Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-26 Bd Comm minutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1997 - 5 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRELIMINARY' Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt, Kate Corcoran, Patricia Eckhardt, Bill Haigh MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Melody Rockwell, Traci Howard CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Eckhardt called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. ROLL CALL: Rockwell called the roll of the Board members. All five members were in attendance. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 11, 1997~ MEETING MINUTES: Haigh moved to approve the June 11, 1997, Board of Adjustment meeting minutes. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1) EXC97-0019. Public hearing of an application submitted by Paul's Discount of Iowa City, Iowa, on behalf of property owner Ken Ranshaw, for a special exception to permit a rear yard reduction for property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 424 Highway 1 West. Rockwell said Paul's Discount is requesting a special exception to permit construction of a 1,8.96 square foot commercial office addition on the north side of the existing building. She said the north side of the addition would abut an RS-8, Single-Family Residential zone. Rockwell said in usual circumstances, a 20-foot yard would be required along the entire north boundary of the CC-2 zoned request property. However, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance in 1975 that reduced the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 15 feet along the length of the existing building. She said the applicant is asking for a reduction in the rear' yard requirement from 15 feet to zero feet for the 120-foot length of the proposed addition. Rockwell said there appears to be nothing inherently peculiar to the property itself, either in terms of topography or the lot shape, to make the situation unique or different from any other commercial enterprise desiring to expand its facilities next to a residential area. She said the proposed addition would encroach into the required year yard by approximately 14 percent. She said the primary impact of the encroachment would be on adjacent properties. Rockwell said the variance granted in 1975 and the development plan approved in 1976 made it clear that the 15-foot wide "green strip" should remain clear of obstructions. There may be alternative avenues of remedy that the applicant can pursue that would be more suitable than further encroachment into an already reduced buffer between the Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 2 commercial property and its residential neighbors to the north. She noted the applicant feels that there is no feasible alternative, and that they have explored every possibility. In considering the general standards for the Board to review, Rockwell said that staff notes the north addition would increase the blockage of the setback area that is currently experienced by residents on adjacent, residential properties to the north, and unless easement agreements are forthcoming, no construction or maintenance of the addition could occur without trespassing on neighboring residential properties. She said the 15-foot wide strip of land behind the building functions as a drainage swale, and should remain unobstructed so stormwater flows are not diverted or backing up onto neighboring residential properties. Given the factors under consideration, primarily the impact on neighboring property owners and the long-standing agreements that the area in question should remain an unobstructed green strip, staff recommends denial of the requested rear yard reduction. Rockwell said the Board received letters of opposition from neighboring property owners John Christie and Susan Redfern, and those were included in the agenda packets. Rockwell said she received a call from Tom Grimm, 317 Douglas Court, on July 28. He said that while his property is not directly impacted, he did not like the idea of the addition. He was concerned about a building on piers, because it could attract animals, and there is already a raccoon problem in the neighborhood. Rockwell noted that the Board received a letter today from Valerie Waterhouse, who is opposed to the addition, because of possible drainage problems. Public hearing: Joe Tobin, owner of Paul's Discount, said he and the other owners have exhausted every expansion avenue over the past seven years, and thought that the addition was the last feasible idea. He said after he received the letters from neighbors and spoke with some of them, he does not want to jeopardize being a good neighbor and would like to withdraw the application. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Corcoran moved to accept Tobin's withdrawal of EXC97-0019, an application for a special exception to permit a rear yard reduction for property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 424 Highway 1 West. Bender seconded the motion. The motion was a13Droved on a vote of 5-0. 2) EXC97-0020. Public hearing on an application submitted by Jim Stetzel, on behalf of property owners Clarke and JoAnn Stetzel, for a special exception to permit construction of elder congregate housing on Lots 7-14 of Longfellow Manor Subdivision for property located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone on Longfellow Place. Rockwell said Jim Stetzel was requesting approval of a special exception to allow eight elder congregate residences to be established on eight separate lots (Lots 7-14) in the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. The eight lots being considered for elder congregate housing are grouped at the south end of Longfellow Piace around the "bulb" of the cul- de-sac street. At this time, the Board is asked to consider the request for elder Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 3 congregate residences only on Lots 7 and 8 and to defer consideration on Lots 9-14 to a future Board meeting. Rockwell said in considering the required density, it is noted that for Lots 7 and 8, the number of elder congregate units permitted and the number proposed are equal. There are four permitted on Lot 7 and four are shown. Likewise, there are five permitted on Lot 8 and five are shown. Rockwell said additional regulations must be considered by the Board