HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-02 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1996- 5:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Betty Kelly, Ruedi Kuenzli, Sue Licht, Mike Pugh, Doug Russell,
John Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ginalie Swaim, Doris Malkmus
STAFF PRESENT:
Scott Kugler, James Erwin
OTHERS PRESENT:
David Arbogast, Lowell Brandt, Paula Brand. t, Gregory Cilek, John
Cilek, Patricia Eckhardt, Aaron Gwinnup, Kevin Hanick, Carol
Phillips, John Roffman, Ed UIIrich, Daniel Weissbort
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Shaw nominated and Kuenzli seconded Russell for Chairperson. Licht nominated and Kuenzli
seconded Pugh for Vice-Chairperson. Kelley moved and Licht seconded to close nominations.
The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0. Russell was elected Chairperson and Puqh was
elected Vice-Chairperson bv a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
DISCUSSION OF GRANT PROJECTS:
1. Colleqe Green/East Colleqe Street National Reqister Nominations.
Eckhardt suggested combining the two proposed districts into one larger district.
Arbogast noted the demolition of two houses in the area would weaken the chances of
listing the East College Street District. He asserted that the preservation of a variety of
styles over a larger area would strengthen the district more than a habitat of
homogenous specimens. He said the suggested boundary provided an important buffer
to protect the remaining historic structures. Kelly asked how many buildings were non-
contributing. Arbogast said that almost none of the existing buildings were individually
eligible for the National Register. He noted this was due to insensitive additions and
s~ding. He stud Ralph Christian seemed to support the idea. Arbogast noted that many
structures contributed by the looser standard.
Russell asked how many buildings would be added. Kugler said close to fifty would be.
Russell expressed concerns over time and budget. Arbogast stud the cost would not be
a concern, as it was easier to do one nomination form. Russell asked if one district
would strengthen the chances of passage. Arbogast said it would, as the demolition of
two structures had reduced the viability of the East College Street District. Russell asked
if the larger district would cause problems with the City Council. Arbogast said there
Historic Preservation Cornmissmn
Aprd 11. ]996
Page 2
would be little impact on the National Reg~ster's decision, but couldn't predict the local
politics.
Pugh said he was unsure how this measure would strengthen the district. Arbogast said
the SNRRC would look at superficial characteristics, and that the East College District
contained many marginal buildings. Shaw asked why. a section of marginal buildings in
the middle of the district had not been excluded. Eckhardt said it was due to facing.
Shaw said that should be clarified. Arbogast said the buildings all faced the same
direction. Pugh asked why the houses facing Burlington were being eliminated. Arbogast
said ~hose houses were visually within the Longfellow District, and said they should be
included in that district. Kugler noted that Naumann had recommended a conservation
district for those buildings on the south side of Burlington Street.
Kuenzli said his main concern was to enact protection for the buildings soon. He
suggested the Commission bypass the National Register nomination and go directly to
the City Council. He said the recent demolition and construction in the area would help
the argument for protection. Arb0gast said the consultants could continue with the
nomination while the Commission went to the City Council. Eckhardt suggested the
National Register nomination materials could be used with the City Council.
Russell asked the consultants if they needed guidance on any issues. Arbogast asked
if the consultants should look into one district or two districts. Licht said the plan with
the best chances of success should be used. Arbogast said he felt one district could do
well. He said that many 1 9th century communities developed slowly, and that the larger
district was important in terms of the diversity thin tended to produce. Shaw said an
argument could be made that the neighborhood was developing away from that
historical tendency. Arbogast sa~d that planning allowed a choice of direction. Eckhardt
said the lack of an overriding theme contributed to the strength of the district's
dwersity.
Kelly asked if the additional houses had been surveyed. Eckhardt sa~d they had.
Kelly asked how approval would affect the apartment construction in the area.
Arbogast said the National Register would have no effect on owners. Russell
suggested that the Commission go with the larger district and deal w~th larger
problems when the district was ready for application. He sa~d the recent
demohbons were an ~ndicat~on the Commission should move qumkly.
MOTION: Kuenzli moved and Kelly seconded that the Commission recommend a single
expanded College Hill District with the boundaries indicated in the memorandum of April
1 1 for purposes of the National Register nomination.
Shaw sa~d he had some misgivings. He sa~d he had a b~as towards preservabon, but
noted that h~red experts thought the case was- weak. He asked why the Commission
was then proceeding. Pugh agreed. He sa~d that it was dlog~cal not to go to the Council
for protection of the entire area ~f the entire area was nominated for the National
Regmter. He said that while the enhre proposed National Register district m~ght not
receive protection, the nomination should reflect proposed local districts. Licht said the
area m~ght be more appropriate as a conservation zone ~f it is weak. She said a large
addition might make the district ~ndefens~ble. She suggested abandoning the National
Historic Preservation Commission
April 11. 1996
Page 3
Register nomination and pushing for a conservation district. Licht noted procedure to
this point had been to push for both City recognition and National Register recognition.
She asked what precedent there was to go to the City without National Register status.
Arbogast said that if the smaller districts were approved and they we?e surrounded by
large apartments, they would effectively be gone. He said smaller districts would be
harder to defend. Eckhardt, agreed. Pugh said the purpose of the National Register
nomination was to help chances with the City Council. He said he was unsure a larger
district would help in that regard. Shaw noted the consultants had asserted the smaller
districts would be weaker candidates. Russell said the Commission should go with one
district and then adjust it as necessary.
The motion was defeated by a vote of 3-3, with Shaw, Licht and Puqh voting in the
negative.
Russell said no action would be taken and the issue would be placed on the May
agenda. He thanked the consultants for bringing the issue to the attention of the
Commission. Licht asked holy Ralph Christian felt on the district. Eckhardt said Christian
supported the district and might come to Iowa City to further evaluate the situation.
2. Lonqfellow Neiqhborhood Survey. Kugler said no new information was available.
He said the final draft was in preparation and should be ready for the July deadline.
3. Dubuque Street/Linn Street Corridor Survey. Kugler said the consultant would like
the Commission to review the draft and prepare comments for the May meeting.
4. Oriqinal Town Plat Survey. Russell said the $9,000 grant had been approved.
Kugler said the state contract needed to be signed before work can begin. He said it
would be back in four to six weeks.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. 404 Brown Street.
Gregory Cilek said he was submitting a new plan. KugJer noted the redesign of the
gable dormer on the north elevation. Cilek said he approved of the comments he had
received at last month's meeting. He noted the west elevation matched the existing
dormers. Kugler noted that the Board of Adjustment approved the encroachment on
May 13. Shaw asked why. Kugler said the Board had found the situation unusual and
said the request was not unreasonable. He said it applied only to the current change.
He noted the approval was conditional on the Historic Preservation Commission's
approval.
Shaw asked why the house would ~mpinge on the right of way. Kugler said right of
ways in the area were around 80 feet, while modern right of ways are around 50 feet.
He said 80 feet seemed excessive. He noted the placement of the building made it
difficult to construct any expansion without impinging on the right of way. Shaw asked
~f it would encroach on the 20 foot setback. Kugler noted that was not uncommon on
the north side of Iowa City. Russell asked if the porch's footprint would change. Cilek
said it would not. Shaw asked Cilek to indicate new construction. Cilek did.
Historic Preservabon Comml$szon
Aprd 11. 1996
Page 4
L~cht said a true hipped roof would require a break. Click agreed. Shaw asked why the
house was being expanded when it was already quite large. Click indicated that a large
area was.a porch. Russell noted the Board of Adjustment was not requiring the
CommissiOn to approve the application. Shaw questioned whether the setback
encroachment was historically appropriate. Click said many houses in the surrounding
area were of a similar design. Aaron Gwinnup emphasized the effort to match existing
details. Paula Brandt said she had no problems with the screened porch. She did
question the deck and said she would prefer the stairs to be relocated. Cilek agreed,
and said they had been removed from the design after.he visited the site.
Pugh and Licht said they were comfortable with the setback. Russell asked if the stairs
had been relocated. Click said the plans had not yet been changed. Russell asked if
they would be placed in the setback. Kugler said stairs would not count as an
encroachment. Click said block and stucco columns would be placed on the deck.
Russell asked if the indicated windows above the deck were extant, Click indicated
they were. Licht expressed concern over adding a back roof to a Foursquare design.
Shaw asked what the pitch on lower end of the roof was. Gwinnup said it was 3 1/2
feet by 10 feet. Shaw said shingles couldn't be used at that pitch. Kelly said shingles
were already used. Licht said the roof could be dropped 2 feet and left a Foursquare
design. Click said it seemed worse from an aesthetic standpoint. Licht said the roof
should be at a lower angle, and no porch except the back porch should be altered.
Gwinnup said the design tried to mimic the existing roof lines. Licht indicated how the
roof could be corrected. Click asked if the correction would affect the roof height.
Licht said it would not. Click said he had no objection.
Shaw said he had no major objections. Licht asked if the exterior roof pitch matched
other roofs. Click said they did. Licht said a hidden gutter would likely be found due
to construction methods in the roof. Click asked if the gutter should be used, and
whether the design had water problems. Licht said the design had severe water
problems, but that the cave design could be mimicked. Russell said a second condition
could be added requiring the carrying of the roof break to the new west porch. Licht
said it should also match the other porch. Kelly asked why a new w~ndow design was
being used on the north elevatmn. Click sa~d it was to prowde light.
MOTION: Russell moved and Pugh seconded to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
for 404 Brown Street subject to: 1) the roofline being carried back to the dormer on
the north elevation; 2) the break on the new porch roof matching the break of the
porch on the south elevation; 3) the steps being placed on the west side of the porch.
Shaw asked if the stairs were desired, and were s~mply being repositioned. Cdek sa~d
they would probably be placed on the west elevation. Russell said they would be
difficult to see. Licht sa~d it could also help to hide the skirbng.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0.
2. 1 Bella Vista.
L~cht noted she would be abstaining due to her involvement with the project, but
would explain the proposed changes. She said asphalt s~ding was being removed, a
detached garage budt, and a dormer constructed. Kelly asked what would be used for
Histor~c PreserYatlor} Commission
April 11. 3996
Page .5
s~ding. Licht said lapped siding constructed to match the dormers would be used.
Russell asked how the garage was constructed. Licht said open-raftered wood
clapboard matching the house would be used. She sa~d the foundation would be
concrete, and textured wood would be used for the doors. Russell asked if there was
anything new on the application. Licht said screened porch details would be sent to
Kugler for his fi~es. Shaw asked if the applicants were considering windows within the
screen. Licht said any windows would face the interior.
MOTION: Shaw moved and Kuenzli seconded to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
for 1 Bella Vista. The motion ~vas carried by a vote of 5-0-1, with Licht abstainlnq.
3. 602 S. Summit Street.
Ed UIIrich introduced himself as the carpenter on the project. He said an informal dining
area would be added in a new corner. He noted the garage would screen the
construction from Bowery. Licht asked if a porch would be added. UIIrich said a skylight
had been considered, but had been rejected due to icing problems. He said the south
eyebrow would be turned into the north kitchen wall. Russell said the materials seemed
compatible. UIIrich noted the mullion windows were being replaced with single-pane
windows.
MOTION: Licht moved and Kelly seconded to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for
602 South Summit Street. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
4. 802 S. Summit Street.
Licht noted she would be abstaining due to her involvement with the project, but would
explain the proposed changes. She said the roofline would be altered on the corner of
Summit and Shendan. She said additions on the front elevation would be removed and
the original porch restored. Licht said the dormer would be cut two feet and reframed.
She distributed photographs of the house prior to modificatmn. She said a cedar deck
would be constructed on the east elevation. She noted the removal of a dormer window
and the replacement of a kitchen door w~th a window. Shaw said the project would
~mprove the neighborhood.
MOTION: Shaw moved and Russell seconded to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
for 802 South Summit Street. The motion was carried by a vote of 5-0-1, with Licht
abstaininR.
Kuenzh asked if M~chael Gunn had seen the plans. Roffman sa~d he had not, but that he
was excited over the changes when they discussed the project.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS PROGRAM ITEMS:
1. Awards Nommabons.
Kugler distributed photographs of the projects. Kelly asked ~f Trimty Church would be
timshed. Kugler said Kevin Munson was confident it would be. L~cht asked if rails
would be installed at 1011 Sheridan. Kugler said they would. Russell said the house
on the corner of Lucas St. and Ronalds St. was adding a garage and a badly designed
front porch. He recommended it be removed.
Historic Preservation Comrmssion
April 11, 1996
Page 6
Kugler said he believed 827 Brown would not be completed. Russell asked if eight
nominations would be too unwieldy. Kugler noted nine properties had been nominated
last year.
Shaw said he was uncomfortable with the scale of the St. Mary's project. Licht
suggested striking.it and adding John Roffman's hotel project, Kugler noted that the
U of I President's house had won an award from the Design Review Committee.
Licht said she thought the Press Citizen building would have Art Deco lettering. Russell
said it should be checked.
2. Paintinq Awards.
Kugler noted that 416 Grant was supposed to have received an award last year, but
declined because th'ey were not done, Licht said that a darker shade of green paint
should have been used at 521 Van Buren. Kelly said 310 Reno should be removed due
to the paint used on the windowboxes. Kugler questioned whether the Commission
would give the awards to individual painters. He noted that although it was not done
last year, it had been done in the past. Shaw said he felt property owners should receive
the award. Licht suggested that other people involved in projects could receive verbal
recognition.
Nowvsz Awarc~. Russell explained the Nowysz Award and sa~d there did not seem
to be any strong candidates. He suggested that the award could go to the Friends
of Historic Preservation for their work on the Church Street project. Shaw said the
award should not be based on one project. Russell suggested a special award
could be given to Friends of Historic Preservation, and that no Nowysz Award be
given out. Pugh asked who Ginny Blair was. Kugler said she helped run the
Salvage Barn. Kelly noted she was a volunteer. Licht said she had also tried to
tame funds to move the house recently demolished on College Street. Kuenzli
noted she had also sold water-efficient toilets at cost and donated the time to
install them on preservation projects. Pugh asked what would be done if no other
candidate appeared, as this was a lifetime award. Licht said that Blair would be
as qualified as any other candidate. Pugh said he was unsure the Nowysz Award
could be given to anyone in the near future, considering its high standard.
MOTION: Licht moved and Shaw seconded to give the 1996 Now¥sz Award to Ginny
Blair. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Awards Proqram Issues.
Kelly noted Johnson County would not take any action until the 8th or loth of May. She
said the Commission should decideif a Iowa Sesquicentennial emblem should be placed
on the cover of the program. Russell asked if it could be placed on the cover
unobtrusively. Licht suggested ~t could be placed on the back.'
Kelly asked if transportation for the jurors had been arranged. Kugler said he would
arrange ~t. Kelly said a luncheon had been set for noon on May 15. Russell thanked Kelly
for her work on the awards program on behalf of the Commission. Kugler asked what
the special award for Friends would be called. Russell said it was a Special Recognition
Award.
H~sroric Preservabon Comrmssmn
April 11, 1996
Page 7
UPDATE ON HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS:
Kugler sa~d the item would hopefully be on the agenda for the May 2, 1996 meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. He sa~d the State Historical Society would have to comment
before final approval. Russell said a statement on the significance of each property should be
attached.
UPDATE ON BUTLER RESIDENCE:
Kugler said the Public Works Department seems comfortable with funding the Butler H~use
mothbailing project.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 9, FEBRUARY 13, AND MARCH 12
MEETINGS, AND THE MARCH 4 SPECIAL MEETING:
MOTION: Pugh moved and Licht seconded to approve the minutes from the January 9, 1996
meeting. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
Russell said the year should be 1996 on the February 13 minutes.
MOTION.: Russell moved and Kelly seconded to approve the minutes from the February 13,
1996 meeting as amended. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
Russell said "clapboard" should be replaced in paragraph 2 of page 2 by "board and batten".
Licht said the reference to tilt packs should be rephrased "tilt-pack windows were preferable
over patching siding."
