Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-31 Bd Comm minutes MINUTES FINAL [;[ CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 29,2004 -7:30 AM HARV AT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Nate Green, Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Ch¡lir; and Kevin Werner Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 17,2004 Chairperson Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes. Davidsen asked for a clarification, under "Call to Order", the second paragraph, last sentence: "She said the initial goal was to keep the City Manager more in tune with what was happening, and to keep Iowa City represented by the City as a whole." Davidsen suggested: ".. . and to keep the Iowa City Council representative of the City as a whole." Discussion ensued about the wording, with Davidsen submitting the change in wording. Novick asked that the minutes contain a little bit more detail, mainly for future reference, so that future Commissions will see a clearer picture of what took place in the review. MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the minutes ofthe June 17,2004, meeting as amended; Rowat seconded. Minutes were accepted with amendments. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairperson Sueppel stated that he would like to have the public input moved up before the "Review" starts, so they can keep their discussions going until the meeting ends. He asked if members had reviewed the letter from Caroline Dieterle, which suggests that the Commission review the method of appointment of the Chief of Police. She would like this to be done by the Council. She is asking the Commission to keep this in mind when they review the appropriate section of the Charter. REVIEW CHARTER Article III, Nomination, Primary Election and Regular Election. Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on Section 3.01. Nomination. Kubby asked ifthere was a legal reason why sections A and B, under Nomination, are the same wording, except for the at-large and districts. Karr gave an explanation of how a district seat is every four years, an at-large seat is two years, and therefore this section was most likely separated in order to clarify that difference. Discussion was started on voting practices, and how people tend to vote, or not vote, in the various districts. Chappell said he doesn't see a problem with this section. Kubby asked ifKarr could provide the Commission with some numbers concerning the signatures on petitions. Sueppel asked if there was a big difference between the number of people who cast a vote for a specific district, versus voting for an at-large seat. Karr said that yes, this is very common, with many times being a hundred signatures difference. Sueppel asked about a "bullet vote", and how does the City count these votes. Karr stated it would be classified as at-large, and she explained how a "bullet vote" plays into the four-year and two-year seats. Kubby noted that it would be interesting to survey people about their personal voting history, and see why people vote in the at-large, but not the district. Discussion turned to the system of voting and the lack of information for voters. Sueppel asked ifthere has ever been a time Charter Review Commission July 29,2004 Page 2 when only one person was on the ballot, instead of two. Karr responded that she could not think of a time when this has happened, but that often there is no primary election. Rowat asked about the "10" number and how this creates the need for a primary. He asked if perhaps this number was too low, and by raising it, it would cut costs for primary elections when they may not be necessary. Novick stated that this could be a State law, and discussion continued on this. Sueppel asked Dilkes to get a clarification on this issue, and whether it is mandated by State law. Kubby stated that on Section A, wording would read: "... but not less than the ten person..." Green said he is interested in the background of the" I 0 person" rule also. Section 3.02 Primary Election - Chappell asked about Section B, the last part that states: "... unless the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run-off election." He asked what the rationale was behind this, and wondered if it made sense to let the current Council, especially right before an election, pass an ordinance creating a run-off. He stated that conceptually this didn't make sense. Sueppel stated that this was a good point to make, and he then turned the discussion to the City's concept of districts. Kubby stated that it's what they do with this concept, as to whether or not it will create a problem. Chappell noted that if changes were made to the district concept, as some have previously shown an interest in doing, that this would then create a problem. Kubby stated that other cities are using other voting methods, whereby they can avoid the expense ofa primary, and she is doing some review of these. Sueppel asked if these others cities are in Iowa or not, and stated that she should check with Dilkes on this as much of what is done in Iowa City's voting process is mandated by the State ofIowa. Novick then asked about the latest district map, and wonders if they shouldn't consider having four districts, instead of three. She stated that the comparison between the previous map, and this most recent one, shows a big difference, and she feels the districts are no longer as contiguous as they were. Discussion continued around this issue, with the word "compact" being used in place of "contiguous". Kubby stated that in reviewing some other city charters, she noted the difference in how they deal with the at-large seats. Rowat asked Novick for clarification on her suggestion, and if she is suggesting they go from a three-district to a four, or expanding to a nine. She was referring to a four and three, with seven people still on the Council, but with the nomination process and district lines changing. Section 3.03 Regular City Election - Sueppel started off the discussion by asking if in Iowa City there can be a "write-in" vote. Karr responded that the ballots have space for write-ins, and they've had some in the past. Green asked if language should be added to the Charter to reflect this. Sueppel gave the following scenario: District A has a primary, and A and B are elected to be on the general ballot. The rest of the City could reject both candidates from District A, and have a write-in, during this general election. Karr noted that this is correct. Kubby noted that other communities, outside of Iowa, have a line stating "None of the Above". She may look into this further, to see what outcomes have shown. Sueppel asked ifthere was enough interest from the Commission members to have Kubby look into these issues further, and several members stated their interest. Article IV - City Manager, Section 4.01 Appointment; Qualifications - the discussion turned to the next Article. There were no comments or suggestions on 4.01. Charter Review Commission July 29,2004 Page 3 Section 4.02 Accountability; Removal, Chappell asked about the phrase".. .holds office at its pleasure." He asked if the City Manager has a contract, which gives him some rights, but that he is an "at will" employee. Dilkes gave a brief explanation of the City Manager's contract, and subsequent benefits. Kubby asked ifthere was anything in this contract that required a super-majority vote of the Council. Sueppel stated that the approval of the contract is most likely by resolution. Sueppel asked what the words ". . . or until a City Manager is appointed." Discussion ensued on this, under Section B, with various members giving their view. Novick suggested they remove the word "or". . .,. to read "at the pleasure of the City Council until a City Manager is appointed." Green stated that the language as it is now gives the Council the option to either appoint a City Manager right away, or to have the option to use an interim manager. Sueppel stated that he doesn't think the City has that option, that they must appoint someone in this position. Dilkes explained the policies the City follows, and how the City Manager submits a memo before an absence, and states who will be in charge during his absence. Karr stated that the City Manager does have a flow chart showing the internal structure of who would make decisions in his absence. The discussion then turned to how a long- term situation would be handled. Novick suggested that the wording be changed rrom "shall" to "may", giving the City Council the right to override the City Manager's choice. Sueppel noted that to date there have been no problems in this area; and he said that if someone has an actual case to share, it would be helpful. Section 4.04 Duties of City Manager. Chappell asked about A.(2) in this section, and whether they should add, after".. . subject to State law", the phrase, ".. . and policies adopted by Council." He further asked if the Council has adopted things like the City Handbook, etc. Dilkes stated that the Council adopts the pay plans every year, reclassification of employees, and items ofthat nature. Chappell stated that he brings up this addition in order to give a clearer picture. Sueppel stated that he believes this goes along with the next subsections, (3) and (4). Kubby stated that (1) covers this, but perhaps it should say "laws and policies" instead of just "laws." Sueppel gave some background on the Association of City Managers, and the ethics they must follow. Discussion turned to the history of having a City Manager, and the role of the City Council in this system. Dilkes noted that she worries about the Commission changing language in this area, as it can raise questions about whether Council can pass "policies" about those matters reserved by Charter to the City Manager. The process of changing policies was then discussed, with Karr giving some background information on the process that takes place within the City. Sueppel gave background on some of the language in the Charter, stating that it comes directly from the State code. Dilkes agreed, and added that if Council action is required the City Manager only has the authority granted him by the Council. Sueppel then asked about the wording, ". ..including the determination and compensation of all City employees." He asked about the adoption process, and Karr explained how the resolution process, which covered pay plans, was handled. Karr then explained the administrative ranges that are part of the pay plan. Novick then asked about (3), and if there would be an advantage to adding "appoint or employ well qualified persons to occupy positions...". Sueppel stated it would be up to the group if they wanted to add this wording. Sueppel then asked ifthe City has an Charter Review Commission July 29,2004 Page 4 inventory of its personal property. Karr stated that the City is reassessing and reassigning duties in the Accounting Department to accommodate this. Karr stated that by law now they are required to follow a "GASB" accounting method; and Chappell gave further explanation of this specific method. Green stated he would like to suggest a language change to A.(5), where it states: "Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the city, make.. .". Instead of "make", he is suggesting they say "approve" or "authorize" instead. Sueppel noted that all throughout the Charter, the same language is used. Discussion continued on how the wording is done throughout this section, and if changing the wording would make a difference. Sueppel stated he had no problem with taking out the word "make" and putting in "supervise all" instead. Sueppel asked that members bring any specific wording changes to the next meeting, which will be August 11 tho Dilkes informed the Commission that she will not be at the next meeting, but she will send a representative rrom her office, and will provide answers to the questions that the Commission posed today. Dilkes stated that she did not believe a change in 2.1 I (A) was necessary. She said that she can give an opinion on (A), and asked if the Commission wants an opinion on 2.11(B) also. Green stated he would like more discussion on these issues. Karr asked if there was a motion to accept correspondence. MOTION: Kubby moved, and Davidsen seconded, to accept correspondence from Caroline Dieterle. All in favor; motion carried. Kubby then suggested that the meetings be scheduled until 9:00 AM as she feels the hour isn't long enough. Members were in agreement. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kubby moved for adjournment at 8:53 AM; seconded by Davidsen. All in favor; motion carried. ~ 3b 2 I APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington St. Tuesday, June 22, 2004 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Valerie Garr, Chris Bushman, Paul Retish, Jim McCue MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend; David Shorr; GeoffWilming STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Garr asked that it be mentioned in the minutes that she is sending an e-mail message to members of the U of I Community regarding the nomination process. In addition, Garr thought the U of I Office of Equal Opportunity & Diversity's contribution of anti- discrimination brochures to the Commission should be mentioned. McCue asked Shank to correct the spelling of ARC. (Shank had incorrectly typed Ark.) Beckmann mentioned that under Old Business, Section b, the minutes stated that Wilming offered the assistance of his business to advertise the breakfast. Right atter Wilming's offer, Shank reminded the Commissioners that an employer under the law is described as any person that solicits employees in the Iowa City area. Beckmann believed the combined sentences gave a mixed message so she advised removing the sentence by Wilming. Motion to approve minutes as amended by McCue and seconded by Garr. Motion passed unanimously. 3. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: None 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Envelopes: Beckmann announced that the Commissioners would be stuffing envelopes with Iowa City Human Rights Award nomination forms during the meeting. b. Human Rights Breakfast: Beckmann indicated that someone needed to volunteer to contact Dottie Ray, Iowa Talks, KXIC, and Linda Alexander. Shank explained that Alexander is the editorial writer from the Gazette. A discussion ensued as to whether the change in the process should be advertised. After a brief discussion, the Commissioners determined that it wasn't necessary because the process would proceed smoothly and no explanation would be necessary. Retish volunteered to call Gayana Torosyan at WSUI and arrange to be on Iowa Talks. Shank indicated she would speak to Dottie Ray. Garr is going to look into KXIC and if her travel schedule does not allow her enough time Beckmann will go or she will contact Wilming or Shorr. Garr wondered if it would be too early if we did this in July. Shank indicated that this action is related to generating ticket sales. 1 Prior to the selection committee meeting, Shank plans on sending each committee member copies of nominations already submitted. Beckmann asked whether these events should be scheduled for a time before or after the nominees are selected? There will be a committee of four that meet on the evening of September ih or September 8th. After the committee selects the winners, a designated caller will contact Shank. After the contact, Shank will notify the winners and send the press release. Beckmann stated that the Commissioners should schedule their interviews with the radio folks between the 10th and the 1 yth of September so that ticket sales can be enhanced. c. Cases involving other local commissions: Shank provided the Commissioners with three cases involving local commissions and in one of the cases, different courts. Shank stated that there would, on occasion, be cases that come up from the City Attorney's office with a probable cause decision. If conciliation fails, the case goes back to the City Attorney's office for a decision as to whether the case is "litigation worthy." A written opinion regarding the litigation worthiness of the case will be sent to two members of the Commission. Those two members have the responsibility of making the final decision as to whether the case should close or go forward to a public hearing. The cases Shank sent to the Commissioners represent complaints that went to public hearing and were decided by an ALJ or went through an ALJ and proceeded to District Court, the Court of Appeals and finally the Supreme Court. Shank pointed out that the Commission and ALJ found probable cause, the District Court ruled in favor of summary judgement for the employer, the Appeals Court upheld the District Court opinion and finally, the Supreme Court overturned the Appeals Court decision and found for the plaintiff. The point is that there are two sides to a case and during the life of that case, several different opinions can be reached involving different courts and different levels of decision making. Therefore, the Commissioners should not be intimidated by the law when making a litigation worthy decision. Shank recommended that the two commissioners read and discuss the case between them and then make a decision. Shank also stated that the team could agree with the Assistant City Attorney or disagree and choose the opposite course of action. If that happens, the Commissioner's decision will stand. Garr asked Shank to discuss what happens when a case proceeds to public hearing. Shank responded that she had included the Iowa Civil Rights Commission case with the Commissioner's packet so they would be familiar with an ALJ's opinion. The Judge will conduct the hearing, which is basically a little trial with witnesses, etc. The opinion will have notations that refer to pages in the trial transcript. After the public hearing the six Commissioners, that have not made the litigation worthy decision, will determine whether they agree with the ALJ's opinion in the case. If the Commission agrees with the decision, the case will be closed. If the Commission does not agree, they will be responsible for reading the trial transcripts and making the final decision. Ultimately the Commission agreed with the ALJ's decision. Retish asked when the last public hearing was held. Shank said that since she has worked at the City, (almost 10 years) there has not been a public hearing. 2 Shank said that the two Commissioners that made the litigation worthy decision cannot be included in the deliberations regarding whether or not to accept the ALJ's decision. This is because the Commissioners read the file, which is not submitted at the public hearing as evidence. Therefore, it would be illegal for them to consider evidence other Commissioners and parties have been denied access to. It has to do with "separation of functions." McCue asked whether it was the ALJ's summary of the public hearing, perhaps aided or interfered with by the Commissioners attending the event, that is the basis for their acceptance or lack of acceptance of the ALJ's decision? Shank said that the six Commissioners that have not read the case can attend the public hearing but it is not necessary. Those six members will make the final decision as to whether the ALJ's opinion is acceptable. Retish wondered how the Commissioners could make a decision regarding the acceptability of the ALJ's opinion. He then mentioned that he sat in on a conciliation that he found really discouraging. "It was probably one of the frustrating nights of my life. Because there wasn't a full sharing of information." Shank reminded Retish that the ordinance had since been revised to allow both parties access to the file following a probable cause determination. Retish explained that at the conciliation the parties did not know the details. Shank indicated that the process of denying access to the case is a generally accepted policy in other local commissions as well as the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and the EEOC. Shank indicated that she wanted the Commission to understand that reasonable minds can differ as evidenced by the different decisions in the same case. d. Public Forum: Beckmann asked that this issue be deferred until the next meeting because she thought Wilming had expressed an interest in this issue. e. Sexual Harassment - Professor Nancy Hauserman: Shank thought it would be great to have a speaker on sexual harassment. Garr saw something on television in which it was reported that the sexual offenders are getting younger and younger in age. Even in Iowa there were 10 sexual offenders less than 15 years of age. Beckmann asked whether Professor Hauserman was having a talk? Shank said no but she suggested Professor Hauserman because her research has been based on the topic of sexual harassment. Garr thought it would be great to have this event for women's history month. Beckmann would be interested in having Hauserman speak to the Commission regarding her research. Retish indicated that Shank had made a connection to the lack of self-esteem of women and the reality shows on television. Retish said that that connection has been made before and he wondered whether the shows were just representative of raw entertainment. When Retish talks to his students and they speak of television, they speak of the reality shows. "They sure aren't watching Iowa Public Television." This is the reality of who he is trying to teach and who the Commission is trying to represent. Garr stated that both men and women are watching the reality shows and she reported that an American Studies Professor is doing a study on this type of show. Denise Berry, a Professor in the School of Journalism also researches at popular culture issues. She has written about hip-hop. Garr indicated that many people believe hip-hop is demeaning to women. 3 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Case Summary Reading: Cases were read for fifteen minutes. b. Human Rights Breakfast-Mailing of Human Rights Award nomination forms: Shank reported that next month the Commission would be stuffing envelopes for the breakfast mailing. Beckmann said that the Commission has a speaker, a date for the breakfast, and a new format. Shank said that WSUI does not advertise programs any longer unless they do so through "Iowa Talks", which is an hour in length. Shank also mentioned that Dorothy Paul would be a good candidate for a lifetime achievement award. This will be the 21st year of the award program. Shank feels that someone could discuss the program for an hour. Shank also has some advertising spots on the radio through a personal donation and she would be willing to use the time for the breakfast. Shank asked the Commission when it would like to announce ticket sales? Beckmann said that she felt that the Commission received fewer business nominations than any other category. Discussion continued on how the Commission might encourage more business nominations. Wilming offered his assistance in donating some of his underwriting advertising spots because his business underwrites WSUI. Beckmann said that it could be a conflict of interest. Shank said that the Ordinance defines employer to include entities conducting any business activity in Iowa City. Wilming indicated that his business solicits employees from Iowa City. Beckmann suggested the Commission come up with new ideas on soliciting more business nominations. Shank said that the solicitation in the water bills was very expensive. Shank suggested using the Hancher brochure again or possibly the Riverside Theatre pamphlet. Bushman also suggested an email correspondence to specific university people. Beckmann suggested an ad in the newspaper and Shank said that the Commission usually has a larger ad in The Gazette. Shank said that the deadline for nominations would be September 6th and Beckmann concurred. Garr indicated that she would send a message through electronic mail persons at the U of I. Clarification re: article submitted by Linda Severson: Beckmann asked whether she was correctly reading the article that was included in the agenda packet? The article said that the Senate passed the revised Hate Crimes Bill. Hate crimes against persons with disabilities and hate crimes that target persons based on their sexual orientation will lead to enhanced penalties for the perpetrator. Prior to this legislation's passage, persons with disabilities and gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender groups were not included, as persons that could be the targets of hate crime. c. Reports-Building Blocks to Employment and Youth Awards: A meeting of the Education Committee was held on Tuesday and the group accepted the date for the next Building Blocks to Employment program as October 5, 2004. The program s going to be citywide and publicized widely. Shank said that the volunteers involved in the last program are still on board, the materials are still available and it will be held in the Video Update building providing it has not been rented or sold. The Education Committee decided that the Music on Broadway program would take place on September 18. The Committee is going to ask Diana Bryant and her group, Voices of Soul, and the Yahoo Drummers. Retish asked about the reason for Music on Broadway and Shank indicated that the 4 purpose was to meet the people in the area and publicize Building Blocks to Employment. A discussion was held about whether Anthony Bryant could sell the barbecue outside and what would be required. The next education meeting is the 13th of July. d. Educational Outreach: Retish said that the Commission's outreach is consistent with its mission of providing education and becoming more visible in the community. Retish said that he would consider wearing his name badge. Beckmann suggested matching shirts. 7. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Beckmann: had read that in some eastern state a court had held that "Ladies Night" was against the law. In response, the legislature drafted a law indicating that "Ladies Night" was an exception to the anti-discrimination laws and, in fact, could be held without violating the law. Retish: the synagogue in Iowa City has been robbed twice. He also reported that a single female has picketed the synagogue with signs accusing Jews of killing people. Retish wanted the Commissioners to be aware of the situation. He is not sure this activity is in response to the Palestinian/Israeli situation, or Mel Gibson's movie. McCue reported that at the Farmer's Market there was a woman with an anti-Israeli sign. He is unsure where anti-Israel blends into anti-Semitism and it seemed an example of the ambiguity of the ferocious anti-Israel feeling. McCue: None. Garr: reported that July 2 will be the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act. In the Quad Cities as part of their Blues Festival they are having a celebration and ceremony. Governor Vilsack is attending and people from the University are attending. Reverend C.T. Vivian is speaking. Retish asked how old he was and Garr said that the Reverend is in his 80's and he lives in the Detroit area. Bushman: announced that she had to leave the Commission. Shank added that Bushman agreed to volunteer at different Commission events and become a HR Education Committee member. 8. STATUS OF CASES: The cases are proceeding as usual and there is really nothing to report. 9. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 5 Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 (Meetin!! Date) TERM 1/27 2/24 3/23 4/27 5/25 6/22 7/27 7/28 8/24 9/28 10/26 11/23 12/28 NAME EXP. Lisa 1/1/07 X X X X X X X Beckman Paul Retish l/I/07 X X X 0 0 X X Geoff 1/1107 X X X X X 0 X Wilming Chris 111105 X X 0 Bushman 1st mtp Valerie Garr 111105 X 0 0 0 X X 0 David Shorr 111106 0 X X X X 0 0 James 111106 X X X X 0 X X McCue Billie 111106 X X X X X X X Townsend Cat Fribley 111106 0 X 0 0 0 resign Bev Witwer 111/05 Elizabeth 111/05 Cummings KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member FINAUAPPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD r::r MINUTES - July 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Greg Roth, Loren Horton, and John Stratton MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Williams STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: U of I Students Rachel Allen and Matt Dixon from Class #19115 RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #04-01. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 05/11/04 · ICPD Use of Force Report- April 2004 · ICPD Use of Force Report- May 2004 · ICPD Use of Force Report- June 2004 · ICPD General Order #89-04 (Civil Rights) · ICPD General Order #99-05 (Use of Force) · ICPD General Order #99-09 (Vehicle Crashes) · ICPD General Order #00-03 (Less Lethal Impact Munitions) · ICPD General Order #00-01 (Search and Seizure) · ICPD General Order #01-03 (Performance Evaluations) · ICPD SOG #01-16 (Records Maintenance/Security) · ICPD Memorandum-Quarterly/Summary Repor- (Quarter 2)-IAIR/PCRB, 2004 · ICPD Department Memo 04-2 Stratton recommended minor changes to General Order #89-04 (Civil Rights) LEG 01.2, letter 0, to read "Department personnel shall:" striking "At all times", and 0(1), to read, "Avoid exhibiting any bias or prejudice against any group or individual," instead of "Never exhibit any bias or prejudice against any group or individual". Another recommended change by Stratton was to General Order #99-09 (Vehicle Crashes) OPS 13.9, letter H, to read, "A member of this department shall not physically push or repair stalled vehicles, jump-start, or change a tire on any vehicle not owned by the City, except in emergency situations." Instead of, "A member of this department should not physically push or repair stalled vehicles, jump-start, or change a tire on any vehicle not owned by the City, except in emergency situations." Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. NEW BUSINESS Stratton inquired as to whether the vacancies on the Board had been filled. Horton indicated that one of the spots had been filled and the other has a deadline of July 28th. PCRB - Page 2 July 13, 2004 Horton asked the Board if there were any questions for discussion regarding Complaint #04-01, if there we not they could have an open meeting concurrence of a summary dismissal, otherwise they can discuss it in executive session. Barnhill stated she would like more discussion. The Board deferred discussion to executive session. OLD BUSINESS The Board reviewed draft #2 of the annual report. Minor additions/corrections were made to the report. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Roth, to adopt the second draft of the annual report and forward to the City Council as amended. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION U of I student Dixon asked a few general questions regarding the number of complaints and the review process by the Board.. BOARD INFORMATION Horton announced that he had received a letter from Mayor Lehman re-appointing him for another term ending September 1,2008. There is still one vacancy on the Board, and the deadline to file an application is July 28th. An e-mail was received in May from a student in New Mexico, the e-mail and response will be included in the next packet. City Council member, Leonard Foster, from Mason City spoke with Horton. Horton discussed what the Board can and can't do and also had staff send a copy of the PCRB ordinance. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Stratton, to adioum into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 ){a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7('11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. Open session adjourned at 7:31 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:38 P.M. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to summarily dismiss PCRB Complaint #04-01 according to City code section 8-8-3(E) and directing staff to forward the Public Report to Council and the appropriate correspondence to the complainant and Police Chief. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. MEETING SCHEDULE · August 10, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · September 14, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · October 12, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room PCRB - Page 3 July 13, 2004 Pugh is tentatively on vacation the week of the August 10th meeting but can be available by phone if necessary. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Roth, to adjourn. Motion carried, 4/0, Williams absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:42 P.M. PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Complaint PCRB #04-01, filed July 7,2004, was summarily dismissed as required by the city Code, Section 8-8-3 E, requiring that only those complaints which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City sworn police officer may be subject to summary dismissal by the board. DATED: July 13, 2004 "" 0 = = >0 ~ ~~ , L Þ=:1 S 11 C) "-<" . - :=i (-". I.D :'"'<. ¡-- iT1 rr: ;n. '-.):0 ::¡¡¡: ;, '.-.1 <^ O:J ::::: » Ul I.D POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 (Meetml!: Date) TERM 1/13 2/10 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10112 11/9 12/14 NAME EXP. Loren 9/1/04 X OlE OlE NM X NM X Horton John 9/1/04 X X X NM X NM X --- --- --- --- Stratton Greg Roth 9/1/05 X X X NM X NM X Roger 9/1/05 X X X NM X NM OlE Williams Candy 9/1/07 X X X NM X NM X Barnhill KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 08-31-04 3b 4 MINUTES APPROVED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JUNE 9, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Ryan O'Leary, Nancy Ostrognai, Sarah Walz, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: David Fleener, Margaret Loomer, Matthew Pacha STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Terry Robinson FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Walz, to approve the May 12, 2004 minutes as written. Unanimous. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Walz, to accept the riverfront property if offered by the developer in the Mackinaw Villaqe Subdivision. Unanimous. Moved by Westefeld, seconded by O'Leary, to accept the land and approve the proposed trail configuration from Jensen Street to the creek in the Walden Woods area. Unanimous. MACKINAW VILLAGE SUBDIVISION Trueblood oriented the commission as to the location of the Mackinaw Village subdivision. It is close to the peninsula and is the area through which the "Missing Link Trail" is proposed. Funding for this trail is included in next year's budget. The trail would extend the Waterworks Prairie Park Trail under 1-80 to Foster Road. This development will allow the City to put in the trail, although not quite like the City had hoped. Trueblood indicated an area on the plat, which is in the floodplain/floodway that the developer may dedicate to the City. With respect to the trail, Trueblood noted two possible trail routes. The one route represents the most likely trail. It would be an eight-foot wide sidewalk, which would widen out to ten feet where it leaves the street. The developer is required to pay for one-half the cost of the oversized sidewalk, and will be required to construct the trail out to the property line, which is almost to the Interstate. The trail would then go under the bridge to Waterworks Prairie Park. The cost should be much less than anticipated. The other route could run through the proposed open space, which is over a gas line easement. Part of another alternate route could be a nature trail or bike path that would not be accessible. Trueblood noted a trail along the river was discussed, but it would be more challenging due to the topography, marshy conditions and would be unusable when the river is high. Trueblood asked the commission if they would be inclined to recommend accepting the riverfront property if offered by the developer. Gustaveson asked if it was unusable; Trueblood noted that it is probably unbuildable and would require maintenance only if the City chooses to make improvements. It may be possible to construct a trail in this area to provide access from the peninsula area through the Waterworks Prairie Park if the City is able to overcome some obstacles. Klink felt it was a real opportunity to be able to maintain a relatively wild area within an area growing in population. Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Walz, to accept the riverfront property if offered by the developer in the Mackinaw Village Subdivision. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission June 9, 2004 Page 2 of 3 As far as the proposed trail routes, the commission favored a combination, partially on eight-foot sidewalks and the remaining half to the Interstate being behind the houses heading in a northwesterly direction. Walz expressed concern with people riding bicycles on a trail that goes across people's driveways. She asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission be sensitive to the way the proposed houses will be situated on the lots when determining the trail route. WALDEN WOOD TRAIL LINKAGE Trueblood reported a number of years ago the City accepted a parcel of land in the Walden Woods development. The commission at the time thought it would be a good idea to run a trail along the property line to tie into the Willow Creek Trail, but the neighbors did not like that idea. The developer will build an eight-foot sidewalk connecting to a future bridge to tie into the existing Willow Creek trail. Preliminary estimated cost to the City is $10,000, partly due to an existing bridge that will be recycled. This open space exceeds the NOS requirement. Moved by Westefeld. seconded bv O'Leary. to accept the propertv and approve the proposed trail confiQuration from Jensen Street to the creek in the Walden Woods area. Unanimous. O'Leary felt this was an obvious fit, noting he knows residents in this area whose property backs up to it who love it. Westefeld asked when construction would begin; Trueblood noted it was imminent, except the trail connection, which would likely not occur until the next construction season. COMMISSION TIME Walz announced that the Friends of Hickory Hill Park would be showing a movie ('Winged Migration") in South Hickory Hill Park on Saturday, June 12, at 9 p.m. O'Leary noted he would like RoundUp used to get rid of the weeds in the cracks in the basketball court at Creekside Park. He also was glad to see the department approve another Dog Paddle this year over a two-day period. He noted the City of Cedar Rapids would be closing their pool in Jones Park pool for a similar event. Klink asked for an update on the dog park. Trueblood reported that the City Council approved the peninsula parkland area as a location for the dog park, but did not approve any funding. Staff informed them about the need to improve the roadway and construct a parking lot. This work should be completed at City expense because it is needed for the park itself, not just the dog park. Staff was instructed to develop an estimate and the City Manager is to determine possible financing options. Trueblood reported he received an e-mail as result of the newspaper article on the proposed dog park. The individual was under the misconception that the City would be building a new roadway through his neighborhood and that the entire 100 acres would be available for dogs to run. City staff will be holding a neighborhood association meeting in the near future. Klink asked how the neighborhood is being defined; Trueblood noted everything west of Dubuque out to the river, including Taft Speedway and Foster Road. Klink stated she has talked to several people who walk in this area that are not in favor of a dog park in this area, and she was also inclined in that direction. Walz asked what her concern was. Klink indicated her vision was that of an open natural area and felt a dog park did not belong in the middle of it. Gustaveson stated he toured the site and the dog park area would be blocks away from the nearest residents. Klink also felt any ground cover in the dog park would turn into a dirt surface in no time. Gustaveson stated it might be possible to cordon off sections to let the area rest and revive Parks and Recreation Commission June 9, 2004 Page 3 of 3 itself; Klink suggested incorporating this into the plan. Westefeld suggested including the peninsula area on the park tour again. Ostrognai announced there will be an ADA celebration on July 24 at Chauncey Swan Park from 9-11 a.m. and from 1-4 p.m. at the Emma Goldman Clinic. Gustaveson noted it was exciting to see the Iowa River Dam Trail connection nearing completion. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Public Art Advisorv Committee. The committee is involved in working with University of Iowa art students to design one or two sizeable sculptures for the Peninsula Parkland area. They are looking for a design that will fit in with nature. The committee intends to continue working with the art students and possibly pursuing rotating sculptures. The committee is also working with staff on a public art project to be incorporated into the Benton Hill Park entryway. Gustaveson asked about the angel sculpture in the pedestrian mall. Trueblood noted this is a rotating sculpture pad, and this sculpture, "Angel of the Pedestrian Mall", is on display for sale by the artist. Gustaveson expressed concern about a statement made by a City Council member who did not want to see any money spent on the Benton Hill Park entryway for artwork. Trueblood noted the Council already approved the call to artists. Benton Hill Park. Staff has run into a possible stumbling block. The design firm, Shoemaker & Haaland, has been informed by their insurance carrier that they will be incurring major liability if they design playground components in-house, which they have already done for this project, which is currently out for bids. Trueblood noted the City may have to pull the playground components out of the bidding process and handle them differently. Shoemaker & Haaland wants the City to indemnify them from all possible claims arising from the design and/or construction of these items. This is not acceptable to the City, and the City Attorney is currently working on it. Staff intends to get the issue resolved without delaying the project. O'Leary suggested manufacturer versions of some of the playground equipment, noting the tree houses and log may be challenges. Trueblood stated to purchase a manufactured "tree house" would cost approximately $25,000 and to specify material and build it in-house would cost $5,000 to $10,000. He noted that during the neighborhood meetings the neighbors really liked the play components and keeping some of the park in its natural state. Trueblood noted there have also been changes to the entryway plans, as recommended by Planning and Engineering. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. and most commissioners in attendance joined staff on a brief tour of baseball diamond #1 in Mercer Park. Parks and Recreation Commission June 9, 2004 Page 4 of 3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1114 2/11 3/10 4/13 5/12 6/9 7/14 8/11 9/8 10/13 11110 12/8 Kevin Bovd 1/ 1/06 X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- David Fleener 1/1/08 X X X LQ X 0 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 X X X LQ X X Judith Klink 1/1/07 X OlE X LQ X X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X X X LQ X 0 Ryan O'Leary 1/ 1/06 --- --- --- LQ X X Nancy Ostrognai 111/05 X X X LQ X X Matt Pacha 1/1/05 X X X LQ X 0 Sarah Walz 1/1/07 X X X LQ X X John Westefeld 1/1/06 X X X LQ X X KEY: X= Present 0= Absent OlE = AbsentfExcused NM = No meeting LQ= No meeting due to lack of quorum --- - Not a Member rnr MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 9, 2004 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Vincent Maurer, Michael Wright, Karen Leigh, Dennis Keitel (arrived at 5:10 PM) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Tokey Boswell (Planning Intern), Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Alan Boettcher, BJ Wagner, Mike Pugh CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Maura called the meeting to order at 5:05 PM CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 10.2004 AND THE APRIL 14,2004 BOARD MINUTES Vice-Chairperson Maurer accepted a motion to approve the minutes for both meetings. Motion: Wright moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 - O. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS EXC04-00009 Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Alan Boettcher for a special exception to allow the re-establishment of two lots of record to permit construction of a single-family house in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1002 Friendly Avenue. Before Miklo began the staff report, he showed slides and maps of the lots in question (located at the corner of Friendly Avenue and Lukirk Street) and neighboring property. He stated that the neighborhood is made up of several 50 foot x 125 foot lots. This particular property at one time consisted of two 50 foot x 125 foot lots but because of their non-conformity with the RS-5 zone they were joined to form one lot. The non-conformity provisions of the zone require that when two such non-conformity lots are owned by one party, they are joined together as one lot and can contain only one dwelling unless a special exception, such as the one being proposed, is granted. Miklo showed slides of the area, including shots of the existing house and the area where the new lot would be created if the special exception is approved and other houses typical of the neighborhood. He reiterated that because these former two lots did not meet the RS-5 zoning requirements of a 60-feet lot width or 8,000 square feet they are considered one lot that measures 100 feet x 125 feet or 12,500 square feet. Section 14-6T -5D of the Zoning Ordinance does allow an owner of such a property to seek a special exception to recreate two separate parcels. The City has no obligation to approve the applicant's request, but the Zoning Code does provide some criteria for the board to review to aid their decision. In order for the Board to grant the special exception, they must find that the applicant has demonstrated a number of things in his application: 1) Each of the recreated lots will be limited to a single-family home. The applicant has indicated that the existing single-family dwelling at 1002 Friendly Avenue will remain and that he would like to build a second home on the adjacent vacant area if created as a new lot. The proposal does meet the first test. 2) The resulting development will be appropriate and compatible with its neighborhood. The applicant has submitted several illustrations of homes which he may build on the property. Although the Staffs opinion is that the homes are somewhat more elaborate and somewhat larger than many of the other homes in the neighborhood, the sample plans are not too far out of scale with the neighborhood and there are other bungalows and some larger homes within a few blocks of the property that have similar characteristics with these plans. Miklo directed the Board's attention to the plans attached in the packet. As a condition of the Board's approval, Staff recommends that if something other than the particular plans already submitted is to be built is proposed, that it be subject to Staff approval to ensure that whatever is built is compatible with the neighborhood. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 9, 2004 Miklo pointed out that almost all of the homes in this general area are set back about 20 feet from the street right-of-way, which is the minimum zoning setback requirement in the RS-5 zone. Staff proposes that there be a maximum setback of 25 feet so that any home built on the newly created lot, if approved, generally aligns with the others in the neighborhood to help keep it in character with the neighborhood. Miklo said another common characteristic in this neighborhood is that the homes have access to a rear alley and generally do not have driveways onto Friendly Avenue, resulting in more green space and less paving in the front yard. As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that any vehicular access to the newly created or existing lot be from the alley and that there not be a curb cut or a driveway installed on Friendly Avenue. Miklo said although there is an existing curb cut in place, Staff suggests that it not be paved since there is a good alternative access to the rear. With these three conditions, Staff believes that a new dwelling could be built in this neighborhood and be compatible and appropriate with the neighborhood as specified by the Zoning Ordinance. Another condition that the Zoning Ordinance cites which the Board should consider is that the applicant demonstrate that, other than a minimum lot width or lot area (which it is already known cannot be achieved), the proposed development will comply in all other respects to Iowa City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a site plan demonstrating that a fairly good-sized dwelling could be built on this property and still adhere to the minimum five-foot setbacks on both sides, the 20-foot (or the suggested maximum 25-foot) front setback, and 20-foot rear setback. Staff, therefore, believes that a building could be built on this site that meets all other Zoning Ordinance requirements, other than lot width and lot area requirements. Miklo stated that the application contains statements regarding the general requirements that the Board should consider with a special exception application. According to the Zoning Code which gives the Board some direction when reviewing special exceptions, they should find that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff feels that the addition of one single-family dwelling in this neighborhood will have little or no impact on the nearby properties. There are a number of lots in the general vicinity that are already 50 feet x 125 feet, or the same size as the proposed new lot that would be created. Staff does not feel that the new lot would be a detriment to the area if the conditions already discussed were imposed. Miklo stated that adequate measures have been and will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Again, since there is an alley available, Staff will recommend that as a condition of approval, any vehicular access to the lot be from that alley and not from the street. In summary, Miklo said it is the intent of the City's non-conforming lot regulations to discourage the development of lots that do not meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Chapter and would not accommodate development in a manner appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. However, the Zoning Chapter recognizes that some of these existing lots could be developed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the Zoning Ordinance provides a process for that to occur. Staff feels that this particular proposal on Friendly Avenue is one of those situations and recommends approval of this special exception to create two 50 x 125-foot lots subject to three conditions: 1) The single-family dwelling constructed on the newly created lot substantially conforming with the plans submitted by the applicant, or in the event that an alternative plan is submitted, the plan being subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development to ensure that the development is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; 2) The front setback shall be a maximum of 25 feet so that it is similar to the other houses in the neighborhood; 3) Vehicular access to the two lots be restricted to the alley north of Friendly Avenue and no driveways permitted onto Friendly Avenue. Keitel asked what the side yard setback requirement is. Miklo responded that the side yard setback requirement is five feet. Keitel noted that the applicant is proposing eight feet. Miklo confirmed that the applicant has proposed 18 feet on one side and 8 on the other. Maurer asked if there was a minimum setback. Miklo responded that there is a minimum setback of 20 feet. Keitel noted that normally there is no maximum but in order to comply with the condition that the house conform to the other houses in the neighborhood, a maximum setback was proposed. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 9, 2004 Public Hearina Opened Alan Boettcher, 913 Webster Street, the applicant, stated that they would really like to build a house on the lot and thinks that it would fit in with the neighborhood. He stated that the plans included in the packet are ideas and that they would like to build it 24 x 32 feet, adding that they would not want to build larger than that in the interest of preserving the nature of the neighborhood. Keitel asked Boettcher if he is planning to live in the new house. Boettcher responded that he intends to sell the house as a single-family residence and noted that he lives nearby. He believes it helps property values to add in homes that are not just for rental, which is what has been happening to the neighborhood. Alexander asked if the dwelling already on the property is a rental. Boettcher responded that it is currently a rental for the purpose of cash flow. He stated that his plan was to get the house built and sell it. He stated that the rental property was previously neglected, partly due to a lack of regulation regarding animals by the previous landlord, but they have a much more stringent renting process now and are trying to improve that area of their property. Alexander asked how long he has been the owner. Boettcher said they have owned the property for two and a half months. Keitel asked if he intended to keep the large tree that is in the front of the vacant lot. Boettcher responded that they intend to keep the Sycamore, as well as the Maple toward the back. Wright asked if Boettcher intended to sell both houses. Boettcher responded that they do intend to sell both houses eventually. Their intent is to ultimately make them both single-family dwellings and have a renter that is a family if they cannot sell both houses. BJ Waaner, 1217 Friendly Avenue, stated that she was speaking for several of her neighbors on Friendly Avenue who are concerned about the prospective development. Wagner stated that they think it would look too crowded and asked Boettcher what the square footage of the 1002 Friendly Avenue house was, what his prospective plans were, and whether he had built a house before. Boettcher responded that the house is 760 square feet and that while they do not currently have a building plan, the house would be under 1000 square feet, like the rest of the neighborhood. He also stated that he has built homes before and that most of his work is historic renovation. Wagner said there were also concerns about parking because currently no one uses the alley for parking; it is all street parking and can get very congested, causing problems with snow removal. She also expressed concern over the fact that while Boettcher intends to sell the houses as single-family homes, they may still end up as rentals. Wagner indicated that there are many rentals in the area that are not kept up, providing citations of surrounding houses for snow removal, animal control and junk cars. Keitel asked what the pavement width is on Friendly Avenue. Miklo said he did not know, but it was most likely 25 feet, which is typical for that area. Maurer asked if there is parking on both sides of the street. Wagner said there is parking on the north side of the street only. Keitel asked what the alley width is, and Miklo responded that it is a fairly informal alley of 10 - 12 feet wide with a gravel surface. Alexander asked Wagner why the alley is not used for parking. She stated that the lots are very deep, and parking in the alley entails walking through back yards. Many of the rental homes have garages in the back, but they are full of the owner's belongings, making them inaccessible. She said it is easier to park on the street. Maurer asked if the back yards were being used as parking lots. Wagner responded that most of them were not used in that way. Boettcher responded to the issues brought up by Wagner. Regarding the parking issue, he stated that there will be a two-stall garage in the basement of the property which would house both cars of the families and, because of the setback requirement, there will be a 60-foot driveway as well. There will be no need for street parking at this property. Regarding Wagner's concern over the property turning into a rental, Boettcher conceded that there is nothing to stop someone from buying it and turning it into a rental; but the City may not be able to stop that either. One way to try to prevent that is to build in the right price range to attract families. Maurer asked how many bedrooms were in the current house and how many will be in the proposed house. Boettcher said the current house has two bedrooms and the proposed house will have three. Maurer asked how many single tenants could be accommodated in a single-family dwelling. In the RS-5 zone, according to Miklo, a family, which includes up to two unrelated people, plus a roomer (i.e. up to three unrelated persons) could rent a house in that zone. Holecek commented on regulatory authority regarding rental vs. owner-occupied properties. She reminded the Board that their decision is not to be based on who is going to occupy the property. She acknowledged the validity of the neighbors' concern but stated that the City does not have authority to control who lives in a particular property, whether they be owner-occupied or rental. The decision of the Board is based on the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code which includes compatibility with the Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 9, 2004 neighborhood. There is no basis for discriminating against rental properties. Holecek stated that the compatibility issue can be addressed in a number of ways, either by elevations or through public hearings such as this, but the matter of who lives in a particular property is not the basis of a land use issue. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Maurer moved for the approval of EXC04-00009, a special exception to allow the re- establishment of two 50 x 125-foot lots of record located at 1002 Friendly Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1) A single-family dwelling construction on the lot substantially conforming with the attached plans provided by the applicant in association with the application, or in the event that alternative plans are submitted, the plans being subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development to ensure development that is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and 2) Front setback to be a maximum of 25 feet; and 3) Vehicular access to the two lots be restricted to the alley north of Friendly Avenue and no driveways be permitted onto Friendly Avenue. Leigh seconded the motion. Maurer stated that he will vote in favor of the motion. He said that he can appreciate the concerns that the neighbors had but that it appears to be perfectly fitting within the framework of the neighborhood, and as legal counsel indicated, it is not the Board's business to decide things that they should not be deciding. Maurer indicated that he sees it as primarily an issue of whether or not the proposed building fits the pattern of the neighborhood, which it appears to do. Wright stated that he intends to vote in favor of the motion as well because the plans as presented would not be injurious to the public health, safety or general welfare. He said the plans as submitted seem to meet all of the conditions that would apply to a special exception in this situation and that there appears to be no legal reason for this issue to be deferred. Keitel said he also intends to vote in favor of the motion. He believes that infield development in existing neighborhoods is always a good thing because a new dwelling will increase the value of the surrounding properties. He thinks that any fears that neighbors might have that it will devalue the neighborhood are unfounded. It will be a good addition to the neighborhood, and the size of the new dwelling will not detract from the general appearance of the neighborhood. He said Boettcher's plans for providing a double car garage for adequate parking in the back is a good thing as well. Alexander stated that the application clearly meets the aspects that the Board needs to consider for regulation of non-conforming lots. She thinks the one area that the Board could potentially get hung up on is under the general special exception standards regarding whether or not the new dwelling will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate neighborhood. Based on Boettcher's plans for the property and his desire to make it consistent with the neighborhood's design with the driveway and the garage, she will vote in favor as well. Leigh said she drove through the neighborhood and understands the neighbors' concerns about congestion, but based on the considerations before the Board (Le. the lot is the same size as the other lots that have houses on them, although the houses shown in the sample plans appear to be larger than the other houses on the block), she found no reason why a house could not be built on the lot. She stated that she intends to vote in favor as well. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 - O. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 9, 2004 EXC04-00010 Public hearing regarding an application submitted by G. Rodney Alberhasky for a special exception to permit the reduction of the required rear yard from 20 feet to 15 feet in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) Zone at 604 Eastmoor Drive. Boswell stated that Alberhasky's home is located at the corner of Manor and Eastmoor Drives, in the northwest portion of town just south of the river and west of Lower City Park. This house on the corner has unique placement in relation to the neighborhood because it sits at a diagonal to the streets. The rest of the homes on the block sit square with the streets and have smaller front setbacks than the home at 604 Eastmoor. Alberhasky wishes to put an addition onto this home, which would create a new kitchen, extend the dining room and allow for a bath that is connected to the master bedroom. A portion of the proposed addition would violate the rear yard requirement of the Zoning Code. The RS-5 zone requires a 20-foot rear yard setback. Alberhasky has therefore requested a special exception to reduce the rear yard setback to 15 feet in the areas that would be in violation of the 20-foot setback. Additionally, a portion of the existing structure is currently non-conforming to the yard requirement. Boswell showed slides of the yard, indicating the portion of the proposed addition that would violate the setback requirement and the small portion of the house that currently violates the 20-foot setback. The exception requested therefore applies to both the portion of the addition and the portion of the existing structure that do not meet the 20- foot setback. Boswell showed slides to indicate where the proposed addition would be built, including shots of the house as it sits on the lot showing the large front yard with mature trees, the northernmost property line which is screened with bushes (a screened-in porch can also be seen that comprises part of the land that is to be covered by the new addition), and the easternmost property border which is also screened by trees and a wooden privacy fence. The addition would come out at an angle towards the fence and return back to the northern side of the house. Boswell stated that the proposed addition is stylistically consistent with what is existing. Boswell stated that in order to grant this special exception, the Board must find that Alberhasky has both a unique situation and a practical difficulty in locating the addition to his house. Based on the aerial photographs, Boswell stated that the situation of the house is unique for the neighborhood, both in the orientation to the street and in the placement of the house on the lot, which is set much further back than other houses in the neighborhood. Staff believes that this creates a practical difficulty in complying with the yard requirement, especially given that it is already non-compliant. Any addition to the rear of the house would have to be small in order not to violate the 20-foot setback. Any addition to the front of the house would require replacement of some of the mature trees and would change the looks of the house significantly. Staff feels that that kind of an alteration would have more of an impact on the neighborhood than allowing the rear yard setback to be diminished. The proposed exception is minimal in relation to the yard requirement. Going back to Exhibit B, Boswell pointed out a triangle of open yard that would be created with the proposed addition and stated that the triangular area more than meets what would be required if it was a square yard with a square house on a square lot; however, there are small triangular pockets that are non-conforming. The proposed design and the screening will limit impact on the neighborhood. Staff feels that any alternative design would result in a greater impact in the neighborhood. Any alternative would also result in a non-conformity still being present on the property in the original structure that is in violation of the 20-foot setback. The exception would be in the public's interest and would allow Alberhasky full use of his property. Staff recommends approval of the exception that would result in a 15-foot rear yard setback in the areas indicated on the exhibit. Beyond finding that there is a unique situation present and that there is practical difficulty, the Board should consider the seven questions asked of the applicant. Those seven questions are addressed in the third to last page of their packet in "General Standards." Staff finds that as addressed by the information provided, the reduction of the setback would not affect the public health, nor the public welfare, nor affect the use and enjoyment of this property, nor of neighboring properties, nor impede the normal development of the neighboring properties in any way. Boswell stated that Staff recommends approval. Leigh asked for clarification regarding the northeast corner where the addition is going to diminish that setback to 9'6". Boswell responded that that area is designated as a side yard because there cannot be two rear yards, although two front yards are permissible because it is a corner lot. The bigger of the two yards is the rear yard because of the location of the front entrance. Boswell stated that the side yard requirement is five feet for the RS-5 zone. Public Hearina ODened Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 9, 2004 Mike Puah, One South Gilbert Street, appeared on behalf of the applicant, who was also present, to field any questions the Board might have and to present additional photographs of the area. Pugh stated that the proposed addition is going to replace the screened-in porch and will not extend much farther north than the screened-in porch already does. Maurer said he has been in that house many times, observing that there are no basements in that whole area and commenting on the unusual placement of the house on the lot. Pugh commented that the front yard of the house is a very park-like area that makes any extension of the house impractical. There is a partial basement in the house that is unfinished but given the nature of the area, there are no plans to finish the basement. Maurer asked whether any neighbors have expressed concern. Boswell stated that no neighbors have voiced any concerns. He said the property at 608 Eastmoor is actually owned by the City of Iowa City and that any concerns they had have been dealt with at a joint staff meeting. Boswell stated that they feel the bushes and the landscaping are going to screen the addition well enough that it will not impede any further development of that particular property. Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Alexander moved for approval of EXC04-00010, an application for special exception to reduce the required rear yard from 20 feet to 15 feet in the area indicated on the site plan for a single-family home in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) Zone. Leigh seconded. Keitel stated that everything was well-covered regarding the uniqueness of the situation and that he would like to see the improvement to the property. He intends to vote in favor of the exception. Maurer also intends to vote in favor, stating that it is a lovely house that the improvements will make even more lovely. Alexander stated that she will vote in favor as well because it will meet all the general standards that the Board needs to consider. She feels the exception is going to be minimal, as Staff pointed out. It will not increase the population density and will be consistent with the home as it already stands and therefore with the neighborhood. In addition, there does not seem to be a feasible alternative. Wright will vote in favor of the motion as well, stating that there does not seem to be any way around the fact that this is a very unique situation. The addition as proposed does not substantially increase the footprint of the house on the lot nor does it devalue the neighboring properties. The changes to the setback are minor and the fact that the house is already outside the standard set for the initial setback should be taken into account as well. Leigh stated that she will vote in favor of the motion as well for all the reasons previously stated. The motion was passed with a vote of 5 - O. OTHER None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Chairperson Keitel will be absent for the July meeting. ADJOURNMENT Maurer moved to adjourn; Alexander seconded. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 PM Board Chairperson Board Secretary data on citynt/pcd/minuteslboa/2004/boa06-Qa-Q4.doc I 0803;[ 3b 6 MINUTE APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 2004 - 5 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Vincent Maurer, Michael Wright, Karen Leigh, MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Keitel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Tokey Boswell (Planning Intern), Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Rosenberger; Crissy Canganelli; Charlie Eastham; Susan Burgdorf; Ken Lundby; Jim McCue; James Thomas; Stephanie VanHousen; A Mori Costantino; Luis Sierra; Dwight Dobberstein; Sara Quartell; Anonymous (2); Patrica Santangelo; Eric Alexander; Raymond Tinnian; Anna Buss; Isabella Vine; Craig Dahlen; Joyce Barker; Thomas Ortelle; Steve Duell; Sue Schmucker; Melissa Williams; Jeffrey Bond; Lorie Dahlen; Mark Bently; Matt Neely; Jen Cress; Christina Burns; Abby Burgess; Kafi Dixon; Jerry Anthony; Steve Smith; Cynthia Parsons; Gary Klinefelter; Mindy Tuttle; CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:05 PM CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 9. 2004 BOARD MINUTES Vice-Chairperson Maurer accepted a motion to approve the minutes from June 9, 2004 MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) EXC04-00014 Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Englert Civic Theatre, Inc. for a special exception to permit a historic sign that does not conform to the sign code (an animated lighted sign that also exceeds size limits) in the Central Business (CB-10) zone located at 221 E. Washington Street. Miklo stated that the Englert sign is non conforming in size and also in the fact that is a lighted sign that has movement. Such signs are prohibited by the Sign Ordinance. However, the City Zoning Ordinance does provide incentives for historic properties and recognizes the uniqueness that these properties have and supports the protection of these historic features. The Sign Ordinance does have a provision allowing the Board of Adjustment to approve historic signs that do not conform to the current regulations. As a condition of the Board's approval, Staff recommends approval subject to the execution of a temporary use of right-of-way agreement approved by the City Engineer. Public Hearina Opened Tom Rosenberaer. 503 Stewart Court, the applicant stated that there is a total restoration of the building underway and that part of it includes the sign and they know that the animation and lights are non complying with the regulations and that's why they are asking for a special exception. Rosenberger added that the plan has been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission as well as by the Department of Planning and Community Development, both of whom recommend the approval. Rosenberger asked for clarification about the license agreement that it's being asked by the Staff. Miklo responded that it is a license agreement necessary for any structure that interferes with the right-of-way. Miklo added that the application for the license should be made at the City Engineering Office. Rosenberger asked if this license is standard for all canopy signs downtown. Miklo answered that it is generally required. Rosenberger added that he looked around and noticed that there are many signs that are nearly this big. Rosenberger continued by asking if this license agreement is something that the Englert Theater had five years ago when they were an operating movie theater. Miklo stated that he believes that because it was a non- conforming use it did not have a license agreement. Rosenberger stated that they have documentation from the City when the project started that essential features and uses have been grandfathered in to make this an operational theater while maintaining the historic character in which it was built. Rosenberger added that the theater was in place for fifty years and he asks why they have to license it now if it has not been licensed before. Holecek responded that it is called a license more in a term of art, but what it does is, because the sign projects over the right- of-way, it just ensures that there is coverage in case the sign comes down on somebody in the right-of-way. The agreement is a risk assessment and spreading device. .. Rosenberger asked if in any of the marquees that extend out two or five feet, or six or seven as, he mentions, exist in downtown, are also required to have this license. Holecek responded that they should have this license agreement. Holecek added that any use of a private nature that extends into the right-of- way should be subject to that type of agreement. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Alexander moved for the approval of EXC04-00014, an application for a special exception to permit a historic Englert Theater marquee, which is a nonconforming sign, be approved subject to execution and approval of a license agreement for temporary use of the right-of-way by the City Engineer. Leigh seconded the motion. Alexander stated that she'd vote in favor of the motion. She said that the historic sign standard has clearly been met. The sign does not appear to be detrimental or to endanger public health safety, comfort, or general welfare. Alexander added that given its location the distraction to motorists should be minimal. It will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity, and she thinks that it will be a nice contribution to downtown Iowa City. Alexander indicated that it meets all other applicable regulations and standards of the Zone, as long as we take care of the license agreement, and it appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Maurer stated that he would also vote in favor for the reasons already given. Wright stated that he would also vote in favor for the reasons already stated and that he hopes to be able to say welcome back to the marquee. Leigh will vote in favor of the motion for the previously mentioned reasons. The motion passed with a vote of 4-0. EXC04-00016 Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit Transient Housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. Before Miklo began the staff report, he showed slides and maps of the property in question (located at 429 Southgate Avenue) and neighboring properties. He stated that the surrounding properties are zoned residential (RFBH), and Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The property to the south is a residential zone, Residential Factory Build Housing. To the east, there is a parking lot that has been formerly used by MCI, and to the west, there is the HACAP Childcare Center. Miklo indicated that the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone is intended for uses such as auto-body repair, contractor's yards, areas of outdoor storage, implement dealers, and other fairly intensive commercial uses that are not necessarily compatible with residential or retail uses. The zone does allow, by special exception, transient housing and that is what the applicant has applied for. Transient housing is defined by the ordinance as: "A structure maintained and operated by a non- profit organization providing temporary residence, for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, for persons in need of emergency shelter and temporarily unable to pay for housing." Miklo stated that the code has specific requirements for transient housing. It requires that 200 square feet of lot area be provided for each temporary resident, and in this particular application, the proposal is for 70 occupants and therefore requires a total lot area of 14,000 square feet. This property is approximately 29,000 square feet, more than double the area required by the Zoning Code, and it does meet that minimum requirement. Miklo pointed out that as noted in the CI-1 zone, attempts should be made to buffer any residential use that moves into the zone from uses that are permitted in the CI-1 zone. The idea being that the burden to provide that buffering is on the residential use because that is a special exception in the zone and that the more intensive commercial uses not be required to provide the buffer. In this particular case, there is a vacant property next door that could develop for intensive use and the applicant is showing an evergreen screen along the east property line to provide a buffer in the event that this property will develop with an intensive commercial use. There is also another intensive commercial use, an auto body repair shop, to the northwest; it is quite a distance from the building, and because it is a corner, it will be difficult to provide an evergreen buffer as the corner needs to be kept clear to provide visibility for the traffic moving through the intersection. So the staff considers that the best that could be done are the trees proposed in the application. The property to the south is a residential zone, it is a manufactured housing park. All of those units are one story in height, while this proposed building will be two stories in height, and therefore the applicant is proposing an eight-foot high fence to provide a transition from the fairly low scale manufactured housing units to the larger building to the north. It will also provide privacy for the residents that will use that yard area. In addition to those very specific requirements for the special exception within the zone, there are the seven general requirements that should be considered in a special exception case. The first three require that the proposed special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The third states that it will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. In this particular case many of the uses in the area are human service uses such as the MECCA facility to the north side of the street, and the HACAP day care center on the west side of the street. These are similar human service uses that appear to be compatible with the shelter use. As noted above, there is potential for non-compatible uses on the undeveloped properties, and the applicant is showing screening to address that concern. In terms of the general nature of the neighborhood, this is the type of land use that the City usually hears objections to regardless of where it is proposed to be sited. In this particular location, the applicant has chosen a property that has all of the City services necessary to support a use such as this, the site has necessary utilities and bus service, and they are proposing to provide the landscaping and fences to help create a transition to the properties to the north. The Board has received material from the Waterfront Neighborhood Association regarding concerns about Shelter House. The applicant has indicated that they will present information to the Board describing management practices designed to address these ConcernS. The next four items that you should look at have to deal more with the physical adequacy of the property. The first one deals with utilities, access roads, drainage, and necessary easements. This particular property is in a commercial subdivision that has adequate drainage planned for, so staff believes that it does meets that test. The next issue has to deal with traffic management. There are two driveways proposed, one to provide access to a service area, and one to provide access to eighteen parking spaces. The staff believes that this is not an unreasonable design for this particular location giving the amount of traffic on Southgate Avenue. The next provision deals with whether or not the proposed special exception conforms to all other requirements of the Code. In this particular case, the property will be required to have eighteen parking spaces, and they are showing those eighteen parking spaces on the property. The applicant will also be required to provide street trees as all properties developing in this area would, and this plan does show conformance with that requirement. Therefore, this application does meet all other requirements of the Code. Finally, the proposed special exception should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does depict the area as being appropriate for intensive commercial uses. The intensive commercial zone does provide a special exception for transient housing, so the application does meet that test. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes the need for social services in our community and the need to support services such as Shelter House, so this application further appears to meet that test. Staff recommends approval of this special exception subject to general compliance with the submitted plan, including the landscape buffer along the east property line, and the eight-foot privacy fence along the south property line. Public Hearinq Ooened Crissv Canqanelli, 331 North Gilbert Street., the applicant, said that 429 Southgate Avenue is currently a vacant lot located at the corner of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. The purpose of the zoning chapter is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. Every night they turn people away, men, women, and children; they have no room, and there is nowhere else in the county for them to go. They deny them access to basic shelter and services. These people from our community are left with nowhere but the streets, alleys and bridges to turn. This request does promote the public interest through the provision of basic shelter and support services to men, women, and children who are homeless in our community, an increasing number who demonstrate critical needs. The work of Shelter House falls under the category of transient housing in the zoning ordinance. Transient housing is a use permitted in the CI-1 zone by special exception. The application demonstrates that the project meets code requirements, and the organization has demonstrated that they are happy to comply with the City staff recommendations with respect to buffering the property and other recommendations with respect to exterior guidelines. Why this site, she asked. Canganelli said that they looked for a number of years for existing structures that may come up on the market, but none has been cost effective to be considered seriously for the purposes of this project. Land for new development is Scarce and expensive. This site is zoned such that it permits the use with a special exception. The purchase price is within their budget and demonstrates their effort to be good stewards of public moneys. The land is situated within walking distance of existing bus service, grocery stores, and other retail and employment opportunities. The land is located within good proximity to relevant services such as HACAP transitional housing and head start, MECCA transitional housing and treatment services, Youth Homes, Crisis Center, Salvation Army, and the Johnson County Department of Public Health. The building on this site would bring much needed facility space, services, and qualified and experienced staff to an area that demonstrates great need, an area where many people who are homeless already live. Canganelli said that she could not hope to address all the concerns that will be expressed, and some she will argue are not for us to address. One consistent concern is the potential for increase crime in the area. To this end, a document was sent by a resident of the Waterfront area neighborhood to the City, and identified criminal incidents over time as related to the address of 331 North Gilbert Street., the location of the current shelter. Before addressing the details of this document, she said that Shelter House has rigorous rules, and all residents are required to comply. She said they are consistent and tenacious in enforcing these rules. She brought copies of the rules to the Board tonight. The shelter is open and staffed 24 hours a day. All residents of the shelter are checked against the State sex offender registry's website. Those who are on the website are not permitted to stay in the shelter. An online website is accessed to determine past criminal history. Criminal behavior while a resident of the shelter is not permitted. Depending on the severity of criminal behaviors, such behavior might result in lengthy or permanent eviction from Shelter House. Shelter House will not harbor criminals; law enforcement will be informed if it is discovered that an individual is wanted by the law. Shelter House has no desire or interest in encouraging criminal behavior. Is it in the interest of the Shelter House board, staff, and other clients of Shelter House that those who wish to engage in criminal activity are appropriately dealt with so as not to endanger either those at Shelter House or members of the larger community. Specific to the document that you have received, she said, including police report details indicating 331 North Gilbert Street, individuals continue to use the 331 North Gilbert Street address long after they have left Shelter House, especially when they have contact with law- enforcement. Individuals often use the Shelter House address if they do not have a stable address. Shelter House receives mail for a large number of individuals who are not residents, and in many instances have never resided at the shelter. Since the rules of the shelter do not permit certain types of behavior, some individuals will engage in these activities away from the Shelter House premises and give the Shelter House address if they have contact with law-enforcement. Homeless individuals are more likely to have contact with the law as they exist out-doors, and in public areas much more. Shelter House staff are proactive in informing the Police of suspicious or illegal activities. Shelter House staff also inform the Police if a wanted individual comes to the facility for any purpose. In effect, the Shelter House address appears disproportionately because Shelter House staff is watchful and cooperative with law-enforcement. Canganelli said that she knows that there are many in opposition to this request, and she knows that many have come to support this effort. She said that they honestly want to serve this community and neighborhood, and work together to strengthen it. If given the opportunity to purchase and develop this property, she promised that this is an organization and staff that fully comprehends and respects the interdependence of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, and its residents, and Shelter House's own ability to serve. This new building will be so very much more than just a structure; it will be a vehicle through which thousands of people each year will be offered hope, opportunity, and regained dignity. This building, she added, will make a difference in the lives of hundreds of men, women, and children, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, members of our community and citizens, people who are homeless in our community each year. She said that she is here tonight out of stewardship for her community, and because she desires and advocates for a healthy community, a sustainable community, one where natural and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secured, education is lifelong, transportation and healthcare are accessible, and all citizens have the opportunity to improve the quality of their lives. This application is submitted to the Board at this time with these intentions in mind. Shelter House staff also left copies of crime reports that look exactly like the documents that Waterfront Neighborhood has submitted to the Board. Through the same document, they highlighted all individuals that were listed in this packet who simply used Shelter House's mailing address. Time and time again, listed individuals are using this address as a mailing address; the incident did not occur at the Shelter House, and they never resided at Shelter House. In other instances, there were proactive visits that occurred, where the staff was looking out for the safety of the neighborhood, and the residents of the shelter. Canganelli pointed out that as you look through this document you will see that many of the incidents are not related to a resident of the shelter. Alexander asked about the relationship, or lack of relationship to the murder charge, and the death of John Stewart. Canganelli answered that John Stewart was not a resident of the shelter. He was a client of the case management program that we have at Shelter House. Alexander asked about the relationship to Steve Lawrence, the alleged perpetrator. Canganelli answered that Lawrence had stopped at the shelter once, but never resided at the shelter. Maurer asked what happens with 331 North Gilbert Street if and when a new Shelter House is built. Canganelli answered that they are convinced that they will have to sell that property to use the capital for the cost of building the new facility. Maurer asked what the current number of persons is at the current shelter. Canganelli answered that the number is 29, but sometimes they double use bed spaces as individuals work third shift, their bed is vacated during the night, so one person can use the bed during the night, and that individual who was working third shift can come back and use it during the day. Wright asked if they were able to look at other properties that might have been realistic. Canganelli answered that they've spent years looking for properties, and most recently they identified one location that is not permissible due to the fact that it is in the flood plain. There were different properties that were identified that went from downtown to the south-east quadrant of town, but most of the properties were too expensive to be developed and fit within any kind of realistic budget.. Charlie Eastham. 1152 E. Court, said that he is the president of the Board of Trustees of the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The Fellowship is a non-profit affordable housing developer that has worked in the community for 14 years. One of the aspects of this application that occurs to him is whether the location of a emergency shelter is going to increase some hazards for folks living in that area. He thinks this is addressed by the management practices, and the Board of Trustees that operates the shelter. Eastham added that in his opinion both the Board of the Shelter House and the current management are well up to those tasks, and are dedicated to a good shelter as well as to safety in the neighborhood. Susan Buradorf, 333 S. Lucas, said that she came to Iowa City, used the shelter, and was turned away with her 3 children for three weeks. Three weeks she spent in her van with her 3 children so the need is definitely there to improve it. She said that she not only has maintained housing, but she also has maintained employment for a year. Burgdorf said she also worked part-time through an internship at the Shelter House. She pointed out that she is the face of homelessness. Ken Lundbv, also identified himself as the face of homeless. He said that he was at the Shelter House when he got out of prison. He mentioned that he had nowhere to go; he had used every resource he could to better himself. Luckily, he said, the Shelter House was there and opened their arms to him, not only to give him a place to live and some meals to eat, but also the opportunity to get back on his feet. He just hoped that the Board will take into consideration the other aspect of, he didn't want to say "criminal aspect," but having that opportunity to allow him to be a success. He has a place to live, and all these things were made possible through the Shelter House. This is a very important issue that needs to be dealt with. Jimmv McCue, 4475 Summit, said that he moved to Iowa City in 1965. He said that there is resentment about the Shelter, and unfortunately, the Shelter House board and staff really cannot do much about it. In the early 90's the shelter frequently boarded between 40 and 45 people. At one point, the Board sought from the Fire Marshall an opinion about what was the maximum legal number of people it could board, and it came to 29. The point is that 10-15 years ago there were frequently 40-50 people there. The population of Johnson County is growing; the percentage of homeless people is growing nationally, as well as at the state level. McCue said that the fact that substantial growth in the size of the shelter being proposed should not seem wild or outrageous, because it fits rather naturally in the broader developments over which the staff and the Board have very little control. Mc Cue said that he would also like to bring up the issue that the sense that many people have that this is a house full of, perhaps, semi-reformed criminals who are a threat. Most of the people have been low-income families, finding it very hard to get a place in Iowa City, which is very expensive. Mc Cue recognizes that they are not all families, but when people talk about the needs of this shelter, one of the needs is access to school and access to daycare, because there are many kids in and out of the place. Another need is transportation to get to work. Except in very extraordinary circumstances, no adult is able to stay there for more than a very short period, unless they are actively looking for, and, before too long, finding a job. As a volunteer, he sometimes saw how people were put out for not fulfilling this requirement. McCue said that he would not enforce these rules as seriously as the staff are. Many places have many rules that do not mean anything. Mc Cue considers that if a person would spend one day watching what happens they would realize that these rules are taken seriously on both sides. He very strongly urges that this exception be approved. James Thomas works for the Star Program, which is a program of the Shelter House. He said looking at him he wants the Board to use word association: black, male, big, Kobe Bryant, OJ Simpson. He said he was trying to illustrate something to all of us, and it is about love more than anything else, because love is really the truth. Homeless people run the gamut, just like black people, white people, and Jewish people. The idea again is, if not in this backyard, whose, because someone is going to be a neighbor of the Shelter House. Shelter House has proven over the years that it is a responsible neighbor. He asked the statistician at the Police Department to run comparative studies of reports over the last two years on reported incidents at 331 North Gilbert and Waterfront. To his surprise, , the Waterfront calls exceeded North Gilbert Street. He said that we have a problem in this community and many of the homeless people need assistance. The question is will they get it now, or will we continue to stumble over the homeless people. Will they continue to sleep in the wilderness, and lose fingers from frost, or will there be an effort to do something about this problem. The problem, Thomas said, is not coming to Iowa City, the problem is already here. Stephanie VanHousen, 1700 1st Avenue, said that she is a substance abuse counselor and case manager for Shelter House's Star project. VanHousen was John Stewart's case manager. He was extremely intoxicated when he was murdered under the bridge, and he was not able to stay at Shelter House no matter how many arms she tried to twist because he was intoxicated. Shelter House staff had known John for years and tried to help him out. Shelter House staff tried to commit him twice two weeks before he died because they knew that he was a danger to himself, not to others, but to himself, because he was unable to take care of himself. Shelter House staff cares about homeless people that are in our community, they do not harbor people within their building that are under the influence of substances; instead, they help them get assessments free of charge, and help them to get into treatment, and get help. Shelter House has done so much to help the addicted low-income and no-income people in our community. It is known that the individual who murdered John Stewart was also a homeless man who recently arrived in town from another community. He did not have roots in this community and many other people did not know him. John Stewart's mother is very grateful for the work that Shelter House has done with her son, and had done to help him get hooked up with the services that he needs. Most of what we do is not only provide shelter, but also connect the people with the kinds of services that can help them become independent individuals. We help them learn to read, we connect them with tutors at Kirkwood, we help them get child-care, and get jobs, things that give people a little bit of dignity. VanHousen stated that she hopes that this site will be approved because this is so needed for the men, women, and especially the children of our community. A Mori Costantino, a 45-year resident of Iowa City on Brown Street, said that when she moved to Iowa City she moved across the street from Gaslight Village. Because of the reputation of Gaslight Village, she stated that they were warned of drunkenness and drugs. There are over 85 residents across the street in one property. As a property owner, she was concerned, but her experience living across the street from an unsupervised place that has so many people living there was one of little trouble. Police were responsive if they needed to come, and absolutely, her property value has not gone down. Luis Sierra, 714 East Jefferson, works for the Iowa City School District as an Education Associate at Horace Mann School. He said that he has seen many homeless kids coming to that school. One of his jobs, as he mentions, was to call the shelter every morning for students who did not show up. Sierra added that children, pre-school, kindergarteners, six-graders, can't be there at school because they can't stay at the shelter because there is no place for them., These businesses that are complaining ought to help by creating internships in their business to help the people who come here to work. He said that he sees children coming before school time and putting food in their pockets because they know that they are not going to have food later on. These are the people you want away from you, shame on you, he said. He stated the District has had over 60 students transition into that school this year, in and out, and to please think about them. Dwiqht Dobberstein, 326 North Linn Street., is on the Shelter House Board, and is the architect who volunteered to design the new facility. Dobberstein states that he brings a perspective of living close to the Shelter House since its creation. He said that he raised two kids in the neighborhood, and finds no rise or change in the amount of crime in the neighborhood. He said that it's actually a pleasure to have the families around because they are becoming surrounded by students. It is quite a nice atmosphere, he added, and there has been no increase in traffic over the years, unless bicycles are considered an increase, because most of the people who come to the Shelter House are on bicycles, or they are walking. The single biggest request, he said, is that they want to help, they want a job, and they want to do work. The facility is needed because many people have been turned away, and this is one of the only places where they can find help, and find possible new jobs. Sara Quartell, 107 East Market Street, is a recent graduate of the University Of Iowa College Of Nursing, and a past Shelter House volunteer. Quartell said that she would like to speak about the public health issues. Currently, the College of Nursing has a program called the Nursing Outreach Program, where at least two students per semester are volunteering at the Shelter House to address any health concerns of the residents, and also to promote wellness. At the current shelter, the students have one corner of the office were the rest of the shelter staff do their work, and they carry all health supplies and information in a backpack that they have to bring back and forth to the Shelter House. In the area where the nursing students interact with the Shelter House clients there is no good area for any sort of confidentiality, where the clients may be able to address any sort of health concerns, or any issues that might come up that a nursing student may be able to help them with. In the current Shelter House, as Quartell notes, there is an increased risk for infectious disease to spread much more rapidly than in an area that had much more space. A separate area where the nursing students can discuss issues in confidentiality with the clients will be a benefit for the public health of Iowa City as a whole, and for those living in Shelter House. Anonvmous. said that the Shelter House is a positive influence to the city, and to deny its existence anywhere is ridiculous, and these people should be ashamed of themselves. He added that to make any decision except in favor of the Shelter House is ridiculous. Patricia Santanqelo, 3035 Stanford Street, a full time volunteer, said that over the winter, she was a part of the shelter overflow project, and she got to know a lot of people one-an-one that way. Because of the local fire restrictions, they had to have 200 square feet of floor space per person, which meant that her church could take up to fourteen. It took a lot to keep this organization going. She said that she would like to ask the people opposed to this, when the organization starts up in November to please come help us, and get to know these people before they move in. Water, food and shelter are the three things people absolutely need to have, and they just do not seem to have it in this area. The Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship also tried to build housing, but several times the Council denied it. There are no places left that we can build this. The Fellowship is building out on the Peninsula because the Council said that there has to be so much affordable housing in the community. Eric Alexander. said that he has been a volunteer at the Iowa City Free Medical clinic for 5 years, and they see many people who put the Shelter House address as their permanent address. Many people have concerns about what this is going to do to their neighborhood, and it will be a shame if their fears are true and you end up inconveniencing these owners, but at the end of the day, they are still homeowners. He encouraged the Board to weigh the inconvenience that they are speculating might be caused by this house, versus what happens when people are turned away, and families and kids are out on the streets. Ravmond Tinnian, 504 1st Avenue, Coralville, the attorney representing the Waterfront Neighborhood, said that there are 45 active members, and about 190 people support their opposition. Before starting the presentation, he gave to the Board petitions signed by 184 residents, business owners, and property owners in the Waterfront area and immediate area near the proposed shelter. He also submitted a map, which has property owners who wish to openly express the opposition to the special exception, marked in red. Tinnian stated that the mobile home park contains 149 homes, 73 families, 87 children, and a little over 300 residents. The vast majority signed the petition and are opposed to the special exception being granted. They feel that the proposed special exception is illegal. Although most of the Waterfront neighbors have no fear or concern about homeless children, and they are not afraid of the poor, or of families that have had bad luck. What the people are concerned about is the actual record, the history of the current Shelter House. They are afraid of transients and potential criminals who are a proven side effect of the existing Shelter House. The Board of Adjustment powers and procedures require that the applicant for a special exception show that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that he had submitted evidence to the Board that the proposed Shelter will be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare by drawing in indigents and criminals from out of state. Evidence submitted to the Board, according to the Shelter House's own information, shows 60-70% of their clients are from outside the region, and they come from somewhere else. He added that according to police logs and police reports, the transients drawn in from out of the county and out of state by the current Shelter House commit a largely disproportionate number of crimes ranging from theft to murder. The applicant has shown no evidence that this will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Further, the staff report, which recommends the approval of the exception, suffers from the same defect, citing no research; they simply make the assertion that there will be no danger to public safety presented by the proposed Shelter House. Therefore, the applicant for the special exception has not met the burden required by law to show that the special exception complies and therefore it ought to be denied as a matter of law. The Board of Adjustment powers and procedures also require that the applicant for special exception show that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In response to this requirement, the applicant has made a wrong assertion that the current Shelter House has not adversely affected the surrounding property or diminished property values. The people who currently live on North Gilbert Street near the current Shelter House do not agree. He asked why the applicant presented no affidavits or statements from adjacent property owners who would confirm her assertion. He argues that only Dobberstein spoke in favor of the Shelter House, but he does not list his address as 326 North Linn Street on the application. Mr. Dobberstein is the architect and the applicant and listed the address of 111 East College Street on the application. Tinnian said he spoke with several property owners and residents who are in the immediate vicinity of the current Shelter House. Most of them did not want their name used, and a lot of them did not want to talk too much because of the fear that they might delay the departure of the Shelter House from their neighborhood. Only one property owner that he spoke to seemed to not care one way or the other whether the Shelter House stays or leaves, and they were not immediately near the Shelter House. Everyone else he spoke with was unanimous in wanting the Shelter House out of their neighborhood. The most common complaint was that there are many people in the yard all day doing nothing. The complaints run to a lot more serious. There are complaints of trespassing and high traffic, which were equally universal complaints by neighbors of the current Shelter House. No one he spoke with said that they like the place. Some were extremely upset. One resident on Davenport Street said that the transients are trespassing, and that you might find transients walking in your backyard for no apparent reason. This person also said that for every 29 they let in the shelter, they turn away another 20 or 30, and these people simply spread out and canvas the neighborhood. He said that it was like living next to a pack of coyotes. One resident who lives in the back of the Shelter House has had worse luck with the transients than anyone Tinnion had talked with. He complained that they drink and use drugs behind the shelter, especially just before 10 PM when it is time to get in. That person also said that they sleep in unlocked cars, that one of them urinated in his car, and they tend to urinate all over the neighborhood. This particular person was assaulted and sent to the emergency room by an attack from a Shelter House client. This was several years ago, but just a few years ago, a Shelter House client broke into his house and stole things. When he confronted the Shelter House Director with evidence, the Director reacted with indignation. This man said that he is not against the construction of the new shelter as long as they put it on the furthest bus stop out of town. Most of the people in the Waterfront Neighborhood would not like to consider themselves as living at the furthest bus stop out of town. According to the evidence submitted, he said that in the past 2 years there have been at least 42 arrests of Shelter House clients, for crimes ranging from simple theft, public intoxication, domestic assault, car theft, assault causing injury, armed robbery, unregistered sex offenders and first- degree murder. This has been in 2 years alone. He said the Waterfront Neighborhood is just as concerned about the clients of the Shelter House as those who use the address of the Shelter House. One person said that the biggest danger was the people that they turn away every night. The proponents of the special exception might say that they will not have to turn away so many people if they can build a new facility. The Waterfront Neighbors do not agree. Most think that in a few years there will be the same proportion of people trying to get in who will not be able to get in, and will be excluded every night and left to wander the streets. If you build it they will come, Tinnian said. This year in the month of March alone, there were six arrests of Shelter House clients in a space of eight days. The crimes were public intoxication, assault causing injury, and most notably, the arrest of transient Stephen Lawrence Moore. Stephen Lawrence Moore is now charged with first- degree murder for the murder of another Shelter House client. In addition, Ms. Canganelli had told the Daily Iowan that Moore had utilized the services of the Shelter House a few times, but he never slept there over night, and earlier at this meeting Ms. Canganelli mentioned that Moore had no relation whatsoever with the Shelter House. Tinnian added that looking at the criminal records there is no way to know who stayed there over night and who didn't, but that anyone who gives the Shelter House as their address is most likely a recipient of their services, and could be defined as Shelter House clients. Ms. Canganelli, responding in a newspaper, said that Moore used the Shelter House program a few times, but then said he did not come anymore,. and was quoted as saying to the reporter that it [the murder] is something deeply personal and not appropriate to respond to. The Waterfront Neighborhood Association disagrees with Ms. Canganelli on this point. They do not believe that first-degree murder is deeply personal; they believe that crimes like this are deeply public. They believe that when your clients and house guests are committing crimes and you're only taking actions that promise more to this new community, that a meaningful public response should not only be appropriate, but ought to be mandatory. This was not the first time that a murderer and the Shelter House somehow found each other. Two years ago there was another man named Anthony Carl at Shelter House. On July 12, 2004 the director of the Shelter House was quoted in the Press-Citizen as saying that they have strict and numerous policies that they apply seriously. The Shelter House has had 20 years to address this problem of crime and there seems to be no improvement; instead, according to the evidence submitted, there was an increase in 2004 in the number of arrests and crimes committed by the Shelter House clients. Tinnian noted that Ms. Canganelli said that they work closely with the police and their neighbors. In fact, the manager of Hilltop wrote Canganelli a very detailed and polite letter, but Canganelli did not respond to that letter. Tinnian said he feels that her words are not necessarily related to her actions. The sixth speaker tonight said that there have been more police calls for the Waterfront Neighborhood than there had been to the Shelter House. Tinnion used the chalk board to present the following scheme: 2 years HILL TOP SHELTER 149 homes 1 home 300 residents 29 residents 26 arrests 42 arrests Analyzing the chart, he said that since the new Shelter House is going to be two-and-a-half times the size of the current one, he expects that you can double those numbers safely. Since the past is the best predictor of future, we expect the new shelter to draw from out of state more than double the number of arm robberies, thieves, sex offenders, and murderers than the current shelter did. We predict that there will be at least 100 arrests when the shelter will be open. The applicant had the burden to show that the