HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-06 Bd Comm minutes
J][
MINUTES APPROVED
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 10, 2004 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - IOWA CITY CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Dennis Keitel, Michael Wright, Karen Leigh, Vincent
Maurer
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, Mike Haverkamp, Lowell Brandt, Helen Buford, Jay Berry,
T. J. Brandt
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Keitel called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2004 BOARD MINUTES
Chairperson Keitel asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes. There were none.
MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the February 11, 2004 minutes as submitted. Wright
seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.
APPEALS
APL04-00002
Public hearing regarding an appeal submitted by Steve L. Droll of a decision of the Senior Housing
Inspector regarding the maximum occupancy or number of roomers permitted at 428 E. Jefferson Street
in the ResidentiallOffice RIO zone.
Miklo first reviewed various photos and layouts with the Board to familiarize them with the property in
question. He then explained the nonconforming status of the duplex in terms of the zoning regulations
with both lot size and parking requirements. A duplex is to have 4 off-street parking spaces, and this
property contains only 1 off-street parking space. Miklo also gave a brief zoning history of this property.
Prior to being zoned RIO ResidentiallOffice in 1993, the property was zoned Central Business Service
zone, or CB-2. The CB-2 zone did not allow residential uses on the ground floor. The property was,
therefore, nonconforming then in terms of the previous zoning designation. Prior to being zoned CB-2 in
1983, the property was zoned R3A Multi-Family, and in 1976 when this property was converted to a
duplex, it had this zoning. The R3A zone requires 2,500 square feet of lot area, per dwelling unit of a
duplex, or 5,000 square feet. The property only had 3,320 square feet at that time so it did not have the
5,000 square feet necessary for a duplex. The Senior Housing Inspector is recognizing this property as a
nonconforming duplex in the current RIO zone. However, because the property does not contain sufficient
lot area or parking spaces, it is the Inspector's position that roomers are not allowed. Roomers would not
be considered a legally nonconforming use because they are provisional use, which was never legally
established on this property under the current RIO zone, or the previous zones which applied. The
Inspector has determined that the applicant has the right to rent each unit of the duplex to a family, which
may include two unrelated persons. However, because the right to have roomers, a provisional use, was
never legally established on this property, roomers are not permitted, according to the Inspector's
determination.
In order for the property to take advantage of the provisional use, allowing of roomers, it would need to
comply with the lot area and off-street parking requirements. The issue of over-occupancy of this
particular property has come to light because of a recent directive by the City Council to improve
enforcement of zoning ordinances. The City Council passed an ordinance requiring an Information
Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form for each property. On this form the number of legal occupants is
noted. The Council directed Housing and Inspection Service Department to establish the maximum
permitted occupancy for rental units, based on building, zoning, and housing codes.
--- --~ -. --....-.-.-.-.....,..--......-.- _____..m_- -~_.,-
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 2
Section 14-6W-2A of the Zoning Code grants the Board of Adjustment the power to hear and decide
appeals, where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by
the City Manager or designee, in the enforcement of the Zoning Chapter or any ordinance adopted
pursuant thereto. In this case the designee is the Senior Housing Inspector.
Appeal cases differ from Special Exceptions, which the Board often hears, in that you are not being asked
to allow a use based on compatibility with the neighborhood or subjective considerations, but rather the
question before the Board is whether the Housing Inspector made a mistake when applying the law. In
making his decision, the Inspector relied on Section 14-6T-2A of the Zoning Ordinance, the Regulation of
Nonconforming Uses. This section of the ordinance and the subsection Continuation of Unlawful Uses
states: nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as authorization for the continuation of the use of a
structure or land established unlawfully in violation of the zoning regulations in effect prior to the effective
date hereof. In this case the Inspector has determined that the provisional use of roomers on this property
was never legally established. The property currently lacks. as well as previously lacked, lot area and the
required number of parking spaces in order to have roomers.
In order to find the Inspector made an error, the Board would have to find that the roomers were legally
established on this property, under a previous zoning designation. The Inspector has determined that at
no time in the past did this property contain the required number of parking spaces, or sufficient lot area
to permit roomers. The Inspector also relied on the Section 14-6T -3A, Regulation of Nonconforming
Uses, Enlargement or Alteration. This section states that no nonconforming use shall be enlarged, nor
shall a structure for a nonconforming use be constructed, reconstructed, structurally altered or relocated
on the lot. In order to get at the issue of enlargement, the Inspector relied on the definitions in the Zoning
Ordinance, which define enlargement as "an increase in volume of building, an increase in the area of
land or building occupied by a use, or an increase in the number of occupants or dwelling units." In this
case it's the increased number of occupants that applies.
Based on these laws, the Inspector has determined that the roomers at 428 E. Jefferson Street, would be
an enlargement, or an expansion, of a nonconforming use. As stated previously, the single family home
on this property was converted to a duplex in 1976 when the property was zoned R3A. At that time the
property did not contain, nor does it contain today, sufficient lot area or parking spaces to allow roomers.
Although there is some question as whether even a duplex would be allowed under the R3A zone, the
Inspector is recognizing this as a duplex and is permitting each unit of the duplex to be occupied by a
family, which may include two unrelated persons, but would not include roomers.
In order to find use of this property as a duplex, with the right to roomers, as not an enlargement or an
expansion of a nonconforming use, the Board would have to find that the roomers were legally
established.
The applicant's position seems to be that this property has a history of being rented to five unrelated
occupants, two in the second floor unit, and three in the first fioor unit: and that the City should continue to
allow the five unrelated occupants. Allowing the five unrelated occupants would only be possible legally if
the use of the property as a duplex with roomers was legally established. Although the actual occupancy
over the years may have exceeded what was permitted by zoning, the excess occupancy is not permitted
by the nonconforming provisions of the Zoning Code. To allow roomers in this case would be an
expansion of the nonconforming use, contrary to the Zoning Code, under the sections previously cited.
Maximum densities are set by the zoning ordinance to prevent overcrowding, to assure that each dwelling
unit has sufficient open space, and to control the level of demand on City services and infrastructure. The
ResidentiallOffice zone allows a relatively high density when compared to other parts of Iowa City. It
allows 24 housing units per acre. The current use at 428 E. Jefferson Street has a density equivalent of
26 housing units per acre. It is important in nonconforming situations that the limit on the number of
roomers is upheld. To allow additional roomers would compound the nonconforming density in this
situation. Although allowing roomers at 428 E. Jefferson Street may appear insignificant, to do so would
grant this property special privileges that other property owners do not have.
With the recent establishment of the Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form, the City and
many property owners are discovering that properties have been exceeding the number of occupants
legally permitted by codes. Such properties are being required to come into conformance with the current
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 3
codes, rather than continue at a level of occupancy that is not allowed by the zoning law. To allow
properties to exceed these maximums undermines of the zoning ordinance.
In summarizing the staffs findings, Miklo states that the property at 428 E. Jefferson Street is
nonconforming with respect to the density requirements of the Residential/Office zone. The property is
nonconforming with respect to the minimum number of parking spaces. A duplex is required to have 4
parking spaces, and this property has only 1. The provisional use of allowing roomers was never legally
established on this property. Adding the provisional use at this time would be the expansion of a
nonconforming use, which is clearly not allowed by the Zoning Code. After considerable deliberation, the
City Council adopted the Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form, and instructed the
Housing and Inspection Department to enforce existing zoning, building, and housing codes. Uniform
enforcement of these codes has lead to the identification of properties such as this, which are over-
occupied and are now being required to comply with City ordinances. Special rights shouid not be granted
to certain property owners merely due to the fact that they or previous property owners exceeded the
number of lawfully permitted occupants. Based on these findings, staff concludes that in making the
determination of occupancy at 428 E. Jefferson Street, roomers are not permitted. The Inspector correctly
applied Section 14-6T-2A, Regulation of Nonconforming Uses, General Provisions and Restrictions,
and the Continuance of Unlawful Uses. The Inspector also properly applied Section 14-6T-3A,
Regulation of Nonconforming Uses, Enlargement or Alteration, which states "no nonconforming use
shall be enlarged nor shall a structure with a nonconforming use be constructed, reconstructed,
structurally altered or reiocated on a lot", and in making this determination, the Inspector relied on the
definition of eniargement which includes no expansion of number of occupants.
Based on these findings and conclusions, staff recommends that this appeal of the decision of the Senior
Housing Inspector for the property at 428 E. Jefferson Street be denied. In concluding, Miklo stated that
Norm Cate, the Senior Housing Inspector, is present this evening to answer questions as well.
Maurer asked for a legal description of a roomer. Miklo read from the Zoning Code: "Roomer, an
occupant of a rooming house, or a rooming unit, who is not a member of the family of the rooming house
operator. A roomer shall also mean an occupant of a dwelling unit who is not a member of the family
occupying the dwelling unit." Holecek suggested Miklo also define family. Miklo again read from the
Zoning Code: a family is defined as "one person, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage,
adoption, or placement by a government or social service agency, occupying a dwelling unit as a singie
household, housekeeping organization. A family may also be two, but not more than two persons, not
related by blood, marriage, or adoption."
Leigh asked for clarification of the distinction between a roomer and an unrelated person to the family
who is living with that family in that unit. Miklo explained that "family" may consist of two unrelated
persons, and they are able to occupy a dwelling unit." Once a third unrelated person moves into that
dwelling unit, they are considered a roomer. Keitel then asked Cate, Housing Inspector, how this
particular property was discovered as being nonconforming. Cate explained the background of the
situation, stating that every two to three years they are out doing inspections for rentai permits. With the
directive from the City Council on determining maximum occupancies, this property came up for
inspection and this became an issue. Discussion then turned to whether or not a possible variance couid
be done on this property, and the various legalities involved. Holecek concluded that the applicant could
apply for a variance and they would have to show that they met the three tests for a variance in order for
the Board to approve a variance.
Public Hearinq Opened
Joe Holland, legal representative for Mr. Droll and his partner, stated that there were many nuances in the
zoning ordinances from 1976 and earlier. He said Board of Adjustment is a common sense body, which is
intended to put a buffer between the technical rigidity of the zoning ordinance the public and the manner
in which the ordinance is enforced. He said he hoped that this is the perspective of the Board. He asked
that the Board put itself in the position of those in the audience. He said that he finds it troubling about
these proceedings that the Board receives the staff report before the meeting. He said the Board should
not take the report as gospel. He said the applicant is at a disadvantage because at this point no one has
advocated for the applicant.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 4
He addressed the Board on the validity of the staff report, and the history of this particular property. The
City has no records prior to 1976. According to records, the owner in 1976 was George Sondag. Holland
gave the Board Chair a copy of a building permit application from 1976 (Exhibit 1). He said this permit
was for an alteration on the property, which he said was already a duplex at this time. The work was
converting a porch into a bedroom. A lot of the facts surrounding this property are missing due to the
passage of time. Prior to 1976, the property was occupied: part of it was occupied by the owner and part
of it was occupied by her family, in two separate units. He said that the building permit indicates this
property was a duplex at the time, and also indicates the property was R3B, and not R3A as staff has
noted in their report. Holland pointed this out to show that records are very sketchy from that time frame.
Holland gave a second item to the Board Chair (Exhibit 2), which is a copy of a letter dated 1977 from a
housing inspector, with a Certificate of Compliance attached. This meant that the property In question had
met or exceeded the minimum housing standards established by Chapter 9.30 of the City Code. Holland
stated that what's really driving this appeal is the issue of parking, not the issue of occupancy. There is
plenty of room for four people in this duplex. Unfortunately, Exhibit 2 indicates it meets Housing Code.
Zoning enforcement was not done by Housing Inspection at that time. He goes on to state that on the
1976 building permit (Exhibit 1), item 9, number of off-street parking spaces required, is blank, so we
really don't know what parking was required at that time as far as the Building Department was
concerned.
Holland next gave copies of specific pages from the zoning ordinance, pertaining to 1976 and 1977, to
show what was in effect during the time period they are looking at for this property. He said he
understands that the Board members are volunteers and may not be well versed in statutory
interpretations. Therefore, he would try to simplify it. He pointed out again the discrepancy between the
staff report showing this property in an R3A zone, versus his findings of an R3B zone. He said as he
reads it, you could have a duplex with up to five unrelated persons per dwelling unit, provided parking is
provided (or up to ten persons per duplex). He stated that if the garage were torn down, this would free up
space for another, possibly two more, parking spaces. He said that he thinks staff is mistaken about the
lot area. He then addressed the issue of lot area, stating that the requirement in 1975 was a minimum lot
area of 500 square feet per dwelling unit, and this property has approximately 3,300 square feet. He said
for a duplex you would only need 2,500 square feet of lot area. According to current standards however,
this property clearly does not meet the lot size.
In looking at the R3A and R3B parking requirements, he pointed out that this requirement is to take place
"at the time the use is created, or structurally altered". There have not been any major structural
alterations on this property, so this should not be an issue. Holland then discussed conforming uses
versus nonconforming uses, and the major changes in the City's zoning changes over the years. He went
on to express the desire for the Board to review this appeal carefully, based on the facts as they know
them to be, and how that fits into the scheme of the current ordinances versus the historic zoning
ordinances.
He said although this property does not have required parking spaces, the Code says that at the time a
use is created or structurally altered it has to comply with parking requirements. It could be argued that
enclosing the porch was a structural alteration, but that is debatable.
He said it is the applicant's position that this property was legally created as a duplex and that it should be
allowed to continue as a legal nonconforming use. The city may say it is not legally conforming. But he
said he had tried to show the Board from the admittedly vague information that this was a duplex. He said
that the Board of Adjustment should apply common sense. He said he thought that it would be difficult to
prove one way or another when this property was converted to a duplex. Reasonable people can
disagree, but he did not think that one could take the staff report or Mr. Cate's letter as gospel.
Holland repeated that historically this property has had 5 occupants. He said the City Housing Inspectors
in the past had told the applicant orally that you could have 5 occupants. He said that he also had
represented someone who put an offer on this property but who latter withdrew it when the City said you
could not occupy this property with 5 people. That offer was for $215,000. There currently is an offer for
$192,000. This interpretation results in a very real loss in value of this property.
-- -..__._---~-_.~.--_._.~----~~-----_._..__._--------_.__.~._._..._- ---,--~-_._--, . "-"
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 5
Holland said he is asking what is a fair and logical interpretation of the facts and how this fits in with the
scheme of the current zoning ordinance and previous zoning ordinances. He said what this comes down
to is what fair to the applicant and the City.
Maurer asked for clarification on when the current owner purchased the property, and what its use has
been. Holland explained the series of owners since Sondag in 1 976, and stated the property has always
been a duplex, as it is now. He stated that Mr. Droll purchased the property in 2001.
Wright asked if the property is currently for sale, and Holland stated there is a pending offer. Leigh asked
about the zoning status in 2001, and Holland stated it was RIO. Keitel asked for clarification on the
bedroom in the basement, and the compliance issues surrounding the window size. Holland said there
was a Notice of Violation and evidence that it was corrected based on a letter from the Building Official.
Keitel then asked about putting in more parking spaces, and whether or not the current owner is willing to
improve upon the situation. Holland replied that they would be but have been held up due to the issues at
hand. The new owner, he states, would most likely want to improve the situation. Keitel asked if there was
an alley to provide access to the parking. Holland said that there is but that there is an intervening
property with an easement between this property and the alley.
Alexander then questioned Section 14-6T-2A, which the Housing Inspector cited, and asked Holland to
clarify his stance on this issue. She asked if this application of this section was incorrect. He said yes.
Holland stated that it comes down to when this property was converted to a duplex.
Miklo stated he had some information in that regard. He said that on March 41h he spoke with Barb
Sondag, a previous owner, and she related that she and her husband bought this property as investment
property from a woman who lived there with her son, giving more background to the 1976 time frame.
Holland said he spoke with George Sondag who indicated in 1976 it was a duplex with one woman living
in one unit and her son and daughter-in-law living in the other. Holecek questioned that the issue here is
not whether or not the property is a duplex, but whether the roomer has been legally established. Holland
disagreed, saying the issue is parking and whether or not there was lawful parking, and if it was legally
established parking at the time that a roomer could live in the property. He said since they don't know
when this became a duplex, that they then don't know what the parking requirements were at that time.
Keitei asked where the tenants park. Holland said some don't have cars or park on the street or on this
property.
Miklo said he had additional information regarding questions Mr. Holland had raised. Miklo stated that on
the building permit it does show this was zoned R3B, and in checking the zoning maps from the 1970's it
does in fact show this as R3A in 1976. He said the building permit apparently had an error, but noted that
both R3A and R3B required 2,500 square feet per family for a two-family dwelling so even then the
property did not conform in 1976, regardless of whether it was zoned R3A or R3B. He then discussed the
copy of the letter from a previous housing inspector that stated the property complied with city housing
codes. He said this is not an indication that it conformed with zoning codes, and that only recently did the
City housing inspectors go back and check properties for conformance with zoning codes. Holland
agreed.
Maurer questioned whether or not the sale of a property triggered an inspection by the City, especially in
a rental unit. Cate responded that only the rental permit itself triggers an inspection to the property,
changing ownership does not affect this.
Mike Haverkamp of 109 N. Van Buren addressed the Board, and stated that he had talked to Anita
Cochran of 430 Jefferson. He said that Cochran and he are both neighbors of this property. He asked if
she had any concerns she wanted him to raise with the Board. Cochran is 97 years old, and he is
bringing her list of concerns to the Board. He himself does encourage the Board to support the City staff
in allowing this to remain a duplex, but not allow the additional roomers. He said that Cochran mentions
several concerns she's had, and he has had the same concerns himself. He said this year's tenants have
been good, but previous tenants were not, and Cochran had mentioned she had had to call the police
frequently due to ioud noises and parties, and even her renters have had to call the police because of
problems. He said Cochran said the last family to live there was the Ricky's, who sold it to Sondag.
Haverkamp stated that he has lived at 109 N. Van Buren for 18 years. He said 428 Jefferson has been a
duplex that entire time, and that he has no problem with that. He said the issue is extra roomers, which
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 6
means more people on the property. He said parking is a huge problem, and he gave a copy of the
easement, from 1985, to the Board. The easement allows vehicles to cross over his property to access
the garage at 428 Jefferson Street. He then explained the property lines, and his fence line. He stated
that two years ago the tenants were a real problem. He said they were very loud, and police gave out 140
tickets that year for illegal parking in the area of question. He said parking is a big problem. He asked the
Board to support the City's decision to allow the property to remain a duplex, but to deny the application
for the additional roomers. He said the properties are very dense in this neighborhood, and he has a
problem with allowing it to be even denser.
Cate stated that in regards to this property, what has never been established is the necessary parking,
nor the provisional use of roomers. He then responded to questions from the Board regarding the fact that
with or without roomers, there is still a parking problem as this property only has one parking space.
Maurer said if this reverts back to a duplex without roomers, this property still has a parking problem.
Lowell Brandt of 824 N. Gilbert spoke in favor of the City's recommendation. He said he was in an older
neighborhood and supported enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Having been on the Board in the past,
he stated that he realizes the seriousness of issues such as this, and asks that they use objectivity in
making their decision. H said he knows the Board does not rubber stamp the staffs recommendation. He
said he realizes that this may be a precedent as many people may appeal the decisions of the City to
enforce the law. He said there is no question about the application of the laws pertaining to roomers. He
said he hopes that the Board does not determine that just because the ordinance has not been enforced
in the past is a reason to allow a violation to continue. He said he works in the criminal justice system and
he often hears people say it is not wrong as long as you don't get caught.
Helen Burford of 604 Ronald Street expressed her support of the City's decision, stating that the North
Side has seen many changes over the years, mainly due to the zoning changes. She said the
neighborhood is fragile, and she feels that enforcing occupancies is becoming more and more important
in order to have livable neighborhoods. She said higher densities may lead to nuisance problems.
Jay Berry of 430 Church Street also spoke in support of the City staffs recommendation. His biggest
concern is density issues, and he feels that enforcement of the zoning regulations are helping to bring this
and the parking issues more into line. Nothing he has heard from the applicant has lead him to believe
the appeal should be granted.
Holland stated that in his opinion emotional comments from the public have no relevance in this hearing.
He said the issue is whether or not the inspector made an error, not density or parking; and he asked that
they keep that in mind, as the reai issue is an interpretation of the zoning ordinance and the facts specific
to this property.
Holecek responded to Holland's statement, and stated that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office
that the public does have standing to participate in an appeal hearing. As far as relevance of emotionai
appeals, she agrees with Mr. Holland, that the Board is charged with applying the facts, and to determine
whether or not the housing official has made an error in applying the law to the facts. She reiterated that
the issue is not whether or not this property will continue to be allowed as a dupiex, but rather the issue is
the roomer, and whether or not the roomer has been established as a legally nonconforming use. They
have to iook at whether the facts before them show that the housing official has made an error in
determining that the roomer was never established as a legally nonconforming use.
Miklo added that statements from an adjacent neighbor as well as from Holland himself indicate that a
mother lived on one floor, and the son and daughter-in-law lived on the other floor as late as 1 976, so
even if it was a duplex in 1976 there is no evidence that roomers lived there prior to 1976. He also said
roomers are a provisional use-provided parking is provided. In 1976 a duplex with roomers would have
had to have four parking spaces. It is clear that there are not four parking spaces today, nor were there in
1976. Maurer asked if anyone knew when roomers did start living on this property. Miklo said as late as
1976 a family occupied this building. Holland responded that nobody really knows. Holland stated that the
issue of roomers being a provisional use has to do with the regulation now, but in 1976 it wasn't an issue.
Holecek stated that the determination of the housing official is that there has not been a legally
established provisionai use of the roomer for a number of reasons, one of which is the parking, and the
absence of parking. She said she does not agree that once a duplex is established you automatically get
roomers. Holland stated again that in 1976 it was not a provisional use issue.
----.. .--.'" u_, .,.--...-" .- .__...._ ___._ ..._n.·.·'_.. _,__.,._.._~_._......
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 7
Miklo stated that the 1976 ordinance reads as follows: "two family dwellings provided, however, that no
more than three persons not members of the family may room in each living unit, provided that off-street
parking is provided." Miklo also said that once a nonconforming use is abandoned, even if it had been
established legally as a duplex with roomers prior to 1976, it appears that in 1976 a family lived there
without roomers, and they would have lost any nonconformity at that time. No one has brought forward
evidence to indicate that roomers were ever legally established. From the records the building inspector
relied on, roomers were never legally established.
Alexander asked for clarification on Miklo's statement, and he replied that yes, the duplex would have
been required to have four parking spaces in 1976, as well as 5,000 square feet of lot area. Holecek
noted that since it doesn't appear during the continuum of time between '76 and today that a roomer was
present, it seems incumbent that in order to say that the housing official has made an error, there needs
to be some showing that the roomer was indeed legally established and continued. She said there's the
absence of parking, which we know today would be a nonconforming use, so there needs to be a
continuation of that established use.
Public Hearina Closed
MOTION: Leigh moved that regarding an appeal submitted by Steve. L. Droll of a decision of the
Senior Housing Inspector regarding the maximum occupancy or number of roomers permitted at
428 E. Jefferson Street in the Residential/Office RIO zone, to uphold the decision of the Senior
Housing Inspector and to deny the appeal. Alexander seconded.
Maurer asked a question of Holecek concerning the outcome if the Board were to overrule the Inspector's
decision, and he wanted clarification on the parking issue. Holecek said if the Board upholds the decision
of the Inspector, there would fewer occupants and less need for parking. Maurer asked what if they
overturn the decision. Cate said they would still need to provide parking. Keitel asked that the motion be
amended to include the clause: provided the appellant provides at least one additional parking
space, then a roomer would be allowed in the unit with 3 bedrooms.
Wright asked that they vote on what's on the floor.
Holecek stated that the motion was to uphold the decision and deny the appeal. Keitel asked for her
clarification on how they could add this wording. She stated they could phrase the motion as: to approve
the appeal, provided that the owner provide one additional parking space, off-street parking on
the property, or a special exception for off-street parking in order to get the roomer.
Cate next addressed parking requirements questions from the Board. He stated that there have to be 4
off-street parking spaces on the property in order to be in compliance. Keitel said unless there is a
variance given for parking elsewhere. Alexander asked if it was in their purview to deal with the parking.
Keitel said the Board could do what it wants. Holecek said the parking issue was not on the agenda.
Holecek noted that the motion on the floor at present is: to uphold the decision of the housing official
and deny the appeal.
Alexander said she would vote in favor of the motion as stated. She said that as best as can be
determined by the evidence before the Board, she feels the housing inspector made a correct
determination on the roomer issue. Wright stated that he also will vote in favor of the motion. The history
is certainly hazy, he stated, and he feels this has been a nonconforming use for some time. This would be
an extension of a questionable non-conformity. Leigh said she will also vote in favor of the motion. She
said she does not believe there is evidence that a roomer has been legally established, and she feels
there is a responsibility of any property owner to use the property within the confines of the zoning law.
Maurer stated that in looking at this situation, the roomer issue would never have come up if the parking
wasn't a problem to begin with. Although roomers have existed for a long time the parking has not been
provided, as it is not possible to provide more parking here. He will also vote in favor. Keitel stated that he
is voting to not uphold the decision of the Senior Housing Inspector, as he believes that the exhibits
presented by Mr. Holland do establish precedence that when this property was expanded with the third
bedroom in the basement, the intent was clear that it was for three unrelated individuals. He feels the use
was established. He did state that the owner should try to make some effort to add parking.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 8
The appeal was denied and the decision of the Senior Housing Inspector was upheld on APL04-
00002, by a 4 to 1 vote.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
EXC04-00002
Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Regina Catholic Education Center for a special
exception to permit expansion of a religious institution, specifically a school, for property located in the
Low-Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 2140 Rochester Avenue.