Russell said "northeast corner" under the College Street District discussion on page 4 should
be "northwest corner." Licht said the last sentence of that paragraph should be struck. Kuenzli
noted he had attended a public hearing on the District. He said residents were upset that the
Commission had elected to apply to the National Register instead of the City Council. Russell
said the choice had seemed good at the time. He suggested the item could be placed on the
agenda for discussion in May. Kugler noted the District was a rezoning issue. He said it would
need the approval of 6 out of 7 Council members ff 20% of the neighbors protested. Shaw
said he was unsure how proceeding with the National Register nomination could slow efforts
w~th the City. Russell said it was not a prerequm~te to City action, but that the decision to
wa~t had been political.
MOTION: Licht moved and Kelly seconded to approve the minutes from the March 12, 1996
meeting as amended. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
MOTION: Kuenzli moved and Russell seconded to approve the minutes from the March 4,
1996 special meeting. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION:
1. Letter from Northside Neiqhborhood regardinq PIN Grant Application.
Kugler said a letter from the northside had been sent requesting support. Kugler said the
application looked like a good idea. He said the Commission could send a letter of
Historic Preservation Commission
April 11, 1996
Page 8
support, but that it should not be construed as a comment upon National Register
eligibility.
MOTION: Shaw moved and Pugh seconded to send a letter supporting the Northside
Association's PIN grant application. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
2. Letter from National Parks Service regardincl a new Heritacle Partnership Office.
Kugler called attention to this article in the meeting packet.
3. "Daley Rides to F~,scue of Historic Buildinqs" Chicaqo Tribune, March 22, 1996.
Kugler called attention to this article in the meeting packet.
4. Letter to Rose Middleton re~ardin.~ Waterloo Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Kugler called attention to this letter in the meeting packet.
Kugler noted that the Rental Rehabilitation Division of the Planning and Community
Development Department had asked for an amendment to their Certificate of Appropriateness
to replace a bathroom window. Russell said the issue would have to be an agenda item. Licht
said the window met conditions for approval. Russell said it was more a matter of procedure
than of the window.
Pugh distributed his updated recommendations on amendments to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1996- 12:00 P.M.
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ruedi Kuenzli, Sue Licht, Michael Pugh, John Shaw, Ginalie
Swaim
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Betty Kelly, Douglas Russell, Doris Malkmus
STAFF PRESENT:
Scott Kugler, Steven Schornhorst, James Erwin
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ed UIIrich
CALLTO ORDER:
Vice-Chairperson Pugh called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ITEMS:
1. Recons~deration of Certificate of Appropriateness approved for 632 Brown Street.
Kugler said that the City Housing Rehabilitation Program was working on the house.
He noted a door on the west elevation was to be removed and a window on the north
elevation moved to replace the door. Kugler said the earlier certificate had been
approved subject to the centering of the window. He said the window needed to be
replaced. Schornhorst said a shorter window had .been found, which would better
match the room's function as a bathroom.
MOTION: Shaw moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for 632 Brown Street
provided the 36x38" window described was used. Swaim seconded. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5-0.
2. Reconsiderabon of Certificate of Appropriateness approved for 602 S. Summit Street.
Kugler said that due to problems finding matching bricks, the addition would use bricks
from a wall of the building. and affected wall would be stuccoed. UIIrich noted that
many bricks were unusable or discolored. Shaw asked if bricks from the west eleva-
bon could be used. UIIrich said that clean brick ends were needed for windows and
doors. Shaw asked if ~ew bricks would match the color. UIIrich said the manufacturer
was now firing clay from a different area. UIIrich and Shaw discussed the proper
insulation. Pugh reminded UIInch to submit the new drawings to Kugler.
MOTION: Licht moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for 602 S. Summit
Street accepting the alterations indicated. Kuenzli seconded. The motion was carried
by a vote of 5-0.
Historic Preservation Commission
April 22, 1996
Page 2
COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION:
1. Discussion of Park House Hotel.
Kugler noted that this information had.not yet been made public. He said a demolition
order had been issued for the Park House Hotel at 115 E. Jefferson St. He said there
were structural problems in the north wall, and that the owner was out of the country.
He said the demolition had been ordered by the City. Kugler noted the Historic Preser-
vation Ordinance gave the Commission 30 days to find a way to preserve a landmark
but this building has not yet been designated. Pugh asked how much time was le~t.
Kugler said the owner had 30 days to:vacate the building and 60 to repair the dam-
age. Licht said liability wasthe major issue. She said the building had been demolished
by neglect, Kuenzli said it was ridiculous to hold older buildings to modern standards.
Even if the structural problems were solved, other code issues apply. Licht noted the
City could use a fire safety equivalency code. Pugh asked if the order would be issued
this week. Kugler said if not, soon after. Licht asked if the Commission could get a
second engineer's report. Pugh said the owner should be sent a letter following the
May meeting. Kugler noted the estimated cost of repairs calculated in the early 198Os
was five to seven hundred thousand dollars.
2. Discussion of Fall Training Workshop.
Kugler said that Kelly had spoken with Kerry McGrath about hosting a workshop. He
said the Commission would host the workshop, but McGrath would be organizing the
workshop. Pugh asked what the City needed to provide. Kugler said the City had to
provide meeting space and send out mailings. Shaw asked if a monetary outlay was
needed. Kugler said money would only be needed for the mailing. Licht said the
workshop would mainly be aimed at the Commissioners and people who were already
involved with historic preservation. Pugh asked why a response was needed so soon.
Kugler said the state schedule needed to be set. Licht said the workshop would be
nice, but that it was not critical. She said a spring workshop would be much easier to
coordinate. Pugh asked if the Commission should therefore decline. Licht noted that
the Commission would be busy with the proposed College Street Historic District and
the Park House Hotel, as well as the awards program. Pugh agreed that time would
prohibit the workshop, and noted attendance would be difficult if the Commission
planned on atte~lding neighborhood meetings. Kugler was directed to let the state
know that the Commission is unable to host a workshop this fall, but may consider it
next year.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THURSDAY MAY 2, 1996 - 5:45 P.M.
IOWA CITY TRANSIT FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Howard Horan, Pat Foster,
Richard Blum, Rick Mascari
STAFF PRESENT:
Anne Burnside, Eleanor Dilkes, Ron O'Neil
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 5:48 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the April 11, 1996, meeting were approved as
submitted.
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES:
Blum made a motion to approve the bills. Foster seconded the
motion and it was approved 4 - 0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
No items were di%cussed.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a0 Master Plan Study Darren, from McClure Engineering, and
Karen Ccuntryman, presented information on the Master Plan
brochure. How the brochure would be used as a marketing tool and
what should be included in the brochure was discussed.
Blum said the ALP should include a key to make it easier to read.
O'Neil suggested the brochure could include the list of capital
improvement projects and a time frame for completion.
Countryman asked the commission what airport name to use for the
brochure. O'Neil said that at the December 1995 Commission
meeting, the Commission voted to change the name from the Iowa City
Municipal Airport to the Iowa City Industrial Air Park.
The revised preliminary ALP will be sent to the FAA on Tuesday.
O'Neil said that one of the revisions may eliminate having to build
a culvert for Willow Creek. This could save somewhere between one
to two million dollars.
Foster made a motion for a resolution to set a public hearing on
June 13, 1996, for the Airport Master Plan. Mascari seconded the
motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 4 - 0.
b. West Corporate hangar building ~ O'Neil said the bid opening
was delayed until May 10 at 2:30 p.m. because of changes
recommended at the pre-bid conference. He suggested the Commission
meet at 3:00 p.m. on May 10 to review and discuss the bids. If
there is an acceptable bid, this will be a item at the City Council
work session on May 20 and the Council meeting on May 21.
Once the bids are in, Horan will meet with potential tenants to
discuss rent amounts needed to build the hangar. The rent will be
determined by the cost to build the hangar.
Co Snow removal polioy - Mascari presented information that his
subcommittee had developed. He said the main change from the
current plan is to begin plowing snow within an hour after any
amount of accumulation. He would like to see a policy that has as
it's main goal to keep the active runway in no worse than wet
conditions.
Blum said he talked with the FSDO in Kansas City and they
emphasized the Snow Removal Circular is an advisory document. It
is to be used as a guideline only.
Blum suggested that from a liability standpoint, it may be best to
have a policy that says "The Commission will remove the snow to
the best of our ability at our earliest possible convenience. "
Burnside discussed a recent court case that dealt with a city's
immunity from prosecution from liability if it followed it's snow
removal policy. Blum said the policy should be as simple as
possible and left to the discretion of the Airport Manager.
Mascari suggested having a private contractor on standby to keep
any snow from accumulating. He said only one runway would have to
be plowed. Horan said a dollar amount should be determined to
provide this increased level of service. The Council would have to
approve a budget amendment.
Blum said they would have to determine if the increased costs
involved justify keeping the runways plowed at night during a
snowstorm.
Mascari suggested that any accumulation,
covered, should be plowed. 0'Neil said
or cost effective to attempt to plow 1/4
as long as the ground is
it is not very productive
inch of snow.
The Commission directed O'Neil to develop costs of hiring
additional help for snow removal. This could be off-duty Public
Works employees using Airport equipment or private contractors.
C~IAIRPERSON'S REPORT:
Horan said he, Blum, Foster and O'Neil attended the Iowa Aviation
Conference in Ames on April 26. He thought several of the sessions
were interesting and beneficial.
COM/4ISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS:
Blum suggested that the Commission aPFlY to the IDOT to host "Fly
Iowa" in the year 2001. Iowa City hosted the first state sponsored
"Fly-Iowa" in 1991. Approximately 10,000 people attended the 1 day
event. Blum requested this be on the agenda at the next meeting.
Mascari said AOPA has a program to develop community involvement in
promoting general aviation. He said he knows of some people who
are interested in starting a support group. Foster suggested
Mascari invite those people to the next Commission meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
O'Neil reminded Mascari he should meet with the J.C's sometime in
June to finalize plans and schedules for the 4th of July fireworks.
The person from Ealing Drive that wanted to install a radio antenna
will be allowed to install the antenna up to a height of 48'. This
is the maximum height to stay under the 20:1 approach slope. He
wanted to install an antenna that was 67'. Anything over 48' would
be an obstruction and would not be permitted.
The Fire Department conducted an inspection of the Airport
Terminal. Most of the violations were drop cords being used by
Iowa City Flying Service. O'Neil sent a memo to ICFS requesting
the violations be corrected before the reinspection on May 12.
O'Neil said he sent a memo to ICFS, explaining that they needed to
remove several vehicles that are being stored at the Airport. Some
are licensed and some are not. Any vehicles not used regularly in
their business will have to be removed. A May 15 deadline was
given.
The DTN radar service contract expires at the end of June. DTN
will automatically renew it unless there is written notice given by
the Commission.
The Equipment Division will go out for bids in May for a broom that
mounts on the plow truck.
O'Neil said he contacted Jones from ICFS concerning the fact that
the windbreak trees around his fuel tanks are all dying. O'Neil
said he had concern that this might indicate a fuel leak. Jones
said he had contacted Pleasant Valley Nursery and they said it
could just be winter killo Jones assured O'Neil that he was
checking the monitoring wells and there is no sign of leakage. The
Commission directed O'Neil to include a copy of the latest tank
monitoring report in the next Commission packet.
SET NEXT MEETING:
The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 13, 1996, at 5:45
p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 7:15 p.m., Blum made a motion to go into closed session under
Section 21.5 of the Iowa Open Meetings Law to discuss pending
litigation. Mascari seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the
motion passed 4 - 0, with Hicks being absent.
At 7:53 p.m., Foster made a motion to adjourn the closed session.
Blum seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed
4 - 0, with Hicks being absent.
ADJOURNMENT .'
Foster moved to adjourn the meeting.
the meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
Howard Hor~n~,/Cha 'l~n
Blum seconded the motion and
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 9, 1996 - 7:00 P.M.
SENIOR CENTER CLASSROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nancy Foomer, Mart~n Haynes, Karyl Larson, Gary Nagle, Phil
Reisetter, Randy Rohovit, Clara Swan, Laura Hawks
Bill Nowysz
Karin Franklin, David Schoon, James Erwin
John Beckord, Paula Brandt, Jim Clayton, Tom Gelman, Joni
Kinsey, John Murphy, Janelie Rettig, Glenn Siders, Daryl
Woodson
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE:
Martin Haynes welcomed the participants and explained the format of the meeting. He
introduced Karin Franklin as facilitator.
Franklin said that when the proposed Ordinance went to the City Council, the Council had
asked the Committee to explore other alternatives. She noted that although alternatives might
be expressed, the Design Review Committee could still choose to use their original proposal.
She said the goal of the meeting was to identify alternative design review concepts. She
asked if the participants could agree that the statement "Good design is ~mportant to the
commumty" was valid. The partimpants agreed. Franklin opened the floor to d~scussion.
Daryl Woodson said the argument seemed to be over mandatory compliance. Frankhn asked
how good design could be approached w~thout mandatory compliance. Woodson said ~t
seemed extremely difficult. He said the only other way to accomplish good design w~thout
reducing the Committee to an advisory body was through incentives. John Beckord suggested
a hybrid solution, such as mandatory compliance, except when certain requirements are met,
such as the h~nng of a licensed architect. Swan said the Committee had considered mandatory
rewew combined w~th voluntary compliance but thought it would not accomphsh the goals
of the Committee. Beckord said there were other options to mandatory review/mandatory
compliance. He noted the Committee could actively market their services instead of merely
making design review avmlable. Rettig said some restrictions were too detmled. She suggested
a more narrow definition of design review. Reisetter stud the only precedents he could think
of for comparison were Charleston and the Amanas. Franklin noted that Baltimore and Santa
Barbara had extenmve demgn review programs. Woodson noted that Portland did also. Gelman
noted precedents were of little use when there was no information on how these other
ordinances functioned. Haynes agreed and sa~d any ordinance should be based on local needs.
Woodson noted that Charleston's program was based mostly on historic preservation, and
that Santa Barbara was trying to maintain its d~stinct identity. Siders noted that Sigourney,
Iowa was using the Main Street program for design review. Schoon noted that was based on
h~stor~c preservation. Gelman asked ~f the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance apphed tothe
Design Review Committee
May 9, 1996
Page 2
areas under consideration. Schoon said the Historic Preservation Committee had decided there
had been too much change in the downtown to justify a historic preservation district. He
noted there had also been reservations over a possible conservation district. Schoon noted the
designation of historic landmarks was before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Gelman said he would like to prevent any overlap. Schoon said any properties in a historic
preservation district, conservation district, or designated as a landmark would not be included
~n a design review district. Gelman asked if the Zoning Ordinance affected design. Franklin
said it did in a limited fashion in the Near Southside, and also through the historic preservation
measures. Gelman asked if the sign ordinance had any bearing. Franklin said the impact of the
sign ordinance was different from that of a design review ordinance. Siders noted that the fire
and building codes affected design. Nagle said the focus of the proposed ordinance was to
be more on aesthetic considerations. Frank!in said there was also the question of who should
have review powers and establish the design guidelines.
Clayton said he was more concerned with preventing bad design than with promoting good
design. Siders said it would be impossible to reach a consensus on what constituted bad
design. Nagle noted that the Committee contained nine members ~n order to reach the
broadest possible consensus. Clayton said that one example of bad design could ruin an entire
neighborhood. Footnet agreed with Clayton. Franklin asked ~f the question before the group
should be the prevention of bad design rather than promoting good design. Siders said
preventing bad design seemed to be the intent of the proposed ordinance. Gelman said the
process should be positive. He said ~t was unfair that every person should be forced through
a restrictive process to stop one or two people from doing a bad design. Franklin noted that
the consensus seemed to be in favor of positive phrasing. Franklin noted the discussion
seemed to focus on how good design should be approached.
Clayton asked whether enforcement was being questioned. Franklin said the matter depended
on how crucial a person thought the matter was. Gelman asked whether C~ty staff could
assume the responsibility of design review. Franklin said the City had no trained professionals
on staff, and that the Committee consists of design professionals. Rett~g said there was the
question of consistency and turnover on a citizen committee. Haynes acknowledged the point.
Gelman asked if there were membership requirements. Schoon said there were currently none.
He noted that the Committee has proposed to revise ~ts bylaws to require that the make-up
of the committee ~nclude design professionals.