for elder congregate housing. She said the first three additional regulations, as well as the fifth regulation, relate to density, common living space, accessibility and transit requirements. Rockwell said the developer has been working closely with City staff to design each elder congregate residence to meet the density and accessibility requirements. Rockwell said that common living space is an important element because it distinguishes elder congregate housing from apartment housing. Having independent apartments grouped around common dining, kitchen, living and recreational space, is intended to facilitate social interaction and support among the residents; to counteract isolation and loneliness. She said on Lot 7, there is sufficient common living space. Rockwell presented a floor plan, showing that not counting hallways, stairwells and garages, there is approximately 20 percent of the habitable floor area allocated in the residence to a common social area. Rockwell said since July 9, representative Jim O'Brien has worked with City staff to revise floor plans for the residence on Lot 7 to provide interior access for the residents of apartment 7A to the common social area. In staff's view, this will improve communication and social interaction among the residents, particularly for the resident(s) in apartment 7A. She said that because the floor plans may be revised to meet other city regulations, staff recommends that a condition be added to any Board approval of an elder congregate residence to assure that there is interior access for all residents of each elder congregate residence to the common living space within that residence. Rockwell presented the floor plan for Lot 8, and said that there is 20 percent common living space in the elder congregate residence proposed for that site. The site plan also indicates that all residents within the elder congregate residence on Lot 8 will have interior access to their common living space. Rockwell said the transit requirement does not apply to Lots 7 and 8, because neither residence is proposed to have eight or more units. Currently, public transit is provided through the SEATS service. Also the proposed elder congregate housing is less than 600 feet from a regular bus route on Sheridan Avenue. Rockwell outlined the criteria for the Board to consider when determining whether to grant a special exception to allow elder congregate housing to be established. She said the criteria relate primarily to compatibility, adaptability and parking impacts. She noted that the size and scale of the proposed residences for Lots 7 and 8 appear to be generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Georgian-style, two-story homes on Lots 7 and 8 would be located adjacent to the two-story apartment buildings on the property to the west. The elder congregate residences, as proposed, may be larger than many of the homes in the Longfellow Neighborhood, but the orientation of these structures in a cluster around the end of a cul-de-sac street places a Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 4 buffering distance between the congregate residences and the existing single-family development in the surrounding neighborhood. The elder congregate residences would also be buffered from existing residential development on the east by Ralston Creek and a neighborhood park, and on the south by the railway right-of-way that is an elevated, earthen berm. Rockwell presented the elevations for each proposed building on Lots 7 and 8. She said the design of the proposed housing, particularly the front and rear elevations, has a residential, not an institutional appearance in that the entry doors, roof lines, varied window designs, building shapes and building materials have the look of upscale residences. She noted, however, that the side elevations of the proposed residences, particularly for Lot 8, have an almost dormitory appearance and would benefit from incorporating some of the characteristics shown on the front elevations, such as the varied window styles, accented entrances, dormers and shutters and using brick wainscoting. She said staff would encourage the applicant to address the side elevation issues, particularly when a side door is used as a main entrance into the building, as on Lot 7. This will enhance the single-family residential appearance of the elder congregate residences. Rockwell said if the elder congregate housing fails to be marketable and the housing needs to be adapted for another use permitted in the RS-8 zone, it appears that the proposed residences on Lots 7 and 8 could be renovated to be used as single-family residences or duplexes. As single-family homes or duplexes, these residences may be larger in terms of square footage than the typical homes within the surrounding neighborhood, but large homes or duplex units on a cul de sac street in this neighborhood are likely, in staff's view, to prove quite marketable. The main expense of changing an elder congregate residence to be used as a single-family residence or duplex would be the removal of extraneous kitchens and utility rooms and perhaps, the rearrangement of interior walls. The exterior of the residences would not need to be changed. Rockwell said the last item to consider is parking impacts. The applicant proposes to provide slightly more parking than required, but without excessive paving in the front yards. Only Lot 7 has a driveway/garage off Longfellow Place. Most of the required parking is provided in garages that are accessed off the private rear lane. Tandem parking (one vehicle parked behind one other vehicle) is permitted in the driveways. The parking as shown in garages and on driveways is compatible with the way parking is provided for single-family residential development, and should be readily usable for a single-family residence or duplex use if the elder congregate residences are adapted to these uses in the future. Rockwell said staff feels that the elder congregate residences proposed. for Lots 7 and 8 meet the criteria for compatibility, adaptability and parking. She said it may be prudent to impose a condltion of approval requiring that the building design and construction of each elder congregate residence be substantially consistent in form and building materials to the elevations considered by the Board in granting a special exception to establish elder congregate residences on these two lots. Rockwell said the impacts created by the older residents on adjacent properties should be minimal, and would be buffered on the east by the stream corridor/open space area, and on the south by the railway. Parking and traffic problems are not anticipated with this development. Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page § Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC97-0020, a special exception to permit an elder congregate residence on Lot 7, Longfellow Manor Subdivision, at 869 Longfellow Place, and on Lot 8, Longfellow Manor Subdivision, at 879 Longfellow Place, for property located in the RS-8 zone be approved, subject to the applicant: 1) providing a minimum 20 percent common living space within the residence, 2) assuring that all residents have interior access to the common living space within their residence, 3) implementing the building design and construction of the elder congregate residence for Lot 7 and for Lot 8 in a manner substantially consistent with the building elevations and site plan considered by the Board when granting approval of the elder congregate residences, except that the Board directs tile applicant to work with City staff to incorporate changes to the sides of the buildings, such as varied window styles, accented entrances, shutters and brick wainscoting, to enhance the single-family residential appearance, and 4) having a clear understanding that the elder congregate residence cannot be converted into an apartment house in the future by current or subsequent owners of' the property. She said staff further recommends that consideration of elder congregate housing for Lots 9-14, Longfellow Manor, be deferred to the Board's August 13,1997, meeting. Rockwell noted that staff sent out meeting notification letters to all property owners that have property within 200 feet of the request property. She said additional people who attended the July 9 Board meeting, signed up for' notification for this meeting. She said that throughout the process, staff has relied on the Neighborhood Association to distribute notification information to the neighborhood at large. She said she received some angry calls earlier today. from people who had received the meeting notification letters through a neighbor the day before or day of the meeting and felt they had received insufficient advance notice. Rockwell noted that.those people were owners of property outside the 200 foot area. She said staff has tried to go beyond the minimum requirements for public notice. Rockwell said she received a call from Alice Davidson, 618 Grant Street, who was concerned with maintenance of the common living space and had some other questions about the special exception. Rockwell said she received a call from Wayne Jenninc~s, 809 Maq(~ard Street, who was concerned that the elder congregate housing will fail, the building will be converted into apartments, and there will be resulting problems such as increased traffic, resale value of surrounding residences, student rentals, high turnover and destabilization of the neighborhood. Rockwell received a call from Iris Conkiln, 1211 Sheridan, who said she had been in favor of this project from the beginning. She said that she is 84 years old, does not drive anymore, and would like to move into a unit as soon as possible. She said that she did not understand why people were opposed, because she did not think it would cause a traffic problem or a burden on the grade school. Eckhardt asked how wide side yards had to be in the RS-8 zone. Rockwell said five feet. Public hearing: Jim O'Brien, the applicant's representative for the Longfellow Villaqe project, said in December 1995, the City Council passed a new elder family home ordinance to take care of elderly persons who wanted to live at home, but could not take care of maintenance or live alone. He said in January 1996, Jim Stetzel, the applicant, received a call from an elderly group of people wanting to know of an area where they could build some elderly housing, and they liked the Longfellow Neighborhood. They had a Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 6 meeting with the elderly persons to discuss their housing wants and needs, and approached City staff and the Council about developing an ordinance to fit these elderly persons' needs. O'Brien said that they worked closely with Jane Dorman, a retired University of Iowa professor, who worked most of her life with the elderly. She suggested creating a living style for these people to keep them in their homes as long as possible. O'Brien said 'the two common social areas per building will be shared by everyone in the Village and can be used for a variety of purposes (e.g. crafts, exercise, instruction, lectures, religion, etc.). He said that Meals On 'Wheels will provide one meal a day to the Village, and residents can eat together in a common dining room. O'Brien said tl~e buildings were designed with the garages on the backs of the buildings along the private drive to keep a clean front on the cul-de-sac. He said the buildings have the appearance of a single-family dwelling, with a consistent pattern of mailboxes, trees and light fixtures that blends with the rest of the subdivision. O'Brien said the applicant does not expect any rentals; the units are expected to all be individually owned. He said the youngest person interested in purchasing a unit so far is 65 years old. One goal of this project is to keep people in a residential area with homestyle living. He said this issue is new to everyone, but he and the applicants have received great support from the elderly interested in the project. Corcoran asked if each floor of each building had a social common space. O'Brien said that is the way the floor plan is currently laid out, and noted that they would like to keep the dining room on the main floor. Corcoran asked if the second floor is handicapped accessible. O'Brien said each unit as well as the common social area must be handicapped accessible. He said that five of the eight buildings will have elevators and three will have chair lifts. Corcoran asked about the features for each individual unit. O'Brien said the most popular unit is 800 square feet with a master bedroom that is 14'x14', a large bathroom with all the handicapped accessible amenities, a 10'x10' kitchen, a 10'x10' space for a dining room, a living room and a room for an office, den or guest