Keitel stated that for the record, he is a Roman Catholic, but does not feel there is any conflict of interest
under this from his standpoint. Miklo then presented the staff report on this application. He pointed out the
existing school in photos, and explained the planned expansion project, which will consist of a 48' x 82'
one-story addition to the current west wing of the facility. This one-story addition will contain 4
classrooms. In addition, the applicant wishes to construct a 100' x 175' two-story addition to the northwest
corner of the building in an area currently occupied by a parking lot. The addition will consist of a kitchen,
a multi-purpose room, restrooms, and classrooms.
There are three requirements that religious institutions must meet in order to proceed with this project,
including a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, a setback requirement, and access to a collector or
arterial street. Miklo stated that all three are being met, as well as the general standards that must be
met. He highlighted Item d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage andlor necessary facilities have
been or are being provided, stating there have been concerns about drainage in the general
neighborhood west of this property. Staff is recommending that all drainage be directed to the north to
Ralston Creek so that it does not add to the existing problem in this neighborhood. Before issuance of a
building permit, the applicant must show how they will handle the drainage.
Item e. asks that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so
as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. As noted in the staff report, the City has received many
complaints about the traffic in this area, and there have been some improvements made - a center turn
lane in front of the school, and improvements to the traffic signal at First and Rochester. These changes
have improved some of the traffic congestion, but there still are concerns about peak traffic times.
Because of these continuing traffic concerns, staff has raised the issue of another entrance off of First
Avenue. Miklo pointed out on the map where this area is, and questioned if there is an easement there
that would allow another driveway to the school. He did follow up with the point that this exception may
not create any increase in traffic, but in the future if there are applications for further expansions, these
concerns would need to be addressed. At that time a traffic study should be conducted.
He next addressed Item f., which deals with the application meeting the standards of the code, and stated
that the parking issue is explained in detail in the staff report. Another concern is fire access. A fire
access road is required unless the Fire Marshall approves an alternate fire safety plan. The Fire Marshal
is working with Regina to design such an alternative plan, which may include a requirement that portions
of the building be served with a fire suppression system. He added that this would be a second condition
which would need to be met before building permits are approved.
Staff is recommending this special exception for an expansion of a religious use in the low-density single-
family zone at 2140 Rochester Avenue. They recommend approval subject to two conditions: 1) the Fire
Marshal's approval of an emergency vehicle access drive or alternative fire safety plan; and 2) the site
plan illustrate how storm water will be directed north to Ralston Creek. He reiterated that staff is not
recommending that a driveway to First Avenue be required at this time, but they are emphasizing that any
future additions to the school that would result in an increase in traffic should not be approved unless the
applicant provides a traffic study that demonstrates how the additional traffic can be adequately
accommodated, and that traffic study should address the feasibility of the First Avenue connection.
Public Hearina Ooened
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 10, 2004
Page 9
T. J. Brandt appeared before the Board to represent Regina Education Center. He stated he is the
Chairman of the Building & Grounds Committee at Regina, and they are in the process of finalizing plans
for a $3.1 million addition, classroom addition, cafeteria addition, to better serve their student population.
He then discussed the parking issues, and some of the history surrounding the building and grounds, as
well as the parking. He detailed the changes to the driveway and parking areas, and the one-way traffic
pattern that is hoped to alleviate some of the congestion. Brandt stated that the Fire Marshal said they
could put in a fire hydrant to deal with the issue of fire protection, as well as put in sprinkler systems. In
reference to the drainage problem he stated they are working on that and will be having another meeting
soon.
Maurer asked Brandt if there were any limitations on parking, to which Brandt replied there were no
limitations. He then pointed out in the photos just how they will address the issue of parking, and showed
the fence line where the track is. Maurer then asked when they hoped to break ground, to which Brandt
replied either late April or early May.
Public Hearinq Closed
Keitel commented about the detention pond, stating that at the time the track and soccer complex were
built down behind Regina Education Center, he worked for a company that did all of the consulting work
for the detention basin, the future parking lot drainage, and all of the drainage issues at that time. He said
they did everything at that time with the expansion in mind, and had City approval on this with the master
plan, and that the detention pond does have to stay the way it is in order to handle the drainage
appropriately. With regard to an access road down along the track, they looked into this at the same time,
and additional easements would be needed before anything could really be done.
MOTION: Leigh made the motion to approve a special exception to permit the expansion of a
religious institution in the RS-5 zone, conditioned upon the Fire Marshal's approval of an
emergency vehicle access drive or alternative fire safety plan, and a site plan that will illustrate
how storm water will be directed north to Ralston Creek. Alexander seconded.
Maurer stated that he would vote in favor of the motion before the Board. He sees no reason to vote
against this move forward. Alexander stated she would also vote in favor as it meets the conditions set
forth for a religious institution, and that with the provision for the drainage being set forth, that she agrees
with the exception. Keitel stated he would also vote in favor, and feels it will improve property values in
the neighborhood. Wright stated he had nothing to add to the statements already made and said he will
also vote in favor. Leigh stated she is agreeing with the previous comments as well.
The motion passed with a vote of 5 to O.
OTHER
None.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Maurer moved to adjourn: seconded by Wright. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.
Board Chairperson Board Secretary
data on citynUpcdfminuteslboaf2004/boa03-1 D-04.doc
-~--~~ -- --_.'._" --"..""--' .--. ,---._--------
Board or Commission: Board of Adjustment
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
MARCH 10, 2004
TERM
NAME EXP. 1/ 14/04 2111/04 3/10/04 4/14/04 5/12104 6/9/04 7/14/04 8/11/04
i
Carol Alexander 1/1/08 NM X X
Dennis Keitel 1/1/05 NM X X
Karen Leigh 1/ 1/07 NM X X
Vincent Maurer 1/1/06 NM 0 X
Michael Wright 1/1/09 NM X X
KEY: X ; Present
o ; Absent
OlE; AbsentlExcnsed
NM; No meeting
-- ; Not a Member
I 07-õko"¡
3b(2)
MINUTES APPROVED
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 14, 2004
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Carol Alexander, Michael Wright,
Dennis Keitel (arrived @ 5:32pm)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vincent Maurer (Absent / Excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Brenneman, Mark Russo, Allan Berger, Ralph Stoffer, Jack Lester, Sue
Nelson, Jennifer Brown, Jenn Berger, John Roffman
CALL TO ORDER:
Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:11 pm.
CONSIDERATION OF 3/10/04 MEETING MINUTES:
Miklo said the minutes would be available for the Board's next meeting.
OTHER:
Motion: Wright made a motion to elect Alexander as temporary chairperson of this meeting until Keitel
arrived. Leigh seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
Motion: Leigh made a motion to amend the Agenda. Special Exception Items F-1 then F-3 would be
considered first. (Item F-2. EXC04-00006 had been deferred until the next meeting at the request of the
applicant.) Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC04-00004, discussion of an application submitted by Duane Brenneman on behalf of The Church in
Iowa City for a special exception to allow a Religious Institution in the Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) at
2040 Keokuk Street.
Miklo said the property contained an existing building and parking lot. There were no significant changes
proposed in the layout of the property. The applicant had recently asked City Council to amend the CO-1
zone to allow religious institutions by special exception on properties of less than one-acre in size. That
amendment had been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and was
approved. The applicant was currently applying for a special exception to allow a religious institution on
this property.
Miklo said there were a number of General Standards that applied to special exceptions. With the recent
amendment to the Zoning Code, there were not Specific Standards required for religious institutions in the
CO-1 zone, but it did require that applications be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. For religious
institutions in a CO-1 zone, the applications were reviewed on a case-by-case basis using the General
Standards used for special exceptions. He reviewed the General Standards as listed and commented on
by staff in the Staff Report dated April 14, 2004. Miklo said based on Staffs opinion this application met
the General Standards necessary for approval of a special exception and Staff recommended approval of
EXC04-00004.
Public discussion was opened.
Duane Brenneman, The Church in Iowa City, thanked Staff and the Board for their efforts.
Public discussion was closed.
.-.. ---. . "_.,__.u..._"__.._._'.__... _,,_~ -.--- ~-- -- -- ------~-,_.~-~--
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 2
Motion: Leigh made a motion to approve EXC04-00004, an application for a special exception to allow a
religious institution in the Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) at 2040 Keokuk Street. Wright seconded the
motion.
Leigh said the application met all the General Standards and the existing property conformed to the
application regulations and standards so there was no reason not to approve it.
Wright said he agreed with Leigh for the reasons stated by her.
Alexander said she would also vote in favor of the motion. It would not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the area and didn't appear that it would impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property. Staff had indicated that there would be
adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and that the hours this facility would be open seemed such
that there would not be difficulties with ingress or egress.
The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
EXC04-00008, an application submitted by Mark and Diana Russo for a special exception to reduce the
front setback from 20 feet to 14 feet for a distance of 14 feet, measured from the southeast corner of the
house, for the addition of a screened-porch to the historic church building located at 614 Clark Street
subject to approval of the porch construction drawings by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Miklo said this was a corner lot property. The underlying zone was RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family
with an overiay Conservation District zone which required review and approval by the Historic
Preservation Commission of major alterations to a building. The area where the reduction in setback had
been requested was in the area of the existing stoop/entry way. The applicant had requested a
modification of the front yard to allow a screened-in front porch. The existing building was located 22-feet
back from Seymour Street. The required setback was 20-feet which would allow for only a two-foot
addition if the existing setback were followed. The applicant had requested that a portion of the front yard
be reduced to allow an 8' x 12' screened-porch which would require a reduction of the front yard setback
from 20-feet to 12-feet on the south side of the property.
Miklo said when special exceptions for yard reductions were reviewed, the Board looked to the language
in the Code which indicated that in order for a special exception to be approved there should be some
factors such as a unique situation and practical difficulty. This property was unique in that it was a
religious institution or church that was built in a residential zone therefore its structure and position on the
lot were somewhat unique. There was very little room left for additions to the property and there was a
unique architectural feature, an aspe, on the east side of the property that the Historic Preservation
Commission had indicated should be preserved which would prevent the addition of a porch to that side
of the structure.
Miklo said in terms of practical difficulty, given the aspe of the church which was located on the east side
of the structure, there really was no practical way to add on to the building to make it more residential in
nature.
Miklo said in addition to the two previously cited considerations, the Board should also consider if this was
a significant, moderate, or minor reduction in the yard. In Staff's view, this was a fairly minor alteration of
the yard. Miklo reviewed the Specific and General Standards and Staff's comments listed on pages 3 and
4 of the Staff Report dated April 14, 2004. Miklo said in general, Staff found that this application met the
Comprehensive Plan's desire to preserve historic neighborhoods and at the same time would allow this
existing structure to be used as a residential property. Staff recommended approval of EXC04-00008, an
application for a special exception to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 12 feet for a distance of 14
feet, measured from the southeast corner of the church, for the addition of a screened-porch to the
historic church building located at 614 Clark Street subject to approval of the porch construction drawings
by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Public discussion was opened.
Mark Russo, 614 Clark Street, said he and his wife had purchased the building approximately two years
ago. Prior to purchasing the church, they had decided that it was a building worth saving. He had been
Board of Adjustment Minutes
Apri/14, 2004
Page 3
working on the restoration for the past two years. The entry stoop in question was quite heavy, had not
been properly footed and was literally falling off. A structural renovation was necessary. After speaking
with Staff and members of the Historic Preservation Committee, it had been decided that a structure that
essentially matched the mass and proportions of the existing structure would have minimum impact on
the building. Russo said he didn't wish to damage the building and there really was no where else to go
without damaging the visual construction of the building. The porch would not actually be 14-feet, the
distance from the edge of the building to the first window would be 14-feet, allowing for overhangs, etc.
The porch would actually be between 12- to 13-feet long and only 7-feet deep. Russo had asked for 8-
feet in order to be able to adequately deal with all requirements.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Alexander made a motion to approve EXC04-00008. Leigh seconded the motion.
Keitel said he would vote in favor of the motion. The proposed front yard setback would not be
detrimental to the property in question; the Stipulations of the Guidelines had not been violated.
Alexander said she would also vote in favor of the motion. This truly appeared to be a unique situation,
converting a church building into a single-family residence: there was practical difficulty because of the
historic preservation concerns; there didn't seem to be any feasible alternatives in lieu of the special
exception.
Wright said he would vote in favor of the motion for the previously stated reasons. It certainly was a
unique situation and the proposed setback would not alter appearances radically from others in the
neighborhood.
Leigh said she would also vote in favor of the motion. She agreed with the points made in the Staff report
that this was not inconsistent with other neighborhood buildings and represented a substantial investment
in the neighborhood.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
APPEAL:
AP04-00003, an appeai submitted by Allan L. Berger of the written interpretation issued by the Iowa City
Zoning Code Interpretation Panel on March 1, 2004 regarding animal clinics in the Highway Commerciai
(CH-1) Zone and of his appeal that veterinary establishments be considered auto- and truck-oriented
uses. .
Howard said Berger had posed two questions to the City:
1. Are small animal clinics allowed in the Highway Commercial Zone (CH-1)?
2. Are emergency veterinary establishments auto- and truck-oriented uses as defined in the Iowa City
Zoning Ordinance?
Howard said the City had responded both verbally and in writing to Berger. The Staff Report provided
additional evidence and support of the City's position that small animal clinics were not allowed in the
Highway Commercial Zone and that emergency veterinary establishments were not considered auto- and
truck-oriented uses such that they wouid be a permitted use in the CH-1 zone. Howard said Berger had
relied to some extent on an analysis done by Ralph Stoffer, his consultant, in trying to figure out a way to
allow his proposed veterinary establishment on a particular property along Highway 1. Howard reminded
the Board that this appeal was not about a particular property, it was about the Zoning Ordinance and
how it was interpreted for all properties in the Highway Commercial zone and for all commercial
development in all commercial zones.
Howard said Berger had carefully crafted his case, the language in the Zoning Code could be interpreted
in his favor, the question before the Board is whether the City made an error in its interpretation and
application of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Code was written over 20 years ago and has been
amended many times, so the language of the current version could be confusing in some cases. She said
some of the confusion in this case was between the words 'allowed' and 'permitted'. It was the case with
the Zoning Ordinance that sometimes the word 'allowed' and the word 'permitted' were meant to be a
specific thing and sometimes they were meant to be interpreted generally. In some cases, it is necessary
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 4
to look at the whole structure of the Code to figure out how it should be interpreted. Howard said Berger
had made a case to interpret the Code a certain way. Staff and the City felt that the way Berger had
interpreted the Code wouid undermine the very structure of how the Commercial Zone sections of the
Zoning Code. That is out of Staffs primary concerns.
Howard said it was not enough for Berger to show that the Code could be interpreted differently. He must
convince the Board that the City had actually made an error in interpreting the Code in the way that it had.
If the Board was going to find for Berger, they needed to state in their findings why and how the City had
made an error in their interpretation of the Code.
Howard said the language in the Code was intended to provide rules for all deveiopment in all zones so it
was important to look at the structure of the Code, "Would the particular interpretation undermine the
structure of the Code?" She said the argument in this case centered around the fact that CH-1 zone listed
office uses allowed in the CO-1 in its Permitted Use section of the CH-1 zone. The actual language in the
Commercial Office zone section, "Offices which do not carry on retail trade activities and do not maintain
a stock of goods for sale to customers except for those retail establishments specifically allowed in this
zone. Any office use shall be permitted excepting the following, (A) Drive-In facilities and (B) Small Animal
Clinics." Howard said that language was referred to in many of the other commercial zones including the
Community Commercial zone and the Intensive Commercial zone. Howard said this was essentially
where the City felt that Berger's argument fell down. The Code very specifically states which zones small
animal clinics are allowed in. She said, for example, in the Community Commercial zone it had the same
language that referred to office uses allowed in the Commercial Office zone, but also specifically stated
that small animal clinics were allowed as a provisional use.
There are three types of uses, Permitted, Provisional, and Special Exceptions. The Board most often
reviews cases regarding special exceptions. Howard said it would not make sense for the Code, as
Berger had implied, to allow small animal clinics as a special exception whenever that language occurs in
the commercial zone sections and also specifically allow small animal clinics as provisional uses in the
same zone. That clearly showed that it really was not the intent of that reference to the CO-1 zone.
Howard said another thing that has been pointed out in the Staff Report was that there was a timing issue
involved which may have caused some of the confusion with the existing Code language. It was not until
1996 that the Commercial Office zone was amended to allow small animal clinics as a special exception.
Prior to that, this reference from other commercial zones to the CO-1 zone was already present in the
Code and it was not until 1996 that small animal clinics were added as a special exception to that zone.
Howard said that was another piece of evidence that would point to the fact that the intent was to very
specifically cite where small animal clinics were allowed and where they were not.
Howard said with regard to the second question, "Are emergency veterinary establishments auto- and
truck-oriented uses as defined in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance?", auto and truck oriented uses have
always been considered uses that either served persons while they were in their cars such as drive-
throughs or they were uses that provide services for vehicles such as providing services for trucks or
automobiles such as gas stations, auto repair shops or auto rental places. Emergency veterinary
establishments did not fall into either one of these types of auto and truck oriented uses.
Berger had stated that he intended his clinic to draw traffic from outside the City. However that was true
of a lot of commercial establishments in Iowa City, such as the hospitals and clinics that drew from a
larger region. Most of the City's commercial zones are specifically located along arterial streets with good
access to the City's street network. Many commercial uses would consider a location at a highway
interchange to be advantageous to drawing customers. However, Howard said to consider any use that
drew customers from a larger region to be auto and truck oriented uses would render the term 'auto and
truck oriented use' in the Zoning Code essentially meaningless. Almost any commercial use would fall
into that category.
Howard said, in summary, granting the appeai would not serve the interest of justice in this case because
neither the letter nor the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be upheld by such a decision.
Granting the appeal in this case would not clarify the language of the Zoning Code but would in fact erode
the structure of the Code, not only for the properties in the Highway Commercial zone but for properties in
other commercial zones where the same language was used to distinguish when and how certain uses
were allowed.
..._-~~-,. -- -'- ..........,,-.._.._.-..._.._-_._'-,.,.~..._-,._--,._---_."._---_...-.-'-~--..-.- -.--_._--,.,_._~- -------,.-..._-_.~-,-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 5
Howard said Staff had been working with Berger over the last one and one-half years trying to help him
find appropriate zones and places. He had also submitted a letter to the Planning and Zoning
Commission with ideas and suggestions as to how to amend the Code to make it easier to locate
veterinary establishments. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have carefully considered
those suggestions and have recommended some changes Berger has suggested. Staff would like to work
with Berger to try to find a location for his veterinary clinic, but the Highway Commercial zone is not a
place that veterinary clinics are allowed in Iowa City. Therefore Staff recommends that the Board of
Adjustment deny AP04-00003, an appeal by Allan L. Berger of the written interpretation issued by the
Iowa City Zoning Code Interpretation Panel on March 1, 2004 regarding animal clinics in the Highway
Commercial (CH-1) zone and of his appeal that veterinary establishments be considered auto- and truck-
oriented uses.
Alexander said pages 2542 and 2543 of the Code had been included in the Board's information package.
She asked Staff to walk the Board through the actual language of the Code in order to facilitate her
finding of the exact wording Howard was referring to. Howard said those pages had actually been
submitted by the appellant. Howard used the actual Code itself to provide the information Alexander had
requested.
Behr reiterated the Board's scope of review. He said to grant this appeal and overturn the decision of the
ZCIP panel, the Board must determine that the decision was in error, either an error in interpretation of
the law or an error in application of the law to the facts of this case. In deciding the matter, Behr said the
Board should carefully articulate whether they believed there was an error and why or why not. In the
written materials that had been submitted to the Board, there was discussion of Code Section 14-6E-3B
sub 5 and discussion of a footnote shown in the text of the ordinance. Behr said that footnote was not in
the actual ordinance, it did not have the status of law and therefore was not binding in the sense of status
of law. Typically footnotes were added by a codifier or as a cross reference. Behr said he was pointing
this out simply to advise the Board that the footnote should not serve alone as the basis for their decision
in this appeal. Their decision should be based on interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, of this or other
provisions they felt were relevant as they fit into the entire ordinance.
Public discussion was opened.
Allan Berqer, 3005 Hwy 1 NE, said he had provided handouts to the Board for their review. Berger stated
he was a veterinarian and had been looking to move his existing veterinary practice into Iowa City for a
few years. Due to conflicts between veterinary ciinics and residential uses, there were very few locations
where a veterinary clinic could be built. Berger said in the Staff Report the City had stated, "In this case,
the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel considers the language quite clear and specific." Berger said he
could not disagree more with that statement.
Berger presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing what he hoped to construct on the site. The mixed
use facility would contain a basement, ground floor for the veterinary clinic and a second story with
access from the other side which would be used for more traditional office uses and "less controversial
things".
Berger said the CH-1 zone permitted uses that included office uses allowed in the CO-1 zone. The CO-1
zone text under special exceptions said small animal clinics were allowed provided they followed certain
rules. Berger said he planned to follow those rules. He said the Creature Comfort Veterinary Clinic,
located in a CO-1 zone, was considered to be conforming and that proved that veterinary clinics were
allowed in the CO-1 zone and considered to be conforming
Berger said the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's opinion actually said that the footnote was a part of
the law and that was what made veterinary clinics not allowed in a CO-1 zone, because they were not in
14-6 E1 b rather they were in 14-6 E1 d. Berger said Behr's statement that the footnote was not a part of
the Code was actually contrary to the determination of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel.
Berger said the footnote preceded allowing veterinary clinics in the CO-1 zone. Howard had provided an
accurate timeline: first the footnote had been written then veterinary clinics had been added to the
allowed use of the CO-1 zone. He said, "To say the intent of the footnote had been to proscribe veterinary
clinics from the CO-1 zone could not be, there was no reason to think that."
. .-..-.-.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 6
Berger said the second question that needed to be asked was, did the footnote take precedence over the
main text of the Code? He said Behr had essentially contradicted the opinion of the Panel, who'd said the
footnote was an important part of the Code. Behr had said it was more for reference.
Berger said The Staff Report dated April 9 actually differed from the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel in
two important ways; 1) There was a four-page 1996 Staff Report which Staff pointed to as conclusive
proof that veterinary clinics were not intended in the CH-1 zone. 2) The structure of the Code.
Berger said the June 20, 1996 memo cited by the recent Staff report as conclusive proof that veterinary
clinics were not intended in the CH-1 zone was written just before veterinary clinics/small animal clinics
were added to the allowed use of the CO-1 zone. The opinion had been written by Scott Kugler, an
Associate Planner, who was analyzing the RIO (Residential Office) zone. Berger said Kugler had been
concerned that the R/O zone, as a residential zone, might be inappropriate to have veterinary clinics near
a residential zone. Kugler had analyzed the RIO zone as it had existed in 1996, that it allowed all uses
permitted in the CO-1 zone and it would permit a small animal clinic upon approval of a special exception
through the reference of adding veterinary clinics to the CO-1 zone. There was a footnote that said see
Subsection 14-6 E1 b of this chapter. Berger said the CH-1 zone as it existed today said, "Permitted uses,
office uses allowed in the CO-1 zone." with a footnote that said see Subsection 14-6 E1 b of this article.
Berger said he felt 'office uses allowed in the CO-1 zone' actually allowed more uses than just the
permitted uses of the CO-1 zone. He said they were very similar statements except for the last use of the
word [chapter / article]. He said in his analysis Kugler had concluded that an RIO zone would permit a
small animal clinic upon approval of a special exception through this reference. Berger said since the
Code was nearly identical in a CH-1 zone today, he did not understand why this memo was conclusive
proof that veterinary clinics were not allowed in the CH-1 zone. Berger said he thought it was the exact
opposite, the memo said veterinary clinics should be allowed. The reason why they had been concerned
about veterinary clinics in the RIO zone was because it was a residential zone. There were no residences
anywhere near any of the CH zones.
Berger said the second point he wanted to touch on was if veterinary clinics could be considered an auto-
and truck-oriented use. He said the definition of auto- and truck-oriented uses included 'uses catering to
the convenience of drivers of motor vehicles, including convenience groceries, service shops, dry-
cleaning centers, photo developing drop centers.' Berger said one of the reasons he was interested in this
site was because it was right along 1-80. He was looking to expand and relocate his practice. His
veterinary practice was actually different from any other veterinary practice in Iowa City as they were
staffed 24-hours a day because they saw emergencies. They saw emergencies that were referred to
them from most veterinary practices in Iowa City and the Johnson County area. Most of their activity was
from the north part of Iowa City and Johnson County so persons had to be able to find them quickly. He
said a location that was easy to find was critical as they were dealing with persons who had an
emergency, who were upset and who had not been to his practice before.
Berger said he felt part of the definition of auto- and truck-oriented uses, was that it catered to the
convenience of persons who were driving to it. Berger said one of the criticisms of his arguments was that
as a consequence of what he was proposing, veterinary clinics could be allowed as both a permitted and
a provisional use in two zones. He said it happened all the time. Berger cited examples of dry-cleaning
establishments and convenience grocery stores stating he did not see why it would be a problem for his
use but not for the other uses.