I]eckord suggested the use of tax increment financing as a way to provide incentives. Siders
asked whether tradeoffs or bonuses had been considered. Swan sa~d bonus systems gave an
advantage to developers who started with more capital. Haynes said the Committee was
trying to avoid the idea that good design costs more. Clayton suggested that using incentives
could be a prerequisite for voluntary compliance. Franklin asked for other ~deas. She noted
that no one had suggested a laissez faire policy. Rettig noted that Gelman had suggested
contests or awards. Haynes sa~d many people were willing to allow one or two badly designed
buddings, but no one was wdling to be next to one. He asked how one or two badly designed
buildings could be stopped. Gelman asked if that was a goal. Clayton sa~d a poorly designed
building may be acceptable ~f it increased the vitality of an area. He said the downtown area
was not something to be preserved, but something to be nourished. Woodson noted down-
town businesses were moving to suburban areas with tight design control. Clayton agreed
some businesses were moving to these areas. Franklin asked ~f a voluntary program would
therefore be better. Clayton said economic pressure would prevent excellent design. Brandt
noted the point of design review was to help owners meet their design goals at low cost.
Design Review Committee
May 9, 1996
Page 3
Gelman asked if she supported mandatory education. Rrandt said she did. Gelman asked what
should be done about owners with acceptable designs that were subjected to long delays.
Larson said education was vital. Gelman said that ordinance did not need to be mandatory.
Larson said the point of a mandatory process was to bring in people who would not partici-
pate in a voluntary program.
Gelman said that processes of this sort were always more time-consuming than originally
predicted. Gelman asked whether a voluntary process could be tried for some time. Woodson
said that bad designs could slip past during the voluntary period. Footnet noted the system
was already voluntary. Beckord said it was unfortunate that the services of the Committee
were not advertised more widely. Larson asked about people who had gone through the
process. Beckord said there was a need to show businesses how this would help them.
Haynes agreed that more needed to be done. Gelman said that the mandatory system was too
late in the process. Kinsey asked if anything was distributed early in the process. Haynes said
the Committee will need to educate the public so they are aware of the process early on.
Rettig asked if there were any estimates on the time needed to prepare for a presentation
before the Committee. She asked why the same procedure was in place for large corporations
and small business owners. She said the process was too cumbersome for small businesses.
Haynes noted the ordinance allowed City staff to waive certain submittal requirements for
smaller scale projects. Rettig asserted that the paperwork was still too onerous.
Clayton asked if, under the proposed ordinance, were there restrictions on changes that did
not require a building permit. Schoon said there were none. Clayton noted that the Union Bar's
screens allowed the house band to drown out the Friday night bands on the Pedestrian Mall.
He said that mandatory review was necessary to stop annoyances of that sort.
Gelman noted the benefits of voluntary compliance. He noted that small changes could then
be reviewed. He noted that a voluntary program could also encompass the entire city. Haynes
said that was still possible with a mandatory program if the community so desired. Gelman
said that resistance from the Planning and Zoning Commission made that unlikely. He said that
residential areas contained more design problems, and that a voluntary program could accom-
plish more there. 8eckord said that the average bus~ness owner would not support mandatory
compliance.
Gelman raised the issue of unreasonable delay again. Reisetter sa~d design was already a long
process, and the problem was minor.
Schoon noted a Certificate of No Material Effect covered minor repairs and maintenance
.ssues that may require a building permit. He noted that a Certificate of No Mater~al Effect
was less broad than how people were ~nterpret~ng it, and that language m the Ordinance
should be clarified to reflect that.
Gelman sa~d in most cases, design was complete when a business owner applies for a building
permit. Haynes sa~d the Committee wants to be involved early on in the design process.
Gelman asked ff the Committee would therefore be involved in education. Haynes said it
would. He said education would become especially important when the first overlay zones are
defined. Larson noted that necessary changes are always cheaper before a building is con-
structed.
Design Review Committee
May 9, 1996
Page 4
Kinsey asked if it were possible to consider stages of review based on the level of change.
8eckord noted that a new building would likely have an architect. Haynes said that was not
necessarily true.
Murphy asked what the level of the problem was. He said he was unsure it justified another
level of bureaucracy. Brantit said that nothing currently guaranteed good design. Gelman
noted that not one major project in the last five years had been bad from a design perspective.
Clayton argued that the ordinance should therefore be strengthened to cover smaller changes.
He noted that the process could serve as an inexpensive way for a new store to gain atten-
tion. Footnet suggested that the Chamber could participate by drafting an alternative ordi-
nance. Gelman said that was not the Chamber's purpose. He said the Chamber of Commerce
would however gladly distribute whatever educational material the Committee published. He
said a mandatory. ordinance would squeeze out time for the Committee to do education. Nagle
asked where the process should begin. Gelman said that should go under the rubric of
education.
Siders said the Ordinance could conflict with site plan review. Franklin said there would not
be much conflict, as the site plan review was handled administratively. Gelman noted that the
City already had a fair amount of design review. Kinsey suggested a phase-in period with
intensive education. Woodson said that would encourage owners with bad designs to rush
their projects through. Larson said the Committee should try mandatory compliance for a trial
period, and if it did not work, then the City could try the voluntary process. Siders said that
sort of adjustment never worked. Beckord said many people would not accept that the City
had the right to review design.
Woodson asked whether people felt design review would cause an unreasonable burden,
perhaps by delaying financing. Beckoral agreed that was a common reaction. Reisetter
asserted that a design rewew ordinance must be mandatory by nature. Gelman asked if there
were any possible compromise. Clayton suggested a mandatory ordinance with a sunset
clause. Haynes said that had been suggested. Siders asked whether the Councd had opposed
the idea. Haynes said they had at the time.
Beckord asked how the Committee felt about exempting projects that use an architect from
the review process. Haynes noted that as an architect, he had embraced design review.
Woodson said architects were probably involved in designing strip malls as well and many of
them are not of good design.
Beckord asked what would happen ~f a person was poised to lose money due to the delay
caused by design rewew. Swan said the Committee could hold a special meeting. Siders asked
why 21 working days was allowed. Swan said that applied if an application was received 6
or less days before the next meeting. Gelman said that a problem was almost never solved
in the shortest possible amount of time. Gelman asked whether the Committee had considered
serwng ~n an adwsory capacity to the Council. Franklin said the idea had been abandoned as
too t~me-consuming. The proposed process was to make things move more quickly.
Retug asked about a possible turnover problem on the Committee and consistency in what
the Committee would approve. Swan noted the Committee had published guidelines for new
members, and that there were no term limits, S]ders asked why the Ordinance was not
combined with guidelines. Haynes sa~d the proposed process included affected parties in
designing the guidelines.
Design Review Committee
May 9, 1996
Page 5
Gelman asked how many building permits were applied for annually. Schoon said the CB-10
zone and the Near Southside had approximately ten applications in 1993, and thirty to forty
sign applications. Siders asked whether the entire facade was reviewed for a sign application.
Swan said only the sign was considered in relation to the facade. Beckord asked if size and
color were considered in sign applications. Haynes said color was not. He said people worried
about time concerns should come to the Design Review Committee at an early stage.
Kinsey commended the Committee for their efforts. Swan expressed her hope that the Council
would focus on the positive side of the issue. Gelman asked if there would be a compromise
on mandatory compliance. Reisetter noted this meeting had been set up for discussion of
alternatives. Haynes noted that a compromise was not reached, but many ideas and alterna-
tives were expressed that the Committee would take into consideration.
Franklin circulated a proposal from Dee Norton for a hybrid ordinance. Gelman reaffirmed the
Chamber of Commerce's willingness to promote any educational materials produced by the
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20,
Minutes submitted by James Erwin.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1996 - 5:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER - LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Betty Kelly, Ruedi Kuenzli, Sue Licht, Doris Malkmus, Doug
Russell, John Shaw, Ginalie Swa'im
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mike Pugh
STAFF PRESENT:
Scott Kugler, James Erwin
OTHERS PRESENT:
David Arbogast, Pat Eckhardt, Ann Hoffman, Louis Hoffman,
Molly Myers Naumann, Frank Wagner
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Russell congratulated Kelly on her reappointment to the Commission.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1025 WOODLAWN:
Wagner noted that he was trying to restore his porch to its original state. He said the posts
were copied from a design on the front of the house. Wagner noted he would be constructing
a soffit. He noted that the low railing design was similar to others in the neighborhood, but
the City had said the railing must be at least 36". Russell asked if the porch was on the back
elevation. Wagner said it was on the southeast corner. He noted it was the same size as the
existing porch except for the 6" overhang. Shaw asked how the roof would be built. Wagner
said tongue-in-groove decking would be used. Shaw asked how water problems would be
dealt with. Wagner said the old porch had no problems. Shaw said tongue-in-groove decking
would not keep out water. Licht asked if the deck on the roof would be covered. Wagner sa~d
it would eventually be an enclosed glass structure. Kelly asked if it were pitched. Wagner said
~t was slightly pitched. Licht said a rubberized material could be used temporarily until the
greenhouse was built. Shaw said the enclosed space should have venting. Licht asked why
plywood could not be used. Wagner said ]t would be difficult to fit the roof on with the
current design. Russell said the consensus appeared to be that the application should be
approved with three conditions; 1) the second story porch railing was removed; 2) the roof
should be covered; 3) yenbrig should be restailed for the roof cavity. Shaw said an edge vent
could be used at the flushing. Licht disagreed, saying a vent along a fascia board would be
less conspicuous. Wagner noted that many Victorian houses s~mply used holes in the soffit.
MOTION: Shaw moved and Kelly seconded that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted
for 1025 W(~odlawn, subject to: 1) removal of the second story porch window; 2) use of a
roof covering; 3) installation of venting in the enclosed porch, preferably along a fascia board.
The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 14, 1996
Page 2
REVIEW OF HRDP APPLICATION: JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE:
Russell sa~d the Courthouse had been substantially renovated over the past several years, and
thpt the current request was for tuckpointing the tower. Kugler noted that all HRDP
applications had to be reviewed by the local government. Russell noted the Courthouse had
received two Historic Preservation Awards. He said a letter of recommendation was required.
MOTION: Russell moved and Swaim seconded that a letter recommending approval be sent
to the State Historical Society. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
DISCUSSION OF GRANT PROJECTS:
Lonqfellow Neiqhborhood Survey. Naumann noted the project was slightly behind
schedule, but should be ready soon.
Russell noted that Naumann had asked to include Dearborn and Rundell in the
Longfellow survey. Naumann agreed the area to the east end of the Rundell Addition
needed to be surveyed. Russell asked if she had a Rundell Addition Historic District in
mind. Naumann said she did. Russell said he was uncertain whether the area south of
Sheridan Street was inappropriate for inclusion in a historic or conservation district.
He said the Commission would consider adding the area. He asked if the exact
boundaries of the South Summit Historic District had been determined. Naumann said
the house east of the Kaufman House facing Burlington should not be included. Kelly
asked if the Longfellow district was endangered by waiting for the Rundell survey.
Naumann said the Commission would be a better judge. Russell said it might be best
for the Commission to begin work on the Longfellow District, as there were
development pressures.
DubuQue Street/Linn Street Corridor Survey. Naumann said that Ralph Christian f~ad
not yet read the report. Russell sa~d it might be helpful to hold another meeting before
the public hearing. Kugler said there was a July 31 deadline. Russell said a public
hearing could be held at the June 11 meeting. Naumann sa~d she did not think she
could make that meeting. The Commission agreed on a meeting for 7:00 on Thursday,
June 27. She said the main concern was not knowing how long the process would
take. She sa~d that a conservation district could be an important first step in preserving
houses in the area. Russell said conservation districts had been discussed as a
temporary measure, but had never been used in that fashion. Swaim sa~d it would be
~mportant to explain the process to the public. Russell asked whether the Commission
could designate a University property for protection. Kugler said he was unsure but had
asked the City Attorney's Office for an op~mon at one point.
Colleqe Green/East Colleqe Street National Reqister Nominations. Kugler sa~d Ralph
Christian had toured the area with himself, consultants, and Commission members. He
said Christian had favored the two diettrot approach, possibly adding some properties.
He said Christian felt the synthetm siding issue would not have much effect on the
designations.
Arbogast said severaJ buildings had been added and several others removed. Russell
asked why a corner lot on College Green had been deleted. Arbogast said it faced the
wrong direction. Kelly asked if the Barber House was excluded. Arbogast said Christian
Historic Preservation Commission
May 14, 1996
Page 3
had felt it inappropriate to include a house already on the National Register. Swarm
asked why. Arbogast said he felt it was appropriate, but he was following Christian's
recommendation. Russell said the Commission would need to direct the consultants
to follow a line of action. Arbogast said that siding originally meant automatic
exclusion from the National Register. He asked how the siding issue should be handled
on the applicatmn. Licht said it would be helpful to find why some buildings were
already listed as contributing or non-contributing. Arbogast sai.d there were rational
reasons, but that they were not consistent. Licht said there were inherent problems
when one person compiled the survey and another the nomination. Arbogast said the
person who compiled the survey had a different attitude to siding; Russell said the East
College District'.would be dead if the Commission decided siding was automatically
considered as non-contributing. Arbogast said the issue might be decided by the State.
He noted the staff might be bending the rules. Swaim asked if this was Christian's
feeling. Eckhardt said Christian felt the rules had changed somewhat. Kelly asked if the
sided structures could be viewed as contributing from another standpoint. Eckhardt
said they could. Kelly said that should be emphasized. Malkmus said the district could
be reduced in size to exclude sided houses. Russell said he would rather not remove
areas. Arbogast suggested that the Commission leave all buildings as contributing and
leave the issue to the State. Russell said there should be a motion to amend the
boundaries of the East College District. Ann Hoffman said she would like to see the
project completed. She asked why two significant houses were not being included.
Russell said it was unnecessary, as both houses were on the list of historic landmarks.
Shaw asked if it would help to include them. Russell said it might be inconsistent. Licht
noted that style was an important part of districts, and it was harder to tie landmarks
in. Ann Hoffman asked if someone could build a narrow multi-family building on a
narrow lot in the area. I(ugler noted the area was RNC-20. L~cht said the neighborhood
would need to cooperate for a downzoning. She said the Dubuque Street area would
face the same problem.
IVlOTION: Russc!l moved and Kuenzli seconded that the Commission should direct the
consultants to work with two districts with the suggested boundary amendments {see
attached map), and to ignore the question of siding as a criterion for eligibility..The
motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
Kugler said a meeting had to be held w~th neighborhood residents. Russell said it could
be added to the June 11, 1996 agenda.
Or~qinal Town Plat and Survey. Kugler sa~d he was wa~tmg for a contract from the
State before he could send the RFP out.
DISCUSSION OF PENDING PARK HOUSE HOTEL DEMOLITION:
Kugler said there was not much new information. He sa~d a second inspection had been done
at the owner's request, but no appeal had been filed. He sa~d Friends of Historic Preservation
was offering some assistance. Russell noted the Commission could only delay the demolition
if the building were designated. He said a letter urging renovation and including a HRDP
application should be sent. L~cht said the Commission had enough t~me to form a plan. Kugler
said he was unfamdiar with tax credit preservation programs. Licht sa~d the owner could
recewe a 20% credit based on how much was put into the building. Shaw volunteered to
draft a letter to the owner.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 14, 1996
Page 4
DISCUSSION OF AWARDS PROGRAM:
Russell said the program would be moved to a smaller room due to a trial. Kelly said
everything had been prepared. Kugler said the transpor, tation and lunch had been arranged,
DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS DESIGNATION:
Kugler said the report from the State had been favorable. He said they would like to see a
copy of the proposed ordinance before it was sent to the City Council.
Licht said the City Council seemed conservative, and wondered if they would deny the
landmarks over a neighbor's protests. Shaw said the Commission seemed to catch backlash
from the proposed design review ordinance. Kugler said the Council was uncomfortable that
the Design Review Committee had no defined standards. Shaw said the Chamber of
Commerce was using the issue of delay as a red herring.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 30, 1 996 MEETING:
Russell said that Carl Goetz should be added to the list of Others Present. He suggested that
"First Series of" should be inserted before "Iowa City Historic Landmarks."
MOTION: Malkmus moved and Kelly seconded to approve the minutes. The motion was
carried by a vote of 7-0,
COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION:
1. Iowa Herita.qe Expo. Kugler said the Commission could send a member to the Expo,
2. Amana Preservation Workshops and Fair. Kugler noted the deadline was May 13.
Kugler said there was a letter in the packet from Eleanor Steel on zoning issues. He
said he had talked with Karin Franklin, and noted that a goal of the Historic Preserva-
tion Ordinance was to look at zoning issues in historic districts.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Minutes submitted by James Erwin.
PROPOSED COLLEGE Gt~EEN AND
EAST COLLEGE STREET HISTORIC DISTRICTS
ST BLOOMINGTON ~ ST ~,--__
~ .~. i~, ,,, ,~, ,,,,, ,~,,,, , ,~~~ilill I~1t1!111~
.~,,~~1 ~1 ~h~[ ~lll~~1111111111111I
ST
M~K~T MARKET
1111 llllllllllllll
JEFFERSON ~ JEFF~SON ST ~ . , .
~, ,,1,1 ~' J
~1 !1 Irlll~'il"~~J~!~l I ~1111ill~ I I J~JJ
i~UI~LING TON ST BUR
~ ~ ~r SZ ' ~ HISTORIC DISTR CT ~ ~ , ,C~'?T ,ST J .......
r~ov~
PA~K
'; ~ S T
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 20, 1996 - 4:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nancy Footner, Martin Haynes, Karyl Larson, Bill Nowysz, Randy
Rohovit, Clara Swan
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Gary Nagle, Laura Hawks, Phil Reisetter
STAFF PRESENT:
David Schoon, James Erwin
OTHERS PRESENT:
Laurie Tulchin
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:25 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGN OF A SIDEWALK CAFE AT 118 S. DUBUQUE S'i'REET
(BLIMPIE/UNCOMMON GROUNDS)
Haynes noted the design was already in place. He asked what had been used last year. Laurie
Tulchin noted the white plastic tables were used last year. They have broken, and she is
using green aluminum tables this year. Nowysz said the carts holding the plants and acting
as delineation of the cafe seem to work well. Foomer moved and Nowysz seconded that the
Committee recommend approval of this design to the City Council. The motion carried by a
vote of 6-0,
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY ZONE ORDINANCE
Haynes noted that the Committee had met with several community groups earlier in the
month. He also noted that he had recently spoken with Tom Gelman of the Chamber of
Commerce and assured him that applications under time pressure would receive special
hearings. Haynes said Gelman wanted assurances placed in the Ordinance. Haynes asked
how the Committee wanted to address any of Dee Norton's suggestions. He raised the
question of providing the design guidelines at this time. Swan said the Committee couldn't
draw up guidelines without community input. Other members agreed with Swan.
Footnet suggested that design review could be voluntary downtown and mandatory in the
Near Southside. She noted that the downtown had already lost many buddings in terms of
their designs, and that concentrating on the Near Southrode might be more productive. Haynes
and Swan both voiced objections to this idea.
Schoon said the main question was whether the Committee really saw any feasible alternative
to a mandatory review/mandatory complianca process. Swan said that education was the
important issue. She said enforcement would always be necessary, but that it shouldn't be
the only consideration. Haynes said the debate over the proposed Ordinance provided an
excellent opportunity for educauon. Rohovit suggested another meeting to work out problems
w~th the Chamber of Commerce.
Design Review Committee
May 20, 1996
Page 2
Haynes asked the Committee if the Ordinance should remain mandatory review/mandatory
compliance. The consensus of the Committee was that it should remain mandatory
review/mandatory compliance. Rohovit said he recalled Norton expressing support for a
mandatory ordinance. Swan said Norton did say that he would accept the original ordinance,
if no alternative could be developed and agreed to and if the Committee took account of public
concerns when revising the original ordinance.
Haynes brought up the concern expressed by some members of the public that the design
review process should look at painting and color issues even if a regulated permit was not
required to paint. Committee members expressed an interest in looking at that issue again.
Nowysz said he had attended an architectural convention in Minneapolis, where a workshop
on design review was offered. Most architects there complained that the process took too
long - two to four months. Haynes noted that when someone is designing a project it may
take up to four months. He suggested that the ordinance should structure the process so that
it occurred before anyone applied for a building permit. Nowysz agreed. Swan asked how the
Committee could bypass people who had good designs without making them go through a
process.
Haynes indicated that the Committee needed to work on revising the existing ordinance to
streamline the process. Schoon said that he did not think it was feasible to do by the City
Council's June 4 meeting. Haynes said Norton had stressed that June 4 was not a deadline,
but he noted the Committee would lose momentum if things moved too slowly. Both Nowysz
and Swan stated that revising the ordinance would increase the chances for passage, Larson
said brochures outlining the Committee's goals and the design review process could be
distributed. Haynes said a checklist of the design review process would be helpful.
Haynes asked who wanted to help revise the Ordinance. Rohovit, Haynes, Larson, and Swan
volunteered. Haynes said he would write the Council and try to assemble a timetable. Swan
asked if the subcommittee would address Norton's concerns. Schoon said it would, as well
as the concerns of others. Swan said there was a need to clarify the time period involved.
Haynes said there was a definite need to simplify. He said the Committee could also cut
down on the number of submittal requirements. Nowysz proposed the addition of an
amendment requiring completion of design review in two weeks, Schoon suggested that the
subcommittee could look at that issue.
Footnet left the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 29, 1990 MINUTES
Swan moved and Rohovit seconded to approve the minutes. The motion was camed by a vote
of 5-0.
Design Review Committee
May 20, 1996
Page 3
OTHER BUSINESS
Haynes said he had received a letter regarding the new multi-family development on College
and Summit and the need to have some sort of design review process in such instances.
Schoon said the Council will be looking at this issue at some point in the future.
Schoon noted the proposed design for the library expansion may come before the Design
Review Committee at its June meeting for a preliminary review.
Swan suggested the Committee should thank participants in the May 9 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Swan moved and Larson seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried bv a vote of
5-__~_O. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40.
Minutes submitted by James Erwin.
ecodev~mir~tdrcS-20
MINUTES
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chair, Jane Jakobsen, George Starr, Lea Supple
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Richard Gibson, Tom Scott
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Holecek, Scott Kugler, Robert Mildo. John Yapp, James Erwin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, of ANN96-0001/REZ96-0012, an application to annex and
rezone from County RS, Suburban Residential, to ID-RS, Interim Development, an approximate 80 acre
tract located southeast of Sycamore Street and north of the South Wastewater Treatment facility.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 3-2, with Chair and Supple voting in the negative, of SUB96-
0028/SUB96-0029, the final plat for Saddlebrook, Part 1, and final site plan approval of Saddlebrook,
Part 1. Lot 4, located south of Highway 6 and the Bon Aire Mobile Home Lodge, subject to 1) the
inclusion of Heinz Road adjacent to Lot 4 in the final plat, and a financial guarantee for the construction
of Heinz Road south of the entrance to Lot 4 when the lot to the east is developed; 2) a financial
guarantee for the construction of sidewalks; and 3) legal papers specifying that the sidewalks on Lot 1
and 3 be built at the time of construction.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, of SUB96-0011, the preliminary plat for Windsor Ridge -
Parts Seven & Eight, a 22.05 acre. 42 lot residential subdivision located north of American Legion Road
and west of Taft Avenue, subject to approval of the Grading Plan by the Public Works Departmere prior
to Council consideration of the preliminary plat.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, of SUB96-0012, the final plat for Windsor Ridge - Part
Seven, an 8.75 acre, 17 lot restdential subdivision located in the RS-5 zone north of American Legion
Road and west of Taft Avenue, subject to the Subdivider's Agreement specifying that three years from
the time the final plat for Windsor Ridge - Part Seven is approved. no additional building permits will
be issued for Part Seven; no further platting of lots accessing Arlington Drive will be approved until or
unless a permanent means of secondary access is constructed for Arlington Drive; and subject to
constructton plans and final stormwater calculations being approved by the Public Works Department and
the legal papers being approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to Council consideration of the final
plat.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, of VAC96-0001, to vacate a portion of Lee Street, an
approximate 8,000 square foot undeveloped right-of-way located between River Street and Otto Street,
subject to the retention of the storm water sewer easement and all private utility easements.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0. of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article H, "Industrial
Zones." to allow trucking terminal facdit~es as provisional uses in the I-1 zone and to add the definition
of "trucking terminal facility" to the definition section of the Zoning Chapter.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 1996
Page 2
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES:
Starr announced there were two vacancies on the Design Review Committee, with the terms expiring on
July 1, 1996. He said appointments would be made at the June 11, 1996 City Council meeting.
ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM:
ANN96-0001/REZ96-0012. Public discussion of an application submitted by the Langenberg
Family Trust to annex and fezone from County RS, Suburban Residential. to ID-RS, Interim
Development, an approximate 80 acre tract located southeast of Sycamore Street and north of the
South Wastewater Treatment facility. (45-day limitation period: June 7, 1996)
Kugler noted this item had been deferred at the last meeting. He said staff had no new informa-
tion. Kugler said the application was consistent with City annexation policy and the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He said staff recommended approval.
Public discussion.
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Chait moved and Bovbjerg seconded the motion to approve ANN96-0001 and
REZ96-0012, an application to annex and fezone from County RS, Suburban Residential,
to ID-RS, Interhn Development, an approximate 80 acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater Treatment facility. The motion carried by a vote
of 5-0.
REZONING/CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
REZ96-0014. Public discussion of a request submitted by Lucas Van Orden to rezone a .94 acre
parcel located at 2122 ACT Circle from CO-I. Commeretal Office. to CH-I, Highway Commer-
cial. and to amend the CH-1 zone to allow small animal clinics as permitted uses. (45-day
limitation period: July 1, 1996)
Kugler said staff did not feel the area was appropriate for a CH- 1 zoning. or that the CH- 1 zone
should be amended. He recommended that staff investigate a possible amendment to the CO-I
zone. He noted that a small animal clinic was in many ways stmilar to a medical clinic. which
is permitted in the CO-I zone. He said staff recommended denial of the mzoning and the text
amendment to the CH-1 zone. but requested Commission direction to investigate amending the
CO-I zone to allow small animal clinics.
Bovbjerg asked if formal denial was recommended. Kugler said this was the first hearing for the
application. and recommended deferral while the CO-I zone amendment was researehed.
Public discussion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6. 1996
Page 3
Lucas Van Orden, 3077 Newport Road, said he was amenable to any possible solution. He noted
that an amendment to the CO-I zone was his first suggestion. He said he would like to maintain
continuity with the Zoning Chapter's current wording. He noted that the CC-2 zone allows a
similar use, with no outdoor runs and requiring a 200 foot setback from residential zones. Van
Orden said Cedar Rapids allows small animal clinics in neighborhood office zones, and requires
a decibel cap. He said he had contacted the neighbors of the subject property. and none had
complained. He said the second floor would he leased office space. and that he would therefore
have a personal incentive to limit noise.
Supple asked what Van Orden's time requirements were. Van Orden said he would ideally like
to resolve the issue by July 15. He noted if the issue was considered at the June 20, 1996
meeting, it could be placed on the agenda of the July 2 City Council meeting. He asked that the
issue not be placed on the pending list and tabled.
Starr said the Commission's unwritten policy was to hold two public hearings on rezon/ng
applications. He noted that deferral seemed to be the proper course of action. He expressed his
concern over possible effects in other CO-1 zones. Kugler said that two CO-I zones were
adjacent to residential areas. He said that would be taken into consideration. Van Orden said the
rezoning was merely a vehicle. He said if the CO-I zone amendments progressed. he would
withdraw his CH-I rezoning application.
MOTION: Supple moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to defer REZ96-0014, an
application to fezone a .94 acre parcel located at 2122 ACT Circle from CO-l, Commercial
Office, to CH-1, Highway Commercial, and to amend the CH-1 zone to allow small :animal
clinics as permitted uses, to the June 20, 1996 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Cornmix-
sion. The motion caffied by a vote of 5-0.
Jakobsen asked if the pending list would be changed. Miklo said that was unnecessary. as most
of the research was completed.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ96-0011/SUB96-0010. Public discussion of an application submitted by R.D. Phipps to
fezone a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12, High Density Single-Family Residential, to OSA-12,
Sensitive Areas Overlay/High Density Single-Family Residential, and preliminary plat and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval of Meadow Ridge. Part 2. a 4-1or residential subdivi-
sion located on the east side of North Dubuque Street and north of Bjaysville Lane. (45-day
limitation period. July 1. 1996)
Miklo said there were four lots. He said there was an existing single-family house, and that
duplexes would probably be built on the other lots. He said all lots would have access on the
Dubuque Street frontage mad. He noted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and rezoning were
required due to the presence of critical and protected slopes. He said the Comprehensive Plan
called for a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre in this area. Miklo said the application had a
density of 3.5 dwelling umts per acre. He noted the proposal contained a right-of-way for the
possible future upgrade of Foster Road.
Miklo said the Traffic Engineer had determined a traffic hght was merited on the intersection of
Foster Road and Dubuque Street. He said it was not on the City's schedule of capital improve-
ments due to its cost of $500,000 He said 2% of the traffic stream at the intersection was
Planning and Zoning Commission
June & 1995
Page 4
delayed. This was the traffic from Foster Road. He noted that the accident rate was not high in
comparison to other areas of the city. He said the Commission might want to recommend
signalization to the Council.
Miklo said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance would limit grading in the slope areas. He said there
would be some grading associated with the Foster Road improvements but it would not affect the
protected slopes. He said there was a forty foot setback, and that the Par~ and Recreation
Department had recommended fees in lieu of open space.
Mildo said the RS-12 zoning would permit between 8 to 12 units on the property, but that further
development would require the approval of the Commission and the City Council. He said staff
recommended approval, as the proposal was in compliance with all requirements.
Starr asked if there was the possibility of signalization only at peak times. Miklo said that would
be unusual. Starr asked how many units would bc built. Miklo said the total number of units
would be seven. Starr asked if there would be any further development on Lot 19. Mildo said
that would require the approval of the Commission and the City Council. He said there was
insufficient frontage for a public road. He said a duplex was the most that could be built on the
lot realistically.
Public discussion,
R.D. Phipps, 1910 Meadow Ridee Lane, said that City staff had presented him with alternatives
for development, including different densities. He said he had no intention of constructing a high-
density development close to his own home, and that single-family houses were not feasible so
close to Dubuque Street. He therefore suggested that duplexes were the proper course. He
suggested that the speed limit signs in the area should be posted more prominently.
Chad Wellman, 1973 Meadow Ridge Lane, said he would prefer single-family development. He
noted he had a restrictive covenant which had limited his property to a single-family home. He
said he had expected single-family development in this area. He said single-family development
would help to preserve the area's character.
Wellman noted that the 2% figure for traffic dated from 1989. He asserted that traffic was too
fast. and that the median was too narrow. He said the lack of sidewalks and of school buses
posed a serious safety problem. He urged that the traffic problem be resolved before new
development occurred.
John Sopher, 1958 Meadow R~dge Lane, said he had lived in the area for five years. He said this
proposal did not fit that character. He also urged that the area's uniqueness be preserved.
Kara Logsden, 1957 Meadow Ridge Lane, said that a lower density was desirable. She said that
Ph~pps had mentioned being approached by the Commission to develop the property She noted
that the traffic study had been done before the construction of Idyllwild and seven years of
growth. She said the aesthetic and natural character of the City entrance corridor should be
preserved She said there had been at least ten accidents between 1985 and 1989, and that there
had been more since. She said there was no crosswalk or sidewalk on Dubuque Street until the
Mayflower property. ,She also said there was no bus service on the r~ght side of the road. She
urged further study to make the intersection safer. She noted that other developments in the area
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 1996
Page 5
by Phipps had erosion problems and therefore she was concerned that Phipps would attempt to
develop this environmentally sensitive area.
Starr clarified that City staff and not the Commission spoke with Phipps. Miklo said staff had told
Phipps that it was possible to build 28 units on the development theoretically. He said that
requirements for roads and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance made the limit 12 to 14. and that a
density of 8 to 10 units was realistic.