proposed shelter will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed transient shelter. He argues that they have offered very little evidence, very little facts. The staff report suffers from the same deficiency. The only parties that offer hard facts here are the respondents from the Waterfront Neighborhood. Hence, the proposed special exception is illegal and it should not be granted. Tinnian also said that the applicant bears the burden to show that there will be no substantial effect on the property values caused by the new shelter house. The concept of use and enjoyment of property is closely linked to property values in any neighborhood. The construction of a transient house in this neighborhood, more than twice the size of the existing shelter, with all the problems currently shown, will self evidently lower the property values in the neighborhood by a substantial amount. As far as the Waterfront Neighborhood can see, the applicant has not researched the effect of the shelter on property values. Crime is the number one factor in devaluing properties. The burden is on the applicant to show that there will be no substantial loss of property value. The applicant has not even attempted to meet this burden. Tinnian stated that the current Shelter House is detrimental to the health, safety, and comfort of residents. The applicant has submitted no good reasons that the Waterfront neighbors have nothing to worry about. Tinnian also addressed a couple of things that the applicant said in the initial speech. One was that we need to protect men and women in our community, that people in our community are being turned away, and we want to serve this community and this neighborhood. In response to this, Tinnian said that 70 % of the clients of the shelter house are not from this community, they are not from this region, and they come from somewhere else. The applicant also said that they have vigorous rules, and they will not harbor criminals. In response, Tinnian said that they do not believe that the shelter will harbor criminals, but the fact is that criminals and the Shelter House are linked. He ended by saying that, under the law, the applicant had the burden to show that the proposal will meet certain criteria. The applicant has failed to meet the burden imposed; therefore, the Waterfront Neighborhood prays that the Board deny the application for a special exception as a matter of fairness and justice, and as a matter of law. Alexander asked what basis they used to determine the 42 arrests, whether these were people who have listed the address of the shelter, or whether the arrests they used occurred at the site of the shelter. Tinnian answered that all of the cited arrests involved the Shelter House address, and. he presumed that they are all clients of the Shelter House. They come from other regions, attracted by Shelter House services. Wright asked the same question but relative to the arrests at Hilltop. Tinnian answered that people from Hilltop say that individuals continue to use that address even after they have moved. Wright asked whether he knew if those arrests occurred at Hilltop. The attorney answered that some yes, some no; they did the search based on what address the suspect gives. Tinnian asked everyone in the room who was a resident of the Waterfront area to raise their hand if they are opposed to the new shelter. Finally, he asked those who are businessmen or property owners in the area, and are opposed to the new shelter, to raise their hand. Anna Buss. 830 Miller Avenue, said that she is a former resident of the Broadway Street area. In 1980, she built a home there. Iowa City has a wide spread reputation for free services. It was stated earlier that many of the residents are not from the Johnson County area. This may be a message that if you build it they will come. Buss addressed an issue that she said is occurring all the time, that of "not in my neighborhood". She said that rather than saying not in my backyard, not in my neighborhood, we should take a look at the area as a whole and say hasn't our neighborhood opened its arms enough at this point. We have HACAP, MECCA, and low-income housing. This whole area is already involved. Buss said that she has managed property in this area for over 14 years. She said that there have been many disturbing changes in the area. She argued that it is increasingly difficult to rent a property south of Highway 6 at any price. She said there is a lot of crime and a lot of it is related to a number of issues that have happened in the area. Econo Foods left the area because of the area's problems.. While new businesses are coming back, they are coming very slowly, and they have been offered some real incentives to come in. She added that at the present time this is a good mix. The applicant has not proved that this will not be detrimental to the area. Take a look at the police logs, and judge for yourself. The Waterfront Neighbors do not want this in their area and the City Council has already been bombarded with petitions from other areas not wanting it in theirs. There must be a reason. Buss, asked the Board to deny this. Isabella Vine, Waterfront Drive, said that even though she sympathizes with the people who are homeless, she has had different experiences with them. Vain stated that as a child she was homeless, and the thing that they feared most were homeless transients who would kill somebody for five dollars, without caring who they hurt and what they got out of it; they just didn't care. She mentioned that her intention is not to say that all homeless persons are like that because she knows that they are not. She asked the Board to look at the criminal records of people who are at the shelter now. The people who are there now have assault records, public intoxication records, drug abuse records. These are the people who live there now. Craia Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront, the manager of the Hilltop Mobile Home Park, said that in 1994, his parents bought Hilltop and they have done a remarkable job of keeping it safe and quiet for the residents. The proposed shelter represents a huge safety concern. The bottom line is where will the drug addicts, violent criminals and sex offenders go when they are turned away at midnight. There are 149 lots, 73 families and 87 children next door in Hilltop. The number one job is to keep the residents safe. If this shelter is built, it will put an enormous burden on those residents and businesses in the area. They are not against a homeless shelter, but rather the ones that are turned away, where will they go when they are turned away. He agreed that if you build it they will come. Jovce Barker, a 16-year resident of Hilltop, said that in the past Hilltop has had its share of problems, but they have worked very hard at making it a safe place. She said that when she moved there, after paying all bills they had only 40 dollars to live on the rest of the month, but they cared, they helped, and they have been there for their neighbors. The majority of the people that live there have the same money issue, but they all go to work, they all do their part. She considers that the biggest problem is the people that are turned away, who might harm the children. She personally takes the Broadway bus home every night, and she hears conversations in the back of the bus, people who talk about what they can get for free in Iowa City so that they don't have to work. Iowa City cares, and that is why they are coming here and bringing others, but that does not mean that we have to take care of the world. Thomas Ortelle, a business owner, said that he was one of the first to develop in the Southgate subdivision. The reason for moving there was that it was a commercial area, he was looking for competitive business to come there to help his business grow. He said that he feels for the homeless, that he too was one of those at some point, but he said that the City has a responsibility here and should quit putting problems in this area. He argues that the City has property near the airport, and that they should place the shelter there and run a bus for them, and that property will not cost that much. Ortelle argued that MECCA is already there, and the Domestic Violence shelter. People need protection and they do not need more problems. The shelter needs a place, but this is not the right place; this is a commercial area. Also, you have children out there, along with the people from Hilltop. This is not going to go away. Ortelle considers the airport a better option. Steve Duell, Waterfront, a resident of Hilltop, runs a consulting business. He mentions that he is a former homeless person, and acknowledges that homelessness can happen. Duell added that it was pointed out that the applicant must prove that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the community, whom the Board must consider just as much as the homeless. He said that there are two edges that have to be considered while making this decision. One is the rights of the transient human beings; the other is the concern of the community. The nurse that spoke this evening pointed out that there is a concern for disease in the shelter as it currently exists. Around the curve between the softball park and railroad tracks, there is a semi-permanent tent city where he is informed by other residents that objects fly off the trains as they pass by, land in the bushes, and are picked up by people without driving licenses or social security cards. He is suggesting that if there is a three- story facility within a five-minute walk from that railroad track, you could be creating two concerns: you're helping something he is sure you don't want to help in terms of underground economy, and if the people living in the tent city have hepatitis or other diseases and they come to the shelter attempting to qualify to shower, they will be increasing the risk of health problems, and also the flow of undocumented people. Sue Schmucker, 2957 Washington Street, an area commercial property owner, has concerns about this type of building in any commercial zone. She mentions that when they lock their business, there is no one there to see or hear. There have been a rash of fires in commercial properties recently. She argues that it would be better to build transient houses in a residential area where people are there all the time and can hear what is going on. She ended by saying that she is also concerned about the cut-through traffic on Southgate and running this type of operation in a commercial zone. Melissa Williams, an area business owner, said that she questions the integrity of the project, lumping struggling people together in one place. She considers that the area already has HACAP and MECCA, and she questions what will happen if we will add one more to the mix. She said that she has been vandalized twice, and she considers that it has a lot to do with the fact that there are many people wandering area streets at night. She said that many times there are people in the dumpsters and stealing from outside businesses. She said that it is a shared problem; everybody shares a part of it. She considers that it is a major problem to put all human service uses in one spot, turning our heads and walking away. Joyce Barker said the people that live in tents are there for quite a while. She mentioned that a businessman in the area offered one of them a job for seven dollars an hour. He laughed in his face and walked away. She questions whether more of these people will camp out in the neighborhood. Jeffrev Bond, 2018 Waterfront, stated that he is not afraid of the people who are in the shelter house, but of those who are turned away. He argues that they will have two choices: MECCA, or the mobile home park, and because MECCA is not a 24-7 institution they will turn to the park. He also states that mobile homes are not manufactured with security in mind, which makes it easy to kick in a door. Bond presented the idea that both the shelter and the County jail could have a common location that might be cheaper for both, and might get approved in a vote. Lorie Dahlen. 2018 Waterfront Drive, one of the managers of the Hilltop, said that recently a new family moved into Hilltop and that they hired a homeless person to help them. She related that this homeless person is afraid, and that his friends are afraid too, that there will be more people coming from the Chicago area to live in the larger shelter. She added that there are around 70 persons in Hilltop that are single, or who possibly have a roommate. She said that she is single, and she does not feel safe. She also said that last year there was a person running around in the park who just escaped from MECCA. She said that this new development does not have a positive effect on the neighborhood; she is afraid of their security and urges the Board to look for a better site. Mark Bentlv, 900 Sandusky Drive, said that property owners are concerned about their property values. The neighborhood's plate is full, and we don't need any more issues because, he argues, there are enough issues right now. Matt Neelv, 2018 Waterfront, founder of the Waterfront Neighborhood Association, said that he has done research on crimes related to the current Shelter House, and was surprised about the predominance of theft and violent types of crimes. He added that people in Hilltop and area businesses work hard for what they have, and he believes that the proposed shelter is not in their interest or in the interest of the community. John Cress. a business owner in the area, asks what will happen to the people that will be turned away. He is also opposed to changing the zoning of commercial property when it is hard to find commercial property available for uses in Iowa City, and approving this use would take a commercial property out of the market._ Christina Burns, Sandusky Drive, said that they worked very hard to stop the crime and save the reputation of the neighborhood. She questions whether this is the right place for the shelter. She argues that one thing the shelter staff also needs to think of is the safety of men and women who are in the nearby domestic violence shelter. Thomas Ortelle said that people who work at Goodwill are handicapped and he is worried about the safety of these kids. He is concerned that a sex offender who is turned away from the Shelter may prey on the kids who take the bus to work at Goodwill or get of the bus at the domestic violence shelter. He asks whether the Board will take responsibility for making these safety decisions, and urges that putting the homeless in an area with kids and the disabled is wrong. Anonvmous said that he is concerned about the security of the neighborhood businesses. He considers it is a very vulnerable situation when it comes to security as it is not like a residential neighborhood where people are around. He said that he could talk about the integrity of Mike Dylan, the manager of Hilltop, because he has known him for a long time. He said he had improved management at Hilltop and it has been a much better neighborhood over the last several years. He argues that anytime there was an issue, anyone could go and ask for help from Mike. He added that his security concerns are not due to his neighbors at Hilltop. Abbv Buraess, staff member of Shelter House works the overnight shift alone there, and she also works in very crowded periods, and has handed blankets to people that have been turned away by the shelter, and wants to say that these people are just as afraid of people who are afraid of them, if not even more. They are also afraid that they have no place to sleep overnight, and that the environment is going to weather them, and cause health issues, and they have no place to live. Charlie Eastham said that the underlying concern is the issue of crime and violence. He added that the arrest numbers presented were very strange, and should be adjusted to reflect the more than 800 people who have stayed at the shelter in the last two years. Eastham disagrees with the assumption that the shelter serves as a magnet that attracts undesirable people here or that people are coming to Iowa City and committing crimes because of the shelter. He stated that people come here for lots of reasons and they get in trouble for many reasons, and many of them find the shelter as a helpful institution in time of trouble. Kafi Dixon, 2631 Westwinds Drive, a staff person at Shelter House for 3 years, said that she hears people using the word transient. She stated that Iowa City is a transient community, people come for a variety of reasons; she said that she came here to go to school. People have the right to have shelter even if they are transients coming for a better life. These people are here, the need is here. The worst thing is to turn families with children away. She argued that people need to take fear out of the way and look at the critical need that these people have. Jerrv Anthonv, 713 Eastmoor Drive. an architect and a planner that lives in Iowa City, said that he is really concerned about the quality of life that we offer here, the nature of the environment and the policies that we have here. He said that he is in support of the approval of the special exception for three reasons. First, he said that there is a big need for a larger, expanded facility in the community. This Shelter House has a capacity of 29, and demand is much more than that. Every year the shelter house turns away many people. There is a big unmet demand that needs to be met. Meeting these demands is required in our master plan. The people of the community have expressed through the master plan that we need to meet this demand. The community as a whole is committed to meeting this demand for this new shelter. Second, Anthony stated that zoning is a public policy predicated on the notion of public welfare. The Board of Adjustment, he added, needs to consider the public of Iowa City and not a group of 200 people. There are costs and benefits to any decision, and the Board must consider the benefits to the community as a whole and weigh them against the burden to a small group of the public. Anthony argued that the benefits for the larger community are greater than the neighborhood's burden for two reasons. He said that there is a large unmet need in the community, and by building this expanded facility, we will be able to meet some more need. Next, he said that by having so many people turned away, we have people dispersed in different locations, so we have dispersed crime affecting more people. If you have an expanded facility, you have more people housed in one place. The opponents of this proposal fear that property values will go down. Anthony said that research nationally shows that property values do not necessarily go down. Property values might not increase at the same rate as they would without the shelter house there, but they do not ever go down. Anthony stated that the third reason for supporting the application is the danger of exclusionary zoning. The zoning powers that the City exercises requires it to accept all kinds of land uses except those that are illegal. If, after diligent efforts, we do not allow Shelter House to locate their expanded facility, we might face litigation on exclusionary zoning, and if we are found guilty of that, the federal money that we get for various community services will be threatened. Anthony said that he would like to answer to some of the charges made by the opponents of the application. The first was that the Board of Adjustment needs to ensure that the proposal is not detrimental to, or endangering of the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The public welfare at issue here is the welfare of the entire public of Iowa City and it is not the welfare of a small group of people. No one says bring the shelter house to my neighborhood, or in my backyard. You have to strike a balance somewhere because under the current zoning regulations the Shelter House cannot be located as a matter of right in any zoning district. Miklo clarified that transient housing could be located in a CB-2 zone by right and in several other zones by special exception. Notwithstanding this fact, Anthony argued that the Board of Adjustment needs to make policies that help the larger public, not a small group of the public. Steve Smith said that the Waterfront Neighborhood attorney did not talk with him, and he lives in the current Shelter House neighborhood. Smith said he goes by the Shelter House two or three times a day, and has never had a problem. He said that they should talk to the neighbors that really know what is going on there._ Alexander asked the applicant to address the concern about the activities of the people who are turned away. Canganelli answered that a great deal of individuals use the address of the shelter, but the incidents have nothing to do with the site of the shelter. She added that the shelter is open until 10 PM for curfew for residents, and stays open 24 hours a day and continues to receive people over night. Therefore, if the police bring someone in the middle of the night and they are in the need of shelter and there is space, the shelter will take them. If someone is turned away due to a substance abuse issue, the shelter will try to get them into treatment. Leigh asked how long the shelter has been at the current location. Canganelli answered that September will be their 30th anniversary. Canganelli also mentioned that there was an allusion to the fact that this will be a danger to the residents at the Domestic Violence Shelter (DVIP), and she said that many times a resident of the DVIP has been a resident of the shelter or someone who was not been able to access DVIP is a resident of the shelter. There is no clear differentiation between the people in these two locations. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Leigh moved to approve the EXC04-00016, an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit Transient Housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive, subject to general compliance with the submitted site plan including a landscape buffer being provided along the east property line, an 8 foot tall privacy fence provided along the south property line, and compliance with the exterior guidelines be approved. Alexander seconded the motion. Maurer said that Iowa City is probably looked upon as one of the leaders in the area of philanthropic endeavors for people of all different disadvantages. As we look at this, we must come under the general standards for this special exception to apply. Maurer stated that he has a problem with some of these. Will this be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare? He stated that the public most affected by this is the public in the immediate vicinity and it is more important to them than to the rest of the public. Maurer determined that as for the public health, safety, and comfort, there are enough people that are uncomfortable with what is proposed. Maurer then looked to the next standard, asking whether the proposed use is injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties. Maurer said that there were serious questions about this. He also looked to the standard of whether it would substantially diminish or impair property values. Maurer stated that this is a big issue that cannot be determined for sure until someone decides to sell property in the area if and when the Shelter House is located there. He added that he checked with a number of realtors about the shelter at 331 North Gilbert, and everyone told him that area property values have substantially diminished. The closer to 331 N. Gilbert, the more likely there is a diminishment in property values. He added that he has less a problem with property values as he does with others' comfort, safety, and health. Holecek said that from the evidence heard today, the board has to conclude that each of these standards has been met to approve the special exception. Maurer said that he has a problem finding all of the standards have been met, and that he would vote against the building of the Shelter House in this location. Wright said that he does not believe that the special exception will be detrimental overall to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He added that he believes that this exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties. Wright said that the establishment of the shelter will not interfere with normal orderly development, and the improvement of properties in the area, nor it will be problematic in terms of access to roads, drainage, and other necessary physical facilities. Wright stated that he believes that this meets the standards for the special exception as established in the CI-1 zone, and for these reasons he intends to vote in favor. Leigh said that for her this issue has a more personal perspective because 331 North Gilbert is a North Side address and she also has a North Side address. She mentioned that she has lived within 3 or 4 blocks of the Shelter House for the last 20 years. She said that she works within 1 block of Shelter House. She mentioned that she passes Shelter House daily, because she likes to walk. For the negative impact that the Shelter House has had on her, she said that it is welcome to remain in the neighborhood for as long as it pleases. She said that she is employed at Mercy Hospital, and for 4 years she has left that facility between 11 :30 and 12:30 at night to walk home. No people turned out at midnight were apparent to her. She mentioned that another perspective that she has is that she is an active member of the North Side Neighborhood Association. That is also a vocal community, and the only complaints about the Shelter House that she is aware of, have been related to aesthetics and the unkempt lawn. People dealing with the issues that these people are dealing with probably have greater needs in mind than the aesthetics. Leigh said that this proposal has met the standards and will vote in favor of this. Alexander said that for the reasons already mentioned she would also vote in favor of the special exception. She added that we are at greater risk of endangering the public health and general welfare by having too many people sleeping under bridges than having them in a place where they are going to receive services that they very badly need. Motion carried 3-1 (Maurer voting in the negative). EXC04-00017 Discussion regarding an application submitted by Cynthia Parsons for a special exception to 1) reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet, 2)reduce a portion of the side yards from 3 feet to 0 feet and 3) allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street. While presenting the staff report, Boswell showed a slide show of the properties in discussion, with the proposed duplex and elevation, photo of the area, and back yards and front yards of the two properties. Boswell said that Ms. Parsons owns two adjoining parcels on the north side of East Washington Street in the RS-8 zone. The building at 1128 E. Washington is slated for demolition in the near future, and the applicant proposes to build a new duplex on the lot. She further proposes to demolish the unit at 1130 in the near future, and rebuild on that lot as well. Boswell stated that duplexes are allowed as a provisional use in the RS-8 zone, if the lot is equal to or greater than 8,700 square feet, with the design subject to the requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The lots at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington are each 8,702 square feet, so a duplex is possible in each lot. One roomer per unit is allowed as a provisional use in each duplex, if an off-street parking space is provided for the roomer. This brings the maximum allowable occupancy of each unit to three persons and of each duplex to six persons. Six off-street parking spaces would be required for each duplex, if there were roomers. The applicant proposes to accommodate the required parking spaces by providing a two-car garage in the rear of each unit, with an additional space or garage for the roomers located in the rear of the property. In order to access the parking behind the duplexes, the applicant has proposed a shared driveway that is centered on the property line between 1128 and 1130 E. Washington. Drives are normally required to be completely contained within the individual lot, and no closer than three feet to the property line. A special exception is therefore sought to allow for a shared drive. This exception is dependent upon the submission of legal document