Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-06 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996-5:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER - LOWER LEVEL CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: PREUMINAR¥ Betty Kelly, Sue Licht, Doris Malkmus, Dou9 Russell, John Shaw Ruedi Kuenzli, Mike Pugh, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Jeff Hating OTHERS PRESENT: Alice S. Hooten, Kathryn S. Plettenberg, Jerry Downey, Tom Wendt, Del Holland, Martha Gordon, Nancy AIt, Pain Bailey, Mary Hathaway, Wendy Moses, John Peters, Lynn Rowell, Mi- chael Balch, Debra Kendall, Thomas M. Martin, Gary Werle, Patricia Eckhardt, David Arbogast CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Russell called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. Kevin Hanick, a former Historic Preservation Commission member, expressed reserva- tions about the award selection process for the Historic Preservation Awards Ceremo- ny, held in May 1996, at the County Courthouse. Hanick feels that awarding 27 of 28 properties awards is unfair and unnecessarily cruel to the one participant that did not receive an award. Hanick does not feel it is appropriate to set someone up for an award, but then publicly condemn someone for the things they had done wrong in the opinion of the judges. Hanick said the awards ceremony is the main public relations event for the Commission to the public every year, and feels that should any screening of the applicants be conducted, that this be done prior to their reaching the awards ceremony. Hanick said he is not the only person that has questioned the process, that he has talked to several other individuals who were present at the ceremony and had felt the recipient was wrongfully picked out for criticism. In this particular case, Hanick feels an honorable mention should have been the least bestowed upon the owner, especially after having spent a quarter-million dollars and done 99% of the correct things. Hanick hoped the Commission keeps in mind that, had the owner of the building not spent this money on the renovations the building would not likely be standing today. Russell assured Hanick that the Commission would discuss this matter and take these comments into consideration for future awards programs. COLLEGE GREEN/EAST COLLEGE STREET NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. RusSell reviewed what the Commission intends to attain and the status of the nomina- tions to date. Patricia Eckhardt and David Arbogast, chosen by the Commission as the consultants to prepare the National Register nominations for the two proposed historic districts, were on hand. Eckhardt reviewed the status of the nominations in greater detail, stating the reasoning for the boundaries and properties selected, and why others were not selected. Eckhardt said she handed in a draft report to staff this afternoon, absent the maps. The Commission will review the report at its July meeting. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission June 11, 1996 Page 2 State National Register Review Committee will likely review the proposal at its fall meeting, the conclusions of which may or may not be forwarded to the National register. Arbogast reviewed what a National Register designation means, and the benefits and/or drawbacks of such designation. For example, Arbogast said the designation would have no effect on renovations or demolition, so long as only private funds are utilized. However, should State or Federal funds assist the project, a review process would kick in that may put some limitations on what the owner intends to do with the property. Arbogast said a period of significance, 1880-1920, was used that assisted in deciding whether a property was contributing or not. One property, at 1OO9 E. College St,, was actually constructed before this time frame but was considered contributing. Arbogast also noted that two other properties, at 1006 and 1039 E. College Street, had their roof lines rebuilt following separate incidences of fire. However, as both replacement roof lines differed significantly from their original shape and/or slope, these structures were not counted as contributing. Several other properties had their porches removed which has drastically changed the appearance of these structures, and were therefore not counted as contributing. On the other hand, several other structures are covered by either vinyl or aluminum siding, but they concluded siding was not a factor as to whether a property should be included or not because siding can be removed without causing significant harm to the shape of the structure. Del Holland asked why the Lindsay-Lake House, located on the SW corner of Summit Street and E. College Street, was not included in the survey. Arbogast said they would have included the house, but were told by the State Commission not to include it because it is already on the Register. Arbogast said they are just doing what they could in order to produce the most acceptable presentation for the State. Russell noted the Lindsay-Lake House has been nominated for Historic Landmark designation and additional designation would be repetitive because they would provide the same protection. Debra Kendall asked why the apartment building on the NE corner of College and Lucas Streets was included. Arbogast said this structure would not be a contributing histori- cal structure, but would be included within the district to provide protection on that piece of property for any future structures that may be built, should the apartment building be torn down or destroyed by fire. Jerry Downey asked what criteria was used to determine whether a property was considered contributing or non-contributing. Arbogast outlined the criteria and how these criteria related to several sites within the districts. Downey also asked for further clarification on what restrictions may be placed on the property owner as a result of historic district designation, and how zoning and building permits come into play. Russell and Arbogast clarified that building, alterations are not affected by a National Register listing unless State or Federal funds assist the funding of these projects. Russell noted that local designation would result in a requirement for design review approval by the Commission prior to a permit being issued for exterior renova- tions. Russell concluded that the designation can be considered both a protection mechanism on ensuring compatibility of alterations with the surrounding architecture, iowa City Historic Preservation Commission June 11, 1996 Page 3 or, from a different viewpoint, a regulation. Staff was directed to forward a copy of the National Register criteria to Downey. Kendall stated that she feels a conflict exists between the ideals of a historic district designation and the meeting of code regulations for rental properties that reside within such a district. Kendall feels historic designation will add an extra level of regulation that will ultimately slow down the process and make her go through a review process every time she needs to make some adjustment. Kendall said she needs to update things on a regular basis, mostly to keep up with code, and having to come in to see whether the Commission approves of such improvements every time a change is made would waste alot of her time. Russell said he understands these concerns, but stressed that only items requiring a permit for exterior changes required the additional review. Many of the items the City Housing Inspectors identify may not require approval by the Commission. Russell said the Commission most likely would not have review, unless it consisted of an improvement to the exterior of the structure and it required a permit. He added that the Commission rarely caused delays of more than a week or two, and that the Building Department's review of the plans can run concur- rently. Tom Martin asked to have the benefits of such designation reviewed again, because he said he is not sure the benefits outweigh the costs, in terms of time and effort, to the property owner. Russell reviewed these benefits. Russell also said the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission is currently reviewing a possible tax abate- ment for improvements to designated residential or commercial properties. Russell said this Commission has been seeking approval of the abatement and that he hopes it will be approved in the near future. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 809-811 South Summit Street. Gary Werle, the applicant, was present to review the proposal. Werle displayed photographs of the site. Werle said he intends to make the garage as least noticeable as possible by using some existing vegetation to act as cover, but said it will be more noticeable in the winter. Werle said he intends to make the garage compatible with the other structures on the lot as much as possible. Shaw said he is concerned that the garage will introduce a new use into the existing zoning, a use that he is not too fond of having in the district. Werle said he intends to park a pickup with attached snow plow and some lawn mowing equipment that are used for his commercial use, in the garage, but said the options are either letting him use the garage as cover, or he can park the truck outside, in full view. Shaw was further concerned about the size and wondered whether the garage could be reduced, or whether the side bay can be deleted and just leave room for the parking stalls. Werle said he may consider a reduction because there is a garden in place that he may not wish to disturb, but said he prefers its present size. Russell said he sees several issues: One, the structure will have minimal exposure from the street. Two, the design matches ~hat of the existing structures, although, the project would add considerably more pavement. Three, that a new use may be introduced in the zone. Russell said he does not have trouble with the use because Werle only intends to garage the equipment, but said he would feel different should the site be used for commercial practices, i.e., to see customers. Werle added that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission June 11, 1996 Page 4 structure will not be serviced by plumbing nor electricity, so it would not be viable for a commercial business. Werle asked for recommendation on color and landscaping. Russell said the Commis- sion does not regulate color, but if asked would probably suggest that it match some- what the surrounding structures and that it be of a darker, earth tone tint. Licht suggested the applicant consider some additional landscaping in the future to further screen the structure from the street, but did not wish to impose any conditions at this point. Malkmus did raise concern that the structure is of the size that a future owner may convert the structure into a commercial use, and wondered what mechanisms may prevent this. Kugler said it could be an enforcement problem, but the City could shut a business down on the property if it was not permitted in that zone. MOTION: Russell moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 809-811 South Summit Street. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. AMENDMENT: Russell moved to amend the main motion to include that should the applicant desire to reduce the size of the structure, this reduction would not need the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0, 503 Melrose Avenue (A.W. Pratt House). John Peters, representative for the property owner, was on hand to review the proposal. Peters said it is their intention to preserve the historical character of the structure. He said that the exterior stairs are needed to meet exiting requirements. Licht said the majority of the plan is satisfactory, but feels a less intricate fire escape would suffice. Licht said although the plan for the fire escape appears to fit to the scale of the building, it would, however, be on the back side of the building and a less prominent design would likely still fit the scale and may even be more appropriate for the architectural period. The Commission asked what type of treatment isto be used on the fire escape. Peters said he is not sure if the fire escape is to be painted or stained, but pointed out that the application does state a paint or stain is to be utilized that will match the existing structure. MOTION: Russell moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 503 Melrose Avenue, subject to the railings being painted in a tone that matches the existing railings. Kelly seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. (Licht left the meeting at 7:10 p.m.) DISCUSSION OF GRANT PROJECTS: Lonqfellow Neiqhborhood survey. Kugler said site sheets are not yet in hand, howev- er, the deadline is not until December, so there is still time. Kugler feels Naumann is concentrating most of her effort right now on finishing up on the Dubuque Street/Linn Street Corridor survey because that deadline is July 31, 1996. Malkmus asked whether the Commission would be asking for too much work if it should accept all of the areas discussed for proposed conservation or historic district- Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission June 11, 1996 Page 5 ing. Russell said he would agree with this statement, that the Commission would be much busier and that he feels the meetings are already on the verge of being too long, or meeting too frequently. Kugler said the City of Dubuque staff person in charge of historic preservation is to spend 1/4 time on historic preservation items. As it turns out, she spends nearly all of her time processing applications, reviewing projects, etc. He said Dubuque has over 700 designated properties. Russell stated that this will have to be part of the future consideration when the designations are discussed. DubuQue Street/Linn Street Corridor survey. As stated above, the deadline for submission is July 31, 1996, so Naumann is concen- trating most of her effort right now in this area. He said he expects to see completed work items soon. OriGinal Town Plat survey. Kugler said the Request For Proposals (RFP) has been sent out. Responses are due in on July 1, 1996. The Commission should be able to review these proposals at the July meeting. DISCUSSION OF SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES. Kugler asked the Commission to refer to the May 7, 1996, memorandum from Kerry McGrath, included in the packets. Kugler gave background information on the issue. The Commission asked staff to forward information on to Mike Pugh, as he is working on amendments to the historic preservation ordinance, and that this be scheduled as a September agenda item. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS. Kugler said that since the May meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the first series of landmark designations. The City Council will hold a public hearing on these designations at its regular meeting cf July' 2, 1996. Russell said he would like to do a little public relations and get some letters out to interested parties in order to make our support felt at that July Council meeting. Russell felt the Friends of Historic Preservation, and the Longfellow, Melrose Avenue and North Side Neighbor- hood Associations should also be notified. Shaw said he has no problem with inform- ing people, but felt the Commission should do so in a fair manner and inform all interested groups or individuals, whether for or against. There seemed to be some consensus to this notion and the Commission asked that all interested parties be informed of this Council meeting. Russell asked whether a slide presentation at this meeting would be possible. Russell asked Kugler to confirm whether Council would like a slide presentation held at the informal meeting prior to the July 2, 1996, formal meeting. The Commission discussed a problem that has arisen with at least one of the property owners of the proposed historic landmarks. Kugler notified the Commission that should a property owner formally protest the designation, the Council will need a super-majority, 6 out of 7 Council members voting in favor, in order to approve the designation. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission June 11, 1996 Page 6 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes from the Aoril 11, 1996, ReQular MeetinQ. MOTION: Malkmus moved to approve the April 11, 1996, regular meeting minutes, as amended at tonight's meeting. Russell seconded the motion. Kelly asked that her name be spelled correctly throughout the minutes, rather than Kelley. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. 2. Minutes from the April 26, 1996, Special Meetin_,g.. MOTION: Malkmus moved to approve the April 22, 1996, regular meeting minutes, as amended at tonight's meeting. Shaw seconded the motion. Russell submitted minor spelling changes to staff. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. 3. Minutes from the May 14, 1996, Regular Meetinq. MOTION: Kelly moved to approve the May 14, 1996, regular meeting minutes, as amended at tonight's meeting, Malkmus seconded the motion. Page two, paragraph one, referring to the court house renovations, Russell said this should say "the last several years", rather than "two years". Under discussion of Longfellow Neighborhood survey, line three, Russell said this should say "...whether she had a Rundell addition historic district in mind." The next line, after "inappropri- ate", Russell asked that the words, for inclusion within a historic district, be added. On page three, within the motion that gives direction to the consultants, Russell asked that the boundaries of the proposed district be verbally spelled out, or that a map is attached to the minutes. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: 1. Update on ordinance amendments. Mike Pugh, the Commission member working on these amendments, was not present so this item was skipped. 2. Restoration and preservation traininq workshop. Kugler noted the workshop is to be held in Traer, Iowa, July 21-26. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission June 11, 1996 Page 7 3. National Preservation Institute Seminar. Kugler noted that this event is to be held in St. Paul, Minnesota, July 22-23. Kugler noted that the City does have money budgeted for training seminars and conferences. 4, National Preservation Conference. Kugler said the conference is to be held in Chicago, illinois, October 16-20. The City has some travel and education money budgeted, and encourages at least one member to attend. Kugler noted that Eleanor Steele, a North Side property owner, said she is concerned about the way some North Side rental properties have gone about satisfying code requirements, particularly with regard to front porches. Steele says that when a porch or rail is spotted as deficient in some aspect or another, these properties are often supplied a design by City Building Officials which depicts ways in which the deficiency might be corrected. Steele feels some of these properties may take these examples too literally and construct exactly what they were shown, which is not an appropriate design for a historic building. Kugler said Steele asks that the Commission review this design handed out by the City to see whether the Commission can come up with an alternative that may be more appropriate for the individual neighborhoods, the North Side in particular. Shaw suggested supplying these individuals with schematics that remove the text and do not suggest this is how it should be done. Shaw commended Steele for recognizing this problem and feels that the Commission should investigate the problem. The Commis- sion asked that this be made a future agenda item. Shaw agreed to come up with a more generic sketch to pass on to the building officials to replace the existing one. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. 1!oE. ., MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY JUNE 13, 1996 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY TRANSIT FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Howard Horan, Pat Foster, Richard Blum, Rick Mascari STAFF PRESENT: Eleanor Dilkes, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER PLAN: Horan opened the hearing at 5:47 p.m. ( A complete transcript of the hearing will be available.) made APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blum said the minutes stated that he was at the FSDO office in Kansas City. He was actually at the Des Moines FSDO. The minutes of the May 2, 1996, meeting were approved as corrected. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Blum made a motion to approve the bills. Foster seconded the motion and it was approved 4 - 0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were discussed. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Master Plan Study - Searle, from McClure Engineering, showed a promotional video from the Ankeny Industrial Park. Horan said there are similarities between Ankeny and what the Commission is hoping to accomplish with the 1996 Master Plan. Searle thanked those in attendance for their comments during the public hearing and said the comments will be reviewed before the final Master Plan is submitted to the Commission. There were some comments on the name change projected for the Airport. One person suggested a name-the-airport contest. The Commission will discuss the name change before the final Master Plan is accepted. Horan said the next step is to adopt the plan. This will be after the comment period closes on June 27, 1996. The Master Plan will be an agenda item at the July 18, 1996, meeting. b. West Corporate hangar building - 0'Neil said the subcommittee is still waiting for confirmation from one of the potential tenants. This issue is scheduled for the Council agenda on July 2. c. Iowa City Science Center - Jim Larew made a presentation to site a Science Center at the Airport. He thought it would be beneficial to the community and the Airport. He explained the process the Science Center Board had taken up to this point and where they were in the process of building a science center. Mascari asked how the center would be funded. be privately funded. He said there would be aviation. Larew said it would exhibits related to Larew said he would like to put specifications together within the next month if the Commission approves the concept of building the center at the Airport. Blum and Mascari volunteered to be a subcommittee to work with the Science Center Board to discuss details of how the Science Center could be located at the Airport. Blum made a motion to support the concept of locating a Science Center at the Airport. Mascari seconded the motion and it passed 4 - 0. 8. Community support group - Mascari requested this be on the agenda. O'Neil gave Mascari a video on Community Support Groups to review. Mascari said he had nothing to report at this time and would work on the issue for a later date. e. Iowa City Community School District lease - set public hearing Horan said the lease for the school district expires on August 1. The lease is a one year, renewable lease and would not normally require a public hearing, but the escalating rent scale covers a ten year period. Blum made a motion to set the public hearing for July 18, 1996. Foster seconded the motion and it passed 4 - 0. f. Fly He would Fly Iowa IDOT and years in Fly Iowa Iowa 2001 - Blum said he requested this be on the agenda. like the commission to apply to be the host airport for 2001. O'Neil said he contacted Kathie Robinson from the she said applications are not usually taken more than 2 advance. Blum made a motion to apply to the IDOT to host 2001. Foster seconded the motion. Blum said he spoke with Sertoma Club and they would be willing to be the host club for the breakfast part of the event. The motion passed 3 - O, with Blum abstaining. Horan will write a letter to the IDOT with the Commission's request. g. USAR lease - set public hearing - Blum made a motion to set a public hearing for the United States Army Reserve lease on July 18, 1996. Mascari seconded the motion and it passed 4 - 0. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT= Horan said he and Blum attended the Chamber's Governmental Affairs meeting and discussed the Master Plan. He said the GA subco]mmittee indicated that the Chamber would be proactive in supporting the Master Plan. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Blum said he attended an air show in Waterloo the previous weekend. He said there was no presence or advertising for the Waterloo Airport at the air show. He suggested some type of display about the Iowa City Airport be set up at the fly-in breakfast. Mascari asked about the snow removal policy. O'Neil said he is getting estimates on what it would cost to hire an outside contractor to supplement the policy and increase the level of snow removal service. He will have information at the next meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said there is an aviation conference the second week in August, sponsored by the Great Lakes Chapter of AAAE, that he may attend. The normal Commission meeting is scheduled for that week. The Commission agreed to schedule the August meeting for August 15th instead of August 8th. O'Neil said he discussed the fuel monitoring system with ICFS. Jones, from ICFS, said his monthly tests have shown no groundwater contamination. Mascari suggested the Commission conduct additional testing. 0'Neil said Jones is thinking about putting in a self-fueling system and wanted to know if the Commission would pay for widening the access road near his fuel farm. O'Neil said he did not put this on the agenda this month because Jones was not going to be in town to explain his proposal. This will be an agenda item on the July agenda. O'Neil reminded the Commission that Bob Hick's official and the position is now being advertised. will be made in August. resignation is The appointment The National Guard is interested in building a new maintenance facility in Iowa City. One possible area is the area along Riverside Drive, south of the Reserve Center. The Commission indicated they would be interested in a proposal from the Guard. 0'Neil will contact the National Guard. O'Neil said there was some vandalism to one of the VASI lights. A police report was filed. This is an FAA installation and will be repaired at no cost to the Airport. O'Neil said the University of Iowa is offering a class on how to use the Internet. He was interested in taking the class. The Commission encouraged him to look into the program. O'Neil said he had discussed with Blum the issue of where the farm tenant parks his machinery while farming the Airport's ag land. O'Neil said Williams is normally good about the obeying the safety rules but sometimes needs a reminder. He will contact Williams. There was a letter in the packet to the SCCA, explaining their event on August 4 would have to be canceled. No one else volunteered to monitor the event. Diane Smith wanted an activity at the fly-in breakfast. The Commission suggested she contact $ertoma to schedule her activity. O'Neil reported that there is a planning staff report on a parcel of property east of Menards, just west of the RPZ for runway 12. The developer would like to have parking in the RPZ. O'Neil said the Commission currently has an easement and the Master Plan reco~umends buying the property in fee. The Commission indicated they would not favor parking in the RPZ. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 18, 1996, at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMEI~T: Mascari moved to adjourn the meeting. and the meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. howar~%~H6ran, Chairperson Foster seconded the motion HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1996 - 6:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER - LOWER LEVEL CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Donovan, Charlie Eastham, Jim Harris, Linda Murray, David Purdy, Christina Randall, Tim Ruxton, Gretchen Schmuch MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Swenson STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Steve Nasby, Bob Hagarty, Jodi-beth McCain, Jeff Hating OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Murray called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Schmuch moved to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1996, minutes, as written. Eastham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, with Donovan absent. (Donoran arrived at 6:40 p.m.) PUBLIC/MEMBER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. -there was none. DISCUSSION OF LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The Commission reviewed the Conflict of Interest memo to the City Council, dated June 3, 1996, prepared by Linda Murray, Chair of the Housing and Community Development Commission. Eastham questioned the wording of the second sentence in the second paragraph, as he said he was restrained from discussion on any project/request, not just the housing related projects, because it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that participation in the discussion/allocation of non-housing projects affected the pot of money left over for housing related projects. Murray noted that Council will be appointing\re-appointing three persons to the Commission at its August 28, 1996, meeting. The Commission wished Council to realize that at least two of the present Commission members already pose a potential conflict of interest, based on the current City Attorney's opinion. Several members asked that in order to avoid further conflict of interest issues that the Council seriously consider its appointments to the Commission. The Commission discussed the fact that if candidate(s) may pose a potential conflict, that the candidate(s) may not be appointed to the Commission and that it would be unfortunate to lose qualified persons who are interested in serving on the Commission. Donovan said that the issue is up to the Council and we should not lead them down one path or the other. Eastham suggested that the Conflict of Interest discussion during the February 22, 1996 meeting, in particular comments from Assistant City Attorney Sarah Holecek, be included in Housing and Community Development Thursday, June 13, 1996 2 the packet the Council is to receive. Eastham also asked that the July 24, 1995, memorandum from the City Attorney's Office, be included. One of the main purposes of the memo to Council was to have them clarify policy regarding conflict of interest issues as they pertain to HCDC members and future appointments. Murray added that the Council is unaware of this issue and there appears to be a lack of communication between the City Attorney's Office and Council on this matter. Most of the Commission members appeared to agree. The Commission suggested a meeting with Council, or its representatives, in July. REVIEW OF CITY STEPS PLAN: Nasby said he pulled parts of the Five Year Strategies Plan for the Commission to review. Nasby highlighted the various aspects of the Plan, and the criteria use to make a number of determinations. The Commission had some discussion concerning the incorrect assumption that there is an apparent lack of need among low-income residents for some items, because these items received a low Priority Need Level. Nasby said that while an item may be a low priority need for low-income residents it may be a high need for the community as a whole, such as the water plant. He added that some items, the Free Medical Clinic for example received a low priority, from the Priorities and Strategies committee, for health facilities because the need is being adequately met, but this does not necessarily take into consideration each individual health care facility. The Free Medical Clinic, in particular, is geared to low-income individuals. Randall pointed out that the disclaimer stated on page 78 states "In general, low priority rankings indicate that existing services are adequately meeting current demand, or that no specific needs have been identified at this time. It is also important to remember that these are not the needs of the City as a whole, but those of its low-income residents only". Eastham added he would also like to see the first sentence of this paragraph, "These rankings are not absolute and are subject to change upon presentation of evidence that a need does exist", stated somewhere on the Priority chart, as well. Eastham asked that the Commission take into consideration a re-prioritization on the direction in which HOME funds are expended. Eastham said that HOME funding is now available and may not be available to the cities in the not-so-distant future. As such, Iowa City should take advantage of these resources to construct rental housing units. Eastham discussed that there may be more efficient ways to use this funding besides continuing tenant-based rental assistance. Eastham said that the City should take advantage of HOME funding to produce something that will be available for the long-term, which would be affordable and less expensive -- and that would be by constructing rental units. Eastham's priorities on the use of HOME funding would be: 1) rental housing production; 2) owner-occupied housing assistance; and 3) tenant-based rental assistance. Eastham said he understands the City's reasons for wanting to stay out of the rental housing production business, but still feels these reasons do not amount to a very practical use of funds. Murray said it was the decision of Council to use of HOME funds for tenant based rent Housing and Community Development Thursday, June 13, 1996 3 assistance for FY97, but said she does not feel there is a consensus on the Commission to support Eastham's recommendations on the use of HOME funds. Review of the City STEPS Plan was one of the four items from the pending list that the Commission had asked to review in the near future. The Commission asked to review "policies on use of funds from canceled projects" starting next month. Murray said she believes the issue regarding the re-use of funds concerns the lack of a re-opened allocation process. Murray said, in the past, the Commission has sort of run on the assumption that if an organization caught wind that additional funds were available that organization may have come in and request additional funding, but not necessarily all organizations were aware additional funds were to be had. IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY UPDATE: Bob Hagarty, the new Assistant Housing Administrator, was on hand to brief the Commission on Housing Authority activities. The City's application for the ClAP program funding was in the amount of $227,185. These funds would be used to support the Housing Authorities operations regarding maintenance and repairs to publicly owned units. Hagarty said local lenders were contacted and given the opportunity to be involved in the Tenant to Owner Program (TOP) program. The TOP would provide homeownership opportunities to low income persons wishing to buy 20 public housing units. The banks would hold the first mortgage and the City would hold a second mortgage. He said that the banks should feel that this is a pretty safe deal, because their money is basically guaranteed in the event of a default. Hagarty said that the City's second mortgage would probably be a 5-year balloon and it could be rewritten every five years and as income goes up the Housing Authority would recover more of their funds. Eastham pointed out that the way this is written, those households who have higher incomes would be given priority (because the amount of the second mortgage would be lower). Hagarty sa~d this is not what he had understood, but said he would check into it. Hagarty distributed the final 1996 Housing Authority report. PROJECT MONITORING REPORTS: Emer.q_encv Housinq Pro act. Donovan distributed a handout. Going away party for Pat Jordan, EHP Director, on July 12 at the EHP. DVIP Shelter Renovation. Long said that staff offices were moved to the new space on the lower-level, although some of the finish carpentry work is yet to be completed, including laying of the carpet, itself. They ran about $6,000 over budget, but the DVIP shelter Board members paid for $3,000 of this cost overrun. 3. Institute for Social and Economic Development. There was none. 4. ICHA Tenant Based Rent Assistance. There was none. Housing and Community Development Thursday, June 13, 1996 4 5. HACAP Transitional Housin(~. There was none. OLD BUSINESS: Murray reminded the Commission that she will not be reapplying for membership when her term is over September 1, 1996, and to begin thinking about a new Chair. NEW BUSINESS: Harris asked that the Commission, and City, make attempts in conjunction with the County, in order to provide a more regional based supportive services. Harris said there are some major obstacles to overcome, as nowhere in the service support system is a system set up to provide services at a county-wide level, everything is geared toward the city level. Harris distributed a photocopy of an article, published in the June 24, 1996 edition of The Nation, written by Katha Pollitt, titled "Just the Facts". The article challenges the myths surrounding the welfare system. Harris re: educational and employment assistance to people with disabilities. ADJOURNMENT: .MOTION: Eastham moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Randall seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. ppdcdbg'~hacd. 613 MINUTES IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM JULY 1, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lyra Dickerson, Sue Dulek, Michael Kennedy STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Mejia, R.J. Winkelhake GUESTS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Commissioners recommended that Council approve the certified list for the position of Police Sergeant. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Kennedy at 8:35 a.m. First item for discussion was the certification of the Police Sergeant list. Prior to certification Mejia noted that two complaints were received from individuals who took the written test but did not qualify for the assessment center. One individual indicated that they felt consideration should be given early in the process to length of service and past performance. The other individual indicated that they felt an officer with more years of service could do a better job than an officer with less years of service. Mejia indicated that as a result of these complaints she reviewed previous commission meeting minutes to determine if the commission had discussed this issue and noted that in 1988 there was discussion regarding this issue. At that time the Chief explained that seniority and performance were reviewed by him as part of his selection process following the certification of the list, The commission approved the process at that time. Mejia will forward a copy of those minutes to the commission for review. Commissioners agreed to list this as an agenda item for a future meeting to allow employees the opportunity to present their views on this issue. Commissioners suggested that as an alternative to appearing in person employees could submit written comments for their consideration. If employees appear in person the Commission has suggested a 5 minute limit per person for comments, Commissioners then reviewed the final list for certification for the position of Police Sergeant, In addition, they were provided with a copy of the consultants summary report on each candidate. Kennedy moved and Dulek seconded the motion to certify the list as presented. Motion carried unanimously, Mejia explained to the Commission that they were not being asked to certify the second police officer entry level list at this time. Winkelhake explained that he could not reserve any places at the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy for training for new officers at this time. Because the language in the code requires that "vacancies.,,which occur before the beginning of the next examination...shall be filled from the list..." Mejia questioned if the City would be required to hire someone even if a training slot was not available, Commissioners discussed this and agreed with City legal staff that the City was not required to hire anyone at anytime. They agreed that the language in the Code only requires that if the position were to be filled it shall m I be filled from the list. Nevertheless, staff recommended not certifying the list at this time. Mejia indicated that she will soon present a proposal to the Commission for an entry level police test. Because we are looking at testing soon staff felt it could be demoralizing to a person on the list to be placed on the list, only to have the list invalidated shortly thereafter due to the beginning of a new test. If space becomes available in the ILEA, commissioners may still certify the list provided it is certified within one year from the original list certification (July 27) and provided a new test process has not yet begun. Commissioners voted unanimously to adjourn. MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1996 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt. Bill Haigh MEMBERS ABSENT: Patricia Eckhardt, Tim Lehman STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, John Yapp, Sarah Holecek, Jeff Haring OTHERS PRESENT: Clifford Walters, John Beasley, Chester Pelsang, Peter Bachmann, Judy Severtson, Nancy Carlson, Timothy R. Schroeder CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Haigh called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Eckhardt and Lehman were absent. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 12, 1996, MINUTES: MOTION: Brandt moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 1996, meeting of the Board of Adjustment, as printed. Bender seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: EXC96-0011. Public hearing on an application submitted by Dr. Chester Pelsang for special exceptions to permit a front yard modification, to modify the screening requirements, and to reduce the parking requirements for property located in the CC-2, Community Commercial zone at 839 S. First Avenue. Kugler said the applicant is requesting approval of three special exceptions. The first exception would permit a modification of the front yard requirements along First Avenue to allow the addition of a five-foot by eight-foot vestibule entrance at the east end of the building. The second special exception is a request to reduce the required number of parking spaces from eight spaces to six spaces. In addition to these six spaces, a seventh, handicapped accessible space would be provided within the F Street right-of-way in an easement granted by the City Council at its July 2, 1996, meeting. The third special exception would modify the screening requirements along the west property line between this use and the residential use on the adjacent property, and would allow fencing rather than the required arbor vitae screening. Kugler said in regard to the specific standards and the request to reduce the required front yard along First Avenue, a special exception to modify the front yard requirements may be approved when the owner demonstrates the situation Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 2 precipitating the request is peculiar to the property in question and that there is practical difficulty in complyin9 with the dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located. This situation is peculiar in that the placement of the existing building on this corner lot makes it difficult to adapt for another use without encroaching into a required front yard. The building currently encroaches into the required 2.0 foot front yard by a few feet. It is preferable to have a front entrance to the business, yet difficult to accomplish without further encroaching into the required yard. Kugler said the proposed vestibule would provide protection from the elements, and staff feels the proposed intrusion into tile front yarcl would not pose any problems with sight distance at the corner of First Avenue and F Street. Staff, therefore, feels this special exception is reasonable and recommends approval. In regard to the screening requirements along the west property line, Kugler noted that this special exception did not get publicly advertised along with the other two exceptions due to an error by staff, and cannot be considered at tonight's meeting. This item should be deferred to the next meeting of the Board. Kugler asked the applicant for a deferral of this item. Kugler said the Zoning Chapter allows the Board to modify the screening requirements where it is difficult to meet the requirements to provide arbor vitae and where the modified screening requirements would bettel serve the public's interest. In this case, there is insufficient room to place the arbor vitae along the west property line, yet still have a drive connecting the parking area on the north end of the property to the south access drive. Staff feels it is beneficial to have this connecting drive to allow traffic from the site to exit onto F Street, rather than First Avenue. Access to First Avenue from the F Street intersection will allow drivers better sight distance. Staff recommends approval of this special exception as it would better serve the public interest. Kugler said staff does have concern about the design of the fence, however, due to the proximity of the adjacent property, which is zoned commercial, but is used residentially. Staff had asked for additional information regarding the design of this fencing from the applicant, a copy of which was distributed to the Board tonight. Staff feels the proposed fence would not be an intrusion on the neighboring property owner. Staff will recommend approval when the public notice requirements have been met for this item. Kugler said the third special exception concerns a reduction in the parking requirements. As noted in the staff report, some problems were identified in the site plan, and at the time the staff report was drafted, the applicant had not provided sufficient justification for a reduction in the parking requirements. The applicant has since submitted a letter that indicates the use of the building in which the applicant is currently located, staffing figures, and some details regarding the number of patients seen per day, per hour, etc. Upon receipt of thi~ letter, staff now feels there is sufficient justification to allow the proposed parking reduction. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 3 Kugler said the request is to reduce the required parkir, g from eight spaces to six spaces, and to provide a handicapped-accessible space within the F Street right-of- way. This handicapped-accessible parking space raises separate concerns that should be resolved before the Board acts on this special exception request. It should be noted that the easement for the handicapped-accessible space within the right-of-way has been granted by the City on atemporary basis and the City reserves the right to revoke this easement at any time. Staff asked the applicant to provide an alternate plan for meeting the handicapped-accessible parking requirements as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The applicant has provided a plan for this alternate parking space, which was submitted with the aforementioned letter. In regard to the general standards for granting a special exception, staff agrees with most of the comments by the applicant concerning how these standards are being met. Staff feels the proposed special exceptions would meet the general standards. Kugler said staff recommends that EXC96-0011, a request for special exceptions to permit a front yard modification to allow the addition of a five foot by eight foot vestibule at the east end of the existing building, and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from eight to six spaces on property located at 839 S. First Avenue be approved, subject to use of the property as a medical office that is limited to one practicing physician, and subject to the installation of a four-foot wide sidewalk along the F Street frontage of the property, as shown on the site plan filed with the Department of Planning and Community Development on July 10, 1996. Staff also recommends that the request to modify the screening requirements to allow a six-foot high fence in lieu of the required arbor vitae screening be deferred to the next Board of Adjustment meeting on August 14, 1996. Kugler wished to note that when a site plan is submitted and reviewed by the Department of Housing and Inspection Services, the applicant will need to show that drainage from the parking area is not going to be directed towards the adjoining property. Th~s concern was raised as it was noticed that the adjoining property sits at a lower elevation than the subject property. Board members Haigh and Brantit asked questions to clarify what ~s subject to approval and what is recommended for deferral. Kugler noted that the site plan attached to the letter from John Beasley, indicates that if the City were to ever revoke the F Street easement, the handicapped-accessible parking space in this location would be deleted and the existing space at the northeast corner of the lot would be modified to provide the handicapped-accessible parking. Kugler added that it is unlikely that the City would ever revoke the parking easement in the F Street right-of-way, and in fact the City is urging the applicant to pursue a vacation of the right-of-way to obtain permanent control. Haigh asked whether the applicant can pursue renovations on the building should the two special exceptions be approved tonight. Kugler said he is still seeking confirmation of this from the Depa,"tment of Housing and Inspection Services. Kugler said the applicant will li~ely be able to proceed as the neighbors have now been notified that this is included in the application. Kugler said the applicant has been notified that should they proceed with the project before approval of the screening modification, this would be at their own risk as the special exception to allow the Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 4 fencing in place of the arbor vitae is recommended for deferral until the next meeting of the Board. Public hearing: Clifford Walters, 1411 Marcv Street, owner of the property immediately to the west of subject site, said he would recommend approval of all three exceptions because he has reviewed the plan and has no objections. Brandt asked whether Walters is the resident or lot owner. Waiters said he is the owner of the lot. John Beasle¥, local counsel for the applicant, said he understands the lack of advertisement issue, but as the adjoining property owner, Mr. Walters, has agreed to all aspects of the plan, including the fencing, Beasley recommended approval of all three special exceptions. In regard to the fencing versus the five foot arbor vitae, Beasley said the general contractor Rob Phipps, the applicant Mr. Pelsang and he had talked with the City Forester, Terry Robinson. Beasley said Robinson had no issue with the fencing versus the arbor vitae, which was in fact confirmed in a letter from Robinson. Beasley had recommended that Robinson forward a copy of the letter to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services, but is not sure a copy was ever delivered. Beasley said they have pushed rather hard to get all three exceptions, as well as the temporary parking easement resolved by tonight versus going the vacation route, because they wish to work in conjunction with the paving of the First Avenue expansion project, and not have to cut out curb cuts, etc. after the fact. Beasley said he has been in contact with Rob Winstead of the City Engineering Division, who has informed him that the Pelsang project would need approval fairly soon in order to provide some coordination between the projects. Beasley said he indicated to Winstead that he would let him know if the two exceptions have been approved and will be in contact with his office immediately. In regard to the parking situation, Beasley said Linda Woito had indicated to him that there is a very slim chance that the temporary parking easement would ever be revoked. Beasley said the applicant has agreed to explore the vacation option, although as this would be a longer process, the applicant desires to find some way to coordinate this project with the First Avenue project. Beasley said it his understanding that the Department of Public Works would not be in opposition to a request to vacate. There is no underground water or sewer in this area. Beasley said Pelsang's office hours are anticipated to be Monday and Friday, and Tuesday morning, with most of the rest of the week spent at Mercy Hospital in surgical procedures. Pelsang is also expecting twins in a few months, which will have him out of the office even more often, including all day on Wednesdays. Beasley asked for confirmation on whether only Pelsang is allowed to use this space, or would another podiatrist be able to utilize the space when Pelsang is out of the office. Kugler sa~d the condition is based on its proposed use and the fact that the size of the building is not large enough to allow more than one podiatrist to operate in the building at any one time. Kugler said the condition should probably be worded such that not Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 5 more than one podiatrist is working in the office at any one time. Beasley agreed with this stipulation. Beasley said they have worked hard to make the parking situation work and flow efficiently and thanked the Planning Department staff for all its assistance. Beasley said the vestibule will be enclosed and should allow comfort inside from the elements for patients who are waiting for a ride or a bus. Baaslay felt the vestibule will also add to the aesthetic value of the property. Baaslay said Palsang intends to make the City proud of the property. Holecek asked whether the applicant is willing to defer consideration of the fencing item to the next Board meeting. Beasley said, absolutely, but asked that the Board provide them with at least a tentative position on the issue. Beasley reiterated the First Avenue construction and timing issue. Brandt said he appreciates the fact that the applicant is cognizant of the First Avenue construction and timing issues, and his desire to work with the City, etc., but wished Palsang to know that he has some real concerns about the size of the property and the need to request three special exceptions in order to make this project work. Brantit noted that the site is only two properties away from an RS-§, residential zone. He said he is not sure that the building in its current state is commercially viable. Brandt said the condition on the number of podiatrists operating out of the building would be important to him because things do change, and ownership can change as well. Baaslay said he can understand these concerns, but did note that commercial uses do already surround the site and feels the proposed use would be merely a continuation of the commercial zone. Baaslay said it would be a stretch to consider the property residentially viable. Beasley noted the average number of patients seen per day by Palsang may be roughly 16, then referred to the fact that Hy-Vee proposes to utilize the space directly to the east of this site for a fairly significant new store. Beasley feels the impact of Pelsang's business would be negligible, at best, in comparison to what is planned for across the street. Brandt said he was missing exhibit C from his packet and asked for clarification on who the Robinson was who was mentioned earlier, Beasley clarified he was referring to Terry Robinson, City Forester. Kugler then clarified that there is a provision that allows the City Forester to modify the screening requirements to allow fencing in the place of landscaping, should the viability of the landscaping be called into question, Kugler said in this case there is not the room for landscaping because an access drive is to be installed in this location. Since this has nothing to do with the soil conditions or the like, the Board must approve the modification. Beasley said it is his understanding that the horticultural effect that may be lost along the west property line can be made up by shortening the paved surface on the north side in order to leave a two-to-three foot gap between Jirsa's and the subject site. Kugler said this would not provide enough space for the required screening, however. Kugler said it was suggested that the excess paving be shortened on the north side due to the everall amount of paving that will be required on the property. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 6 Chester PelsanQ, 3733 Forest Gate Drive, the applicant, said he appreciates staff's efforts and concerns, but said he was born and raised in Iowa City and does not intend to do a half-way job. He hoped the redevelopment of the property would result in the nicest looking property on First Avenue. Pelsang said the property values all around the property should increase as a result. Pelsang noted the average age of his clientele is older and said he intends to provide his clients with the on-site parking they need, considering their age and the type of business. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Bender moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0011, a request for special exceptions to permit a front yard modification to allow the addition of a five foot by eight foot vestibule at the east end of the existing building, and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from eight to six on property located at 839 S. First Avenue, subject to use of the property as a medical office that is limited to one practicing physician at any one time, and subject to the installation of a four-foot wide sidewalk along the F Street frontage of the property, as shown on the site plan filed with the Department of Planning and Community Development on July 10, 1996. Brandt asked for clarification on the impact of the First Avenue construction project on the site. Kugler said he believes a temporary construction easement has been obtained, but does not believe there will be any permanent taking of property. Beasley said it is his understanding from conversations with Winstead, that there is an easement to five feet west of the sidewalk, but Winstead does not feel that the project will even encroach upon the sidewalk. Bender said in regard to the standards pertaining to the required front yard, there is some practical difficulty to consider. As indicated in the staff report, the site is already peculiar, because it is a corner property and the existing structure already encroaches into the required front yard. Bender said an additional 2.5% encroachment is not enough to make an issue about, especially when it is to provide a service to the public. The vestibule would be in the best interest of the public and would actually assist the public health, safety and welfare. Also, Bender does not feel a reduction in the parking requirement from eight to six spaces will negatively impact the neighborhood or public safety or welfare. Bender said she does have some reservations about the handicapped-accessible parking space and urged the applicant to pursue a permanent vacation of the ground. Bender noted an alternate site should be available should the temporary easement for the spot be revoked. Haigh said he d(.es not have a problem with the additional encroachment of the vestibule, because he does not feel the impact will be s~gnificant or harmful. In regard to changing the use from residential to commercial, Haigh felt the property would be out of place as a residential use amid all the commercial uses surrounding the site. Haigh said making the site commercial would only be a natural progression. Haigh noted he does have a small concern about the amount of parking. Haigh felt the parking is borderline and said there will be occasions when patients will need to seek alternate parking. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 7 Brandt said he does not care to hold up the project, and as only three members are present all three are needed to pass the request, but said for the record that he has concern that it is known up front that the site does not meet the requirements in at least three ways, Brantit said the zoning regulations do have some merit to them and it is unfortunate that sometimes citizens do not recognize these facts up front. Th3 motion carried 3-0. MOTION: Brandt moved and Bender seconded the motion to defer EXC96-0011, a special exception to modify the screening requirements to allow a six-foot fence in lieu of the required arbor vitae screening, to the August 14, 1996, meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Bender said the Board should verbalize its positions in order to provide the applicant some direction. In regard to the standards, Bender said one concern would be the impact on neighboring property owners, and in this case the neighboring property owner has given full consent, Bender said she concurs with the City position that the drive is needed for traffic safety and access issues. Bender did not feel the fencing design as Froposed is an eye sore in any way. The fencing company presented is very reput,~ble and is likely to do a very good job. Haigh feels the fence will likely result in a safer environment for the public and drivers than greenery would. The neighbor appears to have no opposition as well. Haigh did wish to point out that there may still be opposition and wanted the applicant to be aware of this before jumping into things too quickly. Brandt thanked Walters for taking the time to state his opinion, but noted that Walters is the owner, not the resident of the site. Brandt said he understands the site is zoned for commercial use, but it is currently a residential use and these residents have to live with what is installed. Brandt said he will likely approve the screening exception as well, but warned the applicant that there may still be opposition and any opposition will ultimately affect his final vote. The motion carried 3-0. EXC96-0012. Public hearing on an application submitted by Jerry Moritz and Rick Hanson for a special exception to permit a front yard modification for property located m the RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation zone at 1004-1006 E. Market Street. Kugler said the applicants are requesting a special exception to modify the front yard requirements to allow parking in the front yard for property located at 1004-1006 E. Market Street. When this building was constructed in the early 1990s, it was not done in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance at the time. A building permit was issued for a plan that did not satisfy the parking requirements. A recent filing for a rental permit application and resulting inspection resulted in the identification of these zoning violations. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 8 Kugler said the building contains three living units, one facing Rochester Avenue and two facing Market Street. As a result, different standards apply to the property, as opposed to a single-family residence or duplex. The two Market Street units each contain only one legal off-street parking space, the space located within the garage. There is space to park in the driveway, leading from the street up to the garage, but "stacking" of parking spaces is not permitted in buildings that contain greater than two dwelling units. This standard is utilized to avoid stacking in a multi-family developments where parking is shared in a common lot. Stacking is permitted in single-family units and duplexes, because the occupants have better control over who may park in their space. Even if stacking were allowed in the current instance, there is still the problem of parking within the required front yard. The site plan submitted indicates one additional parking space per unit will be provided on either side of the driveway. This may solve the stacking problem, but not the front yard requirement. Kugler said in evaluating the request, staff had made a number of observations about the existing property and its current use. First, although there are three dwelling units within the property, the way they are configured with one unit facir~g Rochester Avenue and two facing Market Street, the Market Street units tend to act as a duplex in their design. If this were a duplex, parking in the front yard and stacking would both be permitted and the item would not be before the Board. Second, due to the configuration of the units, the occupants do have some control over who parks where and when, and if a car needs to be removed, the responsible party is often easily located. Third, staff has observed that vehicles already park in the front yard of the property, and due to the worn grass and tire marks this appears to have been occurring for some time. As noted in the notice of violation, this may be due partially to the fact that a garage on the property was being used for something other than a garage. This situation will have to be rectified before a rental permit can be issued. Kugler said a special exception to modify the front yard requirement can be granted only when the owner demonstrates that the situation is peculiar to the property in question, and there is practical difficulty in complying with the requirements. Kugler said the uniqueness of the situation is that although the building is similar to a duplex, it is in fact a three unit building and higher standards are required. In addition, the property is located such that it is not possible to locate any additional parking on the property without either modifying the building, converting some of the living space into a garage, or encroaching into the front yard. Another option would be to eliminate a number of the bedrooms to convert them into one bedroom units and, therefore, only one parking space would be required. Staff does not feel these are real practical solutions to the problem. In dealing with the practical difficulty, Kugler said items four and five in the staff report point to the conclusion that there does not appear to be any real feasible solutions to providing parking on the property in order to meet the requirements without encroaching into the front yard setback area or requiring modification of the building. If the request is not approved, the applicants will be restricted frem occupying the building as originally intended. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, .1996 Page 9 Kugler said before the Board may grant a special exception, it must be satisfied that the general standards for granting a special exception are being met. Kugler pointed out item b in the staff report, which refers to the impact of the exception on the surrounding properties. Kugler noted that Board members have received a letter from Paul Tyler, the adjacent property owner, dated July 8, 1996, which notes some negative impacts the exception may have on the neighborhood, including the additional paving in the front yard. To help address this, staff has recommended that some low- lying landscaping and/or low-lying shrubs or hedge be placed on the edge of the additional paving to help soften its appearance. Kugler said staff recommends that EXC96-0012, a request for a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet f~r a width of 8 feet on both sides of the existing driveway on the E. Market Street side of the property to allow the installation of two additional parking spaces on property located in the RNC-12 zone at 1004-1006 E. Market Street, be approved, conditioned upon the installation of low evergreen shrubs or a hedge along the east and west sides of the parking area to help minimize the impact of the additional paving on the surrounding neighborhood. Kugler said a letter from Paul Tyler, 1014 E. Market Street, dated July 8, 1996, was received and asks for a different solution to the problem than referred to in the staff recommendation. Tyler asks that the parking situation remain the same, or that there be another solution, but asks that no additional pavement be poured. Brandt asked whether there is some way in which the City could just say, go ahead and stack the parking and do not pour more concrete. Kugler said this is a possibility, and there are two options: one, the applicant may apply for a variance from the requirement that prohibits stacking of parking spaces. A variance would be tougher to justify than a special exception. A second option would be to reduce the parking requirements from two spaces, as required, to one space for each unit. Public hearing: Peter Bachmann, Duncan-Matheson-Lehman Realty, said he is the realtor representing the applicant, Jerry Moritz, two-times removed, because Board member Lehman is the actual realtor for the applicant, but Lehman is currently on vacation. Moritz asks that the special exception be approved, as this would rectify a problem that resulted from lack of correct information when the house was constructed. Bachmann said adding another parking pad will likely alleviate some of the parking situation in the neighborhood as there is currently a good deal of on-street parking. Moritz also does not feel the installation of an evergreen hedge or landscaping along the parking pads is necessary or would alleviate any site occurrences. Brandt asked whether the tree requirement for the property had been met. Bachmann said he knows nothing about this. Kugler said the property should have six trees based on the building coverage, and although he is not sure about the current status of these, they will need to be in place before the rental permit will be granted. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 10 Judy Severtson. 947 E. Market, submitted a neighborhood petition stating ths neighborhood does not wish to have more concrete poured than already exists. Severtson referred to the history of the neighborhood association and its record of attempting to downzone and slow down development. Sevenson said the neighborhood was opposed to the upgrading the definition of the residence from a duplex to a multi-family residence, and the City Council agreed with the neighborhood. Severtson referred to the amount of traffic in the neighborhood per day, and its efforts to preserve, or increase green space. Severtson said the neighborhood would just as soon refer to the property as a duplex, as it has the appearance of a duplex from the Market Street side. The neighborhood also likes the idea of stacking the cars. Severtson said as far as she can tell, the garages on both sides have not been used for parking. One of the units has the appearance of a single-family tenant, and the other Market Street unit is a party house, and often has up to four cars in the driveway, as well as parking on Rochester Avenue. Severtson said an additional parking pad will only eliminate what little green space currently exists. Severtson reiterated the desire to continue labeling the property a duplex. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson Street, said although she does not live within 200 feet, she does live within 300 feet of the property. Carlson said she lives on the corner of Jefferson and Evans Streets, and passes by the subject property every day. Carlson said although there is no formal neighborhood association, she acts as a spokesperson for the neighborhood. Carlson said the neighborhood is concerned about increasing the amount of concrete and reducing the green space. Carlson said parking is often three cars abreast and two cars deep, and said if the rules for parking on a paved area are not followed now, why should this be any different when additional pavement is added. Carlson said residents at the apartment unit on the corner of Jefferson and Governor already park in the front yard and she does not wish to encourage a trend in this direction at the subject site. Carlson referred to the somewhat antiquated nature of the neighborhood and the fact that most garages and parking were kept out of site, with access from a rear alley, etc. Carlson said the subject site already sticks out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood and did not wish to encourage any further development in that direction, nor a parking lot in the front yard. Carlson said the City is responsible for the problem and should take more responsibility to resolve the problem. Carlson said one solution would be to reference the site as a duplex. Public hearing closed, IVlOTION: Brandt moved and Bender seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0012, a request for a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet for a width of 8 feet on both sides of the existing driveway on the E. Market Street side of the property to allow the installation of two additional parking spaces on property located in the RNC-12 zone at 1004-1006 E. Market Street, conditioned upon the installation of low evergreen shrubs or a hedge along the east and west sides Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 11 of the parking area to help minimize the impact of the additional paving on the surrounding neighborhood. Haigh said he is not real happy with this whole situation and said he can sympathize with the neighbors' frustration. Haigh said the alternatives presented do not seem real feasible and said he desired that the plan be returned to staff to consider a wider array of alternatives. Haigh said he understands returning the item to staff will delay the sale of the property, but said he does not feel comfortable in supporting this special exception and will probably vote against it. Kugler noted that if the Board is considering denial of the special exception in its present form, but would reconsider it in a different form, he would recommend that the Board withdraw the current motion entirely, and defer the item to the next Board meeting. Holecek concurred with Kugler's suggestion. Both Kugler and Holecek felt the present application could be amended for a variance, if this were the direction taken. Bachmann said he is sure a deferral would be more preferable than a denial to the applicant. Bender said that given that at least ten neighborhood property owners have expressed serious objection to the plan, she would like to see the item deferred. Bender reiterated concerns about the proposal that echothose mentioned by the neighborhood and said she would have to vote no on the special exception as presented. Brandt expressed that he would like staff to seriously consider the variance option, although this would likely result in nothing better than currently exists. Brandt also said that as a resident of an older neighborhood, he understands that garages in the front yard are not a common occurrence; that access is usually attained from a rear alley. Brandt said the RNC-12 designation was chosen in order to provide the neighborhood some level of protection over new development. He said he can sense how important this is to the neighborhood as a fairly large portion of the homes in the area are owner-occupied. Brandt and Bender concurred to withdraw the motion. MOTION: Brandt moved and Bender seconded the motion to defer EXC96-0012, a request for a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement from twenty feet to zero feet for a width of eight feet on both sides of the existing driveway on the E. Market Street side of the property to allow the installation of two additional parking spaces on property located in the RNC-12 zone at 1004-1006 E. Market Street to the August 14, 1996, meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The motion carried 3-0. EXC96-0013. Public hearing on an application submitted by Timothy R. Schroeder for a special exception to permit a front yard modification for property located in the RS-5, Single-Family Residential zone at 221 S. Lowell Street. Yapp said the applicant is requesting a special exception to modify the front yard requirement to permit construction of a covered front porch on the residence. The most unique feature of the porch is the way its width varies. It w~dens towards the Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 12 driveway of the house and narrows towards the front door. At its widest point the porch reaches eight feet, eight inches. Half of the porch, however, is only four feet, six inches, which lessens the actual and perceived encroachment of the porch into the front yard. Yapp said the applicant is requesting a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement along South Lowell Street from twenty feet to fifteen feet six inches at the south end and twelve feet at the north end of the porch. This one-hundred thirty square foot porch would reduce the front yard by approximately 11.2%. Yapp said a special exception to modify the front yard requirements may be granted when the owner demonstrates the situation precipitating the request is peculiar to the property in question, that there is practical difficulty in complying with the dimensional requirements, and the general standards for special exceptions have been met. In staff's view, the requested exception would not substantially alter the front yard requirement on this property. The proposed porch will encroach between eight feet, eight inches and four feet, six inches into the required twenty foot front yard. Staff believes the proposed covered porch will not be an excessive intrusion into the front yard, and will not contravene the intent of established yard dimensions. In addition, Yapp said the covered front porch should improve the appearance and the value of the applicant's home. The porch is part of an overall rehabilitation of the structure, and should improve the appearance of the neighborhood as well. Yapp displayed a petition signed by ten of the most immediate neighbors surrounding the Schroeder residence, all in support of the plan. In regard to the specific standards as they apply to the proposed exception, Yapp said one question is whether there may be a feasible alternative in lieu of this exception. One alternative would be to leave the front facade of the house as it exists now, or rehabilitate the front facade of the house without encroaching into the front yard setback. Staff believes the proposed porch, however, will improve both the appearance of this structure as well as the appearance of the neighborhood. Due to the modest reduction requested in the front yard requirement, and the overall upgrading of the property through the addition of a roofed porch, staff believes that the interests of justice would be served by approving the requested front yard modification. Yapp said staff recommends that EXC96-0013, a request to reduce the front yard requirement along South Lowell Street from twenty feet to between fourteen feet six inches and twelve feet for the twenty-five foot length of the front facade of the house, for property located at 221 South Lowell Street, be approved, subject to the porch remaining open and generally conforming with the submitted design plans. Public hearing: Timothy R. Schroeder, 221 South Lowell Street, said his intent is to ~mprove both the appearance and value of the property. Schroeder said the main objective of the porch addition and renovation is to reemphasize the front door to the residence. Schroeder Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 13 said after living in the residence for about six months now, the side entrance has become the main entrance to the house. Schroeder said he intends to add the porch in order to bring the focus of entry back to the front of the house, and downplay the side entrance. As there are no sidewalks on the street most of the pedestrian traffic towards the house comes from the driveway. The porch is to be wider on the driveway side in order to focus the point of entry towards this corner of the house, and funnel pedestrian traffic toward the front door. Brandt commented that he had sat in front of the house for a while to get a better grasp of what is intended, and said he appreciates the intentions to upgrade the house, but said, although the Board has no jurisdiction over design review, he would like Schroeder to seriously reconsider straightening out the porch design. Schroeder stated that he works in an architectural office and hopes to be licensed before long. He said although he, too, is a little skeptical, it should work out. Schroeder said he had also shown the neighbors a model of the plan and there were no objections. Brandt said he does appreciate the fact that Schroeder had voluntarily asked the opinion of his neighbors. Yapp noted that the staff recommendation is subject to the porch remaining open and generally conforming with the submitted design plans. Staff feels that if the design plan changes significantly, it would no longer be what the Board had approved. Holecek said an alteration to the design, such as a straightening the porch to make symmetrical to the house should not be a problem and would not need to return to the Board, so long as the front yard encroachment becomes no greater than the deepest encroachment point. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Bender moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0013, a request to reduce the front yard requirement along South Lowell Street from 20' to between fourteen feet, six inches and twelve feet for the twenty-five foot length of the front facade of the house, for property located at 221 South Lowell Street, subject to the porch remaining open and generally conforming with the submitted design plans submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development on June 13, 1996. Brandt commended the applicant for his effort to contact and request the opinion of the neighbors. Aside from the porch design comments made previously, Brantit said he will approve the request. Haigh said the renovations should be a major improvement to the structure and add not only aesthetic, but monetary value. Haigh said it makes the job much easier for the Board, as well as the applicant, to know that the neighbors are so supportive. In regard to the standards for review of a special exception, Bender said the plan is fairly straight forward, the front yard encroachment is minimal, the effect on the neighborhood is minimal, and positive, and is in no way a threat to public health, safety and/or welfare. Bender also commended the applicant for his effort to contact and request the opinion of the neighbors. Iowa City Board of Adjustment July 10, 1996 Page 14 The motion cerried on a vote of 3-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: John Yapp was introduced as a new Associate Planner in the Department of Planning and Community Development. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Consider the fiscal year 1996 Annual Report. Haigh asked that the description of the item concerning the approval of "three restaurants greater than 2,500 square feet in size in the CN-1 zone," be expanded and clarified as these restaurants have not yet been constructed. MOTION: Brandt moved and Bender seconded the motion to approve the Fiscal Year 1996 Annual Report, subject to a clarification by staff of item number six, concerning restaurant uses within the CN-1 zone. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Bender moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Brandt seconded the motion to adjourn. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0. Patricia Eckhardt, Chairperson Melr~ock ell~retary Minutes submitted by Jeff Hating. SIGN IN SHEET IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUST3d~3FT MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1996- 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 16. 1Z 18. 19. MINUTES IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS Subject to ApprGv81 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait, Richard Gibson, Jane Jakobsen, Tom Scott, George Starr, Lea Supple MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Bob Miklo, Melody Rockwell, John Yapp, James Erwin RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended, by a vote of 7-0, that the City Council send a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending denial of CZ9628, an application to rezone a 1.58 acre tract located in Fringe Area 4 approximately % mile east of the Iowa City corporate boundary on Lynden Heights Road from A1, Agricultural, to R2, Two-Family Residential. Recommended denial, by a vote of 3-3-1, with Chait, Jakobsen, and Supple voting no and Gibson abstaining, of amendments to the Zoning Chapter to repeal subsection 1 z~-6E-4D3 so that no additional apartments could be established in the C1-1 zone. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-1 with Scott voting in the negative, of amendments to the Zoning Chapter to allow limited retail sales in the I-1 zone, provided that: a) a maximum of 1,000 square feet of the structure or structures shall be devoted to a retai] use; b) the area devoted to retail use shall meet the performance standards for commercial zones as specified in Article S of the Zoning Chapter; c) no more than 10% of the retail area shell be devoted to products not manufactured, processed, or fabricated on the site; d) signs shall be limited to facia, monument and window signs; the maximum area devoted to signage shall conform with the regulations in Section 14-60-5D, based on the area devoted to the retail use. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of a memorandum in support of the revised Fringe Area Agreement. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY VACANCIES ON CITY COMMISSIONS OR COMMITTEES: Chairperson Starr announced there was a vacancy to fill an uncompleted term on the Airport Commission, which would be filled at the August 6 meeting of the City Council. He said an appointment to fill an unexpired term on the Board of Appeals would also be made at that meeting. Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: REZ96-0007, Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Moss for the Iowa City Tennis & Fitness Center for a rezoning of a 7.1 acre tract from CH-1, Highway Commercial, to OSA/CH-1, Sensitive Areas Overlay/Highway Commercial, and for approval of a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property located at 2400 N. Dodge Street. (45-day limitation period waived) Rockwell said the applicant had requested withdrawal. She noted that the City Council was reviewing revisions to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and suggested that the application be deferred until a final decision is made on those revisions, and it is known for certain whether properties containing critical slopes will be required to go through a rezoning/planned development process, or can be reviewed administratively. Starr asked if it was the Council's intention to revise amendments proposed for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance by the Sensitive Areas Committee and unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission. Rockwell said Council would make that decision at its next meeting on August 6. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion to defer REZ96-0007, an application for a rezoning of a 7.1 acre tract from CH-1, Highway Commercial, to OSA/CH-1, Sensitive Areas Overlay/Highway Commercial, and for approval of a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan, to August 1, 1996. The motion was carried on a vote of 7-0. CZ9628. Discussion of an application submitted to Johnson County by the Detweiler Family Revocable Living Trust to fezone a 1.58 acre tract located in Fringe Area 4 approximately 1/4 mile east of the Iowa City corporate boundaries on Lynden Heights Road from A1, Agricultural, to R2, Two-Family Residential. Yapp reviewed the staff report. He said the current Fringe Area Agreement allowed residential development in this area on a case-by-case basis at an RS-3 density. He said that the County Zoning Ordinance allowed a tenant in a portion of a dwelling unit in the current A1 zone if the property is owner-occupied. He said a home could not be physically split into two apartments. Yapp noted County approval of the current application would allow the structure to be split into two apartments. He said staff recommended that the Council send a letter recommending denial of the rezoning to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Bovbjerg asked what the distinction was between a tenant and an apartment unit. Yapp said physically splitting the house into two dwelling units was the distinction. Scott asked if a duplex would therefore be illegal. Yapp said it would under the current Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 3 A1 zoning. He said the Detweiler Trust wanted the rezoning specifically to allow rental of both halves. Starr said the bottom line was that neither the Fringe Area Agreement nor the revised Fringe Area Agreement allowed that usage in that area. Public discussion. There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Scott moved and Supple seconded the motion that the Commission recommend that the City Council send a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending denial of CZ9628, an application to rezone a 1.5 acre tract located in Fringe Area 4 approximately % mile east of the Iowa City corporate boundary on Lynden Heights Road from A1, Agricultural, to R2, Two-Family Residential, because it is inconsistent with the Fringe Area Agreement. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. ZONING CHAPTER TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Article E, entitled "Commercial and Business Zones," Section 4, entitled "Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1)," to limit residential uses permitted in the C1-1 zone. Rockwell said the purpose of the amendments was to repeal the allowance of apartment construction in a C1-1 zone. She said staff felt the C1-1 zone was an inappropriate location for apartments; that residential uses should not be mixed in with intensive commercial and light manufacturing uses. She also noted that it is was difficult to maintain performance standards when such disparate uses are located on the same site, or on an adjacent properties. She noted the redevelopment of properties that resulted in the displacement of intended intensive commercial uses by primarily residential development in the C1-1 zone. She said this constitutes ad hoc rezoning of the properties. Supple asked if the transition area of the C1-1 zone is on the pending list for a land use study. Rockwell said yes. Public discussion. Harvey Laschke, 511 S. Madison Street, asked what had prompted the suggested amendment. Starr said the Commission had asked staff to study the matter in 1995. Laschke asked how many properties would be affected, and where they were located. Miklo indicated their location. Laschke said the amendment would affect his plans to construct a building in the area containing commercial and residential uses. Chait suggested that Laschke could ask for a CO-1, commercial office, rezoning. Scott said a rezoning would depend on the location. Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 4 Gibson asked about the location of the Laschke property. Laschke said the property was 511 S. Madison Street. Gibson announced that he would be abstaining from participation in the discussion and vote on this item to avoid a conflict of interest. Gibson left the meeting. Rockwell said the location of the Laschke property may be appropriate for a commercial office zoning. Bovbjerg said some time delays might be incurred, but asked how construction costs would be affected. Rockwell said construction for commercial office or retail uses on the ground floor should not be more expensive than for an typical C1-1 use. Chait said the Commission could ask staff to consider a CO-1 rezoning for certain properties in the area, and said such a move might actually help Laschke's application go faster. Miklo noted that there was no guarantee of approval of the rezoning or that the Board of Adjustment would approve a special exception for the residential above commercial in this location. William Laschke. 1206 E. Court Street, said he did not like the special exception process. He said he preferred straightforward zoning. He noted that the C1-1 zone had been studied in 1992, and asked why the subject was being brought forward now. Starr said City staff worked from pending lists, and that there was no connection to current events. Laschke expressed his opinion that the City seemed to place restrictions on private homeowners when the University needed to increase its housing numbers. He expressed his disappointment that his properry's use would be rest,'icted, which he believed would lead to a lowering in its value. MOTION: Scott moved and Bovbjerg seconded the motion to approve amendments to the Zoning Chapter by repealing subsection 14-6E-4D3 so that no additional apartments could be established in the C1~1 zone. Scott said that the item had been discussed for three or four years. He noted that the C1-1 zone was created during the revision of the Zoning Chapter in 1983 as a catchall for areas that did not fit in other zones. He noted that residential uses in the C1-1 zone usually had no ready access to open space or other amenities. Scott said he felt it was inappropriate to place residential units above intensive commercial uses as presently defined. He said most buildings with residential uses that have recently been built in the C1-1 zone contain office uses and are more suited to the C0-1 zone, He said for this reason, C1-1 areas were being redeveloped as C0~1 uses. Scott said staff might recommend rezoning of some properties after studying the area. He said that C0-1 uses should be rezoned C0-1. Scott said it was still inappropriate to place residential uses in a C1-1 area. He said the issue should have been resolved several years ago. Chait said he was uncomfortable with restriction of creative solutions. He said he was a proponent of property rights, and said the C0-1 issue should be resolved before the C1-1 zone is restricted. Supple agreed. She said the issue needed further study before any conclusions were reached. Bovbjerg said the market demonstrated that CO-1 uses were working in the Cl-1 zone. She said the market showed that areas of the city were changing. She expressed her Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 5 belief that the Commission should respond to the actual situation and the concern that in some locations it would not be appropriate to place residential uses above intensive commercial uses. Scott said the amendments should be adopted now, to halt residential development while there are relatively few apartments located in the C1-1 zone. Bovbjerg asked if all the residential properties had gone through the special exception process. Rockwell said if they had been established after December 1983, they were approved through a special exception process. Bovbjerg asked if existing apartments would be exempted. Rockwell said they would be considered legal, nonconforming uses, and could remain in use. The amendments failed by a vote of 3-3-1 with Chait, Jakobsen, and Suo=le votino no and Gibson abstaininq. Supple asked if the study was on the pending list. Miklo said a land use study of the area under consideration was on the list, but that it was not specific to the C1-1 zone. Chair suggested that if offices were not allowed, then developers would hesitate to place residential units in the C1-1 zone. Supple said the integrity of zones should be preserved. Miklo said staff's opinion was that residential uses were less compatible with C1-1 uses than offices. Bovbjerg said that perhaps the City should acknowledge that the area has changed. Chait asked whether offices were the issue. Miklo said many businesses, such as repair shops, in the C1-1 zone needed offices to conduct their business. Chair said logically the problem was allowing office buildings in the C1-1 zone; it wasn't the residential uses that were causing the problem. Jakobsen suggested that commercial office space could be limited within buildings. Miklo said that would not address the problem of having residential uses in conflict with C1-1 uses, such as auto body shops. Starr said the results of the study should be taken into consideration before any further discussion of this item. Chait asked if the Commission could work with staff during the study. Rockwell said Commission members were welcome to contact staff with their observations and suggestions. Gibson returned to the meeting. Discussion of proposed amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article H, entitled "Industrial Zones," Section 1, entitled "General Industrial Zone (1-1)" to allow limited retail sales in the I-1 zone. Yapp said researching the possibility of allowing limited retail sales in the 1-1 zone was put on the Commission's pending list following a request by Don Gringet. He said that retail uses in the I-1 zone were currently not permitted due to incompatibility between retail and industrial site design, heavier truck and rail traffic, safety concerns, and more relaxed performance standards in industrial areas compared to commercial areas. He said staff recommended approval provided that: 1) a maximum of 1,000 square feet of the structure or structures be devoted to a retail use; 2) the area devoted to retail Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 6 use shall meet the performance standards for commercial zones, as specified in Article S of the Zoning Chapter; 3) only commodities manufactured, processed or fabricated on the site shall be sold at retail; 4) signs shall be limited to facia, monument and window signs; the maximum area devoted to signage shall conform with the regulations in Section 14-60-5D, based on the area devoted to retail use. Yapp said in reply to a question from the informal meeting that wholesale uses were currently allowed in the 1-1 zone, but retail uses were not. He noted that at the Commission's request, alternative language had been drafted allowing the sale of items other than what is produced on site, provided that a maximum of 10% of the space be devoted to them. He said this provision would be difficult to enforce. Yapp then said that additional traffic may be drawn into industrial areas, and that new retail areas in I-1 zones could begin to compete with established commercial zones. Scott asked if Yapp had checked with the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel on their reasons for finding that limited retail uses are not currently allowed in the I-1 zone. Holecek said there had never been an official Panel decision, but that staff's opinion had not favored approval of such an interpretation. Public discussion. Dan Grinqer, 3536 Hiqhway 1SW, introduced himself as the originator of the request to allow retail sales in the I-1 zone. Scott asked Gringet if he intended to se!l products manufactured off-site. Gringet said his retail use had been grandfathered in before the 1983 zoning change, and was already selling feed on a retail basis. He said he could not currently expand his retail uses because it is non-conforming. He said he would like to install a drive-through window. Gringer said he would ideally sell a range of feed brands. He asked how manufacturing would be defined. Yapp said value had to be added on-site and some sort of alteration of the product had to take place. Public discussion closed. Jakobsen asked how the provision would be enforced. Yapp said it would be enforced on a complaint basis, which may be difficult. Supple asked if two smaller retail areas could be established. Holecek said that would be uncommon, as they would both carry similar products. Gibson suggested adding the word "contiguous" to the space limitations. The consensus of the Commission was that is was not necessary to restrict the retail sales to one location on a property. MOTION: Jakobsen moved and Bovbjerg seconded the motion to approve amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article H, entitled "Industrial Zones," Section 1, entitled "General Industrial Zone (I-1)" to allow limited retail sales in the I-1 zone, provided that: a) a maximum of 1,000 square feet of the structure shall be devoted to a retail use; b) the area devoted to the retail use shall meet the performance standards for commercial areas as specified in Article S of the Zoning Chapter; c} only Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 7 commodities manufactured, proces'.-ed or fabricated on the site shall be sold at retail; d) signs shall be limited to facia, monument and window signs; the maximum area devoted to signage shall conform with the regulations in Section 14-60-5D, based on the area devoted to retail use. MOTION: Gibson moved and Supple seconded the motion to amend the main motion to change item c to the language included in the July 18, 1996, staff memorandum: C) no more than 10% of the retail area shall be devoted to products not manufactured, processed or fabricated on the site. Bovbjerg said she preferred the original, which kept closer to the original intent. Gibson said allowing limited retail sales of related items not manufactured on the property was reasonable. He agreed that enforcement might De difficult, but said that the problem was not likely to be large. Starr agreed, saying it was probably already happening. Scott said the provision should be included, but that he had a problem with opening the I-1 zone to retail sales. The main motion was amended by a vote of 4-3, with Bovbierg, Jakobsen and Scott votin,q no. Scott said the provision would only exacerbate the situation. Yapp said that all retail sales would be allowed only by special exception· Bovbjerg asked about the Board of Adjustment's record on safety issues. Rockwell said public safety was always the Board's first standard of review· The main motion carried bv a vote of 6-1, with Scott votinq no. FRINGE AREA AGREEMENT ITEM: Discussion of proposed amendments to the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement. Miklo said a copy of the Fringe Area Agreement including recent revisions had been provided. Rockwell noted revisions on Starr's memorandum. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Chait seconded the motion to forward a memorandum in support of the revised Fringe Area Agreement. Gibson said the document had been adopted as the result of political negotiation. He said it should be noted that the Commission had therefore limited itself to technical corrections. Scott noted his objections to the current Fringe Area Agreement. He said that the revised Agreement was not radically altered. He said he was dissatisfied with the role of the Johnson County Board of Health· He noted there were some large revisions, notably wider flexibility in development west of Iowa City. He noted that Board of Health regulations seemed to be only referenced. He said he was nonetheless in favor Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 8 of the revisions, as the current Agreement was practically null and void due to noncompliance by the County, The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB96-0013. Discussion of an application submitted by Oakes Construction for preliminary plat approval of Meadow View Subdivision, a 32,4 acre, 7-1or residential subdivision located in Johnson County on the west side of Buchmayer Bend at its intersection with Highway 1, (45-day limitation period; waived to August 1) Miklo said the applicant had deferred the application to August 1, and that the limitation period had been waived. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Supple seconded the motion to defer the consideration of SUB96-0013 to August 1, 1996. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. REVIEW OF THE FY96 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: MOTION: Scott moved and Bovbjerg seconded the motion to adopt the report as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S PENDING LIST: Miklo said the list had been revised according to suggestions made at the informal meeting. MOTION: Scott moved and Jakobsen seconded the motion to adopt the pending list as revised at the July 15 informal meeting. The motion was carded by a vote of 7-0. REVIEW OF THE JUNE 20 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION: Jakobsen moved and Supple seconded the motion to approve the minutes as revised at the July 15 informal meeting. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION: Miklo said the City Council might approve Staples' application. He asked if the Commission wished to hold a joint meeting with the City Council. Gibson said the Commission had wanted to discuss issues further with Staples before making its recommendation to Council. He said the Commission appeared open to approving Staples' request as long as design and traffic circulation details were addressed, but Staples had refused to discuss it further, Starr said Staples now appeared to be trying to work with Council to address these concerns. The Commission decided not to meet with the City Council, provided the Commission's design concerns are considered. Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 1996 Page 9 OTHER BUSINESS: Jakobsen noted a letter had been received by the Commissioners from the Lehmans regarding Longfellow Manor. Bovbjerg said discussions on neighborhood open space were proceeding well. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Bovbjerg moved and Gibson seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Lea Supple, Secretary Minutes submit-ted by James Erwin. IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMlS$10N MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 18, 19~6 - 7:30 P.M. CMC CENTER COUNCIL CItA. MBERS SIGN 1N SHEET Address Z 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1Z 13. 19. RULES COMMITTEE MEETING July Z3, 1996 Rules Committee: Meeting of July 23, 1996, Committee Members Present: Novick, Norton Staff Members Present: Karr, Schoon Others Present: Commission Member Randy Rohovit 10:45 p.m. Desiqn Review Committee By-Law Chanqes The Rules Committee unanimously recommends approval of the by-laws as presented with the following changes: 1. Consistency of the use of "Chair" or "Chairperson" and capitalization throughout the by-laws. 2. Article II. MEMBERSHIP - Addition of a period after the word "resign" at the end of the last sentence. 3. Article IV. CONDUCT OF COMMITTEE AFFAIRS - Rewrite second sentence to read "In addition, at least once a year the Committee will notify property owners and tenants located in a design review district that they are in such a district."