Marcia Wegman. 1850 North Dubuque Street, said she lived on the lot directly north of the
proposed development. She urged single-family construction.
Harold Slemer, 2000 North Dubuque Street, said the area was valuable from a natural perspective
and should not be overdeveloped.
Cindy Klosterman, 1925 Meadow Ridge Lane. said the area was extremely beautiful and should
be developed as single-family homes. She said that a stoplight was extremely necessary.
Logsden reaffirmed that erosion could become a problem. Slemer said the area's traffic was
extremely unsafe.
Public discussion dosed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion to defer SUB96-0010, an
application to fezone a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12, High Density Single-Family Residential,
to OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High Density Single-Family Residential, and preliminary
plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval of Meadow Ridge, Part 2, a 4-1or
residential subdivision located on the east side of North Dubuque Street and north of
Bjaysville Lane, to the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting of June 20, 1996.
Bovbjerg asked whether a traffic study should be redone, considering the growth in traffic in the
area. Miklo said that the Commission could include a recommendation when they forwarded the
application to Council.
Jakobsen asked if sidewalks were planned. Miklo said they would be built on Dubuque Street as
part of this project. Starr said he was unsure what the solution to the traffic problem was. He said
that he was on the Committee that had drafted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He noted that the
development seemed to be in compliance with that ordinance. Jakobsen noted that without the
Sensiuve Areas Ordinance. the development could be much denser. Chaa said he agreed with
those who spoke. He noted there had recently been a large amount of developmeat. Miklo noted
the Grading Plan included erosion controls. Bovbjerg asked which entity had jurisdiction over the
entrance and exit ramps to 1-80. Miklo said the State was responsible for maintenance, and that
Iowa City enforced traffic laws. Bovbjerg said rumble strips could be tried.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB95-OO28/SUB95-0029. Public discussion of an application submitted by Lake CaLvin Proper-
ties for final plat approval of Saddlebrook. Part I, a 62.59 acre. tbur-lot subdivtsion and final
s~te plan approval of Saddlebrook. Part 1, Lot 4. a 222-1ot. 40 acre. manut~ctured housing park,
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 1996
Page 6
located south of Highway 6and the Bon AireMobile Home Lodge.(45-day limitation period:
June 10, 1996)
Miklo said staff recommended approval subject to: 1) the inclusion of Heinz Road adjacent to Lot
4 in the final plat, and a financial guarantee for the construction of Heinz Road south of the
entrance to Lot 4 when the lot to the east was developed: 2) a financial guarantee for the con-
struction of sidewalks, which would be necessary as construction would be delayed until the
construction of roads; 3) legal papers speci~,ing that the sidewalks on Lot I and 3 be built at the
time of construction. Miklo said the applicant had presented some alternatives to escrow, and that
the City Attorney's Office had reviewed them.
Holecek said the substance of the document was that if the City agrees not to escrow. Heinz Road
would be platted when there was an7 further development. She said an escrow could be required
at that time. She noted the document did not address the sidewalks along Heinz. Road. She said
construction of the mobile home park would go in phases, moving counter-clockwise. She noted
that sidewalks would be phased in at the same time.
Jakobsen asked what staff recommended. Holecek said staff still recommended escrow. Jakobsen
asked if there were other options. Holecek said a CD or letter of credit would also be acceptable.
She said the record would clearly show that the City was not limiting Lake Calvin's options to
an escrow. Bovbjerg asked if the details of the plan were devised by the applicant. Holecek said
they were. Bovbjerg asked if the three conditions were also still recommended. Holecek said they
were.
Supple asked if staff was unanimous in their recommendation. Holecek said staff agreed on the
recommendation. She said staff did not have authority to allow a waiver. She said the Com-
mission and Council would have to decide it. Starr said he felt political and monetary matters
should go to the Council.
Public discussion.
Jim Miller, 505 East Burlington. said he represented Lake Calvin Properties. He said Lake
Calvin was trying to maintain the affordability of the units. rather than to oppose the staff
recommendation. He said the City was asking for a significant monetary outlay before the area
is developed He said he believed Lake Calvin's proposal was legally binding and enforceable.
He said the developer intended to add tmprovements when development made them necessary.
He said that Lot 4 would not require the road extension, and the east-west arterial which it would
connect to would not be constructed for several years. He said instead of building sidewalks, it
seemed safer to bring the bus route down. or to add a pedestrian path along Highway 6. He said
escrow would overburden the development. and asked the Commission for their help.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to approve SUB96-0028/
SUB96-0029, an application for final plat approval of Saddlebrook, Part 1, and final site
plan approval of Saddlebrook, Part 1, Lot 4, located south of Highway 6 and the Ban Aire
Mobile Home Lodge, subject to I) the inclusion of Heinz Road adjacent to Lot 4 in the final
plat, and a financial guarantee for the construction of Heinz Road south of the entrance to
Lot 4 when the lot to the east is developed; 2) a financial guarantee for the construction of
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 1996
Page 7
sidewalks; and 3) legal papers specifying that the sidewalks on Lots 1 and 3 be built at the
time of construction.
Chair asked if denial of the application would be necessary to remove the conditions. Holecek
said the motion could be amended, or the motion could be denied and a new motion framed. Starr
said the argument against the conditions for the sake of affordable housing made sense. He asked
if there was a precedent for the delay of improvement until development made it necessary. Mildo
said there was a precedent for the use of escrow. Starr said he was willing to find a creative
solution if the matter came down to affordable housing. He said he was unsure whether this
should be a Council decision or not. He said he would vote for the motion as it stood, as he felt
the Commission was looking at infrastructure. Jakobsen said she was willing to send the matter
to Council, as long as the financial guarantees were flexible. Bovbjerg agreed. Char said he was
unclear on the cost of a letter of credit. Holecek said recently it was about 1 1/2 percent of total
COSTS.
Chait asked if both sides of Heinz Road were owned by the applicant. Holecek said they were.
Chait asked if the worst case would be that the City would improve the road and assess the
improvement to Lake Calvin. Holecek said the money could be collected if a lien was put on the
property. She said the City's Engineering Department would rather not be responsible for the
design and construction of Heinz Road.
Supple said the conditions of the motion were an excessive burden the developer. She said she
thought the Commission should vote on the development itself. She indicated she was forced to
vote in the negative due to the retention of the conditions in the motion even though she was in
favor of the development.
The motion was carried by a vote of 3-2, with Chalt and Supple votin~ in the negative,
SUB96-0011/SUB96-0012. Public discussion of a request submitted by Arlington. L.C. for
preliminary plat approval of Windsor Ridge - Part Seven & Eight, a 22.05 acre, 42 lot residential
subdivision, and final plat approval of Windsor Ridge - Part Seven, a 8.75 acre, 17 lot residential
subdivision located in the RS-5. Low Density Single-Family Residential, zone north of American
Legion Road and west of Taft Avenue. (45-day limitation period: June 10, 1996)
Miklo sa~d the preliminary and final plats were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He
said neighborhood open space was being dedicated. He said Part Seven contained 17 lots, and
Part Eight contained 25 lots.
Miklo said staff had some concerns about secondary access on Arhngton Drive. He said the
secondary access guidelines allowed a single means of access for the short term. He said staff
recommended that the final plat approval be subject to the Subdivideifs Agreement specifying that
three years from the time the final plat for Windsor Ridge- Part Seven is approved. no additional
bufiding permits will be issued for Part Seven, no further platting of lots accessing Arlington
Drive will be approved until or unless a permanent means of secondary access ~s constructed for
Arlington Drive: and subject to construction plans and final stormwater calculations being
approved by the Public Works Department and the legal papers being approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to Council consideration of the final p[at
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6,1996
Page 8
Jakobsen asked if three motions would be needed. Miklo said one motion for the preliminary
plats and one for the final plat would be needed. Supple asked Miklo to restate why the condi-
tions were necessary. Miklo said the number of lots required secondary access in the long term.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion to approve SUB96-0011, a
request for preliminary plat approval of Windsor Ridge - Pans Seven & Eight, a 22.05 acre,
42 lot residential subdivision located north of American Legion Road and west of Taft
Avenue, subject to approval of the Grading Plan by the Public Works Depm'tment prior to
Council consideration of the preliminary plat. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
MOTION: Jakobsen moved and Supple seconded the motion to approve SUB96-0012, the
final plat for Windsor Ridge - Part Seven, an 8.75 acre, 17 lot residential subdivision located
in the RS-S zone north of American Legion Road and west of Taft Avenue, subject to the
Suhdivider's Agreement specifying that three years from the time the final plat for Windsor
Ridge - Part Seven is approved, no additional building permits will be issued for Part Seven;
and no further platting of lots accessing Arlington Drive will be approved until or unless a
permanent means of secondary access is constructed for Arlington Drive, and subject to
construction plans and f'mal stormwater calculations being approved by the Public Works
Depmtment and the legal papers being approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to
Council consideration of the final plat. The motion can%d by a vote of 5-0.
SUB96-0013. Public discussion of a request submitted by Oakes Corotruction for preliminary plat
approval of Meadow View Subdivision, a 32.4 acre, 7-1or residential subdivision located in
Johnson County on the west side of Buchmayer Bend at its intersection with Highway 1. (45-day
limitation period: July 1, 1996)
Kugler said that staff had noted that the plat has a number of inconsistencies with the Fringe Area
Agreement and the Johnson County North Corridor Development Plan. He said the applicant had
indicated earlier today that he would like to defer to possibly revise the plan. He said staff
recommended deferral.
MOTION.: Bovbjerg moved and Chait seconded the motion to defer SUB96-0013, an applica-
tion for preliminary plat approval of Meadow View Subdivision, located in Johnson County
on the west side of Buchmayer Bend at its intersection with Highway 1, to the Planning and
Zoning Comnfission's meeting of June 20, 1996. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
VACATION ITEM:
l
VAC96-0001 Public discussion of a request subm,tted by Joel Barkan to vacate a port,on of Lee
Street. an approximate 8.000 square foot undeveloped right-of-way located between Rtver Street
and Otto Street.
Yapp sa~d that due to the steep topography. no street would be built through the r~ght-of-way.
He noted that the applicant used the right-of-way for access to his home He said Barkan received
a special exception in 1995 to build a entryway in the front yard setback area. Yapp said staff
recommended that the vacation be approved, subject to the retention of the storm water sewer
easement and all private utility easements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 1996
Page 9
Bovbjerg asked whether the photographs in the application were taken by Barkan or by staff.
Yapp said the photographs were taken by Barkan, and were from the application for a special
exception.
Public discussion.
Barkan said the pictures had been taken in July of 1995, prior to construction of the entryway.
He said there was a ten foot drop immediately south of the driveway. He said he was concerned
about the retention of easements. Barkan said Mid-American Energy might be content with less
than a blanket easement.
Public discussion dosed,
Starr asked if a smaller easement would be sufficient. Yapp said all of the utilities had requested
the retention of blanket easements. Bovbjerg asked if the easement question affected the motion.
Yapp said it did not.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion to approve VAC96-0001, to
vacate a portion of Lee Street, an approximate 8,000 square foot undeveloped fight-of-way
located between River Street and Otto Street, subject to the retention of the storm water
easement and all private utility easements. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of proposed amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article H, "Industrial Zones," to
allow trucking terminal facilities as provisional uses in the I-1 zone.
Yapp said that a trucking terminal with the accessory use of temporary storage of truck trailers,
good and materials was not currently allowed in the I-I zone. He noted that the amendment
would allow trucking companies to utilize just-in-time shipments in a centralized facility. He said
staff recommended the addition of the definition of "trucking terminal facility" to the definitions
section of the Zoning Chapter and that the I-1 zone be amended to allow trucking terminal
facilities as a provisional use.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion that the definition of "trucking
terminal facility" be added to the definition section of the Zoning Chapter, and that Title
14, Chapter 6, Article H, "Industrial Zones," he amended to allow trucking terminal facili-
ties as provisional uses in the I-1 zone.
Jakobsen asked tf the noise levels of trucks had been considered. Yapp said noise levels were
covered in the Nuisance Chapter of the City Code. Bovbjerg asked how the levels would be
enforced. Yapp said the Department of Housing and Inspection Services would enforce them on
a complaint basis.
The motion can'ied bv a vote of 54).
REVIEW OF THE MAY 16, 1996 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION: Bovbjerg and Jakobsen moved to approve the minutes of the May 16, 1996 meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 1996
Page I0
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Supple suggested that a full staff report might not be necessary at informal meetings. Miklo said that had
been tried in the past. He suggested that staff could present a truncated report. Bovbjerg said that a full
report was still fully necessary at formal meetings. Chalt agreed and said the meeting format was very
productive.
OTHER BUSINESS:
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Chair seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. The
motion was carried bv a vote of 5-0.
Lea Supple, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Jaraes Erwin.
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1996- 7:30 P.M.
ClVlC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I~ GN IN S.~-IEET
N~me
Aclclr¢$$
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
MINUTES
IOWa CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1996- 4:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS .'
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt, Patdcia Eckhardt, Bill Haigh, Tim
Lehman
$1 bject to pp -uval ,
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
None
Melody Rockwell, Sarah Holecek, Jeff Davidson, Jeff Hating
Thomas Nicknash, Gene Kroeger, Don Vrchoticky, Chuck Mullen,
Chalmers (Bump) Elliot, Nancy Lynch, Albert Hood, Jean Hood,
Jacob Sines, John Delaney. Nancy Seiberling
Chairperson Eckhardt called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
All members were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 8, 1996, MINUTES:
MOTION; Haigh moved to approve the minutes of the May 8, 1996, meeting of the Board
of Adjustment, as printed. Bender seconded. The motion carried on a vote of $-0,
SPECIAL EXCEPTION iTEMS:
1 EXC96-0008. Public headrig on an application submitted by Towncrest Internal Medi-
cine for a special exception to permit a reduction in the off-street parking requirement
for property located in the CO-1, Commercial Office, zone at 2440-2460 Towncrest
Drive.
Rockwell said Towncrest Internal Medicine plans to remodel its current facility at 2460
Towncrest Drive, purchase the adjacent property to the west, 2440 Towncrest Drive,
which contains a dermatology clinic, and convert the basement of the dermatology
building from a storage area into offices for support staff. A corridor connecting the two
buildings ~s planned as part of the renovations. The number of off-street parking spaces
required for the medical clinics/offices at 2440-2460 Towncrest Drive once the renova-
tions are complete is 115 parking spaces; 96 spaces for the exisbng dimcs/offices and
19 for the new office space m the basement of the dermatology building. Only 92
parking spaces can be provided on-site. The applicant is 23 parking spaces short of
meeting the on-site parking requirement, and requests a 20% reducbon in the parking
requirement.
Rockwell said the applicant had conducted a survey of available on-sRe parking spaces
to demonstrate that there is sufficient parking for the existing and proposed medical
dimc use of the internal medicine and dermatology buildings The survey indicates that
there are an average of 32 parking spaces available on both properties during business
Board of Adjustment
June 12, 1996
Page 2
hours, and dudng peak usage periods, an average of 20-21 spaces are available ~n mid-
morning and an average of 22 parking spaces are free in the mid-afternoon.
Rockwell said that based on the number of excess spaces available for parking on the
2440-2460 Towncrest Drive properties and the trend that medical clinics require more
space to store medical records and equipment, Towncrest Internal Medicine contends
that the 92 on-site parking spaces will provide sufficient parking capacity to serve the
clients and staff of the renovated and expanded clinic for Internal Medicine as well as
the Dermatology Clinic.
Rockwell said the Board will need to weigh whether the medical clinic renova-
tion/expansion will result in an increased demand for parking over and above the
amount of parking that is practically available on the two properties. There appears to
be an excess of parking spaces available on-site to serve any additional patients and
staff generated by the expansion. However, some of the existing parking spaces are
marginal in terms of location and design. If the Board determines that a parking reduc-
tion is warranted in this case, staff recommends that the reduction be tied specifically
to this medical clinic/office use, because conversion of the building to other uses
permitted in the CO-1 zone may generate a higher parking demand than a medical
clinic.
