HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-07 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES
IOWa CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 10, 1997
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PREU ARY
Subject to Api oval
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt, Kate Corcoran, Patricia Eckhardt
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Haigh
STAFF PRESENT:
Melody Rockwell, Sarah Holecek, Anne Schulte
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bill Heald, Doug Alberhasky, Doris Sto~'moen, Leslie Schwalm,
Daniel Dreckman, Dan Brookhart, Mary Brookhart, Diana Phipps,
John Phipps, Bev Weismann, Brad Houser, Hillary Sale, Meg
Baron, Ned Wood
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Eckhardt called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Brandt, Corcoran, and Eckhardt were present for roll call. Bender arrived shortly after roll call.
CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 13. 1997. BOARD MINUTES:
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the August 13, 1997 meeting of the Board
of Adjustment, as submitted. Brandt seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC97-0018. Public hearing on an application submitted by Parkview Evangelical Free Church for
a special exception to permit an expansion of a religious institution for property located in the Low
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 15 Foster Road.
Rockwell said staff had received no new information on the item. The church feels it needs more
time to assemble information and redesign the plan for the parking area. She said staff is
recommending that this item be deferred indefinitely.
MOTION: Corcoran moved that EXC97-0018, an application submitted by Parkview Evan-
gelical Free Chur. ch for a special exception to permit an expansion of a religious institution
for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 15 Foster
Road be deferred indefinitely. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a
vote of 4-0.
EXC97-0021. Public hearing on an application submitted by William Heald, on behalf of property
owners William Heald and Mary Ann Letizio, for a special exception to permit a rear yard reduc-
tion for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 119 N.
Governor Street.
Rockwell said William Heald is requesting a rear yard modification to permit a storage shed to
remain in its present location on the 119 N. Governor Street property. She said the 100.5 square
foot storage shed was built five inches from the rear west lot line of the property, and the setback
requirement for a detached accessory building from a rear lot line is three feet. Rockwell said the
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 2
applicant is requesting that there be a reduction in the rear yard setback for his property from
three feet to five inches for the length of the storage shed.
Rockwell said although this size lot with mature trees and the need for alley access is not
necessarily an entirely unique situation in this neighborhood, it does present a set of contributing
factors for the Board to consider. She said the storage shed, as it is now located, encroaches 27.5
square feet into the required three-foot setback area along the rear west lot line of the property,
and represents a 15% encroachment. Because it has the appearance of a wood fence on the
boundary of a property and is located a distance of 79 feet from the nearest point of the residence
on the neighboring property to the west, Rockwell said the impact of the storage shed does not
appear to be substantial in general, qualitative terms. However, Rockwell said five inches do not
provide a sufficient setback along the west lot line to allow for further construction or maintenance
of the west wall of the addition without going onto the neighboring residential property.
Rockwell said there is a feasible alternative in that it is possible to relocate the shed on the site.
She said the cost of reconstructing and moving it, the potential loss of trees and shrubs, and the
potential blockage of on-site parking, depending on where the shed is relocated, may outweigh
the merits of absolute technical compliance. Rockwell said another alternative would be to reduce
the size of the building by moving or removing a portion of the west wall of the building back from
the west lot line a minimum of two feet and seven inches. In view of the circumstances of the
case, staff feels the interests of justice could be served if the applicant were able to obtain a
construction/maintenance easement from the neighboring property owners to the west. She said
without such an easement, staff cannot support Board approval of the proposed rear yard
reduction, and recommends that EXC97-0021 be denied.
Brandt said Rockwell had stated that the shed had the appearance of a fence. He asked if a fence
were built there, where could it be located a~d how would maintenance issues be handled.
Rockwell said a fence could be located on the lot line and could be six feet in height without a
building permit. She said the shed is a little higher than that; a building permit would be required to
construct a fence the same height as the shed.
Public hearing:
William Heald. 119 North Governor Street, said in order to maintain the west wall of the shed, he
would probably have to trespass on the Brookhart property. He said this is a common situation in
his neighborhood and that virtually everyone has to trespass on the property of someone else in
order to maintain some aspect of their property. He said it is also the case that the Brookharts are
required to trespass on the Stormoen/Schwalm property in order to maintain the west side of their
accessory structure and their apartment building. Heald said their trespassing is minimal and
completely unobjectionable, and no one has objected. He said he is asking for no more rights than
the Brookharts themselves freely exercise.
When first contacted by the Housing Inspector, Heald said he immediately called Mrs. Brookhart
and offered to buy an easement, but she was not sympathetic. He said he later offered to build
the shed in a manner that would allow him to avoid extensive concrete work. The Brookharts were
again unsympathetic. Heald said even if he were to build a shed that were in full compliance with
the setback requirement, it would still be difficult to access the west wall of the shed because of
the situation of the trees there. He said the situation is not going to change dramatically one way
or another.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 3
Doug Alberhasky, 911 Market Street, said he lives across Governor Street from the property. He
said he is in favor of letting Heald have the shed in its current location. He said he is glad to see
people taking pride in their property. Alberhasky said Heald and Letizio have done extensive
remodeling, and everything is looking very nice. Alberhasky said there is a resurgence in the
neighborhood of people caring for and maintaining their property. He said there are not as many
duplexes and multiple-family units there as there once were. He added that allowing Heald and
Letizio to have this shed will help everyone in that it will clean up the neighborhood and will make
other people want to put some pride into their property. Alberhasky said the neighbors should be
able to just get along; he would not mind having someone have to walk a foot onto his property.
Doris Stormoen. 819 East Market Street, said she lives two properties over from the one being
discussed. She said she is not insensitive to property rights, and it is important to recognize them.
She said, though, there has been a lot of confusion in that neighborhood about where the property
boundaries are. Stormoen said Mr. Brookhart approached her several days before Heald was
notified, asking for information about where the property lines are. Stormoen said last year she
replaced a fence and Mrs. Brookhart raised a question about whether it was on her property and
after seeing an aerial photo, decided that it wasn't. Stormoen said no one has really known where
the property boundaries are, and she was sure that Heald did not intend to violate them..
Stormoen said the neighbors have done some measurements and used some landmarks and
eventually used their best guess to locate fences and accessory structures on their property. She
said one of her concerns is the accuracy of the survey requested by Heald and Letizio. She said if
the survey is accurate, then she suspected that everyone from Governor Street to Lucas Street
on the north side of the alley is in violation. Stormoen said assuming that the survey is accurate,
the Brookhart garage and possibly even the house are on her property. She said she is
questioning the accuracy of the survey and whether it is fair to penalize one property owner for
violations that some, if not all, of the neighbors are guilty of.
Leslie Schwalm, 819 East Market Street, said she wanted to speak to the appearance of the shed
from the perspective of a property owner who has invested a lot of effort, money, and time to
restore her yard, landscape it, and take great care as part of a neighborhood effort to make the
neighborhood a beautiful one. She said she and Stormoen are probably the people who will see
the shed the most. Schwalm added that the Brookharts are landlords and do not reside in the
neighborhood. She said the shed is a fine structure and is consistent with the other work done on
'the property in that it makes a great effort to mix in with the existing landscape and the existing
trees. Schwalm said the shed looks very well made and is appropriate to the neighborhood. She
said as a concerned landowner who wants the neighborhood to continue to improve as it has
been improving, in large part because of the efforts of Mr. Heald and Ms. Letizio, she believes the
structure is clearly unobjectionable, and she urged the Board to take that under consideration.
Daniel Dreckman. 117 North Governor Street, said he lives across the alley from the Heald
property. He stated that the shed is not out of character for the area, is well constructed, and is
not a visual distraction. Dreckman said since he lives directly across the alley, he is probably the
one who will have to look at the shed the most, other than the owners, and he had no objection to
the way it is. As for the setback, Dreckman said it is an older neighborhood and things were built a
lot closer to the lot lines back then. He said his house is situated only about two feet away from
the alley itself. Dreckman said if the shed met all the requirements of the setback, it would look out
of place. He said the way it is now and how it sits is not a detriment to the neighborhood in any
way.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 4
Dan Brookhart. 1227 Sheridan Avenue, said he is one of the owners of the property that is
disputing the setback. He said he had no concern about the looks of the shed, but he does
dispute the setback. Brookhart said the law states there is a three-foot setback, and he feels Mr.
Heald should comply. Dan Brookhart said just because he does not live there does not mean he
doesn't care about the property. He said he and his wife stripped every room, plastered, primed,
painted, and replaced all carpet and linoleum and the fixtures inside. He said as far as where
buildings are placed right now on his property, when he bought the property five years ago, it was
acceptable at that stage.
Dan Brookhart said a person should know what the law is. He said you can't just model on
another property. Dan Brookhart said he did not think Mr. Heald did this willingly or purposely tried
to harm anyone in any way. He said this is not what is in dispute. He said what is in dispute is that
the shed is not located where it should be. He said it may be that Mr. Heald did not want to invade
his driveway by moving the shed three feet to the east.
Dan Brookhart said he did dispute the location of the shed once he saw the stud wall go up. He
said he told Mr. Heald that he did not think it was right, or something to that effect. He said the
next day he talked to a friend who is an attorney and asked what the setback requirement is. He
said his friend told him it was some five to three feet. Dan Brookhad said he went by what Mr.
Heald went by and looked at the fence that was there when he bought the land, and the shed was
not three feet from the lot line. Dan Brookhart said when Mr. Heald put the sides of the shed up,
he told him, "1 don't know." He said that was when someone was notified. He said he did not feel
it was intentional on Mr. Heald's part, but he still feels it is an invasion. Dan Brookhart said he
doesn't feel it makes any difference just because he doesn't live there.
Brandt said this is an older neighborhood and there are a lot of structures that sit right on the
property lines. He said one of the main reasons for having a setback is to deal with maintenance
of the property. Brandt said one of the alternatives proposed to the applicant by City staff was to
try to get an easement to take care of the maintenance issue. Brandt asked if an easement was of
interest to the Brookharts. Dan Brookhart said at one time he felt more amenable than he does
now. He said he feels the neighbors dislike them, and he does not have any feeling that he should
do anything other than what the law says.
Mary Brookhart. 1227 Sheridan Avenue, submitted pictures to the Board. She said she was
fearful of the shed location creating a lot of future disputes for the next "X" number of years, as
long as the structure lasts. Mary Brookhart said that Mr. Heald and Ms. Letizio have been good
neighbors, and she feels badly to be embroiled in this kind of dispute with them. She said she and
her husband bought the property on Market Street in June of 1992 and had an east property line
that was a horrible tangle of trees and bushes. Mary Brookhart said they cleaned up what they
could from their side and planted a whole row of perennials, as shown in the pictures, and have
maintained them over the years. She said when Mr. Heald and Ms. Letizio bought their property in
1994, they continued improvements on the other side, and they shared a lot of things as
neighbors, talking about what they had done and sharing plantings. She said she wanted to dispel
the notion in the written request that she and her husband were part of the planning process for
this shed, because they were not.
Mary Brookhart said Mr. Heald initially mentioned to them in the spring of 1996 that he would be
locating a shed over in the corner of his property. She said her first internal response was '~fine."
She said she guessed as a reasonable person that people would investigate what is required to
build on land, and she assumed that it would be built according to the requirements that we have
commonly agreed are reasonable within the community. Mary Brookhart said the shed was not
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 5
built in 1996. In 1997, Mr. Heald mentioned again that it would be built. She said she and her
husband did see the floor framing of it, but she did not have any building expertise and did not
know if the floor related to the internal structure of the shed or if a part of it was an outside floor as
is sometimes done with a garage. Mary Brookhart said as soon as she did know that the whole
structure was impinging on the setback (when it was framed it was very evident), she mentioned
it. She said she tried to contact Mr. Heald and Ms. Letizio the day she saw it, but they were not
home. She said her husband contacted them over the weekend, and she called the City on
Monday to find out exactly what the requirements were. Mary Brookhart said it did not even take
five minutes worth of conversation with the City Inspection Office to know what was required on
setbacks. She said the written materials that Mr. Heald said he looked at also allude to
requirements beyond what was on the brochure.
Mary Brookhart said she and her husband own a duplex that dates to 1875. She said if the survey
that Mr. Heald had done is correct, both the Brookhart house and garage sit partially on the
neighboring property to the west. She said however, thero is a fence in both Mr. Heald's pictures
and her pictures that tells approximately where the property line is. Mary Brookhart said there is
only one semi-new structure in the neighborhood, and it is an aluminum storage shed that can be
seen in lB of Mr. Heald's pictures. She said it is on the east side of her property and on the north
side of Mr. Heald's property, and it clearly maintains the setback of three feet from each property,
if the survey is accurate.
Mary Brookhart said she also objected to the reference that the shed has the appearance of a
fence. She said it does not appear as a fence - it is big enough for a person to walk into with
adequate headroom and it sits on a hill besides. Mary Brookhart said in the process of Mr. Heald's
building this shed, she and her husband have had that corner of their land denuded, sandbags
tied to a fence, materials stored on or put over on their land, and their compost pile has
disappeared. Mary Brookhart said this is the second time this has happened since Mr. Heald and
Ms. Letizio have owned that land. She said when they put in the lattice framework, they poured
footings for it. She said the soil they dug out to pour the footings was not shoveled over to their
land .primarily, but was shoveled over to her property. Mrs. Brookhart said she still has clay on her
topsoil and also some concrete debris. She said she lost a lot of perennials, and many of the
bulbs that she planted have never come back since that incident. She said she is concerned that
by saying that this is okay, we give people the freedom to build where they want and how they
want regardless of the infringement it places on other property owners.
Mrs. Brookhart said one of her major concerns was about fire code issues. She said one fire wall
on the back of that structure does not mean a lot to her when there is a whole wooded area
around it, a good part of which are the evergreen trees on her land. Mrs. Brookhart said if she and
her husband ever want to replace the garage, which dates to the 30s or 40s, they cannot think of
doing it within nine feet, nine inches of their own property line because of the structure on the
adjacent property.
.Mrs. Brookhart asked what it would mean to try to negotiate whether they have to have all this
stuff laying there within this three-foot easement. She wondered if they were going to have to
renegotiate that kind of thing every six months, and how they would negotiate with a new owner.
She asked if they could take back the easement at that point in time and would the Board be
willing at that time to say that the shed has to go. She said she did not think so.
Mrs. Brookhart asked what this did to the resale value of her property, because she and her
husband are being infringed upon. She said there seem to be other places on the Heald property
that the shed could be built on, but it would not be as aesthetically pleasing to them because it
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 6
would be more into their own land. She said she could appreciate that because she feels that the
shed is now into her land. She said this severely prohibits the use of her land and this part of her
yard. She said she had a whole row of perennials going down to that space, and it was her intent
to plant some of that space. She asked if they can ever do that and if they could ever maintain it.
She said she and her husband do not feel open to this kind of infringement at this point in time,
and asked the Board to honor the commitments that we have made in the'code as a community
regarding the space that we put between each other.
William Heald said he wanted to discuss what Mrs. Brookhart said about the fence that he built
earlier. He said he knew nothing of her feelings about the fence project until this development with
the shed. Heald said if she had said anything to him, he would have been more than happy to
work something out with her. He said he could have replanted clay with something else and that
would have been quite easy. Heald said as soon as he found out that the sandbags in that
particular corner of her lot bothered Mrs. Brookhart, he just moved them. He said all of his things
were moved.
Heald said as far as he could tell, the only thing that was being'done with that corner of the
Brookhart lot was a junked car was being kept there. He said he saw no compost heap. Heald
said if the Brookharts had approached him about any of this, he would have been more than
willing to work something out. Heald said Mr. Brookhart says that Heald dislikes him. Heald stated
that he had always liked Mr. Brookhart, but he has several thousand dollars and hundred of hours
invested in the storage shed, and it would have been so much nicer of them to have said
something a little bit earlier. Heald said Mr. Brookhart did not approach him when he was putting
up the wall frames. Heald said it was only when he was putting up the last of the wall panels that
Mr. Brookhart said anything, and even then he was not quite sure how to interpret what
Mr. Brookhart was saying. He said Mr. Brookhart was not saying that he objected to it being too
close. Heald said Mr. Brookhart stated that his wife was a little bit nervous about how close it was
to their lot, and she might say something, but then again maybe she wouldn't. Eckhardt said the
personal animosity between the neighbors is not really a matter for the Board. She asked Heald if
he actually put things on the Brookhart property. Heald said he was sure he must have.
Mr. Brookhart asked about the City's assessment of the percentage of the setback. He said based
on a ten foot, eight inch long structure, it is 86%, not 15% in violation, because they are not
disputing the other feet, but are just disputing where the shed is. Rockwell responded that staff
consistently looks at the amount of encroachment compared to the total square footage required
along the entire rear lot line. Brookhart said it seems to him the rest of it isn't in dispute - just the
ten feet, eight inches.
Public hearing closed.
MOTION: Bender moved that EXC97-0021, a special exception to reduce the rear yard
setback requirement for a detached accessory building from three feet to four inches
along the ten foot, eight inch length of the storage shed for property located in the RNC-12
zone at 119 North Governor Street be approved. Corcoran seconded the motion.
Brandt said this is a difficult issue. He said it is unfortunate, particularly in an older, residential
neighborhood, that an issue like this comes up where there has been difficulty resolving it before it
ever reaches the Board of Adjustment. Brandt said regardless of what the Board does, he hoped
the parties involved are able to work some things out. Brandt said the Board's role is not to
mediate, but is to make decisions about whether or not there are appropriate reasons for making
special exceptions as defined in the City Code. He said the fact that there are a number of
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 7
structures that violate today's Code is not without some note, but the fact remains that they were
there before the current zoning laws went into effect. He noted that many of the zoning laws that
the Board deals with today are there because of problems or concerns that arose from not having
such laws. Brandt said in this particular instance it is a structure that was built recently while the
new laws were in place. He said the applicant pointed out as well in the application that he had
seen the notice from the City that came out. Brandt added that it was unfortunate that the
applicant had not made a call to check on the other regulations and to see what the setback
requirements were prior to building the shed.
Brandt said he was persuaded by the concerns that have to do with maintenance and technical
trespassing. He said that presents some problems for the Board as decision-makers in that they
can't authorize or sanction such activity. Brandt said that is why the easement would be a very
reasonable solution to this, and it is unfortunate that it is not able to be arranged. He said he was
also persuaded by the fact that he knew one of the reasons for the setback is that it allows some
flexibility in each property owner's ability to build and construct and do things on his own property;
that is why there are separation distance requirements. He said the ten-foot requirement is one
that is in place and it is a safety and protection issue and is not an unreasonable one. Brandt said
it is true that by putting this structure on the property line, it does limit some possibilities for
construction on the neighboring property. He said he was somewhat persuaded that the Board
should deny this special exception.
Ecl<hardt said she concurred. She said the setback requirements are new rules, but they are rules
for a reason - because there have been problems. Eckhardt said when you have a small
property, you still have to comply withthe rules. She said in the future, the land use could change.
Eckhardt complimented the owners for the renovation of their home and their care for their
property. She said she thought the only solution would be for the neighbors to work together to
solve this problem, because she did not think it could be supported under the zoning law, and as it
stands now, she would not be in favor of it.
Bender said when looking at the setback standards, this seems like a rather minimal
encroachment, and in terms of creating havoc in the neighborhood, increasing population density
or causing health or safety concerns, none of those things apply in this case. Bender stated that
we have zoning requirements and setback requirements that we are supposed to try to live within.
She said granted, in older neighborhoods,' we can all find circumstances, situations, and sites
where those things have not been followed. Bender said one of the other standards the Board has
to look at is if there is a feasible alternative. She said she doubts there isn't some way the shed
could be placed on the lot that wouldn't cause the problem with the maintenance and the
easement. Bender said it appeared to her that the easement may never come to pass. She said
she thought the easement would be the best thing that could happen, but thought it was not
realistic to count on that as a solution. Bender said she would probably not support the motion.
Corcoran asked Mr. Heald how the structure was fixed to the concrete footings. Heald said it is
bolted to it. He said the floor joists are essentially bolted to the concrete footings; the floor is then
on top of the floor joists. Heald said the wall panels are on top of the floor and then the sheathing
of the wall panels overlaps the floor. He said it is done in sections such that each of the floor joist
panels is screwed to each of the subsequent ones on up. Heald said essentially to make any
modifications to the back of the shed, the entire thing has to be disassembled. Corcoran asked if
he were to move it, how would he do it. Heald responded that it cannot be moved; it would have to
be disassembled and reconstructed. Corcoran asked if he could unbolt it and have something like
a backhoe get underneath it and lift it. Heald said that could not be done, because it is built too
much as an outgrowth of the foundation.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 8
Corcoran said this is a thorny issue, and as a person who grew up in that neighborhood, she was
sympathetic to Mr. Heald and Ms. Letizio and to the neighbors who spoke on behalf of them. She
added that as her colleagues had noted, the Board has to adhere to the law. Corcoran said she
was concerned for the Brookharts as the people whose property would be encroached on by any
maintenance on this building. She said it does seem that an easement really would be the best
way to deal with this, because it would provide a way to make up for any diminution in the
property value for the Brookharts as well as providingfor purchasing the right to make entry onto
their property, if necessary. Corooran said like her colleagues, she tended to believe she would
not favor the granting of the special exception.
Corcoran asked the Brookharts if they really felt that any discussion about an easement was out
of the question. Mary Brookhart said she really had not had time to think about an easement. She
said the question of trying to negotiate this takes some time. Mary Brookhart said at first she and
her husband were not closed to the idea. She said their attorney has pointed out the long-term
consequences of having an easement and what happens when people move. She said that right
now, she does not feel very open to that idea. Mary Brookhart said they had made an effort to be
good neighbors and that is why she kept silent on what she considered to be a major infringement
when a fence was built, though she probably should not have. She said given some time, there
may be something that can be worked out. Corcoran said the Board was not meant to mediate,
but asked if the Brookharts were willing to think about this and ask for more time so this could be
worked out. Mary Brookhart replied that she and her husband are not very open to negotiating
anything, especially in a neighborhood that they don't have to come home to at night. Mary
Brookhart said she was not saying that they do not care about the property, because they do.
Heald said he would definitely have been willing to negotiate for months about the pros and cons
of an easement, but he was not approached first. Heald said when the City i.s involved, you are no
longer negotiating, but have to do something right then. He said he tried to talk to the Brookharts,
but was not sensing any give or willingness to negotiate. Heald said that had that occurred at an
earlier time in the interaction about this, it would have been no big deal. Eckhardt told Heald he
could have approached the Brookharts. Heald said he did approach them about an easement as
soon as the City was in his face. He said he was not a real estate shark, and this is the first
property he has ever owned. Heald said at that time, he did not even know what a setback
requirement was nor did he know what an easement was. Heald said he is a practical person and
was thinking in terms of deck screws, concrete and steel reinforcement. He said he is not a
commodity manipulator - that this is not a commodity to him; it is where he lives and will probably
be where he'll die. Heald said had the Brookharts come directly to him, he would have been willing
to negotiate as long as was necessary. Eckhardt said she did not think the Brookharts had to
come to Heald, that he should have gone to them, although that was not the issue.
Mary Ann Letizio. 119 North Governor Street, said the day this happened, Heald called Mary
Brookhart and asked to buy an easement. Letizio said she later asked Mary Brookhart if
something could be worked out, but she said no. Letizio said she wanted it on the record that she
and Heald did contact the Brookharts to try to work something out.
Corcoran said she had wanted to see if there was some way the Brookharts would be open to
thinking about this. She said the Board could go ahead and vote and make a decision, but she
was trying to offer the parties the opportunity to consider this - that they might get a deferral to
offer time for negotiation. Brandt said the Board needed to move on with this, that negotiation by
the parties was something that could always occur later. Corcoran asked if that could be done,
and Brandt said that it could and the applicants could always reapply.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 9
The affirmative motion was denied on a vote of 0-4.
EXC97-0022. Public hearing on an application submitted by Moose Lodge #1096, on behalf of
property owner AI Streb, for a special exception to permit construction of a club in a Rural
Residential (RR-1) zone at 4575 Highway 6 East.
Rockwell said she wanted the Board to be aware of the kinds of issues that staff is trying to work
out before the Moose Lodge application comes forward for Board consideration. She stated that
part of the property is in the county and part is in the city. She said staff has had confirmation from
the Department of Transportation that resolves the access issue so staff is now awaiting submittal
of a revised site plan. In terms of the sanitary sewer line and the connection to the City's system,
Rockwell said that is being worked out as well, and Public Works is reviewing the proposed
connection. Rockwell said things are moving forward, and at this time, instead of deferring
indefinitely, staff feels this application will be ready for the October 8, 1997 meeting. She said staff
recommends that the Board consideration of EXC97-0022, a special exception to permit a club to
be established in the RR-1 zone at 4575 Highway 6 East be deferred to a date specific: October
8, 1997.
MOTION: Brandt moved to defer EXC97-0022, a special exception to permit a club to be
established in the RR-1 zone at 4575 Highway 6 East until the October 8, 1997 meeting.
Bender seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 4-0.
VARIANCE ITEM:
VAR97-0004. Public hearing on an application submitted by John and Diana Phipps, on behalf of
property owner Gamma Omicron House Corporation of Sigma Alpha Mu, for a density variance to
permit a fraternity house to be converted into a rooming house for 30 residents for property
located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 932 E. College Street.
Rockwell pointed out items the Board had received at tonight's meeting, including photos of the
Delta Gamma House and the residents who were there between 1925 and 1950, a set of Leighton
House floor plans, a letter from the Phipps to the City parking officials asking that they be allowed
to purchase parking permits in the Chauncey Swan Ramp, letters in opposition from David J.
Luck, Ron Johnson and Willa and Tim Dickens, Martha Gordon and Frank S. Gersh, and Robert
Crane, and letters of support from Robert Downer and Mary Peterson. Rockwell said she received
a call from Bob Crane, who expressed concern about no parking being provided and thought that
a lower density, possibly 12-15 residents, would be acceptable. She said she received a call from
Suzanne Milda from the Summit House who was concerned about having additional cars in the
neighborhood. Rockwell said Willa Dickens also called to express concern about parking. She
said there was another call from Brian Mildenstein with questions, but no observations one way or
another.
Rockwell said John and Diana Phipps are requesting a variance to allow them to establish a
rooming house for University of Iowa women students. They plan to live on the site as owners and
managers for a rooming house for 28 women students. Rockwell said the highest density that is
permitted for a rooming house in this zone and on this size lot is 13 residents. She said the Phipps
are therefore requesting the Board to grant a variance to allow a rooming house that exceeds the
density level permitted in the RNC-20 zone. When the Board looks at a request for a variance,
Rockwell said it needs to be certain that the public interest will not be compromised, and that all
three tests of hardship are met.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 10
Rockwell said the Zoning Chapter sets the maximum density for a rooming house in the RNC-20
zone, and it is calculated by using a floor area/lot area ratio. In this case, she said the non-
conforming building size is allowed to continue in place, but the density is limited to the number of
roomers that are permitted given the lot size of 7,440 square feet. Rockwell said the applicants
are requesting that 30 residents be permitted in the rooming house, 17 residents in excess of the
maximum permitted.
Rockwell said according to the applicants' statement, renovating and using the existing building
for a rooming house for University of Iowa women students will be less disruptive for and more
compatible with the neighborhood than replacing the building with a new structure. Rockwell said
this may be the case, but staff feels that the impact would be even less with a lower number of
residents than 30. She said staff's concern is that the higher level of density requested will result
in spillover parking. Rockwell said there is no additional parking required to be provided for the
proposed rooming house, but the reality is that the property currently has no on-site parking and
the higher density requested by the applicants will exacerbate the parking congestion experienced
in this neighborhood. She said the applicants have noted their intention to provide van service and
to secure off-site parking for the rooming house residents. Rockwell said the van service and off-
site parking may alleviate some of the parking demand, but, to date, staff has not received
documentation that off-site parking has been secured. Even if it were, Rockwell said it may be
difficult to monitor and enforce off-site parking for this use.
In looking at the impact on adjacent properties, Rockwell stated that it is pretty much the same as
it is for the surrounding neighborhood, the primary concern is the on-street parking congestion
issue. Looking at the intent of the Zoning Chapter, Rockwell said in staff's view the applicants
have not clearly demonstrated that permitting a 30-resident rooming house is the "most
appropriate use of land" or that it will "lessen congestion in the streets." She said the building itself
seems spacious enough to accommodate 30 residents, but staff has some concern about placing
28 students in residence on only two floors of the spacious building.
Rockwell said the public interest would be served by the Phipps renovating and maintaining the
existing 1920s brick structure that will obviously help preserve the character of the neighborhood.
However, she said staff has not been convinced by the applicants' information that allowing the
higher density of 30 residents is necessary to achieve the preservation of the building. Rockwell
said the Board also needs to look at the Comprehensive Plan and its policies for housing. She
said that granting the requested variance may help preserve desirable neighborhood
characteristics in retaining an existing, possibly key historic structure. Rockwell added that the
Phipps' business plan indicates that their conversion of the fraternity house would create a "higher
density development and reinvestment in a near downtown neighborhood" and is likely to create
"a desirable living environment" for the residents of the proposed Leighton House. Rockwell said
staff feels it would be reasonable to allow up to 20 residents in a supervised rooming house such
as is proposed by the applicants. She said the burden is on the applicants to demonstrate that a
density level of 30 residents is necessary to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines for residential uses near downtown Iowa City. Rockwell said so far the information
provided by the applicants does not give adequate documentation that these guidelines could not
be met with fewer than 30 residents.
Rockwell said in granting a variance, the Board must be assured that all three tests of
unnecessary hardship are met. She said the first test is the reasonable return test. Rockwell said
if the variance is not granted, the property can continue in use as a fraternity or sorority house or
can be converted to a 13-resident rooming house or a four-plex. She said no specific information
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 11
has been provided by the applicants as to whether a regular rental setup for a rooming house with
13 persons or a four-plex with up to 20 persons could yield a reasonable return. Rockwell said the
Phipps have provided fiscal scenarios that show income, costs, and profit-loss figures for the
Leighton House concept at an occupancy level of 13 residents, 20 residents, and 30 residents.
She said the Board may want to ask about some of the figures provided to verify that the costs, as
shown, are realistic. Rockwell said staff feels that the applicants have not shown that a reasonable
return cannot be obtained if the property is used for a use permitted in the zone. She added that
the applicants have clearly failed to meet the reasonable return test of hardship, which requires
more than a mere diminution in value for the type of use they are proposing. Rockwell said to
grant an increased density without a clear demonstration of hardship would be equivalent to
according special privileges to the applicants that are not given to other property owners in similar
circumstances in the RNC-20 zone.
In looking at the uniqueness test, Rockwell said the most unique things about the prope~b/are the
large size of the building on the fairly small lot, and the historic value of the older residence in this
neighborhood. She said this, in and of itself, does not create a compelling case for having more
than twice the permitted density.
Rockwell said the third test is whether this problem is of the landowner's own making. She said
this is one test that the applicants meet. Rockwell stated that it is certainly not the applicants'
responsibility that the zoning code rules changed. She said, however, all the tests need to be met
for a variance to be granted.
Rockwell said if the Board determines that the hardship tests have been met, that the benefits of
the type of operation proposed by the Phipps outweigh the concerns about the density increases
on the site and the Board decides to approve the variance, perhaps at a lower, more reasonable
occupancy level, staff strongly recommends that the variance be tied specifically to the Leighton
House concept with resident managers. Also, Rockwell said because the renovation and
preservation of this older structure could be used as a factor to favorably consider a variance, staff
recommends that if the variance is approved, any exterior change to the residence or addition of
paving on the property be approved by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. Further,
Rockwell said staff recommends that the basketball court in front of the house be removed and
replaced with landscaping to enhance the historic integrity of the site. Rockwell said staff
recommends that VAR97-0004, a variance to exceed the maximum density permitted for a
rooming house in the RNC-20 zone in order to allow the establishment of a 30-resident rooming
house for property located at 932 East College Street be denied.
Eckhardt said according to the Phipps' business plan, each student pays $4,500 per semester.
She asked if that is what someone would pay living in a dorm. Bender said that as a parent who
pays one of those bills, she could say the Phipps' charge was higher.
Public hearing:
Diana Phipps, 157 Glenn Drive, said she and her husband are collaborating on this project. She
said in their collaboration, she is responsible for development of the concept, the development of
the leadership training program, and the direct interaction with students. She said her husband is
responsible for the physical structure as well as some other management details that go along
with it. Diana Phipps said she would therefore defer to her husband to answer most of the
questions that have been raised.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 12
Diana Phipps said they are not looking to buy a piece of rental property, but are looking to
purchase what they think is a building with historic qualities that was built in 1923 for the sole
purpose of housing students. She said they intend to take it back to the charm and original use of
that time period. She said University housing and housing for students is a big business in Iowa
City and is also a big problem to residents, as the people in this neighborhood will attest. Diana
Phipps said it is time to look at different options for housing students, and having adults and
students living together is an option that is working very successfully in other places. She said it is
an option that Iowa City is ready for. She added that they are hoping they can make this the type
of facility that other property owners will want to copy; to try to offer the community some
supervised living arrangements for students and offer students some alternatives to all coed
dorms, apartments, or run-down rooming houses.
Diana Phipps said they are not looking at this as getting a return on a rental property, but are
looking at it as a whole new concept in housing. She said they want to live in the neighborhood,
and they share the same concerns as the people there do. Diana Phipps said student housing
has a big impact, and they want to offer some positive solutions to that. In doing so, she said they
are going to offer something that has a lot of amenities and a lot of support for students that other
facilities do not have. She said those things cost money. Diana Phipps said it costs money to offer
a full dining service and to hire a cook and a kitchen staff. She said it costs money to offer full
housekeeping, to have maintenance people, to have 24-hour staffing, and to maintain academic
support through a tutoring connection with the University and a leadership training program. She
said these things all cost money to do, and it will cost a lot of money to renovate the building to
restore it to its original beautiful condition and maintain the yard. She said as the hardship issue is
considered, they feel they are looking-at something a little different than getting a return on a piece
of rental property.
John Phipps. 157 Glenn Drive, said he would address the issues that were raised in the City staff
report and in the letters that the Board received and in the phone calls. He said it is important to
note that the primary concern raised by everybody about this project is simply the parking. He said
no one has come forward and objected to the plan or the use of the building. John Phipps said
they have almost unanimous support for this concept and that people think it is a fantastic idea
and that it should be tried, just not in this neighborhood, maybe. He said there have been a couple
of comments about the congestion in the neighborhood and the density of maybe too many
people in the building, which can easily be addressed, but the primary concern is parking.
John Phipps said even though the staff report recommends denying the request for a variance,
staff does indicate they are not opposed to approving a variance, but maybe not for 30 people. He
said the reason for not approving for 30 people seems pretty apparent; it is the parking concern.