Berger said the specific CH-1 zone that they proposed to build their clinic in was located just off North
Dodge Street. The area could support the traffic of an emergency veterinary clinic: there were no near-by
residences. Immediately on the other side of 1-80 was a veterinary clinic directly adjacent to a hotel and
gasoline station. The site he proposed to locate on was also directly adjacent to a hotel and a small
gasoline station. Berger said within the same subdivision was a precedent for clinic use, Steindler Medical
Clinic had located there within the past two years. Berger said Staff would now probably say the medical
clinic was not appropriate in a highway zone as it did not serve people in cars nor did it have a drive
through. No one had raised any concerns when a medical facility had located in the very same CH-1
zone. He was planning to use the same builder for his two structures as had designed and built Steindler
Orthopedic Clinic.
--<. -
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 7
Berger said he had written a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission in August, 2002. To date, he
had not received a reply from them nor had they had given him any meaningful help in the past two years.
Berger said the question could arise as to if a special exception were even needed to establish a
veterinary clinic in a CH-1 zone. If an emergency veterinary clinic was accepted as an auto- and truck-
oriented use, then a special exception would not be needed. If the Board decided that a veterinary clinic
would be allowed because it was a use that was also allowed in a CO-1 zone, then it became unclear.
Veterinary clinics were allowed in the CO-1 zone, but only with a special exception. Berger said the
question then came up, should a veterinary clinic in a CH-1 have the same requirements as if it were in
the CO-1 zone. Kugler had analyzed this exact issue in the context of the residential office zone in the
memo from 1996. Kugler had concluded that if the Code persisted as it was in 1996, that a veterinary
ciinic would require a special exception. Berger said he was comfortable with that, the Board had his
application before them.
Berger said he was struck by the differences in the standard of review that the City had used in evaluating
the issue of veterinary clinics. The Panel had said that during a review, every single word including a
footnote had to be looked at. The City Attorney's Office now said that a footnote was not actually a part of
the Code. Berger said when they had evaluated the auto-and truck-oriented use definition, they had
refused to acknowledge the very words that had been in the definition, "uses catering to the convenience
of drivers of motor vehicles, including but not limited to convenience groceries and service shops and dry
cleaning centers." The Staff report and Howard had said that the factor that distinguished an auto- and
truck-oriented use from one that was not, was the presence or absence of drive through facilities. Berger
said he felt that was a blatant distortion of the Code. The Code didn't say those facilities had to have a
drive through. Berger said the Staff report stated that in this case, the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel
considered the language quite clear and specific. He did not see how any person could reasonably come
to the same conclusion. When considering the arbitrariness of the City's point of view was amplified when
a person noted how closely situated another veterinary clinic was and how close a medical clinic was.
Berger said those locations were so close, their sites could not be rationally distinguished from his
proposed site.
Berger said he was going to be listening very carefully to hear how the Board addressed the interpretation
of the Code. Additionally, he would be listening even more closely to hear what the Board thought of his
project, was a veterinary clinic appropriate in that type of a location, was his use going to cause problems;
was the site plan appropriate: was a mixed use building that would house a veterinary clinic and some
other uses appropriate.
Ralph Stoffer, 535 Southgate Avenue, said he was a civil engineer who specialized in site plans and
similar types of stuff. He had sat through the 1983 re-write of the Code. The vet clinics and drive ins had
been a hot issue at the time. They had just started doing drive-up types and pick up and there had been
some really bad ones. At the same time, they had had some real problems with veterinary clinics that
were not operated very nicely. They had had outdoor kennels that were in a residential neighborhood.
Stoffer said that was why they had pulled those two items as a permitted use from the office uses and
moved them over into the special exception. Stoffer said his anaiysis of this was in the legal things, of
specific words that might be used interchangeability became very specific. A permitted use was an
allowed use and if approved by the Board a special exception was also allowed. They were very different
words in the Code. In the RIO zone, the CO-1 zone permitted uses, every office use except a drive
through or veterinary clinic was a permitted use. In the Highway Commercial zone, it was all of the uses
that were allowed. Stoffer said he would contend that a veterinary clinic was an allowed use with a special
exception. He said Behr's comment made about the footnote was key to the Panel's decision and
therefore was a mistake. He had written out the reasons he felt this was an allowed use and had
submitted them as part of the Boards information packet. He said they were simply asking permission to
build a veterinary clinic on that particular lot.
Jack Lester said thirty years ago he'd been involved in developing the Interstate. He'd purchased the
Jones, Harriet, Stephens oil company in the early 1970's and opened the location at the corner. It had
been a tough opening, he'd learned a lot about what made up the Interstate and what attracted
consumers off the Interstate. He said that immediate corner had always been difficult to develop. He felt
Berger's was an innovative project. He said he had introduced food products to convenience locations
which at the time had been considered to be "nuts". Berger's proposal was not being recognized for
having its potential interstate use. Many persons traveled with pets. He'd been working with Berger and
- ..-. ~_.-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 8
his wife, both from New York, both with PhD's, for nearly two years to try and find a site for their proposed
clinic in Iowa City. It had been very difficult, the community had done a very good job at frustrating the
Berger's. The City and State was running a lot of young couples out of the State, he hoped the City would
not run the Berger's out.
Sue Nelson, 924 Summit Street, said a year ago one of her son's cats had begun seizing at 3:00 am on
Sunday morning. Her veterinary clinic had hooked her up with Dr. Berger. Nelson was appreciative that
she could find his location and Berger had compassionately euthanized the cat. She said location was
very important, especially during emergencies. She said she would be very appreciative of any thing the
Board could do to help Berger's situation.
Jennifer Brown, Popl's Ave NE, said she owned Kolder Pet Hospital in West Branch. As a local practicing
veterinarian, a veterinary emergency clinic was desperately needed in this area. They had many things to
offer to improve the healthcare of pets, first and foremost being that they were open at all hours. They
had overnight care and monitoring of pets available, plasma for transfusions for animals and would have
emergency equipment available that regular clinics could not afford or have the ability to run. In the past
veterinarians had sent these animals and their neurotically frightened drivers an hour's drive away to
hopefully save their animal. Previously there had been no other options available. Brown said she hoped
the Board could see the importance of the proposed emergency veterinary clinic, they should try to
imagine not having an emergency room available for humans. An emergency veterinary clinic needed to
be in a location in order to see enough clients from all the different referring entities that they could afford
all equipment and the overnight care. Brown said the other vital consideration that had been brought up
was that the clinic needed to be in an easily accessible location. There was no ambulance for pets. Many
couples were not having children and their pets were their babies. The owners of an injured pet would be
panicked and would need a clinic that they could find quickly on a main street that was quite visible.
Jenn BerQer, 3005 Hwy 1 NE, said she was the other-half of the Berger's. She felt it was very important
for her to attend in that for her and her husband, being veterinarians was pretty much their life. Berger
said the City report stated, "That the approval of their use would not serve the interest of justice." She felt
to deny it would be an injustice. It was a family owned and operated business, she was an equal partner.
After having been told verbally that this location was accepted by City Staff, they had invested quite a bit
of time and money on this project to date. As had been previously stated, it would be a disservice to pet
owners in this area to not allow them to build a day and emergency veterinary clinic in this location. She
said the City report had stated that the current Iowa City hospitals were not located at highway
interchanges, making the assumption that that was okay for everything. Berger said she felt their
particular location would actually be an excellent location for a human emergency hospital. All three of the
Iowa City hospitals were hard to find and took a long time to get to, especially during football season. The
majority of true human emergencies traveled to hospitals in ambulances driven by ambulance drivers who
knew exactly where they were going and had lights and sirens to assist them in getting there quickly.
Stressed owners of sick pets had a very difficult time with the most simple of directions. Easy access to
their clinic, either day or night, was of the utmost importance. Berger said she believed the city and
surrounding communities would be better served by their multi-use building than that of a fourth gas
station at this intersection.
Alan Beroer, said there was a City Staff report that had been authored on June 6, 1996 which was
different from the June 20, 1996 report that the City Staff had included with their filing. On Monday he had
requested a copy of the memorandum and had been told Staff could not find it. Just prior to this meeting,
Howard had provided him with a copy of the requested memo authored by Kugler. Berger read an except
from the memorandum and requested that the document be added into the legal record.
Howard said Stoffer was correct when he'd stated that there had been much interest in figuring out the
best way to allow veterinary establishments in Iowa City. One of those instances had been in 1996 when
a party had gone to the Planning and Zoning Commission to request an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to allow veterinary clinics in the Highway Commercial zone. The party had also requested that
their property be rezoned from CO-1 to CH-1, thinking that the CH-1 zoning would be a better zone for an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. That had been the context that the Kugler memorandums had been
written in that Berger had referred to in his testimony. Howard said in that particular case, while some of
the language in the memos was deliberation about amending the Code, not all of it got in the Code for
various reasons. What had been decided at that time was that it really was more appropriate to have
veterinary clinics allowed in a CO-1 zone and not in a CH-1 zone. The discussion very specifically had
-.......-,....--...... _n__ _...__._--~--------_..,_.__.---_._,. -_._-~-~.._----_..._...- ---'-'-'-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 9
been that the City had deliberated on this and "had decided that it wasn't best to rezone the property to
CH-1, it wasn't best to amend the Zonin9 Ordinance to allow small animal clinics in the CH-1 zone, it was
best to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow small animal clinics in the CO-1 zone and keep the zoning
the way it was for this particular property." Howard said it was noteworthy that the Code wasn't amended
as Kugler had talked about. When the Code was amended the RIO zone was not amended and it could
be surmised that it was determined to be unnecessary because it was very clear that small animal clinics
were not intended to be allowed in the CH-1 zone at that time.
Howard said there is no doubt that an emergency vet clinic is a needed use in Iowa City. There are a
number of zones that allow this type of establishment. There is very little CH-1 zonin9 in Iowa City, it is
mainly around the highway interchanges. The Commercial Office zone is much more prevalent, and in the
Community Commercial zones veterinary clinics are allowed as a provisional use. They don't require a
special exception. All of that type of zoning had direct access to the arterial street network in Iowa City.
Howard said there was no doubt that this particular location was attractive to the Bergers. It might be the
case that the City would consider it a good idea to amend the CH-1 zone to allow veterinary ciinics based
on some evidence that Berger and other persons submit. However, Howard said this was not the City
body that could amend the Zoning Ordinance, that argument would need to be made in front of the P&Z
Commission and the City Council. The Board of Adjustment was charged with deciding if the City had
made an error in interpreting the Code the way it had.
Public discussion was closed.
Behr said given the discussion that had occurred, what was before the Board was the appeal of the
conclusion reached by the ZCIP Panel. The question before the Board was whether the Panel had made
an error in interpreting the iaw or applying the law. The question was not whether the Board felt that this
or another small animal clinic would be good at this particular location nor was it a question for the Board
as to If they thought small animal clinics were good in CH-1 zones. Behr said only after the appeal
decision, if the appeal was granted, only then did the special exception come before the Board. He said
there had been a lot of discussion regarding the special exception, but it would come before the Board
only if and when the Board granted the appeal and decided to hear the special exception. If the appeal
was not granted, then they as a body would have ruled that they didn't have jurisdiction over the special
exception.
Behr said his comments at the outset were not meant to characterize the ZCIP Panel decision in any way.
What was before the Board was the conclusion reached by that Panel. The Board's decision should be
based on the entire Zoning Code and the provisions of it that they felt applied.
Mlklo said there had been several references from and regarding the 1996 memos from Staff, he wanted
to be sure that the context was clear. Those memorandums had been written in response to a
veterinarian who had asked that the CH-1 zone be amended to allow veterinary clinics. That request had
been rejected at that time, a legislative decision not to amend the CH-1 Highway Commercial zone had
been made. Miklo said that was why it was Staff's position that it was clear that there was a decision not
to allow veterinary clinics as either a permitted use or as a special exception. What had been done at that
time was that the CO-1 zone had been amended on Staff's and the P&Z Commission's recommendation
and was amended by City Council to allow small animal clinics to be considered by special exception.
Miklo said in 1996 it had been a very lengthily process where this had been debated and the conclusion
at that time had been that small animal clinics should not be permitted in the CH-1 zone. He said
circumstances might change, but that was a decision for the P&Z Commission and City Council, not for
the Board of Adjustment.
Behr said the Board had heard discussion of what had been characterized as various interpretations over
time. The interpretation at issue before the Board was that of the ZCIP Panel, whether or not the Panel
had interpreted andlor applied the provision of the Zoning Ordinance correctly or not.
Howard said the question about the auto- and truck-oriented use had also been considered in this appeal,
which had not been addressed by the ZCIP Panel but had been addressed by the Staff Report. Behr said
also before the Board was the decision of Staff that the small animal clinic was not allowed as an auto-
and truck-oriented use. They were also to decide if there had been an error in Staff's determination.
,.,. --- ..--..----.--...-..- .-.-'-.- --_._~..._-~-"~--_._._..__...__.__._._.-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 10
A. Berger, speaking after public discussion had been closed, said he wished to rise to an issue of fact. He
said Miklo had stated that in 1996 the amendment of the CH-1 zone had been rejected as a legislative
decision, the minutes indicated that the application had been withdrawn. It had never been voted on.
Miklo said that was correct, it had not been voted on. The direction had been that it was not
recommended and the Commission had found another avenue to permit that particular veterinary clinic.
Alexander asked for a clarification regarding the general intention of a CH-1 zone. Miklo said a CH-1 zone
was a Highway Commercial zone. The general intention was that it should provide space for businesses
serving motorists, people traveling over the interstate highway system or the major highways through the
community. It encouraged things such as hotels, motels, gas stations, truck stops, restaurants and things
that provided a service or convenience to interstate motorists. Howard read the intent from the Intent
Section of the Zoning Ordinance Code. In response to an inquiry from Alexander, Howard said in general
the way they distinguished between the different commercial zones was by trying to make different places
for different types of uses.
Berger said the Steindler Orthopedic Clinic existed within the CH-1 zone and its use was no different than
his proposed facility in terms of the type of traffic it would draw. In the past the City had made the
determination that medicai office space was appropriate in the CH-1 zone, he didn't understand why his
project was receiving a different level of review.
Behr reminded the chairperson that the public discussion section had been ciosed.
Motion: Alexander moved that the appeal submitted by Allan L. Berger of the written interpretation issued
by the Iowa City Zoning Code Interpretation Panel on March 1, 2004 regarding animal clinics in the
Highway Commercial (CH-1) Zone and of his appeal that veterinary establishments be considered auto-
and truck-oriented uses be granted. Leigh seconded the motion.
Alexander said this was the most complicated item that had come before the Board since she had been
there. It could certainly appear to be a case of splitting hairs in a lot of directions. She saw the Berger's
proposal as a wonderful project and wouid fully support it. However, in terms of what was before the
Board, reading the Code and not even necessariiy relying on the City's interpretation, she would have to
vote to deny the appeal. Alexander said she could not find that the City had made an error. She
encouraged the Bergers to go to Zoning and try to have it altered. The Board had no legislative ability, all
they were allowed to do was to look at the letter of what was written and make a judgment as to whether
they saw that an error had been made, and she could not find that.
Leigh said it was not a question of whether this was a needed project. There had been times in the past
when she had been in need of services such as those Bergers were proposing to offer. It would have
been wonderful to have known that they were availabie. She understood why the location appealed to the
Bergers, the aesthetics of the proposed building were beautiful, but she could not find that a mistake had
been made in the interpretation. Leigh said to say that a use that was permitted by special exception
under CO-1 could be extrapolated that it was blanketly approved under CH-1 was not correct. Leigh said
she also did not see the Berger's proposed clinic as an auto- and truck-oriented use. She understood the
urgency and the need to be able to be found, but under CH-1 they were talking about 'in and out'
services. She had spent many hours at a veterinarian's office for a pet's treatment or surgery, it was not
exactly an 'in and out'. She could find that no misinterpretation had been made.
Wright said he had to say sorrowfully that he agreed with his colleagues for the reasons that had been
stated. He did not see that any errors had been made by the City or Zoning Code Interpretation Panel.
The intent of the wording in Section 6 was relatively ciear. He would vote to deny the appeal.
Keitel said as stated by the Attorney for the Board, they were looking at two issues. As to the issue of
whether or not a small animal clinic could be defined as an auto- and truck-oriented use, he agreed with
Staff. He didn't feel that a small animal clinic was considered such a use. They were talking about
automobile uses not people uses. He did not feel the definition could be stretched enough to include a
small animal clinic as an auto- and truck-oriented use. Keitel said from that standpoint, the Zoning Code
Interpretation Panel had the correct interpretation.
Keitel said he had a harder time agreeing with whether this was a permitted use in a CH-1 zone. Looking
at the Zoning Ordinance, they were hanging a lot of their hat on the footnote. He didn't think it was real
-... -~-.---_. ~. --- -- -----_.~----'..... ----,'------_.--" ------- ~___u_____
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 11
clear what the intent for the footnote had been, the footnote did not appear in the City Code. He felt the
ZCIP panel had been trying to rely on the footnote. Keitel said in the end, he agreed with his colleagues
that the use of a small animal clinic in a CH-1 zone was not an appropriate use. Looking at the zoning
map of that area, he could see where it was unfortunate that it was not adjacent to a CO-1 zone where it
would possibly be easier to have the area rezoned and then ask for a special exception in order to have
their small animal clinic. He was going to vote in favor of the ZCIP Panel's interpretation of the Code.
Keitel asked that Staff, during the re-write of the Zoning Code take another look at this issue. Alexander
said what was being described here was something different than the typical small animal clinic and
suggested that it be considered to create a special category for this particular use.
The motion failed on a vote of 0-4.
Stoffer requested that it be stated for the record why the Board was not or would not give consideration to
EXC04-00005. Behr said due to the Board's decision on AP04-00003, their decision meant that the Board
did not have jurisdiction to consider EXC04-00005.
VARIANCE:
VAR04-00001, discussion of an application submitted by John Roffmann for a variance from the zoning
ordinance to allow 4 roomers (a total of 6 unrelated occupants) in a High-Density (RM-44) zone at 622 S.
Johnson Street.
Miklo said at the time this property had been built in 1964, it had been zoned Multi-Family Residential,
R3A, the equivalent of RM-44 zoning of the current zoning ordinance. At the time the R3A zone permitted
this dwelling to be occupied by a family which might include two unrelated persons and a maximum of
three roomers or a maximum of 5 unrelated persons. The zoning ordinance never legally allowed this
property to be occupied by more than 5 unrelated occupants. As a result of a recent directive of the City
Council to improve enforcement of City ordinances, the over occupancy of this dwelling had come to light.
The Council had passed an ordinance requiring an Information Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form
which meant that each time a rental permit was issued, the City Housing Inspector was to verify how
many persons could occupy a dwelling based on zoning, housing code and other city codes.
Miklo said the Board might grant the requested variance to allow six unrelated occupants only if the
requested relief was found to meet all the tests of a variance as set forth in the Zoning Code. Miklo
highlighted the tests as documented in the Staff Report of April 14, 2004. He said granting a special
privilege not enjoyed by the neighbors could result in other land owners seeking similar variances to
increase the number of occupants on their properties. Miklo said as early as 1962 the City Council had
determined that at most 5 unrelated occupants should occupy anyone dwelling in the R3A zone. This
property was located in one of the highest density areas of the City. Staff felt granting a variance would
be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and to the Comprehensive Plan as well as could potentially lead to
other variance requests from other property owners in the area.
Miklo said the applicant had submitted no financial records to indicate that the application of the Zoning
Ordinance to this property would not resuit in a reasonable return on this property. The owner may have
enjoyed more rental income from this property than they were entitled to if it had been rented to 6
unrelated persons for all these years. The value of a property should be based on the maximum legal
occupancy and not an illegal use of a property.
Miklo said nothing had changed in the Zoning Code since this building had been built in 1964. City
Council had made major amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in 1976 and in 1983, but had never
increased the limit of unrelated occupants permitted in a dwelling unit to more than 5 persons. Miklo said
the applicant had not met any of the tests required for granting a variance. An applicant was required to
meet all of the tests and not just anyone of them, so Staff recommended that particular application
should be denied.
Public discussion was opened.
John Roffman, 1314 Burry Drive, said he had been in the rental business for 35-years. After listening to
Staffs presentation he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time. The reason he was there was
- .------ -.-.~~-.."'--...-.------""""""'-.--.-.----.-..-"--.-.-...--.'_.'--,~.'- "---~----
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 12
because there was a bigger issue at hand. Only recently had Council directed Staff to more rigidly
enforce codes that were in place, which had come out of the Neighborhood Action Committee. That had
occurred because of noise, parties, parking, etc and typically not high density neighborhoods. Roffman
said a variance request to the Board was where he had been directed to go to, but he was not sure it was
actually the right venue. He had several other units iocated in the same zoning area but based on
bedroom square footage and parking he was able to legally rent to 5 persons. He also had a one
bedroom unit with a iegai occupancy of one. Two weeks ago he'd had a young couple who were trying to
get out of the shelter inquire about the one-bedroom unit. One of the predications for enrolling their child
in a pre-school was that they have a permanent address. They could afford the one-bedroom apartment,
but they could not live there because of the legal occupancy limits placed on it due to the size of the
bedroom. Roffmann said he had a problem with that. In the late 1960's when he'd been in college, he and
two others had shared a one-bedroom apartment using a set of bunk beds and a single bed. The room
had been no more than 13 feet long and they had all survived. Roffman said people lived according to
what the budget allowed. The couple's credit score wouldn't have allowed them to obtain the apartment
unless they had put a double deposit on it, but the current tenants were trying to break the lease and had
offered free month's rent. Roffman said what he was trying to say was that there were a lot of inequities
as far as occupancy and rating, how it was determined and what people could afford.
Roffman said it had no affect on the public health, safety and welfare in that the City was regulated to
provide whether there were six people in a six bedroom apartment or 5 people in a three bedroom
apartment with one bathroom. He requested that the Board or proper entity would direct Staff to
reevaluate occupancy, numbers, and etc. Up until the last two years until landlords had begun to be
inspected, they had not had a clue as to how many people could reside in a residence. It had been well
stated that five unrelated was the maximum. He said each time an inspection was made and the
calculations as to occupancy came back, it was sometimes inconceivable that the occupancy numbers
were correct. For instance in a one bedroom there could be one person, but in a little efficiency that had
no bedroom but had a little kitchen and bath, due to the size of the room, two persons could legally reside
there. Roffman said what he felt needed to be done was to reevaluate the whole living arrangement
situation, how it was rated and what was appropriate.
Roffman said he looked to the Board for assistance in how to address this situation. His was a small issue
in comparison to all the others that were an inappropriate rating of space and how many persons could
live there. There were a lot of issues that needed to be resolved and addressed.
Norm Cate, Senior Housing Inspector, said what Roffmann had brought up regardin9 the floor space
issue was something through the Housing Code that the Board of Adjustment didn't have any jurisdiction
over in terms of square footage and how many persons could be in a unit. There were those inequities
such as situations in which 4-persons as the maximum occupancy being granted to a one bedroom unit
because there was more than 440 square feet within the unit and the bedroom had more than 190 square
feet in the bedroom. Per the Building, Housing and Zoning codes, if the dwelling were in the appropriate
zone, that unit could have 4-persons in one bedroom. It was a Housing Code issue.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion: Wright moved that VAR04-00001, an application submitted by John Roffmann for a variance
from the zoning ordinance to allow 4 roomers (a total of 6 unrelated occupants) in a High-Density (RM-44)
zone at 622 S. Johnson Street be approved. Alexander seconded the motion.
Alexander asked for a brief review of the Board's responsibilities. Sara said as stated by Miklo and in the
Staff Report, in order to grant a variance legaily the Board had to find that the property or the applicant
had proven all of the tests that had been outlined. Ultimately if those tests were not met, it was an illegal
action by the Board in granting a variance.
Keitel said he was in sympathy with Roffman and the rental landlords in the town but the Board had to go
by the tests as outlined in Staffs Report. He had not found any overall mitigating circumstances to allow
the Board to consider granting this variance. This would be the second of many applications that would
come before the Board until some changes could be made in the Zoning Code and the way that Housing
Inspection Services evaluated rental properties. All they could do was to go by the ruies that were set. He
would have to vote to deny the variance.
~'-'---~-------"'" --r- -_._--_._.._-_._-..."_.....~_._-"--'----_._----_._._~-------....- ---~_...
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 2004
Page 13
Alexander said she too would have to vote to deny the variance based on the items that the Board was
allowed to consider.
Leigh said she too had lived in a very small apartment when she was a student, but agreed the Board
could not grant the applicant special privileges not enjoyed by his neighbors' if the Board said yes to this
application then they would have to say yes to other places that were over occupied and were
problematic because of that. She would have to vote to deny.
Wright said he concurred with the comments made by his colleagues. The structure didn't meet the tests
for granting a variance and apparently never had met the zoning regulations. He would have to vote no.
The motion failed on a vote of 0-4.
EXC04-00006 Miklo said the applicant had requested that this item be deferred to the May 12, 2004
meeting while she investigated parking options.