Rockwell said if the Board finds that the parking reduction is warranted, staff recom-
mends that EXC96-0008, a special exception to reduce the parking requirements by
20% from 115 parking spaces to 92 parking spaces for property located in the CO-1
zone at 2440-2460 Towncrest Ddve be approved, subject to the Board's decision
applying only to medical clinic use of the properties as proposed by Towncrest Internal
Medicine in May 1996.
Haigh asked whether the parking requirements have become more stnngent since the
building was first constructed. Rockwell said yes. Lehman asked if existing parking
was grandfathered in. Rockwell said yes.
Public hearing:
Thomas R. Nickrash, 2460 Towncrest Drive, speaking on behalf of Towncrest Internal
Medicine, referred to page three, paragraph four of the staff report, which refers to the
alley parking, and sa~d as Towncrest Internal Medicine is the owner of the alley, what
is the justification for the statement that these spaces may not always be useable.
Rockwell sa~d staff had observed delivery trucks in the alley making deliveries to an
adjoining commercial property, and on occasion these trucks would block access to
these parkre§ spaces. Nicknish said then Towncrest Internal Medicine could close the
alley and make that parking accessible only to Towncrest Internal Medicine clients and
employees. Rockwell said staff had been advised that neighboring property owners
share an easement over the "alley," a private drive.
Brandt asked whether the stipulation that approval of a parking reduction be subject to
the property remaining a medical clinic/office use ~s of concern to Towncrest Internal
Medicine Nicknish said Towncrest Internal Medicine ~ntends to own the building for a
long time to come and the stipulation would not be a problem.
Board of Adjustment
June 12. 1996
Page 3
Public hearing closed,
MOTION: Haigh moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0008,
a special exception to reduce the parking requirements by 20% from 1'15 parking
spaces to 92 parking spaces for property located in the CO-'I zone at 2440°2460
Towncrest Drive, subject to the Board's decision applying only to a medical clinic
use of the properties as proposed by Towncrest Internal Medicine in May 1996.
Haigh said the changes in use are minimal. The lower level of the dermatology clinic
has been used previously as an office space and it will continue to be used as an office
space. Haigh said he doesn't envision that the parking needs will change all that much;
it's mainly a reorganization of space in the buildings, not an expansion. Haigh referred
to Nicknish's statement that medical staff has been reduced at the clinic. He felt parking
for the site is more than adequate and he would vote to approve the request.
Brandt said he feels the request should be approved for similar reasons. He also felt
it was important to have the stipulation that the exception was subject to the use of the
properties remaining a medical clinic use.
Lehman said he agrees with the staff recommendation and will support the request.
Bender said she concurs with her colleagues. Bender said the general standards as
applied to the request are adequately met. Bender said based on her own observations
and those of staff, she felt the parking available on site would be more than adequate.
She said the Board has the dght to approve up to a 50% reduction, and this request
only asks for a 20% reduction in required parking. Bender said she appreciates the
stipulation that the exception be tied to the current medical clinic use. She also felt the
clinic provided an ~mportant community health service, and the renovations of the
budding should help make delivery of that service more efficient
Eckhardt sa~d she agrees w~th her colleagues and will vote to approve the request.
The motion carried $-0
EXC96-0009. Public headng on an application submitted by Dick Smiego, on behalf of
property owners Chades and Ettajane Curl. for a special exception to pertort a dwelling
unit above a ground floor commercial use ,n the C0-2 zone.
Rockwell said the applicant is requesbng a special excepbon to establish a second-
story. three-bedroom apartment above a commercial use on property located in the
Commumty Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1114 N. Dodge Street. If the Board grants the
requested exception. the applicant intends to remove the existing residential structure
from the property. and construct a two-story building with office/retad uses on the ground
floor and one apartment above
Rockwell said the density does not exceed one dwelhng unit per 1,800 square feet of
lot area; the lot area is 10,500 square feet. and only one dwelling unit is proposed.
Rockwell said eleven off-street parking spaces are required for the commercial use and
two parking spaces are required for one three-bedroom apartment on this property, for
Board of Adjustment
June 12,1996
Page 4
a total off-street parking requirement of 13 parking spaces. The site plan submitted by
the applicant shows 14 off-street parking spaces,
In terms of suitability, Rockwell said the existing uses along the south side of Dodge
Street in this area are conducive to a mix of commercial/residential uses. However, the
dairy located in the Highway Commercial zone across Dodge Street to the north has
heady industrial impacts on nearby residents in terms of noise and truck traffic. The site
plan for the proposed residential/commercial structure shows the building set back more
than 80 feet from the Dodge Street right-of-way, and indicates landscaping along the
Dodge Street frontage as well as the side lot lines. These factors will temper the
impacts of the dairy on the residential unit, but will not eliminate them.
Rockwell cautioned that the property had not been surveyed recently. She said if the
lot width or length is less than estimated and the development is not able to comply with
the Zoning Chapter regulations, such as setbacks, screening or parking requirements,
a building permit cannot be issued. Rockwell said if the Board decides to allow a
dwelling unit to be established on the 1114 Dodge Street property, staff recommends
that it be approved subject to the development complying with Zoning Chapter regula-
tions.
Rockwell said the applicant's site plan shows a twelve foot right-of-way to be acquired
by the City to accommodate the Dodge Street reconstruction and installation of side-
walks and utilities. In effect, the applicant has set aside the future right-of-way; no
development is proposed on that portion of the applicant's property. The proposed
development does not, therefore, contravene the arterial street system plan for Dodge
Street that is set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC96-0009, a request for a special exception to
permit one second-story dwelling unit to be established above a ground floor commer-
cial use for property located in the CC-2 zone at 1114 N. Dodge Street, subject to the
development complying with Zoning Chapter regulations, including setback, screening
and parking requirements.
Haigh asked for clarification on the parking requirements for apartments with two, three
or four bedrooms. Haigh asked if the Board's decision should specify that the apart-
ment have a maximum of three bedrooms. Rockwell said that provision could be
added. She sa~d due to the area dimensional parking requirements, the applicant would
be more likety to have a less intensive use of the apartment rather than increasing the
number of bedrooms ~n the apartment.
Public hearing:
Gene Kroeqer, representative of the applicant, pointed out that the applicant has met
all of the necessary standards to date and understands he must continue to meet the
standards in order to receive a building permit. He asked for the Board's support of this
applicahon.
Don Vrchotick¥, 1030 St. Clement's, sa~d at the present t~me, there are four residential
dwelling units and one business on Dodge Street near St. Clement's Alley, which is a
very narrow, unpaved street, and already receives more traffic than was ever rotended.
Board of Adjustment
June 12,1996
Page 5
Vmhoticky asked what will be put in place to keep the residents of the proposed apart-
ment or clients of the business from parking on St. Clement's. Vrchoticky wondered
whether the three bedroom apartment can reduced to a two-bedroom unit. He said he
is all too familiar with the way college students pack them in and bdng all their cars as
well. He noted that his mother, Mrs. Vrchoticky. and a neighboring resident, Jim Goss,
were present tonight as well.
Eckhardt wondered whether St. Clement's was a public street, and if so, why it is not
paved and does not have curbs. She wondered whether some dead-end, no parking,
or alternating parking signs might help the situation. Vrchoticky mentioned a section of
a recent City of Iowa City newsletter that refers to the City parking code. He said if the
highway (N. Dodge Street) is expanded and requires an additional twelve feet of
easement, the parking is likely to be in violation of the Code.
Kroeger wished to point out that the dwelling unit is intended for the personal use of Mr.
Smiego, himself, when he is in town from Chicago to attend various Hawkeye sporting
events. Vrchoticky said he is concerned should Smiego sell the property.
Public hearing closed.
MOTION: Bender moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC96*
000.9., a special exception to permit one second-story dwelling unit with a maxi-
mum of three bedrooms to be established above a ground floor commercial use
for property located in the CC-2 zone at '1'1'14 N. Dodge Street, subject to the
development complying with Zoning Chapter regulations, including setback,
screening and parking requirements.
Eckhardt said she had some misgivings about approving the request in th~s neighbor-
hood, but as she drove through the area she noticed a number of businesses are
already in place. She also noted that the area is zoned commercial so she felt more
comfortable in approving the request. Eckhardt said the applicant seems to be taking
extra measures, such as ample setbacks and screening, to fit the development nicely
onto the site.
Brandt said he can sympathize with Vrchoticky because he [Brandt] lives in an older
residential area that is constantly under the threat of encroaching development. He said
the Board is not in the zoning business; the dwelling unit is the point of the exception,
and ~t may actually have a moderating effect on what happens. Brandt said he would
find the request more acceptable if the owners were to live on-site, but said the request
would appear to have a minimal effect on its surroundings and, therefore. he finds it
reasonable to approve.
Lehman sa~d as long as the developer is in compliance w~th all the necessary zoning
regulations, he was in favor of approwng this request.
Haigh noted that regardless of whether the dwelling unit is approved, a business could
still be placed on site. Haigh said the effect of one, three-bedroom apartment is likely
to be minimal, whereas, the businesses are likely to have a much larger day-to-day
~mpact on the parking s~tuation. Haigh sa~d he finds the request acceptable if it is
limited to a three-bedroom apartment.
Board of Adjustment
June 12,1996
Page 6
Bender sa~d the request is for use that is permitted in this zone, and the application is
subject to compliance with all zoning and code regulations. Bender said she was
pleased to see the setbacks, landscaping and screening noted on the site plan. She
felt the neighbors wdl eventually accept the proposed use, especially considenng what
may have developed on the site without special exception review. Bender suggested
that the residents look into some signage for St. Clement's to prevent inappropriate
parking, but she didn't envision spillover parking resulting from approval of one, three-
bedroom apartment for this site.
The motion carried 5-0.
EXC96-0010. Public heanng on an application submitted by P.J.I.A., L.C., ~n behalf of
property owner CRANDIC Railway Company, for three special exceptions to: 1) permit
a restaurant use, 2) allow a reduction in required off-street parking, and 3) permit
parking on a separate lot for property located in the CO-1, Commercial Office, zone at
2 Rocky Shore Ddve.
Rockwell said the applicant proposes conversion of the former Gazette office to a pizza
carryout/delivery restaurant with no eating area. Three special exceptions are request-
ed. First, a restaurant is only permitted to be established in the CO-1 zone by special
exception; Board of Adjustment review is required. Second, the applicant requests that
the off-street parking requirement for the carryout/delivery restaurant be reduced by
50%. Because some of the parking is to be provided within the adjacent railread right-
of-way, the applicant also needs to receive a special exception to permit parking on a
separate lot.
Rockwell said a restaurant may be established in the CO-1 zone by special exception.
The Board is asked to determine ~f the restaurant use, as proposed, promotes the public
health, safety and general welfare, encourages the most appropriate use of the land,
and is compatible w~th the intent of the CO-1 zone. The restaurant is proposed to be
located at a high traffic ~ntersection. Because of concerns about extremely high acci-
dent rates along Highway 6, the Iowa Department of Transportation closed a curb
cut/driveway entrance through condemnation proceedings on the property ~mmediately
west across Rocky Shore Drive from the proposed p~zza restaurant site.
Rockwell sa~d a m~n~mum of 194 vehicle tnps were expected per day from the proposed
Papa John's site. Although a Papa John's store may not be as intensive a use aS the
typical fast food restaurant, it ~s likely to be more intensive than other uses permitted by
nght ~n the CO-1 zone, such as a similarly-sized office or medical climc. Tnp generation
rates from these office uses, which are permitted by right m the CO-1 zone. are 42 to
81 5 percent lower than the proposed restaurant use Additionally, fewer vehicle tnps
are hkely to be generated in the evening or on weekends by an office or clinic use.
Rockwell said the recently constructed ~mprovements to H~ghway 6 west of Rocky Shore
Drive ~mproved the safety of the corridor, but did not relieve the level of traffic delay.
High delays are stdl experienced, especially at the s~gnalized ~ntersections. Adding
~ncreased traffic volume and turning vehicles at Rocky Shore Drive wdl further deterio-
rate traffic service ~n the corddor At times of the day when higher traffic volumes
prevail, dnvers of vehicles exiting the Papa John's site will have difficulty turning left and
safely entenng the traffic stream due to a queue of vehicles on Rocky Shore Drive that
Board of Adjustment
June 12, 1996
Page 7
routinely extends past the driveway on the Papa John's site. Ddvers turning left from
this site may also experience some sight distance limitations created by the railroad
embankment to the north. Ddvers exiting from 2 Rocky Shore Drive may turn dght to
avoid the congestion at the intersection, resulting in some commercial traffic being
diverted through a residential neighborhood to the north. If there is an overlap of rush
hour or special event traffic with the peak business pedods for the proposed Papa
John's store, the additional traffic congestion and turning vehicles at this intersection
could decrease the level of safety achieved with the Highway 6 improvements.
The applicant proposes to provide 13 parking spaces, and requests a 50% reduction in
the off-street parking requirements for the proposed restaurant. In staffs view, the 13
parking spaces are likely to be sufficient for the proposed carryout/delivery restaurant.
If there are times when parking demand exceeds the amount of parking provided, the
problem will pdmadly impact the applicant's operation. In staff's view, the reduction in
the parking requirement is warranted only if it is specifically tied to a Papa John's
carryoutJdelivery pizza operation.
In regard to the exception requested for parking on a separate lot, Rockwell said six
parking spaces are proposed within the adjacent railroad right-of-way. An easement
agreement is required and will need to be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to verify
that the easement is a written agreement, propedy executed by the owner, assudng the
retention of the parking spaces, and is binding upon ',heir successors and assigns as
a covenant that runs with the land. Since there is no physical separation of the parking
spaces from the parking area, there should be no safety problems associated with
parking on a separate lot as proposed.
Rockwell said the public safety could be negatively impacted by the proposed restau-
rant. An office or clinic use would be more appropriate and reasonable for the location,
because those uses generate less traffic. The applicant does, however, intend to
upgrade and pave the parking area, providing frontage trees and renovating the build-
ing. Such an upgrade would increase the taxes accruing to the City, and improve the
appearance of the s~te. Staff feels that a reasonable use should be permitted on the
property, but a use that increases vehicular usage of an entrance/exit ddveway located
in prex~mity to the Highway 6/Rocky Shore Ddve intersection may not be adwsable.
Rockwell said that staff recommends that EXC96-0010, a request for three special
exceptions to permit a pizza carryout delivery restaurant use to be established in the
CO-1 zone at 2 Rocky Shore Drive be denied. Although the standards for a parking
reduction and allowing parking on a separate lot may be met, allowing a restaurant, a
fairly intensive commercial use, to be established m an area where there are serious
traffic safety concerns and where traffic congestion ~s experienced on a da~ly basrs, is
not adwsable in staffs wew.
Rockwell added that the Board has received photocopies of a number of letters that had
been received in the office concerning the request, and said that she had received a
number of telephone calls, as well. Letters were received from the following: Margaret
and William Nusser, Jean and Albert Hood, Mary Winhey, Mrs. H L. Dean, Chalmers
"Bump" and Barb Elliott, and Nancy and Richard Lynch.
Board of Adjustment
June 12, 1996
Page 8
Rockwell said telephone calls were received from the following persons: Margaret
Nusser expressed her concern about traffic, lighting and noise. Jean Hood expressed
concerns about traffic and safety. Mrs. Richard DeGowin, who was unable to attend the
meeting, felt that Rocky Shore Drive is extremely busy. She sa~d it is often dangerous
now to access Rocky Shore Ddve. The DeGowins would prefer not to have a restau-
rant w~th high business activity located at the proposed site. Parking in an area that
contains a major storm sewer was also questioned. Mrs. DeGowin also questioned why
the particular site was selected, when there are many other locations available along
Highway 6 that have parking available. Barbara Elliott raised concern about heavy
traffic and safe access on and off the proposed property. Lester Lockhart, III, inquired
into what the request entailed and noted that he would attend the meeting. Lenora
Hale, of Black Spdngs Circle expressed her doubts about the request. She said she
and her husband feel the selected site is poor and that the business will only add more
congestion to the traffic situation. Anna Mary Mueller. whose residence is located at
1105 Dill Street on the top of the hill above the proposed site, said she feels that what
happens to properties on Highway 6 affects their property. She and her husband
Charles assumed that the restaurant would add to traffic that is already so congested
that it is easier now to get to Highway 6 from Dill Street by ddving through the conges-
tion associated with the University of Iowa Hospitals complex than to drive through the
Rocky Shore Dnve/Highway 6 intersection. She felt the pizza business would detract
from the quiet, park-like atmosphere along Rocky Shore Ddve, because of the traffic
and noise at night and on weekends. Office use of the site would be more desirable
as offices are generally quiet on weekends and at night. Mueller felt it would be ex-
tremely difficult to access Highway 6 from the site. Mueller also felt the proposed use
would detract from the enjoyment and value of her property. Nancy Seiberling, of Black
Springs Circle, felt the pizza establishment would be a totally inappropriate business at
the proposed location, because the intersect]on has an enormously complicated traffic
pattern. Seiberling felt the site ~s obviously not large enough for the type of business
proposed. The site should be left for either a smaller business, or converted into a
green space that would serve as an entryway into Iowa City Phyllis Braverman, 1005
River Street, called to express her opposition to the proposal, stahng that the increased
traffic would be a problem where access is already a problem. She said she and her
husband Dick are opposed to the restaurant on Ihese grounds and felt that it would be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
Jeff Davidson, Semor Transportation Planner clarified that the accident rate for the
corridor of Highway 6 between Rocky Shore Drive and First Avenue was the pnnciple
rationale that the Iowa DOT used in granting funding for the recently completed im-
provements in th~s corridor. Lehman pointed out there ~s no nght turn on red onto
H~ghway 6 from Rocky Shore Dnve, and questioned the reasoning for th~s. Davidson
felt this ~s related to the short time period allowed for pedestrian crossing, and no turn
on red is ~ntended to allow pedestrians more t~me to cross the intersection Davidson
sa~d without the no right turn on red, the stream of vehicles making the right turn would
be nearly endless
Public hearing:
Chuck Mullen, 321 East Market Street, counsel for Papa John's Pizza, noted that Tom
Carras, a manager for P J.I.A, L.C., was also on hand. Mullen sa~d the staff report is
favorable for the most part with traffic concerns being the ma~n point of contention
Board of Adjustment
June 12, 1996
Page 9
Mulien pointed out that according to the Iowa City zoning map, this ~s the only CO-1
zoned site in this area of the city. The adjoining property to the west is zoned CH-1 and
if that zoning were carried through to the subject property, Mullen said we would not
necessarily be meeting tonight. Mullen said this appears to be spot-zoning. Mullen said
this zoning also affects uses for the site; to have CH-1 zoning all up and down the strip,
and then expect a medical or clinical use right next door, is a little too much to expect.
Mullen said the site is isolated from the residential area by the railroad embankment,
which provides bermed screening.
Mullen said the site would fit Papa John's scheme of things. There would be no sit-
down eating area, rather they cater to a carryoutJdelivery clientele. There would not be
the litter often associated with quasi-fast food restaurants. Papa John's do not have any
outside speakers, so the noise level would be minimal. Lighting would be downcast, as
is required by Code. Mullen said ultimately, the question comes down to permitting a
restaurant in a zone where it is permitted by special exception.
In regard to traffic concerns, Mullen referred to the vehicle tnp generation rates stated
by staff for uses permitted by right in the CO-1 zone. He said Papa John's doesn't
contest these figures, but noted that an additional 80 vehicle tdps per day produced by
the Papa John's restaurant would effectively add less than one-half of one percent to
the traffic count on Rocky Shore Ddve. Mullen felt this increase was negligible, certainly
not an undue burden, or a significantly greater safety hazard. Mullen wished to point
out that Park Road/Rocky Shore Ddve is listed as an artedal street and that a four lane
bddge was constructed over the river to carp/Park Road/Rocky Shore Ddve traffic. He
said it is his understanding that arterials are designed to carry heavy traffic loads.
Mullen did not feel that traffic that is diverted northward on Rocky Shore Ddve because
of queuing problems would revert to ddving through a residential area. He felt this
traffic would remain instead on Rocky Shore Drive.
Mullen wished to point out that what currently exists on the site is an eye sore, and said
that Papa John's expected to spend m excess of $100,000 in bu~!ding and site improve-
ments. In this process, the building size would be reduced. Encroachments into the
highway right-of-way will be removed. All-m-all, a more attractive site will result, one
that will be compatible with what already exists along Highway 6.
In short. Mullen sa~d because of its shape, this is a very difficult s~te to develop. There
~s only one access to and from the site, and there ~s no access directly onto Highway
6. Mullen pointed out that the site ~s zoned commercial and restaurant uses are permit-
ted by special exception in this zone. He sa~d ~t all seems to come down to whether the
use will substantially increase the traffic level, such that ~t endangers the public health,
safety and welfare. Mullen said 80 vehicle trips per day more than for another permitted
use does not seem substantial, especially considenng the total current traffic counts at
that totersection.
Brandt asked whether the reason to have a carryout/delivery pizza operation, as op-
posed to a sit-down restaurant, was based on the lack of parking. Mullen said he was
actually surpnsed to learn that the amount of parking spaces required for a carryout
restaurant are double that of a sit-down restaurant (1 parking space per 50 square feet
for carryout versus 1 parking space per 100 square feet for a sit-down restaurant).
Mullen said it has been the experience of Papa John's restaurant to need only 8-10
Board of Adjustment
June 12, 1996
Page 10
spaces, but 13 spaces would be required on this site if the Board grants a 50% reduc-
tion in the required parking. Brandt said he feels the traff~c issue is more a concern with
access to and from the site. rather than traffic numbers on Rocky Shore Ddve or
Highway 6. Mullen agreed, but said this will likely be more of a problem for Papa John's
than anyone else. Brandt asked whether Papa John's makes any guarantees on its
delivery time. Mullen said no. By law, delivery time can no longer be guaranteed by
any corporation for public safety reasons.
Chalmers "Bumo" Elliott, 1127 Dill Street, said he speaks for the neighborhood resi-
dents, many of whom are present. Elliott said the neighborhood feels a restaurant at
this intersection poses a sedous threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Elliott
said he has lived in a residence near the present site for twenty-five years, yet he has
never seen the traffic heavier than it is at the present. Elliott said due to the no dght
turn on red for traffic turning dght onto Highway 6 from Rocky Shore Drive, queuing up
on Rocky Shore Ddve is a particular problem. This traffic often backs up as far as three
blocks and takes several light changes to get through the intersection. Because of this,
Elliott feels it is inevitable that Papa John's delivery ddvers, among others, will be forced
to turn right onto Rocky Shore Drive and then use Dill Street as a quick means of
access to all points south and east, via the Veteran's Hospital bndge over Highway 6.
Elliott said Dill Street is hilly, narrow and winding, and has no side walks. All these
factors make it particularly ill-suited for primarily young, pizza delivery ddvers. Elliott
also pointed out that the sight line looking north from the Papa John's site is minimal as
a result of the railroad embankment. He said this poses a safety threat should the
driver look the other way for an instant while pulling out, because the lanes are narrow.
As far as the zoning goes, Elliott said the zoning is different to the west because there
are no adjacent residential properties on the west side of the dyer. He said the resi-
dents would prefer to keep commercial activity west of Rocky Shore Drive.
Nancy Lynch, 20 South Rocky Shore Drive, whose residence is directly north of the
railroad embankment, said the State DOT was concerned enough about access to and
from Rocky Shore Ddve and Highway 6, to have access to Rocky Shore Ddve from the
property on the northwest corner of this intersection closed through condemnation.
Lynch said she was formerly a traffic engineer for the State of Missouri, and wished to
point out that the road narrows very quickly and traffic tends to bottleneck north of the
intersection, because of the railroad embankment. Someone turning right onto Rocky
Shore Drive and being suddenly confronted with someone pulling out of the proposed
Papa John's site has nowhere to go but forward or to veer into oncoming traffic, be-
cause the lanes are very narrow at this point. Lynch stated her concerns about the
potential use of Dill Street and River Street by p~zza delivery drivers, and pointed out
that both of these streets run along Lincoln Elementary School playgrounds, which have
crossing guards only during school hours. Lynch said the Coralville stnp should end in
Coralville She expressed her concerns about lighting, no~se and pollution.
Albert Hood, 26 Rock,/ Shore Drive, sa~d the traffic queue at the Rocky Shore
Drive/Highway 6 totersection ~s six to e~ght cars long on a regular bas~s, and often much
more than this due to its proximity to the University, Hancher, or because of little league
games m the park. etc. In regard to the sight line looking north from the access drive
on the subject site, Hood sa~d two cars, tops, are wsible north of the railroad embank-
ment, and went on to dlustrate a number of possible scenarios a dehvery driver might
take in this situation: few options were beneficial to the public health, welfare and safety.
Board of Adjustment
June 12.1996
Page 11
Jean Hood, 26 Rocky Shore Dnve, said the staff report had stated that most deliveries
would occur after 6:00 p.m., and said that as they have had a number of occasions to
view the traffic while hawrig dinner on their deck, they have noted that traffic is usually
backed up to Dill Street or further as late as 6:30-7:30 p.m. Hood also expressed
concern that most delivery ddvers are young ddvers, who don't always use the best
judgement. She said as a mother, she is concerned for the safety of these young
people as well as for other effected drivers at this intersection.
Jacob Sines, 207 Black Sprinqs Circle, said in regard to MulJen's statement that a very
small increase in traffic will likely result, there is already an over-threshold volume of
traffic. If any change were to be made, it should be a reduction in the traffic levels.
Sines also reiterated concerns about the likely use of Dill Street and River Street by
pizza delivery vehicles, and noted that many of the homes along River Street, in particu-
lar, are smaller and are homes where small children reside.
John Delaney, 102 Rocky Shore Drive, said that he must often pick up trash from his
front lawn before he can mow the lawn, and said the trash will likely increase with the
addition of the restaurant. In regard to the traffic levels for permitted uses versus the
requested use, Delaney sa~d that 80 vehicle trips per day added on top of what is
currently permitted by nght nearly triples the traffic count from this site alone. Delaney
said the concern is not necessarily the number of vehicle tdps per day. but where these
tdps originate in relation to the intersection and the bottlenecking effect on this portion
of the road. Delaney said he ~s not opposed to use of the s~te, but said he does not feel
a pizza delivery business is a reasonable use of the site.
Nancy Seiberling, 209 Black Sprin.qs Circle, asked that the City consider purchasing the
site to be used as a green space that would welcome those entering Iowa City, as this
point is the main western access to town. Seiberling noted the space can complement
the large, natural. wooded area located on the southeast corner of this intersection.
Public hearing closed.
MOTION: Lehman moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC95-
0010, a request for three special exceptions: 1) to allow a carryout/delivery
restaurant with a maximum floor area of 1,349 square feet to be established, 2)
to reduce the required off-street parking for the carryout/delivery restaurant by
50% from 26.9 parking spaces to 13.45 {13) parking spaces, and 3) to permit six
parking space to be located on a separate lot that is adjacent railroad right-of-way
for property located in the CO-1 zone at 2 Rocky Shore Drive.
Brandt sa~d he has real concerns about having a p~zza carryout/delivery business on
th~s s~te, and all of the arguments against th~s proposal have solidified these concerns.
He sa~d the reason for rewew of certain uses through the special exception process is
to address the problems of impacts of more intensive uses, such as the pizza restau-
rant. Brandt sa~d the ~ntersecbon is very difficult to traverse Brandt said he feels the
exceptions would be too extreme and that there are potential problems with the site.
Brandt sa~d the lot is different from the lots on the Highway 6 frontage west of Rocky
Shore Drwe He felt there would be traffic difficulbes even w~th an office use on the site:
a p~zza restaurant was too intensive a use for th~s property
Board of Adjustment
June 12, 1996
Page 12
Haigh said he does not have any trouble with the proposed restaurant, per se, or the
parking reduction or the off-site parking, but said he has reservations about the restau-
rant use tied into the specific traffic situation, the difficulty of traversing the intersection
safely, and the potential health, safety and welfare threat to the surrounding neighbor-
hood. Haigh expressed further concern about an even greater traffic problem after the
new mall is in place west of this site on Highway 6.
Lehman thanked the neighbors for taking the time to express their opimons on this item.
Lehman stated his concern about the public safety impacts of the proposed restaurant
especially in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Lehman realized there were
long waits at the intersection already, and it is a nuisance to wait. People can then get
frustrated and take dsks. He said there were better sites for a pizza place than this
location near the Rocky Shore Drive/Highway 6 intersection.
Bender concurred with her colleagues and added that in examining special exceptions
the Board must take into consideration the standards, including public health, safety and
welfare. Bender said she shared grave concerns about the impact of the business on
safety for children at Lincoln Elementary School and its playgrounds. Bender expressed
concerns about the difficulty for pedestrians trying to cross the Highway 6/Rocky Shore
Ddve intersection. She was also concerned about vehicles turning from vadous direc-
tions, the narrow lanes, the backed up traffic, and the limited sight line. She pointed out
that congestion exists at this intersection, and cannot in good conscience be ignored.
Bender said the Board does not wish to deny reasonable use of the property, but there
are uses that would blend better with the surrounding neighborhood. Bender said the
CO-1 zone exists, in this instance, to serve as a buffer between the more intensive
commercial zones on the one hand, and the residential on the other. Bender said the
194 minimum number of vehicle trips per day expected for the pizza restaurant con-
ceres her. She stressed that these figures represented a minimum number of vehicle
tdps per day, and in all probability the vehicle tdps per day would be more than the
m~nimum.
Eckhardt sa~d this is not a vote against the Papa John's franchise, although she was
curious as to why they would be interested in this location. Eckhardt added she, too,
would personally like to see the lot revert to green space, but said this is not the job of
th~s Board. Eckhardt said she feels the traffic would be too extreme and would simply
add to an existing problem.
The motion was defeated on a vote of 0-5.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Eckhardt said she wdl be absent in July. Ha~gh said he will be absent ~n August.
OTHER BUSINESS:
There was none.
Boa~ of Adjustment
June 12,1996
Page 13
ADJOURNMENT:
Haigh moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
The motion carried unanimously.
Bender seconded the motion to adjourn.
Patdcia Eckhardt, Board Chairperson
Minutes submitted by Jeff Haring.
SIGN IN SHEET
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1996 - 4:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2.
3,
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Name
ss
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
d
MINUTES
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Subject to ApproYal
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait, Richard Gibson, Jane Jakobsen,
George Starr, Lea Supple
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Tom Scott
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Holecek, Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Melody Rockwell, James
Erwin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of SUB96-0014, an application for final plat
approval of Galway Hills, Part Three, a 21.29 acre, 55-1ot residential subdivision located south
of Galway Drive and east of Highway 218 subject to the following prior to City Council
consideration: 1 ) the approval of legal papers by the City Attorney's office; 2) the approval
of construction drawings by Public Works; and 3) the adjustment of easements on the plat
as necessary, based on the review of the construction drawings.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0-1, with Gibson abstaining, of REZ96-0011/SUB96-
001.0., an application to rezone a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12, High Density Single-Family
Residential, to OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High Density Single-Family Residential, and
preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval of Meadow Ridge, Part 2, a
4-1or residential subdivision located on the east side of North Dubuque Street and north of
Bjaysville Lane.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of amendments to T~tle 14. Chapter 6, Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones," Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone (CO-
1 )," to allow small-animal clinics ~n the C0-1 zone by special exception, subject to the removal
of the limitation on the number of animals that can be boarded overnight.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Section 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete specific regulation of "pohtical signs," and to amend
regulations applicable to all temporary signs, ~ncluding political signs.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
There were none.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 2
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB96-0013. Public discussion of an application submitted by Oakes Construction for
preliminary plat approval of Meadow View Subdivision, a 32.4 acre, 7-lot residential
subdivision located in Johnson County on the west side of Buchmayer Bend at its
intersection with Highway 1. (45-day limitation period: July 1, 1996)
Kugler said that the applicant asked that the application be deferred to the July 18
meeting.
Public discussion.
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to defer SUB96-0013,
an application for preliminary plat approval of a 32.4 acre, 7-1or residential subdivision,
to the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting of July 18, 1996. The motion was
carried by a vote of 6-0.