John Phipps pointed out that any use of this building is going to have a parking impact on the
neighborhood. He said if you tore the building down and put a park there, people are going to
bring cars and park in the neighborhood to come and use the park. John Phipps said there is no
place to put a parking lot on the property, and nobody else could create parking there if they used
that building. He said anyone who uses that building is going to have to look for alternatives to try
to solve the parking issue.
John Phipps said they have a plan to provide off-site parking and to encourage the residents of
the building to use that off-site parking. He said they will also offer shuttle service to and from the
campus, to and from the residents' cars, and to and from the airport, if necessary. He said he did
not think any other purveyor of student housing in Iowa City does now or probably ever has
offered those kinds of options to residents of their student housing facilities. John Phipps said
whoever else uses that building for some other use is not going to make that effort and probably
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 13
would not be able to afford to. John Phipps said Mr. Luck said in his letter that in this day and age,
we can expect all of the women who live at this address to have their own private cars. John
Phipps said that is simply not true. He said according to University records, so far only 4,100
students out of about 18,000 have registered cars this semester. John Phipps said students
certainly have a lot more cars than that in Iowa City, but the fact is, University policy requires
students to register cars if they bring them to Iowa City. He said even if they commute and drive to
campus, they are required to register their cars. He said this registration is free. He added that if a
student parks on campus and gets a ticket and is found to be a student who did not register a car,
it compounds the fine. John Phipps stated that there is some incentive to register a car and still,
only 4,100 out of about 18,000 students have registered cars. He said this is a pretty clear
indication that all students do not have cars. He said according to the University, according to
other people, and according to Ron Johnson, who sent one of the letters to the Board, freshman
and sophomores, particularly freshman, are the least likely to have cars on campus. John Phipps
stated that Ron Johnson said to expect that out of 30 people, probably 18 will have cars. He said
he might agree with that figure. He added that according to the staff report, his use of the building
would only require half the number of parking spaces that was required for the use as a fraternity
a year or two ago.
John Phipps said no one has come forward to object to this project, except for the parking
concerns. He said he and his wife are going to live in the building, will be living in the
neighborhood and are going to be as concerned about the parking issues as anyone else who
lives there. John Phipps said most of the other people who have written letters do not live in the
neighborhood. He said that Willa Dickens told him on the phone that he thinks the Phipps have a
great idea, but he will not support it, because he has been hassled by the City so much over his
rental properties he will not support any allowances being made for anybody else.
John Phipps said Ron Johnson was interested in buying this building himself, but the price was
too high. He said Johnson told him that if you wait long enough, you will be able to buy it cheaply
enough that you can put enough people in there to make a cash flow. John Phipps said these
people were interested in the cash flow off of rental properties. He said they would not be
concerned about parking or the historical integrity of the building. He said this seems to be the
point that Bob Crane makes in his letter also. John Phipps said he knew parking would be an
issue of concern going into this, and they immediately started looking for ways to alleviate any
parking impact and continue to do so. He said he hoped the City would grant his request to
purchase 15 parking permits in the Chauncey Swan Parking Plaza. John Phipps said he could not
imagine why the residents would not prefer to park in a lighted parking ramp across the street
from the police station and have a ride back to their front door than to park a block and a half or
two blocks down the street and have to walk. He said the City probably is not going to do that, but
he did not know why, because when he surveyed that parking ramp at all times of the day or night
there were always a minimum of 135 empty spaces there. John Phipps said he would think the
City could use the revenue off of those spaces, so he was hoping it could be worked out.
John Phipps discussed the contingencies suggested by City staff. He said one contingency said
that if the Board chose to approve the request, staff recommended approval at the lowest level
density possible to yield a reasonable return. John Phipps said he asked Bob Miklo, Senior
Planner, what a reasonable return was, and Miklo responded it would be 8-10%. John Phipps said
he did not own rental property, but talked to a lot of people who do and they told him that 8-10%
would be minimal for rental property. Phipps said this is not about rental property, but is a
business concept that involves private investors and bank backing. He said they could not ask
people to invest in this and go to a bank and ask them to finance it if all they could show them is
maybe an 8-10% profit. John Phipps said that is not the way businesses work. He said maybe
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 14
rental properties work this way, but not a business concept like theirs. He said they have to be
able to show more profit generation in their business plan in order to interest investors and banks
in backing this project.
Regarding the basketball court, John Phipps said they have said over and over that it would be
one of the first things to go. He said that instead of having a groundbreaking ceremony they might
have a basketball hoop removing ceremony. He said they had no interest in having a basketball
court in their front yard - that they were going to live in this building. He said it is not consistent
with their business plan at all, and he did not know why it was necessary to have it as a condition.
John Phipps said the third contingency was that the Historic Preservation Commission approve
any exterior changes. He said they have no problem with this at all and have stated from the
outset that one of the primary goals of this project is to restore the building to its original condition
when it was built in 1923 and to maintain the historic integrity of the building. John Phipps said he
and his wife are two people in this town that it just makes sick to see old buildings torn down and
to see old historic buildings and beautiful architecture that is just allowed to rot or deteriorate to
the point that it finally gets torn down and replaced by a wooden box to put students in. He said
they would like to prevent that from happening to this beautiful building that was originally the
Delta Gamma Sorority house. John Phipps said if they have to go to the Historic Preservation
Commission that is fine. He said they do not intend to make any changes to the exterior of the
building so he did not see how that is going to affect them, but if it needs to be in there, that is fine.
Phipps said the only thing that would concern him is that there are some cheap K-mart light
fixtures on the building, and they are going to replace those with the original coachlight fixtures
that were on the building as are shown in the photographs of the building that they have from
when it was first built. He said if they have to go through a lot of red tape in meetings like this to
get approval of light fixtures, they might not enjoy that a lot, but they will do what they have to do.
John Phipps said the fourth contingency is a big problem. He said the fourth contingency says if
the Board does approve a variance, it shall not be transferable to successors in title. He said that
kills the project. He said he cannot envision himself spending ten or twenty years building a
· successful business and then when he decides that he wants to sell it or pass it on to his children,
that his variance is canceled and, in effect, the business goes out of business unless the
subsequent owners can come back in and get a variance at that time. John Phipps said it would
certainly make sense that the variance stay with the business concept - that it only stay with it as
long as the business is operated in the way they have outlined it and that that would apply to any
successive owners. He said to say the business goes away when they go away kills the project.
He said no banker would loan them any money with that provision and certainly nobody would
invest in it. John Phipps said they could get killed in a car accident next week and the business
would be out of business. He said that condition did not make any sense to him and it was
unacceptable.
John Phipps said this building was built in 1923 and is the only building in that neighborhood that
was built for the sole purpose of housing students at the University of Iowa. He said apartment
buildings have been built since then that will take anyone who wants to pay the rent and he was
sure they were mostly students. John Phipps said there are rooming houses that were originally
built to be single-family residences. He said the City has allowed them to be converted to rooming
houses or apartments or whatever, with no parking. He said they create the parking congestion.
He said that this building, the Delta Gamma Sorority house, was built in 1923 for the exact
purpose that they propose using it for. He said they are not changing it, but are making it better by
putting it back to that condition. John Phipps said it is, in effect, exactly the same thing as a
sorority house; it just isn't affiliated with a sorority. He said they might have to call it a rooming
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 15
house under the zoning ordinance terminology, but it is not a rooming house in the sense that we'
tend to think of student rooming houses in Iowa City. John Phipps said he was asking the Board
to consider the historical significance of that building and consider the merits of their concept and
approve their request.
Brandt said one of the issues, actually the primary issue, is the density, and the parking, of
course, is related to that. He said it is a density issue, because following the code exactly would
only allow 13 residents. Brandt stated if the Board allows something larger than that, all the tests
about reasonable return, etc. need to be met. He said one of the things the Phipps did for the
Board in the original packet was to show some comparisons of income and expenses if there
were 13 people living on the property, 20 people or 30 people. Brandt said in the estimate for 20
people, it said that total receipts were estimated at $162,000. He said he had mentioned before to
John Phipps that the actual figure is $189,000. Brandt said what he thought happened was that
the projection and the receipts for the $162,000 did not include summer occupancy, whereas the
other estimates did. John Phipps said that could be so; he agreed that Brandt had mentioned it to
him the other day, and he had forgotten to go back and check. John Phipps said he probably
revised that later on, he ran the numbers so many times. He added that he was not an
accountant, and he kept finding things that were off here or there. He said he may not have
allowed for the summer occupancy. Brandt said he raised the issue partly so that the Phipps had
the opportunity to hear him raise it and to clarify the matter for his colleagues. He said even with
that, the net income before taxes still projects to be at a deficit. Brandt said it is just cut in half and
would be down to $28,336.00. Brandt said it is still a loss, although he did not know what the
percent of income is. He said he raised the issue because he wondered if it didn't make it a little
closer to the realm of feasibility in the Phipps' minds knowing that the figure is actually $27,000
more than projected. John Phipps responded that it meant if they did it with 20 people, they would
not go bankrupt quite as quickly.
Eckhardt asked if when she looked at the estimated receipts and expenses, there is a separate
budget set aside for the renovation of the building or if that is included here. John Phipps replied
that the renovation is included before anyone moves into the building. Eckhardt asked if that was
a whole different thing, not part of this budget. Brandt said he assumed that was interest expense.
Phipps said that was'correct - that the interest expense was payment of the debt.
Eckhardt said that going from 13 residents and minus 74% to 30 residents and a plus 18.90%
return, maybe there was a way with perhaps 25 people that it could still be within the realm of
profitability that would be acceptable, because somewhere between there it gets quickly into the
positive figures. John Phipps said the main thing that changes when you go down in numbers with
his project is that the revenue changes because you lose 100% of the revenue from the people
they don't have anymore. He said the expenses do not change very much unless they change the
way they operate, and they are not willing to do that; in fact, they cannot do that and still maintain
the concept. John Phipps said there may be a little less maintenance expense and a little less
expense for academic support, but the expenses don't change really significantly with fewer
people. He said if they are going to renovate the building, it's going to cost $475,000 to do so,
whether they put two people in there or 30 people in there. He said he cannot just halfway
renovate the building and have half the people in there - they either do it or they don't do it.
Brandt said another thought on the whole parking issue does come about because of the staff. He
said there is a full-time chef, an assistant manager, an advisor, housekeepers, and other staff
coming in. Brandt said there is probably a parking issue associated with staff as well. John Phipps
replied that those people who are employees can be required to park other places if they want to
work there. He said they would address that issue, even if employees have to pay for parking
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 16
downtown at a ramp themselves, and he would go down and pick them up. He said part of their
terms of employment will be that they do not park on the street around there, except in specific
situations where they need to deliver supplies or something. John Phipps said they cannot give
tickets for them parking on the street, but their employment can be terminated if they are causing
a problem in the neighborhood, and if they are parking on the street they are going to be causing
a problem in the neighborhood.
Brandt asked where John Phipps and his wife would park. John Phipps said he was told he can
put a drive up to the back door, where there would be room for two cars. He said they may park
two there or may only park the van for the business there and park their vehicles down at the
ramp. He said the bus stops right in front of the building, and he was not opposed to riding the
City bus. John Phipps said they would have a vehicle there 24 hours a day available for their use,
so they would be covered.
Corcoran asked if the 30 residents included the Phipps. John Phipps said that was correct.
Corcoran said the plan then envisions 28 people living on the second and third floors. She
thanked John Phipps for providing the new, schematic drawings of what the floor plan might look
like. Corcoran said she remembered from the tour that there was one bathroom on each floor.
She asked if she were correct in concluding that he had taken one of the existing rooms on the
second and third floors and is showing another bathroom. John Phipps said that was correct -
that there are two small rooms on each of the second and third floors that really should only
accommodate one person. He said what they would do is expand the middle room and make it
large enough for two people, and then have another bathroom at the end of the hallway. He said
there will be two bathrooms on each floor, one large, shared bath and also a private bath.
Corcoran asked how the 28 people would be placed in the house. John Phipps said there are
three rooms on each floor that could actually be. three-person rooms so they will pick the one that
seems to fit the best. He said the rooms at the three corners are the largest rooms and any one of
those rooms is large enough to accommodate three people. Corcoran said there are seven rooms
with two people each and one room would have three people. She said that would be seventeen
people. John Phipps responded that there are actually seven rooms on the second floor. He said '
there would be two people in each of six of those rooms and three people in one of the rooms.
Brandt said that would be fifteen people on the second floor. He said he recalled from the tour that
on the third floor, one room would not be used as a sleeping room because of the roofline. John
Phipps said that was correct, the one room would be used as a computer lab and a study room.
He said there would then be six rooms available on the third floor, five with two people and one
with three people for a total of thirteen people on the third floor.
Corcoran asked if this were to be used as a fraternity or a sorority, how many people would be
allowed to live there. Rockwell said only 13 would be allowed to live there, unless the use was still
considered to be grandfathered in. Holecek said she believed the use had been expired for over a
year so it would go back to what would be currently allowable under the zoning ordinance, which
is 13. Eckhardt asked if the fraternity still owned the building and John Phipps said that was
correct. He said the people, who bought the house next door and have inquired about this
property, could buy it and put 28 people in the two buildings with no variance and no problem.
Bender asked John Phipps if he received any kind of preliminary response to his letter to Mr.
Fowler. John Phipps said he had not. Bender said John Phipps had made the statement to the
effect that this probably was not going to happen, and she was curious about why he thought that.
John Phipps said he called about two months ago to inquire and was told he could not buy
parking permits for Leighon House. He said when he asked why, he was told there was a waiting
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 17
list of 175 for parking permits in the ramps and unless they were a central business distdct
business, they would not qualify. John Phipps added that he then started surveying the Chauncey
Swan ramp to see if it was really being used. He said he parks there a lot, and it seems like there
are always places to park. He said he started counting, since the students came back, at the peak
time of day, peak time of evenings, and during the night. John Phipps said he had it all
documented and that the minimum has been 131 available parking spaces at the busiest time of
day. He said the City needs money, and if for no other reason than to keep the fountain going
downtown, they could take his $7,000 to keep the fountain going.
Bender asked John Phipps if he knew how many people were housed in the Delta Gamma
House. Diana Phipps said there were 34-36 students there in 1925. She said that number was
pretty consistent while Delta Gamma owned the house. John Phipps said that just counting the
lofts, some of which were removed before the Board tour, he thought there were well over 35
people living there during the last use, possibly 40. He said there was no way of knowing how
many people were living in there.
John Phipps said he wanted to respond to a letter from Frank Gersh that stated there was not
enough room there to house 30 people without being crowded. John Phipps said according to the
zoning ordinance, the need is for 100 square feet per resident, so he could have 87 people in the
8,700 square foot building. He said, granted if all the house consisted of was those two floors, it
would be a little crowded with 30 people, but they are only talking about bedrooms on those two
floors, which the letter does not address. In addition, John Phipps said the entire downstairs is
common area, with a dining hall, multi-use room, guest bathrooms, vending area, exercise room,
and kitchen. He said the main floor is all common area except for the back part, which will be the
resident managers' apartment, but the large living room with fireplace, the front courtyard and
front porch is all common area, so there is plenty of room there for many more than 30 people.
Bev Weismann, 1022 East College, said she would very much welcome the Phipps to the
neighborhood. She stated that they would be a wonderful alternative to what else is waiting for her
neighborhood out there. Weismann said they have just experienced development two houses
down from hers on the corner of College and Summit. She said she was sure everyone was
aware of the large apartment building on that corner. Weismann said she thought the Phipps
would provide, as residents there, some safety and security for the neighborhood that they do not
have with the monster on the corner. She said this would also provide for architectural renovation
that this property needs badly, and the neighbors would all appreciate that. Weismann said her
concern is the preservation of the neighborhood, and she thought the Phipps should understand
what the neighborhood has recently gone through, as far as the large apartment building being
built on the corner of Summit and College. She said they want to avoid that possibility again, as
far as a developer coming in and perhaps tearing this building down and that even with 13
residents that are unsupervised, to have 30 supervised residents sounds much better for the
neighborhood.
Brad Houser, 1272 Dolen Place, said he represents the fraternity that owns the property and is
also the real estate agent for the property. He said in regard to how many people could be housed
in the building as a fraternity, there were over 40 people. Houser said he thought it was 45 people
that could go in there. As far as the discussion of 13 people being in there now, Houser said the
fraternity was in the house within the last year, so it would still revert back to a fraternity. He said
the fraternity had held recruiting events. He said he waited to put it on the market while the
fraternity did their recruiting to see if they could get enough people for their organization. Houser
said they did that during the spring semester of last year.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 18
Houser said one of the things he thought needed to be addressed is the concept the Phipps are
trying to do. They are not trying to make it into an apartment house or an unsupervised area, but
are trying to preserve the building and put it back to what it was originally built for. Houser said the
property could be made into a four-plex without anyone doing anything special to it. He said they
could leave it dumpy; they can do whatever they want to make it into a four-plex right now. Houser
said the Phipps are trying to restore it and all they have to do is stay within the boundaries of the
inside of the building. He said if they don't change the building, they do not have to meet parking
requirements - they can have 20 people plus 20-something who are also going to live there, but
may not be on a lease, such as a boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever, if it is a student-oriented
place.
Houser said he had been around the fraternity for pretty much the last year. He said there is an
apartment house across the way. Houser said the biggest complaint of the people that owned the
house that the Phipps tried to buy next door was the basketball court noise, due to apartment
people coming over and playing on it. He said the neighbor had less problems in regard to the
fraternity being there than she did with the apartment, because at least it was more supervised.