bedroom, He said that they try to incorporate a half bath for guests. They generally will not put a full closet in the guest bedroom, and may only use French doors to close it off. O'Brien noted that they have not designed the units identically, but are custom-designing the units for people's individual needs. Bender noted that the buildings on Lots 7 and 8 do not have the handicapped accessible elevators. She asked O'Brien what his reaction was to the portion of the staff report suggesting changes to side elevations. O'Brien said that he designed a courtyard between Lots 8 and 9, and plans to design a similar one for every other lot with abutting property lines. He said because the property lines are being closely abutted by the buildings, there is not much visibility of the sides of the buildings. O'Brien said the sidewalks will go every other lot down the center of the courtyard, and that is why he feels it is not so critical if the side of the building will be boring. Brandt noted the staff recommendation that the buildings not be converted to apartments in the case that the elder congregate housing should fail. He asked for O'Brien's reaction on that recommendation. O'Brien noted there is an increased need in Iowa City for elderly housing and he thought Iowa City was a fantastic place for the elderly--with all the cultural, medical, and educational amenities that are available. He said that Walden Place and Oaknoll will give more nursing care to individuals and be more expensive than the proposed elder congregate housing. He said they anticipate no rentals, and want each resident to own their own unit. Brandt asked O'Brien if he had a Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 7 problem with the Board adding that condition to the special exception. O'Brien said no, and projected that once this project gets going, there will be more housing of this kind in Iowa City. Haigh asked if each unit or building would have fees to pay for common space and outdoor maintenance. O'Brien said each unit has its own deed, title and address, and its own furnace, water heater, electric meter and air conditioner. He said that each building will pay ¢67 per month to take care of outdoor maintenance and outdoor liability insurance. He said that currently, it is set up for ¢14 per month to go into a cash fund for residents to spend however they wish. He said that prospective residents have discussed purchasing or leasing a van for their own transportation. O'Brien noted that they are simply furnishing the space, and prospective residents are making their own plans and decisions on how to use it. Corcoran asked if there were separate meters for the common social areas. O'Brien said yes. Jill Smith, Oakland Avenue, said that she had some questions concerning the application. She referred to page 8, condition #4 of the staff report, and asked how preventing the conversion to apartments would be enforced. Holecek said the current RS-8 density in the neighborhood would not support an apartment house, so it would be a violation of the zoning code. Holecek added that a covenant could be entered into binding the property to that density level. Smith suggested adding the words, "... or group home," to the language prohibiting conversion to an apartment building, and asked if a group home is a permitted use in an RS-8 zone. Rockwell said a group home is a permitted use in the RS-8 zone. She said the Board could add that condition, but she was not sure it was a reasonable restriction, given that a group home is a permitted use in the RS-8 zone. Bender asked why Smith wanted to restrict group homes when they are permitted by right throughout the RS-8 zone. Smith said that she wanted to give area residents some type of review of the use, because of the extraordinary sizes of the proposed buildings and the possibility of a higher density. Smith asked the language to read, "... any conversion from elder congregate housing be subject to review by the Board." Rockwell said that without such a condition, the issue would not come back to the Board if the structure were converted to 2 u~ p~mitt~d in the Rg-@ zone. Brantit noted that if the applicant had chosen to build a group home, h¢ would not have to apply for a special exception. He said the use would be allowed in the RS-8 zone, so the Board would not be reviewing it in the first place, Smith referred to the section on parking on page 7 of the staff report, and asked the Board to look at that issue closely, because she was concerned about a traffic increase on Oakland Avenue and Grant Street. O'Brien said that the applicant had thought of making the private drive one way, but would not like to make a decision on that until some buildings are constructed and there is some idea of how the traffic flow will work. Smith asked that O'Brien be willing to work with staff to implement extra traffic regulations, like three-way stop signs, if there is a traffic problem. O'Brien suggested that the applicant and the Neighborhood Association work together more to fix any problems. Eckhardt said that at the end of Oakland Avenue is an alley, and asked what its purpose is. O'Brien said that is the easement the applicant extended behind the buildings to the garages. Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 8 Smith said she was also concerned about a communication tower being constructed due to a higher density being proposed for the neighborhood. Smith referred to //5 of the additional regulations for elder congregate housing, and said that currently Council is considering changing the public transportation route within 600 feet of the development, and that would need to be addressed in the special exception. She suggested creating a pull-off space so that the leased van picking up the residents would not bother traffic on Sheridan or Oakland if the transit route is removed. Eckhardt noted that the van will likely be parked in the garage when it is not being used. Smith said she had a concern about density with the new development, but thought overall that the Longfellow Neighborhood was a great place to have this type of housing. Pat Folsom, 739 Clark Street, asked who will pay the bills for and maintain the common areas in each building. O'Brien said the Village residents would have their own association money to pay for the indoor cleaning and maintenance, but that is being left up to prospective residents, who' will own the units. Folsom said she liked the idea of elderly housing in the Iowa City neighborhoods, but was concerned about the clear understanding that the structures would not be converted to apartments at a later date if the elder congregate housing failed. She asked how the zoning ordinance would be enforced. Holecek said it is enforced on a complaint basis, and it is a violation of the zoning ordinance that would be followed with a citation. She said that the "clear understanding" condition was added to have a clear, public record of the restrictions for the future. Holecek said that if the structure would be converted to apartments at a later date, the owner would have to apply for a variance through the Board. Folsom asked if it was required that the units be owner-occupied. Holecek said someone else could own the unit and rent it out without violating the elder congregate housing requirements. Brandt said that is allowed throughout the RS-8 zone. Folsom asked if there were four rental units inside a building, would that be an apartment building. Rockwell said it would still be elder congregate housing, because only elders or persons with disabilities would be allowed to live there. Also, only one or two people could occupy each unit. Folsom said it is imperative for O'Brien and City staff to work together .to change the side elevations for the proposed structures, because of their dorm-like appearance, especially when considering issues of adaptability. Anne Rawland, 839 Roosevelt Street, said she came to the meeting prepared to be in opposition to the development, but she now sees some merit with the project. She said the building size is troublesome, especially if it will be converted to a single-family household in the future. She suggested requiring an elevator in all of the buildings, and hiring 'someone who uses a wheelchair to go over proposed floor plans to ensure that the unit is completely accessible. She said that she has an aunt living in a similar facility, and the aunt uses all of her closet space, so she suggested putting a full closet into the guest bedroom/office/den. Rawland suggested using solid enforcement language concerning the future use of these buildings. She noted that a stop sign is needed at the bottom of the hill on Sheridan regardless of what type of housing goes in. Susan Reidel, 722 Rundell Street, said she helped bring in the RS-8 zone to the neighborhood four years ago, and is in strong opposition to the development, because it will stick out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. She said while she does not oppose the concept of elder congregate housing, she objects to having massive, monolithic structures in a neighborhood characterized by Moffitt cottages, four-squares, and bungalows. She noted the Mary O. Coldren Home on the corner of Bowery and Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 9 Clark Streets as some current elderly housing in the neighborhood, and said that the residents are good neighbors. She noted the prospect of development on the remaining lots that will be out of size and scale with the rest of the neighborhood. She asked what would prevent O'Brien or another owner asking for a variance or a rezoning in the future, because she did not think the elder congregate housing would be successful. Reidel said that O'Brien has already built three duplexes in the neighborhood that remain unsold, are too big and do not conform with the neighborhood. She said it is ridiculous to think that these big brick buildings can be turned into a'single-family residence or a duplex. Brandt noted that if O'Brien was building a single-family residence, he could build it as large as the proposed structure, meet all the setback requirements and the entire issue would not be brought before the Board. He said the only reason the building is before the Board is because it is elder congregate housing. Reidel said the current duplexes in the Longfellow Manor Subdivision are quite a bit pricier than what is currently in the neighborhood, and because they are unoccupied, that should say something about the marketability of what O'Brien has in mind. Steve Dunbar, 826 Roosevelt Street, asked O'Brien what the estimated cost per unit would be for this development. O'Brien said approximately 8100 per square foot. Dunbar said that many houses currently in the neighborhood are smaller and the cost of these proposed units is definitely above the neighborhood median. Dunbar asked O'Brien how many potential residents were ready to purchase a unit. Dunbar said the question is related to the marketability of the units in the Longfellow Neighborhood. Eckhardt said the question w(~uld not be asked of a private owner or developer, so it is not appropriate. Dunbar said the viability is important to consider, because of the vacant duplexes in the neighborhood, and the uncertainty about future use of the proposed structures. Dunbar said another issue is that Lots 7 and 8 contain a total of nine units in a development that when completed will contain 63 units within 8 lots, all of them averaging 1,000 square feet in floor area. He said he is concerned with the entire development plan, because it is difficult to evaluate Lots 7 and 8 when Lots 9-14 have not even been proposed yet. He urged the Board to defer the item until more complete plans of the entire development are presented. Holecek said that one of the valid criteria for the Board to consider is adaptability of the development should the elder congregate housing fail. She said that giving a probability of failure or a potential of success is outside the Board's purview. Dunbar said there are few choices regarding adaptability in the RS-8 zone with the enormous size of the proposed structures. He is concerned that it will spur future rezoning requests. Bob Lehman, corner of Sheridan and Oakland, said that he would welcome this type of development as neighbors, but he has some reservations about the marketability of the units. He said the density will be a problem for the neighborhood. Lehman said there will also be a increase in the neighborhood sewer problems if the density increases. He noted the potential removal of the public transit stop. He noted that for Lot 8, which has five units proposed, there are only three garages proposed. He asked where the others were supposed to park. He also noted that Lots 10, 12 and 14 have less parking than they have units. He asked if parking would be prohibited on the Oakland extension private drive. Lehman noted that people will move into the units while the other buildings are under construction, and the oversized, overpriced buildings within 60 feet of the railroad tracks may make the units more difficult to sell. He said the piecemeal approach of this development is like seeing the nose of the camel in the tent. Eckhardt Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 10 asked audience members to try to refrain from conjecture, or repeating issues or comments that had already been stated. Sally Hartman, Roosevelt Street, said this proposal has good intentions based on faulty assumptions. She said neighborhood members have developed a neighborhood plan, and this was not included in the staff report, nor were members consulted about the plan. She said that she did not agree with high density housing being good for the elderly. She said having large homogeneous apartment complexes has the. potential for problems. She said it is better if the housing is scattered and not high in density. She said that she would like more than a statement of understanding as enforcement language so the structure would not be converted to apartments. She said that she did not believe there would be a market for a large, single-family house with no yard that is so close to another house. She asked who would determine which units would be converted, and said that houses would have to be condemned to be converted. She was concerned that residents would be evicted from their own homes if the units would be converted. Hartman said that there is not an adequate buffer to the west and to the north. She said the area trees are deciduous, so the buffer is further decreased. She did not believe that elderly residents would need less parking, so. the units do not provide adequate parking and outdoor parking could be a hardship for elderly persons' in the winter. She said she has no data about how much elderly housing is being built or is planned in Iowa City at this time and so does not know that this development is really needed. She said having a high density dev.elopment in a low density neighborhood is psychologically difficult for the neighborhood to handle. It is a question of fairness. She noted that the Mary O. Coldren home has had problems filling its space in the past, and she thought that this could be a pattern in the neighborhood. Hartman said that people may not want to purchase a house so close to the railroad tracks without an adequate buffer. She said the design of the structure does not fit in the neighborhood, because of their height and size. She said the side elevations will be the only sides seen from Sheridan Avenue. Hartman noted current run-off problems in the neighborhood, and said a higher density would increase the problems. She suggested alternatives such as decreasing the density per building, increasing the number of parking spaces and providing landscaping that fits the neighborhood. Eckhardt asked Hartman how this development would personally affect her. Hartman said the increased traffic on Sheridan and the high density is a concern to her. Mary Brookhart, 1227 Sheridan, said she agreed with her neighbors that the proposed density is too high. She said that several zoning exceptions have been allowed in the neighborhood and she was concerned. that another variance would be granted and the building would be converted to apartments. She discussed the problems experienced with truck traffic when the ADS factory was located on this site. She said that the current apartment complex in the neighborhood already increases the neighborhood's density, and in the last two years has created havoc in terms of domestic violence, shootings, drug deals, and remnants of furniture left outside. She said there is no compatibility living with some of the people in that complex, and the new development will make that problem worse. She was concerned that if a resident fell ill or had other physical problems, that no one would be available to help them or take care of their unit while they were in the hospital. Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 11 Dan Brookhart, 1227 Sheridan, noted the runoff problem that would increase with a higher density. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Haigh moved to approve EXC97-0020, a special exception to permit an elder congregate residence on Lot 7, Longfellow Manor Subdivision, at 869 Longfellow Place, and on Lot 8, Longfellow Manor Subdivision, at 879 Longfellow Place, for property located in the RS-8 zone, subject to the applicant: 1) providing a minimum 20 percent common living space within the residence, 2) assuring that all residents have interior access to the common living space within their residence, 3) implementing the building design and construction of the eider congregate residence for Lot 7 and for Lot 8 in a manner substantially consistent with the building elevations and site plan considered by the Board When granting approval of the elder congregate residences, except that the Board directs the applicant to work with City staff to incorporate changes to the sides of the buildings, such as varied window styles, accented entrances, shutters and brick wainscoting, to enhance the single-family residential appearance, and 4) having a clear understanding that the elder congregate residence cannot be converted into an apartment house in the future by current or subsequent owners of the property. Brandt seconded the motion. Corcoran asked if there was an age group targeted by this ordinance. Rockwell said that an elder is considered anyone who is 55 years of age or older, and this ordinance allows persons with disabilities of any age. Corcoran asked if a 40-year-old could purchase a unit. Rockwell said that that person could purchase the unit, but could not live there. Haigh said for example, someone could purchase a unit for a parent to live there. Haigh said the criteria to consider is compatibility, adaptability and the parking impact on the area. He said that it seems the proposed structures are not compatible with the rest of the area and existing properties. In considering adaptability, Haigh thought it would not be easy to convert the elder congregate housing to a single-family unit or duplex if this concept does not work. He said that there is already