Motion: Alexander made a motion to defer EXC04-00006, an application for a special exception to permit
a nonresidential child care center in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone located at
735 Westgate Street. Wright seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
OTHER:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Alexander made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:27 pm. Leigh seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
Board Chairperson Board Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
data on citynUpcd/minutesJboa/2004/boa04-14-Q4.doc
--'.-----------...,,.--. ~-~'-- .._---.--,...-~------_._----- ---_._._--_.._~---_.,..
¡
Board or Commission: Board of Adjustment
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
April 14, 2004
TERM
NAME EXP. 1/14/04 2/11/04 3/1 0104 4/14/04 5/12/04 6/9104 7/14/04 8/11/04 9/8/04 10/13104 11/10104
Carol Alexander 1/1/08 NM X X X
Dennis Keitel 1/1/05 NM X X X
Karen Leigh 1/1/07 NM X X X
Vincent Maurer 1/1/06 NM 0 X OlE
Michael Wright 1/ 1/09 NM X X X
KEY: X = Present
o = Absent
OlE = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting
ì - = Not a Member
,
I
I
I
!
I::[
MINUTES FINAL
lOW A CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THURSDAY. Mav 13. 2004 - 5:45 P.M.
lOW A CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Hartwig cailed the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:Randy Hartwig, John Krstenansky, John Staley, Daniel Ciay,
Carl Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil
OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Trnka, Dick Blum-H.R. Green, Harry Wolf-Iowa Realty, Dave
Larson-land developer, Ron Duffe-Jet Air, Kim Brogan-Coleman
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the April 8 and April 22, 2004, Commission meetings were approved as
submitted.
REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES:
O'Neii reviewed the check requests for May with the Commission. O'Neil said the updated
appraisal was paid for through contingency funding, with approval from the City Manager.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
No items were presented.
UNFINISHED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
Kim Brogan addressed the Commission concerning a proposal to rent the United hangar. Brogan
passed out a copy of a proposaL She said she is still negotiating with Jet Air on subleasing part of
the hangar from them. Clay suggested tabling the issue untii iater in the meeting.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Environmental Assessment project - Joe Trnka addressed the Commission concerning the
EA. He gave the Commission copies of the document that is out for public review. He said
he has had no request for additional information. He said there are two main elements. One
is the runway extension project and the other is the disposition of the Untied hangar.
Trnka said the hangar is probably the biggest issue. There is no money to restore it and
moving it would still have an adverse affect. He said the proposal is to demolish the hangar.
In the runway project, it is proposed to put Wiilow Creek in a culvert through the runway
1
safety area. This will require approval from the Corps of Engineers. He said that takes some
time. He said there are not wetlands on the Airport that he is aware of.
Other than those two issues, Trnka said there are no major items that will need to be
addressed. Williams asked about moving the United hangar. Trnka said there is no money
to rehab it and a ietter was sent to the Council, explaining the Commission would demolish
the hangar unless someone was interested in saving it and had the money to rehab it.
Hartwig said there would be some cost in a historical recordation of the building. Trnka said
there was a lot of history at the Airport from before the building was buiit in the late 1920s.
Williams asked what the structure of the building was? Trnka said it was primarily a steel
structure, with steel siding. The office area exterior is brick. The office area has been
aitered significantly.
O'Neil said a public meeting has been scheduled for May 20, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting
will be held at the Airport, in the second floor meeting room and the public has been invited
to comment on the draft Environmental Assessment. It was advertised in the newspaper and
posted as a media release on the City's' web site. Copies are at the City CleTk's office, the
Iowa City LibTary and the Airport Manager's office. O'Neil said he has not received any
comments.
O'Neil said that after the public meeting is conducted, he wouid discuss the runway project
with the FAA.
Staley asked if the buiiding documentation booklet would be for saie? Trnka said they did a
similaT project in Clinton and the Historical Society sold the books. Not enough money was
received to cover the printing.
b. Airport Zoning - O'Neil said that because everyone on the Commission was relatively new,
he thought it would be beneficial for the Commission to have an overview of airport zoning.
He said Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, has developed a power point presentation that
simplifies the concept of airport zoning. Blum has made this presentation to State and FAA
aviation groups.
Blum said there is a requirement in FAA grant assurances that says the local jurisdiction will
protect the area around the airport. He said this is especially important in Iowa City because
of the proximity of the Airport to the City and all the development that is occurring around
the Airport.
Blum said that Part 77 of the Code of Federal Regulations is the guideline for establishing a
series of imaginary surfaces for the Airport Zoning. Blum eXplained the different safety
zones and their relationship to the runway. He said the elevations of the zones are based on
the future elevation of the Airport. In Iowa City, the zoning is based on an elevation of684'.
That will be the highest point on Runway 07 after it is extended.
The Airport Layout Plan has reserved a large enough area around Runway 07/25 to have the
option of a precision approach. There are several obstructions that need to be Temoved
before Iowa City could receive a precision approach.
Blum said there is a process required by Federal iaw that requires construction neaT the
Airport to file for an airspace study to assure there will not be any adverse affects to the
2
.'_ m.____"_,.._~__._"__ .__._"_____________
Airport from the construction. This is a federal requiTement fOT any construction that will
penetrate a 100 to I slope within approximately 4 miles from the Airport. It also requires
notification outside that area if the structure is higheT than 200'. The construction impacted
the most in this area is for ceil phone towers.
10 Iowa City, a copy of the airspace notice is required to be given to the Building
Department before a building permit is issued. This helps the Building Department know
that Airport Zoning issues have been addressed. Blum said the City Council has adopted the
Airport Zoning ordinance and he was hopeful the Johnson County Supervisors would adopt
it soon.
c. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) - Harry Wolf introduced himself as the listing agent
from Iowa Realty that would be working on the Aviation Commerce Park commercial
property. He said he is trying to deveiop a new approach to seiling the property and a
maTketing plan. He said he has over twenty years experience in the commercial real estate
business. He has met with Tracy Overton and will use him as a TeSOUTce if necessary.
He said he knows the listing time is relatively short. He does have three packets of
information out to interested parties. He said one is a buiider and the other two are other
reaÏtors. He said by the next meeting, if not before, he hoped to have a more detailed
marketing pian for the Commission.
o 'Neil asked if there was much movement in commerciai property? Wolf said there are
several signs that show there is action in this area of town. He said one of the issues he
wouid like to address is how important is it to market the property for aviation uses? O'Neil
said there couid be airport access to the south lots. Hartwig said that Wolf should not limit
uses to aviation related businesses.
Clay said this is only a 90-day listing. Wolf said with the local ties he has, he hopes to show
the Commission that they are the best company to market the property.
Unfinished items - United hangar - Kim Brogan said she had reached an agreement with
Jet Air to subiease a part of the United hangar. Jet Air has proposed to rent the hangar, "as
is" for $ 500 per month, for approximately two years. Duffe said he would divide the hangar
in half, with Brogan subleasing the east haif. Hartwig said that at the end of one yeaT, the
lease would be reviewed to see where Brogan is as far as the success of her flight schooL
Brogan said she thought the hangar space is critical to making her school work. O'Neil said
there is a lot of junk that wiil have to be hauled to the landfilL Clay asked if there was any
foreseeable downside to renting the hangaT? O'Neil said that because any improvements are
the responsibility of the tenants, the Commission will not spend any money and wiil receive
some income, even if it may only be for two years or less.
O'Neil said he would work with Duffe and get an agreement together as soon as possible.
Brogan said she needs the agreement before next month's Commission meeting. O'Neil
suggested meeting next Thursday before the public meeting for the Environmental
Assessment. If he has an agreement with Jet Air before that, he wiil schedule a noon
meeting as soon as possible.
3
........-.-- ,.."....-.-...-..--- ------ ._--_._.~----,-._--,------_...__._.~. -------~~--- ---------
d. Obstruction mitigation project- O'Neil said the bidding manuals are almost completed.
This will be for the obstruction lighting for two t-hangars and St. Mary's church. Another
contract will be iet for tree removal this fall.
e. Runway 07 project - O'Neil said the Earth Tech contract is still pending, waiting the
outcome of the public comment meeting for the Environmentai Assessment on May 20. This
will be an agenda item until the contract is completed.
Dave Larson presented infonnation on a project he is developing west of the Airport. He is
interested in getting an easement across Airport property for a pipe ftom a water detention
pond. Dulek reminded the Commission that they could only Tecommend to the Council to
approve an easement. The Council would have to approve a pennanent easement.
Staley asked if there was any possibility the detention would overflow and flood onto the
runway? LaTson said that would be possible. Staley asked if the detention pond would
increase the flow in Willow Creek? Larson said a heavy rain may flood the area, but that
would not be increased by having the detention area.
Williams asked Larson why he would like to change the location of the detention area ftom
where it is now? Larson said the Dane property is in the flood plain and is not developable
commercial property.
Staley asked if there would be any excavation to build the detention pond? Larson said they
would not need to go any deeper than the current elevation. A dike would be built between
the creek and the Dane property. Larson said that he has excess fill material and that is
another subject he would like to discuss with the Commission
Larson showed the Commission a drawing of the area he is developing. A proposed street
would go through Airport property. He asked if the Commission would be interested in
selling OT ieasing the pToperty adjacent to the Dane property for street right of way and
possible development? He said there are peopie interested in the area. He said he has too
much dirt and he thought the Commission needed fill fOT the runway pToject. He would like
to work with Earth Tech when they design the runway extension to see if both parties could
benefit.
Clay asked if there was any reason to think the change in the water flow would negatively
impact the runway extension project? The Commission asked Bium, from H.R. Green, ifhe
knew of any potential problems? Blum said he could help the Commission identify some
questions for Larson to answer. Blum said building a dike could change the size of the flood
plain. He said that is one question to be answered.
Another issue is what impact would the detention area have on the flowage? The third
question is what effect, if any, would this have on the environment? Would it alter or effect
the environmental impact study?
Larson said he thinks this holding area would improve the water flow in the area. He said he
spoke with the DNR and the Corps of Engineers and they did not think there would be any
adverse impact. He said the DNR would like to Teroute the creek through the detention area
to add to the natural habitat in the area.
Wiliiams asked how big the detention area would be? Larson said it was one to two acres
4
--- .." --
and could be expanded to four acres. O'Neil said there is no construction planned for that
area in the Airport Master Plan. Hartwig said that in principal, it sounds like a good idea, but
there are questions that need to be answered. Blum said that if the Commission agrees to the
easement for the detention pond, there should be some mechanism to make sure that area
does not become an attraction for waterfowl.
Williams asked what would happen if this issue is passed on to the City Council to approve a
permanent easement? Dulek said it would be up to the Council to decide if they wanted to
give a permanent easement. O'Neil said that if the Commission makes a recommendation to
approve the easement, it is very iikeiy that the Council will assume there are no Airport
issues and will not research what effect this would have on the Airport.
Larson said the three issues he had were the easement for the detention area, the extra fill and
if the Commission wanted to lease some of the Airport property next to his development
area. Staley said that the questions asked earlier need to be answered.
Clay asked when Larson would like an answer to his questions? Larson said he would like to
discuss them at the next Commission meeting. O'Neil said the Commission would need
substantial fill for the runway project. The Commission does not have funding to haul the
dirt and the FAA will not reimburse the Airport for construction projects. O'Neil said the
Commission should not pay for the engineering services needed by Larson to answeT the
questions raised by Blum. LaTson said he would try to have answers for the Commission at
the June meeting. Krstenansky said he does not want to see the Commission do anything
that would adversely affect the runway extension project.
e. Strategic planning - O'Neil said he and Staley and Krstenansky met with Jeff Davidson to
discuss the Strategic Plan. 0 'Neil said there is a letter in the Commission packet rrom
Davidson, outlining what he thought the issues are. Krstenansky said he thought the initial
groups that meet should have specific topics to discuss. TheTe should be basic information
given to the groups that set the perimeters for the discussion. The Commission may want to
generate the basic information to assist in the data collection.
Staley said the next step is to put this basic information together. He asked 0 'Neii ifthere
was a mission statement for the Airport? O'Neil said there was not. Staley said that means
they will start rrom scratch. Clay asked 0 'Neil if he could find some exampies of plans
from other airports. O'Neil will contact the Office of Aviation. Staiey asked if the
Commission had any specific ideas they would like to incorporate? Krstenansky said he
would like to see the Commission gather the information during the summer months and
have a draft report ready in the Fall.
o 'Neil suggested the Commission assemble a time line fOT completing the fiTSt draft. He
said that would be helpful for the Commission and would be useful to the Council. Hartwig
asked the Commission when they thought they could be ready with a fiTSt draft? Clay said
there might be some way to gather information at the fly-in in August. It would be useful to
have a booth or table to gather information. Clay said they might want to have the mission
statement ready and circulate a questionnaire.
O'Neil said the Commission might want to use the annual fly-in to gather information.
There was a question about what should be expected from the facilitator? O'Neii said the
facilitator should be the person that is a neutral referee at the meetings and helps direct the
5
--,--.-- '-" . - ~------'--~--~--"-'-"-'._-'-'-~~-'--~'-"'-
groups and steers them in the right direction to gatheT information. The facilitator wiil be the
most useful during the initial stages when the Commission is trying to gather information. It
is important the facilitator gets information from the group and does not direct them to a
particular conclusion. Krstenansky said the facilitator can set the ground rules.
Staley said the subcommittee should schedule another meeting with Davidson and set a
schedule. Davidson can bTing the skiils of a transportation planner to the project. He can see
how the plans for the Airport would complement the other modes of transportation in the
area.
O'Neil said the theme of maTketing the Airport has been brought up whenever there is
discussion about the strategic plan. He said the Commission can began work on a marketing
plan whenever they are ready and at some point, incorporate it into the strategic plan.
O'Neil said the marketing plan could be a standing item on the agenda. It could then be
discussed at any Commission meeting.
CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT:
Hartwig said that he would like to publicly thank Tom Schnell for the simulator demonstration.
He said that even though he has seen some of the presentation before, it is very interesting to see
it all put together.
Hartwig said he would also like to thank the corporate jet pilot that did some landscaping at the
Airport while he was waiting for his passengers.
Hartwig said he would like to get a marketing plan started as soon as possible.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS:
Staley said the summary report to the Mayor was informative. He said it was something like a
newsletter and it may be helpful if information like that was circulated to the tenants of the
Airport. O'Neil said that when something goes to the Council, it is included in theiT information
packet and is availabie to the public. If an e-mail list of the tenants could be compiled, a
summary of Airport issues could be sent to the tenants.
Staley said that it was important to inform the Councii where the $10,000 budget cut would come
from. In this case, between the agreement with Kim Brogan fOT the flight schooi and the leasing
of the United hangar, the Airport would increase the income by more than the mandated
reduction.
Staley said he will be out of town the week of June 10 and would not be able to attend next
month's meeting.
Williams said the intent ofthe Commission is to be more focused on improving the Airport
income and providing a more precise plan of future direction.
Clay said he agreed it was important compile an e-mail list of the tenants. He said it is also
important to survey the tenants and Airport customers to get their input on priorities for the
Airport.
6
Clay said that he has been approached by a couple of peopie that would iike to create a little park
at the Airport. He said it couid be something modest to start, like a picnic table and grill that a
family could come down to the Airport and have a picnic.
Krstenansky said he thought the Airport could better utilize the City's web site to promote the
Airport.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Dulek said that if more than two Commission members planned to attend the EA meeting on May
20, it would need to be posted as a meeting. O'Neil said that although they are weicome to
attend, the main purpose of the meeting is to get comments nom the public and is not intended as
a Commission meeting. The Commission members did not plan to attend the meeting.
O'Neil said the Council discussed the Monnon Trek project at theiT meeting on ApriI191h. The
runway extension project was discussed briefly, in relation to how the schedule would coordinate
with ciosing Runway 18/36.
The regional FAA conference is scheduled for June 30 and July I. Hartwig expressed interest in
going for one day. He will discuss it with the other Commission members to see if anyone else is
interested in going and will contact O'Neil by next week to let him know who would like to go.
O'Neil suggested June 30 as the best day for the Commission membeTs to be there.
O'Neil said he inciuded a memo in the Commission packet with the reguiaT meeting dates for the
Commission through December 2004. The meeting in July will be on the third Thursday instead
of the second Thursday. O'Neil said he would be on vacation the last two weeks of July.
A request for a temporary tower for the annual fly-in breakfast on August 291h has been sent to the
FAA. No reply has been received yet.
A request has been made to the FAA to move the V ASI lights nom Runway 18 to Runway 30.
The reply was included in the Commission infonnation packet.
O'Neii reminded the Commission that Fly Iowa 2004 will be held in Washington, Iowa on June 5
and 6.
O'Neil has been invited to speak to the a.m. Rotary Club on June 8. Staley said it should be
important to mention that the budget reduction by the Council has been taken care of.
SET NEXT MEETING:
The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for JunelO, 2004,at 5:45 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Randy Hartwig, Chairperson
7
c::
MINUTES FINAL
lOW A CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MAY 13,2004 - 4:30 P.M.
IOWA CITY AIRPORT-BUILDING H
MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Hartwig, John Krstenansky, Daniel Clay, John Staley, and Carl
Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek
The meeting began at 4:31 p.m.
The Commission met prior to its fonnal meeting to participate in a demonstration of a simulator
by Professor Tom Schnell of the University ofIowa in Building H.
Dennis Gordon welcomed the Commission to the hangar and introduced the concept ofSOES,
Spatial Orientation Enhancement System. Professor Schnell said that the idea behind SOES was
to remove visual indicators from the flying process. For example, tactile cues connected to pilots'
backs and thighs and auditory cues were used to allow the pilot to fly the plane accurately
without relying on visual observations. The research was designed to assist Air Force pilots but
should benefit general aviation pilots as well. Funding is provided by NASA, the Air Force, and
Rockwell-Collins.
Professor Schnell's research has four simulators. Two are in the hangar at the Airport and two
are on University property. He then presented a short slide show providing additional
infonnation on SOES. Next week 7 high officials fÌom the FAA, 2 fÌom NASA, 2 from the Air
Force, and 4 for Collins would be attending a meeting at the hangar. The purpose is to seek FAA
input on the SOES research. Professor Schnell explained how he and his students built the
simulator. He introduced some of his students and others involved in the research. Richard
Rodemaker is fÌom Delft University in the Netherlands, where pioneering research on spatial
orientation has been going on for fourteen years. Alex Postnikov is with Rockwell Collins, and
Jason WengeT is fÌom the University ofIowa. He then pointed out the 19 computers that are
necessary to operate the simulator and explained what each does.
Professor Schnell then took the Commissioners into the simulator where all but Staley either
piloted or co-piloted the simulator. The simulator is nearly identical in size to a Boeing 737-800
cockpit and simulates an approach and landing at the airport in Seattle. The Commissioners all
commented on the "very real" experience of flying.
They exited the simulator, and he demonstrated the second simulator. It is called GA WS, for
General Aviation Work Station. It, too, is a NASA simulator. This is used to address the
question of how many pixels are best for visual aids to pilots. The simulator can simulate a
much higher number of pixels per square inch than are available on the market. By looking at
different resolutions, different sizes, and different points of view, one can study how pilots fly
-.-+-----",_.._-----, --..._._~----- .-...-------
with different resolutions, different sizes, and different points of view. The simulator includes an
eye movement system that measures the movement of pilots' eyes as different pixel
configurations are simulated.
The two simulators located on campus are a F-15 simulator and a "generic" simulator. The latter
is primarily used to develop software that is then applied on the two simulators in the hangar.
The Commissioners thanked Professor Schnell and Dennis Gordon. Clay inquired whether it
would be possible to give a similar demonstration to the City Council. Professor Schnell
responded that he would very much like to have the Council out to the hangar,
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
- -.--- --
C1[
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MAY 27, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
EMMA HARV AT HALL - CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim
Ponto, Paul Sueppel, Justine Zimmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty, Tokey Boswell
OTHERS PRESENT: none
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. He welcomed a new at-large
member to the commission, Justine Zimmer. She will serve a three-year tenn.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
HistoTic Review:
427 Brown Street: McCafferty stated that the applicant originally wanted to remove the front
porch, and construct a porch that is more typical to Iowa City. The applicant proceeded to repair
the porch and once the round columns on the porch were removed for repair, decided that she
preferred not to reinstall them. McCafferty's research regarding the house showed that the porch
is most likely historic, but that the columns in question were added in the 1980s. The owner also
wishes to had a clapboard baluster, but because the porch is not 30 inches high, a building
pennit, and historic review are not required.
Maharry asked if the porch could have featured columns when it was originally built.
McCafferty responded that that is unknown, but based on the manner in which these columns
wcre installed, it is unlikely that these columns were original She could find no evidence either
for or against the historic nature of the columns at the State Historical Society. Ponto asked if
architecturally ifthcre was a structural need to have the columns. McCafferty said it is unlikely.
The only evidence she has relative to the columns is from Amy Smothers who remembers the
columns being added in the 1980s.
..._-.---~ -".--_..". ___._·.~.u_ '-~'-"--'.'''-"'--~~''---~---'-''--'<-
Zimmer noted that in the photos, the finials had been removed from the home, as well.
McCafferty said that she noticed that as well. She suggested that they may request the finials be
returned, but it is also likely that the finials were added at the time of the columns, and there is
no other architectural details that support the historic nature of the finials or the columns.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of two
columns on the porch of the home at 427 Brown Street, with a recommendation that the
columns be donated to the Salvage Barn. Sueppel seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
1152 Court Street: McCafferty stated that this house is a Foursquare in a historic distTict. The
applicants are rehabilitating the property. They are Teplacing windows, building a rear wooden
stoop and steps, and replacing an existing door and window with a patio dOOT. The applicants
are repairing and reusing most of the windows in the home, but they felt these few were beyond
repair. They will be replaced with Marvin metal clad windows of good quality that resemble the
existing windows. The applicants are requesting permission to use a sliding glass patio door in
an addition to the rear of the house. French doors are usually required, but are not feasible in this
case due to space concerns in the small dining area. Ponto added that the guidelines say sliding
doors that are highly visible are disallowed.
Maharry asked if the addition was historic. McCafferty said it is likely a post-war addition from
the 1950s. McCallum stated that the addition blends in quite well with the house, and that the
rear yaTd is faiTly secluded. Even though the addition may be fifty yeaTs old, and therefore
somewhat historic, it is not visible from the street. McCafferty reiterated that while the addition
is consistent with the style of the home and old, it is not historic. WheTe the patio door is
proposed, there was formerly a small door and small window.
Ponto stated that requiring out-swinging French doors in this case would require a larger deck,
which is not preferable to the sliding door. Guun noted that a sliding door would be compatible
with an addition of this age, and that if the commission was looking at a new addition. He asked
if there were other issues than the door. McCafferty responded that the wood stoop and stair
meet all guidelines and that the railing will have spindles and both top and bottom rails as
required. Ponto asked if the windows to be replaced are in the old structure, and Maharry
answered that they are in both the historic structure and the addition. McCafferty stated that
there are three projects to be approved - construction of a wooden stoop with stairs and railing,
replacement of three windows, and approval of a sliding patio door. She noted that the sliding
door is manufactured to resemble French doors because it has wider rails and stiles than typical
patio doors have.
MOTION: Gunn moved that the commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for
the construction ofthe stoop and stairs, replacement of three windows, and use of a sliding
patio door, provided that no muntins are used in the door panes, and that the door is
trimmed out to match the existing features. McCallum seconded the motion.
--.. --~._. ,..... 0··..- ._-.,...._..-.. .....------.- n_.__________.------ ,. '.n._____...
Sueppel wanted to confirm that deckslstoops are allowed, and McCafferty responded that they
are treated as an addition, and must meet the guidelines in the handbook, and that this one does.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
1011 Sheridan Avenue: Michael Gunn was allowed to present his application. He stated that his
garage was previously coated with asbestos siding, and that when it was removed it revealed that
used barn board-type was used sheathing. He said that some of the old wood is rotting, that it
doesn't hold paint well, and that now he would like to put dooTs in the garage and reside it. He
prefers Dutch lap siding but hasn't yet found any. Regular lap siding would match the house and
be acceptable. The old sashes would be reinstalled, he said, but he would like some guidance
with doors.
McCafferty said that asbestos siding was at its peak of use after WWII, so the garage is probably
not historic. She stated that if Gunn couldn't find appropriate doors, he could buy flush doors
and apply the wainscoting or use simple panel doors. Gunn said there would be two separate
doors on the alley side, and he isn't sure what he'll do with the house-side opening. McCafferty
said two double swing doors would be appropriate, sided in the fashion of the garage.
MOTION: Ponto moved that the commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for
siding of the garage at 1011 Sheridan Street with either clapboard siding to match the
house or Dutch lap siding, provided that the house is trimmed to match the house and the
garage doors comply with the Iowa City Guidelines. Sueppel seconded the motion.
Gunn recused himself from discussion and left the room.
McCallum stated that the applicant is trying to save an old structure, and that this project would
be approved for anyone who presented his case before the commission.
The motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
Section 106 Review for 410 Iowa Avenue:
McCafferty explained that for a 106 review, the commission needs to determine if the alteration
in question will have an adverse affect or change anything about the residence that qualifies it for
the National Register of Historic Places. She has requested clarification from the State because
the alteration is proposed to the non-historic addition of a building.. The addition would not
contribute to qualifying the building to the NRHP, but it doesn't disqualify the rest of the home.
The applicant proposes to fill in the current porch area, and extend it somewhat to the north, to
create a reception area. Had this alteration been in place before the historic survey was
completed, it likely would not have decreased its eligibility.