Houser said if you get into a situation that goes into 20 unsupervised people, you are probably
going to have a lot more chaos. He said he owns a number of rental properties in both Iowa City
and Coralville, and when you are not there, there is no way to govern it. Houser said he might get
a call at midnight about a party or something, and all he can do is call the police and have them
come three or four times. He said at least if you are there and you have rules and regulations, you
have a lot better control over the situation.
Houser said right now the building is-not under any jurisdiction of historic preservation. He said if
the Phipps agree to go to that, it would be good, but right now it is not part of that. Houser said
there are a lot of fraternities, some of which are growing and some of which are dying, and there
are going to be a lot of these issues in regard to buildings around town. He said this happened on
Dubuque Street and some of the other fraternities have been restored over by Hancher. Houser
said we ought to look at what they are trying to do in saving a building instead of having it torn
down or converted into a four-plex.
Hillary Sale, 1016 East College Street, said that although she was speaking in opposition, she
was speaking in opposition to the proposal the way it exists. She said she actually finds the staff
recommendations fairly acceptable, but she would be opposed to the granting of this variance if
there were not conditions placed on it. Sale said she would oppose that for a variety of reasons.
Sale said she was concerned about the parking problem, not just because of the number of
residents who would be living in this house under the proposed variance, but also because of the
staff and the Phipps themselves. Sale said she is concerned not just about parking, but also the
number of people who would be added to the neighborhood. She said she did not live in the
neighborhood when the fraternity house was occupied, but she thought 30 new people in the
neighborhood is a lot of new people in what is already a crowded neighborhood. She said she
appreciated the Phipps' attempts to come up with some parking solutions and suggested that it is
not inappropriate to condition any variance on actual parking solutions: on the location of off-site
parking spaces or even on a business plan which does not allow residents to bring cars or only
allows for a certain number of cars.
Sale'stated that she appreciates the Phipps' willingness to remove the basketball court and to
have their exterior changes approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, which she thought
was an excellent suggestion to maintain the integrity of that property. She said although she trusts
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 19
their willingness, she would urge that it be included as a condition if the Board finds itself inclined
to grant any variance.
Sale said the most important condition to her is the condition to which Mr. Phipps is opposed. She
said she actually read the staff recommendation differently than she thought he did, so she might
not be clear on how that condition would operate. Sale said she understood from Mr. Phipps a
concern that he would never be able to transfer title to the property without losing the variance.
She said she read the staff recommendation to say that the variance would be granted to a
corporation, Leighton House. Sale said it is not that no one else could ever own that property, it is
just that the conditions have to go with the property..She said that would mean that if the
corporation changes hands, but the corporation operates consistent with this business plan, there
would not be a problem with the variance, and there would only be a problem if the plan changed.
Sale said the assumption would be that the variance was being granted because there was an
understanding about the use for the property. She said she felt very strongly about that. Sale said
she would hate to see a variance granted, and if the Phipps were unfortunate enough not to be
able to make a go of it in a few years, to have them be able to sell the property to someone who
wants to do something else with the property and who gets the benefit a variance which was
granted for another purpose. Sale said she does not oppose the purpose at all. She said she had
not spoken to anyone who thinks the concept is a bad idea, but it is the practice of the idea she is
concerned about. Sale said that because of the way it is written, she feels she has to stand up on
the opposition side.
Sale said she is not a businessperson, but she did attempt to interpret the business plan and
raised concerns for herself similar to those Brandt has raised, which are whether or not they could
make a go of it and receive a reasonable return with fewer people. Sale said as she understood
the law, that is one of the applicants' obligations, and it is not clear to her that they could not in
fact make a reasonable return with fewer residents, which would solve, in part, a parking problem
and also decrease the proposed density. She said she understood the 8-10% rate of return
number from this report to come from what is apparently the average rate of return that people
received when they buy property and use it for rental or other purposes. Sale said it actually did
not sound to her to be unreasonable.
Sale said she would urge the Board, if it was going to consider granting the variance, to condition
that variance on the specific use of this property so the neighbors do not get sandbagged down
the road if something else happens. She said the condition that is of most concern to her is the
one that limits the possible use of this property to this business plan, which requires the managers
to live in-house and allows them to run certain special programs that seem as if they would be
excellent programs.
Brandt asked Holecek what the intent was of the condition regarding transfer of the corporation as
opposed to individuals. Holecek said she believed it read that it is a corporation that operates
pursuant to the business plan as it has been outlined. She said you can have changes in
individuals who are members of a corporation, but as long as the corporation is the entity that
owns that property, you are still going to have consistency. Holecek said she believes that is the
intent of this condition.
Meg Baron. 115 South Summit, said she owns the property right in back of the house in question
'at 117 South Summit and also owns the house she lives in at 115 South Summit. She said the
parking is awful there. Baron said she is not really objecting to the Phipps' plan, she thinks it is a
good plan. She said something has to be done with this property. She added that it is a big place
and is standing vacant and getting nothing but worse. Baron said she is concerned about having
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 20
so many people there, that the density is really her biggest concern. Baron said Sale brought up a
lot of good points. Baron said she really is concerned about the supervision of these girls. Baron
said she has looked at the building plan, but the Phipps do not have any door into the front entry
area. She said she could see things happening there in the front entrance, and the Phipps will
have to go all the way out and back around, or down and up to get there and will not know what is
happening unless there is some sort of camera system. Baron said living next door to rental
people herself, she could say that you don't know what they are doing. She said if you live next
door to 30 women, who knows what they will be doing. Baron said something has to be done, but
she is not sure what that is. She said they are on the right track here, but she is still worried.
Diana Phipps said regarding their private apartment, there will be an entrance into the front living
room of the house so it will be accessible. Also, she said the reception area will have a staffperson
24 hours a day. She said part of the expense of this concept is having it staffed 24 hours a day so
people are aware of what is going on. Diana Phipps said this is something of a numbers game,
and they need to look at what can be done here under code, who can come in here and meet the
code, and how many people they can put in this building. She said if they want to call it a rooming
house, they can put in 13 people. She said if they want to call it a four-plex and put a few walls up,
they can have 20 people and it would meet code. Phipps said if they had been able to buy the
house next door, they could put 26 people in there and would not be at this meeting discussing it
- they could just do it. She said it is not out of the realm of possibility that that would happen.
Phipps added that the people who bought the house next door live in Wyoming and their children
are living in the house. She said they have inquired about the fraternity house, because they want
to ensure the value of their property when their children graduate so that they can sell their house
and get their money back on it. Diana Phipps said we are looking at four more people in that
house than someone could put in the house and meet code and not have to ask for a variance or
even have to think about the parking issue or have to provide supervision.
Ned Wood. 1016 College Street, said he lives just on the other side of the apartment building
across the street from this property. He said he thinks the plan is great, and he admires what the
Phipps are trying to do. He said he thinks something has to happen to this property, and this is
probably a good way to be consistent with what the neighbors are hoping for and would have a
favorable impact on the neighborhood. Wood said he did want to go on record as expressing
concerns about the parking. He said obviously there is not an easy answer or someone would
have found it, but he wished that they could find some way to address that issue because he
thought it would take a lot of objections off the board.
Wood said his second concern is the amount of the variance being requested. He stated that he
thought the most minimal variance feasible should be part of any decision that is made. Wood
said the other staff recommendations are great, but whether or not the basketball court is taken
away is not a major issue for him. He said the parking and the extent of the variance are the
issues he is concerned with. Wood said he saw a lot of good in this plan as long as those two
things are taken into consideration.
Eckhardt asked Rockwell if this were a rooming house, if they would be required to provide
parking. Rockwell said no, that it would still be less than what was required for the fraternity. She
said it would be considered a rooming house with 30, and the required parking would still be less
than what is required for the fraternity. Eckhardt said anyone who would have to live in the
building as a rooming house would park their car on the street and no provision would have to be
made for those cars to park off-street. Rockwell said that was correct.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 21
John Phipps said they have a plan to address the parking and will come up with as many plans as
needed to address the parking. He said the obvious solution is to provide off-site parking; whether
it is provided in the City parking ramps or provided someplace else, that has to be the solution. He
said he would like to think that some of the other multi-tenant housing units in that area would
consider the same things if they could. He said something has to be done. Phipps said he is not
creating the parking problem and none of the people at the meeting created the parking problem.
He said the City of Iowa City created the parking problem in that area by allowing people to
convert single-family residences to multi-tenant usage without any consideration for where people
would park. John Phipps said the City of Iowa City has an obligation to do something to help
alleviate the parking problem. He said a good start would be to give him some parking permits so
that they can encourage their residents to park in the ramp. He said they at least would not
contribute greatly to the parking situation. He said the City could perhaps offer the same situation
to other housing units in that area. He said they may be setting a precedent and the City may not
like it, but he would be glad to set the precedent. He said he is willing to pay the money to give his
people somewhere to park.
John Phipps read a letter from Sue Licht, a preservation architect in Iowa City. He read, "1 am
writing this letter to encourage you to work with John and Diana Phipps in their request for a
variance on this property. I am not an expert in dealing with Iowa City's parking issues, but I am a
proponent of creative, adaptive reuse of historic structures. Many cities allow some parking
easements in relationship to existing historic structures and adaptive reuse. This neighborhood
has been hit hard this past year with the demolition of a significant historic building replaced with
an eyesore of a six-plex. Please consider, that with the current zoning, the same thing could
happen again with this property. it is' not protected by the historic district, but does directly affect
the historic character of the neighborhood."
John Phipps said he appreciated Sale's comments. He said 8-12 % is what rental property owners
say is a reasonable rate of return on their cash investment on a rental property. He said that is
considering only a rental property where people live there and pay rent and you pay the bills on
the building and try to maintain it. John Phipps said that does not take into consideration the return
that is necessary to operate a building that includes a food service component, an educational
component, an academic support component, and a career counseling component. He said all
these things are part of the plan that costs money and have to have a return. He said 8-12% just
does not cover it, and you can't start a business with those kinds of figures. Brandt asked if those
figures are included in the operating expenses, and John Phipps said that was correct.
John Phipps said, as far as the conditions on the variance, Sales may be right. John Phipps said
he is not opposed to some sort of a contingency like that. He said he would not want to see the
business destroyed if they decide to retire in 20 years and sell the business or perhaps one of
their kids would want to take it over. John Phipps said he would not want them to change the
concept. He said he had no problem with the variance staying with the business or the business
concept. He said he read that where it says "the density variance not being applicable to any
successors in title," that successors in title meant whoever bought the property from him would not
get the variance. John Phipps said if it needs to be reworded so that he is happier with it, that
would be fine, but if the idea is that the successive owner of the business who continues to
operate the business in the same manner keeps the variance, then he has no problem with that.
Holecek said one could transfer the corporate entity that operates under the same structure and
not lose the variance. John Phipps asked what the case would be if the name of the corporation is
changed. Holecek asked why you would change the name. John Phipps said suppose someone
with a business called Smith House did kind of the same thing and bought the business. Holecek
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 22
said it would be a subsidiary then that could be owned by a larger corporate structure and still
maintain its character.
Brandt asked the Phipps if anything less than 30 residents is unacceptable to them. John Phipps
said without the higher numbers, this plan does not have enough return to interest investors and
said that comes from the investors themselves. He said they had to rework the numbers over and
over again just to get to the point where people would say now it could be worth doing.
Public hearing closed.
Bender thanked the neighbors for coming and said it helps the Board a lot. She said it was her
opinion after touring the facility, hearing from the neighbors, reading the materials, and. much
thought and deliberation that she would support this with conditions. Bender said she thinks the
tests of unnecessary hardship have been met. She stated that she thinks the uniqueness test has
been met in that this is a very unique neighborhood and a very unique structure, and she thought
that because of its historic worthiness that it is also unique and she heard people in the
neighborhood saying they don't want to see this destroyed.
Bender said obviously this is not anything of the landowner's own making - the zoning require-
ments in effect were not in effect at the time this house was erected in 1923. She said she did not
have a problem either with the business plan or the statistics. Being a long-time Iowa City resident
herself and owning rental properties, Bender said there is a difference between owning a duplex
or a rental property and the amount of return expected on that investment and owning a business.
She said they are two totally separate-things. Bender said one only has to look at the professional
advisors and contractors that are involved in this business concept to see that they are long-
standing, well-respected members of the community, so she trusted the facts and figures and the
advice that the applicants have been getting, be it accounting, legal, architectural, construction, or
renovation. Bender said these are all very well-respected, very long-term upstanding business
people in this community so she had no reason to mistrust their advice and, in turn, the Leighton
House projections. She said she also did not have a problem with the reasonable rate of return
test. She thought that was met.
Bender said the plan itself encourages reinvestment in the near downtown neighborhood. She
said that is what the Comprehensive Plan asks for, and she thought that is what this applicant is
trying to do. Bender said she did not see any use of this grand old home that could be any finer
than the one that is presented to the Board. She said that the potential uses of this property aside
from Leighton House would be much more harmful to this neighborhood. Bender said a case in
point is the current owner and previous tenants of this building. She said they all saw the house
and went through it, and it was absolutely disgusting. Bender said she could not imagine living in
that neighborhood and wanting to have anything similar to that take place on that site again. She
said she was concerned that it could if the Board does not allow this plan to go forward, and the
applicant pointed that out succinctly also. Bender said if someone wants to convert this to a multi-
family or quad-plex or whatever they want to call it and have 26 people living there unsupervised
or 24 or whatever the number and not even appear before the Board, that frightens her a great
deal for that wonderful old neighborhood.
Bender said she was concerned about the parking, but did not think the parking issue outweighs
the good that this type of well-thought out plan and supervised living arrangement could bring.
She said she felt really strongly about this. Bender said being the mother of a college-aged
student and going through dorm life and the options available makes her have another view of it.
She said she thought this whole business concept is a wonderful addition to the community and to
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 23
the University. She stated that it is very unique, and the fact that it has proven successful in other
similar university towns speaks highly for it. Bender said she knew from her business, because
she works with many young students, that there are many who do have the wherewithal to afford
this type of housing. Bender said she thinks it is certainly feasible that there are young women
who come to this community from other states and communities that could use this type of
housing.
Bender asked Holecek for a recommendation about the wording. Bender said she liked the
wording the way it is in terms of saying that the variance would be conferred specifically to this
limited partnership. She said she wondered if the part after the semicolon could be nixed. She
said she thought that was causing the problem, when talking about any successors in title. Bender
said she thought the concern is how they could leave this to their children. Holecek said they
could do so by using the business vehicle, the entity which is Leighton House, L.C. Holecek stated
that as long as it is a viable business entity that owns title to the property, there is continuation.
Bender said maybe it is not even necessary to have that language; if it says that the variance is
specifically awarded to this business, why is the language after that even needed. Holecek replied
that the language thereafter kind of flushes out the intent of the first sentence. She said "that the
density variance is not applicable to any successors in title" further clarifies that the variance is
conferred specifically to Leighton House, L.C., under the plan, and it is going to have to be
continuous in order for this variance to be continuous as applied to this property. Holecek said the
way it is worded is fine, and the discussion will be replete in the minutes such that the intent can
be determined if there is ever any question.
Eckhardt said this is a difficult case to consider and that if considered simply by the code and by
the book and by the law, that in some ways the spirit of the law is overlooked. She said it may not
be a unique property, but it is certainly a unique solution. Eckhardt said she did not think the
parking problems in the neighborhood can be blamed entirely on this one property nor can they be
expected to be the solution for the problems in the neighborhood, though it sounds as though they
are going to try to do something about it. Eckhardt stated that she would support this variance
request with conditions one and two. She said she thought number three should be thrown out
because the applicants are under no legal responsibility to the Historic Preservation Commission;
it is not in a historic district nor is it a National Register house. Eckhardt said she thought the
Phipps would comply with the condition, but she did not think the Board should throw up
everything they could think of and make it a condition and add it on. She also said she thought
they would certainly remove the ball court and did not think it necessary for the Board to be telling
them to do so like a mother hen telling the chicks what to do. Eckhardt said she would like to have
just the first two conditions.
Brandt said the first condition talks about limiting the variance to a lower level of density with a
reasonable return. Eckhardt said she thought they would have to go with 30 and she would go
with 30. She said you can dicker and dicker, but finally you have to swallow the solution or not, or
vote against it. She said she would vote for 30.
Brandt said he would take a bit of a contrary view. He said a variance has a higher standard for
decision making on the Board's part than do special exceptions. He said there are a number of
standards that have to be met and clearly met before the Board makes the very unusual decision
to grant a variance. Brandt said he has concerns about the impact of the parking issue and the
reasonable return test.
Brandt said parking is an issue created, in part, by the increased density impact. Brandt stated he
was not convinced at this point that the reasonable return test is met. He said he was not
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 24
convinced in looking at the various figures that this is not doable at a smaller number. Brandt said
there would be no issue in front of the Board if this were a four-plex with 20 occupants. He said
that is apparently the smallest density that would normally be allowed under any fashion on this
particular piece of property, and he would be willing to consider going at that level, but not beyond.
Brandt stated that the adjacent property certainly could be purchased and then changes made,
but it is not, and that is not the issue in front of the Board. He said the Board could grant this
variance and who is to say that the Board will not have a variance request then from the property
adjacent. He said the Board does not know where that issue will fall out. Brandt said the RNC-20
zone is designed to control density uses. He said though there is some danger in other kinds of
uses coming in there, one of the purposes is to try to maintain both the integrity and the
appearance of the neighborhood, but along with that some density control. Brandt said he was
therefore not swayed to go with the full application as stated.
Corcoran said she favored the granting of the variance. She said she was persuaded by the
arguments of the applicants and thanked the people who came from the neighborhood. Corcoran
said this is a wonderful neighborhood, and she drives by this property every day. She said she
thought the applicants are seeking to upgrade this property and make it a real anchor, the way it
was previously an anchor for that block. Corcoran said she did trust that they will do what they say
with regard to the parking and the supervision, because the plan is such that this is a very
resident-centered operation. She said with the neighbors saying they have seen what has
happened across the street, she shuddered to think that someone could come in there and tear
this building down and build another apartment building like that. Corcoran said the Board has an
opportunity here to allow the applicants to make'a go at this and restore and return something to
the City that is very good.
Corcoran said she was aware, as Brandt stated, that the standard for a variance is higher than for
a special exception. She said she felt the unnecessary hardship tests have been met. The facts of
the case support the finding that this property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the
purpose allowed in the RNC-20 zone. Corcoran said if this property could have yielded a
reasonable return under a use permitted in the zone, there would have been a lot of people
coming forward to snap this property up as it is just a few blocks from downtown, is in an
interesting area, and is on the bus line. She said there are, however, a lot of problems with this
property. She said the extensive renovation, money and investment by anyone who wants to
come in and buy this and make it into something nice would turn off a lot of people. Corcoran said
she agreed that conditions three and four should be thrown out. She said that while it is admirable
that the Phipps agree to clear any changes to the exterior of the building with the Historic.
Preservation Commission, she did not feel they should be saddled with a duty that nobody else in
the neighborhood is saddled with. Corcoran said they might be agreeing with something and
would have no way of knowing in a couple of years if they wanted to do something and could be
blocked from it. She said she felt if they purchased this property, they have a right to use it as the
law allows. Corcoran complimented the Phipps on their business plan, and said she was grateful
for the extra time to consider this.
Corcoran said she also felt that the uniqueness test was met, because this really is a unique
property. She said fraternity and sorority houses are not being built any more in Iowa City, and
this is a real anchor for that block. She added that it has architectural value and significance.
Corcoran said she was in favor of allowing 30 people and the Phipps would have to see if they
can actually get 30 people there. She said she would vote in favor of the variance with conditions
one and two. She also asked that when the motion was proposed, that it be built into the record so
that this language about to whom the variance will be given can be reworded if necessary.
Corcoran said the bankers and investors will have to be comfortable with the language, too.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 25
Eckhardt said condition number one needed to be reworded. Rockwell said if the Board was going
to approve a variance for 30 residents, the motion could say, "to approve the establishment of a
30-resident rooming house for property located at 932 East College Street, subject to the variance
being conferred to Leighton House, L.C.," etc.
Bender said regarding condition number three, that while this house does not sit in a historic
preservation zone, it is neighbored by such a zone, and the Board has received letters from neigh-
bors and heard neighbors speak. She said one of the people the Board received a letter from,
Frank Gersh, is on the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and lives in the East College
Historic District just down the street. She said since the applicant is willing and comfortable and
the neighbors seem to want that, she would be in favor of leaving it in. Bender stated that she did
not think it was an infringement upon the applicant, and she would feel more comfortable given
the fact that the neighbors have strong feelings about it and the fact that it does border a historic
district.
Holecek suggested that one of the bases on which the Board has said the property meets the
uniqueness test is the historic nature of the property. She said unless the Board does something
to preserve that, it is almost eviscerating those things which it said are necessary to grant the
variance. Corcoran said that was a good point, and Bender said she thought it really needed to be
left in. Brandt said it is not uncommon for the Board to set conditions. He said the Board does that
frequently and it comes with the territory when the Board is asked to make special exceptions and
variances. Brandt said it is basically a legal protection in case properties change or there are
different owners.
Bender said Eckhardt had a good point that basically the property is not even in the historic district
and the Board does not want to be imposing things unnecessarily, but Bender said she was
basing her judgment on the fact that this is a grand old historic home. She stated that she did not
object to leaving condition four in either, because it also is something that is important to the
neighbors and the Phipps have said they do not argue with that. Bender said if the Board wants to
be consistent, it has really looked at limiting the amount of concrete in neighborhoods. She said
this is a way of being consistent in asking that it be removed and that something more neighborly
be put it.
Eckhardt said she could live with what is in there, but she was concerned with the Board setting a
precedent. She stated that when you look at the Iowa Site Inventory Form, Jan Nash has checked
this as a contributing structure. Eckhardt said maybe the Board could go ahead and make the
requirement in this case, but she did not think that because the Board thinks it is historic that it
should be under the supervision of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. Holecek
stated that this is one of the bases the Board is using to meet the test for granting the variance in
the first place, so placing a condition that preserves the uniqueness of the property is entirely
consistent.
Corcoran said the reason she had agreed to throw that condition out is because she wanted to
see the applicants have full use of this property. She said she did not know about the workings of
the Historic Preservation Commission. She asked if they could unreasonably withhold approval of
anything. Corcoran said the condition specified any exterior change to the residence. Holecek said
the Phipps could apply for a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate of no material effect.
Corcoran said it also specified Historic Preservation Commission review of the addition of paving
on the site and asked if this would affect the paving to the back to park the van and if it would
immediately refer this to the Historic Preservation Commission. Holecek said that was correct.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 26
Brandt stated that he had experience in going to that Commission and watching it work. He said it
is an extremely helpful group, and, even though it is regulatory, it serves almost more in an
advisory capacity. Brandt said they give good suggestions and good ideas and work with people
in making sure things are appropriate. He said they rarely deny anything and in fact he did not
know if they had ever denied anything. Holecek said the Commission is also consulted by persons
who are not necessarily under its regulatory auspices, but are consulted just because their advice
is helpful and respected. Corcoran said she just wanted to make sure the Phipps understand what
they are agreeing to.
Bender asked if the Board could add some .language about parking. She said she did not know
how it would be done because of enforcement, but she wondered if, as the resident management
of the home is part of the business plan and as this provision of off-street parking is part of the
business plan, the Board could include some language about having the variance being conferred
specifically to Leighton House, L.C., which will provide resident management of the rooming
house and off-site parking, or something to that effect. Holecek said the Board needed to then ask
the question, if the applicants are unable to secure off-site parking, did the Board want the
variance to be null and void: She said the entirety of the plan and all its parts could then hinge on
that one provision. She stated that the Board could add some looser language that may not be as
binding - something to the effect of Leighton House, L.C. making good faith efforts to provide off-
site parking. Holecek said that would not be as binding, but would give the intent that the Board is
trying to address that issue. Brandt said he did not know why the binding language would be
unreasonable since the Board has received very strong commitments, and it is very firmly stated
in the business plan that that will be done. Bender said the Board does not know what kind of
compliance they will get. -'
Bender said she would like to see language about a good faith effort because the parking is such
an issue for so many people. She said it is not the fault of the applicant. She said, in effect, this
plan is going to lower the density from 1923 and from 1996. Bender said the net effect may be a
wash. She said she did sense a great deal of concern about the parking issue. Eckhardt said if the
preservation issue is going to be in because the Board made a big point of it, then the parking
issue should be in because the Board made a big point of it. Holecek said part of the analysis
though, and one of the points of contention between Board members, was indeed the impact on
the neighborhood with one member finding the impact to be unreasonable and other members
finding it not to be unreasonable. Holecek stated that whether or not that is included is not the
same analysis as leaving in the historic preservation issue in order to meet the uniqueness test.
Brandt said he took Holecek's advice, which he did not agree with, to mean it should be left alone.
Holecek said she thought the best that could be done would be to include a good faith clause, but
the reality of the situation may not lend itself to compliance. Bender said she trusted that the good
faith effort would be there.
Eckhardt said a more serious issue would be what happens if the Leighton House fails. She asked
if it should then be canceled or a time limit should be put on it. Brandt said it is the general idea
that if this concept fails, the issue is back to square one. Bender said she thought that was really
beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. She said if it does not succeed, it is the applicants' problem.
She said the people who would then want to buy the property would have to come and get
approval for what they would want to do. Hoiecek said that was correct. She said one could buy
the limited corporation, but would have to continue to operate under that concept plan. Brandt
asked if the business plan concept has to be consistent, not just the title that belonged to Leighton
House, but the business of Leighton House. Holecek said that was correct, that it must be
operated as stated in the business plan. Brandt said that if Leighton House decided to change to a
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 27
20-bed four-plex, then the deal would be off. Holecek confirmed this and said or a 30-bed four-
plex, because the discussion was for a 30-person variance.
John Phipps said regarding Historic Preservation Commission approval, he would prefer to have it
worded to "the exterior structure of the building" and not just the exterior of the building altogether.
He said that could give the Historic Preservation Commission control over what kinds of plants are
planted and where a bench, planter, or tree might be place. John Phipps said anything done to the
exterior of the property would have to go to the Commission for approval. He said it would
probably not be a problem except for the delays, although he said he was a little concerned that
Dr. Gersh is on the Historic Preservation Commission and if the Board approves this against his
wishes, he may be a thorn in the Phipps' side. Holecek proposed the wording "exterior change to
the residential structure". Rockwell said in the past, Historic Preservation Commission approval
was required only if a building permit was required.
John Phipps said regarding the removal of the concrete basketball court, they had talked about
leaving one or two squares of concrete in corners to make a patio seating area or a place for
planters or a garden bench. He said he thought if the middle of the court were destroyed so it
could not be used for basketball, they would have then removed the basketball court, but they
may want to leave a square or two of concrete so they do not have to go back in and redo it.
Holecek said a square or two of concrete is not necessarily a basketball court. Bender said that
was reasonable.
Holecek asked if there were a consensus on the Board to rephrase condition number three.
Bender proposed it read that any change to the exterior residential structure requiring a City
building permit requires approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.
MOTION: !~ender moved that VAR97-0004, a variance to exceed the maximum density
permitted for a rooming house in the RNC-20 zone in order to allow the establishment of a
rooming house for 30 residents for property located at 932 East College be approved with
the following conditions: 1) the variance being conferred specifically to Leighton House,
L.C., which will provide resident management of the rooming house consistent with the
principles outlined in its business plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997; the
density variance is not applicable to any successors in title to the 932 East College Street
property, 2) any change to the exterior of the residential structure requiring a building
permit will require approval by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, and 3) the
removal of the concrete basketball court located in the front of the residence and the
installation of landscaping in its stead. Corcoran seconded the motion.
Brandt said he wanted to restate his previous concerns for the record and said he appreciated all
his colleagues' comments. Holecek said that for clarification of the record, it is accurate to state
that all of the analysis the Board has gone through extensively prior to the motion is now adopted
for the basis of the motion and the vote.
The motion carried on a vote of 3-1, with Brandt voting no.
OTHER:
Holecek said she appreciates the Board going through an analysis, looking at the tests and
articulating the reasons for the vote. She said the Board is doing a good job of this.
ADJOURNMENT:
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 28
MOTION; Adjournment was moved by Bender and seconded by Brandt, The meeting ended at
7:30 p.m.
Pat Eckhardt, Chairperson
Melody Rock~., S..~etary
Minutes submitted by Anne Shulte.
ppdadmin~mins~)oa9-10.doc
SIGN IN SHEET
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997- 4.'30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Name
3.
9.
12.
14.
15.
Address
16.
17.
18.
19.
IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 28, 1997 Meeting
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pat Harvey, Dereck Hall, Mel Dautremont, Joan Jehle,
Diane Martin, Mary Theisen, Jan Warren
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Dickerson, Ann Shires
STAFF PRESENT:
Heather Shank, Kaci Carolan
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes from the June meeting were approved. Jehle/Hall.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None.
UPDATE: IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING - Adding Sexual Orientation to the
State Civil Rights Act.
The next ICRC meeting is August 22. Shank, Carolan, Harvey, and Warren intend to go; Jehle
indicated she might be able to. Don Grove (ICRC Executive Director) indicated to Shank that the
meeting agenda will be similar to that of the June meeting, in that ICRC will cover their business first.
Shank said she believed the ICHRC group should plan to be there for the whole meeting, however, just
in case ICRC finishes their business early.
Shank indicated that Osha Gray Davidson has posted a letter request on the Human Rights
Iowa City list serve. Osha asked that each reader contact three friends across the state to write letters
of support (for adding sexual orientation). These letters are to be sent directly to ICRC, with copies to
Shank's office. (Osha's post also publicized the August movie.) Warren asked if Osha (or some other
representative from Human Rights Iowa City) would be interested in attending the ICRC meeting.
Shank said she would inquire.
In response to queries from Commissioners, Shank said she really has no sense of whether or
not the issue will be placed on the agenda for 'the Fall Retreat, or a recommendation subsequently
made to the legislature. It was noted that Bernard Bidne, the ICRC Chair, had indicated his
willingness in June to place the matter on the Fall Retreat agenda, but that he was overruled by the
other Commission members.
Discussion was held on how to solicit more letters from across Iowa. Shank has contacted all
the Diversity Teams, but has received no responses. She did note that many of the Teams seem fixated
on a single issue specific to their area, and appear unable or unwilling to address any other issues or
take on a broader view of "diversity." Many of the Teams aren't meeting until the middle of' August,
so even if one of the Diversity Teams responds, it may not be in time for the August ICRC meeting.
Warren suggested that we might write to specific departments (women's studies, gender
studies, multicultural studies) at colleges and universities across the state asking for support letters.
She agreed to try to get a list of leads/addresses, and provide those to Shank/Carolan. Martin is going
to get a list of area churches and will contact them for letters.
MOVIE - TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD - is scheduled for Saturday, August 9, 1997, at 1:30 p.m. at the
Public Library. Arrangements have been made for popcorn, candy, cookies, and pop.'
Warren proposed that perhaps ICHRC could institute a film series for the fall, perhaps one a
month, and publicize them as such. There was discussion about the logistics (especially in terms of
copyright restrictions and licensing) and whether we might approach another local organization to co-
sponsor such a series. Harvey suggested that a subcommittee be formed. at the August meeting to
address this. Shank agreed to bring various movie lists to the August meeting, but indicated she wants
to remain involved in arranging the licensing.
REVISION OF ORDINANCE -
Human Rights Commission
July 28, 1997 Minutes
Page 2
Administrative Closure: Carolan reported on her survey of other local agency procedures, as
well as those followed by the ICRC. Virtually all of the other bodies have some mechanism--either
formal or infom~al, explicit or implicit--for administrative closure of a complaint if it becomes clear
that further investigation is not warranted. Other agencies feel this system works well, and allows
them to focus on the complaints that really need full investigation. The general Commission response
to instituting some sort of closure mechanism was positive. Martin did raise the concern that the state
ICRC screens out such a large proportion of cases by virtue of their administrative closure. Shank
clarified that she would anticipate using such a closure very infrequently. Harvey also pointed out that
last month's discussion contemplated these types of closures remaining a three-step review
(Shank/Carolan, Dilkes, and then a Commission Team). Harvey expressed her opinion that the
Commissioners needed to be involved in these closures both as part of their charge as Commissioners,
and also as a check and balance to possible overuse of administrative closure. It was noted that while
this was not to be viewed as a way to handle the backlog, the lack of such a mechanism was part of
what caused the backlog in the first place. It was also noted that should the review Team rule that a
case return to the investigators for full investigation, then a different Team would have to be assigned.
the case after investigation.
Theisen pointed out that following an administrative closure, a Complainant would still have
the option of having the state ICRC (and the feds, if appropriate) review the closure. The Complainant
could also request a Right to Sue letter.
Harvey suggested that this matter go to a subcommittee to begin drafting changes to the
ordinance to provide for such closure/screening. Theisen and Harvey volunteered for such a
subcommittee. Theisen agreed to begin drafting proposed language for the Ordinance changes. The
goal is to have the draft language ready in time to be included in the September packet.
Conciliation Team - Shank indicated that as long as the Ordinance was going to be amended,
she wanted to propose changing the use of the term "conciliation team." As the Ordinance reads now,
a three-member team of the Commission is always referred to as a conciliation team. Shank pointed
out that, in the case of a team who is considering a Complainant's appeal of a No Probable Cause
decision, this term is inaccurate and confusing. The team is truly only a "conciliation" team following
a Probable Cause decision. Shank's suggestion is that another term be utilized--three member panel,
three member team, or something similar.
Respondent's rieht to reply to Complainant's appeal - Shank indicated that a Respondent
recently inquired whether or when it would have the fight to respond to a Complainant's appeal of a
No Probable Cause decision. As the Ordinance stands now, there is no fight nor opportunity for a
Respondent to submit additional information. Shank told this Respondent that she would raise the
issue with the Commission. Discussion was held as to whether such an opportunity to respond was
necessary. It was pointed out that, in the event a team "reversed" the No Probable Cause decision
(based on new evidence presented by the Complainant on appeal) then the case would immediately
revert to a further investigation stage for development/exploration of the new' information. At this
point, the Respondent would not only be allowed to respond but would be required to respond and
cooperate with the continuing investigation. Following discussion, the Commission's consensus was
that the Ordinance did not need to be amended in this regard.
HATE CRIME - During June, there was a display in the library concerning Gay/Lesbian pride month.
This display was on the kiosk on the second floor at the top of the stairs. Sometime between June 25
and July 1 (when the display was taken down) someone wrote "KILL FAGS" on the display in black
magic marker, in letters approximately 9" high. The Commission discussed what kind of a response
they wished to make to this incident. Jehle suggested placing another display on the same kiosk in the
library, this time dealing with hate crimes. This idea was fully supported. Some discussion of the
logistics took place (because it may not be possible to reserve that same kiosk) and the fact that time is
of the essence. An'alternate suggestion was that we utilize the kiosk already reserved for October for a
Human Rights Commission
July 28, 1997 Minutes
Page 3
responsive display. In general, it was agreed that October was too distant from the incident for an
effective response. Since this is a one-time project, it was decided that a "subcommittee" per se was
not necessary. However, Jehle agreed to check on kiosk availability, and Carolan agreed to collect and
compile materials for the display. Martin offered to help. Several Commissioners expressed their
belief that the criminal penalties for hate crimes should be prominently included in the display. Martin
suggested that we notify local media of the display, so we get some coverage. Shank suggested Martin
contact Laura Hill (ICARE) and perhaps Brian Sharp (Press Citizen).
OLD BUSINESS:
Accessible Caucus:
accessible caucus sites.
The subcommittee is still working on compiling the letters and list for
NEW BUSINESS:
Graduate practicum student: Shank reported that Susan Beckett, a graduate student, will be
commencing work with Shank and Carolan as part of a practicum. Beckett is going to take charge of
the Diversity Team (in as far as trying to get the letters out soliciting membership, and otherwise
handle the administrative portion of getting the Team set up). She plans to attend the ICRC-sponsored
Study Circles' training in Davenport in August. She will also be drafting a grant request to the Iowa
Women's Foundation, for a maximum of $1500. This grant money will be used to present sessions on
sexual harassment geared to teenagers. There will a special emphasis on women and girls, as they are
most often the victims of such harassment, and how this impacts on their self-esteem. The sessions
will be open to the public. There was discussion of who might be appropriate to speak on a panel on
this topic. Amy Kanellis was one suggestion, as was Tracey Davis (from UI Sponsored Programs--he
did kis Ph.D. on sexual harassment and assault in the Greek system). Several Commissioners indicated
a concern that we not duplicate efforts being made elsewhere (UAY, etc.). The grant supervision will
be joint between Shank and Alison Ames Galstad.
Student Legal Intern: Shank also reported that the Human Rights Office will be getting a
student legal intern starting at the end of August. The student will be doing research, assisting in
investigations, etc. The intern will be with the office for at least one semester, and possibly two.
Space concerns: The question was raised, with two new "staff" coming on board, where these
individuals were physically going to be located. (Also, when HUD grants the Ordinance substantial
equivalency, another office will be needed for the housing specialist.) Susan Beckett will be
predominantly working from her home. We can utilize the small conference room next to Shank's
office. It was acknowledged, however, that office space may need to be addressed in the near future.
Human Riffhts USA: Shank and Dorothy Paul attended a conference sponsored by Human
Rights USA in Washington DC last weekend. The group is forming a new human rights initiative.
based on the idea of using a human rights framework when discussing categories other than those
included under the law (such as Title VII). Examples of such issues are adequate housing and a living
wage. Dorothy Paul will be attending the August IC Human Rights meeting to give a full report. The
national group specifically invited Shank to attend, which was a great honor.
REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS:
Dautremont: On September 13, Sweet Honey and the Rock will be giving a special benefit
performance at Hancher. This is part of the Women's Music Festival, which this year will be along
the banks of the Iowa River (as opposed to out on the 4-H grounds, as it has been in previous years).
Shank: Reminded everyone of the ICARE talent show fund-raiser at The Deadwood on
Saturday, August 2.
Harvey: Had some information (via Dorothy Paul) from United Nations Association USA.
The packet was presented for the Commission's endorsement of a Social Agenda of the 21st Century.
This material attempts to combine the information from all UN conferences since 1990 and discuss
Human Rights Commission
July 28, 1997 Minutes
Page 4
how it impacts Iowa. Harvey said the materials were excellent, and although the Commission could
endorse sections separately, she believed the entire document was worthy of endorsement. The
document will be returned with the Commission's endorsement.
Harvey: Also drafted a proposal to nominate the Council on Disability Rights and Education
for a 1997 Prism Award for an organization. The Prism Awards are given out at the Faces and Voices
Conference in October.
Harvey: Had planned to attend the July Human Rights Iowa City meeting but was unable to.
She apologized to the Commission. The next meeting is September 3 at 7 p.m. at Old Brick. Theisen
and Hall plan on attending that meeting.
STATUS OF CASES: One appeal pending; one administrative closure. Two cases (one underlying
case and an associated retaliation complaint) in Legal. One successful mediation, and one
predetermination settlement on which we are awaiting paperwork. There is an additional case where
there's a predetermination settlement proposal on the table.
NEXT COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, August 25 at 7 p.m. in the Civic Center Lobby
Conference Room.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Dautremont/Warren.
08/01/97 transcribed by kkc
IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 25, 1997 Meeting
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pat Harvey, Mel Dautremont, Joan Jehle, Diane Martin,
Jan Warren, Tom Dickerson
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Shires, Mary Theisen
STAFF PRESENT:
Heather Shank, Kaci Carolan
GUESTS PRESENT:
Susan Beckett, Dorothy Paul
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Haryey called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes from the July meeting were approved. Jehle/Martin.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None.
UPDATE: IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING - Adding Sexual Orientation to the
State Civil Rights Act.
Carolan reported on the August ICRC meeting which she and Shank attended. Shank gave a
brief speech to the state Commissioners, once again urging them to recommend to the legislature that
sexual orientation be added as a protected category to the Iowa Civil Rights Act. A number of people
.appeared to speak against ICHRC's proposal. The State Commission opted not to discuss this issue at
their Fall Agenda; the three topics chosen for their Fall Agenda are lending, housing, and immigration.
The vote was unanimous (6-0, with one Commissioner absent),
Warren asked if the ICRC had indicated what "deferred" meant. Shank and Carolan said that
the ICRC never used the term "deferred" in reference to the proposal; the term appeared in the media
coverage, but was not used at the meeting itself. Apparently ICRC Commissioner Mohammed Khan
used the term in speaking with Brian Sharp (IC Press Citizen) about the Commission's actions.
Harvey asked for discussion of what the Iowa City Commission's next move should be.
Possibilities included: waiting until next spring and making another attempt for the Fall '98 Retreat;
having the Commission draft a letter to ICRC indicating how disappointed the ICHRC is in both their
decision but also in the manner in which the matter was handled; joining forces with other local
Commissions (on this or other issues). Shank indicated that the only other local Commissions who
actually provided letters of support on this issue were Sioux City and Cedar Rapids. Several local
commission staff people have indicated their personal support, but they do not speak for their
respective commissions. Some of the local commissions are trying to amend their local ordinances to
include sexual orientation, and therefore wish to concentrate their efforts there instead of on a state-
wide effort.
Shank also reported that Mary Mascher has indicated that the matter will be brought up in the
state legislature regardless, but no one seems to hold much hope that it will actually pass. Shank
stressed again that it's not so much whether or not this measure will pass the legislature, but whether
the body in charge of eradicating discrimination in Iowa--the ICRC--is willing to take a stand against
discrimination in this regard. She also pointed out that ENDA is coming up for a vote on September 5,
and if it passes, then the states will have to add sexual orientation to the employment section of their
state discrimination laws.
It was decided that this topic will be placed on the agenda for ICHRC's September meeting for
discussion of further action.
RESIGNATION - Commissioner Dereck Hall had to resign from the Commission, because his recent
move to Coralville makes him ineligible to serve. He stopped by the meeting briefly to say goodbye,
and indicated he still wants to work with the Commission on a volunteer basis.
Human Rights Commission
August 25, 1997 Minutes
Page 2
DIVERSITY TEAM AND STUDY CIRCLES - Susan Beckett, a graduate student who will be doing a
practicum with Shank this semester, reported to the Commission on this issue. Beckett reviewed the
study circle concept briefly, as well as its genesis and history. In order to start a Study Circle, generally
a coalition is formed of people willing to implement the idea and reach out into the community, as well
as find and/or train facilitators. Study circles could possibly be one project which the Diversity Team
would be involved in, but not the only one. Warren indicated that Alison Ames Galstad has completed
the letter to the Coralville and Iowa City Mayors and UI President Mary Sue Coleman, asking for their
endorsement of Diverse-Cities (the Iowa City Diversity Team). Once those endorsements are secured,
then letters will go out to a broad spectrum of individuals from the community.
This item should also be placed back on the September agenda for further update.
HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK - Dorothy Paul of the UN Association, former Commission chair,
addressed the Commission on this issue. Ms. Paul passed around numerous materials which she
received at the Human Rights USA meeting (Washin,on DC) which she and Shank attended in July.
Ms. Paul indicated that next year is the 50 anniversary of the passage of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Paul discussed what HR98 (Bums Weston's University/Community
wide group) and HRIC are planning by way of celebration. Paul and Shank are both on the steering
committee for HR98, which is attempting to get each and every University department to take part in
the year-long celebration. Elie Wiesel and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Rigoberta Menchu Tum of
Guatemala are confirmed speakers, and Nelson Mandela is a good possibility. There are many events
planned, and more will be added as they put together the community calendar. They hope to have one
big human rights activity each month;. for example, the big event for October would be the Human
Rights Award Breakfast.
The next HRIC meeting will be Wednesday, September 3, at 7 p.m. at Old Brick. HRIC has
narrowed their focus to three primary issues on which to work in Iowa City. They are: a living wage;
equal rights; and housing.
HATE CRIMES DISPLAY - Carolan reported that ICHRC has reserved the upstairs kiosk at the
library for a display in September regarding hate crimes. She has gathered material for the display,
including the FBI statistics tracing hate crime trends by state, protected category, underlying crime, etc.
The centerpiece of the display will be a photo of the graffiti on the June Gay Pride Month display,
along with an explanation of what the penalties for such an act would be.
OLD BUSINESS:
Human Rights Breakfast: Almost all the invitations/nomination forms have been mailed.
Shank will sendout a press release soliciting nominations. Dautremont agreed to record a PSA asking
for nominations. Shank will compile the list of people to whom invitations had been sent so the
Commissioners can review it for additions/changes for coming years. The nominations subcommittee
will be decided at the September meeting.
Transgender Movie: Has been edited and is ready to go. However, one of the individuals in
the film is reviewing it to see if she wishes her portion to be edited further down, or eliminated
completely. Shank will show the movie to all the individuals involved, and procure signed releases
from them. Then she'll arrange a "premiere"/public forum. It was suggested that there be a prior,
private showing for the Commissioners.
To Kill a Mockingbird: About 40-50 people attended. Some suggestions for future movies
were made. A subcommittee was formed of Martin, Dickerson, and Warren who will review the lists
Human Rights Commission
August 25, 1997 Minutes
Page 3
of available movies, design and post fliers, etc. for future movie showings.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS:
Dautremont: Reported that ICON and Iowa City NOW are running a contest for the most
woman-friendly workplace in Iowa City. She also reminded everyone of the upcoming Women's
Music Festival.
Shank: Indicated that the Commission vacancy resulting from Hall's resignation will be
announced at Tuesday's (8/26) council meeting. An ad will be run in the newspaper, and will be
posted various places around town.
Harvey.: Recapped that she and Theisen will be working on proposed ordinance revisions for
the September meeting. Also, the Caucus Accessibility subcommittee will be meeting in the near
futm-e.
STATUS OF CASES: Team A has a case. There is still an appeal pending for Team C, which should
be heard sometime in September. There is one investigative summary pending. There are two
possible mediations pending. One case was closed following predetermination settlement.
NEXT COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, September 22 at 7 p.m. in the Civic Center Lobby
Conference Room.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. DautremonffWarren.
08/27/97 transcribed by kkc
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PRELIMINARY
Subject to Approval
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Bovbjerg, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson, Phil Shive, George Starr,
Lea Supple
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Benjamin Chait
STAFF PRESENT:
Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek, John Yapp, Anne Schulte
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pat Folsom, David Forkenbrock, Richard Rhodes, Bob Downer, Eleanor
Trummel, Gary Carlson, Drew Bossen, Stephen Locher, Larry
Schnittjer, Merle Trummel, John Moreland, Lon Drake, Robert Barker
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote 'of 6-0, of the Comprehensive Plan with the inclusion of language
regarding information technology and arterial street traffic studies.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of the South District Plan, as part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of SUB97-0018, preliminary and final plats of the Scott-
Six Industrial Park, a 140.5 acre, 42-1ot commercial & industrial subdivision located at the northeast
corner of Scott Boulevard and Highway 6, subject to: 1) approval of legal papers, construction
drawings, a revised Sensitive Areas Site Plan and a revised Grading Plan prior to City Council
consideration of the plats, 2) incorporation of Iowa DNR comments into the preliminary and final plats,
construction drawings, Grading Plan, and Sensitive Areas Site Plan, or Iowa DNR approval of the
proposed stream relocation plan prior to Council consideration, 3) incorporation of the Iowa DOT
comments into the design of the realignment of the 420th Street/Highway 6 intersection on the
preliminary plat and construction drawings prior to Council consideration, 4) the cost of the extended
culverts to accommodate the revised Freedom Court alignment to be paid by the subdivider, and 5)
the dedication of Outlots A and B to the City not occurring until three years after the stream relocation
and storm water management plan is implemented.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of SUB97-0022, a final plat of Village Green, Part Fifteen,
a 36.75 acre, 1-lot residential subdivision with 3 outlots located on Somerset Lane, subject to
approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration of the plat.
Recommended that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors
recommending that a Conditional Use Permit be approved for the extraction of sand and gravel from
property south of Iowa City and west of the Iowa River by S & G Consultants, subject to a 100 foot
buffer being provided between the sand pit and properties with residential uses, and to the County
requiring the implementation of the reclamation plan developed by Lon Drake and MMS Consultants,
or an alternative plan approved by the County which addresses safety, habitat improvement, slope
stability, aesthetics, improving wetlands, and avoiding future river blowouts.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Starr called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 2
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Starr announced that them was one vacancy for an unexpired term ending January 1, 2000 on the
Human Rights Commission. He added that the appointment would be made at the October 7, 1997
meeting of the City Council.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan, including the South District Plan.
Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan was revised to include Supple's suggestions from the August 18,
1997 meeting. He added that the language regarding invasive exotic plant species has also been
incorporated into the plan.
Miklo referred to the synopsis regarding information technology that staff recommended be included
in the plan. He also cited the memos from two members of the Riverfront and Natural Areas
Commission regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Starr asked where the information technology
language would be in the plan. Miklo replied that staff recommends that the Commission include it in
the section regarding Economic Well-Being on page 24.
Public discussion:
Pat Folsom, 739 Clark Street, said she was representing the Longfellow Neighborhood. She said the
Neighborhood Association held a meeting in February with City planners regarding traffic issues in
the neighborhood. Folsom said both Jeff Davidson and Karin Franklin attended the meeting. She
stated that Davidson and Franklin were asked what factors are considered when annexation and
development occur and specifically if traffic is a consideration. Folsom said Franklin responded that
traffic is generally not considered outside of the immediate area being considered for annexation or
development. She said Franklin suggested that if the neighborhood felt strongly about this, they could
request input to the new Comprehensive Plan. Folsom said she was therefore proposing an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which would read: "When considering the merits of a
proposed annexation or development, the impact of increased vehicular traffic on any street currently
at or near capacity will be studied and the results will be included as an additional factor in that
decision."
Folsom said she was not advocating a no growth policy for the City, but wanted the City to consider
the impact of traffic on existing arterials. She said when the City approves annexations or
developments, it considers many factors such as how sewer lines will affect the rest of the system.
Folsom said there should not be a traffic increase without some kind of plan to minimize the effect on
existing neighborhoods. She said there are other alternatives to widening the street. She suggested
changing attitudes as a start. Folsom added she would like to see responsible growth while mitigating
the negative impact of growth on the quality of life for existing development. She added that this is a
big concern for her neighborhood.
David Forkenbrock, 2813 Hickory Trail, said he is a transportation professor for the University of Iowa.
He stated that what is being requested by Folsom is routine and not hard to accomplish. He said the
City could use a traffic design model to separate the community into traffic analysis zones.
Forkenbrock said the model can gauge how much traffic each zone both generates and attracts. He
added that there are arguments for making this analysis to get better information and encourage
more rational investment.
Ehrhardt asked if other communities use this approach, and Forkenbrock said they do so routinely.
He said the State of Florida charges an impact fee for large developments that will affect other parts
of the community. Forkenbrock said this impact can be measured and that it is not hard to do so and
should be done routinely.
Gibson said he felt the proposed amendment was an innocuous statement that he would be
comfortable with. He said he did not know what effect it would have on actual decision-making.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 3
Gibson stated that Iowa City has a limited number of arterials. He asked if neighborhoods are defined
as sitting astraddle arterials, if this statement would be asking areas out on these arterials not to
expand. He suggested that if that would be the impact, that it be said up front. Folsom replied that the
purpose of the statement is not "no growth." Gibson said that might not be the intent of the statement
but it could be interpreted that way. Folsom asked if the Commission would like to defer the vote to
allow further discussion of this important issue.
Miklo stated that staff does look at adjacent arterials and modeling in these cases and he had no
objection to this proposed language. He said he did not feel this amendment would necessarily result
in a "no growth" policy and added that this would not make the traffic on existing arterials a sole factor
for denial of an application. Ehrhardt said the language suggests that this be one factor to consider in
the many factors that staff examines. Starr said he did not have a big problem with including this
statement, but questioned whether the last part of the statement should be included. Holecek said the
Commission would want the entire statement to be included - that the last part allows flexibility.
Gibson said he had no objection to this statement and said it would be a good addition, although he
had questions about the actual impact of such a statement.
Richard Rhodes, 2014 Rochester Avenue, asked if any changes had been made to the South District
Plan, and Miklo responded that there had not been. Rhodes thanked the Commission and staff for
addressing his concerns in the Comprehensive Plan regarding invasive exotic species.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan with the inclusion of language
regarding information technology and arterial street traffic studies. Ehrhardt seconded the
motion.
Bovbjerg commended the authors of the amendment regarding traffic studies. She said it would make
the City cognizant of the impact of outlying annexations as well as infill. Bovbjerg said the statement
does not say the City will not grow, but that the City will look at the impact of this factor. Supple said
staff did a tremendous job on the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve the South District Plan, as part of the Comprehensive
Plan. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB97-0018. Public discussion of an application submitted by A.F. Streb for final plat approval of
Scott-Six Industrial Park, a 140.5 acre, 42-1ot commercial & industrial subdivision located at the
northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Highway 6. (45-day limitation period expires September 28,
1997)
Kugler said this was an application for both preliminary and final plat approval. He said that when the
preliminary plat was first approved, the issue of the design of the northwest corner of the subdivision
was not resolved. Kugler said the preliminary plat has now been' amended to resolve the offset
problem between the existing intersection of Scott Boulevard and Heinz Road and a proposed
intersection for Freedom Court by moving Freedom Court to the south to achieve a greater offset
between the two intersections. He said the downside of this design change is that the existing
culverts under Scott Boulevard must now be extended under Freedom Court to the stream corridor,
resulting in a loss of some of the open space and there will be one more curb cut onto Scott
Boulevard on Lot 5. Kugler added that the deficiencies noted in the staff report had been resolved.
Kugler said the legal papers drafted by the applicant's attorney indicate that the City would be
responsible for the cost of extending these culverts. He stated that staff feels the cost should be
borne by the developer or subdivider, since more salable commercially-zoned property will be created
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 4
as a result of the changes, and the changes are a result of the subdivider's desire for a specific street
alignment. Kugler said staff recommends that the City not take on these costs.
Regarding the final plat, Kugler said the deficiencies have been addressed. He said DNR approval
has not yet been received, but is expected in the next couple of weeks. Kugler said staff recommends
DNR approval of the plan be received or there be inclusion of DNR comments in the Sensitive Areas
Site Plan and other documents before City Council approves the final plat.
Kugler said one issue considered by staff was the information regarding the specific grass species to
be planted. He said he received suggestions from Lon Drake that should be worked into the plan.
Kugler said Outlots A and B are to be dedicated to the City, but that staff recommends the City not
take ownership of the property until three years after the improvements have been installed to assure
that things are working as they should be.
Kugler said staff therefore recommends approval of both the preliminary and final plats subject to: 1)
approval of legal papers, construction drawings, a revised Sensitive Areas Site Plan and a revised
Grading Plan prior to City Council consideration of the plats, 2) incorporation of Iowa DNR comments
into the preliminary and final plats, construction drawings, Grading Plan, and Sensitive Areas Site
Plan, or Iowa DNR approval of the proposed stream relocation plan prior to Council consideration, 3)
incorporation of the Iowa DOT comments into the design of the realignment of the 420th
Street/Highway 6 intersection on the preliminary plat and construction drawings prior to Council
consideration, 4) the cost of the extended culverts to accommodate the revised Freedom Court
alignment to be paid by the subdivider, and 5) the dedication of Outlots A and B to the City not
occurring until three years after the stream relocation and storm water management plan is
implemented. Kugler added that items 4 and 5 would be included in the legal papers.
Bob Downer, 122 South Linn, said he was the attorney for the developer. He stated that the only
substantive issue remaining to be resolved was who would pay the cost of the extended culverts. He
said the applicant has no real disagreement with the other points cited in the staff report. Downer
added that the issue regarding Outlots A and B has been addressed in the Subdivider's Agreement,
and although the language was not the same as staff was using, he thought the intent was the same.
Downer said he discussed the issue of the cost of extending the culverts under Scott Boulevard with
Karin Franklin, and they were working on resolution of the problem.
Ehrhardt said she had a problem with the additional access point onto Scott Boulevard and asked if
there would be a way to connect Lots 1, 2, and 3 with the access for Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15. Downer
said it could not be done because of the steep embankment. He said there was too much of an
elevation change so that it would be difficult to extend Freedom Court to the south to serve those lots.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Supple moved to approve SUB97-0018, the preliminary and final plats of Scoff-Six
Industrial Park, a 140.5 acre, 42-1ot commercial & industrial subdivision located at the
northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Highway 6 subject to: 1) approval of legal papers,
construction drawings, a revised Sensitive Areas Site Plan and a revised Grading Plan prior to
City Council consideration of the plats, 2) incorporation of Iowa DNR comments into the
preliminary and final plats, construction drawings, Grading Plan, and Sensitive Areas Site
Plan, or Iowa DNR approval of the proposed stream relocation plan prior to Council
consideration, 3) incorporation of the Iowa DOT comments into the design of the realignment
of the 420th Street/Highway 6 intersection on the preliminary plat and construction drawings
prior to Council consideration, 4) the cost of the extended culverts to accommodate the
revised Freedom Court alignment to be paid by the subdivider, and 5) the dedication of Outlots
A and B to the City not occurring until three years after the stream relocation and storm water
management plan is implemented. Gibson seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 5
Supple asked if it would be premature for the Commission to vote on this item if negotiations were on-
going with Karin Franklin. Starr said the issue of the cost of the culvert extension would be included in
the recommendation to City Council. Gibson agreed that it would be appropriate to leave in condition
number four as it would be a political decision for City Council, and it should also be left in for
visibility. Bovbjerg said there has been a precedent in Commission decisions to vote on things in
which all the iss~Jes have not yet been resolved.
Bovbjerg asked if the access road would be landscaped. Kugler responded that the Conditional
Zoning Agreement specifies there be a 10-foot area of landscaping in front of the parking. He said the
revised site plan indicates a 30-foot access easement so there will be some separation there. He said
there will also be landscaping between the access road and the parking.
Starr said he felt the revised plat is a reasonable agreement. He said he was not thrilled with having a
new access point. Supple asked if any of the driveways on the other side of Scott Boulevard would
match up with these access points. Kugler said that one of the two ACT roads would align with Liberty
Court. He said he thought the other one was in between the two access points of Freedom Court and
added that the lineup of the driveways and access points could be verified. Starr asked if this should
be done before the Commission vote. Kugler replied that it would be verified before the City Council
vote on the application. Larry Schnittjer said he thought the north point of Freedom Court lined up
with the driveway on the west side of Scott Boulevard, but the south point did not. Miklo said the west
side of Scott Boulevard was mostly industrial. He said this causes less concern than it would if it were
a commercial area. Supple said the access points on the west side are really driveways. Miklo said
most traffic in industrial areas occurs at shift changes.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
SUB97-0002. Public discussion of an application submitted by Village Partners for final plat approval
of Village Green, Part Fifteen, a 36.75 acre, 1-lot residential subdivision with 3 outlots located on
Somerset Lane. (45-day limitation period expires October 13, 1997)
Miklo said this is a fairly large piece of property, but only one part of it is subject to development now,
Lot 43 on the east side of Somerset. He said the Commission already approved the rezoning to
OPDH to allow for sixteen residential units to be.developed here. Miklo said the outlots will be subject
to further development and review. He added that Wintergreen Drive would eventually connect
Village Road from the adjacent subdivision to the south. Mikto said the plat is in order for approval
and that staff recommends approval of the plat, subject to legal papers and construction drawings
being approved prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
Public discussion:
Richard Rhodes, 2014 Rochester Avenue, asked if in other planned developments, the entire area is
laid out at one time. He said this would allow a good handle on development across the entire piece
of property. Rhodes said the development of Village Green with a piecemeal approach has violated
the spirit of planned development. Miklo responded that this planned development included a concept
plan for the rest of the property, of which staff approves. He said the concern of staff is the collector
street system.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Supple moved to approve SUB97.0022, a final plat of Village Green, Part Fifteen, a
36.75 acre, 1-lot residential subdivision with 3 outlots located on Somerset Lane, subject to
approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration of the
plat. Gibson seconded the motion.
Ehrhardt asked how the open space requirement was being fulfilled with this application. Miklo said it
is not being done at this phase. He said with the previous phase, less than one acre would be
dedicated to the City, but with this phase the City would be paid fees in lieu of open space. Bovbjerg
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 6
asked how the fees would be determined. Miklo replied that an appraisal would be done of Outlots A,
B, and C to determine the value of land per acre.
Ehrhardt said she was frustrated that so many developers are paying fees rather than dedicating land
to the City. Miklo said that in this case, there is significant open space to the south, which will become
a neighborhood park. He said the Parks and Recreation Commission has made these
recommendations about open space.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ97-0007/SUB97-0014. Public discussion of an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc.
to rezone 24.12 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development, to OSA-5, Sensitive Areas Overlay, and for
preliminary plat approval of First and Rochester, Parts 4-6, a 45-1ot residential subdivision located at
the eastern terminus of Hickory Trail. (45-day limitation period expires September 26, 1997)
Starr noted that the applicant had requested deferral of this item in response to concerns by the
Commission that the item be considered after the referendum on the First Avenue extension. Kugler
said the applicant has requested deferral of the second meeting and the second public discussion on
this item. He stated that if the First Avenue extension is not to be completed, staff would recommend
denial of this project and would continue to recommend denial until a secondary access is provided to
the area. He said if First Avenue is extended, then this rezoning could be considered.
Kugler stated that this is a request for a rezoning and for preliminary plat approval. Regarding the
rezoning, Kugler said the development would be consistent with the density as proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding area. With regard to neighborhood open
space, Kugler said that the Neighborhood Open Space plan states that there is a deficit in this area of
11.14 acres. He said the plan suggests that open space could be developed in this area by providing
a seven-acre park along the south edge of this neighborhood, by creating a three to four acre park in
the north section of the district, and by creating a greenbelt trail along Ralston Creek. He said the
purchase of land on this property would likely be cost prohibitive and the Parks and Recreation
Commission has stated that other areas in the City are higher priorities for acquiring open space.
Kugler said staff recommends that the .55 acres of open space required by the ordinance be
dedicated, and that it encompass the stream corridor as a buffer required by the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Dedication of the floodway along Ralston Creek would provide for maintenance and flood
management, Combined, these two areas would provide some protection for the creek, and could be
the beginning of the seven acre park suggested by the plan. The City could consider purchasing land
to the east of this for the balance of property needed for the park.
Kugler stated that conservation easements are planned for the north end of the property. He said with
reference to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the property contains heavily wooded, steep slopes that
are to be protected by these conservation easements. Kugler added that fencing during construction
work would protect these areas during development. Kugler stated that staff recommends approval of
the rezoning if the First Avenue extension proceeds.
With regard to the preliminary plat, Kugler said Outlot A is being proposed to be dedicated to the City
to satisfy the open space requirements. Kugler said with regard to street design issues, staff
recommends that the width of Tamarack Trail be 25 feet instead of 28 feet, in order to help reduce
speeds on this road. He referred to AASHTO and ITE standards that allow for streets of less than 28
feet and stated that because the street does not contain the opportunity for bends and would be one
long, narrow stretch, the narrower width would be considered a traffic calming method. Kugler said
storm water management is not required for this subdivision, but Public Works is examining the
drainage of storm water in this area.
Kugler said the extension of First Avenue would provide secondary access to this property. He stated
that Hickory Trail is currently the only opportunity for access to this particular property, but as a
collector street, it is well below the maximum threshold capacity of 2,500 vehicular trips per day.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 7
Kugler said staff recommends denial of this application if the First Avenue/Captain Irish Parkway
project does not proceed. He said staff recommends approval of the rezoning if the project does
proceed, subject to the conservation easement and public open space dedications shown on the
Sensitive Areas Development Plan for this property.
Kugler said staff recommends deferral of the subdivision of this property until deficiencies are
resolved. He said that if the deficiencies are resolved, staff recommends approval conditioned upon
the rezoning, and conditioned upon a Grading Plan being. approved prior to City Council consideration
of the preliminary plat and conditioned upon the final plat not being approved until bids are let for the
First Avenue extension project.
Shive asked about the opinions of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department regarding a
narrower width for Tamarack Trail. Kugler responded that both departments would prefer wider
streets, possibly increasing the width from 28 feet to 29 feet. He said the Planning Department feels
the narrower width would be a good idea in many situations and will help to build more livable
neighborhoods. He added that Public Works and the Fire Department may be submitting reports to
the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the street width.
Ehrhardt asked if clustering could have been used in this development. Kugler said clustering would
have been allowed here by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and could have worked here with smaller
lot sizes. It is not known whether the neighborhood would be receptive to a clustering design. Starr
asked if staff considered installing speed humps on Tamarack Trail. Kugler replied that it would be
possible, but that staff felt a narrower street would be the best approach here.
Bovbjerg asked about the northern end of Tamarack Trail. Kugler said it would be a hammerhead-
type turnaround with a note on the plat specifying that the two northern lots will not develop until the
road is extended. He added that staff did consider the potential of development on land surrounding
this property, but not in great detail. Ehrhardt asked if staff is able to look at the entire picture for that
district now instead of doing a piecemeal approach. Kugler replied that the City does not have
adequate staffing to complete all of the district plans in the near future. Kugler said to restrict such
applications to areas where district plans have been mapped out would effectively put a moratorium
on development in the City. He added that staff does keep the overall picture in mind when
considering applications. Ehrhardt asked if the referendum for the First Avenue extension should
postpone the plan for two years, if staff would then have a plan for the entire area. Miklo said work on
the Northeast Planning District is fairly imminent.
Public discussion:
David Forkenbrock, 2813 Hickorv Trail, said a comprehensive analysis of the entire area should be
done to determine what kind of street plan makes sense for the area. He said the possibility of traffic
from Tamarack Trail emptying to Hickory Trail makes for a bad situation. Forkenbrock said approval
of the development would result in acceptance of a subdivision without a sense of the end of
Tamarack Trail.
Forkenbrock stated that he was also concerned about the lack of open space planned for this
development. He said it does not work to evaluate open space needs subdivision by subdivision -
that they should be examined before an area is developed. Forkenbrock said another factor for
concern is drainage in this area. He said there is a lot of water runoff to Ralston Creek, which then
overflows. Forkenbrock said where Ralston Creek was once eight feet wide, it is now twenty-four feet
wide. He said the combination of sod, concrete, and roofs in the area has increased the amount of
runoff.
Forkenbrock said he would welcome new development in his neighborhood if it were planned
carefully. He said the City should come up with a plan for street design, drainage, and open space
that, at the end of two years, would work. Forkenbrock said if the First Avenue extension goes
through, the development should still be delayed in order to plan carefully, as it is an area that cries
out for planning.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 8
Eleanor Trummel, 2725 Hickory Trail, said there are currently 81 units, 16 of which are
condominiums, using Hickory Trail to get to First Avenue. She said the new development would bring
to 126 the number of housing units using Hickory Trail as an access.
Gary Carlson, 2806 Hickory Trail, said he lives at Lot 101, the last lot before the proposed
subdivision. Carlson said there is a problem with water runoff in the area. He said the storm sewer
drains overflow and added that he cleans the debris from them and the City does not. Carlson said
the issue of water runoff should be studied because the storm sewer cannot handle what is going
there now.
Drew Bossen, 816 Evergreen Court, said he has lived on Lot 100 since 1989. He said that when his
home was built, a drainage inlet was rocked off. Bossen said his backyard is now at a 1 ½ foot higher
elevation than it was originally because of runoff from lots to the north. He said his property was
probably okay, but that Carlson's property was at great risk. Bossen said the drainage issue should
be given consideration and that he had great concern for people downstream. Ehrhardt asked if staff
had examined the drainage concerns. Kugler replied that the City Engineer is aware of the problem
and that additional work may have to be done in this regard.
Stephen Locher, 839 Bluffwood Drive, said he attended a neighborhood meeting in the spring at
which neighbors were assured no further development would occur in this area until a street
connection to the east is made. He said residents at the meeting voiced concerns about safety
problems and traffic being aggravated by new development. Locher said he would like to see
development occur in the context of the Comprehensive Plan, rather than in pieces. He also
expressed concern that there would eventually be little green space left in the neighborhood.
Gibson asked who gave this assurance to neighborhood residents. Locher said Jeff Davidson
informed residents at that time that development to the east would continue on to a better access.
Kugler suggested this may have been a misunderstanding between the neighborhood and Davidson.
Merle Trummel, 2725 Hickory Trail, said residents at the neighborhood meeting expressed concern
about traffic on the First Avenue extension, especially trucks. He said years ago, a mandate was
placed on the number of lots to be developed in 'that area, and, in fact, an application for one more
house was denied on the basis that it would be too much for the access point. Trummel said the only
difference now was that it would be. losing Bluffwood Circle, but would be picking up 45 more
residences.
Richard Rhodes, 2014 Rochester Avenue, said he was on the committee that drafted the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance. He said although this plan is legal and within the parameters of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, it is actually insensitive as a development plan because of the way it is done. Rhodes said
Village Green South has a lot of land that is public open space and a similar thing could be done
here. He said the area contains a fairly deep ravine adjacent to the north and on the east there are
equally steep slopes. He said open space could be dedicated here and continue to Ralston Creek.
Rhodes said a major reworking of the plan could refashion it to have more public open space.
Larry Schnittier, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, of MMS Consultants said the design of this development has
been done for years. He said he did not disagree with any of the comments made and said that
transportation planning is needed here. Schnittjer said when one property owner wants to develop
and the adjacent one does not, developments become incremental. He showed a dark line on the
map that divides this property from property owned by a different individual.
Schnittjer said he was aware of the drainage problem and is currently working with the City Engineer
on the issue. Ehrhardt asked if clustering was considered for this development. Schnittjer responded
that clustering was not what Bruce Glasgow wanted to sell here - that there is a demand for the type
of housing being proposed, and he was providing for this choice.
Public discussion closed.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 9
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of
November 6, 1997, REZ97-0007, an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. to rezone
24.12 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development, to OSA-5, Sensitive Areas Overlay. Gibson
seconded the motion.
Gibson said he is in support of the planning staff's attitude regarding street width and not solely on a
technical basis. He said a wide street can be a detriment to a subdivision. Gibson stated that there is '
a discrepancy between the attitude regarding the lengths of cul-de-sacs versus the amount of traffic
on a street before a secondary access is provided. He said that cul-de-sacs as long as Tamarack
Trail would not be allowed, and there is not assurance that Tamarack Trail will ever be extended.
Gibson said the City needs to plan comprehensively. He also said he is disturbed by the notion that
the City cannot afford to buy open space, because it is in a subdivision. He said the City should be
more proactive in the purchase of open space, before the land becomes cost prohibitive.
Ehrhardt thanked the neighbors for attending the meeting and providing new information. Gibson said
there is an inconsistency between two positions - one referring to the length of the street and one
referring to the number of vehicle trips. Miklo said the City Council had decided to have guidelines on
secondary access rather than enacting a new policy. Bovbjerg said the City needs to study the tools it
can use, short of condemnation. She said the City needs to examine to what extent it can say where
a certain street will go.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
MOTION: Supple moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of
November 6, 1997, SUB97-0014, a preliminary plat of First and Rochester, Parts 4-6, a 45-1ot
residential subdivision located at the eastern terminus of Hickory Trail. Ehrhardt seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
REZONING/ANNEXATION ITEM:
REZ97-0014 & ANN97-0002. Public discussion of an application submitted by Randy M. Miller to
annex Lot 5, ScoWs Second Addition and to fezone the 2.81 acre property from CP-1, Planned
Commercial (Johnson County) to C1-1, Intensive Commercial, located at the southeast corner of
Highway 1 and Naples Avenue. (45-day limitation period expires October 12, 1997)
Yapp said the Millers have asked to have their property voluntarily annexed by the City. He said much
of the land to the south and east of this property, the Winebrenner Subdivision, was annexed and
rezoned Intensive Commercial in 1995. Yapp said the Fringe Area Agreement supports this.
annexation. He said the Comprehensive Plan supports voluntary annexation in order to control City
entranceways. Yapp said the C1-1 zoning for this property would be consistent with surrounding
property. Yapp said staff recommends the rezoning and annexation be approved, subject to a
conditional zoning agreement including the following conditions: 1) No outdoor storage of
merchandise or materials shall occur within 100 feet of the Highway 1 right-of-way. Outdoor storage
areas located beyond the 100 feet of the Highway 1 right-of-way shall be screened with a solid wall at
least six feet in height, and a planted landscape bed a minimum of 15 feet in width shall be located
adjacent to the wall; 2) Loading docks and receiving areas shall not be located on any wall facing
Highway 1. Loading docks which are visible from Highway 1 must be screened from view; 3) The
periphery of all parking areas shall have planted landscaped beds at least 15 feet in width; 4) No
more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted on the property; 5) Landscape beds a minimum of
5 feet in width shall be provided along at least 25% of front building elevations, and shall be planted
with a variety of evergreen and deciduous shrubbery; 6) No direct access to Iowa Highway 1 shall be
permitted. Only one access to Naples Avenue shall be permitted, at least 150 feet from the Highway
1 right-of-way; 7) A development concept plan and building elevations shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Community Development prior to development. The Director of Planning
and Community Development shall approve the concept plan and building design based on the
criteria listed above. Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the City Council upon
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 10
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of
October 2, 1997, ANN97-0002, an application submitted by Randy M. Miller to annex Lot $,
Scott's Second Addition. Gibson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
MOTION: Supple moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October
2, 1997, REZ97-0014, an application to rezone the 2.81 acres of Lot 5, Scott's Second Addition
from CP-1, Planned Commercial (Johnson County) to C1-1, Intensive Commercial, located at
the southeast corner of Highway 1 and Naples Avenue. Gibson seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ97-0004. Public discussion of an application submitted by Smith-Moreland Properties to rezone
0.87 acres of property from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential and C1-1, Intensive
Commercial, to CO-1, Commercial Office, located on the east side of West Side Drive and south of
Earl Road. (45-day limitation period expires October 12, 1997)
Yapp said this rezoning was originally applied for in March of 1997, but was then deferred until the
applicant knew the exact size he wanted rezoned. Yapp said the CO-1 zoning would be a buffer
between the residential zones to the north and east and the intensive commercial zoning to the south.
He stated that staff feels the CO-1 zoning is more compatible with the residential zoning than C1-1
zoning.
Yapp said that the conditions staff has proposed will help ensure the CO-1 zone is compatible with
the residential properties adjacent to and across the street from the proposed office building. He
added that a building of 10,500 square feet requires 56 parking spaces, but the applicant has applied
to the Board of Adjustment for a reduction in parking. Yapp said if the reduction in parking is denied,
the applicant will have to reconfigure the plan or decrease the square footage of the building. Yapp
said staff recommends approval of this rezoning, subject to a conditional zoning agreement including
the conditions specified in the staff report. Starr asked if the applicant was aware of these conditions
and Yapp responded that he was aware of them. Bovbjerg asked if conditions A through F were
already in the legal papers. Miklo said this would supersede the previous conditions.
John Moreland, 2602 Rochester, said he is constructing an office building here for two merging
insurance companies. He said the companies have only about two to four cars per hour, besides staff
parking, for customer parking. Moreland said if the Board of Adjustment does not agree to the parking
reduction, he may withdraw the rezoning. Moreland said this building would be a buffer between the
residential and the C1-1 zones and would be an excellent buffer because the business will close at
5:00 p.m. He added that he is planning to sell this building to the insurance company and is not
asking for the rezoning for some future use.
Gibson asked if Moreland needed approval quickly. Moreland said he would appear before the Board
of Adjustment on October 8. He said the insurance companies would like the building done by April 1,
but if things go right through as hoped, he could potentially be done with the building by next May 1.
Gibson asked if a deferral by the Commission would cause Moreland problems. Moreland said he
thought it would be okay to defer the item.
Yapp said he received one call regarding this rezoning from a condominium owner. He said the
owner was in favor of the rezoning after the conditions of it were explained to her. Supple asked if
signs were placed on the property giving notice of the Commission meeting. Yapp said a sign was
posted, letters were mailed to adjacent property owners, and a notice was placed in the newspaper.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
Page 11
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Supple moved to defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October
2, 1997, REZ97.0004, an application submitted by Smith-Moreland Properties to rezone 0.87
acres from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential & C1-1, Intensive Commercial to CO-1,
Commercial Office located on the east side of West Side Drive and south of Earl Road.
Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
COUNTY ITEM:
CU9706. Public discussion of an application submitted to Johnson County by S & G Materials for a
conditional use permit for the extraction of sand and gravel from property south of Iowa City and west
of the Iowa River.
Yapp referred to a letter from the applicant to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors that
addresses many of staffs concerns. The applicant has agreed to: 1) furnish a performance bond of
$150,000 for reclamation of the site; 2) alprap the interior slope of the river bend area, 3) use seal
coat on the Izaak Walton League Road, 4) increase the setback from 50 feet to 100 feet from the
east property line, 5) require all trucks to stop at stop signs, 6) have no asphalt or ready-mix plants on
the property, and 7) exert pressure on all trucks to travel north on old 218 upon exit.
Yapp said the Johnson Co[~nty Zoning Ordinance requires City review of the plan and would require a
4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors if the application is opposed by the City Council. He stated that
there are many state, local, and federal regulations governing sand extraction. Yapp said the process
would involve using a hydraulic dredge and that there would be no net loss of water. He added that
the applicant has agreed to furnish a performance bond to assure that the reclamation plan will
proceed. Ehrhardt asked how the performance bond would work. Holecek said it would be an
agreement between the applicant and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. She stated that if
the applicant is not performing the reclamation plan as outlined, they would be in default and the
bonding company would be required to pay for the reclamation.
Yapp said he investigated the sewer lagoons that are used by the trailer court to the west of this
property. He said the lagoons are licensed by the DNR and that there is a buffer between them and
the site so that they should not affect the site.
Lon Drake, 2025 Redwinq, said he worked on the design of the reclamation plan. He said the basic
plan involves digging below the water table to get sand, while creating a lake or pond. He said the site
will be divided into three sections, resulting in three ponds. Drake said the design is intended to result
in an area that can accommodate a future trail system. He added that no trees will be removed in this
process. Drake said the transformation will be from a cornfield to a gravel pit to a habitat. He said this
site consists of 50 acres, of which one and a half to two acres are currently wetland. Drake said after
the reclamation plan is completed, there should be eight to nine acres of wetlands here.
Ehrhardt asked Drake if he felt S & G Materials is serious about implementing the reclamation plan.
Drake said he thought they were and that posting the performance bond would be a clear indication
of this. Supple said she was impressed that S & G Materials hired Drake in advance of any work.
Robert Barker, 4213 Sand Rd. S.E., said he is a partner in S & G Materials and would answer any
questions the Commission might have. Ehrhardt asked him about the resulting noise level from this
operation. Barker said the dredge would make a noise comparable to that of a farm tractor and added
that it used mufflers to keep the sound to a minimum. Ehrhardt asked him about hours of operation.
Barker said the operation would only work during the day and only during the summer. Supple asked
if an asphalt or ready-mix plant was ever considered for the site. Barker said no - that the statement
in the company memo was simply to address a concern of one of the neighbors.
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 1997
· Page 12
Public discussion:
The~:e was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to recommend that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors recommending that a Conditional Use Permit be approved for
the extraction of sand and gravel from property south of Iowa City and west of the Iowa River
by S & G Consultants, subject to a 100 foot buffer being provided between the sand pit and
properties with residential uses, and to the County requiring the implementation of the
reclamation plan developed by Lon Drake and MMS Consultants, or an alternative plan
approved by the County which addresses safety, habitat improvement, slope stability,
aesthetics, improving wetlands, and avoiding future river blowouts. Shive seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
CONSIDERATION oF THE SEPTEMBER 4. 1997 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve the minutes of the September 4, 1997 Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting as amended at the informal meeting. Gibson seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Miklo said the City Council would be considering the Comprehensive Plan at its October 6, 1997
meeting and suggested that as many members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as possible
should attend the meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Gibson asked if a map of the City with neighborhoods delineated was av;~ilable. Miklo said there
might be a map with organized neighborhoods noted, and if so, he would send one to Gibson.
Starr said he would be out of town on October 6, 1997 and could not attend that night's City Council
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.
Lea Supple, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
~3pdadrnm~nlns~&zO918.doc
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDA Y, SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 - 7.'30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SIGN IN SHEET
Address
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD
September 10, 1997
MINUTES
CAT:~. TO O~
CITIZEN' S
A~
REMINDER
TEMPORARY CHAIR
PROCESS FOR
m~ F~CTION OF
AITORNEY
MEETING nATES
ADJOIMNMMYr
The first meeting of the Iowa City Police Citizen
Review Board (PCRB) was held on Wednesday, Sept. 10,
1997, 7:00 pom. in the Engineering Conference Room
at the Iowa City Civic Center. The meeting was'called
to order by Marian Karr, City Clerk.
All Board m-mbers were present: John Watson,
Margaret Raymond, Patricia Farrant, Paul Hoffey and
Leah Cohen. City staff present: Marian Karr,
Chief R.J. Winkelhake, and Sandy Bauer.
Sessions will be held every Tuesday evening from 6:00
to 9:00 beginning Sept. 16, 1997 and ending December 2
at the Coralville Libary or Coralville City Hall.
Motion. by J. Watson and seconded by M. R~ymond that
Paul Hoffey be appointed temporary Chairperson. He
shall serve in such capacity until bylaws are in
place, at which point a permanent Chairperson will be
selected. Motion carried.
To protect neutrality of the Board, City staff
recommended 'that before the PCRB conduct any business
independent counsel be retained. Five attorney
applications were submitted to the Board. General
discussion followed.
"Given the public perception that there has been a
delay in the process," it was agreed to move forward
quickly. Meeting dates were set to begin this process:
- Monday, 9/15/97, 8:30 a.m.
-Friday, 9/19/97, 5:30 p.m.
- Monday, 9/22/97, 8:30 a.m.
Staff will provide agenda packets prior to next
meeting, to include: Roster of Board members; agenda
for 9/15 meeting; sample questions for interviewing
process; copy of letter sent to all members of the
Johnson Co,rmty Bar Association; and, a draft of PCRB
Bylaws prepared by City Attorney's Office.
Motion for adjournment by M. Raymond and seconded
by P. Farrant. Meeting adjourned.
POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD
September 15, 1997
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE
CONSIDER MOTION
TO ADJOURN INTO
EXECUTIVE SESSION
DJOURNMENT
Paul Hoffey, Temporary Chairman, called the meeting to
order at 8:32 A.M.
All Board members were present: J. Watson, M. Raj~nond,
P. Farrant, L. Cohen and P. Hoffey. Staff present:
M. Karr and S. Bauer.
Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by P. Farrant to
adjourn into Executive Session to evaluate the
professional competency of an individual whose appointment,
hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when
necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to
that individual's reputation and that individual requests
a closed session. The direct purpose of the Executive
Session is to discuss candidates for legal counsel for
the Board. Motion carried and meeting adjourned into
Executive Session.
Regular meeting called to order once again by Chairman
Hoffey at 9:40 P.M.
There being no further business, Motion for adjournment
by J. Watson and seconded by L. Cohen. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 A.M.
POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD
SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 - 4:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALl, TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE
CONSIDER MOTION
TO ADJOURN INTO
EXECUTIVE SESSION
BYLAWS
MEETING DATES
Paul Hoffey, Temporary Chairman, eatled the
meeting to order at 4:06 P.M.
All Board members were presem: J. Watson, M.
Raymond, P. Farrant, L. Cohen and P. Hoffey. Staff
present: M. Karr and S. Bauer.
Motion by J. Watson and seconded by P. Farrant to
adjourn into Executive Session to evaluate the
professional competency of an individual whose
appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is
being considered when necessary to prevent needless
and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation
and that individual requests a closes session
(retaining legal counsel).
Regular meeting resumed at 7:35 P.M.
Staff directed to forward drat~ bylaws to legal counsel.
Next meeting will be Thursday, October 2, 1997, 6:00
P.M., Lobby Conference Room. Possible agenda items to
include: formal action on legal counsel; review ofdraf~
bylaws; open meetings and open records orientation;
timeline for first Complaint; discussion re personal conflicts
of interest; select time for regular scheduled meetings.
Motion for adjournmere by P. Farrant and seconded by M.
Raymond. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1997
SENIOR CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bebe Baltantyne, Wilma Conner, Joanne Hora,
Robert Kemp, Terri Miller, Allan Monsanto, M. Kathryn
Wallace, and Philip Zell
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kenneth Mobily
STAFF PRESENT:
Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Susan Rogusky,
and Julie Seal
CALL TO ORDER:
Wallace called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Motion: To approve minutes as distributed. The motion carried on a vote of
8-0. Monsanto/Conner
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION - BALLANTYNE
A progress report was presented by the Volunteer Recognition Committee. The
Tea is scheduled for September 3, 1997, from 3:00-5:00 p.m.
SENIOR CENTER UPDATE
Operations - Kopping
The next Commission meeting was rescheduled for September 24, 1997.
As advised by the Nutrition Advisory Committee, Senior Dining has decided to
finance the entire purchase price of the wireless microphone system. in
exchange for providing storage space for the microphone, the Senior Center
will be able to use the system.
Bob Simpson of HACAP has withdrawn their request to share office space with
AARP due to difficulties in the lease agreement.
The City has approved the FY97 budget carryover. This money will be used for
building maintenance and equipment.
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1997
The public hearing on the HVAC plans and specifications was held on August
26, 1997. Advertising for bids will begin.on August 29,'1997, with the contract to
be awarded on September 23, 1997.
The Fitness Room floor contract was awarded to Swanson Gentleman Hart,
Inc. of West Des Moines. Installation of the floor will begin in late September.
The Senior Center Parking Ticket Review Committee has been formed. Copies
of the procedures developed to guide this committee were distributed and
discussed.
In accordance with a request made by the City Manager, the Senior Center
agreed to allow room 207 to be used as office for the City staff person working
with the Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB). The half-time PCRB staff
person will use 207 on Mondays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and
Thursdays from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Joella Antes, who until her recent death was very active as a Senior Center
Quiiter, has bequeathed approximately $25,000 to the Center. The City
Attorney's Office is involvedwith the legal aspects of this matter.
Programs - Seal
A report of upcoming events was given.
Volunteers ~ Rogusky
An update of volunteer programs and opportunities was given.
COUNCIL OF ELDERS REPORT - Alta Cook
The new chair of the Council of Elders is Alta Cook. She reported that the
proceeds from the Quilt raffle totaled over $1,100. She also reported that 119
cookbooks have been sold.
COMMISSION VISITS
City Council Meeting- Ballantyne
A report of City Council meeting was given.
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1997
_Board of Supervisors - Hora
A report of the Board of Supervisors was given.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission decided to hold a town meeting to be held on Wednesday,
October 22,1997. A committee was formed to plan for the Town Meeting. The
committee embers are Zell, Miller, Wallace, Monsanto and Kopping.
Motion: To adjourn. Motion was carried on a vote of 8-0. BallantynelMiller