a potential parking problem in the area, because there will not be enough parking if all the lots or units are developed or sold. He said he would have a problem supporting the motion. Brandt said this neighborhood has dealt with a lot of change, and he appreciated the audience comments about this major change. He said that zoning does not always provide the protection that some people wish it would, but it is the Board's responsibility to decide within the rules what is reasonable or not. He said he is concerned with the overall potential impact, but noted that if this were a duplex or single-family residence, the structure could be the same size, be allowable and not have to be considered by the Board. He said that he will support this exception, because he feels it is a reasonable use of the property and will provide some diversity to the area. Bender said she agreed that it is a difficult issue, because it represents change and is the first implementation of a new ordinance. She noted that the Board's criteria has nothing to do with some of the issues mentioned, such as the ADS factory, domestic violence, etc. and she is concerned that some people's reservations were exaggerated. She also said that she did not see parking spillover or increased traffic occurring with the target population. She did not see this as a realistic concern. Bender noted that with Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 12 regard to compatibility, the existing neighborhood does not have all the same types and sizes of homes. She noted that it is almost impossible to keep housing exactly the same with new construction. She said she imagined the same concerns and reservations were voiced when Walden Place and Oaknoll were built, but both are now strong additions to their neighborhoods with long waiting lists. She said in her opinion, the new clusters of housing will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. She said she doesn't see anything objectionable or an eyesore about the proposed new structures, especially with the condition to address the side elevations. She did not feel the new development would be a detriment to the neighborhood. She said when considering adaptability, she feels the structures could be converted. She said housing this size is permitted in the RS-8 zone, and if it were a single-family home, it wouldn't even come before the Board for its review. She said the parking as planned looks adequate. She pointed out that the Board does not monitor tandem parking in driveways for single- family homes or duplexes, and she felt the parking expectations would be similar for the elder congregate housing. She said that a good neighborhood should be diverse, the elder housing congregate will provide a type of housing needed in Iowa City and she will also support the motion. She said she knew from experience that children often benefit from having elderly persons living in the neighborhood. She cited elder volunteers who help in schools and participate in neighborhood activities. Corcoran said she will support the motion, because she feels that this development has a lot to offer the elderly population in Iowa City. She said Iowa is number one in the percentage of its population who are elderly. She said that Iowa City is an attractive place for the elderly to move..to. She felt the elder congregate housing provided an attractive option for someone who can't maintain their own home. She also noted the numerous services available in Iowa City, including hospice services for elderly persons who want to remain in their own units. Eckhardt said there are some neighborhood problems that the Neighborhood Association needs to address, such as the stress on Maggard Street and problems with the neighborhood apartment building. She suggested using City inspection services to help with those problems. She did not feel it was fair to compare the elder congregate residences with the Maggard Street apartments. She said she will support the motion, because it is a good idea, and noted the success of the downtown elderly residences that have waiting lists. She said that this will fill a need for elderly housing in the community. She said that the parking seems to meet zoning requirements and is taken care of under the current plan. She said the adaptability is a big question, but noted that new construction on a larger lot results in larger buildings. She said you can't expect that new construction will result in smaller, turn-of-the-century style housing. She said it is sometimes hard for a neighborhood to accept development on land where there have never been houses before, but she felt the neighborhood would find the elders in the housing to be a kindly population, who were not drug dealers or prone to violence or fast driving. The motion was approved on a vote of 4-1 (Haiqh votinq no). OTHER: 1 ) Board of Adjustment Annual Report Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Page 13 MOTION: Bender moved to accent the Board of Adiustment 1997 Annual Report. Hai~h seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Rockwell said that there will be an application for the August 13, 1997, Board meeting for a density variance, which involves the conversion of a fraternity house into a rooming house at 932 East College Street, She said that the applicants would like to have 28 University of Iowa women students live there, and asked if Board members would like to go on a tour of the inside of the building. In response to a question, Rockwell said 35-36 fraternity members had lived there. Bender asked if it was a non-conforming use. Rockwell said yes, because the density requirements have changed. She said to come into compliance with the change of use to a rooming house, only 13 residents would be allowed. Brandt and Haigh said that they would not be able to attend the August 13, 1997, meeting. Haigh said that he would have a conflict of interest, and could not vote on the variance, because he personally knows some of the people involved and his judgment might be biased as a result. Rockwell suggested taking the tour on August 11 at. 4 p.m. The Board agreed to that time. Haigh asked for an update on the Iowa Avenue apartments. Rockwell said that Julie Tallman is enforcing the conditions, and the berms are being rebuilt. She said Mr. Pattschull has submitted plans for the berms and to relocate the utilities, and has started painting the railings. Haigh asked if Pattschull had appealed. Rockwell said no. Brandt and Haigh both noted that the ordinance should never have been interpreted to allow grade to be established through the use of berms. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Adjournment was moved by Brandt, seconded by Corcoran and approved on a 5- 0 vote at 8:00 p.m. Patricia Eckhardt, Board Chairperson Melody Rockwell, Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Traci Howard ppdadminlmin/boa?-~iO.doc IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1997- 5 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS SIGN IN SHEET 10. 12. Address 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. MINUTES IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CIVIC CENTER, ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM AUGUST 12, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lyra Dickerson, Michael Kennedy, Lon Moeller STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Mejia, Machele Wiebel, R.J. Winkelhake GUESTS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: Commissioners recommended that Council approve the certified list for the position of Police Officer. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: Chairperson Kennedy called the m'eeting to order at 8:30AM. First item for discussion was the certification of the Police Officer list. Prior to certification, Mejia briefly reviewed the process and gave commissioners a summary of the candidates' education and relevant experience. Kennedy moved and Dickerson seconded a motion to certify the list for Police Officer as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Winkelhake commented that if Officers are not hired in time to fill two slots in the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in September the next availability of ILEA classes will be in April of 1998. Dickerson questioned what was included in the Academy and Winkelhake responded that it consists of 14 weeks of training in areas mandated by the State for certification as a Peace Officer in the State of Iowa. Dickerson noted that .the City has f0.vr openings for Police Officers and questioned whether job offers would be made to four candidates with the understanding that training for two of the individuals would not be available until a later date. Mejia responded that the City does not do extend offers this far (8 months) in advance. Individual circumstances change and the City prefers to review the most relevant information at the time a job offer is extended. In addition, some candidates are on lists with other departments and an offer of future employment could put them in a difficult position. The timeliness of the POST and psychological tests becomes an issue. Mejia stated that it is not the City's intention to offer a job until a position is immediately available. Winkelhake added that the two candidates selected to attend the academy must pass a physical agility test before they will be accepted into the academy. Failure to pass the physical agility test would result in a termination of employment with the City. Mejia stated that two job offers for Police Officer will be made immediately. Old Business: Mejia informed Commissioners that a memo has been sent to the City Attorney's staff requesting an opinion regarding the issue of a three year promotional list. A meeting will be scheduled to allow Commissioners to discuss the opinion as soon as it is received. Mejia commented that, prior to this year, the City has always tried to alternate Police and Fire recruitments every other year. She hopes to present a plan for the Commission's approval that will allow the City to get back on schedule. New Business: Dickerson asked for clarification of what the Police Citizen's Review Board (PCRB) will do and whether it will impact the role of the Commission. Mejia responded that the Board will review complaints, but will not have the authority to discipline. Any appeal of discipline will continue to be made through the Civil Service Commission. Winkelhake added that the internal affairs investigations will continue. A report of the internal affairs investigation will be prepared for the PCRB and the Board will have the opportunity to review the actions and question disciplinary decisions. The Board can express opinions to the Council, but the Board does not have the authority to change the actions. Mejia stated that under Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code, the Civil Service Commission is the ruling body in terms of 'review. Kennedy moved and Moeller seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:45AM. MINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Ann Cairns, Frank Gersh, Betty Kelly, Ruedi Kuenzli, Doris Malkmus, Pain Michaud, Mike Pugh, John Shaw, Michaelanne Widness None Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Jeff Davidson, Anne Sc~blte Clay Birkett CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Pugh called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS FRANK GERSH AND PAM MICHAUD: Pugh welcomed the two new members to the Historic Preservation Commission. The other members of the Commission introduced themselves. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Pugh said the Commission's by-laWs state that officer elections are to be held in April. He said they were deferred because no one on the Commission had stepped up to fill the officer positions and because several members were coming on the Commission and deferring would therefore allow the new members to vote and possibly become officers. MOTION: Malkmus nominated Shaw for Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission, Cairns seconded the motion. Shaw asked how long the term of office would be. Kugler said it' would be for one year, until the next elections in April. Shaw said he would accept the nomination. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. MOTION: Shaw nominated Malkmus for Vice-Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission. Malkmus said she could not make the time commitment. MOTION: Cairns 'nominated Pugh for Vice-Chairperson of the Historic Preservati6n Commission. Kelly seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. Shaw requested that Pugh conttinue to chair this meeting and that he would be ready to begin chairing the July meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none.