Sueppel asked if the portion to be altered is the addition, or if it is the significant historic portion.
McCafferty replied that is the addition and that the addition was likely constructed in the 1980s,
and what this commission needs to do is determine whether these proposed changes will have an
adverse affect on the property with respect to inclusion to the NRHP.
._---~-. .---
MOTION: Sueppel moved that the commission find this proposed alteration would have no
adverse effect on the property's eligibility for the nation register. Zimmer seconded the
motion.
McCallum noted that the architectural drawing shows a couple of different windows, and was
that part of the project. Maharry said it might be an inaccurate drawing. McCafferty stated that
she does not have a formal historic review application, because this project goes through the
State Historic Preservation Office. The State may use the commission's finding as guidance, but
they will still have to conduct their own review. This building is potentially eligible fOT the
NRHP - which means that it has been surveyed, but not nominated. The question is, would this
alteration change its eligibility for the NRHP. All alteTation are proposed for the addition.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Approval ofMav 13.2004 Minutes: Several amendments to the previous minutes were
proposed. They will be recorded with the original minutes.
MOTION: Gunn moved the commission approve the minutes, as amended. McCallum
seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Design Review Subcommittee: McCafferty reminded the commission that the bylaws had
recently been amended to allow for a subcommittee to improve the design review process for
certificates of appropTiateness. The subcommittee would consist of three commissions, plus an
alternate, and staff. The idea is that this group would review applications and make
recommendations before going to the full commission. By having many of the questions about
the project answered before the Thursday night session, hopefully the meetings would be more
efficient. This would be especially appropriate when there are many or complex items on the
agenda.
Discussion followed about the role of the subcommittee and the efficiency of a separate group.
A general consensus emerged that such a subcommittee would probably not reduce the burden of
McCafferty's workload. She mentioned that the bylaws simply allow for this group, but do not
require it. The commission suggested requesting more staff time from the City Council for the
historic preservation effort, but decided that some data is needed first.
Maharry suggested that they do some research on other cities with historic preservation efforts,
to see how many staff hours are allotted per property, etc. McCafferty noted that in heT three
years on staff, many properties had been added, and that number may increase up in the future.
The conservation districts actually create more work than the histoTic districts, she said, because
there are more projects in those areas.
The commission requested that McCafferty log her hours to determine how much time she is
spending on these issues. The subcommittee has been set, with Gunn, Maharry, and Weitzel as
members, with Zimmer as alternate. McCafferty said that at this point, the subcommittee will be
., -".~_.. --".---.... ....-.---------......---.....----.----
invoked on an as-needed basis, and she will determine wheu that is. The subcommittee did not
decide on a time to meet.
A final point of discussion revolved around the City charging for time for work completed for
citizens. The commission noted that the Attorney's office, Engineering office, and Building
department have all charged citizens who utilize city services beyond what is appropTiate.
Commissioners felt that perhaps it would be possible for McCafferty to charge the clients who
require extensive design work, as well. McCafferty cautioned that the City did not want to get
into the business of design, however.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Certificate of No Material Effect for 1027 Court Street:
Maharry said that this was a very easy certificate to award, they were simply replacing old
windows with new ones that look exactly like the old.
Certificate of No Material Effect for 529 Brown Street:
Maharry stated that this case was much more interesting, as it involved an old house with an
original window that had been covered by siding. The owner wanted to restore the window and
remove the siding. Maharry said that the applicant could have replaced the window from the
inside and then removed the siding to expose it without requiring a permit. Maharry felt the
certificate was appropriate, even though it will have some mateTial effect. However, the end
result will be more historically appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Tokey Boswell
Data on citynet: tlpcd/minuteslhpclhpc05-27-04.doc
____..m ~-,r-' -______.__,.___....._._____._.,....~___".._,___._. "0 ______.'_____.. --",
Board or Commission: Historic Preservation Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
Mav 27, 2004
TERM
NAME EXP. 1/8/04 1/22/04 2/12/04 2/26/04 3/11/04 4/8/04 4/22/04 5/13/04 5/27/04 6/10/04
Amy Smothers 3/29105 NM NM X OlE X X X X OlE
James Enloe 3/29106 NM NM OlE X X X 0 0 0
Michael Gunn 3/29107 NM NM OlE OlE X OlE OlE X X
Michael Maharry 3/29105 NM NM X X X X X X X
Mark McCallum 3/29/06 NM NM X X X X X X X
James Ponto 3/29107 NM NM X X X X X X X
Paul Sueppel 3/29/06 NM NM OlE OlE X X X X X
Tim Weitzel 3/29105 NM NM X X X X OlE X OlE
Justine Zimmer 3/29/07 - -- -- - -- OlE OlE OlE X
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
OlE = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
c::
MINUTES
IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
EMMA HARVAT HALL
410 E. Washington St.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
7:00 p.m.
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Jim McCue, Billie Townsend, Paul Retish, GeoffWilming,
David Shorr
MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Fribley, Valerie Garr
STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. GUESTS- MUSLIN YOUTH CAMP REPRESENTATIVES:
Bill Aossey and Jalel Aossey arrived and introduced themselves to the Commission. Shorr
gave a brief introduction and stated that the Commission had extended the invitation to the
Aosseys so that they could educate Commissioners on the proposed youth camp and the
reception the Bill and Jalel have experienced from the surrounding communities.
Specifically, the Commission wondered whether the Aosseys had encountered anti-Islamic
sentiments since the plan for the camp was announced.
Bill began with a background of his personal history stating that he was born and raised in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Bill's grandfather first arrived in Iowa in 1889 to work on farms as an
immigrant worker. After graduating from Coe College, he joined the Peace Corp. In the early
80's Bill began thinking about youth development. His idea for a youth camp came about in
the early nineties. His first priority was looking for land and obtaining a land grant with the
assistance of Jerry Chaffy. Ultimately they found Camp Daybreak in Coralville, which was
formerly, Girl Scout camp. The camp he was proposing needed to be classified a non-profit
entity. In his research he found that there were no national Islamic camps in the state, but
there are various denominations of Christian and Jewish camps. Bill believed that if he could
develop the first Muslim Youth Camp that it would be an asset to Iowa. Bill stated that today's
youth need much more of a challenge than the youth of the past. The names that were
discussed included MYCA or Muslim Youth Carnps of Arnerica or Multicultural Youth Camps of
America, since the camp will be open to all youth.
Bill clarified sorne misconceptions that appeared in local newspapers. He said there was not
going to be a 500-foot water tower or prayer tower. He added that there would be a Greek
tower, but it had no symbolism on it at all. The lodge would house the cafeteria, language
center, computer center and history center. He said that they had also planned for ten cabins
representing different nationalities beginning with a teepee. McCue wanted to know the
Aosseys' opinion as to how the anti-Muslim reaction started? McCue asked whether they felt
the reaction was precipitated by 9/11? Jalel stated that in December of 1998 they began to
meet to discuss the camp. Research was conducted with regard to land grants and the
Aoesseys began meeting with the neighbors in the area. This all started prior to 9/11. He said
from the beginning there were problems. The meetings were not very productive, and from the
first meeting things went from bad to worse. He said that people expressed environmental
concerns and people questioned the real reason the Aosseys had called them together.
After 9/11 the Army Corp of Engineers reviewed the analysis of an environmental study. The
Aoesseys spent $6500 for a private company to survey the land. Jalel also commented that
out of 106 available acres in the entire area that the camp would only use 4.6 acres, and 70%
of that had already been utilized as part of the Girl Scout camp. Further more. the Aoesseys
only received half of what they asked for originally. Jalel said that at the end of the month they
would be presenting a draft site to the Army Corps of Engineers. He added that the camp
would be built in phases; not only for financial reasons, but they felt it would be better to go
with a slower process. Another facet is the curriculum, which is still a work in progress. Bill
made the point that there were issues regarding the amount of money that was to be raised.
Bill was arnazed that people were willing to spend large amounts of money to build new
prisons and refuse disposal facilities but had a problem investing 1-2 million dollars in their
youth. Retish said that he wished the public would perceive the camp as one that is
multicultural, but the perception here is that no matter what they call it, the public will perceive
it as a "Muslim" camp planned by Muslims. Retish asked if there was some type of strategy to
get around this misperception. Jalel stated that they've worked with a PR firm in Cedar Rapids
to help them work on a strategy to gain support. He also found out that after the Mike
Gallagher show was in Iowa City, their support actually improved since a lot of folks felt that
they were being persecuted by Gallagher. Jalel stated that they needed to write more pro-
active articles and that the local newspapers have been pro and con in the representation of
the camp. Bill felt that the letters to the editor were creating harm as erroneous information
was being wrillen and no clarification was offered. He also added that there were three main
problems they are facing right now: (1) misinformation, (2) intentional misinformation, (3) and
the inability to sit down with people in a constructive dialogue. McCue asked the role of Islam
in the educational program, and the efforts they would make to recruit non-Muslin students?
Jalel said that he would like an Islamic structure in place, but that they can't force someone to
pray. He said that they were still trying to determine what they could and couldn't do based on
the boundaries of being a 501 (c) 3 organization. Bill explained that the camp would have
some kind of Islamic nature to it, but there would be no alcohol (federal land) or smoking or
pork allowed. He said that there would be no permanent religious structure because it violates
federal law, and that the camp participants and staff could pray anywhere.
Retish said he would like to see a name other than "camp" as people associate that with
something bad. Retish suggested using the word center as opposed to camp. Bill said that
until July of 2003 they said very little because there was no camp. The Army Corp of
Engineers recently approved the camp with modifications yet to be determined. Beckmann
asked if they had given any thought to reorganization, new name, etc? Jalel said that the plan
they spoke of during the Commission meeting was the original plan, but it has never been
received positively by the public. Bill lays some of the responsibility on the media. Jalel said
he doesn't want to change the name but to have the world change it's views. Jalel wants the
public to see a different side of the Muslim people.
Bill said that they would like to get 20% of international students through corporations like
McDonalds, KFC or Pizza Hut. In addition Bill envisions a promotional program that offers two
. .. ~~ ,_ -_ '~____""__'_"'_'''_h_ - -'--"""-~'---" '.---- -..-..
or three students an opportunity to go to a month long international camp in Iowa, for free.
Jalel added that initially they hoped to pull their students from a 50-100 mile radius. Townsend
commented that it would help if their plans were in place before bringing them before the
public. Bill reiterated that they do have a plan, but it is not finalized. Jalel said the type of
classes or curriculum is what is yet to be determined. Bill said that the site plan will be
submilled to the Army Corp of Engineers at the end of March and they will wait for approval.
Beckmann thanked Bill and Jalel for addressing the Commission.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Beckmann asked for changes and or corrections in the February
minutes. Townsend wanted the statement deleted that is located under Old Business 7 G,
second sentence. She said she did not make that statement. Shank will remove it.
Beckmann wanted a change under 6 B, the last sentence. She said that there was a
misunderstanding of who was going to write the article. Beckmann had assumed Fribley
would write the leller and she would assist and not the reverse. Beckmann felt badly that she
misunderstood. Shank will remove the last sentence. Motion to approve minutes as
amended by Townsend and second by McCue. Motion passed unanimously.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None
5. CASE SUMMARY READING: Shank said that anyone is welcome to come in and read
summaries at any time.
6. OFFICIAL VOTE FOR CHAIRPERSON: Beckmann opened floor for chairperson. Motion
made by Shorr to nominate Beckmann, second by Townsend. Retish moved to close
nominations with a second by Townsend. Motion passed unanimously to reinstate Beckmann
as chairperson. Beckmann clarified for Townsend that the next vote would be held at the
January 2005 meeting, that it will appear on the January agenda, and nominations would be
voted on at the January meeting.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Vacancy on Commission
Beckmann announced that there is a vacancy on the Commission. Shank said that she has
not received any applications. Shank will post the opening. Beckmann asked if we publish the
opening in the paper. Shank stated that in the past she has put an advertisement in the Daily
Iowan.
b. Anti-bullying Legislation- Shank said that there was legislation in place, but that she
never heard what happened with it.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Letter re: Proposed Constitutional Amendments- Beckmann reported that the letter
was sent and that the vote was to occur at 3:00 on March 24th.
b. Human Rights Breakfast-Nomination forms-review of revisions- Beckmann said
that the revised nomination forms had been sent to Shank and Shank said that they were in
the packets for comments. Beckmann said that the Commission members can nominate
someone, but must recluse yourself if you're on the selection commillee.
c. Youth Awards: Beckmann said that she has had email correspondence with Shank
and Townsend and worked out plans for the next meeting. Shank said that the mayor would
allend the ceremony. Beckmann has prepared letters for the winners and she would like to
invite family members, the principal of the winner's school and the nominator. Shank said that
they would also invite Plugge and Coleman. Shank will put together a small program listing
the winners and their school. Townsend suggested that the ceremony begin at 7:00 p.m.
Beckmann asked if the members wanted to hold a meeting prior to that time, choose another
date for the meeting or even cancel the meeting. Townsend wanted an abbreviated meeting
and Retish suggested that the meeting be canceled. Beckmann offered that the meeting could
consist of the awards program and that that would be the only item on the agenda, and she
asked members to be here by 6:30. Beckmann asked if the Cornmission wanted all the
nominations chosen as winners or whether they wanted someone to look through the
nominations to see if they were valid. Consensus was that Beckmann would look the
nominations over and if she had any questions she would contact Shank. Shank asked if
someone wanted to introduce the winners. Beckmann felt that after the mayor's introduction
someone would announce the student's name and describe what he or she had done.
Beckmann was selected as the person to do this. Shank asked for assistance before the
ceremony. Townsend suggested a couple of balloon bouquets. Retish will not be in
attendance.
d. Report-Cultural Diversity Day-Sunday February 29: Beckmann reported that it was
wonderful. She stated that a man approached her from a GLBT group. He wanted to work
with the Cornmission so she gave him the contact info.
9: REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS:
Beckmann: She commented that she would like to have an awards ceremony to
acknowledge the elderly. She mentioned this because her grandmother was recently injured
and living at a nursing home. Thoughts of her grandmother precipitated the idea.
Retish: No report
Shorr: No report
McCue: No report
Wilmington: No report
Townsend: No report
10. STATUS OF CASES: Fine
11. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made to adjourn made by Beckmann and seconded by Retish.
Motion Passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
.,..------..-..-..-. ".,- ,,---_. ..-- ._......_._..,--_._"..~-,-----'..~."~ -....-.--.------.-
Board or Commission: Human Rights
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
(MeetlD2 Date)
TERM 1/27 2/24 3/23 4/27 5/25 6/22 7/27 7/28 8/24 9/28 10/26 11/23 12/28
NAME EXP.
Lisa 111/07 X X X X X
Beckman
Paul Retish 1/1107 X X X 0 0
~ Geoff 111107 X X X X X
Wilming
Chris 1/1105 X
Bushman 1"
mtº
Valerie Garr 111/05 X 0 0 0 X
David Shorr 1/1/06 0 X X X X
James 111106 X X X X 0
McCue
Billie 111106 X X X X X
Townsend
Cat Fribley 1/1106 0 X 0 0 0
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
OlE = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
I 3bIT)"
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19,2004 - NOON
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: John Balmer, Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki
Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Kevin Werner
Staff Present: City Atty. Eleanor Dilkes, City Clerk Marian Karr
INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Sueppel called the meeting to order at 12:02 PM. He asked that members introduce
themselves, and say something to the others in light of being on this newly fonned
commiSSIOn.
John Balmer - fonner Council member and Mayor, Chair of 1984 Charter Review
Commission.
Vicki Lensing - served on other City Review Committees in past; State Representative.
Andy Chappell- works for County Attorney's office; civil and municipal work.
Kevin Werner - works for Iowa State Bank; life-long Iowa City resident; U of I grad.
Naomi Novick - fonner Council member and Mayor; involved in last review.
Lynn Rowat - works for West Bank; U of I grad; worked in banking for over 30 years in
Iowa City; involved in community service groups; served on task force in 1994.
Penny Davidsen - fonner Council member and Mayor Pro tern; served on Charter
Committee that originally devised the current review system.
Karen Kubby - citizen activist and fonner Council member.
Bill Sueppel- of Counsel with Meardon, Sueppel & Downer; fonner City Attorney;
General Counsel to the Iowa League of Cities.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Marian Karr reported on survey results, 7:30 AM meeting time is the favored time, and
Thursdays and Fridays were favored days. Chair Sueppel stated that tentatively the
Commission would plan to meet at 7:30 AM, with meetings running hopefully around I
hour. Discussion continued on which day or days of the week would work best for
everyone. It was decided that meetings would take place on Thursdays. Chair Sueppel
then stated that the 3'd Thursday of each month would be the tentative meeting time, with
June 17'h being slated as the next meeting. Sueppel stated that he would like to have the
",'.' -- -.--.-..--...--- -.....--...-.-- ~_m__.___.._ ____._._.._____.__..._~._____.__b__..._w.,,_. ,_, ___00- _
Charter Review Commission
May 19, 2004
Page 2
Commission meet once every two weeks, if possible, so they can keep moving along on
the process. Davidsen stated that she would like to see everything wrapped up by
October, and Balmer agreed, stating that multiple meetings would be fine with him.
Next the members discussed the July meeting. July 15th is the 3rd Thursday, but there are
several members out. It was decided to move the meeting in July to the 29th. Several
members voiced their desire to schedule as many meetings as possible, now, so they can
plan ahead as needed. August 26th was scheduled, as well as August 11th. Karr stated she
would have this schedule posted on the Charter Review Commission agenda so members
will know when all meetings are scheduled. Sueppel then asked that the fall schedule be
placed on the next meeting's agenda, and discussion turned to going ahead now and
setting up the following dates for meetings: September 8 and 29; October 13 and 27. All
meetings will be at 7:30 AM, and will be in either the Lobby Conference Room, or
Harvat Hall. Sueppel reiterated that this is a tentative schedule, and as things progress
they can always reschedule.
SELECT CHAIR PRO TEM
Sueppel stated that when the Council selected the 9 members on the Charter Review
Commission, they named him as Chair. He asked ifthis was an issue with anyone on the
Commission. Hearing none, he stated that a Chair Pro tem needed to be selected. Kubby
stated she would like to nominate Lensing. Lensing declined at first due to her schedule,
but then relented. No other nominations were made.
MOTION: Kubby moved to elect Lensing at Chair Pro tem. Rowat seconded the
motion. All in favor; motion passed.
MATERIALS A V AILABLE
Chair Sueppel stated that he would next like to turn the Commission's attention to
available materials for the Commission to review while they go through this process.
Minutes of all past commissions, including amendments, was the first item discussed.
Karr stated that the Charter the members currently have does include these amendments.
She said she could get copies of the ordinances that amended the Charter, to give further
explanation. Sueppel stated he would also like a copy ofthe original Charter. Karr will
get packets ofthe requested info to all of the members as soon as possible. It was also
mentioned that a contact sheet with all of the members phone numbers, emails, etc.,
would also be helpful. Dilkes stated that emails are considered public record, and
members need to be aware of the open meeting issues. Members were told to contact the
City Clerk's office with any requests for information.
. _ .. ·_·..·___·___~__w. _ ~,_ .. --.".---_.n_ ._-_...._._-_._-..._~._._.._.....- - -------
Charter Review Commission
May 19, 2004
Page 3
Sueppel stated that he has written to the League, asking for a list of charter cities in Iowa.
Discussion turned to the "Clinton case", and Sueppel asked Dilkes to get copies of the
Clinton case for members to review. He stated that the case deals with the town of
Clinton's charter and an ensuing lawsuit. Discussion turned to the right of home rule,
and various ruiings that have taken place in Iowa. Dilkes also shared some legal
background of these various cases. Members discussed the various pieces of information
they would like to have available to them. Discussion turned to initiative and referendum
petitions, and the significance of their language. Sueppel wrapped up this part of the
discussion by asking members to read through the info they receive, and to ask for
information they feel would be helpful. He stated they could contact Marian Karr or
Eleanor Dilkes with any questions.
(TAPE ENDS)
STRUCTURE
Sueppel asked the members how they would like to proceed with the review of the
Charter, what they would like to use as the "starting" point. Davidsen asked if going
article by article by article was too simplistic. Chappell stated it isn't too simplistic for
the part of review they are doing. However, when the public input is built into it, he feels
they should be less constrained, and allow more broad discussion or presentation of
issues from the public. Sueppel stated that they will need to schedule public hearings as
they go along, and also reiterated that all of their meetings are open to the public. He said
he would also like input from the City staff, the City Manager, and see how they think the
Charter is working. Chappell asked if a work session with the City Council would be
beneficial, and Sueppel replied that asking for their input would definitely be beneficial,
but that he did not feel a meeting was necessary. Karr gave a brief history of past
commissions, and how each has chosen to address this review. Some have chosen to do a
preliminary review of the entire Charter, make some preliminary observations and
recommendations, and then had the public respond to "something". Others have
preferred to get public input first thing, and then they reviewed the charter, with a final
public hearing at the conclusion ofthe review. She suggested the Commission decide
how they want to structure this input. Kubby said she likes the idea of going through the
entire Charter first, with everyone listing their concerns. Then they could go through a
process of picking the most important issues. Novick stated that public input should be
from evening meetings, and not the early morning. She feels that they need to plan these
well for public attendance.
Lensing asked Karr if she has a file of notes or correspondence from the public on these
types of issues. Karr responded that she does not have a specific file, but has the
knowledge of what has taken place with initiatives and referendums in the past. Rowat
feels that when it comes to public input, they may need to put something in the
newspaper or have the City Council announce for them that they want input. Sueppel
followed up with saying that he would like to set as a goal for their June 17th meeting,
that they all be prepared to discuss any issues they may have with any section of the
Charter. He feels they should start at the beginning of the Charter, and go piece by piece,
Charter Review Commission
May 19, 2004
Page 4
with each member giving their concerns. This will help them create a list of issues to be
further discussed.
Discussion turned to putting something out to the public now, letting them know ofthe
Commission, and soliciting any issues the public may have. City staff will be contacted
by the City Clerk and City Attorney. Karr encouraged all public comments be made in
writing. She asked for clarification on the agenda item of Public Comment, and whether
they want everything to be in writing at this time, or if verbal comments would be
accepted at this point in time. Sueppel stated that he feels both written and spoken
comments should be encouraged. Davidsen asked if the minutes would be detailed
enough to cover these comments, and Karr responded they would.
Chappell asked if they would be setting up subcommittees. Sueppel said that he had
discussed this issue recently, and he would be open to this if they see a real need for it.
Sueppel said as they work through each part of the Charter, they can tackle whatever
questions arise, and the more familiar they become with it, the more issues could be
raised.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:10 PM.
~._ '_m_' _._ _...~ '" -'-'-~"- _u______
c::
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 20, 2004 - 6:30 P.M.
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Erin Barnes, Lori Bears, Matthew Hayek, Shellie Mackel,
Jayne Sandler
Members Absent: John Deeth, Mark Edwards, William Greazel
Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Stephen Long
Public Present: Robert Burns, Charles Eastham
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:40 PM
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15,2004 MEETING
Motion: Sandler moved to approve the minutes as presented; Anthony seconded the motion. All
in favor; motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Review of Allocation Process - Chairperson Hayek asked members to consider whether a
subcommittee should be created to look at ways to improve the allocation process or whether they should
have discussion now and forward suggestions without creating a subcommittee. He asked if anyone had
suggestions regarding the schedule, the visits or the format of applications. Mackel said the visits were
heipfui, but Sandler asked if there could be more time for making visits prior to the allocation process.
Chairperson Hayek suggested moving up the date of application to allow more time to schedule visits.
Sandler also commented that something needed to be in place to help first time applicants understand
the process better, such as a required counseling session. Long noted that some entitlement
communities require attendance at a workshop. Chairperson Hayek suggested a one-time hour-long
training session for new applicants. Sandler suggested that videotaping the process and making it
available to new applicants to review might be helpful in easing their anxieties and increasing their
understanding of the process. Chairperson Hayek also observed that applicants often list items on the
application that have little relevance to what they are applying for in terms of the budget, which is
confusing. Long suggested that the question on the application be clarified.
Summer Schedule - Chairperson Hayek stated that one meeting in the summer is typically skipped and
asked if members had a preference. Hightshoe observed that the HCDC celebration wouid take place on
the third Thursday in July and that the July meeting could be held shortly before or after the celebration or
skipped. Long observed that August was historically the month taken off by the Commission. It was
decided that the meeting in August would be skipped and that a short meeting would be held on the third
Thursday of July to coincide with the celebration.
Upcoming HCDC Appointments - Chairperson Hayek stated that the terms of Lori Bears, John Deeth
and himself expire September 1, 2004. Bears and Chairperson Hayek will reapply to continue their terms,
but it is unclear whether Deeth will reapply. Chairperson Hayek asked members to encourage qualified
individuals they know to apply. It was noted that the applications are due on June 9, 2004.
OLD BUSINESS
Discussion of National Community Development Week Celebration - Hightshoe stated that the
celebration would be held on Thursday, July 15, 2004 from 4:30 - 6 PM at the Rack. It is HUD's 30-year
anniversary of CDBG Funds. She said there are several big projects in the works. Possible contributions
...~,. ..__._---~.. -----------. ._....._., - - .___.,__,..._.._._._.___._....._.._._.___~_.._.__"'...__._. _·___·__·___~..m
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 2
to the Celebration include an art gallery of local student work and a basketball tournament. A speaker is
being sought for the event, and awards will be presented. Hlghtshoe mentioned that banks will be
approached for $100-$200 food donations.
Burns & Burns L.C. - Garden Prairie - Discussion of FY03 HOME Funds - Chairperson Hayek stated
that everyone should have a memo from the City Staff regarding the Garden Prairie issue that was tabled
in April's meeting to await the outcome of the FY04 appeal with IFA, which was also denied in April.
Burns stated that the last family tax credit project built in Iowa City was placed in service in 1992. Since
then they have made several attempts at joint ventures with the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship to
rezone properties as multi-family, but these were denied. They then decided to use the strategy of
scattered site housing and buy duplex lots for the Prairie Garden project. However, they ran into problems
obtaining the land, which led to the application to HCDC to acquire the land. They currently have seven
duplex lots on which to build 14 duplexes. Burns stated that their application for tax credits was denied
because they did not score high enough on the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which is the guideline
IFA uses to fund projects. The QAP changes every year, and this contributed to the denial of their appeal.
Burns recommended that a subcommittee be formed to meet with IFA before they develop the QAP this
year to ensure Iowa City's fair share of family housing. Burns added that Des Moines consistently
receives family housing while Iowa City does not.
Burns stated that another obstacle to obtaining tax credits was the fact that a cost cap was instituted (the
221 0-3 mortgage limits) which uses mortgage limits for buildings that do not include duplex units. Burns
offered to give back the funding received from HCDC but reiterated that in order to have family housing
built with the low-income housing tax credit, members of HCDC need to meet with Michael Tramontina
this summer before the QAP comes out in June or July. Chairperson Hayek was hesitant to discuss the
formation of a subcommittee without it first appearing on the agenda to allow the public the opportunity to
voice their opinion on the subject. Members discussed this and agreed that it should be discussed at the
June meeting. Sandler asked Burns if any other alternatives had been considered. Burns stated that a
possibility would be to use tax-exempt bonds to finance the property, since there is an automatic
allocation of 4% tax credit that does not require any application for tax credits. However, Burns noted that
this alternative still needs to be considered to see if it is economically feasible.
Hightshoe explained that HCDC's current policy for unsuccessful or delayed projects requires the
recapture of all CDBGIHOME funds after two unsuccessful application rounds for Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits (LlHTC). This policy was adopted after MetroPlains Development was unsuccessful after two
rounds in securing LlHTCs and the commission voted to recapture the funds. Discussion followed
regarding the policy relative to the Prairie Garden project. Chairperson Hayek summarized the situation,
stating that although the recapture policy technically does not apply to the FY03 funds, a consistent
message needed to be sent to applicants that funds will be recaptured if they have not resulted in actual
units with people living in them after a certain period. Mackel asked Burns what his plans were for the
project if funds were not recaptured. Burns replied that they would first look at private activity bonds, but if
that is not feasible, they would apply for tax credits for FY05 and work on IFA one more time to change
the scoring and revise cost caps to cover duplexes. Discussion followed of possible solutions other than
recapturing funds by reselling the lots, which likely would not be available again for affordable housing.
Motion: Sandler moved to allow Burns & Burns up to 60 days to pursue other alternatives to low-
income tax credits (i.e. private activity bonds, partnership with other affordable housing
developers) for affordable rental andlor home ownership in order to continue with FY03
development. Barnes seconded the motion. All in favor; motion passed 6-0.
Anthony leaves.
MONITORING REPORTS
Elder Services Inc. - Small Repair Program - Mackel reported that services have picked up in 2
different areas: 1) the home safety assessment program does 3-4 inspections per week with each taking
2 hours to look for accessibility and other safety issues; they have 300 people in case management and
currently serve about 95 of them: 2) mobile home repair does structural repairs but is busiest with air
_.,..'-"-'~---'- ---.-.--- ~~...---_._-_..__._...,_... ,.-.-.---- ..._~-
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 3
conditioning repair right now as there are many people with health problems such as asthma: they have
spent down $17,000 and served 40 households, receiving several calls a day.
Community Mental Health Center - Facility Rehabilitation - Mackel reported that their original
application was to convert their basement for medical storage, but this was started early in order to
comply with HIPAA regulations. With the City's approval, the money was used instead to rehab the old
medical file storage facility and client service space to provide better accommodations for client services.
Money was spent for a furnace and carpeting. $200 remains and will be used to buy exterior paint.
Shelter House - Outreach Coordinator - Sandler reported that funding has been spent to hire an
outreach coordinator who handles a caseload of g (it varies with the time of year), helping with the facility
as well as a variety of services involving mental health, medication, and employment. Maximum stay at
the Shelter House is 90 days, but the average stay is about 45 days depending on the length of time it
takes individuals to afford their own place.
Free Medical Clinic - Case Management - Deeth was not present to report, but Sandler stated that last
year the case management position was responsible for about 50 cases and that the case load is
growing.
City of Iowa City - Housing Rehabilitation - Barnes reported that the Housing Repair Program (in
place since 1977) Is directed at owner occupied units within Iowa City. She stated that there are certain
priorities that are assigned a point value that partly determines a person's standing on the wait list. These
priorities include the following: income level ($55,800 for a family of four), elderly status,
handicap/disabled status, famiiy status, self-sufficiency efforts and the date of the application. There are
currently 52 people on the wait list. The program helps people with roofing, siding, painting, concrete,
windows, doors, heating, fiooring, electrical, plumbing, plaster and drywall. The program also makes
modifications to homes to accommodate people with disabilities. People are generally satisfied with the
program though some have voiced frustration regarding the amount of regulations that can drive up the
overall cost. The money for repair projects is given as a loan and must be paid back by the occupants but
generally not until the house is sold.
HACAP - Transitional Housing - Hightshoe reported that two units were purchased at the beginning of
the fiscal year for transitional housing. One of the units is located near Westwinds Drive, the other in the
Saddle brook area. Sandler asked who covers the condo fee. Hightshoe responded that HACAP owns the
condos and therefore covers the fee while charging rent based on the tenants' ability to pay. For this
reason, the rent varies but must be at least $25 with a two-year maximum for the tenants, who must be
part of the counseling program.
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship - Peninsula Affordable Rental - Eastham reported that
construction has begun on all of the units, including two duplexes, a townhouse and an apartment
complex. The project will be finished by the end of winter. Chairperson Hayek asked what the additional
cost was to the developer to build affordable housing under the stricter architectural guidelines. Eastham
speculated that it was several thousand dollars per unit. The total cost of the duplex and town house
units, including the housing and fellowship fees, will be about $130,000/unit: the cost of the multiplex (10
units) will be $120,OOO/unil. The additional cost will apply more to the apartment complex than to the
others. Eastham downplayed the effect of the stricter guidelines, stating that it has not been terribly
expensive and adding that the land ended up costing them $22,OOO/unit.
Ruby's Pearl - Micro-Enterprise - Long reported that Ruby's Pearl is doing better. Business has been
siow since moving from Linn Street to their new location on Market Street. Their clientele has changed
dramatically, but they are adjusting to the new market and things are much better after a bleak
December. June 1, 2004 is the next deadline for the business to prove they are financially able to begin
repaying their loans. Before they can receive additional funding, they must show that they are not in
danger of going under and must resume payments based on what they currently owe.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Sandler made a motion to adjourn; Mackel seconded. All in favor; motion carries 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM
Board or Commission: Housing & Community Development Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
May 20, 2004
TERM
NAME ]/15/04 2/]8/04 2/] 9/04 3/18104 4/] 5/04 5/20104 6/17104 7/]5/04 8/] 9/04
i EXP.
Jerry Anthony 9/1/05 X X X X X X
Erin Barnes 911106 X 0 X X X X
,
i
I
I
I LOTi Bears 911104 X 0 X X X X
i
,
I John Deeth 911104 X X X X OlE 0
i
,
MaTk Edwards 911105 0 X X X 0 0
William Greaze] 9- ] -06 X X X X X 0
Matthew Hayek 911104 X X X X X X
i Michelle Macke] 911106 X X X X X X
I Jayne Sandler 9/1105 0 0 X X 0 X
,
! KEY: X = Present
!
, o = Absent
! OlE = Absent/Excused
i NM = No meeting
- = Not a Member
FINAL APPROVED~
3b 9
~ Iowa City
Public Library
MINUTES
lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Regular Meeting - Thursday, Meeting May 27, 2004
5:00 pm - Room C
Members Present: Shaner Magalhães, President, Thomas Dean, Linzee McCray,
Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, David VanDusseldorp
Members Absent: Jesse Singerman, Tom Suter, Jim Swaim
Others Present: Bill Korf,
Call Meetill!! to Order
Magalhães called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm
Pu blic Discussion
Magalhães introduced Bill Korf, who has an interest in becoming a Board member.
Approval of minntes
VanDusseldorp moved that the minutes be approved as amended. A few typographical
errors were noted. Prybil seconded the motion and all in favor voted Aye. The motion
passed 6-0.
Unfiuished Business
Building Project:
The building is a beehive of activity; inside and out. The movers will come Wednesday
and staff will be packing. The Plaza is gelling worked on and Miller's goal is to have it
open by next Friday. He and Craig will be meeting tomorrow morning to resolve issues
surrounding the pedestrian mall completion and how it affects the Moen project. The
construction fence will remain where it is. Exterior work is getting done. Meeting
Rooms are carpeted. ECS (spell out) is here installing equipment in Meeting Rooms.
The ceiling and light fixtures are up in the lobby. Checkpoint people are here installing
the new system. Jones Library Service is here installing library shelving. Miller invited
everyone to his house for a party on Saturday June 12, after the library closes. The artists
_ __.u.______~ ---.rr----- ___~_~__.__m._.._.._ .._--_.---_.~.._.-..- '---'---
FINAL APPROVED
will be here Monday to begin working on the hanging art piece. In response to a
question, discarded paperbacks are going to the Book End. Some Y A paperbacks are
being sent to a new State youth facility.
Grand Opening
Staff has been preparing publicity for the grand opening. Give-aways, new book bags, t-
shirts, mementos have been ordered and are here. Work is being completed on a
brochure. We have a program planned for 10:00 am, followed by a ribbon cutting, and
then opening the doors to the public. Tours are being scheduled ftom the Fiction Desk.
New Business
Meeting Room Policy Review
This review is off the regular cycle due to changes because of the new meeting rooms.
Staffrecommended some changes to bring the policy up to date with the new building.
There was a question about the charge listed in the policy for extraordinary room clean
up that results ftom use. Logsden said she has never had to invoke that charge.
In response to a question, fees for use of the ICN room are set by the State and change
every year, so it is does not appear in the policy. A motion to approve the policy was
moved by Dean, seconded by McCray. All voted Aye. Motion passed 6-0.
Staff Reports
Craig spoke of the volunteer recognition programs held last week. Adult and Children
volunteers were celebrated at receptions, which were very successful. Both groups had
building tours.
Departmental Reports:
Circulation, Adult Services, Information
Circulation: Lauritzen reported that self-check was working as of this afternoon. The
system and all the readers are up. Our Webmaster, Kevin Hatch, worked on the graphics
to have the screens be consistent with our catalog.
Adult Services: In response to a question in the report, Logsden responded that all the
new pages hiTed are students. The Board praised the new young adult reading group.
The County Fair this yeaT is July 26-29 at the Fair Grounds,
Development Office: The Iowa Authors Event was a wonderful success, raising $30,000.
It was well done and well received. A date for next year has been set for May 1. Some
suggestions were passed on to Curtin for next year. Curtin also reported that for the first
time in the history ofthe Foundation, the annual fund was at $107,000.
_.._-.__._.._._------~ ~--""-- ----,-......,..-..--.--.--.--.---..----.--..." --~_._,_._-_..,.- u___
FINAL APPROVED
Craig and Magalhães reported on the proj ect called Iowa Center for the Book. They are
both on the Advisory Council of this project. Schnack reported on her involvement in a
project for kids to write letters to authors, about literature, which is a center project.
All Iowa Reads, another Center project, is ongoing. A book discussion is scheduled for
July 7 in Iowa City, about the book, Niagara Falls all Over again, with Dale Ross. All
Johnson County reads will take place later in the fall and is not part ofthis program.
President's Report
Magalhães encouraged Trustees to help recruit future Board members by encouraging
qualified individuals they knew to apply for membership on the Board.
He reminded the Board of the tradition of having a dinner in July for Board members and
management staff. Due to scheduling conflicts, it was decided to schedule it for after the
August 26 meeting. McCray is considering having it at her home.
Announcements from Members
Dean will not be here in June.
Schnack and VanDusseldorp will not here in July.
Committee Reports
Evaluation Committee:
Board members were given options to respond to Craig's goals and performance either
by using a pre-printed form or having it sent to them in electronic format. Stamped, self-
addressed envelopes were distributed with a deadline of June 4. Magalhães stressed the
importance of all trustees to participate in this performance evaluation
Foundation members:
VanDusseldorp reported his attendance at the Foundation board meeting. He described
the group as energetic and enthused. They quickly went through an agenda and have
developed committees that meet outside the board, The Foundation Board will be
meeting more often in the coming year. VanDusseldorp encouraged them to attend the
Grand Opening and ceiebrate the libraTY.
The search for a new Development Director will begin in mid August. Interviews will be
conducted in September with the hope of hiring Curtin's replacement by October I to
begin November I.
---,~_." .-... -~--_._-~---_.._--_.._-- ------- ------
FINAL APPROVED
Communications
None
Disbursements
Visa expenditures for April were reviewed.
Disbursements for April were approved after a motion by VanDusseldorp, seconded by
Dean. The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Prybil asked for an explanation on funding materials for the jail. Logsden explained that
we use the fund to buy newspapers, magazines, etc. She is on the jail facility planning
committee for space and the hope is that with an enlarged facility, the jail library will
return.
Set ae:enda order for June meetine:.
June is the month that we have an annual meeting in our role as corporate members of the
Foundation.
Dean informed the board that he does a monthly column in the Little Village. His latest
article includes a section on our new library. We will include in the next packet.
Clark announced that the radio show, Big Brain, would be broadcast from ICPL on June
17. It will take place from 10-11 am under the stained glass. She requested that people
send questions in by Sunday, June 6.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 after a motion by Prybil, seconded by McCray. Motion
passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
Minutes taken and transcribed by
Martha Lubaroff
Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
(Meetinl! Date
TERM 1/221 21191 3/251 4/221 5/271
NAME EXP. 04 04 04 04 04
Thomas 7/1109 x x x x x
Dean
Shaner 7/1109 x x x x x
Magalhaes
Linzee 7/1109 x ole x x x
McCray
Linda Prybil 7/1/05 ole ole ole x x
Pat Scbnack 711107 x x x x x
K.Jesse 7/1/05 ole ole x ole ole
Singerman
Tom Suter 7/1107 x x x x 0
Jim Swaim 7/1105 x ole x x ole
David Van 7/1/07 x x x x x
Dusseldorp
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
OlE = AbsenUExcused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
.--., . '--'-~--"-- "'- - - --~----'-'--' .. '-'''-~'---',-,..,~ --"-'--'--- ----'~-~_.- -.........-
I..Æ¡;"O)
MINUTES FINAL
lOW A CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 24,2004 - 5:30 P.M.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Pusack, Kimberly Thrower, Saul Mekies, Terry Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brett Castiilo
STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Dale Helling
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Rogusky, Beth Fisher, Josh Goding, GaTY Sanders, Kevin
Hoyland, Andy Krophardt
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
None at this time.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Koebrick also reported that the City Channel that had been on channel 98 in North Liberty wiil be
moved to channel 4 and is also carried in Hiils. Hoyland said the school district is aware of areas in
need of improvement and they were included in a proposal for funding. Because the funding for the
new schools has come up short there are not presently funds available to make those improvements. It
is hoped that funds from a successful vote in the fail for the Physical Plant Equipment Levy (PPEL)
wiil make those funds available. Hardy reported the Community Television Service (CTS) has been
busy covering candidate forums. Statements from sheriff and the Board of Supervisors candidates
were taped and played back extensively on the City ChanneL The June 8th primary election results wiil
again be provided on channelS. Smith reported that he, Castiilo, Shaffer, Heiling, and Matthews
participated in a meeting with the city's consultants, Rice, Wiiliams. Background on the rerranchising
process and issues were discussed. There are two paths open to the city, including negotiating a new
rranchise or extending the current franchise. At this point the group is exploring how to proceed.
Hardy said that the CTG met and discussed the issues regarding the use of the pass-through fund.
Hardy said Paine misunderstood how the CTG could make use of the pass-through funds. Goding has
indicated that the use of the funds is no longer an issue for P A TV.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Smith moved and Mekies seconded a motion to approve regular meeting minutes of April 26, 2004
meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Smith moved and Mekies seconded a motion to
approve the special meeting minutes of April 26, 2004. The motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
None.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Shaffer referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and noted that there were 3
complaints--one about a billing problem, and 2 about sexually explicit material on the TV Guide
channel. All the compiaints have been resolved.
MEDIACOM REPORT
Shaffer reported that Koebrick was unable to attend but sent an email thanking those who attended the
demonstration of new services at the Mediacom offices in Cedar Rapids. Koebrick also reported that
the City Channel that had been on channel 98 in North Liberty will be moved to channel 4 and is also
carried in Hills.
UNIVERSITY OF lOW A REPORT
Krophardt reported that automated playback equipment for the University ofIowa channel has been
purchased and should be operational in early June.
PATVREPORT
Goding reported that P A TV's summer newsletter is finished and is available on their web site.
SENIOR CENTER REPORT
Rogusky distributed the May Senior Center TV program guide. The University of Iowa Intennedia
department has received a grant from the Gannett foundation to work with the Senior Center to provide
student video over the Internet. With the addition of Hills receiving the City Channel SCTV
programming is now available in Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, University Heights and Hills.
lOW A CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT
Hoyland reported that steps have been taken to improve the audio on the School Board cablecasts.
Pusack said that the color might also be improved and computer generated images, such as Power
Point presentations, might be fed directly into the video signal. Hoyland said he is aware ofthese areas
of need for improvement and were included in a proposal for funding but because the funding for the
new schools has come up short there are not presently funds available to make those improvements. It
is hoped that funds trom a successful vote in the fall for the Physical Plant Equipment Levy (PPEL)
will make those funds available. Pusack said that funds might be available trom the annual CTG
equipment allocation.
LIBRARY REPORT
Fisher reported that the library will be closed beginning Memorial Day and have a grand re-opening
June 12. The grand opening ceremony will take place at 10 a.m. New video equipment is currently
being installed in the new meeting rooms.
KIRKWOOD REPORT
No representative was present.
- --"---_._--~.- -..".----.~-.-~.-.-,._______r__...__ ~-~"""""'-'-"-"'- -------....-
MEDIA UNIT
Hardy reported the Community Television Service (CTS) has been busy covering candidate forums.
In addition, short statements from sheriff and the Board of Supervisors candidates were taped and
played back extensively on the City Channel. Rene Good, an intern at the City Channel, produced
two public service announcements for Table to Table. The Friday Night Concert Series will again be
taped and cablecast. Info Vision has several new categories including the Friday Night Concert Series
schedule, the Farmer's Market concert schedule, Arts Fest, and the Herky on Parade project. The June
8th primary election results will again be provided on channel 5.
CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Shaffer reported that the taping of candidate statements is an outgrowth ofthe project with the Center
for Governmental Studies taping presidential candidate statements. In this case, the idea was applied
to local candidates. The candidates were pleased to participate in the project. Shaffer reported that he
has started working on a history of access in Iowa City.
REFRANCHISING
Smith reported that he, Castillo, Shaffer, Helling, and Matthews participated in a meeting with the
city's consultants Rice, Williams. Background on the refranchising process and issues were discussed.
There are two paths open to the city, including negotiating an new franchise OT extending the current
franchise. At this point the group is exploring how to proceed. Further communication with
Mediacom is needed and an evaluation of the opportunities and risks. A conference call with Rice,
Williams will be set up in the next couple of weeks in which a timeframe will be explored. Shaffer
said that in the next couple of months the city will begin communication with some of the stakeholders
in the process, including the access channels.
PASS-THROUGH FUNDING AND SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR HISTORY
Communi tv Television Group Report
Hardy referred to the report included in the meeting packet. Hardy said that the CTG met and
discussed the issues regarding the use ofthe pass-through fund. Hardy said Paine misunderstood
how the CTG could make use of the pass-through funds. After discussing the issue Paine came to
understand how these could be used. Goding has indicated that the use of the funds is no longer an
issue for P A TV.
Discussion
Gary Sanders asked how the Special Projects Coordinator position was envisioned when it was
created, how that might have changed, and how much programming is anticipated to be done by
the coordinator. Shaffer said he has some written materials addressing those questions that he
could provide, The Commissioners were provided those materials in the meeting packet. Sanders
referred to a memo written by Shaffer dated January 30, 2002 that outlined the program and asked
if it still reflected current plans for the program. Shaffer said that it contains elements of the
program and offered to meet with Sanders to more fully explore those questions. Sanders asked
how many people are expected to view the program. Shaffer said that a promotional campaign
designed to reach all segments ofthe populations is planned and the number of viewers should
increase over time. Given that it will be on an access channel, initially the viewership will be
.- ~·w.._.. -.- .-..
comparatively small. Sanders asked how many show will be cablecast in the next fiscal year.
Shaffer said a program will be produced about every 4-8 weeks. Sanders asked when it was
anticipated that a person will be hired and ready to be up and running. Shaffer said that depending
on the peTson hired, about three months. Sanders asked why a program will be produced only
every 4-8 weeks. Shaffer said he is willing to sit down and discuss these matters with Sanders.
Sanders asked if Shaffer anticipated using the pass-through fund to fund the program in the future.
Shaffer said the future fiscal picture is always hard to detennine as conditions often change.
Helling said that if the City Council decided not to take $100,000 from the franchise fee for the
general fund that the Cable Division would be better positioned to fund the project from franchise
fees. With the franchise renewal pending, any financial projections beyond the current franchise is
speculative. Sanders asked if the City Council was taking $30,000 in franchise fees in prior years.
Helling said that about $30,000 was transferred from the franchise fee to the general fund, but that
those funds were linked to services provided by the City to the Cable TV Division. Sanders asked
Hardy if it is his belief that with the exception of the $17,500 annual CTG allocation that the pass-
through fund will always go to the Community Television Service and there is no future possibility
that that funding stream will be opened up by the Commission to other cable entities to make
proposals. Hardy said the administration and the Commission may make recommendations to the
City Council at any time and the funding situation could be changed at any time by the City
Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Smith moved and Thrower seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the
meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Drew Shaffer
Cable TV Administrator
--.. ~. " -" --- ,. ---_...._,_.._....~--- -.----..--.-
MINUTES APPROVED [;ì!
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 3, 2004
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Don Anciaux, Ann Freerks, Dean
Shannon, Benjamin Chait
STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Shelley McCafferty, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, Glenn Siders, Gretel Beck, Beverly Roballino, Brian Lai, Mark
Goodheart, Shereen Chang, T. Marback, James Clark, Chris Stephan, Jason
Caylor, Craig Farlinger
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ04-00014, an amended Planned Development Housing
Plan of Village Green Part XX, a 5.84-acre, two-lot, 19 dwelling unit plan located on the north side of
Wintergreen Drive west of South Jamie Lane.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB04-00015, a preliminary and final plat of Village Green
Part XX, a 5.84-acre, two-lot residential subdivision, subject to Staff approval of legal papers and
construction plans prior to Council consideration.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, VAC04-00001, an application for vacation of 3,400 square
feet of alley right-of-way located south of 500 2" Avenue subject to:
1) The conveyance to the City of a 20-foot by approximately 100-foot area of right-of-way along the
west property line of 500 2'" Avenue:
2) The retention of any necessary utility easements:
3) To the conveyance of the right-of way- being approved concurrently with the approval of the
ordinance vacating the alley:
4) The inclusion of a curb where the vacated alley right-of-way intersects 2" Avenue.
CALL TO ORDER:
Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Consider a motion setting a Public Hearing for June 17 on an application submitted by James Clark to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from general commercial to
residential 25+ dwelling units per acre for approximately 1.34 acres of property located on the east side of
S. Gilbert street south of Ralston Creek.
Motion: Hansen made a motion to set the Public Hearing for June 17, 2004. Freerks seconded the
motion. The motion Dassed on a vote of 7-0.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to amend the Agenda by combining items D1 and E2. Brooks seconded
the motion. The motion Dassed on a vote of 7-0.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ04-00006/SUB04-00007. discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a
rezoning from Planned Development Housing Overlay High Density Single-Family (OPDH-12) zone to
Planned Development Housing Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPDH-8) zone and approval of a
preliminary plat for a resubdivision of Lot 77 of Walden Wood Part 6, a 2.2-acre, 10-lot preliminary plat
located at the north end of Jensen Street.
-... .,..-- --- ---,.r-"- ---------.--......-.----.-..-...-.---- . .__..._'-~'--_. ---~._---_._._.__. ---.-.-..--
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 2
VAC04-00002, discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a vacation of the
Jensen Street cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way at the north end of Jensen Street.