SUB96-0014. Public discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Ltd. for final
plat approval of Galway Hills, Part Three, a 21.29 acre, 53-1ot residential subdivision
located south of Galway Drive, east of Highway 218. (45-day limitation period: July
15, 1996)
Kugler said the revised plat was in compliance with the subdivision regulations. He
noted Public Works indicated that easements may have to be adjusted based on the
review of construction drawings. He said construction drawings had not yet been
approved. Kugler said Outlot Three was to be dedicated as open space. He said the
applicant is proposing an escrow for the construction of the trail until the City complet-
ed the Willow Creek trail. He said staff agreed that this was an appropriated way to
handle it, given that the willow creek trail will be constructed in 1997. He noted the
subdivision meets the City's secondary access guidelines, but any further development
would require a secondary access to either Galway Drive or an arterial street. He said
staff recommended approval subject to the following prior to Council consideration: 1 )
the approval of legal papers by the City Attorney's office; 2) the approval of construc-
bon drawings by Public Works; and 3) the adjustment of easements on the plat as
necessary based on the rewew of the construction drawings.
Jakobsen asked if the motion should include a restriction on further development.
Kugler said that language was included mainly to make the apphcant aware that further
development would be in violation of the secondary access guidelines. Bovbjerg asked
what Public Works was reviewing. Kugler said the construction drawings indicate the
location and depth of the storm and sanitary sewer lines. If they change, the ease-
ments may need to be changed to reflect this.
Public discussion.
There was none.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 3
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Gibson moved and Supple seconded the motion to approve SUB96-0014,
an application for final plat approval of Galway Hills, Part Three, a 21.29 acre, 55-1ot
residential subdivision located south of Galway Drive and east of Highway 218 subject
to the following prior to Council consideration: 1) the approval of legal papers by the
City Attorney's office; 2) the approval of construction drawings by Public Works; and
3) the adjustment of easements on the plat as necessary based on a review of the
construction drawings. The motion was carried bva vote of 6-0.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
REZ96-0009/SUB96-0007. Public discussion of an application submitted by Southgate
Development Company, Inc., to rezone a 1.8 acre tract from RS-8, Medium Density
Single-Family Residential, to OSA-8, Sensitive Areas Overlay, and approval of a
preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat for the resubdivision
of Lots 3 and 4 of the Henry F. Bird Addition, a seven-lot residential subdivision
located on the south side of Benton Street and west of Miller Avenue.
Starr indicated that the applicant requested an indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Gibson moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to indefinitely defer
REZ96-0009/SUB96-0007, an application to rezone a 1.8 acre tract from RS-8,
Nledium Density Single-Family Residential, to OSA-8, Sensitive Areas Overlay, and
approval of a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat for the
resubdivision of Lots 3 and 4 of the Henry F. Bird Addition.
Public discussion.
William Buss, 747 West Benton Street, said that staff's answers could seem dismiss-
ive at times. He said the area's residents felt there were specific traffic and safety
problems. Buss said there was a public ~nterest in providing other access. He asked
that the Commission remain open to public input.
Starr guaranteed that the Commission would accept ~nput from any person.
The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0.
Jakobsen asked if the development would be reexamined during the period of deferral.
Bovbjerg noted that she had been contacted by several concerned citizens. Starr
thanked the residents for their input. Gibson said that correspondence from Buss had
been very enlightening. He asked that Buss' suggestruns be considered. Starr agreed,
saying the development would impact the entire area. Bovbjerg sa~d many larger issues
could be seen in th~s application.
REZ96-OO11/SUB96-0010. Pubhc discussion of an application submitted by R.D.
Phipps to fezone a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12. High Density Single-Family Residential,
to OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High Density Single-Family Residential, and
prehmmary plat and Sensibve Areas Development Plan approval of Meadow Ridge, Part
2, a 4-1or residential subdivision located on the east side of North Dubuque Street and
north of Biaysville Lane. (45-day limitation period: July 1, 1996)
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 4
Miklo noted the Commission had heard the staff report, and Jeff Dawdson's report. He
said the application met all technical requirements, and that staff recommended
approval.
Public discussion.
Richard Rhodes, 2014 Rochester Avenue, asked ~f the critical slopes on the parcel
were covered by a conservation easement. Miklo said they were and indicated the
affected area.
MOTION: Supple moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to approve REZ96-O011/-
SUB96-0010, an application to rezone a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12, High Density
Single-Family Residential, to OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High Density Single-
Family Residential, and preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval
of Meadow Ridge, Part 2, a 4-1or residential subdivision located on the east side of
North Dubuque Street and north of Bjaysville Lane. The motion was carried by a vote
of 5-0-1, with Gibson abstaining.
ZONING CHAPTER TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS:
Public discussion of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article E, entitled "Commer-
cial and Business Zones," Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone (CO-1)," to
allow small-animal clinics in the CO-1 zone by special exception.
Kugler said a property owner on ACT Circle had asked for a rezoning and amendments
to the CH-1 zone to allow a small-animal clinic. He said staff recommended amending
the CO-1 zone instead. He noted that veterinary clinics could have annoying extemali-
ties that affect adjecent properties. He said staff therefore recommended allowing
small-animal clinics by special exception with conditions designed to minimize potential
negative effects. He said the amendment called for soundproofing and a 200' separa-
tion from any residential zone to control no~se and odor. There are also provisions to
limit the number of animals boarded overnight to 10. He noted that the definition of
a small-animal clinic precluded boarding animals for a fee that. are not receiving treat-
ment.
Kugler noted that staff had found only one legal deftnit]on of a small animal, which
simply referred to smaller household pets. He said that no minimum "budding
area/animal" standards could be found; only minimum cage sizes. He said that he
would not be comfortable with the inclusion of these figures in the amendment.
Public discussion.
Lucas Van Orden, 3077 Newport Road, said he was pleased with the speed of prog-
ress on th~s issue. He suggested another option on the msue of boarding. He said he
was opposed to quotas, as it was normal business practice for clinms to board animals
occasmnally overnight. He asked the Commission to omit paragraph D pertaining to
boarding or to change the quota. Van Orden said he was uneasy with removing the
option of boarding when a compromise might be best.
Cha~t asked how large the building was. Van Orden said it was 8,400 square feet, in
addition toa 1,300 square foot garage wh~ch would be used as the holding area. Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 5
asked how many animals would be placed there. Van Orden said that twelve to fifteen
animals were not unusual at peak times. Bovbjerg asked what percentage of the
building would be used for the holding area. Van Orden said that 22.5% of the garage
and main fioor's total area would be used for the holding area.
Jakobsen asked if all applications had to go through the special exception process.
Kugler said they would in the CO-1 zone. He noted that the definition of small-animal
clinic specifically excluded use as a kennel, and this non-incidental boarding would be
prohibited. Gibson asked why a limit on animals was even needed, if a soundproof
b~jilding was specified. Kugler noted that the component of the clinic with the greatest
potential to create problems is the boarding area, and that staff felt that limiting the
extent of this component would be appropriate in the CO-1 zone.
Van Orden said he fully intended to cooperate with his neighbors. He asked again that
no limit be placed on animals being boarded. He noted that other clinics that had been
surveyed boarded animals. Kugler noted that two of the clinics were located in a C1-1
zone, where kennels were allowed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to approve amendments
to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article E, entitled "Commercial and Business Zones," Section
1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone (C0-1)," to allow small-animal clinics in the C0~1
zone by special exception.
Discussion,
Bovbjerg said she felt the discussion on animal limits was moving away from the main
focus of the discussion. Jakobsen said the matter was a technical problem.
Starr said it seemed that the Commission was considering an amendment just for one
use. Chait said ~t seemed strange to limit the clinic to ten ammals when other clinics
were not restricted. Bovbjerg agreed. Gibson suggested placing an operational limit on
the facility.
Kugler said boarding was a different matter ~n a CO-1 zone gwen the intent of that
zone. He noted that the CC~2 zone had no sound restrictions and that allowing kennels
to be permitted in small-animal climcs would have implications for that zone. He said
it was suggested to help restrict the size and extent of this activity in an office zone.
Chait sa~d that limiting the number of animals boarded cou!J hinder the clinic in com-
peting with other clinics.
Holecek said there were two possible courses of action. The first was to allow only
medical boarding. The second was to place a static limit. She noted that a restriction
to medical boarding would not conflict with the definition of kennel. Starr noted there
was also the question of whether a small-animal clinic was suitable for a CO-1 zone.
Kugler said that ten animals was the most boarded at any clinic surveyed. Chair asked
if there were any lim,tatmn in the CC-2 zone. Kugler said there was not. Chair said the
clinic should not be a kennel, but that medical boarding should not be restricted.
MOTION: Chait moved and Bovbjerg seconded the motion to strike out the phrase "and
shall not exceed 10 animals" from subsection D.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 6
Discussion.
Holecek asked who enforced animal codes. Van Orden said the IVMA and the AHA
inspected clinics. Holecek asked how often small-animal clinics were inspected, Van
Orden said that AHA membership required two inspections annually. He expressed his
approval of Chait's amendment. He urged that the matter be sent to the City Council.
The motion to amend was carried on a vote of 6-0.
The motion was carried as amended on a vote of 6-0.
Public discussion of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article E, entitled "Commer-
cial and Business Zones," Section 4, entitled "Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1)," to
limit residential uses permitted in the CI-1 zone.
Starr requested that this item be deferred until the full commission was able to attend
to consider the amendments.
MOTION: Gibson moved and Chair seconded the motion to defer amendment to Title
14, Chapter 6, Article E, entitled "Commercial and Business Zones," Section 4, entitled
"Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1)," to limit residential uses permitted in the C1-1 zone,
pending the return of Tom Scott.
Public discussion.
Rockwell said that staff had received several phone calls regarding this issue, Most
were supportive or neutral, although one person said that he was "adamantly op-
posed".
Harvey Laschke, 511 South Madison Street, asked if all residences would be prohibit-
ed. Rockwell said the amendment was meant to prohibit the construction of apart-
ments. Laschke said that he resided in a C1-1 zone, and asked if he would have to
relocate. Starr sa~d that ~f the amendment was approved by the City Council, no new
apartments would be allowed. He said that currently occupied residences would be
allowed to stay. Laschke said that he thought apartment construction was already
prohibited. Rockwell said it was allowed by special exception.
William Laschke, 1206 East C3urt Street, asked who benefited from the amendment.
Starr said that issue would be better addressed when the ~ssue was considered.
Rockwell said the issue being considered was whether residential uses were wise in
an intensive commercial area. Laschke said that zoning was overregulated. He ex-
pressed his belief that less regulation was preferable. Laschke gave his optmort that
zoning laws create animosity towards the government.
The motion was carried on a vote of 6-0.
Public discussion of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article K, entitled "Env~ron-
mental Regulations," Section 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 7
Rockwell said the revisions were mainly meant to streamline and clarify the Ordinance.
She noted that the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission had voted unanimously
to support the amendments.
Public discussion.
Richard Rhodes said that most of the amendments were rational and necessary. He
said, however, that all of the substantive changes weakened the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. He suggested strengthening the Ordinance in regard to stream corridor
buffers.
Rhodes expressed his belief that problems in the AB Building application on Sturgis
Corner Drive resulted from an insufficient stream corridor buffer. He proposed enlarging
the buffer to 75 feet. He said it was unwise of the City and developers to allow
encroachment on waterways. He said that people who built on floodplains cost the
community money, in increased insurance premiums and disaster relief. He therefore
suggested raising the buffer to even more in floodplains.
Gibson asked if the Sensitive Areas Committee or Riverfront Commission had consid-
ered the amendment. Rhodes said he had presented it at the last Sensitive Areas
Committee meeting, but that he and staff felt it was too late to consider the sugges-
tion. Gibson said he would be far more comfortable if the revision had gone through
those channels. He said the wording of the Rhodes proposal needed some clarification.
Holecek noted that the suggested language was a rough draft, and that Rhodes was
simply raising the issue, and not asking for a vote.
Rockwell noted that there was no consensus for a fourth meeting of the Sensitive
Areas Committee to review the proposal regarding stream corridors. She said that
Rhodes intended to present his suggestion to the Riverfront and Natural Areas Com-
mission. Miklo noted that the Floodplain Ordinance was up for review, and that the
Riverfront Commission would be heavily involved in that review. He suggested
Rhoades proposal could be considered with the review of the floodplain ordinance.
Starr asked if the Sensitive Areas Committee would meet. Rockwell said it would not
meet to consider this item. Starr asked if there were other options besides revising the
floodplain regulations. Miklo said the floodplain requirements and the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance could both be revised. Rhodes apologized for the informality of the language
in the proposed revision.
Public discussion closed.
IVlOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Gibson seconded the motion to approve amendments
to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article K, entitled "Environmental Regulations," Section 1,
entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance." The motion was carried on a vote of 6-0,
Bovbjerg commended staff and citizens for their work on this issue.
Public discussion of an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Article O, entitled
"Sign Regulations," to delete specific regulabon of "political signs," and to amend
regulations applicable to all temporary signs. including political s~gns.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 8
Holecek said that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had recently ruled that regulating
signs by content violated the First Amendment. She said that staff had therefore
prepared an amendment to change regulation of political signs to regulation of tempo-
rary signs, and to more clearly define real estate signs.
Starr asked if the previous regulations limited political signs to a 30 day display limit
before an election and one week afterwards. Holecek said the ordinance would now
be content-neutral, and that temporary signs would be limited to sixty days. Bovbjerg
asked if temporary signs could be placed anywhere. Holecek said they could. Starr
asked if the ordinance covered painting a sign on the side of a building. Holecek said
it only covered temporary measures. Bovbjerg noted some sale signs, which were used
on a temporary basis, were manufactured to be permanent. Jakobsen said she was
usually opposed to amending the sign ordinance, but would definitely agree on a
constitutional issue.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Chait seconded the motion to amend Title 14, Chapter
6, Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete specific regulation of "political
signs," and to amend regulations applicable to all temporary signs, including political
signs. The motion was carried on a vote of 6-0.
REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT ITEM:
REZ96-0014. Public discussion of a request submitted by Lucas Van Orden to rezone
a .94 acre parcel located at 2122 ACT Circle from CO-1, Commercial Office, to CH-1,
Highway Commercial, and to amend the CH-1 zone to allow small-animal clinics as
permitted uses. (45-day limitation period: July 1, 1996)
Kugler said the applicant had requested an indefinite deferral. He said Van Orden has
~ndicated that he would withdraw the application if the Council approves the amend-
ments to the CO-1 zone.
Public discussion.
Lucas Van Orden said he was merely being cautious.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion to indefinitely defer
REZ96-0014, a request to fezone a .94 acre parcel located at 2122 ACT Circle from
C0-1, Commercial Office, to CH-1, Highway Commercial, and to amend the CH-1 zone
to allow small-animal clinics as permitted uses. The motion was carried by a vote of
6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 6, 1996, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION: Jakobsen moved and Bovbjerg seconded the motion to approve the minutes as
amended on June 17, 1996.
Discussion.
Starr noted he submitted some revisions on the morning of June 18, 1996.
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 1996
Page 9
The motion was carried by a vote of 5-0-1, with Gibson abstaininq.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Miklo said the August 12, 1996 meeting of the City Council had been moved to August 5.
Supple encouraged the other Commissioners to volunteer for the Iowa City Arts Festival.
Jakobsen said she would be absent on September 9. Supple agreed to attend the July meeting
of the City Council for Jakobsen.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Starr said he had been informed by Karin Franklin that the City and County were close to an
agreement on the Fringe Area Agreement. He said there were some changes in the Fringe
Area Agreement that was previously reviewed by the Commission, and suggested a meeting
to discuss the alterations. The Commission agreed. The meeting was scheduled for July 1 at
7:30 p.m. Jakobsen said she was unsure if she could attend. Miklo said he would send copies
of the revisions to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Supple moved and Gibson seconded the motion to adjourn. The motion was carried
by a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Lea Supple, Secretary
Minutes submitted by James Erwin.
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1996- 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SIGN IN SHEET
Naglie
6.
Z
8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
16.
IZ
18.
19.
Address
7 ~ 7 ~. ~e~,6,,_ .g,/.