swan noted that it is a time consuming process and asked for a consensus on the due date. Schoon said the original deadline has already passed. Swan suggested that the deadline now be the Committee's regular meeting in June. Schoon stated that the Committee will be meeting again prior to the June meeting because of the need to review the proposed transit interchange. In response to a question from Swan, Schoon described the project. Nagle asked if the Campus Planning Committee was going to be given an opportunity to review the design given that this project is adjacent to the Pentacrest. Schoon said he would follow-up with the transit staff to see if the Campus Planning Committee has been involved. Nagle said it would be good to extend the courtesy to the University. Woodson questioned if the streetscape elements for downtown have been designed. Schoon said the City has yet to hire a consultant. However, the City is in the process of hiring a consultant for the Iowa Avenue project. Woodson encouraged that the two projects be closely coordinated. Rohovit asked if it was going to be in this construction season. Schoon indicated he believed it was planned for this year. Swan redirected discussion to the survey forms and asked if June 16th would provide enough time for completion. Woodson and Nowysz said it was possible. Schoon noted June 16th as the due date for the survey forms. ELECTION OF CHAIR: Nowysz nominated Rohovit, and Woodson seconded. The motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 1997 AND APRIL 28, 1998 MEETINGS: Woodson moved to approve the minutes as presented. Nowysz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was no public discussion. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Schoon reminded the Committee about the June 3 Council hearing on sign regulations. He indicated the need for a representative to attend the June 2 work session. Rohovit said he would attend the meeting. Schoon noted the appointment for the Committee vacancy would be for either an architect or a downtown business or property owner rather than just an architect. Schoon said this vacancy is unique with this open approach. The Council is trying to encourage more applicants. Applications should be in by June 11th. Rohovit asked if the applicant must be a property owner or resident. Schoon said the applicant must live in Iowa City. Design Review Commi~ee May19,1997 Page 3 Swan inquired about the Pizza Hut awning being dismantled. Woodson said the company has taken its name off the signs, but there has not been any dismantling of the rest of the awning. He questioned whether there was a regulation about the signage being taken down or if inspection services has checked it out yet. Schoon said he would talk with the building department. Swan positively commented on the flowers in the flower boxes at the Java House Cafe. Woodson said he did not like the white chains on the Ped Mall. Swan and Larson said there were already more in place. Rohovit asked if the City was installing these or if businesses were. Schoon said that it started with a business putting them up and that the City has put up some. Woodson felt they were not functional and unattractive. Woodson moved to recommend to the City Manager that the City remove the white plastic fencing from the City Plaza planting beds, and that no other temporary fencing measure be taken while the City waits for the redesign of City Plaza by a consultant. Larson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1 (Nagle abstaining). Nagle said he abstained because he is not familiar with the plastic chain fences. Nagle commented on some plaza vending carts that earned low points in the design category and are now on the pedestrian mall. He asked if they received higher points in other areas. Schoon said it was a close decision, but yes they had received higher points in other areas. Nagle said the coat of paint was an improvement. Schoon said the cart in question has been improved but that it is not 100% in compliance with the approved plans. Nagle questioned the point system used to select vending carts. Schoon explained the close decision. Swan questioned the process of checking compliance. Schoon said they are given citations and then suspensions if the cart never complies. Swan asked about the Taco Bell improvements at Old Capitol Mall. Schoon explained the proposal to open up the Clinton Street side of Old Capital Mall and the accessibility issue with Taco Bell. Swan noted that some motorized carts do not fit onto lifts. Nagle explained the possibility of using a multi-sized lift like those used on University property. Rohovit said there was an 800 number to get information on handicapped access. Woodson said he aesthetically does not like lifts. Schoon said the issue is going to the Board of Appeals. Rohovit asked it the Council meeting on June 3 required a representative too. Schoon said the work session is the key meeting, Members noted the dates they would be out of town and the adjustments to meeting schedules. ADJOURNMENT: Woodson moved to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Rohovit seconded. The motion carried unani- mously. ecodev'm'~ins~rc5-19.doc DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 2, 1997- 4:00 P.M. PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Nagle, Bill Nowysz, Phil Reisetter, Clara Swan, Daryl Woodson MEMBERS ABSENT: Karyl Larson, Randy Rohovit STAFF PRESENT: David Schoon, Traci Howard OTHERS PRESENT: David Brost, Jr., John Sapp CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend by a vote of 5-0, approval of the design review application for exterior alterations to Suite 160, Old Capitol Mall, 201 S. Clinton Street (Taco Bell) as submitted subject to: the project containing only one facia sign on the center wall panel of the addition, as previously approved; future review and approval of the raised plaza area adjacent to the Taco Bell project; and the use of non-lighted window and door signage. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Swan called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO SUITE 160, OLD CAPITOL MALL, 201 S. CLINTON STREET ('TACO BELL): Sapp said that the proposed application contains the same design as previously presented, except that Heitman Properties suggested they go to a single level because the raised terrace seems to be the direction the mall is going for the future. Sapp said the overall height is the same, the awnings are smaller and there is more signage. He said the Taco Bell door comes out of an angled wall to get to the raised area. Sapp noted that signs are shown on all three sections of the addition as shown on the elevations provided to Committee members. He said that they will begin building as soon as Heitman Properties is ready. Woodson said he thought it would be nice if Heitman Properties would come to the Committee with their plan for the overall building facade so he could get an idea of what the overall building will look like and be able to ask questions. He said he assumed that the Taco Bell signage amount met code regulations, and noted that he thought using the maximum amount of signage was overkill. Sapp said the extra signs were added to increase visibility down the Pedestrian Mall. Nowysz asked if the added signage could be removed, the signage in the top- center section could be left and the extra signage be put on the entrance door because pedestrians would be able to see the signage better if it were on a lower level. Woodson asked what the floor level elevation was. Brost, Jr. said it is 2'2", same as the mall elevation. Woodson said that pedestrians would not be able to see the higher extra signage. Sapp said the goal of the extra signage is to attract pedestrians from at least one block away. Swan asked why the two extra signs were added when the fascia angles are the same as on the previous application. Sapp said since the door had to be moved, it could not be located underneath the center fascia sign. He said that key entrances are usually marked by signs, and the signage would not be balanced if the only sign was above the doorway. Woodson Design Review Committee Minutes June 2, 1997 Page 2 suggested eliminating the center fascia sign and keeping the two angled signs. Reisetter noted that how the Committee decides on this issue will set a precedent on how to deal with similar future requests. He suggested keeping the middle sign and taking out the two outside signs. Brost, Jr. noted that since the awnings are not illuminated and the entrance door is flush with the angle, the only light over the entrance comes from the fascia sign. Sapp said he would like to try to retain the two angled fascia signs to keep the signage balanced and to get the best view for pedestrian traffic. Reisetter said the center sign seems to be visible. Sapp said that while they are targeting student traffic and would like to keep all three signs, they would be flexible if necessary. Reisetter asked about sidewalk seating. Sapp said that tables are planned for the terrace area that would be a common area when the adjacent store opens on the front of the building. Woodson said that with the ramp and the common area another storefront could not open up right next to the Taco Bell. Brost, Jr. said that the steps and ramps may fluctuate from the current plans. Sapp passed out a memo from Heitman Properties outlining what they will provide. Woodson asked if the color scheme was the same as the previous application. Sapp said the colors and awning materials are the same. Reisetter moved to approve the design review application for the exterior alterations to suite 160, Old Capitol Mall 201 S. Clinton Street (Taco Bell) as submitted subject to the project containing only one facia sign on the center wall panel of the addition, as previously approved. Nowysz seconded the motion. Schoon suggested recommending that the raised plaza area also be subject to Design Review and approval. Sapp asked if the allowance for door signage could also be included in the motion. Reisetter accepted the friendly amendments to his motion and moved to approve the design review application for the exterior alterations to Suite 160, Old Capitol Mall 201 S. Clinton Street (Taco Bell) as submitted subject to: the project containing only one facia sign on the center wall panel of the addition, as previously approved; future review and approval of the raised plaza area adjacent to the Taco Bell project; and the use of non-lighted window and door signage. Nowysz seconded the motion. Sapp said the raised area is a small section that will not be extended on; just used for an entrance and exit. Brost, Jr. asked if the first 20 feet of the project was required to go through Design Review. Woodson said yes. Schoon said he spoke with Dierdre and made her aware of that. Reisetter asked if the Taco Bell could have portable signs. Woodson said yes, as long as the signs are located on mall property. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Schoon noted that Council will discuss this issue at its work session tonight (June 2). CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 27, 1997, MEETING: Woodson moved to approve the May 27, 1997, meeting minutes. Reisetter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Design Review Committee Minutes June 2, 1997 Page 3 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Schoon noted that the City Council will be discussing projecting and portable signs, the transit interchange and Taco Bell at Monday night's meeting. Nagle asked if the University Campus Planning office had been consulted concerning the transit interchange. Schoon said he forwarded the suggestion, but had not heard anything back. He said he would follow up and call the Campus Planning office. Nagle asked what would happen if the Council approves the measure before Campus Planning looks at it. Schoon said he would ask and bring that information to the next meeting. Schoon passed out a memo concerning the white plastic fencing in the Pedestrian Mall. ADJOURNMENT: Reisetter moved to adjourn the meeting. Nagle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by Traci Howard. ecodev/m in/d r0~-O2.doc MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 1997 m 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Lowell Brandt, Kate Corcoran, Bill Haigh MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Bender, Patricia Eckhardt STAFF PRESENT: Melody Rockwell, Dennis Mitchell, Ron Boose, Traci Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Campbell, Bob Downer, Jim Hammes, Dick Pattschull CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Haigh called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Brandt, Corcoran and Haigh were present for roll call. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 9. 1997, BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Brandt moved to approve the minutes of the April 9, 1997, meeting of the Board of Adjustment, as printed. Corcoran seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: EXC97-0007. Public hearing on an application submitted by T & R Investments, Inc. for a special exception to permit the temporaw outdoor storage of tires and appliances as a recycling center accessory use for property located in the General Industrial (I-1) zone at 2401 Scott Boulevard. Rockwell requested that the Board defer consideration of the item to allow time for staff to complete the site plan review. She showed the site plan that was received late the previous Thursday, and stated that staff needed more time to go over the plan to make sure all items were addressed. She said staff would also like to elicit specific written information concerning the type of fencing proposed for screening the 'discarded tires and appliances, and the proposed method of mosquito abatement. Rockwell noted that staff would like to give the applicant a chance to comply with the property screening requirements prior to Board consideration of the request. MOTION: Brandt moved to defer consideration of EXC97-0007, a special exception to permit the temporary outdoor storage of tires and appliances as an accessory use of a recycling processing facility for property located in the I-1 zone at 2401 Scoff Boule- vard to the Board's June meeting. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion to defer was a~3proved bv a vote of 3-0. EXC97-0008. Public hearing on an application submitted by Eby Development & Man- agement Company for a special exception to modify the required off-street parking for a 2.38 acre tract located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone on the northeast corner of the Scott Boulevard/Lower West Branch Road intersection. Rockwell said Eby Development is requesting a special exception to reduce the number of parking spaces required for Sterling House, a one-stow building' which is designed with 37 Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 2 efficiency apartments around an interior courtyard. This facility is intended to serve as a residence for older persons who do not require nursing care, but need some assisted living services. Based on their experience at similar facilities developed and managed by the applicant, it is anticipated that more than 95 percent of the Sterling House residents will not own or drive cars. Rockwell noted that the Board may grant a special exception to reduce the number of parking spaces by not more than 50 percent if it can be shown that the specific use has characteristics such that the number of parking spaces required is too restrictive. Rockwell said staff supports a reduction in paving in residential areas, where it can be shown that the parking requirements for a specific use are excessive. In this case, staff feels it is overly stringent to require 37 parking spaces for a 37-unit assisted living residence, such as the Sterling House, which will have older, frail residents who are mostly in their eighties and who do not drive. Staff feels providing 27 parking spaces will ensure sufficient parking for staff, visitors and the few residents who do drive vehicles. Rockwell said staff suggests a condition allowing the City to require additional parking to be installed should it be needed in the future. Staff is also requesting as a condition of approval that ten parking spaces be landbanked on the site in the event that more parking is needed. Rockwell noted that the City Council must approve a rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment before Sterling House can be established at the proposed location. Rockwell said staff, therefore, recommends that EX097-0008, a special exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 37 parking spaces to 27 parking spaces for a 37-unit apartment complex for a 2.38 acre. property located in the RS-5 zone at the northeast corner of the Scott Boulevard/Lower West Branch Road intersection be approved, subject to 1) City Council approval of OPDH-12 rezoning of the property, 2) Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designate the area for medium density housing, 3) the stipulation that the parking reduction is tied specifically to the use of the property for an assisted living facility for elders and/or persons with disabilities, and 4) the applicant delineating on the site plan the area that will be landbanked for ten additional parking spaces that the City many require to be provided if the City determines additional parking is needed in the future. Rockwell said she had received a phone call from a neighboring property owner concerning the special exception. The person had quite a few questions, but had no problem with the requested special exception. Public hearing: Jon Campbell, '706 North Lindenwood, Olathe, KS, said he was present to represent Eby Development. He said they have reviewed the conditions recommended by staff and are ready to comply with all of them. The site engineer has already reviewed where to place the ten additional parking spots. Haigh asked Campbell if this was the first facility built outside of Kansas. Campbell said no, that Eby Development is currently building or has development plans in Sioux City, Fort Dodge, Marshalltown, Urbandale, West Des Moines, Council Bluffs, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, Dubuque, Muscatine, Burlington, Omaha, NE; and Lincoln, NE, to name a few. He said they have also started development work in the Indianapolis, IN, area. Public hearing closed. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 3 MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve EXC97-0008, a special exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 37 parking spaces to 27 parking spaces for a 37- unit apartment complex for a 2.38 acre property located in the RS-5 zone at the north- east corner of the Scott Boulevard/Lower West Branch Road intersection, subject to 1) City Council approval of OPDH-12 rezoning of the property, 2) Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designate the area for medium density housing, 3) the stipulation that thE; parking reduction is tied specifically to the use of the property for an assisted living facility for elders and/or persons with disabilities, and 4) the applicant delineating on the site plan the area that will be landbanked for ten additional parking spaces that the City many require to be provided if the City determines additional parking is needed in the future. Brandt seconded the motion. Corcoran said she had no problem approving the item, because of the attached conditions that can be applied should there be an increased need for parking; if there is an increased need, additional parking can be provided on the site. She noted the evidence of past experience provided by the applicant, in particular, the numbers submitted by Eby Development concerning their Topeka, KS, facility where they have 37 residents, only 25 parking stalls and no residents who own cars. Brandt agreed, saying the exception meets Board standards and does not seem to be detrimental to neighboring properties or the general public safety, health or welfare. He said the land banked spaces for future use, if needed, addressed any parking concerns. He noted that having less paving immediately, when the parking demand will be low, will be an enhancement in this residential area. Haigh agreed. He thought that Eby Development did an excellent job presenting the informa- tion about their other facilities. He said the graph on parking demand and usage at the other facilities allayed any fears he might have had regarding potential parking problems. He said the land banked spaces solution is the best approach to provide the proper balance of parking spaces and open green space. The motion was 'approved on a vote of 3-0. 3. EXC97-0010. Public hearing on an application submitted by Richard W. Pattschull for a special exception to modify the front yard requirement along Iowa Avenue for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 621, 623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue. Richard Pattschull, 315 Fairview Avenue, asked for the item to be postponed and combined with VAR97-0002 that also related to his property. Rockwell said the items should be kept separate, but this item could be deferred on the agenda so the special exception and variance can be considered one after another. Corcoran moved to amend the agenda to allow consideration of EXC97-0010, an appli- cation for a special exception to modify the front yard requirement along Iowa Avenue to follow after VAR97-0001, the variance application of Herbert and Mary Beth Hammes. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion I~assed bv a vote of 3-0. VARIANCE ITEMS: 1. VAR97~0001. Public hearing on an application submitted by Herbert J. and Mary Beth Hammes for a variance to permit a non-modular, duplex residence in a manufactured Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 4 housing park for property located in the Factory Built Housing Residential (RFBH) zone at 2254 S. Riverside Drive. Rockwell said the applicants are requesting a use variance to legalize an apartment unit that was recently created within an existing building located on the Thatcher Mobile Home Park property. The building formerly housed a beauty salon, but was converted earlier this year without the benefit of a building permit. One issue involved is that in the RFBH zone, only manufactured, mobile and modular homes are permitted; site-constructed homes are not permitted. The dwelling unit in question is housed in a cinder block building. In addition, the RFBH zone regulations do not specifically permit duplex residences. The apartment is physi- cally attached to the existing single-family home on the property, resulting in the building being essentially a duplex. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a use variance to allow a non-modular duplex within the RFBH zone. Rockwell noted that when a variance is being considered, there are hardship tests that need to be met and public interest elements that need to be considered. She said that staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed use of the property will not threaten the neighborhood integrity. She said the portion of the property containing the duplex in question is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as residential at 8-16 dwelling units per acre. The proposed duplex would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, but not with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Rockwell said in considering the tests of unnecessary hardship, staff notes that the property in question covers 18 acres and isthe site of numerous manufactured housing units. It would be hard to argue that the loss of one dwelling unit, for which approval was never granted by the City, because a building permit was not applied for, would result in the property not yielding a reasonable return. With regard to this specific building, it had been used in the past for a home occupation, and it could be used again in this manner or put to some use that is accessory to the principal use of the property, such as storage, a small recreation or gathering space for residents or a storm shelter. Prior to it being converted to a dwelling unit, the building had the same use limitations as it currently does. The fact that it has already been converted to a dwelling unit should not weigh heavily in the Board's decision, given the fact that it was done without a building permit. Rockwell said the second unnecessary hardship test considers the uniqueness of the owner's situation in relation to the property. Staff feels that this situation is not unique, because there are many other manufactured housing parks that contain on-site storage buildings, community buildings and other accessory buildings that could be converted into dwelling units. If this variance is granted, the Board would be hard-pressed to justify a denial of a similar request on another RFBH property. Rockwell said staff does not agree with the applicants' statement about the shape of the lot creating a unique situation. The lot is no more conducive to a stick-built duplex than it would be for a manufactured housing unit. This portion of the property is already the site of the legal non-conforming residence, which also contains the office for the housing park, and a large garage with multiple stalls. The existence of these buildings is what restricts the use of this portion of the property for a manufactured housing unit, not the narrowness of the lot. Rockwell noted that granting the variance would increase the degree of nonconformity of the current situation. Rockwell said the applicants allude to "zoning peculiarities" and the odd shape of the lot as the reason the variance is needed, and state that neither were of their own making. Staff Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 5 questions whether any zoning peculiarities exist. The .property contains a manufactured housing park and is zoned accordingly, as is the adjacent property. Staff does not believe the odd shape of the lot causes any hardship on the applicants' use of the property, but rather it is the fact that this portion of the property is already the site of one home and storage garages that limits its further use. The event that precipitated this variance request was the conversion of a portion of an existing building to a dwelling unit without a building permit under conditions not permitted under the current RFBH zone regulations. The hardship in this case is of the applicants' own making. Rockwell said staff member Scott Kugler addressed the issue of the use variance in the staff report, and found that the Board should be reluctant to grant use variances. The variance is a procedure used to grant relief from a development standard in unusual circumstances, or where a development standard is not appropriate. However, granting a variance to allow a use that is not permitted in a particular zone is tantamount to rezoning the property without following the proper legal procedures for a rezoning. Rockwell said staff recommends that the Board not grant "use variances." If the Board feels that the proposed use is a compatible use within the RFBH zone, then it should request that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amendments to the Zoning Chapter to accommodate this use, or suggest that the applicant consider making this request. Rockwell said staff recommends that VAR97-0001, a request for a use variance to allow a non- modular duplex for property located in the RFBH zone a 2254 S. Riverside Drive, be denied. Brandt asked why the RFBH zone does not allow a non-modular structure. Rockwell said she was not sure, but said there are two issues for the Board to consider; whether or not stick built homes should be allowed in the RFBH zone and whether or not duplexes should be allowed in the zone. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 6 Public hearing: Bob Downer, the applicants' attornev, gave some background on the case noting that the Hammes closed on the property purchase on January 3, 1997. Prior to the purchase, Mr. Hammes called the City Building Inspection Division to ask if a building permit was necessary to convert the property. Although Mr. Hammes does not recall the name of the staff member he spoke with, he said the staff member told him no permit was needed. While that does not excuse the violation, Downer noted that the attempt is indicative of the Hammes' good faith efforts to try to comply with Iowa City ordinances. Downer said the Hammes are not from Iowa City, and are less familiar with the City ordinances than residents of Iowa City. Downer listed some issues reported by staff that the Hammes did not agree with, including the categorization of the building as a duplex. He showed a photograph of the structure to the Commission, saying that while the units touch, they are not on the same building foundation and are on different elevations. Downer said a duplex is defined in the zoning ordinance as "a dwelling containing two dwelling units," and he said that this particular unit is not a single dwelling. Downer said the applicants feel there is sufficient uniqueness to the property to meet the variance test, because of the property shape and size where it abuts Riverside Drive. He said that there are other general uses in this mobile home area than just mobile or modular homes, including a garage and this unit. He said it is impractical to convert this unit to a modular home. Downer stated the uses authorized by the current zoning ordinance for this area, including convenience grocery stores, barber shops, beauty parlors, laundry and dry cleaning establishments, postal stations, video stores, restaurants, and storage facilities. He noted that the allowed uses would increase traffic in the area and threaten safety. Downer noted that the proposed residential use is in accordance with the City Compre- hensive Plan, and would not be contrary to the public interest. Downer said the only thing that is keeping the unit from being built in accordance with the RFBH zone requirements is that it was individually constructed within an existing structure. Downer noted that a variance was granted in 1993 for a property to the north, and that applicant Mr. Baculis had sent a letter of support for this variance request. The 1993 variance dealt with a home being allowed on an industrially-zoned property. He said while staff feels that the Hammes do not satisfy the tests for unnecessary hardship, their property is smaller and there are peculiar geographical features that were not present in the 1993 granted variance. Brandt asked if the applicants had considered going to the Planning and Zoning Commission to ask for a Zoning Chapter amendment. Downer said the requested variance is minimal in nature, and the process of rezoning would in itself be an unnecessary hardship. He said it is not a pervasive condition, because it involves a minor degree of structural alteration for an existing structure. Brandt asked what degree of hardship the applicants would endure if this variance was not allowed. Downer said the degree would be significant for using this portion of the property, because of the property's configuration. He said these applicants have a stronger case for hardship than the 1993 granted variance. Brandt noted that most of the present Board were not on the 1993 Board that granted the variance. He felt the Board did not want to set a precedent for this type of situation. Downer said there is very little area close to this property where this issue could arise again. Corcoran asked Downer to explain how the unit is not a duplex, because the two portions share a common wall. Downer said the two are essentially separate and that the photograph Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 7 gives a more accurate representation of the situation. Brandt asked if the unit was not a duplex, what would it be classified as. Jim Hammes the applicant, said there is no common wall, because the garage is only on a slab and there is dirt between the two buildings. Corcoran asked how much space there was between the end of garage on the east and the back of the beauty shop. Hamroes said the two structures were built separately from each other and are two separate buildings. The stick-built house was moved there. The roof of the former beauty shop connects to the side of garage that has dirt underneath. He said you have to go to the office/house foundation to get to the other foundation wall. Rockwell introduced Ron Boose, the City Senior Building Inspector, to give the definition of a duplex and an explanation as to why these two dwelling units are considered a duplex. Boose said the unit does not meet the definition of two separate structures even though both parts could stand alone. He said the roof connects both structures. He said the two units are on different elevation levels, so they have to have separate foundations. Rockwell said she would like to clarify that the uses mentioned by Mr. Downer as being allowed in the RFBH zone are only permitted in manufactured housing parks that are 80 acres or more in size. She noted that the subject tract is only 18 acres in size. Rockwell also noted the modular homes that are situated immediately south of the proposed residential unit. She said this portion of the property is not completely removed from the mobile and modular home area, even though the applicants say they could not construct a modular home on the property. She reminded the Board not to consider mere diminution of economic valde as sufficient cause for granting a variance. She said the situation should approach the level of confiscation before a variance should be considered. She suggested that the Board be cautious about setting a precedent, because there are other RFBH zones throughout the community, and this type of situation could come before the Board again. Downer disagreed with Mr. Boose's definition. He said this unit should not be thrown into a category that does not meet the criteda of the other categories. He said the duplex definition is "a dwelling that contains two dwelling units." He said this is not a single structure, even though there is a joinder on the roof. Downer noted that Ms. Rockwell was correct in the limitation on uses permitted in smaller manufactured housing parks. He said that makes the hardship for this property greater, because it is smaller. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Brandt moved to approve VAR97-0001, a use variance to permit a non- modular, duplex residence in a manufactured housing park for property located in the Factory Built Housing Residential (RFBH) zone at 2254 S. Riverside Drive. Corcoran seconded the motion. Brandt said he has concerns about setting a precedent on this issue. He said granting a variance is a significant Board decision, because it goes against the Zoning Ordinance. The community wants to be sure that property rules and regulations are followed, so there are specific processes and Commissions, the Planning and Zoning Commission in particular, that should not be circumvented in making those decisions. He said the democratic process should not be bypassed. He said the standards for granting a variance are very high, and the Board needed to proceed cautiously. Brandt said he was not swayed by the applicants' unnecessary hardship argument. He said the hardship is not to such a degree that it falls under the guidelinbs for granting a variance. He said he is not supporting the motion. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 8 Haigh said he is also not persuaded by the hardship argument. He said he is concerned with the issue of setting a precedent. He said he also has trouble supporting the motion, because this variance does not pass all the required hardship tests and public interest standards. Corcoran agreed that the tests and standards for granting a variance are not satisfied. '1'he affirmative motion was denied by a vote of 0-3. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM: EXC97-0010. Public hearing on an application submitted by Richard W. Pattschull for a special exception to modify the front yard requirement along Iowa Avenue for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 621, 623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue. Rockwell said she would deal with the special exception and the variance as two separate issues, and if Mr. Pattschull wanted to tie the items together during his presentation that was his prerogative. Rockwell said the applicant recently established a 16-unit apartment house on Iowa Avenue. To meet accessibility standards, he provided an enclosed lift in front of the building. The nine-foot wide enclosure encroaches six feet into the required front yard along the Iowa Avenue right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement, and thereby allow the enclosed lift-utility service structure to remain as constructed in its present location. Rockwell said the peculiarity of the property in this case relates to the way Ralston Creek traverses the rear of the property, and restricts construction of the dwelling units and parking area to the north portion of the property that is adjacent to Iowa Avenue. In looking at the issue of practical difficulty, Rockwell said the requested exception is not substantial in quantitative terms, as it represents only a 1.8 percent encroachment into the required 15-foot front yard along Iowa Avenue. She said the enclosed lift/utility structure does not create a visually substantial encroachment. Rockwell said allowing the special exception would slightly increase the population density, because if the structure were located, as originally designed, out of the required front yard setback area, but within the parking level, at least one parking space would need to be removed, and the density level of the apartment house would need to be reduced accordingly. She said there will not be a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood, although it does contribute in a minor way to the cumulative mass of the structure, and allows a slightly higher density to be attained. Rockwell said to provide more convenient access to the lift from the parking area, staff rec- ommends that the special exception approval be subject to the applicant providing at least one handicapped-accessible parking space immediately south of the lift and constructing a curb ramp from the parking area to the sidewalk adjacent to the lift to provide more direct access between the parking area and the lift. Rockwell noted that the actual effect of the request of the yard modification is minimal. With appropriate conditions, the enclosed lift at its present location may afford fairly convenient access for persons with disabilities to the first level of the Pattschull apartments. Rockwell said enclosing the lift provides a safer, more usable means of access than an open outdoor lift. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 9 Rockwell said Pattschull has a number of compliance issues to resolve for this property, including conformance with parking and screening requirements. These code violations should be addressed in a timely manner. If the Board determines to approve the requested front yard modification, staff suggests that such approval be subject to the applicant resolving the parking and screening deficiencies. Staff also recommends that a landscaping plan be submitted for approval by the City and installed by the applicant to soften and buffer the parking area and the encroaching appearance of the building and berms on this property. To meet the intent of the code and to blend the exterior stairwells and corridors more aesthetically with the apartment building, Rockwell said staff suggests that the applicant be required to enclose the railings as shown on the plans submitted to the City by the applicant or replace the railings with a similar, enclosed design. Rockwell said when the railings were under construction, the City Inspection staff approached Pattschull about the railings, because they were different than What had been approved on the building plan. Pattschull said at that time that they were temporary, but is now saying that they are permanent. Staff requests that if this exception is approved, there be a condition to require a more enclosed look to the railings. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC97-0010, a special exception to reduce the required front yard setback requirement along Iowa Avenue by six feet for the nine-foot length of the enclosed lift/utility structure for property located in the RNC-20 zone at 621, 623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant 1) providing a handicapped-accessible parking space and curb ramp immediately adjacent to the enclosed lift structure, 2) prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy, bringing the property into compliance with parking and screening requirements, including implementing a city-approved landscaping plan to screen the parking area, and 3) reconstructing the railings of the exterior stairwells and corridors as shown on building elevations submitted by the applicant/architect, or using a similar, enclosed design, with no exposed wood railings on the exterior stairweals and corridors, as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. Rockwell said she received several calls in regard to the variance application for this property. With regard to the special exception request, Suzanne Hamdorf, whose husband Garry is co-owner of the property owner to the west of Pattschull's property, had called to remark that Pattschull had improved the property by cleaning up a messy area, but she thought landscaping the berms would be a good idea. Rockwell showed the approved site plan and how the lift looked at that time. She said the current lift improves the situation with two access points instead of only one point from the parking area as originally approved. Brandt asked if that is a door placement issue since the lift entrance is more toward the sidewalk. Rockwell showed how the design of the berm on the approved site plan would have blocked pedestrian access from the north, the side toward the sidewalk. Public hearing: Richard Pattschull, 315 Fairview Avenue, said he thinks the lift is not in nonconformance. He said he moved the stairwells back further from the street than in the 1993 site plan. He said the lift was also turned around to open to the front, and the handicapped access is open to each end of the parking area. He said he does not understand what is being cited for nonconformance and why. He said that since a ramp can project into the front yard, he did not understand why an enclosed lift cannot. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 10 Haigh said the zoning requirements are that no enclosed structure can encroach into the 15 feet front yard setback area. Pattschull asked why the stairs could project into that space, but the lift could not. Rockwell said stairs that are not enclosed or covered are allowed to project into the front yard setback area a certain distance. She said because the lift is enclosed, a special exception is required to allow it to encroach into the required front yard. If the lift were not enclosed, it could stay in the front yard without a special exception, although staff feels that option is not in the public interest. She noted that the utilities added into the lift structure increase its size. Brandt said making the lift unenclosed is not a decision for the Board to make. Pattschull said the plan for the lift was approved, and now he has to do extra items that do not relate to the lift. Brandt said if there are violations that exist at the time of the exception consideration, the Board will grant the exception on the condition that the violations are resolved. He said while those violations may not be part of the lift issue, they are part of the total project. Pattschull said he made a positive improvement to the property and.is now being penalized with the issue of nonconformance. He asked what the value of a building permit had. He said that on December 10, 1996, he received notice that the interior violations were substantially resolved. He said the exterior violations dealt with the berms and the building height. Brandt asked about the railings issue. Pattschull said the railings fall under the same June 27, 1995, ordinance requirement, and he thinks they do not apply to what he is doing. He said he changed them from steel to wood, because he could not find contractors to build steel railings, and contractors to build the wooden stairs were already in place. Pattschull said he did not plan to use woodr but the railings needed to get done and they were not a temporary solution. He said the design is the same: Haigh said that it was different from what was shown on the building plan. Pattschull said the railings were shown as steel on the building plan, but it is not unusual to change materials during a building project. He said he was not aware of the ordinance concerning stairwells. He said he did not intend to skirt the issue. Brandt asked about providing a handicapped-accessible parking space and ramp closer to the lift structure. Pattschull suggested placing the handicapped-accessible parking space in the street and make a sidewalk to connect the space and the lift; then there would be no need to worry about a handicapped individual negotiating the interior of the parking ramp. He said the parking behind the lift does not qualify as'a parking space for ADA, because it is a compact space, but the rest of the spaces are in conformance with ADA regulations. He said that if he has any handicapped tenants, he would accommodate them. He said he was not sure why staff wanted to change the location. He said the proposed solution would require him to get another exception concerning required parking spaces, because the removal of one space would require him to lower the building density. Brandt said Pattschull is suggesting that this exception not be subject to any of the staff recommended conditions. Pattschull said the issue with the railings is not a reasonable request. He said there were some other items that were not addressed in the discussion. Pattschull said the dumpsters are well-placed and satisfactory for tenants, and there is a conflict with staff concerning the screening. He said the landscaping is completed, and does not understand why there needs to be a city-approved landscaping plan for this; grass should be enough. Rockwell asked Pattschull to clarify his request to the Board. Pattschull said he wants the lift to be approved as it is, and the handicapped-accessible parking .space placed on the street Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 11 in front of the building if staff considers it necessary. Brandt said the reason for rules and regulations is to make sure individuals in the community do not construct and build whatever they want without regard to zoning and building regulations. Pattschull said there is no way to present his arguments, and asked the criteria that made the lift a violation. Rockwell said that if the lift is enclosed, it is not allowed to encroach into the 15-foot front yard area without a special exception approved by the Board of Adjustment to modify the front yard requirement. Boose said the Zoning Chapter specifically allows certain obstructions in the front yard, including unenclosed decks and uncovered stairs. He said it is the roof and the supporting columns of the roof structure that define the object as a structure. He said if the lift in question were not enclosed, it would not be considered a structure and would not require a special exception to modify the front yard requirement. Haigh said ordinance subsection 14-6Q-4B discusses the required front yard setbacks. He said that since the lift is enclosed and is encroaching into the front yard setback area, it requ!res a special exception. Mitchell suggested looking at subsections 14-6Q-3G and -3K which address uncovered fire escapes and uncovered porches permitted in the front yard. Pattschull said he would like to know of these violations and problems before the building is built and a permit is received. His interpretation of what was required was that if he left the windows open, he would be in conformance. Brandt said making the lift unenclosed would not be in the best interest for those using it and would be unfortunate. Pattschull said the staff conditions were not identified ahead of time or when he applied for the special exception, and they were a surprise to him. Haigh suggested deferring the item, and giving Pattschull another month to work with staff and iron out the problems. Pattschull said that he had no desire to violate the rules and regulations, but does not want to go through the process to implement things for his building. He noted that there is a handicapped-accessible street parking space at 806 Second Avenue in front of a residence. He also noted that there are many different levels of handicapped people. ~Boose said that ADA requirements only apply to public buildings, so it does not apply to this building. He said Fair Housing rules apply to this building, but neither one lay out a specific length for a parking space. It is intended that the spaces be standard size, but it is not stipulated. He said the width of 12.5 feet is required. Boose said State Code says that the handicapped-accessible space should be on the most direct route to the point of handicapped access to the building. Boose said the parking lot is not in compliance, because there is one space more than can fit in the lot and the parking spaces are only striped eight feet wide, so a person cannot get out of the car if a car is parked in the space beside it. He said the handicapped-accessible space is not required to be provided until a tenant requests one. The City requires that the spaces for required handicapped-accessible spaces be shown and that they be able to be provided on demand without reducing the required number of parking spaces. Rockwell said a problem with the handicapped spaces that are shown in the two far corner spaces of the parking area is that the electric and gas meters were moved from where they were placed on the original plan to just behind these spaces, so there is not sufficient back- ing space to count either space as a handicapped-accessible or a standard space; neither space can currently count toward the required parking total. She asked the Board to take action tonight on this case, unless the applicant specifically requests a deferral. Public hearing closed. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 12 MOTION: Brandt moved to approve EXC97-0010, a special exception to reduce the required front yard setback requirement along Iowa Avenue by six feet for the nine- foot length of the enclosed lift/utility structure for property located in the RNC-20 zone at 621,623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue, subject to the applicant 1) providing a handi- capped-accessible parking space and curb ramp immediately adjacent to the enclosed lift structure, 2) prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy, bringing the property into compliance with parking and screening requirements, including implementing a city-approved landscaping plan to screen the parking area, and 3) reconstructing the railings of the exterior stairwells and corridors as shown on building elevations submitted by the applicant/architect, or using a similar, enclosed design, with no exposed wood railings on the exterior stairwells and corridors, as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. Corcoran seconded the motion. Brandt said he supports the motion as it is stated including the conditions, because there is some dispute between the applicant and staff concerning technical violations. He said the conditions are reasonable and represent issues that should be worked out between the applicant and staff. Brandt said the item meets the standards for a special exception, because the enclosed lift does not provide much neighborhood disruption and would benefit potential tenants. He said he supports the motion as made. Corcoran agreed in regard to the lift, but she was concerned with the railings matter. She asked Rockwell to define the word "reconstructed" in the staff recommendation. Rockwell said that the 1996 building plan showed the railings vertical, not horizontal. She said if the Board feels that reconstruction of the railings is too encumbering a condition, it could consider requiring the exposed wood to be painted or stained. Corcoran asked what an "enclosed design" would be. Rockwell said it would be a wall of wood with no open spaces. Corcoran asked Rockwell with regard to the landscaping plan, if staff feels there has not been a sufficient plan implemented by Pattschull. Rockwell said that it is not required to do extensive screening, but because of the way the parking is visible even with the berms and because there is a screening requirement for parking, staff feels that grass does not provide an appropriate screen. She said the trees Pattschull mentioned were right-of-way trees, and are different from trees required for screening. In response to a question from Corcoran, Rockwell said the railings shown on the approved plan were not what was constructed. Brandt asked if that was a design issue or a building code issue. Rockwell said it is a design'issue. Corcoran asked if the problem is that the railing wood is unpainted. Rockwell said the railings would blend in more if they were painted. MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION: Corcoran moved to amend the main motion made by Brandt to change the third condition to read, "reconstruction of the railings of the exterior stairwells and corridors, as shown on the building elevations submitted by the applicant/architect, or painting the exposed railings on the exterior stairwells and corridors so they substantially match the existing color of the building." Brandt seconded the motion. Haigh said the amendment was well-taken and makes sense, and he will support the amendment. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 13 The amendment to the main motion r)assed by a vote of 3-0. Haigh said it makes more sense to keep the lift enclosed. It is a minor front yard modifi- cation, and he supports it. He agreed that there needed to be some screening below near the parking and that grass is not an acceptable screening agent. Comoran asked if Haigh approved of the first condition. Haigh said yes, that a handicapped-accessible space needed to be provided in a location convenient to the lift. The amended main motion I~assed by a vote of 3-0. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 14 VARIANCE ITEM: VAR97-0002. Public hearing on an application submitted by Richard W. Pattschull for a building height variance for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 621,623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue. Rockwell said the applicant is requesting that the Board grant a variance to allow the height of a 16-unit apartment building to exceed the maximum 35-foot building height limit in the RNC-20 zone. The building is 41.5 feet tall, which is 6.5 feet greater in height than is permitted by Code. The height of a building is defined as the vertical distance from the grade to the roofline. The applicant contends that if the grade for the apartment building were established at the top of the berms that have been constructed around portions of the building, the building would not exceed the 35-foot height limitation. Rockwell said the Board may grant a variance if they are certain the public interest will not be compromised and that the hardship tests are met. According to City Code section 14-4B-4C, no variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the public interest and unnecessary hardship elements are met. Rockwell said in April 1995, Pattschull received site plan approval to construct a 16-unit apartment building with parking on the lower level. The first residential level contains eight two-bedroom apartments. The second residential level contains eight three-level, four-bedroom townhouse apartments. To attain the desi~'ed height for the townhouse apartment units while complying with the 35-foot maximum building height in the RNC- 20 zone, Pattschull incorporated berms/raised planters near the perimeter of the building as a means of establishing grade at a height at least 6.5 feet above the parking level grade. Rockwell said grade is defined in the staff report, and noted that the definition Pattschull provided in his application has not been in effect since July 5, 1994, when the City approved recodification of the City Code. Rockwell said grade is established at the level of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk in the area that is zero to five feet from the exterior walls of the building. The established grade must abut at least 50 percent of the perimeter of the building. The planters on the east and west sides of the building that are separated from the building by walkways cannot be used to establish grade. There are breaks in the berm along the front, sides and rear of the building. These gaps in the berms cannot be used to establish grade at the top of the berm. She said there are not enough berms/raised planters abutting the building to establish grade above the parking area/lower walkway level. It is clear that the outward appearance of where the grade is for this property as well as the technical requirements for establishing grade are not met at the higher elevation, as contended by the applicant. Rockwell said having the parking essentially "at grade" under the residential units means that the apartments begin at a higher elevation than would be the case if separate, surface parking could be provided on site. Another factor that contributes to the building height is the study room on the third level of the townhouse units. This room has a closet, and in practice is likely to be used as a fifth bedroom in the townhouse units. The additional height of the building may allow for a higher density than should be permitted, as no parking spaces are provided for a fifth bedroom in the townhouse units. Granting a variance to allow the building height to be maintained above the maximum allowed height would in essence give the applicant a special privilege that is not accorded to Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 15 other apartment developers in this neighborhood conservation zone in near downtown Iowa City. Rockwell said in considering the public interest element, staff noted that the building height is not compatible with surrounding properties either in terms of the neighboring residential structures that exist there now or in terms of what could be built on these neighboring properties in the future in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The additional height of the building allows for increased density with insuffi- cient parking, which will likely result in parking spillover into public streets in a neigh- borhood where parking congestion is already a recognized problem. Rockwell said in considering the impact on adjacent properties, staff noted that the building of berms around the parking area may result in some increased sense of pri- vacy for people living on the adjacent properties to the east and west. However, the obtrusive effect of the berms, the increased height of the building that increases the absolute mass of the building and the high, windowless east and west walls of the apartment building combine to create a walled-off appearance that architecturally dwarfs the adjacent properties. Reducing the height of the building by 6.5 feet from the top of the apartment building would make a recognizable difference for adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood by 1) lowering the roof line, 2) reducing the overall bulk of the building, 3) allowing for removal of bermed areas that add obtrusive mass into the front and side yards that should serve as open setback areas, instead of blocking light, air and visual relief in these areas, and 4) in practical terms, effectively reducing the density of the apartment building by removing the loft study rooms, and thereby bringing the actual parking demand closer into line with the number of parking spaces that can be provided on site. Rockwell said staff also considered the intent of the Zoning Chapter. She said when nearly half of a property is encompassed by a stream corridor, it is not likely that the property can be developed appropriately at its highest allowable density. In this case, trying to build at the maximum allowable density on land constrained by a stream corri- dor has resulted in berms in the front yard, raised planters in the side yards, a building that exceeds the height limitation and a decrease in the quality and amount of the natu- ral area, including mature trees with stabilizing root systems, along the north creek bank. These factors create the potential for adding parking congestion in the streets and have resulted in the overcrowding of the buildable portion of the site. Staff feels that granting the requested variance would not meet the intent of the Zoning Chapter. The intent section of the RNC-20 zone is "to preserve the character of existing neigh- borhoods and to prevent existing multi-family uses in the neighborhood from becoming nonconforming." It is staff's view that granting a variance to allow the apartment building to exceed the maximum height limit for buildings in the RNC-20 zone would detract from them, instead of preserving the character of the existing neighborhood. Rockwell said staff also examined the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages higher density development and reinvestment in the near downtown neigh- borhoods that "preserves desirable neighborhood characteristics" and "creates desirable living environments." The applicant's replacement of dilapidated, unsafe housing that previously existed on this property with a new, higher density apartment building is consistent with the housing policies of the Comprehensive Plan if the building is appro- priately constructed in scale and harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and the carrying capacity of the site. Granting the building height variance would skew the Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 16 intended balance of the housing policies toward higher density, but away from the desired quality of a residential neighborhood environment. Rockwell said the Board needs to examine the three tests of unnecessary hardship, and noted that all three tests must be met to grant the variance. Concerning the reasonable return test, if the variance is not granted the applicant will be required to either 1) con- struct berms abutting the building that are of sufficient width and length to establish grade at an elevation that is high enough to achieve technical compliance with the building height requirement, or 2) remove 6.5 feet from the top part of the building, remove the loft apartments and reconstruct the roof to meet the maximum 35-foot building height requirement. The second remedy would be more expensive, but would bring the development into closer alignment with the spirit and the letter of the law. In either case, reasonable use of the property for a purpose allowed in the zone could continue. In considering the uniqueness test, staff feels the presence of Ralston Creek does con- strain development of the property, but not to the point of requiring that the building height exceed the 35-foot height limitation. The same dimensional requirements apply to all properties in the RNC-20 zone, even when these properties are located along a creek. To grant a variance in this case would give advantage to the applicant that has not been granted to others who have developed apartment buildings in the area follow- ing the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Granting the variance may also set an unwarranted precedent that condones construction that does not follow approved plans and contravenes code requirements. In considering the test of whether the situation is of the landowner's own making, Rockwell said staff feels the applicant/architect/landowner Richard Pattschull designed and caused a building to be constructed that exceeds the height limitation for buildings in the RNC-20 zone. In his justification section, Pattschull states that the "design con- cept of parking under the building and using berms to establish building height was reviewed with City Planning in the master planning process." Rockwell said planning staff were involved in the site plan review for this project, but did not encourage or endorse the use of berms to establish building height. In fact, staff noted throughout the process that although it might be possible to achieve technical compliance through the use of berms, it was not advisable, because of the severe aesthetic design and · compatibility issues that were inherent in the berm design. Rockwell noted that a 1993 elevation of the building did show wide berms in the side yards extending to exterior walls of the building. The 1995 approved site plan showed no berms in the required side yards, and only showed walkways. She said one reason for this was in 1993 the parking required and shown was 32 spaces. The applicant allowed the site plan to expire, and it came under different compliance requirements in 1995, because the ordinance had been amended to require parking based on the number of bedrooms in the apartments, not on the square footage of each apartment. Therefore, Pattschull had to provide 40 parking spaces. To do that, he extended the parking beyond the sides of the building. On the site plan submitted with the 1997 variance application, the applicant shaded in with colored pencil where the raised planters are now constructed in the side yards. No approved plan or elevation shows the raised planters as they are now constructed separated from the building by meters and walkways. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 17 Rockwell said the applicant expressed some concern about having to relocate the gas and electric meters if the berms are constructed in compliance with the ordinance. The. site plan approved on April 14, 1995, shows the meters on the south face of the north wall of the parking area; screened from public view. Rockwell noted that the problems being faced today result from the applicant not implementing the plans that were approved by the City. She said maximum located in staff recommends denial of VAR97-0002, a variance to modify the 35-foot building height requirement for a 16-unit apartment building on property the RNC-20 zone at 621,623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue. Rockwell said she received a number of calls concerning the variance. One was from a tenant in an apartment building near the property in question, asking questions about the item. Suzanne Hamdorf, whose husband Garry co-owns apartments next door on Iowa Avenue, complimented. Pattschull with cleaning up the area and increasing the property value with a nice building, but she said other developers worked hard with City staff to stay in compliance with the Zoning Chapter. She did not understand why Pattschull did not comply, and urged the Board not simply to give him a slap on the hand. Don Mahanah, who manages the home and property east of the Pattschull property for his mother, said that he hated the building and was concerned with pedestrians cutting through his mother's yard. He said Pattschull's building looks like a cat over a mouse. Mahanah liked the idea of having the berms extended to the top of the creek bank to separate the properties. Gary Albertson, who co-owns the property to the west, called to ask how .the project happened and why the building height was allowed to exceed the code requirements. He said Pattschull should have asked for the variance before the building was built, not after the fact. Rockwell provided enlargements of the 1993 and 1995 approved site plans for Board members. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 18 Public hearing: Richard Pattschull, 315 Fairview Ave. said he did not concur with the fact that he needs a variance request, because the current building height meets the 35-foot requirement. He presented Board members with a sketch concerning the problem, and gave some background on the project. Pattschull said after the 1993 site plan was approved, he started the project and identified the design criteria. He said the building height was a primary concern, and the problem he had was that the 100-year flood level for this site was about one foot higher than the street level, so he wanted to keep the building and parking above flood level. He said there were two building height requirements that needed to be met; with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and with the Zoning Chapter. He said the UBC is more restrictive so he used that to establish building height criteria. Boose clarified that the zoning requirements are identical to those of UBC, and neither allow a sidewalk between the berms and the building. Pattschull referred to the justification section of his variance application and the UBC to show that he was in conformance with the 35-foot building height maximum. He said the other items discussed were the setbacks, and they were approved by the City prior to establishing this concept. This is when they considered the location of the handicapped- accessible parking spaces. Pattschull said in the 1995 approved plan, it was his intent to move the berms to get light and ventilation, and to provide screening for the utility meters. He said the initial concept was worked out with a staff member who is no longer employed by the City. He said because the first site plan elapsed due to lack of financing, the parking area was modified in 1995 to add eight additional parking spaces. To accommodate the additional spaces, he moved the stair towers in front of the building, changed the nine-foot wide standard spaces to eight-foot wide compact spaces and edged the handicapped-parking spaces out past the building edge. Pattschull tried to petition staff to secure the additional eight spaces in the alley on the other side of Ralston Creek, and he met resistance from staff on this issue of using the alley. At that point, he redesigned the parking spaces. He said the 50 percent requirement for the berms was never a point of contention, and the changes in berms and design were presented to staff. Pattschull went through the variance criteria and reread the background section of the staff report previously read by Rockwell. He asked Rockwell what "contrived" meant in the report. Rockwell said it means that the grade was being established by artificial means; to assert that raised planters separated from the building by walkways and meters can be used to establish grade is in staff's view a contrived means of doing so. Pattschull handed out a copy of the grade definition from a book explaining the UBC standards. Haigh said that zoning laws changed within one year after Pattschull submit- ted the site plan, and since he did not know the edition of the book containing the definition, it could have also changed and could be inaccurate. Pattschull read the defi- nition of "grade" from Page 13-Letter G-Section 408, that stated, "The code indicates that grade is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground within an area between the building and property line or where the property line is more than five feet from the building between the building and a line five feet from the building. This definition is important in determining the number of stories within a building as well as its height in feet. In some cases the finished surface of the ground may be artificially raised with imported fill to create a higher grade around the building so as to decrease the number of stories or height in feet. The code does not prohibit this practice, and as long as a building meets the code definition and restrictions for height or number or stories, Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 19 the intent of the code is met." He said that this was the basis for both site plan reviews, and neither were intended to be contrived. Pattschull went through the staff report and read parts of it. He said in order to comply with the zoning ordinance, he could extend the berm to the building to bring the end planters into conformance. He said the utility meters would have to be relocated to the building face and would then be exposed to view, which would require screening. He said the impact of the building height does not change. He said his building is compatible with the regulations. Pattschull admitted that the mass difference between his building and the next building to the east is significant. He said concerning the impact on the neighborhood and potential higher building density and parking problems, he has provided the required parking and the density will not change because he will only rent the four bedroom apartments to four people. He said the study room has no door and is not private. He said staff comments are not applicable, because the study room will not be a bedroom, so the density will not change. He said cutting off the top of the building will not change the mass of surrounding units. He said he had problems with staff's logic. He showed Board members the site plan and explained his point. Pattschull said he was not sure where he deviated from the site and building plans. Rockwell said that none of the plans show berms in the side yards that are separated from the building. She said the 1995 approved plan, the one that governs the process, only shows a walkway in the side yard. Pattschull asked if the site plan showed the side berm areas, and Rockwell said no, the berms Pattschull sketched were never part of an approved plan. Pattschull said the 1995 approved plan requires 50 percent of the berm area to be at a certain height, and there wa~ no attempt on his part to skirt that issue. He said he intended to locate the meters where he indicated in the approved plans, but the gas and electric companies forced him to relocate the meters. Pattschull said from his standpoint, the building height was never in question, and he was always designing to meet the 35-foot limitations. Staff approved the building and site plans indicating that height. He said that this issue was not brought to his attention until he was told that he needed the berms. Mitchell said that the Board should use the definition of "grade" as reported on page 2 of the staff report, because that is the definition put into effect in July 1994, and the current Zoning Chapter definition that is relevant to this issue. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Brandt moved to approve VAR97-0002, a Variance to modify the 35-foot maximum building height requirement for a 16-unit apartment building on property located in the RNC-20 zone at 621,623, 625 and 627 Iowa Avenue. Corcoran seconded the motion. Corcoran asked for clarification on the definition of a berm and how the 50 percent requirement is measured. Mitchell said that Building Official has given a liberal interpre- tation to the definition of grade. Corcoran said that she understood berms to be soil touching the building and its foundation, so the planters and wooden structures separated from the building by a walkway do not qualify as berms under that definition and do not constitute a way to raise the grade. Boose said this is true where there is space or a walkway between the berm and the building. He said that the berms on the east and west sides of the building do not establish grade,' because the lowest point of Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 20 elevation is the sidewalk between the building and the berm. He said' the berms on the rear of the building conform, because even though there is space between them and the building, there is not enough room for a walkway. Rockwell noted that the berms in front of the building also technically conform because they go up to the front structural supports of the building. Boose said there is no way that 50 percent of the area abutting the perimeter of the structure is bermed to raise the grade. Corcoran asked how the 35 feet of building height is measured. Boose said it is meas- ured from the grade to the midpoint of the roof. Boose said that point is consistent between the building code and the zoning ordinance. Pattschull said if the end berms are brought over to the edge of the building, the 50 percent grade requirement would be met. Corcoran asked if those really qualify as berms. Pattschull said he constructed the wooden structure to maintain the walkway through the area and provide screening for the utility meters. Moving those side berms would cause relocation of the meters, and would not decrease the building mass or be the best solution for the building. Brandt said the issue is the grade, and that berm could be considered a grade. He said he interpreted the definitions differently and thinks that the building is tall. He said that he is not comfortable approving a variance on this issue, and will not support the motion. Haigh agreed, and said he had trouble with the grade concept as proposed by Pattschull. He said he thought the building was too high, and had a problem with setting a precedent for projects like this in the future. He said the standards for granting a variance have not been met. He said he will not support the motion. Corcoran said she did not favor the application. She said she visited the site and noted that the eave of Pattschull's building was located approximately at the top of the roofline of the building next door. She said that what Pattschull has constructed do not constitute berms, such that the 50 percent requirement has been satisfied, and the berms have not been built as they are shown on the site plan. She said that the additional requirements stemming from the lapsed plans did not cause Pattschull to reduce the size or number of units in the building, but instead he changed the configuration underneath the building. She said that none of the Board members are questioning Pattschull's motives or intent; it is just the reality of the building and the constraints of the property. The affirmative motion was denied by a vote of 0-3. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Brandt said he will be absent for the June 11, 1997, Board meeting. Corcoran and Haigh said they will be absent for the July 9, 1997, meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Corcoran moved to adjourn the meeting. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1997 Page 21 *Patricia Eckhardt, Board Chair Melody Ro" ell~a,B ard Secretary Minutes submitted by Traci Howard. ppdadmin'vnin$~3aS- 14.doc SIGN IN SHEET 2. 3. 4. IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. Name Address IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES Special June 3, 1997 Meeting COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: .Pat Harvey, Jan Warren, Ann Shires, Mel Dautremont, Diane Martin STAFF PRESENT: Heather Shank, Kaci Carolan GUESTS PRESENT: Alison Ames Galstad CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Warren requested that in the future, instead of the word "manned," the minutes utilize the term "staffed." The May minutes were approved. Shires/Dautremont. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. UPDATE - SEXUAL ORIENTATION: Back in December, Shank and then-Chairperson Ames Galstad attended the state ICRC's monthly meeting, to request that they consider recommending to the state legislature that sexual orientation be added as a protected category under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. At the time, the state commissioners agreed to take up the issue at their Fall Retreat in '97. Several weeks ago, Shank called Don Grove to ask when the Retreat was scheduled. Don informed her that since 5 of the 7 state commissioners were newly-appointed in May, he wasn't sure the issue would be on the agenda for the Retreat. Additionally, materials in support of the addition which have been sent to Don and the Commission have not been organized as a separate group of materials, but have been interspersed throughout their monthly packets. The agenda for the Fall Retreat is going to be set at ICRC's June meeting, scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Friday, June 27. Shank will make sure that we're on their agenda. Shank sent a letter to Scott Morris of ACCESSline requesting letters from readers. Discussion took place on what else should and could be done to raise awareness and gamer support for this issue. Shires agreed to contact the other local commissions to ask them to inform people who support this idea to send letters/descriptions of discrimination they've encountered to Shank's office, preferably prior to June 27. Warren agreed to contact some of the UI campus organizations with a similar request. Martin suggested getting letters of support from the community at large as well. Carolan said she would try to get bios/addresses on the new commissioners. Ames Galstad agreed to do letters/interviews with local print media-- Gazette, Press-Citizen, Register, Icon, Daily lowan. Warren and Ames Galstad agreed to contact some of the various list serves. Warren suggested someone contact the 15 Diversity Teams as well. In general, it was agreed that persons providing stories of discrimination they had personally encountered need not identify themselves, but those writing more general letters of support probably should sign such letters. The language suggested is something along the lines Human Rights Commission Special June 3, 1997 Minutes Page 2 of "asking that the State ICRC recommend to the legislature that sexual orientation be added as a protected category to the Iowa Civil Rights Act." The Fall Retreat is the only time the state ICRC decides what recommendations they are going to make to the legislature during the next legislative session. Since the agenda for this year's Fall Retreat will be set at the June ICRC meeting, it was agreed that this matter needs to be put forth now, because the opportunity will not arise for another year. All materials will be assembled by Shank's office so that an organized, comprehensive packet can be presented to the individual Commissioners on June 27. It was agreed that all individuals should be asked to get their materials to Shank by Monday, June 23, 1997. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Warren: A group in Cedar Rapids is trying to get the local commiss. ion to add sexual orientation and gender identity to their municipal ordinance. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING: Still set for Monday, June 23 at 7 p.m. in the Civic Center Lobby Conference Room. Theisen will be unable to attend. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. 06/04/97 transcribed by kkc MINUTES IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1997 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS PREUMINAR¥: Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson, Philip Shive, Lea Supple MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait, George Starr STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Dennis Mitchell, Anne Schulte CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: 13ovbjerg said there are three vacancies for six years each on the Board of Library Trustees that begin July 1, 1997, two vacancies on the Design Review Committee: one for a three-year term starting in July and one unexpired one-year term starting in June, and two vacancies on the Historic Preservation Commission: one for a three-year term for someone from the East College Historic District beginning March 1997 and one for a three-year term for someone .from the College Green Historic District beginning March 1997. REZONING ITEMS: REZ97-0003. Public discussion of an application submitted by James P. Glasgow for a rezoning from RM-20, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to OSA-20 and OSA-5, Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, for 1.9 acres located at 1122-1136 N. Dubuque Street. (45-day limitation period waived to May 15, 1997. Miklo said the applicant's attorney has submitted a request to defer this item until June 5, 1997 and the applicant has also waived the 45-day limitation to that date. He said it is his understanding that engineers are still exploring possible designs for the stabilization of this slope. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shive moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 5, 1997, REZ97-0003, an application submitted by James P. Glasgow for a rezoning from RM- 20, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residen- tial, to OSA-20 and OSA-5, Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, for 1.9 acres located at 1122-1136 N. Dubuque Street. Gibson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. REZ97-0005. Public discussion of an application submitted by Ed Cole for a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim 'Development Single-Family Residential, to RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 1997 Page 2 Residential, for property located north of Foster Road, west of Laura Drive, south of Interstate 80. (45-day limitation period expires June 8, 1997) Kugler said the request is for a rezoning from ID-RS to RM-12 with no specific development plan for the property. He said the property contains a woodland, as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and also contains critical slopes of 25% or greater. He said it may also include slopes of over 40%, which would fall into the protected category. Kugler added that development of this property would require a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan before any development could occur there. Kugler said in the Peninsula Area Study of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, the environmentally sensitive nature of much of this property is recognized and the Plan recommends that develop- ment be limited to low density single-family or planned developments that are sensitive to the natural characteristics. He said staff does not see any logic in rezoning the property and increasing the density to 12 units per acre in absence of a plan indicating how these environ- mentally sensitive areas are going to be addressed and how development would relate to the surrounding areas. Kugler said staff has concerns about developing this property relative to the surrounding street system. He said Laura Drive, located to the east of this property, is currently a local street that is overburdened in terms of traffic at this point; it is only a single access street. Kugler said the Transportation Planning Division feels that if Laura Drive is connected to Foster Road with a collector street system, streets of 31 feet in width, that Laura Drive could be consid- ered a collector street, and some development of this property could be allowed to occur. Kugler said the applicant initially proposed a 28-foot wide extension from Laura Drive to the west on the property and a 24-foot wide private drive to the south to Foster Road. He said staff felt this was inadequate to handle development, especially multi-family or high-density development, on the property. Kugler referred to a revised drawing, which indicates that the east-west street will be realigned slightly to avoid some of the ravines, and a 31-foot collector street will be extended. He said the north-south street is still shown as a 24-foot wide private drive. Kugler said the applicant has indicated the private drive could be widened later, but staff feels the access issues should be resolved now. Kugler said it is impossible to tell how the development will impact the sensitive areas without a development plan. He said the applicant has indicated verbally that he would like to dedicate a portion of the ravine and wooded area as a park or some sort of natural, open space, but staff needs to see it on a plan to evaluate how it relates to the areas of planned development. Kugler said the City needs to be concerned about access along Foster Road. He said because there is limited access to this area, the City needs to be careful about not approving too much development on any specific parcel and overburdening Foster Road. Kugler said designating this property RM-1 2, with no associated development plan, could result in over 500 dwelling units on the property, resulting in over 3,500 projected vehicle trips per day. He said Foster Road is likely to be built as a collector, which could accommodate up to 5,000 vehicles per day, but this kind of development and the traffic already using Foster Road would overburden the street, with the remaining property to the west still to be developed. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 1997 Page 3 Kugler said staff feels that a planned development at a lower density may be more appropriate than the RM-12 designation. He said staff therefore recommends denial of REZ97-0005. Kugler also showed the alignment of the sanitary sewer that is being constructed on a map of the area. Bovbjerg asked about the letter from Landmark Surveying and Engineering. Kugler said the letter was attached to the revised plans and references the plans and the revised street alignment. He said it indicates the private street will not have side access where it is 24 feet wide. It can be widened to 31 feet in the north portion of the drive. Kugler said the applicant would have to acquire additional property from adjacent property owners to expand the southern portion of the drive. He said staff feels that if the drive is not a collector street at that point, most of the traffic will use Laura Drive, which will seriously overburden it. Kugler said staff is hesitant to increase the base zoning, as requested as a first step by the applicant, without understanding how development on the property would relate to the surrounding area as well as the environmental features. He said the density is the one card that the City holds as leverage to have some of the other items addressed, and once that card is given away by increasing the base zoning, it would be much more difficult to negotiate a development sensitive to surrounding areas and the environment. Miklo said it has been some time since the City has approved an RM-12 rezoning before a plan was submitted. Public discussion: Ralph Stoffer, 535 Southqate Avenue, said he is the engineer for the project. He said the initial submission of plans was done before he had the contour map and basically just showed the street going from the west side to the east side of the property with the second access to the south. Stoffer said he is limited at the south part of the access to a 33 foot wide piece of property and feels that the 24 foot width, while not standard, would be adequate, given the conditions. He said the plan for a 31-foot wide access was to accommodate a lane for parking or stopping. Stoffer said that with the property remaining private, there would never be any turn lanes, necessitating a shoulder-type area for emergency stops. Stoffer said he did not agree that the City would be giving up its options by giving the property some zoning. He said the ID zone is basically zero zoning. Stoffer said the applicant needs guidance, which he is hoping to get from the Commission, as to what would be an acceptable level of development for this property. He said he has proposed RM-12 and his next step is to submit a layout although he needs guidance to tell him what he will be laying out, e.g. 500 units, 400, or 300. Stoffer said he plans to stay away from the wooded slopes and considers the trees an amenity to the property. He said the applicant first needs to accomplish step one, in order to interest potential partners that would be constructing a specific building type. Stoffer said he therefore needs the guidance and needs the rezoning. Supple asked Stoffer about the comment in his letter that stated the private drive would have no access. Stoffer replied that the drive would have no access from the adjacent properties, but would have free access along the length of it and would have two-way traffic in and out of the area. He indicated the specific stretch of the drive on the map at Bovbjerg's request. Stoffer said the neighbors who own the property surrounding the private drive are hostile to the development. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 1997 Page 4 Gibson asked $toffer if the plans would be denying the future potential of access from the adjacent property west of the private drive. Stoffer said they would be denied access until additional right-of-way is granted and additional street width is added. Gibson suggested negotiating the rights to that property right now. Stoffer said he had attempted to negotiate with the property owners, but was unsuccessful. Gibson replied that the Commission did not like to build itself into a corner in terms of access to a property. He said to allow a private street through there would be doing that and may leave no option when the property to the west is to be developed. Ehrhardt and Bovbjerg asked for clarification regarding the two sections of the drive - one section with a 31-foot width and the section with the 24-foot width. Stoffer pointed out these stretches of the road on the map. Stoffer said he could be flexible with the plans, but needed direction at this point. Irene Murphy, 123 Forest View Trailer Court, said she is concerned about the future of the Forest View Trailer Court where she lives. She asked if the trailer court land would be affected. Murphy said the change would result in a lot of traffic, which would interrupt the peacefulness of the area. Stoffer said the southern tier of trailers in the trailer court would be relocated. Kugler said the staff had not felt the need to get into this level of detail regarding potential effects of the rezoning without a complete application that includes a development plan. He added there are no specific plans to review, and therefore staff does not know how the development will affect neighboring properties. Kugler said this is one of the reasons staff recommends denial of the request. Murphy said there is now a one-way street into the trailer court that she would not want to see relocated. Bovbjerg suggested Murphy give her name and telephone number to a staff member, who would then keep her apprised of potential developments with the proposal. Ed Cole, 1205 Laura Drive, said he is the applicant and also owns the Forest View Trailer Court. Supple asked him if he has met with the owners of the homes in the trailer court. Cole said he is not doing anything with the trailer court. He said the ten trailers in the south tier of the trailer court will need to be moved. Cole said the six that are currently occupied will be relocated to empty lots in the trailer court and the other four, which he owns, will be held until there are vacant lots to put them in. Bernard Collins, 602 W. Foster Road, said he purchased four acres in 1975 in the area where he then built a residence. He showed his property on the map, saying that the north part of his property borders the area proposed for rezoning. Collins said he purchased the property to have a private place to live. Collins said the 36 acre property to the north is owned by the Arns. He said about 26 acres of the property is made up of heavy timber. Collins said if the area is developed into apartments, a lot of trees would have to be cut down. Collins suggested a site visit to look at the property. He said it is beautiful land with some steep ravines. He stated that a new bridge would have to be constructed on the drive if a road is constructed through the property. Collins said Arn has a well pit at the end of the road that would also be very difficult to build the road over. Collins said that Mid-American has a 60-foot easement at the north side of his property. He suggested looking at the easement to see what has been done to the timber there. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 1997 Page 5 Richard Rhodes II, 2014 Rochester Avenue, said he considers himself an advocate for environ- mentally rational development in Iowa City. He said he was a member of the committee that drafted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Rhodes said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a Sensitive Areas Overlay when rezoning land like this or at least that was the intent of the Ordinance. Rhodes said he agrees with staff regarding the inadequacy of the proposal. Rhodes also said there had been an oversight in not mentioning the possibility of archaeological sites and cultural resources on the property. He said the area may be similar to property to the south- west of the City, where archaeological studies revealed quite a few.sites that may be signifi- cant and may warrant further investigation. Rhodes said it is difficult to make suggestions for or criticize this proposal because it is so vague, and he urged denial of the proposal at this point. Bovbjerg said the reason staff may not have mentioned or studied some areas is because staff believed an OSA was needed and further studies were as yet unwarranted. Rhodes said that trees and topography were mentioned so he felt cultural resources should also be mentioned. Kugler said the Office of the State Archaeologist was contacted and they responded by saying there are no known sites on the property. He said the Office of the State Archaeologist noted that if during development anything of potential archaeological significance is noticed, especially a burial site, they would want to investigate. Rhodes said sites are only likely to be found if the land has been disturbed by agricultural row crops. He said in this case, where the area has been le~s disturbed, there is far less chance that a site would be known, because it has not had the intense stirring that brings artifacts to the surface and allows other materi- als to erode away and expose artifacts. Public discussion closed. Bovbjerg said the Commission's custom is to have two meetings on any rezoning issue to give time for investigation of any more information the Commission requests and also to give the public and applicant time to ask questions and provide information. MOTION: Supple moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 5, 1997, REZ97-0005, an application submitted by Ed Cole for a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development Single-Family Residential, to RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, for property located north of Foster Road, west of Laura Drive, south of Interstate 80. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDER THE MAY 1, 1997 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION: Gibson moved to approve the minutes of the May 1, 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Shive seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Miklo said he has distributed a schedule for City Council informal work sessions. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 1997 Page 6 Supple said she had items to discuss from the American Planning Association (APA) confer- ence in San Diego. She said the matter of ex parte communication and what constitutes such communication was discussed. Mitchell said if a party involved in a Commission matter approaches a member outside the formal meeting, the contact would be considered an ex parte contact. Supple said the Commission has no policy as to when such a contact should be revealed. Miklo said the general policy of the Commission, which is presented to new members at orientation, is that ex parte contact should be revealed at the meeting before voting on the specific matter. Gibson said his impression is that it has not been Commission practice to reveal these communications. Bovbjerg said she has heard comments that people have been contacted about an issue, but the contact has usually been from neighbors and not developers. Mitchell said it would be a good idea to mention at the formal meeting any comments that had been received. Ehrhardt asked if it is legal for her to conduct a site visit with other Commission members. She said she had heard that such a visit would constitute an official meeting. Mitchell responded that it would not be a meeting if the number of people did not constitute a quorum; therefore, three or fewer Commission members could go on a site visit together. Gibson said when he went to the APA conference, it was stressed that if a site visit was important then the entire Commission should make a point of going together so that the discussion could be shared. He said he was not necessarily advocating that position. Bovbjerg said if there are six or seven in a van, then that would constitute a meeting, which would raise other issues. Miklo said the County Zoning Commission goes together in a group to visit the sites after having announced the visit. Miklo said different communities have varying policies, but that he would always encourage Commission members to visit the site first-hand. Miklo said he meets with each new Commission member to explain policies. He said the Commission may want to decide on a more formal policy. Gibson told Miklo if he is briefing new members, he must be working from some set of notes or understanding of these policies. Gibson said it would be useful to have these written down and could be a subject of discus- sion as to whether there is agreement and acceptance of these matters. Supple asked how often the by-laws are reviewed. Miklo said they had been reviewed in the last twelve months, but before that it had been at least ten years. Miklo said there has not been time to have an annual work session where procedure.and policy versus actual items were discussed. He said such a session could be scheduled or it could be discussed at the next informal meeting. Miklo said he would provide literature regarding the policies in the next mailing. Bovbjerg said she knows members have sometimes been approached by an interested party to discuss an issue very intensely and that it is difficult to retreat from that person. Miklo said the literature provided by the American Planning Association suggests first avoiding ex parte communication if possible, but if this is not possible, it should be revealed at the meeting. Supple asked if the Commission would be interested in having a debriefing in the last five minutes of each meeting before adjournment to rehash the meeting. She said it would be part of the record. Gibson said there is a similar technique in meeting management in which Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 1997 Page 7 members discuss how the group processed things, e.g. how was the interchange, was it fair and objective, etc. He said the Commission does it unofficially on occasion as a kind of winding down. Miklo said the one concern he would have would be to keep the discussion on a procedural basis and not mention specific details of the case, because members of the public have often left prior to that point of the meeting. Supple said another issue discussed at the APA conference was requiring a neighborhood meeting prior to an application. Shive asked if the Commission is already covering that base by erecting the signs announcing the time and place of Commission discussion of the applica- tion. Supple said the suggestion was actually to have the applicant meet with the neighbors. Miklo said staff has suggested for the past few years that before major rezonings, the applicant hold a meeting with the immediate neighbors before drawing up any plans. He said a few developers have used neighborhood meetings with some success, but most have not held such meetings. Miklo said that if a planned development is less than two acres, then the developer is actually required to meet with neighbors within 600 feet before submitting a formal application. Ehrhardt asked about the time period for putting up signs referring to a rezoning, Miklo said they generally go up a week before the formal meeting. Supple said another APA conference proposal was to separate the hearing from the decision. She said one of the suggestions was to hear all of the items and then vote on all of them at the end of the meeting. Ehrhardt. said the public then has to sit through all of the items to hear the vote on one specific issue. Supple said the idea was to wait until the end of the meeting to vote in order to take the emotion out of the vote. Gibson said Commission members usually decide when they hear an item and that they could forget important informa- tion if they postpone the vote. Miklo said having two meetings on rezonings gives Commis- sion members time to give due consideration to items before voting on them. The Commis- sion agreed to continue discussion of procedural matters at the next informal meeting. Bovbjerg said the Fourth Annual Agfest will be held on Saturday, May 17, 1997 at the Johnson County Fairgrounds. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Lea Supple, Secretary Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte. ppdadmin\mins\P&Z5o 15.wp5 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MAY 14, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Endel, Ken Fearing, Judith Klink, Bruce Maurer, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Allen Stroh, Ross Wilburn MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Kathy Wallace Terry Trueblood, Kriz Mike Moran, Bob Howell, Marilyn FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Klink, seconded by Fearing, minutes'as written. Unanimous. to aDprove the ADril 9, 1997 PARK TOUR Trueblood noted the annual park tour set for Wednesday, July 2. A brief meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m., with the tour immediately thereafter. The commission discussed various sites they would like to see: any potential land acquisition sites, proposed Highway 6 to Napoleon Park trail segment, future water treatment facility area, Iowa River Power dam area with respect to the Iowa River Corridor Trail, Napoleon Park, and the proposed Willow Creek trail. SKATEBOARD ISSUES Trueblood presented brief background information on the skateboard issue and the proposed new non-motorized vehicles ordinance. A group of individuals interested in skateboarding attended a City Council meeting to voice their opinions and concerns, and city staff members met with a representative group of skateboarders. The City has agreed to allow skateboarders to use the northeast portion of the Civic Center parking lot after 6 p.m. on weekdays and after 12 p.m. on weekends. Trueblood indicated it was his opinion the only way to keep skateboarders out of where they should not be was to construct a skateboard park. He estimated the cost to be between $50,000 to $150,000. He noted it appeared the majority of the City Council members would not be in favor of appropriating this amount of funding to construct a skateboard park. A video on skateboard parks was shown. Trueblood indicated he felt the commission would be approached in the future to make a recommendation on a skateboard park. He asked if the commission wanted to take a position on the skateboard issue at this time or wait to see how the temporary solution of using the Civic Center parking lot worked. Various commission members indicated they would prefer not to make a recommendation at this time. Pruess suggested when a consultant is hired to do a broader study/master plan for the parks that this issue be included. HICKORY HILL TRAILS MEETING REPORT Stroh reported the individuals who attended the meeting with the consultant to discuss the trail system were pro-park. He felt it was a good exercise, with limited participation. One theme was consistency of protecting the wilderness. Some concern was expressed with disrupting the park, with their desire being to have the park retain its naturalhess. Stroh stated he felt the trails could be improved without compromising the naturalhess of the park. PROJECT UPDATES Trueblood reported on the following projects: Napoleon Park - The irrigation system will soon be installed; a meeting has been set with MidAmerican Energy to discuss installation of lights; the fencing plan should soon be completed and out for bids; and the Iowa City Girls Softball Association will be finishing the concession building this summer. Soccer Complex - The Wastewater Division is completing the filtration system which will allow use of effluent for the soccer fields. There are severe drainage problems between some of the playing fields, and staff will be meeting with the engineering firm to address and resolve. Kiwanis Park - Staff met with the Public Works Director and it looks as if no construction will be done this summer due to the sewer project. Two pedestrian bridges are to be installed as part of this project - one in the Teg Drive area (to be installed this summer) and the other south of the Moreland pond (sewer line being installed along the edge of the creek which prevents installation of this bridge until that work is completed). Mercer Baseball Diamond - The infield work on field %1 has been completed; Babe Ruth will be hosting a state and a regional tournament this summer. Central Business District - The proposed action plan for downtown Iowa City is in draft form; it will be provided to the commission upon its completion. N. Dubuque Street Proposed Trail - The proposed trail segment from Park Road to Foster Road is going out to bid in conjunction with a water/sewer project. 2 RIVERFRONT & NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION REPORT Fearing reported on the RNAC Arbor Day event: the City Council approved $300 for the purchase of trees for the Arbor Day event; three trees were planted at Ryerson's Woods with plaques honoring the local tree organizations (Project Green, Heritage Trees of Iowa City and FIRST); and 125 trees were given away. He also reported the commission met with FIRST to discuss segments of the Iowa River Corridor 'Trail - Benton Street to Highway 6 and Highway 6 to Napoleon Park. The trail may need to go around the City Carton property instead of along the river due to the inability to obtain a parcel of land and in order to save money. PARKS & RECREATION FOUNDATION REPORT Pacha reported the entire Mercer Park Gymnasium Project campaign committee has met twice, and the fundraising effort has been progressing. He encouraged commission members to make a financial contribution, and noted the various ranges of gifts and how they would be recognized in the new facility. COMMISSION TIME Klink noted the beauty of Ryerson's Woods this spring. Maurer encouraged commission members to consider contributing towards the Mercer Park Gymnasium Project by a gift that would at least be recognized by an inscribed brick in the builders wall. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha reported on the commission's C.I.P. prioritization completed in June of 1995 and the significant progress that has been made towards completion of the majority of these projects: #1 Mercer Park expansion - presently working on fundraising; ~2 Napoleon Park renovation - nearing completion; #3 Soccer Complex - opened and progressing; Kiwanis Park - would have been underway if not for the sewer project; #5 Benton Street Park - plans nearly completed for work to be done this summer; #6 Hunters Run - parcels have been acquired; ~7 University of Iowa softball complex lighting - completed; #8 Cemetery issue - presently working on; #9 Recreation Center expansion - may not be done; #10 Central Maintenance Facility - to be completed by the fall of 1998; #11 Ice Skating Facility - may not be necessary due to new Coralville mall. 3 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA): The State has allocated 10% for transportation enhancement (basically trails) and there is a move to reduce this funding to 5%. The National Recreation and Park Association is asking members to write their senators and representatives opposing this rewrite. Trueblood stated he would like to draft such a letter from the commission in that he felt it would have more impact coming from a citizen volunteer board; the commission approved. Leash Free Zone: A meeting has been set withAnimal Control, the Police Department, City Attorney and Johnson County Health Department to discuss the pros and cons of establishing a leash free zone for pet owners in Hickory Hill Park. Nancy Seiberling Heritage Grove: The children of Nancy Seiberling initiated an effort to plant a grove of trees in honor of Nancy's 80th birthday, with staff attending the ceremony at Hickory Hill Park. Willow Creek Trail: The trail segment in the area of West High School may need to be realigned to go on the other side of the pond in this area due to concerns of adjacent property owners. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned (6:30 p.m.). 4 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING May 12, 1997 RULES COMMITTEE: Meeting of May 12, 1997, 11:00 a.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Novick, Norton STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Karr, Neumann Riverfront and Natural Areas Co~m~ission: The Rules Committee unanimously recommends approval of the by-laws presented with the changes noted on the attached.* The Rules Committee members individually reviewed the May 21 revisions made by the RNC and accept the change to Article II, Section 1 as suggested. With respect to the language revision of Article II, Section 4, the Rules Committee inverted the order of Section to provide copies of materials be distributed prior to orientation. ARTICLE I MEETINGS Section 1. ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 18, 1001 PROPOSED BY RULES COMMITTEE MAY 12, 1997 BY-LAWS IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION Regular Meetings, Regular meetings of this Commission shall be held once each month. Section 2, Special Meetin.qs. Special meetings of the members may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson at the request of members of the Commission and as needed to meet development deadlines. Section 3, Place of Meetin.cls. Regular All meetings shall be held in the Senior Contcr Classroom, the Civic Center or other appropriate, handicapped accossiblc meeting places in Iowa City, Iowa. Should those places bc unavailablc, anothcr meeting place chall be selected. a Citv facilitv. Section 4, Notice of Meetinq, Notice and agenda for all regular meetings shall be distributed to all members of the Commission and the press, Special meetings may be called upon notice to members of the media at least 24 hours before a special meeting is held, All provisions of the State Open Meetings Law shall be followed, Section 5, Quorum, A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum at any meeting and the majority of votes cast at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election, Section 6. 2 Proxies. There shall be no vote by proxy. Section 7. Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all regular meetings for open public discussion. ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP Section 1. Membership. The Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, shall consist of ton (1 O) eleven (1 1 ) members or Commissioners. Six (6) of the members or Commissioners must be eligible electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; three (3) shall be residents of Johnson County, Iowa, excluding residents of Iowa City and Coralville, and shall be recommended to the Iowa City City Council by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, one (I) member shall be a resident of the City of Coralville, Iowa, and shall be recommended to the Iowa City City Council by the City of Coralville City Council, and one (I) member shall be a representative of the University of Iowa. The Commission members shall be appointed in the following manner: nino (9) ten (1 O) of the members or Commissioners, including thoso from outcidc Iow.~ City, Iowa, shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Iowa City~ upon rocommondation by tho M.~yor. One (I) member of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. All members of the Commission shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including travel 3 expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. Sootion 2, Nominationc. The City Counoil shall appoint mombers to tho Commission ac vacanoioc ocour. Section 52. Terms. Upon tho oxpiration of mornbors' tormc, now throo yoar torm appointmcntc shall bo mado. Prosont mornbors ~re oligiblo for roappointmont. Tho torm of offico of All terms shall be three year, except the Parks and Recreation Commission representative shall be one year. All terms beginn!ng January 1. If a position/appointment becomes vacant bv reason of resiqnation or otherwise and results in an unexpired term, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only throu.~h the unexpired term but also throu.~h the subsequent re.qular term, . Section z~3. Absences. Three consocutivo, unoxplainod absences of a Commission member without notification within the period of one (1) calendar year may result in a recommendation to the Mcycr Council from the Commission to discharge said member and appoint a new Commission member. Section §_4. Orientation for New Members. Prior to tho first rogular mcoting following thcir appointmont, now mornbors shall bo providod with copics of thc pcrtincnt portions of the City Codo, Rivorfront and Natural ^roas Commission By Laws, and othor documonts th.~t would bo ucoful to Commission mornbors in carrying out thoir dutios. An orientation session will also be required within sixty (60) days followin.~ the member's appointment. Attendance at meetin.qs prior to a 4 member's official appointment is encoura.qed, The orientation session will take I~lace at a City facility, ARTICLE III OFFICERS Section 1, Number. The officers of this Commission shall be a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by members of the (~ommission. Section 2. Election and Term of Office, The Officers of this Commission shall be elected annually for one year terms at the re.qular meetin.cl in Januarv, Section 3, Vacancies. A vacancy in either office shall be filled by the members for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings of the members, appoint committees, call special meetings and in general, perform all duties of a Chairperson and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Section 5, Vice Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson or in the event of death, inability or refusal to act, the Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. Section 6. Nominatinc~ Committee: A nominatin.cl committee of three (3) Commission 5 Members shall be appointed by the Chair at the reqular meetin.q in December. One nominee for Chair and one nominee for Vice Chair shall be recommended to the commission at the re.~ular meetinq in January. ARTICLE IV CONDUCT OF COMMISSION AFFAIRS Section 1. Aqenda. The Chairperson, or designated representative, together with appropriate members of the City staff, shall prepare an agenda for all regular Commission meetings. Agendas are to be sent to Commission members and the media at least three days prior to the regular meeting. Section 2. Minutetaker. A minutetaker, not to be a Commission member, shall be provided for all regular and special meetings. Section 3. Minutes. Minutes of all regular and special meetings are to be prepared and distributed to Commission members in the manner prescribed by the Council. Specific recommendations for the Council are to be set off from the main body of the minutes, and appropriately identified. Section Policies and Pro.clrams. Periodically, the Commission shall review the policies and programs of the City relating to the river and riverfront, and to other natural waterways, and to woodlands and wetlands, and make such recommendations to the City Council as are deemed appropriate. Section 5. Referrals from Council. From time to time, letters, requests for information, 6 requests for recommendations, and other matters are referred to the Commission by the City Council. The Commission shall initiate consideration of such items at the next regular meeting following receipt and shall notify Council of its disposition. Section 6. Attendance at Council Meetings. The Commission Chairperson or designated representatives are to be in attendance at all City Council meetings, including informal sessions, at which matters pertaining to the domain of the Commission's responsibilities are to .be discussed or action taken. The Commission Chairperson is to receive Council agendas prior to each Council meeting and is to be otherwise notified of meetings involving Commission business. Section 7. Annual Report. An annual report, detailing the activities of the Commission, shall be prepared by the Chairperson, approved by the Commission, and submitted to the City Council. Section 8. Liaison with Planninc~ and Zonincl Commission. At such time as the Commission undertakes any business which is deemed pertinent to the activities of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be so notified, and may send a representative to the next meeting of the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission to act as a liaison between the two Commissions. ARTIC'LE V AMENDMENTS Section 1. 7 Thoco by 1,3ws may bo alterod, amondod, or ropo,31od and now by lawc may bo adopted by tho mornbors at any rogular mooting or at any cpocial mooting callod for that purpooo, By-laws may be amended by a maioritv of all Members of the Commission at any re.qular or special meeting called for that purpose. All by-laws must be considered at two meetin.qs of the Commission prior to submission to Council. Amendments must be approved bv the Council to become effective. plxladmin\bylaws. RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, May 21, 1997- 5:30 PM IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Courtney Daniels, Jim Pugh, Larry Wilson, Ken Fearing, Joe Kral, Richard Hoppin, David Thayer, Gretchen Grimm, Lori Goetsch. C. Pugh Neumann, Dulceak None. J. Pugh called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: J. Pugh questioned the sewer line survey relating to the Wolf Addition. Neumann said the line will run south of the addition. Additional information will be presented at the June meeting. C. Daniels joined the meeting at 5:40 PM. Ferring commented on a recent visit to Washington, D.C. and changes in the legislation dealing with federal transportation funding. He also noted the July 2nd Parks and Recreation Tour and said they are taking suggestions for sites to visit. J. Pugh said that Randy Miller of Miller Monuments has offered to make the plaque for the shelter at Ryerson Woods. INTRODUCE NEW RNAC COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: Neumann introduced Tom Riley, representative from Johnson County. The other members introduced themselves and welcomed him to the Commission. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16.1997 MEETING: J. Pugh noted a spelling correction. Wilson noted a location correction in the discussion of the path route for the Iowa River Corridor Trail. J. Pugh motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Thayer seconded the motion. The motion to approve the. minutes from the April 16,1997 meeting as amended passed on a vote of 8-0. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Neumann met with the Rules Committee and discussed the proposed by-law changes. He noted the changes in wording and the editing done by the Committee. J. Pugh noted awkward wording at Section 4, and suggested the use of "simple majority". Neumann said that was not a sugges- tion submitted before. Thayer questioned the special meeting notification. J. Pugh noted the need Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission May 21, 1997 Page 2 for the term "elector" in page 2, Sections 1 and 2. Neumann said it is possible to serve for an outside of Iowa City spot and not be an elector. J, Pugh felt this should be an equal requirement. He also commented on the mileage expense and suggested presenting the costs to the clerk, Neumann asked if the changes the Committee made were acceptable to the Commission. J. Pugh asked why the Section 4 on page 3 was edited out. Neumann put the paragraph dealing with orientation back at the Commission's request. Grimm said that she had not attended any orientation yet. Kral said it was held at the Mill. Grimm said she was not notified and wanted to attend an orientation. Wilson pointed out that that session was on short notice. Daniels said from now on the orientation would be held in a City building and that Grimm, Thayer and Riley need to attend a session. Thayer questioned the procedure for revision. Wilson questioned why the Committee altered things that were not suggested by the Commission. Daniels said the by-laws would require another review by the Rul'es Committee. Ferring commented that there were many changes. Daniels directed the group through a discussion of all the changes in the document. J. Pugh questioned the procedures for election of officers. Daniels said there was no problem with not having new members elected. Neumann summed up the problems with the revisions being in the term elector and the section under orientation. Thayer suggested changing the wording to Article 1, Section 4 to clarify notice. J. Pugh agreed with that suggestion. J. Pugh moved to resubmit the by-laws with the changes as discussed. Grimm seconded. The motion carried unanimously. REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER: . There were none. COMMISSION DISCUSSION a. 1997 Arbor Day event. Daniels thanked everyone for attending and commented that the event went well. She noted that Master Gardeners and Terry Robinson should be thanked as well. J. Pugh also thanked Brad Baumgardner. Wilson thanked Daniels for pulling the event together. Neumann said all the trees are planted now. Goetsch said that she was not notified of the date and time so she missed the event. Daniels apologized for the oversight. Daniels said that next year the planning will have to start earlier. b. Update on the south extension of the of the Iowa River Corridor Trail. Neumann outlined the memo describing the Council decision, which was to follow the FIRST recommendation. Daniels said that Casey Cook's presentation swayed the Council. Wilson agreed and said it had a big impact on the work session. Daniels said he gave a good presentation that highlighted the costs and benefits. Wilson noted the letter from RNAC was also good. Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission May 21, 1997 Page 3 Neumann said that the Willow Creek Neighborhood Association requested and received $12,000 from the City Council to connect the trail to West High School. Daniels pointed out that it will be considered a "foot path" rather than a trail. Wilson said it will still meet ADA. Daniels added that they are settling the easements now. Ferring said the principal at the High School was against the project. Neumann said he changed his mind when they got funding. J. Pugh asked who was to build the path. Neumann did not know. J. Pugh suggested using the asphalt st~'ed at __pIP,:~ Harris Park (Mesquakie Park). Neumann said they may already have materials. Wilson summa- rized the resolution from Council. Neumann said the funding came under PIN grants. Daniels said this was a good thing because the school was very against it before. c. Discuss joint committee to prepare plan for peninsula. Neumann said there was no action needed yet. Wilson added himself to the list of volunteers. J. Pugh asked if the Coralville dam was an Iowa City project. Wilson said it belongs to Iowa City now. Neumann said the funding was approved so the focus now is on the Elks Club situation and the new proposal. Daniels explained how this had become a key project for the Commission. Neumann said Council interest has increased and they plan a visit. Riley asked if the area could be visited now. Neumann said it is gaged off and visitors are discouraged. Daniels described the project to the new members. Wilson said the use of the joint Commission created a better focus. Ferring asked if Dubuque St. trail was being expanded. Wilson said the water line out to Taft was going to be laid and the trail will be on top of it. J. Pugh said usability is an issue because of flooding. Wilson said the City and University have had an easement problem with the Fraternity houses along the river because they don't want a trail close to their houses. Riley asked if the Elks Club was the only big snag. Daniels said it was the most immediate obstacle. d. Whispering Meadows Development Drainage Design. Goetsch described the area and the need for alternate drainage plans to accommodate develop- ment. She added the need for promoting green space with in sub-divisions. Wilson outlined the past plans for the area and repeated the need for retaining the wetland. Goetsch said she got the idea these were preliminary plans. Wilson questioned the relation to past action and was alarmed that the Commission suggestion was not followed in the past. Neumann said he would check with planning. Grimm asked if this was the Steve Wright plan. Riley pointed out this was a different piece of land. Wilson said this must be close to the other parcel they dealt with before. Goetsch said they are trying to avoid a ditch and provide an alternative. Daniels asked for suggested action. Goetsch said if this comes up for approval that the Commission should give an opinion to Council. Wilson and Daniels agreed that this is the kind of thing the Commission should be involved in. Wilson asked for information from staff to clarify the situation. Neumann asked if there should be a letter of support. Wilson suggested researching the situation more before action. Neumann said he would get the information requested. Kral said some of the area is County, Wilson explained the fringe rule. Neumann said it was within the 2 miles. Wilson said the Com- mission should get more information and have a special meeting if circumstances require it, members agreed. e. Master Trail Plan for Hickory Hills Park. Daniels discussed the ICON article and the need for Commission involvement in this project. The 1st Ave. extension will create unique problems. Goetsch said ACT will be a major exit. Daniels said involvement would be important. Neumann said he would have more information at the next meeting. Wilson said this extension will be a big construction project. J. Pugh commented that the Stanley Plan recommended building belt line roads such as this. Grimm asked for clarification Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission May 21, 1997 Page 4 of the connection to 1-80. Thayer questioned the locations. Ferring said the descendants have issues with the park use, too. OTHER BUSINESS: Wilson said the University of Iowa is funding a terrace, it is in the design process. He offered to present it to the Commission. Daniels updated the group on the non-motorized vehicle ordinance. It won't effect trails but 'will mean increased use by these types of transportation on the trails since they may not be able to use any other areas. Wilson noted the multi-use trails encourage use of this kind. Daniels said the trails were exempt from this ordinance. Wilson said alternate use is encouraged. Neumann said he would not be present for next months meeting, Davidson would be attending. ADJOURNMENT: J. Pugh moved to adjourn at 6:50 p.m. and Grimm seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. jccogsw~qin s~"na c5 -21 .wp5 ARTICLE I MEETINGS Section 1, ADOPTED BY RNAC - MAY 21, 1997 BY-LAWS IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION Reaular Meetings. Regular meetings of this Commission shall be held once each month. Section 2. Special Meetinas. Special meetings of the members may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson at the request of members of the Commission and as needed to meet development deadlines. Section 3. Place of Meetin.qs. 13ogular All meetings shall be held in tho Sonior Cantor Claccroom, tho Civic Cantor or othor appropriato, handicappod accosciblo mooting plaoos in Iowa City, Iowa. Should thoso placor. bc unavailablo, anothcr mooting placo shall bo ~oloctod. a Citv facilitv. Section 4, Notice of Meetina. Notice and agenda for all regular meetings shall be distributed to all members of the Commission and the press. Special meetings may be called upon notice to Commission members and members of the media at least 24 hours before a special meeting is held. All provisions of the State Open Meetings Law shall be followed. Section 5. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum at any meeting and the majority of votes cast at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election. Section 6. Proxies, There shall be no vote by proxy, Section 7, 2 Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all regular meetings for open public discussion. ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP Section 1. Membership. The Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, shall consist of ton (1 O) eleven (1 1 ) members or Commissioners. Six (6) of the members or Commissioners must be eligible electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; three (3) chc!! must be rocidontc eli.qible electors of Johnson County, Iowa, excluding residents of Iowa City and Coralville, and shall be recommended to the Iowa City City Council by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, one (I) member ch~!! must be a._Q a ro~idont e i.qible elector of the City of Coralville, Iowa, and shall be recommended to the Iowa City City Council by the City of Coralville City Council, and one (I) member shall be a representative of the University of Iowa. The Commission members shall be appointed in the following manner: nino (9) ten (10) of the members or Commissioners, including thoso from outsido Iowa City, Iowa, shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Iowa City. upon rocommendation by tho Mayor. One (I) member of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. All members of the Commission shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including travel expenses, incurred in the discharge of their duties. ~ Sootion 2. 3 Nominations, Tho City Counoil shall -~ppoint momborc to tho Commission ac v.~oanoios oocur. Section 32. Terms. Upon the oxpiration of mornbors' torres, now throo-yo~r torm =~pointmontc shall bo mado. Procont mombors aro oligiblo for roappointmont. Tho torm of offioo of All terms shall be three year, except the Parks and Recreation Commission representative shall be one year. All terms beginning January 1. If a position/appointment becomes vacant bv reason of resi.qnation or otherwise and results in an unexpired term, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only throu.qh the unexpired term but also throu.qh the subsequent re.qular term. Section 43. Absences. Three concocutivo, unoxplainod absences of a Commission member without notification within the period of one (1) calendar year may result in a recommendation to the Mcycr Council from the Commission to discharge said member and appoint a new Commission member. Section 5~. Orientation for New Members. An orientation session will also be rec~uired within sixty (60) days followin.q the member's appointment. Attendance at meetin.qs prior to a member's official appointment is encoura.qed. The orientation session will take place at a City facility. Prior to the first regular mooting following thoir appointmont, New members shall be provided with copies of the pertinent portions of the City Code, Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission By-Laws, and other documents that would be useful to Commission members in carrying out their duties. ARTICLE III 4 OFFICERS Section 1, Number. The officers of this Commission shall be a Chairperson and Vice Chairpers~)n, each of whom shall be elected by members of the Commission. Section 2. Election and Term of Office. The Officers of this Commission shall be elected annually for one year terms at the regular meeting in Januarv. Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in either office shall be filled by the members for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings of the members, appoint committees, call special meetings and in general, perform all duties of a Chairperson and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Section 5. Vice Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson or in the event of death, inability or refusal to act, the Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. Section 6. Nominatin.q Committee: A nominatinq committee of three (3) Commission Members shall be appointed bv the Chair at the rec~ular meetin.cl in December. One nominee for Chair and one nominee for Vice Chair shall be recommended to the commission at the reqular meetin(~ in January. ~ ARTICLE IV CONDUCT OF COMMISSION AFFAIRS Section 1. Agenda. The Chairperson, or designated representative, together with appropriate members of the City staff, shall prepare an agenda for all regular Commission meetings. Agendas are to be sent to Commission members and the media at least three days prior to the regular meeting. Section 2. Minutetaker. A minutetaker, not to be a Commission member, shall be provided for all regular and special meetings. Section 3. Minutes. Minutes of all regular and special meetings are to be prepared and distributed to Commission members in the manner prescribed by the Council. Specific recommendations for the Council are to be set off from the main body of the minutes, and appropriately identified. Section 4. Policies and Pro(~rams. Periodically, the Commission shall review the policies and programs of the City relating to the river and riverfront, and to other natural waterways, and to woodlands and wetlands, and make such recommendations to the City Council as are deemed appropriate. Section 5. Referrals from Council. From time to time, letters, requests for information, requests for recommendations, and other matters are referred to the Commission by the City Council. The Commission shall initiate consideration of such items at the next regular meeting following receipt and shall notify Council of its disposition. Section 6. 6 Attendance at Council Meetinns. The Commission Chairperson or designated representatives are to be in attendance at all City. Council meetings, including informal sessions, at which matters pertaining to the domain of the Commission's responsibilities are to be discussed or action taken. The Commission Chairperson is to receive Council agendas prior to each Council meeting and is to be otherwise notified of meetings involving Commission business. Section 7. Annual Report. An annual report, detailing the activities of the Commission, shall be prepared by the Chairperson, approved by the Commission, and submitted to the City Council. Section 8. Liaison with Planninq and Zonin.cl Commission. At such time as the Commission undertakes any business which is deemed pertinent to the activities of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be so notified, and may send a representative to the next meeting of the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission to act as a liaison between the two Commissions. ARTICLE V AMENDMENTS Section 1. Thoso by laws may bo altorod, amondod, or ropoalod and now by laws may bc adoptod by tho mornbors at any rogular mooting or at any spocial mooting callod for that purposo. '7 By-laws may be amended by a maioritv of all Members of the Commission at any re.clular or special meeting called for that purpose. All by-laws must be considered at two meetings of the Commission prior to submission to Council. Amendments must be approved by the Citv Council to become effective. ppdadmin~bylaws,