Yapp said the property was platted in 1991 as part of the Walden Wood Parts 3-7 subdivision which
incorporated much of the neighborhood to the south. Prior to 1983, the property had been zoned R-3,
multi-family residential. In 1983 this property and some property to the north and to the south were
rezoned to PDH-12, though no Planned Development Housing plan was adopted for the property. In
1991, approximately 2.5-acres to the south were rezoned to RS-8, medium density single family
residential, leaving this 2.2-acre remnant zoned PDH-12 at the north end of Jensen Street. It has been
undeveloped since that time. The applicant had requested a rezoning from OPDH-12 to OPDH-8 and
approval of an OPDH-8 Plan which would consist of ten attached zero lot dwelling units on ten lots,
including a few outlots for open space. The lot sizes would range from 7,900-square feet to 3,600-square
feet in size. The overall density including open space would be 4.5 lots per acre, the same overall density
as the neighborhood to the south.
The applicant had included a trail connection which they had proposed to construct to allow for a
connection to the Willow Creek Trail to the north. Trail connections and pedestrian connections were
encouraged in the City's Southwest District Plan. The City was working with the applicant on installing a
pedestrian bridge over Willow Creek to allow for this trail connection to occur. After the Burlington
StreeVRalston Creek bridge project was complete, the pedestrian bridge would be moved to its
permanent location to connect the Jensen Street sidewalk to the Willow Creek Trail.
Yapp said with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest District Plan stated "the two-acre
property at the north end of Jensen Street is appropriate for single-family homes similar to those that
already exist in the neighborhood." Staff had worked with the applicant to have the dwellings as zero-lot
single-family dwellings. They would be homes on their own lots and considered to be single-family homes
in the zoning ordinance. As stated in the intent section of the PDH zone, the design of the dwelling units
should be compatible with surrounding residential developments. The applicant had provided three
variations of a housing design for this property similar to the units in the neighborhood to the south. The
Commission should consider whether the proposed dwellings are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff did not have a traffic count on the existing portion of Jensen Street. It was estimated that traffic from
the proposed 10 units would be 70 vehicle trips per day based on the City-wide average of 7 vehicle trips
per day per dwelling. It was anticipated that the majority of the traffic would use Jensen Street: some
would use Irving Avenue. There were no secondary access issues as there were multiple route options to
reach either Mormon Trek Boulevard or Rohret Road.
Based on the City's adopted open space formula, approximately 3,618 square-feet of open space would
be required to be dedicated. The applicant had proposed to dedicate an approximate 6,600 square-foot
outlot for the trail connection to the Willow Creek Trail which satisfied the open space requirement. At
their next meeting Parks and Recreation Commission would consider accepting this outlot as open space.
The detention basin to the north would accommodate storm water management. The plan included storm
sewer and drainage to that area to the north.
Yapp said Staff found the proposed medium density residential density was similar to the adjacent
neighborhood. The applicant had provided a trail connection to the Willow Creek Trail and public frontage
to the pond to the North. The proposed dwellings would be attached, each on their own lot and
considered to be single family under the Zoning Code. Yapp said one of the criteria in the Planned
Development Housing zone was whether the proposed development was compatible with the
neighborhood to the south and this is something the Commission should consider as they discuss this
development proposal. Staff recommended that the rezoning from OPDH-12 to OPDH-8 be approved and
that the preliminary plat and preliminary planned development be approved.
In response to a question from Hansen, Yapp said the proposed width of Jensen Street was a 28-foot
wide pavement, which was the same as the remainder of Jensen Street.
Brooks asked for a history of the RS-8 zoning to the south. Yapp said approximately 2.5-acres to the
south was previously zoned Planned Development 12. Part of it had been downzoned to RS-8 in 1991 as
.,", ..~- -------. ------~-,..----- .,-.'-. -"_'.-._0.>- - --~-_._-_.._-_._... --- . ---
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 3
part of the Walden Woods Parts 3-7 subdivision. There had been no anticipated street connection to the
north as Willow Creek was a barrier. The Willow Creek Corridor is a green way corridor, including the
Willow Creek Trail.
Brooks asked what were the distinguishing opportunities that a OPDH-8 had over an RS-8. Yapp said the
OPDH-8 aliowed fiexibility in lot size and lot width. The RS-8 zone has a minimum lot size of 6,500
square-feet per lot. The OPDH-8 allows flexibility in lot size (which the applicant had proposed to take
advantage of) provided that the overall density was no more than 8-units per acre. Because of the shape
of this particular remnant parcel, the OPDH-8 flexibility allowed the applicant to take advantage of not
having to meet the minimum lot size requirements and in exchange including some open space.
Anciaux asked regarding the difference in density between OPDH-8 and OPDH-12. Yapp said in general
the difference is 8 units per acre versus 12 units per acre as maximums. The allowable zoning density on
this particular piece of property was being downsized.
Vacation: Yapp said currently Jensen Street was platted as a cul-de-sac bulb which had never been
paved. In order to allow for the planned development and preliminary plat, it would need to be vacated.
Staff had recommended approval of the cul-de-sac bulb vacation provided the proposed planned
development was approved. If the proposed planned development was not approved, Staff would not
recommend vacation of the cul-de-sac bulb.
Public discussion was opened.
Joe Holland. 123 N. Linn Street, said this project had been proposed on a prior occasion. He felt the new
proposal was a substantially better proposal from the standpoint of the neighborhood, compatibility and
density. The proposed number of dwelling units had been decreased from 16 units to 10 units. It was also
a down-zoning from an OPDH-12 to an OPDH-8 and was not a development to maximum density from a
zoning standpoint. It was infill development, an opportunity to take a vacant lot and turn it into housing
which was appropriate use for that area of town. It was intended to be an owner occupied development. It
was not being targeted toward a rental market.
Holland said some e-mails from concerned citizens had been included with the Staff report. One of them
had noted that properties in the general area were selling in the range of $120,000 to $250,000. The
projected market for the proposed properties was right in the middle of that market. Properties in that
price range generally were not in the rental market, they were homes that persons purchased to live in.
The properties would be in the 1,400- to 1,600-square foot range depending upon how the square
footage was figured and what final internal design was selected by the future homeowner.
Holland said there was a real public benefit in terms of creating open space and making the connection
across willow creek to the trail system. The trail system served the entire area not just this project. He had
driven through the area again just before the meeting and noted there were a variety of housing styles.
The proposed units would be very consistent in appearance and design with what was in that
neighborhood. The developer felt it would be a good addition to the neighborhood. The development
would take a remnant parcel and filled it in.
Koppes asked Holland to highlight the differences between the three different design options. Holland
said the gable style in the front and how the house would appear from the street, slight differences in the
entrance to each of the properties and differences in the front roof iines. The units were planned to be
three bedrooms.
Anciaux asked Holland what price estimates he had indicated in his earlier presentation. Holland said he
didn't believe that had been determined yet. The target market was the center of the $120,000 to
$250,000 range. The price would vary partly on the amenities of the structure or if they were custom built
for a particular owner. Holland said his point had been that the price was compatible with the housing
stock in that neighborhood in that part of town.
Yapp said with respect to the number of bedrooms, his information showed they were proposed to be two
bedroom units, with the potential for a third bedroom in the basement.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 4
Glenn Siders, SouthGate Development, said there would be two bedrooms and a great-room upstairs. At
this time they anticipated that the lower level would be unfinished, most likely it would be finished as a
recreation or living room. To finish the basement into a bedroom would be a difficult with the deck
systems and to get the appropriate egress windows and clearances to provide a bedroom.
Yapp said a member of the public had dropped off some photographs of the neighborhood requesting the
photos be passed out to the Commission. The photos were distributed.
Gretel Beck, 1052 Jensen Street, said she hoped that the Commission would not approve the proposed
development. Her major problem was the fact that they were zero lot-lines. She had made a color-coded
map and included pictures of the neighborhood for the Commission's reference. There were 5 zero lot
lines on Walden Road, ali of which were rented out, mostly to students. They parked on the street even
though it was posted No On-Street Parking. A City police officer had ticketed the vehicles, but it didn't
deter persons from parking on the street, across the sidewalks and in the grass which made for very
unsightly, muddy circumstances. The renters didn't maintain the outside of their units. There were weeds
growing underneath the stairs, every garbage day the trash/trash cans blew into the streets and stayed
there. There were always additional bags of garbage which sat there and the garbage blew away. Beck
said her experience with zero lot lines was very negative.
Because SouthGate couldn't say for sure what price range the units would be at she didn't feel very
confident that these wouldn't be rental properties. They might not be designed to be rental units, but there
were no assurances that they would not be rentals. The parcel of land was in the middie of their
neighborhood. They had zero lot lines on one side and apartments on the other as weli as higher density
row housing. They had a wide variety of housing in their development and didn't need zero lot lines there.
They wanted single family homes that wouid have families. Two bedroom units would not be purchased
by families of two or more children. The unfinished lower lever would be the perfect place for someone to
purchase, finish it off and have an additional two students living downstairs in the recreation room. It
concerned her.
Beck said she would like to see this be single famiiy homes, unattached. She would like to see fewer lots.
She had been involved in the 1999 proposai, this was better. However to say this was better than the
previous proposal so it should be approved didn't make sense. What should be approved was what realiy
fit in the neighborhood, she didn't think the proposed zero lot lines fit in the neighborhood.
Beck said her other concern with the proposed number of iots was that the Willow Creek traii had
beautiful, mature trees. The proposed plan would remove more than one-half of the trees that were there
now. It was not a vacant lot, there was a lot of wildlife that lived there. It was never mowed so there was
lots of tali grass for the beaver, fox, turties, ducks, geese and ali types of birds that inhabited that area. It
was not seen as an eye-sore or vacant lot by the neighbors and the neighborhood.
Beck said she hoped the Commission rejected this application for rezoning and perhaps have it zoned for
fewer lots, single-family unattached dwellings that would better fit their neighborhood.
Freerks asked Staff to clarify the maximum number of residents and renters in an RS-8 zone. Hansen
said it depended on the parking. Yapp said no more than 3 unrelated persons or a famiiy plus one
roomer. Freerks clarified for members of the audience that if there were more than the aliotted number of
persons residing in the duplex units in the RS-8 zone, it was inappropriate and they should contact City
staff.
In response to a question from Freerks, Yapp said the houses that Beck had referred to on Walden Road
were dupiexes not zero lots.
Beverlv Robaliino, 2608 Irving Avenue, said she was there to ask the Commission to not approve the
development of Lot 77 as it had been proposed. She asked that the lot be developed into detached
single-family homes. She realized that this lot was on the perimeter of the neighborhood, but in order to
have access to this particular lot a person had to drive through ali the other detached singie-family
homes. It would be more compatible to the surrounding area if it was deveioped as detached single family
homes. It could be developed into seven lots and with some care, the developer could save some of the
nicer trees that were on the lot. It was mostly a grass land but there were some larger trees that were to
the south of the pond that could be maintained. The duplexes being referenced were in the RS-8
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 5
development on the east side of their neighborhood. The neighborhood had seen how the duplexes were
being used, they'd seen all the cars parked out front and they were concerned that putting in similar type
units in that area, they would have the same type of thing development in that area.
Roballino said she was pleased to see the developer working with the City to develop the connecting walk
between the area and the Willow Creek trail system. She used the trail system several times every week
and felt it was a great thing to have in the neighborhood.
Brian Lai, 1044 Jensen Street, said he would also like the Committee to reject this proposal. He agreed
with all the points previously made by his fellow residents. He was also concerned about the amount of
traffic and the increase of seventy vehicle trips per day passing directly in front of his house. There was
no alternate access except Jensen Street. In addition to his personal interests, there were numerous
families in the area and children who played in the street. Living In the area, he was aware of the speed
and level of driving skills of most of the current residents who would pose a serious hazard to the children
in the area. It was something he would not like to see.
Lai said it was not a large area, it was a very narrowly designed spot. To squeeze the proposed number
of units on that parcel would be tight, the way it was currently designed would create a serious eyesore
for the community. It squeezed into a very narrow area a significant number of houses that were
attached. If the parcel were rezoned, Lai felt it should be rezoned to RS-8 instead of the proposed OPDH-
8. He said the development that SouthGate owned on the east side of town was primarily rental, primarily
college students and did not fit into the neighborhood that currently existed.
Mark Goodheart, 2628 Irving Avenue, said the back of his property backed up to the area in question.
Goodheart said one of the reasons that they all were present was that they obviously had a vested
interest as to what did or did not get developed In that property. He said he wanted Siders and SouthGate
to know that they wanted to work with them to see what could be compromised and what could be put
together. Goodheart said his recommendation and hope was that the cul-de-sac not be vacated. He
would like to see the space remain a green space and an open space. It was a thin, narrow property.
Goodheart said it was his guess that SouthGate owned more than 2.2-acres of property in Johnson
County and that this would not, in his opinion, be a make or break situation for them.
Goodheart said justifications for keeping the parcel an open green space included connecting it would
make it more accessible to residents on the north side of the creek. Making it into a parking facility such
as what Willow Creek had on Teg Drive was looking fO/ward. He was aware that there were plans for
extending Willow Creek Trail to the west. Where were the access points going be? Currently persons had
to go to Teg Drive to access the trail or to park illegally within Walden Square shopping center. Additional
housing would be going up west of West High School. There was also talk of the National Guard Facility
moving out to Melrose Street. When those developments occurred over the next 3 to 4 years, where
would the access points and park areas be for persons to enjoy the Willow Creek trail?
He said as a compromise, have the area be developed as RS-8, single-family detached homes. On his
way to the meeting he had counted 41 single family detached properties on the main arterial streets
Irving, Jensen and Walden Road: and five duplex units. He felt to be consistent with the neighborhood
and the rest of the area, he recommended if there was development to consider it to be a single-family
detached property.
Goodheart said his concerns coincided with everyone else's: appearance, traffic. What had not been
brought up yet was parking. Even if the units were sold to families as they were designed and intended,
there really was very little space for parking. His concern was that the overflow would fall onto Jensen
Street and Irvine Avenue.
Hansen asked if there would be parking on Jensen Street? Yapp said it would be designed as a standard
public street, with parking permitted on both sides of the street. Parking would not be allowed in front of
the driveways which would restrict parking to in between the units. Yapp said the initial application for this
project had included a 22-foot private street section. Staff had recommended to SouthGate that they were
not comfortable with that narrow of a street as it would not allow on street parking. Staff had
recommended a full public street and sidewalks.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 6
Freerks said it looked like perhaps six on street parking spaces would be available. Yapp said Staff had
not specifically figured that number. Each unit had a 2-car garage with a 20-foot setback. Roballino said
on Walden Road there was on street parking on one side of the street. However persons parked on both
sides of the street.
Beck said part of the problem with the parking on Walden Road was that it went up hill and around the
corner. When cars were parked on the street in front of the duplexes, it was very hard to see if you were
coming up or going down the street. She'd had many situations where an accident could have easily
occurred because there was room for only one car and you couldn't see who was coming either direction.
Shereen Chanq, 2638 Irving Avenue, said she was appearing before the Commission to urge them to
reject the proposed plan. Her neighbors had already mentioned a number of good reasons why the whole
neighborhood was against the plan. Her personal concern was that looking at the RS-8 residential area,
the backyards of Jensen Court and Irving Avenue residences backed up to each other. The distance
between the two houses was very long. Comparing that distance to the proposed plan, the duplex would
be right up against her property line. The distance between the two houses would be much shorter than
compared to the rest of the neighborhood. She didn't think the appearance or the privacy issues would be
consistent with the new proposed plan with the current neighborhood.
Another concern was that on the east side of the development, there were several four-plex units on
Clearwater Court. On several occasions in the middle of the night they heard loud noises, fighting and the
police had to quiet down the situation. Chang said with the new proposed plan and the high possibility of
renting out to students in the middle of a detached single family neighborhood, she was concerned about
her privacy, her personal safety and a good nights sleep in the middle of the night.
Freerks asked if there were any variances given with the OPDH for lot distance? Yapp said the RS-8
zone had a 20-foot rear yard requirement and that was being maintained though several dwelling units
did not have more than 20-foot rear yard setback.
T. Marback, 2648 Irving Avenue, said he had the same concern that the lots were too narrow and too
close to their property lines and to their bedrooms. The second fioor as proposed would see right into the
bedroom. Their backyard would be minimal. His concerns were also the same as in 1 ggg, environmental.
He suggested the Commission drive by in the morning to listen to all the birds and to see all the wildlife
that could be seen. The big trees and the pond would probably not stay with the proposed plan.
Marback said the neighborhood also had many children who spent 5 to 6 hours a day playing with other
children in the street by the proposed development area. There was a lot of careless driving occurring
and to add additional traffic on top of it would be dangerous. There was also a lot of creative uses of the
garages as well. Some of the students had moved their furniture into the garages, there was a lot of
grilling, beer and partying in the driveways. He felt a development of the proposed type would not be
good for their neighborhood.
Koppes asked Siders to explain the retaining wall and the proposed planting of burning bushes. Siders
said he thought it would be 4- to 5-foot tall because the pavement was so close to the edge of the
property. She asked about maintenance on the area. There were 24 burning bushes and also quite a bit
of open space/empty spots. Siders said they were actually lots that would be sold with the unit as a zero
lot line lot so the homeowner would be responsible to maintain their own lot. This group of 10 would be
the homeowners association to maintain the outlots that had been created.
Holland said it was unfair to assume that all the units would be sold as rental units. Everyone was going
in with the assumption that they would be owner occupied but no one could guarantee that. It was also
not necessarily fair to compare this situation with what might happen on Walden Road. SouthGate didn't
own any properties on Walden Road. A fundamental difference was some of those units had a one car
garage which didn't provide much parking for a duplex. All of the proposed units had a two car garage
and a double width driveway which would provide parking for the residents. Holland said Walden Road
was a traffic lane that persons would take over to Mormon Trek. The comments about not being able to
see cars coming up or down the terrain because of cars being parked on the street was a fundamentally
different street than coming into a little cul-de-sac that was sloping but leveled off in topography. It would
only serve the persons who lived there. There would be no through traffic that would be competing with
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 7
the cars that were parked on the street. Holland said parking was an issue everywhere in Iowa City. He
felt those issues were overrated. This wasn't the duplexes on Walden Road, it was a completely different
neighborhood, street and completely different character of building and neighborhood. Holland said he
hoped that if the Commission approved this, that the problems that were seen on Walden Road wouldn't
emerge on the Jensen Street cul-de-sac. It had all the earmarks of good infill development. It was an
awkward property because of the creek and boundary lines, but a reasonable use for the property.
Lai said they were not arguing that the zero lots SouthGate had proposed to build would be exactly the
same as those on Walden Road. The argument essentially was that building duplexes was more
conducive to renters possessing them than single family homes. They acknowledged that was not
universally true, there were duplexes and zero lots on the west side of town that were owned, not rented.
The evidence of duplexes being rental properties was evidenced in their current neighborhood with the
duplexes on Walden Road. The probability of the proposed units being rental units was a lot higher. Lai
said if SouthGate wished to keep with the Comprehensive Plan and the property in the character of the
current neighborhood, it did not make sense to build duplexes there. Lai said similarly, it didn't make
sense to 'fill-in' what was currently a nice green space that benefited the current residents. The cul-de-sac
was a good parking area for persons wishing to enjoy the open green space and the pond.
Beck said she would feel much more comfortable if SouthGate could give them a better range than
$120,000 to $250,000. In their neighborhood there was nothing for $120,000, last year her next door
neighbor's house had sold for $146,000. Beck said she'd feel more comfortable with the proposal if
SouthGate indicated that they would price the units at a level desirable for a family and not for someone
to purchase as an investment. The potential existed for the proposed units to become rental units and it
could ruin their neighborhood.
Public discussion was ciosed.
Koppes inquired about the 45-day limitation period. Yapp said the July 12'h figure was based on 45-days
from when the latest version of the plan had been received. The Agenda date had been published in
error. Behr said July 12, 2004 would be the 45-day limitation period.
Motion: Chait made a motion to defer REZ04-00006/SUB04-00007. an application submitted by
Southgate Development for a rezoning from Planned Development Housing Overlay High Density Single-
Family (OPDH-12) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay Medium Density Single Family
(OPDH-8) zone and approval of a preliminary plat for a resubdivision of Lot 77 of Walden Wood Part 6, a
2.2-acre, 10-lot preliminary plat located at the north end of Jensen Street. Hansen seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Motion: Chait made a motion to defer VAC04-00002, an application submitted by Southgate
Development for a vacation of the Jensen Street cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way at the north end of Jensen
Street. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZ04-000 12 discussion of an application submitted by James Clark for rezoning from Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone to High Density Multifamily Residential (RM-44) zone for approximately 1.34-
acres of property located at 520-522 S. Gilbert Street.
McCafferty said the property included four lots. Previously the applicant had applied to rezone this
property including the lot north of Ralston Creek to CB-5. Because the property was not located within the
near southside transportation district, the Commission and Staff had recommended that additional
parking be provided. Under a CB-5 zone, there were no parking requirements. Because these properties
were outside of the CB-5 zone, it had been recommended that the parking requirement be increased to
meet that of the CB-2 zone. Subsequent to that decision, the applicant had withdrawn the application and
had resubmitted a new application to rezone to RM-44.
McCafferty said this property was located within the Downtown Planning District. The Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map indicated specifically that this property should be used for general commercial uses.
Rezoning it for high density multi-family residential commercial would deviate substantially from the Land
Use Map. Before this property could be rezoned an amendment to the map would have to be made. The
Commission had voted to convene a public hearing on June 17,2004, in which to discuss an amendment
to the Land Use Map.
.... .._. .'. .-.--.... .~.-.,..- .._._------..--_..----_.~_.__._.,_._-_..,------~--_.,....-.--- 'U'__"_"_
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 8
McCafferty said a number of policies and goals within the Comprehensive Plan related to this particular
piece of property. Economic Well-beina. For Iowa City the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan)
recommended the redevelopment and reuse of downtown and existing commercial corridors. The Comp
Plan aiso encouraged the creative reuse of existing commercial sites that were vacant or underutilized
and discouraged sprawl and commercial development that was less accessible to pedestrians, bicycles
and areas with higher density development. Gilbert Street was also considered to be a major commercial
corridor. McCafferty showed various maps which indicated the different uses along the entire Gilbert
Street corridor.
Chait said this application was for rezoning. A public hearing for the Comp Plan had been set. He felt
what McCafferty was presenting was more about the nature of the Comp Plan as opposed to its merits or
the specifics of the rezoning. McCafferty said the amendment to the Comp Plan would be to amend the
Land Use Map. Instead of general commercial it would indicate that it should be used for high density
multi-family in the area under consideration. McCafferty said there were also a number of policies within
the Comp Plan that would relate to whether or not this should be rezoned to RM-44. She was trying to
establish that Gilbert Street had always been a commercial corridor. There always had been existing
commercial along the corridor and it should be maintained because of the policies of the Comp Plan.
Behr said one of the initial questions in any rezoning was whether the requested rezoning was consistent
with the current Comp Pian. It was a thin line between discussing what the current Comp Plan provided
for and if the Commission agreed with it. The public hearing, a separate matter, as to whether they
wished to change it. He felt there would probabiy be crossover discussion between the two items. Chait
said there had already been a lot of conversation about this particular property and the related difficulties.
He was looking for a conversation specifically reviewing the way this property could be or was proposed
to be developed. If the site didn't want commercial to be on it, and it was impracticable and really went
against reality, it seemed to him to be a more prudent conversation. Chait said the information being
presented was very idealistic and theoretical. He wanted to look at the site in a way that it couid actually
be used.
Freerks said she'd like to talk about both. She didn't see how they couldn't talk about this and not talk
about how it related to the Comp Plan and the future they wanted for this particular area.
McCafferty said because this was a substantial change from the Comp Plan, it needed to be looked at it
relative to the land use of the Comprehensive Plan and the overall policies. At this time the application
would have to be deferred because of the Comp Plan issue. Gilbert Street was a high volume street, it
had a traffic count of approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. It would be conducive to commercial given it
had high visibility. The four buildings on the property were more industrial than commercial in nature and
were all occupied. Therefore commercial seemed to be viabie on this particular piece of property. Another
policy of the Comp Plan was to protect the character of downtown which inciuded maintaining pedestrian
environment on the street level. Staff felt having commercial on the first level was critical to maintaining
the downtown character.
Neiahborhood Commercial Potential. The property was a center that served the surrounding
neighborhood, a high density neighborhood composed primarily of students. Staff saw it as an opportunity
to provide commercial for the neighborhood residents. A number of the businesses along Gilbert Street
served the neighborhood. The policies of the Comp Plan supported having neighborhood commercial
within a residential area. Staff did not feel that there were any compelling reasons why commercial wouid
not be viable on this particular property. Appropriate commercial use should not be precluded in the future
only because it was believed that high-density residential development would be more profitable in the
short term.
Land Use Pattern. The Comp Plan supported diversity. Staff felt having this be all apartment buildings
likeiy occupied by students would be detrimental to the diversity of this area, basically creating a mono-
cuiture along Gilbert Street of student apartments.
McCafferty said at this time Staff did not feel that there was any compelling reason to rezone this
property. Based upon the policies, commercial use in this area was supported for neighborhood
commercial reasons, and to contribute to the downtown character and the redevelopment of existing
commercial. The first priority for this property should be to develop it for commercial use. If there were
restraints on the property given the site character in which the intensity could not be developed to have
..--.-.--.- ~--- ."..,.._---...........--,-.._---"..._-~._.- --...-.---.----..-----.'..------.------- --_.~.._-
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 9
commercial plus residential, the first priority should be the commercial and not have the residential. Staff
recommended that REZ04-00012 be deferred. If the Commission were inclined to vote for the proposed
development, the Comp Plan would first need to be amended.
Chait asked what type of access was proposed by the City to the property given that Gilbert Street
easements were being sought. McCafferty said the access would be similar to what had been discussed
previously. One access, approved by Staff, would be allowed from Gilbert Street. The other access would
be from Bowery Street. An alley access ran behind the properties. In the Capital Improvement Plan there
were plans to widen Gilbert Street and provide a center left turn lane from Gilbert Street south onto
Bowery Street. As part of the process some additional right-of-way would need to be acquired to have the
additional turning lane. Ideally Staff would like to keep the access to the property as far from the Bowery
Street Intersection as possible. Chait and Brooks requested more information regarding requirements,
design and DOT requirements in order to have a better understanding to analyze the site.
McCafferty said there were three criteria Staff would use to determine if they wouid approve any access
to this area from Gilbert Street: 1) It was preferred that it be as far as possible from the offset intersection,
2) It must not have interference with the sight distances with the abutment across the bridge 3) It was
preferred that the turning lane also be able to be used to access this property.
Chait said in previous discussions Staffs concerns had been with not knowing the price of the proposed
units, how many persons might reside there, if it would be families or non-related persons and other pre-
mature standards. In this conversation Staff had set the context for commercial and at the same time
were laying out a lot of restrictions and expressing concern regarding access and turn lanes. He would
like to see more specifics about what Staffs requirements and criteria did to impact the potential of this
site to be used for commercial. Specifically what Staffs new criteria did to impact the site analysis of the
potential of this site to be developed, what would be the viability of it as a commercial site.
McCafferty said whenever a rezoning was considered it had to be looked at relative to the Comp Plan.
There was one issue relative to the Comp Plan, the Land Use Amendment which was off the table for this
discussion. The other issues were relative to the Comp Plan in terms of policies and goals and whether
the rezoning would comply with those policies and goals. If the Commission determined at their next
meeting that Staffs recommendation was incorrect, at that time they could discuss that.
Chait reiterated that he would like to see more specific site analysis of the restrictions of this site given the
property that would be taken for the turn lane and the DOT requirements for where traffic could turn as
part of Staffs presentation to the Commission. It was very important to look at for either residential or
commercial. McCafferty suggested Chait request that information of the applicant. Chait said he was
requesting what Jeff Davidson and the DOT would allow or not allow. Brooks requested information
regarding what types of restrictions Staff were putting on the property that would affect the way it could be
used.
McCafferty said there was a second issue that needed to be discussed as well. The property could be
developed as commercial, residential or developed as commercial without residential which would help
alleviate the access and traffic issues on this property. The Commission might also consider at what
intensity residential development would be appropriate.
Hansen requested a clarification as to why neighborhood commercial was being suggested by Staff. It
had not been requested by the applicant nor was it the current zoning. The point that staff is making is
that commercial uses in this area can be supported by the surrounding high density residential
development. McCafferty said Staff did not recommend that this be rezoned CN-1, Neighborhood
Commercial. To support the area as being commercially viable one of the things to look at was the fact
that there was a large residential neighborhood surrounding this property. Currently the uses on the
property were commercial, therefore the neighborhood commercial argument supported the fact that this
could be viable because of its location and because it was used as neighborhood commercial. In this
corridor on both sides of the street south of Burlington and north of Bowery, there was only one vacant
building which had not been brought up to Code for commercial use.
Anciaux asked if the Staff recommendation had been a unanimous decision. McCafferty said it had been
a unanimous decision by the entire Staff with input from the various departments and Staff members.
--_.~- -...-...r-'" r---··'-------·,-------------__ ----..-
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 10
Chait asked what was the reason the last application for this particular property had been aborted?
McCafferty said the request had been for CB-5, Central Business Support. This property was just outside
the district area of the near souths ide transportation fee, which went to support the construction of a
public parking facility. CB-5 zoned areas did not have any parking requirements. Based upon the CB-5
zone, the City had decided it would not be appropriate to not have any parking on this property. Staff and
the Commission had decided that as a condition of the zoning, the parking requirements for this piece of
property should be equal to that of the CC-2 zone. The applicant felt he could not develop the property to
the intensity he desired and still meet the CC-2 zone parking requirements.
Chait said if the Camp Plan was potentially being redone for this application, why couldn't the CB-5
boundary just be moved to include this particular piece of property? Yapp said that had not been brought
up, but Staff could look into it.
Koppes asked if an island was being created by leaving the small piece of CC-2 above the creek
unattached to any other CC-2. McCafferty said technically, yes. Brooks pointed out an island was also
being created on the corner as well.
Public discussion was opened.
Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, said legally he didn't think any amendment to the Camp Plan was
required. They had not argued that battle yet. He and Behr had discussed this but had not come to any
agreement yet. The Camp Plan painted with a broad brush. There were specific cases in Iowa where
cities had deviated from the Camp Plan in doing a rezoning and the courts had said it was not a problem.
They were talking about a specific site. He said very little of the corridor referred to by Staff was really
commercial. It was a busy street with a variety of mixed use buildings, public space and residential on it.
In the initial discussion there had been a lot of concern about the alley behind the property, semi trucks
and commercial vehicles using it. Those issues were still there. The properties sat up above Gilbert
Street. They did not have flat, ievel entries into them. To take eight feet off the steepest part of the
property pitched it up even higher. It would not be a good access for either passenger or commercial
vehicles. It would shift a lot more traffic into the alley, including the semis that would have to back out of
the alley onto Bowery as there was no turnaround. A good commerciai use of real estate required good
commercial access.
Holland said he'd represented the owner of the vacant building referenced by Staff for over 20 years. The
real reason the owner didn't make the thousand's of dollars investment to bring it up to Code was that
there was no demand driving the owner to do so. The small building between the Vine and Fitzpatricks
was also vacant and had been so for 5 years. Fitzpatricks was now also going to be vacant. With respect
to community commercial and neighborhood demand, it didn't take a deep thinker to figure out that with
all the students living to the east of this area, the community commercial to have located on this site
would be a bar. When Culligan vacated their property, it would be difficult to find a business that would
want to have a warehouse use on Giibert Street with a restricted access and not be able to effectively
bring their vehicles in and out off Gilbert Street.
Holland said it was well and good to look at the Comp Plan. The broad brush approach might work when
looking at the whole corridor, but it didn't work when looking at site specific. In order to have this property
developed the way Staff wouid iike to see it developed under the CC-2 standards, it would probably
require having two levels of parking under the commercial. What the public would see driving by would
not be the store fronts, but the two levels of parking visible from Gilbert Street. The cost of land per
square foot in Iowa City could not be ignored. To put up a new building and to justify the per square foot
cost, a property had to be developed to a certain intensity. In order to have commercial and residential
and to meet the CC-2 requirements would force the parking under the building and the building up in the
air.
The surrounding uses to the east and north were zoned RM-44 with the exception of the Plaza Centre.
There was a lot of housing in the area, it was not fair to say that RM-44 would not be consistent land use
with other properties in the area. Mr. Clark had torn down a community eye-sore, the former Boy!-
Rummelhart piumbing supply shop and had constructed Gilbert Tower to be complimentary to the
Mansion. The proposed units would be residential townhouses constructed in a manner to compliment
... ..-.. "- ---.~-_..__..__.. -,---_.~_.__.._._-~_...-
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 11
the architecture of the Mansion and the older historic buildings across the street. The commercial corridor
really was only north of Court Street and south of Bowery Street.
Holland said McCafferty's had said a couple times that if there was not a compelling reason to rezone this
property, then it shouid not be rezoned. He did not feel that was a fair statement of what the City's
standard was for rezoning. The standard was - was it a sensible land use, was it in compliance with the
Comp Plan in the general sense of the broad brush Comp Plan not in a narrow technical sense, was it a
reasonable use of the land, was it in the public interest. There did not have to be a compelling reason to
approve the rezoning, what was in the best interest of the community shouid be done.
Freerks asked if the property were developed solely for commercial, would the parking requirements
require stepped underground parking of muiti-Ievels or did that just apply to when they were discussing
residential on top of commercial. McCafferty said she would provide information regarding that for the
next meeting. Yapp said the parking requirement for most retail uses was one space per 200 square feet.
Holland said in a CC-2 zone the number of parking spaces was driven by square footage of a building. A
very tiny building could be surrounded by a sea of parking and meet that requirement or a building of
reasonable size with stacked parking could also meet the requirement.
Chait said he felt Holland's reference to economic viability was very important. When a person was
paying for the land they had to be able to have something that would support the land cost. McCafferty
said it was a buyer beware situation, if a person paid too much for a piece of property and then could not
build to the intensity based upon the zoning.
Elevations of the proposed structure were distributed.
James Clark, 414 E. Market Street, asked If Planning was going to back him up on the RM-44 zoning
behind the bridge. McCafferty said Staff had agreed that because this property did not have frontage, the
particular area behind Ralston Creek, that Mr. Clark would not be required to do commercial in that area
behind the creek if the property retained its commercial zoning. It could be done as RM-44. [140 feet of
the 340 feet would remain RM-44.] Behr said they would need to clarify if an amendment to the Comp
Plan would be necessary. Size did matter.
Clark said he wished to speak to several points in the Staff report. High density residential dwelling units
- they were only putting 50% of what was allowed on the property. They proposed 22-24 apartments, 48
could be located on the property if it were zoned RM-44. They would not put 'flat's there. They proposed
to put individual condo units there that could be sold at a future point in time: four bedroom units so if a
unit was sold the upper bedroom could be turned into a living room. Units would face both to the east and
the west. If the property were turned back into commercial, the access most likeiy would be placed next to
the bridge and would restrict the turning lane. Persons traveling from the north would use that access to
cut through to the 400 parking spots located between Van Buren and Johnson Streets. There would be a
probiem with stacking. The four-phase light would also create additional problems for the center left turn
lane. The access would have at least a 20% slope. It would be dangerous for commercial and private
vehicles. On the north side of the building the access would never see the sun and wouid be ice during
the winter.
Clark said staff had compared this property to the Kirkwood and Gilbert Street corner which was a flat lot
with two accesses, excellent for commercial. This particular lot sloped from the south to the north as well
as sloping 6-feet from the alley to Gilbert Street. It had a lot of restrictions on it if it were to be used as
commercial. It had a dead end alley which forced truck drivers to back out blind. One truck driver had toid
Clark that in the future insurance companies were not going to cover blind backing-up.
The ground floor on the commercial would be elevated six-feet. The way Clark had it designed was two
tiers of parking ramps, commercial then residential on top of that. He felt it would be impossible to put in
that type of structure because it would be too high. CC-2 was only a 35-foot and also had a 20-foot
setback, CB-5 was 75-foot. With respect to the lot footage, 8-feet had to go to the City, 20 feet for a
setback, 5-feet off the alley for parking which left of depth of 117-feet. An access road would require 25-
feet, 10-feet for vision, 10-feet to the Mansion because their garage sat right on the lot line so the lot
would be restricted to 135 feet by 117 feet. The property was not friendly to commercial. In order to have
commercial, there had to be good access and he didn't think persons would drive all the way around to
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 12
come in from the back. To be commercial it would most iikely be a liquor store or a bar, which would have
patrons leaving about 2:30 am. It would be very noisy, a bar would not be good for that area.
Clark said if this property were to be rezoned to residential, they would not have or request to have an
access off Gilbert Street. RM-44 zoning surrounded the property already and would get rid of the higher
elevation unfriendly commercial, not impede the turning lane and not create the 2:30 am noise problem.
Their proposed residentiai units would be much more friendly to the Mansion than a commercial entity
setting 3 or 4 stories high to meet the parking requirements.
Clark said a decision needed to be made soon so he could complete a business transaction with the
owner of the house on the adjacent lot. The owner was not willing to give them another option, the Clark's
had already had it for three months. Clark said if he owned that particular piece of property he would give
the 8-feet to the City, no question about it.
Freerks asked if this particular lot could be developed to the full density potential. McCafferty said
typically the maximum density allowed could not be reached. Sometimes properties could be developed
to 65%. Clark said parking and economics were often prohibitive factors. He would prefer to stay with 22
units instead of 24 as shown on the elevation but until everything was pinned down, he couldn't be sure.
Chait said with the proposed widening of Gilbert Street and the steepness of the access that percentage
of a slope became an extreme hazard, who would be liable? Could it potentially fall back on the City?
Behr said when the City acquired the strip of property to widen Gilbert Street if the acquisition created a
more difficult site and devalued the site, the compensation to the property owner would be a part of the
acquisition. The access would have to meet all design standards. If it met design standards the City
wouid not be iiable. Clark said they'd estimated the slope would be 20%-30%.
Chris Stephan, MMS Consultants, said Clark had proposed to have underground parking under the
building as well as off the alley. At the present time on the north end of the property near the Culligan's
driveway it there was 5- to 6-feet of differential, the alley being higher than Gilbert Street. Moving south it
became greater, closer to 9-feet of difference in elevation from back to front. The 8-foot needed by the
City for the turn lane would make the access much steeper. The taper could be as long as 100-feet south
of the bridge. If the RM-44 rezoning were not permitted, he guessed that the access would have to be
somewhere in the turn lane area and hold up traffic trying to get to the light. There was a lot of pedestrian
traffic on the sidewalk as well. It would be more confiicted than could be avoided with the other proposal.
Jason Cavlor, Falbos Pizza, said there was a lot of foot traffic through that area. He felt anything
commercial would work. It was a steep turn and a steep driveway now. The alleyway behind his business
was aiready very congested by the apartments on South Van Buren. He didn't see how adding an
additional 22 apartments would make it better. People cut through the alley all the time. He had already
spoken with the Clarks and had told them that if they put commercial in that location, he would take all the
space. There was pienty of businesses that could be put in there. A lot of students lived in the apartments
on South Van Buren, South Johnson and South Dodge, 50% of them were walkers who trafficked through
this particular area. They really didn't have anywhere to walk to for commercial purposes except the
convenience stores on Gilbert, Bowery or Benton. Caylor said he felt commercial would be viable in this
location. He received a semi-truck delivery once a week.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer REZ04-00012 an application submitted by James Ciark for
rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to High Density Multifamily Residential (RM-44) zone
for approximately 1.34-acres of property located at 520-522 S. Gilbert Street. Freerks seconded the
motion.
Freerks said there had been a lot of good discussion but one thing she felt needed to be talked about
more was what the Commission would like to see in the future on that piece of land. She didn't think they,
as the Planning & Zoning Commission, could do their jobs well without at least speaking about the
viability and what they wanted for a healthy community along that corridor. It had not been addressed
enough and she wished to discuss it further at the next meeting.
,.... '.-" -~ .- -'~-..""._-_._._.-._~"---,..-. ._-"--,...._.,"-~~--.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 13
Hansen said he agreed with Freerks. He felt even more pertinent was Chait's request to see exactly what
was going to happen with the turn lanes and the egress to that property off of Gilbert with the turn lanes.
He didn't think the Commission could make a decision with out knowing what would be the impact on that
property.
Chait said he thought the opportunity for this particular situation was in a different place. This was an
opportunity for an applicant/developer to work with the neighbors and the City to come up with a solution
that worked for everyone. In his mind there really wasn't a neighborhood because of all of the students,
the parking and apartments. The neighborhood was really the City, Staff and the Commission to iook at
what was in the best interest of the environment around this particular piece of property. Chait said when
talking about rights-of-way, access, etc, it started to have the elements of a CZA where this was traded
for that, everyone worked together to accomplish the goal and they all had a common vision of
deveioping a property in the way that someone wanted to develop it. He agreed with Joe Holland about
the broad brush interpretation of the Comp Plan versus the foot-specific analysis that Staff had been
doing. It was less about the Comp Plan other than the broad brush look and more about how this property
could be developed to address the concerns of having commercial or having access on Gilbert Street or
not, dealing with all the pedestrian traffic and the nightmare of the alley. He thought there was a solution if
everyone worked together to come up with a common vision.
Freerks said she didn't feel they could deal piecemeal with a piece of property and that was why a Comp
Plan looked at corridors and sections. She felt they needed to look at the whole area and how it was
developed. There was a neighborhood there that had neighborhood convenience stores, bars and other
commercial entities for students. That was a big part of the problem with a lot of these areas because
they didn't see it that way.
Chait said the broad brush of a Comp Plan worked for him. This was a very specific site that had to do
with access from Giibert Street, the demands of access from an alley, the desires of the DOT and City
Traffic to expand that, and the potential developer of a property. The elements of having a developer work
with the City and the Commission to be able to come up with something that everyone could live with was
very different than saying, "The Comp Plan say's....". Chait said he thought this was a site specific
opportunity to solve a problem and do it in the context of a CZA where there was a lot of give and take.
Hansen said he didn't want to see the Comp Plan nibbied to death. They had the big plan, but they
wanted to take little brushes and do little pieces.
Anciaux asked if the Comp Plan actually looked at square footage that was involved. They had to look at
what the property could do. He wondered if they approved the RM-44 zoning, was there any way that the
buildings could be moved cioser to the street so there could be more parking in the rear, perhaps through
a CZA. He requested Engineering to become involved and review the situation. McCafferty said at this
time Staff didn't have a development plan so they could address the technical issues and be more
specifically evaluated by Engineering. Prior to the next meeting she could solicit conceptual opinions.
Anciaux requested Engineering review this and provide an analysis regarding the turning lanes, radiuses
and slopes/degree of slope.
Freerks said she would also like to look at what couid commercial do on this lot and have a report from
City Staff by next meeting if that truly was the only option available.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZ04-00014/SUB04-00015, discussion of an application submitted by Third Street Partners for a
rezoning to approve an amended Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH) Plan and a final plat of
Village Green Part XX, a 5.84-acre two lot subdivision with 19 proposed dwelling units.
Yapp said the preliminary plat had been approved in 2001. Approval of preiiminary plats expired after two
years. The preliminary plat had originally been approved for 19 dwelling units, each unit to include a two-
car garage. The applicant had requested an amendment to the approved plan to allow an optional third
garage stall to be constructed in up to 7 of the 19 dwelling units. A note would need to be included on the
plat that this third stall would be set back at least two feet from the other stalls to provide some
articulation along the façade. Staff felt the Village Green housing units had longer areas of green space
..._ ___.n ___... .___. ~~----"-"- -->..._-_.~---.~._._.,_._.__._-- ..'.-..-
Planning and ZDning CDmmissiDn
June 4, 2004
Page 14
between the structures unlike many blDCks Df narrDw-IDt single-family IDts that didn't have the green
space. This green space WDuid help the larger garages fit intD a residential setting.
Staff recDmmended apprDvai Df REZ04-00014, an amended Pianned DevelDpment HDusing Plan Df
Village Green Part XX, a 5.B4-acre twD IDt, 19 dwelling unit pian iDcated Dn the nDrth side Df Wintergreen
Drive west Df SDuth Jamie Lane. Staff alsD recDmmended apprDval Df SUB04-00015, a preliminary and
final plat Df Viii age Green Part XX, a 5.B4-acre twD IDt residential subdivisiDn subject tD approval Df legal
papers and cDnstructiDn drawings priDr tD CDuncil cDnsideratiDn.
KDppes asked if Lancaster Place was gDing tD be a private street. Yapp said that was CDrrect.
Public discussiDn was opened. There was nDne. Public discussiDn was CIDSed.
Motion: Hansen made a mDtiDn to approve REZ04-00014. BrDDks secDnded the mDtiDn. The motion
passed on a vote of 7-0.
Motion: Hansen made a mDtiDn tD approve SUB04-00015. BrDDks secDnded the mDtiDn. The motion
passed on a vote of 7-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
VAC04-00001, discussiDn Df an appiicatiDn submitted by Craig Farlinger for vacatiDn Df 3.400-square feet
Df ailey right-Df-way IDcated between A Street & Friendship, and 1 ,I and 2" Avenue.
McCafferty said the ailey was only used by properties in the near vicinity to access garages. MDSt Df the
prDperties in the area had an access frDm First Avenue. At this time, this pDrtion Df the ailey did nDt have
any use in terms Df vehicular Dr pedestrian access. Staff had a CDncern with respect tD the pDtential
redevelDpment Df First Avenue. If the traffic increased Dn First Avenue and First Avenue had tD be
widened it might be necessary tD require that access tD these IDtS be provided thrDugh an ailey. It wDuld
be more desirable tD have a thrDugh access rather than a dead end ailey which the vacatiDn Df this
particular parcel wDuld provide. Staff recDmmended that a land swap DCCUr. The City wDuld vacate this
pDrtiDn Df the ailey as requested by the applicant in exchange fDr the City acquiring a 20-fDDt right-Df-way
tD extend the nDrth-sDuth pDrtiDn Df the ailey. The applicant had nDt agreed tD the land swap. He
prDpDsed tD subdivide the property and develDp anDther hDuse Dn the secDnd parcel Df iand. The
applicant had a large enDugh iDt to meet the minimal dimensiDnal requirements SD it was nDt required that
he have the additiDnal prDperty. It wDuld simply make it a better IDt. The applicant and Staff had nDt
wDrked DUt the cDnditiDns Df the swap. As a standard practice, the City Dffered Y, Df the vacated area tD
the adjacent prDperty Dwner. In this particular case the adjacent property Dwner was interested in
acquiring that half. If the applicant were able tD acquire oniy Y, Df the vacated parcel, Staff did nDt knDw if
he WDuid be interested in cDntinuing with the land swap.
Behr said typicaily what the City received in exchange for any cDnveyance was typicaily taken up at a
later time. In this case, it was relevant what the City received in exchange fDr the vacatiDn. Staffs
recDmmendatiDn was that the vacatiDn not Dccur unless the City received the replacement piece Df land.
McCafferty said Staff recommended approval Df the vacatiDn subject tD a number Df cDnditiDns which
were standard tD ailey vacatiDns. The cDnditions were listed in Staffs repDrt dated June 3, 2004. In
addition, the City wDuld need tD receive the deed tD the nDrth extensiDn Df the ailey.
Public discussiDn was Dpened.
Craie Farlineer said he had Dwned the prDperty fDr approximately tWD mDnths. The property was 170- by
100-feet. If the parcel were vacated and the adjacent neighbDr received Y, Df the vacated parcel, it wDuld
ruin Farlinger's IDt by giving up the Dther 20-feet. He wDuld nDt have a usable IDt left. Farlinger had
spDken with the neighbDr whD was interested in Dbtaining at least part Df the vacated parcel adjacent tD
his prDperty.
Fariinger said he'd made the DbservatiDn that the students frDm City High traveled very fast dDwn A
Street. Anytime there was a through street, vehicles tended tD travel at high rates Df speed. The police
department had put speed mDnitDrs Dn the street, he'd seen vehicles traveling 45 tD 50 mph Dn the street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2004
Page 15
To put a straight through alley in the block would just invite persons to use it and speed. If First Avenue
were under construction, it would make it worse rather than better. He'd seen the police stop persons and
issue tickets, but it didn't deter them.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve VAC04-00001, the vacation of a 3,400 square foot portion of
right-of-way iocated south of 500 2" Avenue subject to the conditions listed in the June 4, 2004, Staff
Report. Brooks seconded the motion.
Behr ciarified that if the motion were approved subject to the listed conditions, it would go on to Council
with the Commission's recommendation. The applicant couid give the matter more thought. If he chose
not to meet the conditions he could take it on to Council and ask them not to impose the conditions. The
applicant could also withdraw the application at any time.
Brooks said he was not in favor of a dead-end alley and didn't want to give that impression. The alley
either had to go straight through or stay the way it was. Behr said that was what the current motion
indicated.
Chait said in terms of the future and iong range concerns, he felt the Commission would be remiss in
having the alley terminated and not having it run straight through or giving up the possibility that existed
now. Approving the application with the recommendations made sense.
Anciaux said during the First Avenue discussions he had driven through all the alleys in that particular
part of town. He'd felt it would be very nice if they alleys went through. He agreed with Staffs
recommendation.
The motion Dassed on a vote of 7 -0.
OTHER ITEMS:
Anciaux said he would be absent for the June 17, 2004 meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 20. 2004 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as typed and corrected. Hansen
seconded the motion. The motion Dassed on a vote of 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 pm. Brooks seconded the motion. The
motion Dassed on a vote of 7-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
data On cilynUpcdfminuteslp&zI2004/2004 06-Q3-Q4p&z.doc
.-.------------_._------.. -..-- _.---
I
,
Board or Commission: Iowa City Iowa Planning & Zoning Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2004
June 3, 2004
TERM
NAME EXP. 1/1/04 1/15/04 2/5/04 2/19104 3/4104 3/18/04 4/1/04 04/15/04 05/06/04 05/20104 6/3/04
Don Anciaux 05/01/2006 NM X NM X X NM X X X X X
Bob BTooks 05/01/2005 NM X NM X X NM X X X X X
Beniamin Chait 05/01/2006 NM X NM X X NM X X 0 X X
Ann Freerks 05/01/2008 NM X NM OlE OlE NM X X X X X
J errv Hansen 05/01/2005 NM X NM X X NM X X X X X
Elizabeth Koppes 05/01/2007 NM X NM X X NM X X X X X
Dean Shannon 05/01/2008 NM X NM X X NM X OlE X X X
KEY: X = Present
o = Absent
OlE = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = Not a Member