that acts as a covenant for current and future property owners. Boswell said that the required front yard setback in the RS-8 zone is twenty feet, and the applicants propose to situate the new duplexes 17 feet from property line, an action that also requires a special exception. Boswell added that the Comprehensive Plan states, "Portions of the Central Planning District located to the north and east of downtown contain older neighborhoods where issues of neighborhood integrity are of concern. Where existing zoning allows redevelopment at a higher density, the City Council has indicated that measures should be taken to assure that the new structures are designed to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood". Neighborhood integrity is mentioned again in the Highlights of the Central Planning District section at the end of the chapter. This issue, Boswell stated, is of particular concern in this case, as the new buildings will support a higher density in this established neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance also notes that special attention should be given to landscaping and site design in the RS-8 zone. Boswell stated that the Comprehensive Plan notes that older neighborhoods of the Central Planning district feature less car-dominated images at the street level than modern subdivisions, and that those designs can be successfully copied by infill development. Most homes on the north side of this block are served by driveways in the side yards that provide access to garages located at the rear of the home or in the rear yard. The proposed shared drive and rear-access garages mimic this development pattern in an appropriate manner. Boswell said that a lack of public open space in the Central Planning District is also noted in the Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment in this area should therefore provide adequate private open space for residents. Most homes on the north side of this block of Washington Street have large rear yards that back up to Ralston Creek and the Woodlawn Historic Preservation District, which allows residents private open space not available in the small front and side yards. In the applicant's initial proposal, however, impermeable surfaces comprised 76% of the lot area. Staff and applicant have therefore reworked the proposed parking area in the rear of the lots, in order to limit the amount of paving and to provide more open space for future residents. Staff feels that the changes make this proposal more closely resemble the rest of the neighborhood, and that the resulting access/parking plan is of sufficient quality to grant the exception for a shared drive. Boswell stated that staff feels that there is a unique situation on this block that lends support to the requested exception from the front yard requirement. Visual inspection and aerial photos presented by Boswell show that the homes on the north side of Washington Street in this area have smaller setbacks than in other parts of the city. The average of the front-yard setbacks on the block is less than fourteen feet. Thus, Staff feels that a front setback of seventeen feet is appropriate for these two properties. Boswell mentioned that the City Assessor's records show that all homes on this block of Washington Street were built prior to 1940, and that most were built around 1900. As such, the houses are somewhat small by today's standards. In order to mitigate the perception of scale, Staff and applicant have refined the proposals somewhat. New elevation drawings specify exterior design that serves to define the two units of each duplex as unique, and to break up the mass of the buildings. Staff feels that the proposed changes to the façade are more compatible with the neighborhood, and are appropriate conditions to the granting of a front setback exception. Boswell stated that staff feels that the location of the two lots in question does present a unique situation that justifies the reduction of the front yard setback requirement. The character of the neighborhood also supports an exception for a shared drive. The rear of these two lots lies in the Ralston Creek floodplain; this may be why most homes in this area are located nearer the street than usual. This and the neighborhood character lead to a practical difficulty in placing the proposed buildings farther back on the lot. Boswell added that in addition to determining whether the situation is unique and if there is a practical difficulty in complying with the Zoning Ordinance, the Board also must find that the applicant meets several standards spelled out in chapter 14-6W-2-B. Staff feels that the proposed exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will not contribute to traffic congestion, and that adequate facilities exist for this development. Analyzing the additional standards used to judge the merits of requests for yard reductions, Boswell stated that the exceptions are minimal in relation to the requirement, in terms of square footage. The proposed redesign of the porch and parking areas mitigate the loss of front and side yard space. He also said that the total occupancy of each parcel would double under the proposal. The density change is a result of the redevelopment that is allowed by right in the RS-8 zone, and not a function of the special exceptions. The proposed buildings and lot design will be stylistically similar to other homes in the neighborhood. Staff feels the redesigned elevations and site plan will limit the effects on the neighborhood. He also mentioned that smaller buildings that are similar in scale to the existing homes on this block would allow for a side drive with rear parking without the need for additional garages or paved area. Boswell said that the applicant has the right to redevelop the property in accordance with the RS-8 zone requirements, and the special exception process allows the City to address issues of scale and open space. Staff feels that granting special exceptions for the front yard setback and for the shared drive will result in a better site plan that respects the characteristics of the neighborhood. Therefore, the exceptions are justified. Staff recommends that EXC04-00017, a special exception requesting 1) a shared driveway on two lots, and 2) reduction of the front yard setback for the principle structure on each of two parcels in the RS-8 zone on East Washington Street, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission to and approval by the City Attorney, of a covenant providing for the perpetual maintenance of the shared driveway; and 2. Submission to and approval by the Director of Planning, of an elevation drawing and site plan which indicate the nature of exterior elements of the proposed buildings and the design of the parking areas, and general adherence to these documents during construction. Orders of the Board of Adjustment are generally valid for a period of six months, though the Zoning Ordinance states that the time frame may be extended for good cause. The applicant has noted that she intends to move forward with this proposal at 1128 E. Washington this summer, but the property at 1130 is leased through July 2005. Applicant initially discussed a two-year window in which to take action upon the order. Staff is currently in the process of rewriting the Zoning Ordinance, and any changes to the Ordinance will supersede any order of the Board. Staff feels that a one-year time frame is appropriate for applicant to request any necessary permits under the current Ordinance. Wright asked what percent of the back lot would be paved under the second plan. Boswell answered that in the first proposal there was 75% of the entire lot, and the second proposal is significantly less than that due to the reduction of the amount of paving in this general vicinity. We are trying to get as much open space as possible given the lack of open space noted in the Comprehensive Plan for the Central Planning District. The front yard reduction pushes that building to the front. It does reduce front yard open space. The purpose of the shared drive is to reduce the amount of paving on site, therefore it seems reasonable to try to reduce the amount of paving in the rear as well. Maurer asked if the parking indicated at the rear of the lot are garages or just parking spaces, and what is between them. Referring to the site plan, Boswell answered that in the initial proposal, there were garages to provide the required parking for roomers. . In the second proposal, the parking is divided and there is open space between, and the parking indicated are either garages, or lots. They're not required to be covered, just to be off street. If there is a family living in this building that does not takeroomers, the additional parking is not required, so there will be no need for additional paving in the rear. Leigh noted that the site plan shows 4 covered spaces, and asked how many more were needed to allow for maximum occupancy. Boswell answered that for each building, it's a duplex and can have one roomer per unit. In one half there can be up to 3 occupants, and in the other half there can be 3 more, so it requires 6 spaces per building. On the lowest floor of each building, in the rear there is a two-car parking garage, so each unit has two, two-car garages and two additional spaces. Public Hearinq Opened Cindv Parsons, the applicant, 1131 E. Washington St, said that they are happy with proposed changes. She considers that the changes bring a better look to their property that will fit in better than what they originally planned. Parsons said that they are working with their draftsman to get those reduced to what is envisioned there. She pointed out that they live across the street from these units, and are interested in having a nice looking property across the street. GarvKlinefelter, 1131 E. Washington St, said that they also reduced the driveway width, which was originally proposed to be 12 feet, to 10 feet, so there is going to be a little more green space between the buildings. He said that the schemes presented are not as massive as they may appear in the two-dimensional plan. Mindv Tuttle, 1126 E. Washington St, said that it sounds that with the way that this is zoned, the issue the Board is dealing with is whether there are objections to the unit they are proposing, and the exception issues that were addressed in the letter. Boswell answered that there is no specific design review for this property. When we grant a yard reduction we can impose additional constraints to that, because a bigger building, closer to the front of the lot has some impact. The Board has to decide whether there is a unique situation that allows for that reduction. For the shared drive, the issue is whether it is justified and can be maintained over time. Tuttle asked if the Board is looking long range, if someone will purchase that property how would it affect that. Tuttle said that one of the concerns in the neighborhood is that there are fewer single-family dwellings, so it becomes more difficult for home owners to deal with student populations and high density populations moving into the area as it becomes larger. Tuttle said that the RS-8 zone allows for 3-bedroom unit on each site. So if the density issue relates to the zoning of the property, then this is not the place to deal with the density/zoning issue. Holecek, and Boswell answered that that is correct. Boswell added that staff is in process of rewriting the Zoning Code, and the issue of density in RS-8 zones will be revisited. Tuttle said that the proposal to make the two structures look different is a good thing to do. Another concern, she mentioned, is taking away green space, but the changes are good. Tuttle asked about the height of the structure in comparison with other homes. Miklo said that in redrafting the Zoning code, one of the things proposed is that in the RS-8 zone, duplexes would only be allowed on corner lots, and not on interior lots. Tuttle said that when you allow development in the way they are proposing, you are assuming that if it is a family each person there has a vehicle, , and it does reduce the parking on the street. Boswell said that the height of the building is of concern, but has been worked on and refined. Public Hearino Closed MOTION: Wright moved to approve special exception EXC04-00017 regarding an application submitted by Cynthia Parsons for a special exception to 1) reduce the front yards. from 20 feet to 17 feet, and 2) allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single- Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission to and approval by the City Attorney, of a covenant providing for the perpetual maintenance of the shared driveway; and 2. Submission to and approval by the Director of Planning, of an elevation drawing and site plan which indicate the nature of exterior elements of the proposed buildings and the design of the parking areas, and general adherence to these documents during construction. Alexander seconded. Alexander said that she is voting in favor because it will be in compliance with the comprehensive plan, the front setback is not inconsistent within the neighborhood, it is a unique situation, it will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or contribute to traffic congestion, and adequate facilities exist for the development. The exceptions are minimal in the relationship to the requirement in terms of square footage. The population density is the result of the redevelopment that is allowed by right in the RS-8 zone, and it should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Alexander added that it is in similar scale with existent homes, and does seem to meet the interest of justice for the property owner. Maurer stated that he will vote in favor of the motion for the reasons previously mentioned. Wright said that for the reasons stated will also vote in favor. He said he appreciates the effort of the staff and the landowners in redesigning this in a much more aesthetic and pleasing arrangement for the neighborhood. Leigh said that for the reasons previously stated she will also vote in favor. The motion passed with a vote of 4-0. OTHER NONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Next meeting will be on August 11, 2004. All members announced that they would be present. ADJOURNMENT Maurer moved to adjourn; Alexander seconded. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus s:/pcd/minuteslboaJ2004/boa07 ·14-Q4.doc Board or Commission: Board of Adjustment ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 J ulv 14, 2004 TERM NAME EXP. II 14/04 2/11/04 3/1 0/04 4/14/04 5/12/04 6/9/04 7/14/04 8/11/04 9/8/04 10/13/04 11110/04 Carol Alexander 1/1/08 NM X X X NM X X Dennis Keitel 111105 NM X X X NM X 0 Karen Leigh 1/1107 NM X X X NM X X Vincent Maurer 111/06 NM 0 X OlE NM X X Michael Wright 1/ 1109 NM X X X NM X X KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = AbsentJExcused NM = No meeting -- = Not a Member m MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 1,2004 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon MEMBERS EXCUSED: Jerry Hansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Tokey Boswell OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Angstman, John Hayek RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, REZ04-00016, the rezoning of approximately 1.20-acres at 1901 Broadway Street from Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) to Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) subject to 8 parking spaces being marked with signs indicating that they are reserved for residential tenants. Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-0-1 (Anciaux recused himself), SUB04-00016, "East Side Ground Water Storage Reservoir," a 4-acre one-lot subdivision located on the north side of Lower West Branch Road east of Taft Avenue. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, to amend the Planning and Zoning Commission By-Laws, Section 10, Conflict of Interest, as originally requested to allow a Commissioner to stay in the chambers but not to participate in the discussion of items in which they have a personal interest. CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Made by Anciaux. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM / SUBDIVISION ITEM: REZ04-00013/SUB04-00021, discussion of an application submitted by Regency Land Company LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone/Low Density Single-Family (SAO/RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Mackinaw Village Estates, a 75.25-acre subdivision including two 16-unit multi-family buildings, 72 town house style dwellings and 93 single family lots located north of Foster Road. Miklo said the property was located between Foster Road and Interstate 80. The Comprehensive Plan indicated that this area should be low density. It currently had limited access by Foster Road however the Comprehensive Plan did propose a loop street which would connect Foster Road to Laura Drive. The preliminary plat being presented to the Commission provided for the beginning of the loop street, so Staff felt it complied with that element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encouraged the clustering of development away from the sensitive areas on the property and from the Interstate. In general, the plat also conformed to those elements as well. The lots along the Interstate were quite deep and contained a 150-foot dwelling setback from the Interstate so they would not be exposed to so much of the effects of the Interstate. A landscape buffer consisting of a variety of evergreens and deciduous trees was proposed adjacent to the Interstate. City Forestry had suggested a bit more variety in terms of the tree species for that area. Staff would work with the developer's landscape architect to hopefully come to an agreement before the next Commission meeting. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the variances it allowed were being used to cluster density in designated areas while leaving larger RS-5 lots. The more dense areas contained the equivalent of RS-8 Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 2 lots. Two 16-unit two-story multi-family buildings were proposed. Staff felt that with architectural care those buildings would be compatible with what was proposed for the neighborhood. The units would contain architectural features which Staff felt would help to breakdown their scale. Staff had talked to the City's Transportation Planner who felt that the one driveway for the two buildings would be adequate. 32- units would be the top number the City would want to allow as acceptable with only one driveway to the area. The other lots where clustering was proposed to occur would have a series of town-house designs on them. Staff were working with the applicant and a note would be placed on the Sensitive Areas Development Plan to help assure that a variety of facades and models would be used. Staff had some minor design concerns about the townhouses on Lots 20 through 21. A gas pipeline easement on the north side of these lots would make a rear loaded garage more difficult so there would be quite a bit more pavement in the front yards. The applicant had agreed to work with Staff to make some architectural changes to tone down the dominance of the front yard paving and the blank garage façade by bringing the porch and residential element forward. Miklo said clustering was also proposed to occur in the area where essentially RS-8 lots were proposed in the RS-5 zone. The applicant did not have specific house plans for those smaller lots yet and had requested some flexibility rather than having to pin the designs down at this time. The solution proposed by Staff was to have a note on the plat indicating that these lots would comply with the Zoning Ordinance which specified that when variances were given there would be options for minimizing the paving in the front yard and the dominance of the garage. At the time of final plan approval that issue could be handled. The tree protection plan was a major issue that Staff felt still needed work. There were some trees along Foster Road and in the ravine areas along the back of some lots which Staff felt could be protected in the intent and spirit of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Staff would work with the applicant to resolve those issues. Many of the woodlands occurred where there were steep slopes. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance discouraged their removal due to erosion control issues. An area of 1.77 acres of open space would be required to be dedicated for a subdivision of this size. The applicant had indicated that the trail would probably be the best site for the dedication of the open space. Staff would revisit that issue with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Miklo said for other subdivisions along the river, the riverfront had basically been dedicated to the City for neighborhood or public open space or for park land. The applicant had expressed concerns regarding potential development across the river and that this land might be valuable some day. They did not wish to give it to the City then have the City develop it and compromise their neighborhood. A covenant or restriction could be placed on the dedicated land so it could not be used for anything other than park land. Dedication removed maintenance and liability responsibilities from the homeowners association. The applicant was under no obligation to dedicate more than the required 1.77-acres. Miklo said at this time Staff was not ready to recommend approval. If the issues he had mentioned could be resolved Staff would recommend approval of this application. Public discussion was opened. Jim Anqstman, Regency Land Company, LLC, said Bob Miklo and Karen Franklin had been excellent to work with. They had done a very good job of guiding the project to get it to this point. This was Regency Land Company's first time building something in Iowa City. They felt it was a beautiful piece of land and wanted to do everything they could to meet the Commission's expectations for the land in both the appearance of the products as well as saving as many of the trees and sensitive and restricted areas as possible. Angstman said they liked to save every tree possible. They planned to have a variety of facades, colors and different texture brick so everything would not look identical. They'd instructed their engineer to start work on the tree protection plan, for trees outside the sensitive areas they intended to identify and try to save every tree possible. With respect to the land in the flood plains along the river, Angstman said the ownership felt they would rather not have that land available for future development based upon what might be constructed on the other side of the river. At this time they would prefer to keep it as private land for the homeowners rather than public land. He'd spoken with Karen Franklin earlier in the day and felt there was some room for negotiation on that. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 3 It was the intent of Regency Land Company to keep as much as the housing affordable as possible. They had a very strong product line of homes for middle class move up families. They felt their products would bring in families and turn this into a very first-class neighborhood, which was their goal. Freerks asked if Regency Land Company had ever done a development similar to this in the past with sensitive areas. Angstman said currently on Blair's Ferry Road in Cedar Rapids they were doing a smaller 6-acre development called Towering Oaks which was in a very sensitive area. They were utilizing low- impact development. It would be a gated fenced community that would be totally self-contained. Because it was a home-owners association, they were not held to the standard of 28- or 31-foot concrete streets. The property contained over 100 large mature oak trees. They'd had their landscape architect go out and rate every tree on the development. Instead of using concrete streets which would have damaged the root systems of many of the trees they had opted for rolled asphalt drives which had saved a large percentage of the trees due to the low impact development being used. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ04-00013/SUB04-00021, a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone/Low Density Single-Family (SAO/RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Mackinaw Village Estates, a 75.25-acre subdivision including two 16-unit multi-family buildings, 72 town house style dwellings and 93 single family lots located north of Foster Road. Brooks seconded the motion. Shannon said he had a concern with the trees proposed to be used for the buffer. He was familiar with that area and with nearly 60,000 cars a day driving by on the Interstate the poplar trees would not stop the noise. The poplars would grow and die quickly. He'd prefer to see a row of more substantial hardwood trees such as oak be planted for a long term buffer. Miklo said in terms of the poplar trees, it was a technique that was used to give a quick, 3-10 year buffer relying on the other trees to grow and mature. Shannon said there would still only be black hills spruce trees left. He urged the developer to consider planting long-term hardwood trees as well. Angstman said Staff had requested at least two different species of trees be used in the buffer. Miklo said staff would work with the landscape architect to come up with a solution. Angstman said they would do what ever needed to be done to make it work. Freerks urged Regency Land Company to work closely with Staff as far as conservation of the better quality mature hardwood trees, as it would improve the area and the lots. She said there were also many developments in Cedar Rapids that were doing that same type of conservation. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZONING ITEM: REZ04-00016, discussion of an application submitted by Abraham Enterprises for rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for 1.2-acres of property located at 1901 Broadway Street. Boswell said this was the site of the former Colonial Park Office building which had sat vacant for many years after the office building had burned down. A new building had been constructed during the past winter with commercial space on the first floor and residential space above. The property was currently zoned Commercial Office (CO-1). One intent of a CO-1 zone was to serve as a buffer between residential zones and more intensive commercial areas. This parcel did not act as such a buffer to any great extent. Staff felt the law office across the street acted as more of a buffer between the Pepperwood Plaza and the High-Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) neighborhood to the east and south. The redevelopment of Pepperwood Plaza was expected to bring in new users and uses into that area. The rezoning to CC-2, Community Commercial, would allow some flexibility and a greater range of uses, and turn the area into a more comprehensive commercial corridor. The applicant felt that the rezoning would allow him to more readily complete the leasing of the commercial properties on the first floor of his building. The City's Housing and Inspection Services confirmed that they had had applicants come before them to inquire about the commercial space only to find out that their proposed use would not be Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 4 permitted or would require a special exception under the current zoning. They concurred that a CC-2 zoning would allow these uses to take advantage of the existing space in this area and would grant greater flexibility to both tenants and owner. In a CO-1 zone residential was allowed on the second floor as a provisional use; in a CC-2 zone it would require a special exception. When a request for a special exception went before the Board of Adjustment, Staff frequently required a few additional provisions to ensure that residential would exist in harmony with commercial uses. In this particular case those provisions would include additional landscaping that would visually buffer it from the rest of the area and parking spaces reserved for residential tenants. The site plan that was on file with Housing and Inspection services contained a landscape plan which would require its completion before a certificate of occupancy would be issued. Staff had concerns that the mixed use of commerciallretail and residential might possibly experience some parking issues and recommended that this rezoning be approved subject to the installation of signs designating eight parking spaces were reserved for residential tenants. Staff wished to note that the Good Neighbor Policy had been used as intended. The applicant had written a letter to the neighbors explaining what was intended to happen on the site and why the rezoning was being sought. Public discussion was opened. John Havek, representing Abraham Enterprises, said he had provided Staff with a letter indicating that the owner was willing to provide the parking designations as recommended by Staff. The applicant also intended to go forward with the landscaping plan as listed on the site plan. The trees and plantings had arrived; they were waiting on the contractor to install them. The applicant was very anxious to lease their spaces to get an income stream going and requested that the Commission vote on the application yet this evening. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve REZ04-00016, a rezoning of approximately 1.20-acres at 1901 Broadway Street from Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) to Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) subject to 8 parking spaces being marked with signs indicating that they were reserved for residential tenants. freerks seconded the motion. Freerks said this seemed to be in compliance and went along well with the Comprehensive Plan. It was a little chunk of land that would be better served by the rezoning. Anciaux said an intent of the current zone was to buffer from residential, however in the immediate area there was no residential to buffer from. It would be a good change and was a very attractive building as well. Shannon said this area had had some tough times. He would like to see the Commission do what ever they could to help this area get revived. The motion Dassed on a vote of 5-0. SUBDIVISION ITEM: Anciaux recused himself. SUB04-00016, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a preliminary and final plat of "East Side Ground Water Storage Reservoir" a 4 acre 1-lot subdivision located on the north side of Lower West Branch Road east of Taft Avenue. Boswell said this was a parcel of ground that the City engineer had identified as an excellent location for a future groundwater storage reservoir. The parcel would be four-acres, split off from a larger parcel owned by St. Mark's United Methodist Church. The remainder of the ground, approximately 67-acres, would remain subject to subdivision regulations in the future. The parcel was currently just outside Iowa City's growth boundary. However this was such a long term project it would be appropriate to look further out into the future. The nature of this project and the long timeline under which it was operating meant it Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 5 would help the parcel to retain the desired rural appearance. Staff did not feel the subdivision would affect the traffic load or the atmosphere of Lower West Branch Road in any substantial way. Staff recommended approval of SUB04-00016. Shannon asked if this would be City owned property located in the county. Boswell said that was correct. When ever the County instituted a public land zoning designation, then the City would request a rezoning. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Brooks made a motion to approve SUB04-00016, a preliminary and final plat of "East Side Ground Water Storage Reservoir" a 4-acre 1-lot subdivision located on the north side of Lower West Branch Road east of Taft Avenue. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. OTHER ITEMS: Discussion of Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws, Section 10, Conflict of Interest. Miklo said the Rules Committee of the City Council had referred the amendment back to the Commission to ask the Commission to consider if they wished to allow Commissioners who had a personal interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest to be allowed to participate in the discussion of such items. All the professional literature indicated that direct participation by interested parties be clearly discouraged. Brooks said the Commission had had a good discussion regarding the proposed amendment to the bi- laws the first time they had discussed it. It had been the consensus of the Commissioners then that a Commission member should have the opportunity should they so desire to remain in the room and listen to the discussion, but that to actually present themselves in front of the Commission and become involved in the discussion would be inappropriate. He felt they should keep their recommendation the same as they had initially proposed it, to allow a Commissioner to stay in the room but not to participate in any debate or discussion. Koppes said she agreed with Brooks' comments. One of the reasons that the Commission had stated originally was that the Planning and Zoning meetings were not videotaped whereas City Council meetings were. She had supported the proposed amendment for that reason but did not feel that a Commissioner should be allowed to speak when there was a conflict of interest. Freerks said she agreed with the comments made. Another reason was that the Commissioners were not elected officials, they were appointed. It differentiated them from the City Council in that the public could remove a Councilor by voting them out of office, but the public did not have that luxury with the Commissioners. She would like the amendment to remain as initially proposed. Shannon said he felt a person should be allowed to stay in the room but not allowed to speak as they could bring undue influence. To banish a person from the room seemed silly. Motion: Brooks made a motion to reaffirm the Commission's original request to amend the bi-Iaws to allow a Commissioner to stay in the room during discussion if they so wished but not participate in the discussion. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 17,2004 MINUTES: Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Miklo said a joint meeting with the City Council for the presentation of the visual preferences survey had been set for July 21, 2004 in meeting room A at the public library. Very good results had been received back from the survey as well as some surprising results and a real consensus from the community including the general public, Home Builders, and the realtors based on the feedback. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Brooks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 pm. freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minuteslp&zI2004/2004 07-01-04p&z.doc I]¡[ MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2004 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon, Jerry Hansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Darryl High RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ04-00013/SUB04-00021, a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone/Low Density Single-Family (SAO/RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Mackinaw Village Estates, a 75.25-acre subdivision including two 16-unit multi-family buildings, 72 town house style dwellings and 93 single family lots located north of Foster Road subject to wetland delineation approval by the Corps of Engineers. CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING / SUBDIVISION ITEM: REZ04-00013/SUB04-00021, discussion of an application submitted by Regency Land Company LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone/Low Density Single-Family (SAO/RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Mackinaw Village Estates, a 75.25-acre subdivision including two 16-unit multi-family buildings, 72 town house style dwellings and 93 single family lots located north of Foster Road. Miklo said a revised plan had been received earlier in the day that addressed the issues identified in the Staff Report dated 7/1/2004 and/or were discussed at the 7/1/2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Open Space to be dedicated for the Neighborhood Open Space. Ordinance requirements consisted of a 1.77 -acre area adjacent to the trail. That was being sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review. Staff hoped to have a response back before the Council voted on this application. The remainder of the outlot would be retained by a Home Owners Association. Covenants which addressed the future maintenance of and responsibilities for the outlot would be necessary. A construction limit line for the protected sensitive areas had been added to the plat. It clearly showed the areas which contained the wetlands, the ravines and woodland areas which were not to be disturbed during construction development. The exception would be the installation of the trail, a stormwater outlet and an easement which would bring the stormwater to the Iowa River. The large wetland and the majority of the steep slopes on the site would not be disturbed. Some slopes more interior to the site would have to be graded. Tree Varietv. Per the direction of the Commission the applicant had added a notation that 30% of the trees along the Interstate buffer would be of a hardwood variety. A percentage would be poplar trees to provide a quick screen in the first few years, there would also be a variety of evergreens. Townhouse units on lots 20-22. In the Staff Report a concern regarding the amount of paving in the front of those units and the dominance of the garage had been raised. A note had been added to the plat that prior to the final Sensitive Areas Development Plan, that there would be a revised elevation. Staff had had some discussions with the applicant regarding how to make the garage less dominant and do more landscaping to the fronts of the units so there would be less paving. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 15, 2004 Page 2 Townhouse Varietv. At the Commission's request, a note had been added to the plat regarding the use of a variety of townhouses on the other lots so that not just one or two models would be used throughout that section of the plat. Tree Removal. Miklo said Staffs biggest concern had been the amount of tree removal in areas where grading was not necessary for street installation or home site construction. The applicant had added areas to the plat where trees would be protected during construction. There was also a note on the plat that prior to any tree removal or grading there would be an on-site meeting with the City's Inspector, Julie Tallman, who would work with the tree removal contractor or the graders to make sure that specimen trees would be preserved in those areas. Wetlands. Staff had not received word from the Corps of Engineers regarding the wetlands that were located on the site. Staff suggested that if the Commission voted to approve the application, their approval be subject to some indication from the Corps that the Corps concurred with the delineation before City Council finalized the plat. Small Lots. Miklo said a portion of the plat included smaller narrower lots. A note had been previously added to the plat that those lots would conform with the guidelines of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance regarding smaller narrower lots. That dealt primarily with putting a residential appearance toward the street rather than having the street dominated by the garage. Miklo said with the above noted revisions, Staff felt the plat conformed with the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the application. Hansen asked with respect to the note referring to a variety of townhouse designs, how did Staff define variety. Miklo said the applicant had submitted three plans. Staff felt as long as the townhouse styles were consistent with those three models, that would be variety. Hansen asked if it was possible that the letter/report from the Corps of Engineers would only partially concur with the proposed plan. Miklo said until a letter was received, Staff could not know for sure. Generally in a situation like this, were no disturbance of the wetland was proposed except for the stormwater crossing the wetlands, Staff anticipated that the Corps would indicate that they concurred that it was a jurisdictional wetland and no permit would be required because there was no disturbance proposed. Hansen said this was a grey area. He suggested that if the Commission voted to approve this application, language should be included that the Commission's approval was subject to the Corps being in total concurrence. Miklo said either the Corps would concur as he had suggested or they could indicate that they felt the wetland was larger and that the proposed project would affect it. If that was the case the project would have to go through the sensitive areas aspect again. Miklo said generally the Commission had the Corps' letter before they voted on an item. In this case staff had walked the site and there was quite a change in the grade from the development area and where the wetlands were thought to be and likely to be. Based on this Staff was comfortable with the delineation and anticipated the Corps would concur. Shannon asked with respect to the remaining portion of the outlot that would be privately owned and covered by a Home Owners Association, what would that land be for the tax roles and would it be taxable land. Miklo said he was not sure if it would be taxable, but it would probably have very little value in terms of property taxes. The only way to change its use would be to come back before the Commission and request a zoning change which would allow development of the land. The majority of that area was jurisdictional wetlands which also had federal regulations over it. The other portion had such steep slopes, it would be very unlikely that it would have development potential other than open space uses. Public discussion was opened. Darryl HiQh, Regency Land Company, LLC, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission had. He wished to express appreciation for all the assistance provided by Bob Miklo and Karin Franklin. It was Regency's first larger project in Iowa City and they were happy to be here. They were excited about Mackinaw Village and felt it would be a community which offered a mixture of price points for different families and persons to reside there. Hansen said he liked the mix of the community and the way Regency Land Company was working with City Staff. He appreciated it very much. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 15, 2004 Page 3 Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve REZ04-00013/SUB04-00021, a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone/Low Density Single-Family (SAO/RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Mackinaw Village Estates, a 75.25-acre subdivision including two 16-unit multi-family buildings, 72 town house style dwellings and 93 single family lots located north of Foster Road subject to wetland delineation approval from the Corps of Engineers. Hansen seconded the motion. Shannon said after going out and looking at the property, he felt it would be a good use of the property. It sounded like a good development to him. Hansen said he too felt it would be a good addition to the city. He liked the mix of housing in the development which was important to Iowa City. He also liked the preservation of the trees on the property and the efforts of the developer and City Staff to work together. freerks said she also liked the mixture of housing and the way they had worked with Staff. She felt it would be a good development. Koppes said she liked this development for the mixture of housing and felt it fit in well with the Peninsula and complimented it. Brooks said he felt it would be a good development; it was good to see a new developer in town. What they were showing would be good for the community. He was concerned with the trees, there were a lot of very nice big oak trees on that property. He'd looked at a couple of their developments in Cedar Rapids and had been pleased with how they had tried to work around the trees. Anciaux said he'd also seen one of their developments in Cedar Rapids. They had preserved the trees on it. He also liked the buffer along the Interstate, but felt it might not be effective in controlling traffic noise. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Miklo said a special meeting with the City Council would be held on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 7:00 pm in meeting room A of the library for presentation of the visual preference survey. Bob Elliott had made a request to have a general discussion about Planning and Zoning philosophy. Hansen requested a listing of items that the Commission had requested be looked at or changed during the previous Code review sessions. Miklo said Staff had been keeping notes from each meeting and a listing of those items. He would give a copy to the Commission at the next Code review meeting. CONSIDERATION Of THE JULY 1 ,2004 MINUTES: Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:58 pm. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 15, 2004 Page 4 s:/pcd/minutesJp&zJ2004/2004 07 -15-04p&z.doc MINUTES APPROVED I ;8bœL IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 1,2004,3:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Barbara Camillo, Charles Felling, Rick Fosse, Mark Seabold, Emily Walsh Terry Robinson, Superintendent of Parks and Forestry, present in Terry Trueblood's stead for the Benton Hill Park Project Absent: Terry Trueblood, James Hemsley Staff Present: Karin Franklin Visitors Present: Ruth Baker, Helen Jahnke, Mary Knudson (Benton Hill Park Residents) Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Felling at 3:35 p.m. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL To approve an addendum to the Agreement between Dahlquist Clayworks and the City addressing changes in the time schedule, shifting the public participation component from the fence to the way- finding, and increasing the cost of the project to $55,000. Motion passed unanimously. Public discussion of anv item not on the aqenda There was no discussion. Consideration of the Minutes of June 3. 2004 Meetinq Motion: A motion was made by Rick Fosse, seconded by Emily Walsh, to approve the Minutes. The motion carried. Review and recommendation on amendments to contract with David Dahlquist for the Court Street Transportation Center art components Karin Franklin distributed a revised memorandum concerning the Dahlquist contract. Franklin clarified that the project was a part of a Livable Cities grant but is now an FT A grant. The schedule for completion will be revised and the community participation component has shifted from the fence to tile work around the elevator vestibules for the various levels of the ramp. Cost of the project has increased from $40,000 to $55,000. The increase is attributed in part to the addition of two more parking levels and the additional tile work. A significant increase relates to the evident necessity for two gates in the fence. This is a requirement of either the Childcare Center, or the code that controls them. The fence will meet ADA requirements. Cost for the Transportation Center is based on an 80/20 split. The FTA grant pays for 80% and local funds pay 20%. The actual increase to the Public Art budget is $3,000. Motion: A motion was made by Terry Robinson, seconded by Mark Seabold, to recommend that the Council approve amendments to the Dahlquist contract, reflecting various changes and the increased cost of $15,000. The motion carried. Review and recommendation on submittals for the Benton Hill Park entrvwav project Benton Hill residents, Ruth Baker, Helen Jahnke and Mary Knudson, were invited to be a part of the entry review process. They have worked many years on this project and have worked with Terry and others on the actual design of the park. The residents favor a neighborhood-friendly entryway that will benefit children, families and the elderly and prefer a natural setting. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes July 1, 2004 Page 2 Six submittals were reviewed via slides, sketches and written description: John Covne - Iowa City Provided sketches of an arch made from cast aluminum with a steel-supported infrastructure. The arch has a Doctor Seuss-like quality. JC MacQueen - Iowa City Provided slides of work unrelated to this project. Referred the committee to his website and view other public art projects. Max-Cast Inc. - Kalona Described a structure built of two 10-foot square, tapered columns, using rocks and bricks from an old brick house that once stood in Benton Hill Park. The foundation is heavy steel pipe around concrete footing. Dale Merrill - Mount Vernon Submitted a sketch of a spider made of stainless steel rods accompanied by a Benton Hill Park spider- web sign. The committee was concerned about the stability and safety of the piece. Rod Minter - Oskaloosa Builds metal structures for home and garden. Currently working on his 1st public piece, to be located in Oskaloosa. Joseph Prescher - Iowa City Provided slides of recent sculptures and a number of images. Included a sketch for the Benton Hill Park project. Elements include two 12-feet high posts made of cast concrete or carved limestone. Between the posts is a cast piece holding name of the park and a central plaque with a Smiling Sun on front and Smiling Moon on reverse side. There are three variations of the arch: 1) with birdcage; 2) with wildflowers and water; 3) instead of stylized pillars, the pillars would be in the form of trees, with natural elements and wildlife throughout. The committee would like John Coyne, Max-Cast, Inc. and Joseph Prescher to make a presentation with proposals. The committee will meet with each artist, one at a time, and talk through any issues. The meeting is scheduled for July 29 at 3:30 p.m. The committee wants a chance to look at JC MacQueen's website. There will be a regularly scheduled meeting on August 5. Other business Update on other current projects: The Northside Neighborhood concept is on the Council's agenda next Tuesday; the Goosetown geese will be poured this week, then next week they'll be cast in bronze; the Longfellow project is working on the sites for the historic markers. Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:35 p.m. s:/pcd/minLltes/publlc artl2004/art07-01-o4.doc Board or Commission: Public Art Advisory Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 July 1, 2004 TERM NAME EXP. 1/8/04 2/5/04 3/4/04 4/1/04 5/6/04 5/20/04 6/3/04 7/1/04 7/29/04 9/2/04 10/7/04 11/4 12/2 Barbara Camillo 1/1/05 0 X X X X X OlE X Charles Felling 1/1/06 X X X X X X OlE X Rick Fosse X X 0 X OlE X X X James Hemsley 1/1/06 0 0 X X OlE OlE OlE OlE Mark Seabold 1/ 1/07 X X 0 X X X X X Terry Trueblood X X X X X OlE X OlE Emily Carter 1/1/05 0 X X X X X X X Walsh KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member ~ MINUTES FINAUAPPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2004 - 6:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Erin Barnes (arrived at 6:45 PM), Lori Bears, John Deeth, William Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Jayne Sandler Members Absent: Jerry Anthony, Mark Edwards, Shellie Mackel Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Stephen Long Public Present: Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20,2004 MEETING In regards to the May 20, 2004 minutes, Hightshoe asked for clarification regarding Sandler's motion to allow Burns & Burns up to 60 days to pursue other alternatives to low-income tax credits for affordable home "ownership." Hightshoe stated the original motion was for affordable "housing," not just home ownership. Sandler agreed but was uncertain how she worded the original motion. She also commented that in between the time of her motion and the time of adjournment, someone left the meeting and that this should be reflected in the minutes. It was noted that Anthony left the meeting about 8:00 PM prior to the monitoring reports. Motion: Sandler moved to approve the minutes with two corrections 1) change the aforementioned motion to "affordable rental and/or affordable home ownerhip;" and 2) reflect when Anthony left the meeting; Bears seconded. All in favor; motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC/MEMBER COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Hightshoe stated that at the Tuesday night Council Meeting, Chairperson Hayek, Bears and Brian Richmond were appointed to the Commission. Long commented that an audit by HUD has been ongoing since Monday. Staff will update the Commission about any concerns at the next HCDC meeting in July. Chairperson Hayek reminded everyone that the Scattered Site Housing Task Force continues to meet on the first and third Mondays of every month (though the schedule may be revised at times, as in early July) at 5:00 PM. All are welcome to attend. Agendas are posted on the internet. OLD BUSINESS Update of Prairie Garden LP Project - No one from Burns & Burns was present. Long reported that Bob Burns is out of town until June 28, but he spoke to Jessie Burns, who said they attended a bond conference two weeks ago and will send the Commission a written update when he returns. Burns & Burns have 60 days from May 20 to come up with an alternative development plan. Community and Economic Development Celebration Update - Hightshoe reported that postcard invitations were ordered from the National Community Development Association. Staff put stickers on the back to advertise the event and will be mailing out the invitations. The celebration will be held on Thursday, July 15, 2004 from 4:30 - 6 PM at the Rack Barbeque. Lane Plugge will be this year's speaker. Various awards will be presented. Staff will contact Southgate to see if they will present elevations of all their proposed improvements at Pepperwood. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of the Iowa Finance Authority's Qualified Allocation Plan for the administration of Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LlHTC) Program - Chairperson Hayek stated that Burns & Burns requested this item be added to June's agenda, but they do not have a representative present. Eastham and Dennis, from the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, were present to discuss the issue. Eastham handed out a table regarding the distribution of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects across the state over the last 13 - 14 years, as well as comments about the QAP. The table shows the distribution of low-income housing projects by city and county between the years 1989 - 2003 for cities Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes June 17, 2004 Page 2 and 1989 - 2004 for counties and shows that the distribution of projects is not even. Des Moines averages 2.6 projects per 10,000 population, compared to only 1.1 projects per 10,000 population in Iowa City. Eastham stated that he does not want to see the imbalance between the number of projects received by Iowa City and Des Moines continue over the next ten years. He attributes this trend to the constantly changing allocation plans, as well as the number of developers available and inadvertent program design that results in an uneven distribution. Dennis stated that another cause of this trend is the QAP's minimum threshold requirement that the site be under control prior to the application for tax credits. In scattered site acquisition and rehab, she said you cannot buy scattered site units off the market, because the seller will not give you a year and a half to obtain the tax credits. Hightshoe observed, based on the table submitted, that the four counties that receive the fewest projects include Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Davenport, and Iowa City. Hightshoe asked Eastham if they knew why these cities were not awarded LlHTC at the rate cities/counties in western Iowa received the credits based on their findings. Eastham replied that the problem is not just the QAP. He said the Iowa Department of Economic Development distributes HOME Funds to almost every tax credit project, resulting in a different distribution pattern across the state than the one for LlHTC projects. But he believes the current problem with the QAP is its emphasis on different zones that do not exist in Johnson County. Greazel asked Eastham what he wanted the Board to do. Eastham said the Commission should get involved in the issue, but Hayek expressed hesitation at becoming involved because the Commission does not oversee those particular funds. Dennis stated, however, that the Commission oversees the HOME Funds, which are a large part of tax credit financing. Eastham reiterated that the Commission should insist on a better distribution that includes Johnson County and Iowa City. Dennis said it might be helpful if a more impartial party became involved that does not have a clear motive with a project in the works. Greazel commented that the process did not appear to be meeting the demand and is somehow being skewed away from where the need is to where the need is not as great. He said that one complaint stemming from the State Assessor's Tax Section 42 is that many Section 42 units are only half-full because they were built in places where there was not a demand for the housing. Greazel expressed concern that units are being built in places that meet the requirements of a QAP, but may not address the demand. Barnes asked what Eastham specifically wanted the Commission to do. Eastham requested they ask the Staff to draft a letter to the director of the IFA expressing their concerns regarding the process. Long said he would like to see the breakdown of these projects for elderly/family units. Hayek requested that Eastham submit the breakdown by unit as well. He said he does not understand why this is still happening because some of the cities in our geographic area are completely different from Iowa City in terms of the landscape of the community. He cited Cedar Rapids and Waterloo as examples of more industrial cities than Iowa City that are not doing well either. Eastham stated that the problem is not just the way the QAP has been erected in the recent past but goes back to the conception of the program. He believes that the lack of qualified non-profit developers in the area could also be an issue. Eastham believes the IFA would be open to suggestions to change the criteria so all areas would be on a more equal footing. Hayek said, however, more information is needed prior to the Commission submitting any recommendation to the City Council. Hightshoe said she will e-mail fellow entitlement communities in the area to see if they have any additional information on this issue. Sandler thought that was a good idea as a letter coming from only one community would not carry much weight. Long added that communities often band together to develop letters in order to make a greater impact. Sandler said it may not change the QAP much immediately but will create a greater awareness about the situation and affect how the process is viewed. Hayek asked if the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship communicates with comparable organizations in Davenport, Cedar Rapids or other cities that share the same concerns. Dennis offered to help the Staff gather information to bring back to the Commission. However, it was generally agreed that it was too late to make a difference for this QAP. Hayek stated that the Commission needed more information in order to ascertain if there is a problem, what may be causing it, and what the possible solutions are and requested that the Staff gather this information with the help of Greater Iowa City and other interested parties, such Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes June 17,2004 Page 3 as Burns & Burns. Long stated that they will be meeting with the Eastern Iowa Entitlement Communities next week and can bring this issue up at that meeting. MONITORING REPORTS Habitat for Humanity - Affordable Homeownership - Habitat has purchased three lots. Greazel reported that Habitat is still trying to purchase one more lot between $24,000 - $25,000, but it has become a challenge to find one because there are so many problems with the lots Habitat looked at so far and economic conditions are tough. Many of the existing lots have covenants that exclude a unit like Habitat for Humanity. Habitat has been speaking with a developer on the east side of town, but the developers can sell any lot in the area and do not think they can help Habitat develop because the homes there are larger and range from $125,000 - $250,000. It is a challenge in Iowa City to find good locations because vacant lots sell so quickly. However, things may change if the interest rates go up. Greazel stated that the situation is bleak at this point. He said Habitat has spoken to Burns as well as Greater Iowa City and has heard the same complaint that it is too expensive to put up units. Because of the demand for these lots, non-profit organizations cannot compete with aggressive developers. City of Iowa City - Economic Development Fund - Edwards was not present to report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandler made a motion to adjourn; Bears seconded. All in favor; motion carries 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM. data on citynt/pcd/minuteslhcdcl2004/hcdc06-17-o4.doc GTI[ MINUTES Approved HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22,2004 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, , Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justine Zimmer, Paul Sueppel STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Ducharm, Martha Kelch, Mike Brennan CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Historic Review: 1130 Seymour Avenue. Martha Kelch of Shive-Hattery presented the proposed addition to Longfellow School. She stated that there were three reasons for the addition: 1. Need space for cafeteria table, 2. Provide vestibule into gymnasium; 3. Provide more inviting entrance to gymnasium. Kelch said that the addition will be an extension of the existing vestibule, which is not used. All new brick will be used. The design incorporates accent brick banding and foundation from the original building, pilasters and pre-cast door trim from the addition. Smothers said that this is an addition to the addition and that Shive-Hattery could have been more creative. She said you don't have to make it blend in with the addition and modern materials could have been used. Maharry asked if because the addition is over 50 years old is it considered historic. Weitzel said he felt that the gymnasium was not itself significant. McCafferty said that a contemporary addition would be acceptable under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Weitzel said he felt the proposed addition is acceptable. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for an addition to Longfellow School as proposed by Shive-Hattery. McCallum seconded the motion. Weitzel said that the Commission was not going to require that the design be changed. Smothers agreed and said this was a discussion about design theory. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 1025 Oakland Avenue. McCafferty stated that the applicant is not present. In the past the applicant requested a COA to replace the front gable window with a new double-hung window of the same size, which was approved as a certificate of no material effect. This application is a request to replace the east or west gable window with a double-hung the same size as the front gable window for egress. This would make the window significantly taller and wider and the sill would no longer align with the fish scale siding. McCafferty said the applicant is willing to use a casement window of a size similar to the existing window with a simulated check rail, but also requested approval for the double-hung window. McCafferty recommended the casement window. Weitzel and McCallum agreed. Smothers said that the fish scale could be lowered so that it aligns with the sill of the taller double-hung window. Weitzel said that the frieze board could be extend as a band below the fish scale. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 1025 Burlington Street to replace the east and/or west gable windows with a casement window of the same vertical dimension as the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2004 Page 2 existing opening; or a double-hung window of the same dimension as the front gable window provided fish scale shingles are added to align with the sill of the new window or the frieze board is extended across the gable with fish scales above. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 723 Oakland Avenue. McCafferty said that the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to add a handrail to the front and back stoops. McCafferty said she recommended black pipe hand railings but the applicant wanted something he felt would be more compatible with the architecture. McCafferty said after looking at other hand rails on the street she recommend the railing illustrated in the packet. She said the applicant found her recommendation acceptable. Gunn asked about the issue of waiting a year to paint pressure treated lumber. Weitzel said that because this type of lumber is not kiln dried it has a high moisture content. McCafferty said it will not hold paint until it has cured. McCafferty said she would check with HIS to see if there was anyway to enforce painting after a year, but was doubtful. The Commission agreed that they would have to have confidence that the homeowner would paint the handrail after it has cured. Ponto asked about the newel post cap. Weitzel recommended a flat or simple pyramid cap. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct wood handrails at the front and back stoop of 723 Oakland Avenue as proposed provided flat or simply pyramid newel post caps are used. Ponto seconded the motion. Maharry said he felt it complied with the guidelines and that it would be a nice addition. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Minutes: June 10,2004. McCafferty said she listened to the tape of the meeting and changed the minutes regarding 728 Dearborn Street accordingly. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve consideration of the June 10, 2004 minutes to the Commission's next meeting. Smothers seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Julv 8, 2004. Maharry asked if there were any concerns with these minutes. Weitzel said no. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve the July 8, 2004 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Ponto asked about 728 Dearborn Street and whether they still required review for the fiberglass clad window. McCafferty said she had not heard from the applicant. Weitzel asked about a replacement for Paul Sueppel. McCafferty said she need a letter from Sueppel. Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District. McCafferty stated that a number of property owners in the commercially zoned area of the proposed National Register Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District have submitted letters of protest to the State. The primary reason for their concern is that they feel NRHP designation will lead to local historic district designation and regulation of their properties. However, under state code, NRHP registration is not required to designate a local historic district. McCafferty said that the Commission has the information necessary to substantiate that this area meets the criterian of state and local code for local designation. Maharry said the reason for the open hearing on August 10 is that property owners feel they were not properly notified. Maharry said that at the hearing they could discuss the historic significance of the district and individual property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2004 Page 3 Weitzel asked if individual owners can request to have their property removed from the National Register district. McCafferty said that if more than 50% of the owner protest the designation by sending a notarized letter to SHPO, the nomination would not be listed on the NRHP. In this district there are 103 properties and 86 owners, therefore 44 owners would have to protest. If this happens, the nomination is still reviewed by SNRC and the National Park Service will make a determination of eligibility. However the district will not appear on the National Register. But if determined eligible for the NRHP, property owners in the district would still be able to use historic preservation tax cred its. McCafferty said the public hearing will be held Tuesday, August 10 at 7:00. Brennan asked if the letter notifying property owners will state that the registration will not effect property owners. McCafferty said the notification will state what the NRHP does and does not do. Brennen asked if it would mention any adverse effects. McCafferty stated she was not aware of any law that results in an adverse effect. Brennen stated that 36 CFR 60 would adversely effect property. He said athough there are tax benefits, there are also tax penalties for demolition. Maharry said that may be a matter of interpretation and said they would provide the same information that has been provided in notification for other NRHP districts. Maharry said the purpose of the public hearing is to provide the public with information. McCafferty said she was not familiar with 36 CFR 60 and would look into it. She said she could refer property owners to the applicable code. Ponto said information provided should be balanced and fair. McCafferty said that all the objectors have property in the commercially zoned area. Gunn said it is likely that discussion will be focused on local designation. McCafferty agreed. She said that regardless of the facts provided by the City and SHPO, people who are opposed do not believe that this is not regulatory and not required for local designation. The reason for opposition is the fear that if it is listed on the NRHP it will also become a local historic district. One of the approaches to address their concern is to proceed with local designation immediately exclusive of the commercial properties. McCafferty said that given the character of Iowa City and issues with commercial property, commercial property owners are not at this time comfortable with local historic districts. The Commission discussed if the public hearing should include discussion of local designation. Maharry stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to determine NRHP eligibility and historic significance. Gunn said that what people are most concerned about is local designation. If the Commission isn't willing to discuss local designation they will be accused of not listening. McCafferty recommended that there be two items on the agenda. The first to determine NRHP eligibility and the second a neighborhood meeting, not the public hearing, about local designation. Gunn said that local designation is a long process that involves many meetings. During the meetings people ask questions, they get answers, there are arguments, thing changes. He said this is a democratic process. Gunn said there is a process with local designation that helps to sooth fears about the designation and that it is a good process. Smothers said that the message should be that the public is hear to define their own neighborhood. Listing an area on the NRHP archives the history of an area. The Commission discussed the impact that zoning has on the assessed and market value of property. McCallum stated an example of a fraternity in which the bank loaned the fraternity money for repairs based on the appraisal which determines the highest and best use of the property. In this case, the highest and best use was not a fraternity or rooming house, it was an apartment building. The bank will provide loans for highest and best use because in the event of foreclosure, they could recover the loan. Smothers stated that in Savannah banks are not allowed to deny loans to owners that intend to preserve their property; this is redlining. Gunn said that if local district zoning restricts commercial properties more than existing zoning than property owners will be upset and justifiably so. Gunn said this is a valuable argument and maybe these properties should be removed from a local district. The Commission must address this issue. McCafferty said that appraising historic buildings is difficult and many appraisers do not know how to place economic value on the intrinsic value of a historic building. She stated Carnegie Library is an example of this. This building was not placed on the National Register, but the outcry from the public prevented its demolish. Because it is historic, it is desirable. This is not reflected in an appraisal. Gunn asked if the properties in the commercial were nonhistoric. McCafferty said that only two of the properties are nonhistoric. Gunn said that the issue is not alteration but demolition. If the property is historic it cannot be demolished if in a local historic district. Gunn said this is a real issues, owners have reason to be upset and the Commission must deal with it the best they can. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 22, 2004 Page 4 Wietzel said there is an issue with owners wanting to sell to Mercy when they are done with their property. McCafferty said that until the commercial community have sufficient evidence that historic commercial properties are desirable because they contribute to a sense of place, the desirability of a community and the community's economy, there will not be support for commercial historic districts. McCafferty said that the case needs to be made that historic properties are economically beneficial to a community. Weitzel said there is ample evidence that in other communities this is true. Maharry said this is one of the charges of the Commission. McCafferty said there is ample opportunity in the Northside for development, such as the Paglia's parking lot, City parking lot, gas station, etc. A vision of the redevelopment of the Northside Market Place that is integral to the preservation of historic properties needs to be presented. Weitzel said that in communities in the eastern US, when communities revitalize their historic core, it brings people back to this part of the city. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Minutes submitted by Shelley McCafferty s:/pcd/minutes/hpcl2004/hpc07 -22-04. doc Board or Commission: Historic Preservation Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 Julv 22, 2004 TERM NAME EXP. 118 1122 2/12 2/26 3/11 4/8 4/22 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/14 7/8 7/22 8/10 8/26 919 10/14 11111 121 Amy Smothers 3129105 NM NM X OlE X X X X OlE X X X X James Enloe 3/29106 NM NM OlE X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michael Gunn 3/29/07 NM NM OlE OlE X OlE OlE X X X X 0 X Michael Maharry 3/29105 NM NM X X X X X X X X X X X Mark McCallum 3/29/06 NM NM X X X X X X X X X X X James Ponto 3/29107 NM NM X X X X X X X OlE X X X Paul Sueppel 3/29/06 NM NM OlE OlE X X X X X X 0 X 0 Tim Weitzel 3/29/05 NM NM X X X X OlE X OlE X X X X Justine Zimmer 3/29/07 -- -- - -- -- OlE OlE OlE X OlE X 0 0 I KEY: X = Present o = Absent OlE = AbsentlExcused NM = No meeting ~ MINUTES Approved HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUL Y 8,2004 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Justine Zimmer STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bodensteiner CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Historic Review: 512 South Summit Street. McCafferty said this application involves an addition to the rear of a property. Bodensteiner said there was hail damage to the roof of his house. He stated that the damage gave him the impetus to removed the existing shed roof on the rear addition and extend the gable roof of the house over the addition, which will add second floor room. Bodensteiner said there is another issue with the dormer. He said the only support for it is a couple of boards on each end. He said if he extends the roof across, he should be able to salvage that. Bodensteiner said the project should not take anything away from the house. He added that there would not be bedrooms here, so the egress requirements for bedroom windows would not need to be met. McCafferty referred to her drawing of the plans, saying that she redrew it to better illustrate the details. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for a second story addition with a gabled roof provided a vertical board separates the addition from the existing house; wood or metal-clad wood windows with exterior muntin bars are used; and all wood trim and clapboard matches the existing. McCallum seconded the motion. Weitzel said this is a sympathetic and creative application of an appropriate addition. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Maharry asked Bodensteiner for his opinion on the review process. Bodensteiner said it was fine. 325 Summit Street. McCafferty stated that this application is to construct a ramp on a house on Summit Street. She said the owners are concerned about the economics of the project, as they anticipate this will be a temporary ramp and plan to remove it when it is no longer required. McCafferty said she provided an elevation using a minimum number of wood members. She said the ramp would not require a guardrail. McCafferty said she recommended that the ramp be attached to the house in a manner that does not damage or destroy any of the historic material. McCafferty said the ramp would be located on the side of the house where there is a lot of vegetation and bushes so that it will not be highly visible. Weitzel asked if the owners would pour footings, and McCafferty did not know. Weitzel said the owners can call this temporary and it may stay for a long time, but if it is attached in such a way that it does not damage the existing structure, that is what the Commission is after. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 2 Weitzel asked if the Commission should include a change of ownership clause in the motion that would require the ramp to be removed if the property were to be sold. McCafferty said she could look into the possibility of doing something like this. Smothers said she believed the Commission should have faith in the owners' statement that this will be a temporary ramp. McCallum agreed and Weitzel agreed as well. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to add a ramp on the north side of the house at 325 S. Summit Street provided it conform to staff's drawing and provided that it may be easily removed, does not damage the porch and is removed once it is no longer required by current owner. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Lonqfellow School, 1130 Seymour Avenue. McCafferty said Longfellow's athletic director submitted this application for a combination concession stand/restroom facility at Longfellow School. McCafferty referred to two accessory structures, one of concrete block and one of stucco, that are located in this neighborhood. She said she recommends that the proposed building use rusticated concrete block rather than plain concrete block and that the building have a higher pitched hipped roof. McCafferty said the doors would be metal doors and the concession door would be a metal overhead door. Weitzel said that area is certainly not visible from the street. He added that in walking around back there, there is a sense of buildings in back yards, and this building would be very appropriate for that context. McCallum agreed that the recommended building would be appropriate. Weitzel asked if the wording would give the leeway to put in clapboard if that were the decision, rather than restricting the building to brick. McCafferty said the Commission could give that flexibility, although the advantage of concrete block is that it is fairly indestructible. She said she sent her drawings to the applicant but had not heard back from him. McCafferty said that if her drawings are unacceptable, the applicant can always reapply. Weitzel asked if by the term rusticated, McCafferty was calling for broken concrete rusticated or if it would be the cast block that looks like stone. McCafferty replied that it would be the standard concrete block that is molded to look like stone. She said the requirement could be more specific if the Commission would prefer. Sueppel asked if the Commission would have a say on how an addition would be if the school should ever decide to build one. McCafferty confirmed this and said that something like this may be on the next meeting agenda. She said the Commission could approve her drawings or could approve what was submitted, but in her opinion, the applicant's submission does not comply with the guidelines. McCafferty said there is no historic model for that low ranch-style roof. The drawings she provided she felt would have the least impact on the cost of the structure while still being appropriate to the historic context. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a concessions and restroom facility at the Longfellow School soccer field provided it is constructed of rock-face concrete block, has a roof.pitch of at least 8:12, either open rafter tails or fiber cement board soffit and fascia, and the type of block be specified more clearly. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 717 Clark Street. McCafferty said the Commission has reviewed this project in the past. She said that since the Commission reviewed the addition to the back, the applicant decided that the flat-roofed garage is no longer necessary as a roof deck since he will now have a roof deck to the rear. McCafferty said the applicant also has issues with the flat roof leaking, so he has now requested that the flat roof on the garage be changed to a hip roof. McCafferty stated that this is a non-historic building in a conservation district, so the guidelines are much looser here. She said she found one precedent of a similar era house with a hipped roof over the garage. Weitzel said the proposal would look better to him. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to add a hipped roof to the attached garage at 717 Clark Street. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 3 728 Dearborn Street. McCafferty said she put this application on the agenda but has received no information from the applicant. She recommended deferral of the item. McCafferty said that Marvin Windows now makes a fiberglass-clad window, which the Commission has not reviewed previously. She said she requested a sample from the applicant, as well as information on the paintability of the material, but had not heard from the applicant. The consensus of the Commission was to defer consideration of this item. Minutes: June 10, 2004. Regarding the second paragraph on page three, Maharry said that Weckmann's response that he was okay with this conveyed the impression that there was a much higher cost, which did not convey what his intent seemed to be. McCafferty said she would listen to the tape recording of the meeting and report back to the Commission. MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer consideration of the June 10, 2004 minutes to the Commission's next meeting. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. June 14, 2004. Maharry stated that on page two, in the first paragraph after the motion, the first sentence should end with "replaced" and the rest of the sentence should be deleted. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the June 14, 2004 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Maharry said there would be a salvage sale on Washington Street on Sunday at 9 a.m. involving trim, woodwork, doors, and siding to be salvaged. Remedv of Danqerous Condition: 1002 E. Washinqton Street. McCafferty said this was a certificate that the Chair would not typically approve without the consent of the full Commission. She said, however, that because it was a dangerous condition situation, Housing Inspection Services wanted to get it approved so the building could come down. Minor Review: 831 and 833 Maqqard Street. McCafferty said this is a non-historic property that is being re-sided. Sueppel said this would be his last meeting; he would have to resign his position on the Commission, as he is moving out of Iowa City. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcd/minules/hpcl2004/hpc07 -08-04.doc Board or Commission: Historic Preservation Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2004 Julv 8, 2004 TERM NAME EXP. 1/8 1/22 2/12 2/26 3/11 4/8 4/22 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/14 7/8 7/22 8/10 8/26 9/9 10/14 11/11 121 Amy Smothers 3129/05 NM NM X OlE X X X X OlE X X X James Enloe 3/29/06 NM NM OlE X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michael Gunn 3/29/07 NM NM OlE OlE X OlE OlE X X X X 0 Michael Maharry 3/29/05 NM NM X X X X X X X X X X Mark McCallum 3129/06 NM NM X X X X X X X X X X James Ponto 3/29/07 NM NM X X X X X X X OlE X X Paul Sueppel 3/29/06 NM NM OlE OlE X X X X X X 0 X Tim Weitzel 3/29/05 NM NM X X X X OlE X OlE X X X Justine Zimmer 3/29/07 -- - -- -- -- OlE OlE OlE X OlE X 0 KEY: X = Present o = Absent DIE = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting