Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-24 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty Kelly, Ruedi Kuenzli, Sue Licht, Doris Malkmus, Mike Pugh, Doug Russell, John Shaw MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Jeff Haring OTHERS PRESENT: Paula and Lowell Brandt, David Arbogast, Aaron Gwinnup, Donna Fay Park, Tom Wendt CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Russell called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 404 BROWN STREET. Russell reminded the Commission that the Commission had previously seen and approved this item, and it is now coming back through to seek amendments to the plan. Kugler reviewed the changes that largely involve the removal of the previously proposed deck at the northwest corner of the house, some alterations to the north dormer and, removal of a window from the north face of the structure. Aaron Gwinnup, the Contractor, further reviewed the changes. Shaw had reservations about the skylights in the roof of the north addition. Gwinnup said this was included and approved in the previous plan. Kugler confirmed this. Russell noted that th~s was already approved, and probably should not be revisited. Licht did point out that as the pitch of this roof is 2/12, and because the grade slopes away from the north and west side of the structure, the skylights would not be visible, except at night when a glow will emanate from the roof when the interior lights are on. Gwinnup pointed out that there are also plans for skylights in the third floor dormer on the north side. Gwinnup said the pitch of the roof on the west was changed from 2/12 to 3.5/12 in order to match the pitch on other portions of the house. around the corner to the north, in particular. Gwinnup said the greater pitch wdl also accommodate a quicker thaw time and better water runoff. However, this results in the loss of one proposed window on each side of the dormer. Gwinnup said that the skylights were added to make up for the loss of win- dows. Gwinnup said he had to park well back and stand on the roof of his van to get a picture of the west elevation of the dormer where the skylight would be, and said the east skylight would not likely be visible, either, unless you are on the second floor of Black's Gas Light Village, the property directly to the east. Licht concurred with this statement and pointed out there is a lot of tree cover all around the house. Shaw also questioned why the Commission did not receive plans to rewew in the packet. Kugler said the plans were not available last week, and thought the extra time ~t would take to explain the changes at this meeting would be preferable to scheduling a special meeting Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1996 Page 2 next week. Licht and Kelly expressed that they feel the plan is an improvement over the original. Shaw, too, said the plan is an improvement. The Brandts were asked whether they had any comments about the proposal. Although they had not had time to review the plan prior to tonight's meeting, both said they feel the plan appears to be a vast improvement over the previous plan. The Brandts did ask whether the Commission is likely to review the plan for the landing from the first floor, north elevation door. Russell said probably, because it will likely require a building permit and a permit triggers the review process. MOTION: Shaw moved to approve modifications to the Certificate of Appropriateness for 404 Brown Street, excluding the skylight in the screened-in porch on the west elevation. Malkmus seconded the motion. Pugh questioned the validity of changing something that has already been approved. Kugler pointed out that the pitch of the screen porch roof has changed, and the skylight issue here probably could be revisited, despite it being approved last month. Pugh said this skylight would not be visible from the street. Licht agreed with Pugh and asked whether the Commis- sion would be willing to reconsider the proposal after the roof has been framed and there would be a better idea of whether the skylight would be visible from the street. Other than Pugh, the Commission did not appear too receptive to this idea. Licht wished to state for the record that she approves of the current plan over the previous plan, but did not agree with the proposed condition. Pugh agreed. Shaw argued that the pitch on this roof has changed, and the skylight may now be visible, so the plan is no longer what was approved the first time around. Kelly said that she, too, is skeptical of the plan and added that you get no clear concept of dimension or elevation from the plans submitted. The Commission asked the applicant to present the plan for the skylight in the screened-in porch at a future meeting, with more information about its visibility from Gilbert Street and other properties. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2, with PuQh and Licht votinQ no. COURTESY REVIEW OF 1009 E. COLLEGE STREET. Kugler reviewed the project and said that because the house resides in the proposed East College Street Historic District, staff suggested that the Commission would be willing to review the plans. Note, that as the street is not yet protected by a historic or conservation district overlay, the owner is under no obligation to comply with Commission recommenda- tions. Tom Wendt, the owner of the house, was on hand to review the plan. Wendt distribut- ed photographs of the structure. One of the major renovations included a plan for a wrap-around porch on the front, north and west faces of the structure. Wendt said a small portico had previously existed on the front, followed by a porch on the west face. Licht said the house is a perfect example of a con- glomeration of styles over time and did not feel a new porch would be a drawback to the structure. Malkmus noted that a very similar structure exists on the northeast corner of College Street and Pearl Street, which may be used as an example to follow. David Arbogast said the Greek-Revival period ended well before the construction of this house in 1865, and Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1996 Page 3 it is more likely the original house was constructed in the Italianate style. Arbogast felt a Greek-Revival porch would not be appropriate, but an Italianate wrap-around porch would be quite typical. Licht suggested a deeper, perhaps 7 or 8 foot, front porch and a more narrow side, west elevation porch. Arbogast said a 6" slat board apron that would enclose the porch from the floor to the ground, would be typical. The Commission thanked Wendt for voluntarily coming to the Commission for advice. DISCUSSION OF GRANT PROJECTS: Lonclfellow Neiqhborhood survey. Kugler said he had forwarded a letter to Council that informed them of the status of this survey. Kugler said he thinks the site forms will be wrapped up within a few weeks. The Commission may be able to review these by the August meeting. At the request of the Commission, Kugler said Naumann has somewhat reluctantly agreed to include the area south of Sheridan Avenue into the conservation district area. Pugh noted that many of the citizens of this area had requested the designation, as well. Dubuoue Street/Linn Street Corridor survey. Kugler noted that corrections noted by the Commission and staff were submitted to Naumann. She is making those revisions and should have the document submitted to the State on time. Russell noted that, in the opinion of Naumann, Dubuque and Clinton Streets are suitable for a conservation district, while she recommends Linn Street is more suitable for inclusion within either the North Side Neighborhood Historic District, or, an Original Town Plat Historic District. Naumann recommends that Linn Street receive at least conservation district protection until historic district protection can be applied. Russell said there was a meeting with area residents regarding the proposed conserva- tion district on June 27, 1996, and while there were no real objections at the meeting, Larry Svoboda has approached staff to inquire about how the district may limit devel- opment. Colleqe Green/East Colle(~e Street National Re(3~ster nominations. Kugler reminded the Commission that today was the deadline to forward comments and/or revisions on the nomination forms. Kugler came across a few points and reviewed these with the Commission: One, Kugler asked whether College Green, itself, should be included within the proposed College Green District. Arbogast said the intent was to include the Park, or rather Green, but was not mentioned because no structures, other than a modern gazebo, exist on the site. Arbogast said they do see it as the focal point to the district. The Commission agreed that it should be noted in the document that College Green is intended for inclusion. Second, the Younkin House is not included as contributing because it is missing a porch and there ~s a one-story addition on one end. Kugler noted that the structure is a rare Iowa City example of brick, Gothic- Revival, and questioned whether its minor flaws are enough to not include it as contributing. Third, Kugler said the house at 1009 E. College Street may need to be revisited as extensive renovations are underway. And finally, Ku91er said 1039 E. College Street has been altered significantly, but staff wonders whether the structure should not be included as a contributing structure. Comments made by Jan Nash in her survey work state that many of these historic adaptations occurred during the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1996 Page 4 period of historic significance. Kugler asked Nash for further clarification of her reasoning, and he had received a fax from Nash regarding historic adaptions and how they may qualify for the National Register. In regards to the Younkin House, Arbogast said although it is a fine house, he and Eckhardt have both agreed it should not be included in the district at this time for reasons of consistency. Arbogast said the structure may be added to the district, at a later date, should the porch be added. Arbogast said the porch was a very signifi- cant part of the structure and it substantially alters the style when missing. Arbogast said the argument that the porch was removed during the period of historical signifi- cance could not be used here as the porch was removed after the period of historical significance, as opposed to the chain of events with the 1039 E. College Street structure. Arbogast said he would have no argument should he be asked by the State why this one was included, yet others in a similar state were not. Arbogast added that the fact that the Younkin House was originally natural brick and has since been painted stark white, also alters the structure significantly and, in his opinion, is a non-historic alteration. Arbogast said he would gladly reconsider the house should the owner make some renovations, most importantly, inclusion of the porch. Pugh argued that the fact that a very prominent member of the original community had once lived in the Younkin house and this should be a contributing factor. Pugh felt that the historical significance should not be based on the structure, itself, but also the people and history surrounding the site. Pugh asked the consultants to examine this in greater detail because little is mentioned in the report about the residents. Arbogast said Nash had counted 1039 E. College Street as a contributing even though its roof line had been altered significantly when it was rebuilt after a fire. However, Arbogast feels that the roof line of 1039 E. College Street was altered much more significantly than another property nearby when it, too, was rebuilt following a fire, yet Nash counted this structure as non-contributing. As a matter of consistency, Arbogast actually feels that neither structure should be counted as contributing because of the significantly altered roof lines. Kugler said the difference between these two, howev- er, is that 1039 is a historic adaption of the structure in a style that was popular during the period of significance. The alterations to the other property were not done during the period of historic significance. Arbogast argued that one property was the addition of a slightly different Queen Anne roof to a Queen Anne structure, yet 1039 was a praine adaptation to a Queen Anne structure, yet both alterations occurred during the period of historic significance and that if one is excluded, so should the other. Arbogast said if it comes down to a matter of aesthetic judgement, as opposed to historic significance, many more of the Queen Anne structures should be excluded. Kuenzli and Kelly suggested revisions to various sections of the nomination forms, Arbogast said he had been contacted by a Michael Balch who lives outside of the district on Washington Street. Balch emphatically feels that his house should be included within the district. However, because Arbogast and Eckhardt feel that the structures between the proposed district and his residence are non-significant, they logically could not propose an island of protection for his house alone. Licht and Shaw Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 195~6 Page 5 said including this portion of Washington Street would really be a stretch. Russell said he will telephone Balch to explain the situation. Donna Fay Park, a resident of 816 E. College Street, was on hand and said it is about time the City consider some protection for the area. It was a consensus of the Commission to include the Younkin House as a contributing structure, and asked that some additional research be done into its previous residents and their position within the community. The Press-Citizen may be a resource for this research as a fairly recent article had included historical information about its residents. The Commission also agreed to leave 1039 E, College Street as non-contributing, and third, to leave the boundaries as they stand. UPDATE ON HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS. Russell said the City Council held a public hearing on the first batch of proposed landmarks at its July 2 meeting. One Council Member has indicated that he is likely to vote against the proposal as he feels the designation would infringe upon the property owner's rights on what they may do with the property. Two others are also questionable at this point. The rest appear to be in favor. Owner consent also appears to be an issue holding up a favorable opinion, Russell said two property owners that appear to be in objection include Bruce Glasgow and Norman Thomas. Glasgow has filed a formal protest and the designation of his property at 332 E, Washington Street will require a super-majority, or 6 of 7 votes. Russell said Council Member Lehman had recently contacted him and asked that designation be made an optional, or a voluntary program. Russell told Lehman that he did not favor this approach, but said he would bring this opinion to the attention of the Commission. Kuenzli said he is not sure the Council really sees a distinction between the landmarks and downtown design review, and feels the Commission needs to make a better argument to distinguish the two. The Commission agreed. Russell asked Commission members to attend the July 16 meeting if at all possible. Shaw commended Russell for his handling of the discussions and debate to date. DISCUSSION OF PARK HOUSE HOTEL. Shaw said he and Kuenzh had been working on the project and had made a telephone call to the Younazis who now reside in Kentucky. Mrs. Younazi said their Attorney, Bill Meardon, had recommended contacting Shive-Hattery Engineers, an independent consultant, to perform an extensive study on the structure, including structural and soil tests, to determine what current problems exist. Shaw said the study should determine how feasible it is to restore the structure. and if not feasible, make the condition of the structure known to other interest- ed parties. This report is due back from Shive-Hattery by the third week in July. The City has granted an extension until receipt of this report. Kuenzli asked what occurred that the Engineering Report, which was written in 1982, has resurfaced, and who had submitted it. Kugler said the owner had the report done after concerns were raised during a fire code inspection. The report was submitted to the C~ty and notice to repair or demolish was issued. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1996 Page 6 Licht said this goes to show what one letter, from one person, with no supporting documenta- tion can do to derail a project. Now everyone feels the building is a loss, yet they have little supporting documentation to back up these arguments. Licht said she would hope the City allows time for the second report to be made, because she feels it may contradict the evi- dence, or rather lack of evidence, to date. The Commission agreed that adequate time should be allotted. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1996 ANNUAL REPORT, Due to time constraints, Kugler asked that any changes be submitted by the end of the week. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS TO COMPLETE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT SURVEY, PHASE !. Kugler briefed the Commission on the six proposals received, all within a couple hundred dollars of one another, $12,750-$13,300. All appear to propose what the Commission requests, with the exception of the Martha Fry proposal which states they "reserve the right to dismiss volunteers." However, Fry proposes to photograph all of the out-buildings, which is typically not done. Also, the Tallgrass proposal states that they do not wish to submit sample inventory forms because the Commission is already familiar with her work, although, Kugler is not sure the State will agree to this. Kugler said Tallgrass also appears to desire to perform only work that may result in a historic district, and somewhat overlooked the potential for conservation districts or landmarks. On the other hand, the entire Commission felt Nash is very easy to work with, they like her quality of work {newer Commission members mentioned they liked the professional quality proposal submitted), and she does what the Commission asks, on t~me. The Commission desired to get further clarification from Nash as to whether she is open to the request to make recommendations on all possible districts, not just historic districts. Several consultants reside out of town, although only two list travel expenses. There was a brief discussion about local rs. out of town consultants. Russell related an incident with a Minneapolis-based consultant and that the current general opinion is that greater benefit is received from local-based consultants because they tend to know the area and its resources better. Kugler noted that although Jim Jacobson currently resides out of town, he had lived in Iowa City for a number of years, and did survey work in this area previously. Kugler said Pat Nunnally is also familiar with the area and actually has a desire to work in Iowa City. Russell said that this would be the first phase of a possible three phases of survey work, all whmh may have an impact on one another. He feels someone really solid, who knows the area and has frequent access to the area should receive the grant. Russell said someone who has no preconceptions or history of living within the proposed districts, would also be beneft- c~al. Russell said this is why he feels Tallgrass should receive the grant. Several members of the Commission expressed similar comments, as well as reiterated comments expressed above. Licht added that she has never seen a piece of work that Nash had done be returned or denied by the State for deficiencies. Licht said Nash is very thorough and works hard at making a good presentation. MOTION: Russell moved to select Tallgrass Historians as the consultant to perform the Original Town Plat survey, upon the condition that Tallgrass will include in their work recom- Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 1996 Page 7 mendations on possible conservation districts and historic landmarks, as well as historic districts. Pugh seconded the motion, Malkmus expressed reservations about why Tallgrass had not sent in a proposal for the College Green nominations, despite having performed the survey, and wondered whether Tallgrass may do the same after the first phase of work. Also, Kuenzli reiterated concern about possible conflicts in making recommendations for conservation or landmark districts, but did say that should this not be a problem he does feel Nash is quite competent to perform the work. Russell noted that if Tallgrass Historians does not agree with the conditions, the Commission will need to meet again this month because a draft contract is due to the State August 1, 1996. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION. Kelly noted the upcoming Plum Grove Tasting Party. Food from the 1850's garden and 1850's recipes will be offered. Pugh commended the display at Iowa State Bank that Weber Elementary School students prepared and recommended that a letter of appreciation be sent from the Commission. The Commission agreed and directed Pugh to prepare the letter. - Shaw distributed a sketch of an alternative stair/rail diagram, and noted that it would be finalized for the August meeting. Russell noted that the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission has asked for the Commission's assistance in preparing and presenting the historic properties tax exemption program to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. In response to a letter from Paula and Lowell Brandt, the Commission directed staff to add a statement on thet application form for a certificate of appropriateness suggesting that applicants discuss their projects with neighboring property owners. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. MINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Subject to , pproval MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty Kelly, Ruedi Kuenzli, Sue Licht, Doris Malkmus, Doug Rus- sell, John Shaw, Ginalie Swaim MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Pugh STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Jeff Haring OTHERS PRESENT: Paula and Lowell Brandt CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Russell called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 824 N. GILBERT STREET. Paula and Lowell Brandt, the property owners, were on hand to review the proposal. Dia- grams of the plan were distributed. Lowell said the porch was originally open and the aluminum windows with screening were added in approximately 1973 when the house had aluminum siding put on, The siding has now been removed and the Brandt's intend to repaint the house and renovate the porch at the same time. The Brandt's said they would like to maintain the enclosed porch for several reasons, including security, climate control and pest control. At the same time they would like to improve upon some of the functionality and safety factors. One safety factor noted by Lowell is that should a guest approach the front door, in order to let them in they must step backwards and down a set of steps such that the door may swing open. They intend to provide a larger landing so guests will not have to step back on the steps. There will also be repaving of the concrete leading up to the steps and landing. In regard to the windows, Lowell said they would like to keep combination windows, but would likely go to a wood combination window that includes screening. The same wood combination window would also be installed on the entire main floor of the house. Because of the repositioning of the door closer to the house and the extension of the deck further out from the main structure, an additional window would be added alongside the door. This will also help for safety reasons, to observe those who approach. Lowell said they have concern about the guard rail on the landing. A rail at the required 36" height would be higher than the standards window sill height, therefore, the Brandt's ask for an exception in this height to lower it to 30". Lowell said the Building Code that applies to historic districts may allow exceptions, provided that three standards be met. Lowell feels the first two standards, correcting existing hazards, and designation as historically significant by the jurisdiction, should be met with this plan. It is the third standard, safety, that the Brandt's are unsure whether they meet. Shaw noted that in discussions with the City, the Brandt's should point out that the present landing does not comply with Code, whereas, the new landing will comply with Code. Licht said it should not be problem in getting the 30" rail Historic Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 Page 2 accepted, because there is some acceptance in the Building Code for flexibility. The Uniform Building Code for historic buildings would provide more flexibility if the City used it. On the other hand, Licht said the Iowa City Department of Housing and Inspection Services does not seem to have a record of accommodating this flexibility. Shaw said he does not see any reason the 30" rail should not be granted for the Brandt's. Malkmus remarked that she had recently contacted the City Housing and Inspection Services Department, to follow up on something she had told the Commission she would do last month. Malkmus asked what their opinion is of porch railings that do not meet code. A representative of that department told her they are willing to make exceptions, provided the three standards mentioned have been met, and would deal with every case individually in terms of safety. Licht said this is a step in the right direction. MOTION: Shaw moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for 824 N, Gilbert Street, with the condition that the Historic Preservation Commission recommends to building officials that a 30" porch railing would be more historically appropriate. Kelly seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-l, with Licht abstainin(~ due to conflict of interest, DISCUSSION OF GRANT PROJECTS: Lon(~fellow Neiohborhood survey. Kugler said they are in the process of organizing the site inventory forms. These should be complete and turned in to the State soon. The Commission will likely find out in September whether the grant to perform the additional Longfellow Neighborhood survey work will be accepted. The Commission is to decide, in the near future, whether to initiate the legislative process to nominate the Longfellow District, with or without this additional survey work, and prior to State or National designation. Russell said the neighborhood residents certainly want to begin the process. Dubuque Street/Linn Street Corridor survev. Kugler said things are almost ready to submit to the State to wrap up this project. Colleqe Green/East Colle(~e Street National Reqister nominations. Kugler said the Commission members should have received copies of the draft nomination form that has been sent to the State. Kugler said the Commission had received these copies now because there was some question as to whether the Commission would like to use this draft as the justification for the local designation, or wait until the districts are actually listed on the National Register. Russell said the common practice is to wait until things have gone through at least the State designation level. This is typically done to provide the appropriat~ back!ng. to convince Council to establish a district. Currently, however, the Commission ~s ~n a position where these neighborhoods, and the Longfellow Neighborhood in particular, really want the Commission to get a move on things before any more changes occur. Russell said the risk of waiting is further destruction of the districts, or the possibility of denial by the State or National nomination groups. On the other hand, Russell said that if the Commission judges the information to be adequate, there should be no reason to wait. The public support is there, at least [nthe East College and Longfellow districts. Russell said there are some tenant-occupied buildings in the College Green Historic August Page 3 Preservation Commission 20, 1996 district which may put up a fight. Russell said because you expect a fight is not a reason not to submit something, because it is certainly an appropriate district. There was some discussion about the ability to proceed in this order. The Commission came to the conclusion that they will proceed to seek local designation, before State or National designation has been received. MOTION: Russell moved to state that the Historic Preservation Commission feels the East College Street and College Green districts should receive historic district designa- tion, and to initiate the legislative process for these to become districts. Swaim seconded the motion. Russell said that before this item goes to Council he would like to hold a series of public meetings with residents of these neighborhoods. Russell suggested that people from the districts should be contacted to ask whether they would volunteer to act as block captains, or contacts for the neighborhood, and the meetings might be held in their homes. Russell said he knows some people in the College Green/East College Street districts who would welcome this responsibility and he will try and get ahold of them. Kuenzli volunteered to contact some individuals in the East College neighbor- hood to act as block captains and to begin preparations to nominate that district. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Oriqinal Town Plat Survey. Jan Nash has signed the contract and agreed to the conditions the Commission had asked of her regarding the review of the areas for possible conservation districts or historic landmarks, as well as historic districts. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS. Kugler said Council has now had two votes on the 36 remaining landmark sites. These votes were 4-3 and 4-2. Council has agreed to postpone the last reading on the ordinance until zhe meeting of September 10, 1996, because one of the supporters will be absent next week and it would likely die on a 3-3 vote. Russell asked that the Certificates be produced prior to the September 10, 1996, Council meeting, at which time the Certificates are to be distributed. Russell asked that a letter also be produced and distributed announcing that the Certificates are to be distributed at that time. Russell would like the letter to include information concerning the plaques, stating that they will soon be available and asking whether they would like to purchase one. Because FRIENDS has volunteered to cover the cost of the plaques, and because we want as many people to purchase them as possible, Russell suggested the cost of the plaque to be nominal, like $10. This may produce just enough money for a second round of plaques, which ~s likely to include much fewer properties. Shaw asked that some assistance be made available for installation of the plaques, because without direction they are likely to be mounted in different places, at different heights, etc.. Russell said FRIENDS are likely to come up with some volunteers in their network who can go to the ~ndividual properties and actually do the installations. Russell is to draft a letter to FRIENDS. Malkmus asked that greater effort be made to advertise the landmarks in the local media. Russell said there should be a press release. Historic Presecvation Commission August 20, 1996 Page 4 Kugler also noted that some construction work is to scheduled begin on the Oakes-Wood House, at 1142 Court Street, without Commission review. This one slipped through the system as a result of the extended legislative process. In this case, because of the meeting schedule of the Council, there was not enough time for Council to designate the properties within 60 days of setting their public hearing, and therefore, a permit can be granted and the owner is free to do whatever he wishes with the property. (The Commission reviewed the plan and felt the alterations were appropriate no later this same meeting.). CONSIDER SCHEDULING SEPTEMBER ANNUAL PLANNING SESSION. The Commission tentatively decided to hold its Annual Planning Session on Saturday, Septem- ber 7, 1996, at noon, in the Lobby Conference Room. Russell distributed a memorandum of items to consider. Swaim pointed out that the Butler House is missing from the list. DISCUSSION OF PARK HOUSE HOTEL. Kugler noted that the Board of Appeals is to tour the building on August 28, 1996, at 3:00 p.m., after which they are to hold a hearing on the property owner's appeal. A report has not yet been submitted to the City from Shive-Hattery Consultants, but will likely be received at the time of the tour. Kugler said, apparently, the report states that the building is not in any eminent danger of falling down, but that it is not habitable. Shaw said different people have been contacting one another without one central contact in which all information is filtered through, and asked that a central contact be determined on the Commission, as well as between Meardon or the Younazi's, and City Staff. It was determined Meardon should be their contact, and that Shaw and Kuenzli would both keep up to date on the situation. DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S PORCH STAIR/RAIL DIAGRAM. Shaw distributed a copy of the City of Iowa City, "Handrail, Guardrail and Stairway Require- ments," which Shaw revised. Shaw said this is merely intended to be a guide that depicts what sort of things are required, and not intended to be a model of how things are to look, nor suggest what materials are to be used, etc.. The Commission asked that this be stated somewhere on the diagram, and not leave it up to the individual to assume this, or the departmental person ~n charge of distribution to explain. Shaw is to draft a letter to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services, explaining why the diagram was revised. A copy of the diagram is to be forwarded on to Eleanor Steele. (Kelly left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.) DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FORM. Kugler asked whether revisions included in the member packets should be made to the Certificate of Appropriateness application form. This amendment comes as a result of comments stated in the letter submitted to the Commission by Paula and Lowell Brandt. It was agreed to add the sentence, with the addition of a comma, removal of the phrase, "depending on the size of the project", and replacement of the phrase "it may be advisable", with "it is recommended to inform...". It was also suggested that the specific types of Historic Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 Page 5 materials be listed following, "Other materials, such as historic photos, elevation drawinqs, CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes from the May 28, 1996, meetin(~. MOTION: Licht moved to approve the minutes from the May 28, 1996, meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as written. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, 2. Minutes from the June 11, 1996, meetin(~. MOTION: Shaw moved to approve the minutes from the June 11, 1996, meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as corrected at tonight's meeting. Kuenzli seconded the motion. Page 5, paragraph 3, the discussion of the "Original Town Plat" s. Jrvey should be followed with Phase I. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 3. Minutes from the July 9, 1996, meetina. MOTION: Shaw moved to defer the minutes from the July 9, 1996, meeting to the September 10, 1996, meeting of the Commission. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Update on historic property tax abatement. Russell said, since the last meeting the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission has asked the Commission to do three things: one, obtain approval from the City Council to work with the County Commission on the resolution to be taken before the County Board of Supervisors. Second, the County Commission would like to form a joint commission to discuss the language of the resolution. And third, when the language is agreed upon by both commissions, would like members of the City Commission to appear with them before the Board of Supervisor's whenever necessary. Pugh had recently appeared before the County Commission to discuss the issues and things appear to moving forward. Shaw asked whether anything has been prepared regarding the cost to the County for implementation of the abatement. Shaw added that he felt the impact on the County tax collection is likely to be minimal. Russell said a County Board member had asked him to report how many properties are likely to be affected. Russell said the joint commission will need to prepare an estimate. Letters from the State Historical Societv reclardina the Iowa City Airport. Russell asked the Commission to review the July 22, 1996, letter from the State Historical Society to Jerald Searle, in particular those parts which relate to the razing of the United terminal building. Although this was slated for removal, the State Historical Society Historic Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 Page 6 feels it may be worthy of preservation. Russell said the Commission may want to put in a comment/recommendation. 3. CLG uodate, Au(~ust 1996. 4. Iowa City Urbanized Area Transit Plan. Iowa DOT TransPortation Imorovement Proc~ram. 6. "Old is new at ShambauQh House," Cedar Rapids Gazette, Sunday, AuQust 4, 1996.. Review of plans for renovations at 1142 E. Court Street. Kugler distributed the renovation/addition plans for this property and said although the Commission will not be able to submit a formal recommendation, they may still be able to make some recommendations, and the property owner may use his discretion to consider whether to implement any of the recommendations (see discussion under Discussion of Historic Landmark Designations). The plan includes an addition to the back of the house. Kugler said the plans seem to be appropriate and attempt to match the materials of the existing structure. The Commission felt the same and had no recommendations. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1996 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brantit, Patricia Eckhardt, Tim Lehman MEMBERS ABSENT: William Haigh STAFF PRESENT: Melody Rockwell, John Yapp, Sarah Holecek, Ron Boose, Jeff Hating OTHERS PRESENT: John Beasley, Rob Phipps, Nancy Carlson, Julia Reinbert, Lee Eno, Mike Hahn, Steve Moss, Bob Michael, Lindsey Bergdale, Tim Russell, Roger Larson CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Eckhardt called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 10, 1996, MINUTES: MOTION: Brandt moved to approve the minutes of the July 10, 1996, meeting of the Board of Adjustment, as printed. Lehman seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0-1, with Eckhardt abstaininc~ due to absence. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONNARIANCE ITEMS: EXC96-0011. Public headrig on an application submitted by Dr. Chester Pelsang for a special exception to modify the screening requirements for property located in the CC-2, Community Commercial zone at 839 S. First Avenue. (This item was deferred from the July 10, 1996, Board meeting.) Rockwell reminded the Board that at its July 10, 1996 meeting, it had reviewed this request to modify the screening requirements by allowing a six-foot high fence, rather than arbor vitae screening. The Board has the authority to grant such a special exception when the applicant can demonstrate that it will better serve the public interest. In this case, fencing will allow better on-site circulation of traffic and a safer means of ingress and egress on the property. Rockwell noted the letter included in the Board packets from the applicant's attorney, John Beasley, that addresses some concerns about the design of the fence. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC96-0011, a request for a special exception to modify the screening requirements to allow a six-foot high solid wood or board-on-board fence along the west lot line in lieu of the required arbor vitae screening for property located in the CC-2 zone at 839 S. First Avenue be approved, subject to the design of the fence being generally consistent with that noted in the July 9, 1996, letter from the applicant's attorney, John Beasley. Public hearing: John Beasle¥, 321 E. Market Street, local counsel for the applicant, pointed out for the two Board members who were not present at the last hearing of this request, that no opposi- .3110 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 2 tion to the fence was noted at the July Board meeting. Beasley said that Clifford Walters, 1411 Marcy Street, owner of the property immediately to the west of subject site, was on hand at that meeting and had spoken in favor of the fencing request. Beasley also pointed out that he had spoken with Terry Robinson, City Forester, and Robinson had no opposition or concerns regarding the request. Lehman asked whether the hedges sur- rounding the site will be removed. Beasley deferred this question to the contractor. Rob Phipps, MitchelI-Phipps Construction Co., said the hedges along the east and south lot lines will be removed, which should provide motorists a better sight line for entering and .exiting the property. No fence or vegetation currently exists along the west lot line. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Brandt moved and Bender seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0011, a request for a special exception to modify the screening requirements to allow a six-foot high solid wood or board-on-board fence along the west lot line In lieu of the required arbor vitae screening for property located In the CC-2 zone at 839 S. First Avenue, subject to the design of the fence being generally consistent with that noted in the July 9, 1996, letter from the applicant's attorney, John Beasley. Brandt noted that the primary reason this item was deferred was due to the lack of proper notice. Otherwise, the Board would have been able to act on this at the last meeting. Brandt appreciated the clarification provided in the staff recommendation, as well. Brandt said he also appreciates the concern for the safety of motorists evident in this request, and because of this will support the request. Bender said one major item the Board must review is how the request impacts public health, safety and welfare. Bender said the improvements being made and attention to the removal of the existing hedges are in the public's best interest; the fence will improve traffic safety as opposed to an evergreen hedge. Bender said Pelsang has demonstrated that he intends to do this project in an aesthetically, pleasing way. No complaints have been received from the neighbors. Bender said the improvements will likely improve the value of the property. Lehman agreed with Brandt and Bender, and said the proposed renovation will be an improvement to the property. Eckhardt said this is a very appropriate reuse of a residential structure in a commercial setting. The motion carried 4-0. EXC96-0012__/VAR96-0001. Public hearing onan application submitted byJerry Moritz and Rick Hanson for a special exception to permit a front yard modification and for a variance to allow stacked parking (parking spaces one behind the other) for property located in the RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Residential zone at 1004-1006 E. Market Street. (This item was deferred from the July 10, 1996, Board meeting.) MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14,1996 PAGE 3 Lehman said that as he is the contact person for this application, he would abstain from any discussion or votes on this matter. Rockwell reminded the Board that the applicant is requesting a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet for the width of the existing driveway. A variance is also being requested to allow the required parking to be stacked one behind the other in the driveway. Rockwell said since the structure contains more than two dwelling units, stacking is not permitted. The intent of this no-stacking provision is to ensure that residents of multi- family developments have unrestricted access where a common parking area is shared by residents of a number of dwelling units. Although there are three dwelling units in one building on this property, the arrangement of the units and the separate entrances on Market Street and Rochester Avenue result in its functioning as two separate buildings. If the Market Street units were truly a duplex, the parking spaces located in front of the garage could be counted toward meeting the requirements of those units, and no special exception or variance would be needed. Because of the way the parking is arranged on the property, the residents of each dwelling unit do have control over the use of their parking spaces, as compared to an apartment building with one central parking lot serving all of the units. Rockwell asked the Board to consider the unique nature of the property which is surround- ed on three sides by public right-of-way, the design and orientation of the building, and the circumstances which have led to the current situation. The property is configured in such a way that it is not possible to locate additional parking on the property without encroaching into the required front yard. Rockwell noted that approving the use of the driveway for parking would not result in a change in the way the property is currently being used. Rockwell said staff notes that the proposed variance would not threaten the neighborhood integrity or have a substantial adverse impact on the value of other properties in the area. Rockwell pointed out that at the July 10, 1996, Board meeting, most of the neighborhood residents expressed their support of the stacking solution, despite the apparent high demand for on-street parking in the neighborhood. Regarding unnecessary hardship in relation to the granting of a variance, Rockwell said if a variance is not granted, the two units facing Market Street will have to be converted into one bedroom units. This would not result in a reasonable return given the fact that the dwelling units were originally constructed as four bedroom units. In staff's opinion, it does not seem reasonable to place a hardship on the current property owners for a mistake that appears to have been made by the previous owner and not discovered by the City until recently. Given the situation, staff feels the spirit of the Zoning Chapter would be observed by granting this variance and that substantial justice will be done. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC96-0012/VAR96-0001, a request for a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet for the 24-foot width of the existing driveway, and a request for a variance to allow the two required parking spaces per unit to be located one behind the other, to permit required parking spaces to be located within the existing driveway on the property located in the RNC-12 zone at MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 4 1004-1006 E. Market Street be approved, subject to meeting the right-of-way tree require- ments for this property. Brandt said the Board had been given a copy of inspection violations for the 1004-1006 properties, and that one item said a wall had been constructed in the garage of one of the units. He asked if this wall needed to be removed for the unit to be in compliance with the parking requirements. Rockwell said yes, the wall does need to be removed to meet the parking requirement of two spaces per unit. Brandt asked if this should be added as a condition, Rockwell said the Board could add this condition, but she thought the situation would be handled as a matter of course by the Department of Housing and Inspection Services. Brandt also asked why "for rent" signs are posted in the front of the properties when it had been stated at the previous meeting that rental permits would not be issued until the deficiencies had been met. Rockwell suggested that the question be referred to the applicant. Eckhardt noted there was no sign posting notice of the variance. Rockwell said generally when an item has been before the Board and is deferred to the next meeting, the only public notice of the subsequent meeting is published in the newspaper. Public hearing: Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson Street, said she does not live within 200 feet of the property, but she does live within 300 fset of it. Carlson said she frequently acts as the unofficial representative of the neighborhood, and reminded the Board that she had submitted a letter at the last meeting. She thanked the Board and staff for the time and effort expended to provide a more acceptable solution. She said that as the request has been modified to add the variance, she had spoken again to every individual who had signed that letter to get their opinion. Carlson said every single person found the current, revised request more acceptable than the previous proposal. She submitted another letter containing the signatures of those she had spoken with who concur with granting the variance, as requested. Carlson said the only other thing the neighbors would like stated is that they hope the granting of this request would not set any type of precedent concerning future devel- opment in the area; that this is a one-time deal. She again thanked the Board for its comments and concerns. Tim Lehman, Duncan-Matheson-Lehman Realty, the realtor representing the applicant, said in response to Brandt's questions that the building was constructed in 1991 to house two college-age children of the applicant. As an owner-occupied structure, a rental permit was not necessary. The wall was constructed in the garage to provide an activity/smoking room for the inhabitants. Once the owner sold the house, the following owner discovered that a rental permit was necessary for the use he intended. At this time, the wall, the parking deficiency and the tree ,~e[ic;~,,cies were identified and these will need to be resolved before a rental permit is granted. Brandt asked why there are "for rent" signs posted when a rental permit has not yet been granted. Lehman said it is his understanding that the City would allow them to go ahead MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 5 and rent the site, so long as a permit is being sought. Lehman pointed out that the other side has been a rental unit for five years now without a permit. Brandt said the violation list states that the garage should be used for no other purpose than for parking, and asked staff whether this refers solely to the parking of motor vehi- cles. Rockwell said that would be her assumption. Brantit said he had recently driven past the property and saw a motor boat parked inside the garage of:the 1004 Market Street unit. Brandt asked whether this was an acceptable use of the space. He felt they have some obligation to make sure the spaces are being used as intended. Brandt said he would find it offensive should the space be used for a different type of vehicle than the Zoning Chapter had intended that it be used for. Holecek thought as Icing as the vehicle is movable, there is not a conflict with the technical requirements of the zone. She said the boat is movable and may be replaced by a car at any time. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Bender moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0012, a request for a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet for the 24-foot width of the existing driveway, and a request for a variance to allow the two required parking spaces per unit to be located one behind the other, to permit required parking spaces to be located within the existing driveway on the property located in the RNC-12 zone at 1004-1006 E. Market Street, subject to meeting the right-of-way tree requirements for this property. Bender stated that this situation meets the uniqueness test in terms of the circumstances that led to this point, the layout of the lot, and the orientation of the building. In regard to the requested front yard reduction, Bender felt all of the tests have been met; it poses no threat to public safety, health or welfare, and property values should in no way be dimin- ished. Bender said she does not see many other options available for solving this situa- tion. Asking the property owner to reduce the units from four bedroom to one bedroom units to meet code requirements would not be reasonable, especially as it is not a problem that was the result of his own making. Bender said in the interests of justice, she will vote in favor of both the exception and the variance. Bender thanked Carlson for appearing again, and polling the residents of the neighborhood. Brandt said he will support both the exception and the variance. In addition to the unique- ness of the property, the fact that a building permit was issued in the first place by the City should be considered. Brandt thanked all parties for reaching a middle ground. He said it provides a means to retain integrity in an older, established neighborhood. Because the property is within a neighborhood conservation zone, it's better to have a solution that does not place additional paving in the front yard. Brandt said the Market Street side functions as a duplex, and if it were a duplex, parking would not be an issue. He said this also lends weight to supporting the exception and variance. Aside from this, Brandi said it troubles him that the trees still are not planted and the wall has not been removed, and these deficiencies have been on the record for a number of months and still have not been resolved. Brandi said he feels the owners have an obligation to show good faith in complying with what should be relatively simple require- ments. He said the City allo~ving rental of the units to continue when a rental permit has MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 6 o not even been issued also troubles him. Brantit said although a boat can be parked in a required parking space, he hoped the owners would show good faith in accommodating the code as well as the neighborhood, and seek other alternatives for parking the boat and making the parking work. Eckhardt said she has a number of concerns, many of which rest on comments raised by Carlson about setting a precedent in the neighborhood. She hoped the Board's decision would not open the doors to additional projects of this sort. Eckhardt said she is con- cerned that the Zoning Code was violated when the building was constructed, and al- though this happened under a previous owner, nevertheless, the Code was violated. Eckhardt said making amends for this error was not the proper way to go. Eckhardt said she finds it untenable that for five years the owners have taken advantage of the situation and have continued to be allowed to rent the units. Eckhardt said this has not resulted in undue economic hardship, rather, the owners have benefitted despite the violations. Eckhardt said because of these reasons, she cannot support the request and will vote no. The motion failed on a vote of 2-1-1, with Eckhardt votinq no and Lehman abstain- inj, EXC96-0014. Public hearing on an application submitted by Emergency Housing Project for a special exception to permit a front yard modification along Davenport Street for property located in the RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Residential zone at 331 N. Gilbert Street. Yapp said the Emergency Housing Project is requesting a special exception to modify the front yard requirement to permit construction of an enclosed entryway on the northwest corner of the structure. Currently, there is an open subterranean stairwell to the lower level of the house. The stairwell collects rainwater, ice forms around the entrance in the winter, and cold air easily leaks into the house. Construction of an enclosed entryway would help alleviate these concerns. Yapp said in staff's view the exception would not substantially alter the front yard require- ment from the current situation on the property. The existing structure encroaches into the 20*foot front yard setback by varying degrees. A bay window on the north side of the structure is only seven feet, three inches off the Davenport Street right-of-way. The proposed five foot by five and a half foot enclosed entryway would begin nine feet off of the Davenport Street right-of-way and would encroach into the required front yard setback area by approximately 1.7%. In addition, many of the structures along Davenport Street encroach into the 20-foot front yard setback, and Davenport Street has an extra wide, 80- foot right-of-way. Yapp said construction of the entryway should not detract from the character of the structure or the neighborhood. The submitted plans note that the finished material will match closely to that of the existing building. An alternative to constructing an enclosed entryway would be to construct an awning to help deflect rain and snow from collecting in the stairwell. However, this would not stop cold air and would not deflect rain and snow coming in at an angle. Yapp said staff believes the enclosed entryway is the best solution for alleviating these climate-related concerns. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 7 Yapp said staff feels the interests of justice will be served by granting this special excep- tion. The encroachment into the front yard is minimal and will not be out of character for the neighborhood. The enclosed entryway will do much to alleviate problems with rainwa- ter, snow, and cold in the current stairwell, and the proposed entryway will not inter/ere with access to or from neighboring properties, nor will it inter/ere with sight distance along Davenport Street. The enclosed entryway will also prevent further damage to the en- trance, the structure; and stairwell. Yapp said staff recommends that EXC96-0014, a request to reduce the front yard require- ment along Davenpo. rt Street from 20 feet to 9 feet for the 5-foot width of the proposed enclosed entryway for property located at 331 N. Gilbert Street be approved. Public hearing: Julia Rembert, Director of the Emergency Housincl Proiect, 331 N. Gilbert Street, said the structure was purchased in 1983 with Block Grant funds. She said the agency has attempted to improve the structure each year since. The Emergency Housing Project mission statement mentions that its intent is to provide increased well-being and safety for its clients, staff and volunteers. She said the agency feels that the open stairwell may actually hamper safety. Rembert said enclosing the stairwell should help alleviate some of the algae and mosquitoes that collect in this area, as well as ice and snow buildup. Reinbert said improvement of the stairwell will also serve to protect the wellbeing of those who make donations to the EHP and bring these donations through this rear entryway. Lee Eno, the contractor, said the existing one and a half foot recess of the stairwell would remain and the enclosure would be built over the top of this. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Brandt moved and Lehman seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0014, a request to reduce the front yard requirement along Davenport Street from 20 feet to nine feet for the five-foot width of the proposed enclosed entryway for property located at 331 N. Gilbert Street. Bender said the amount of the encroachment of the enclosed entryway into the front yard setback area is less than 2%. She noted that the entry would not extend into the required front yard as far as the existing bay window. Bender said this type of encroachment is pretty typical along Davenport Street and certainly not out of character. The entryway will not change the use of the facility, the number of trips in or out, negatively impact the neighborhood in any way, and should help to protect those going in and out. Bender said the interests of justice would be served by granting this exception. Lehman agreed with Bender. He said the entryway will address a safety concern and will not otherwise impact the neighborhood or change the use of the facility in any way. Brandt agreed with his colleagues, and also pointed out that the entryway will not en- croach as far as the existing bay window into the required front yard. Brandt also said the enclosed entryway will improve the safety of the facility. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, !996 PAGE 8 o Eckhardt said she is a neighbor and feels this will be an improvement to the facility and will enhance the charitable work done by the Emergency Housing Project. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0. EXC96-0015. Public hearing on an application submitted by Steve Moss, on behalf of Iowa City Tennis & Fitness Center, for a special exception to waive rezoning/planned development requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and allow administrative review of development on a site containing critical and protected slopes for property located in the CH-1, Highway Commercial zone at 2400 N. Dodge Street. Rockwell reminded the Board that it had reviewed Phase 1 of this renovation project in March and April 1996. The Board's decision at that time determined that a total of 186 parking spaces would be sufficient for the facility and the proposed expansions, and that the weight room and batting cages could proceed under administrative review. This con- struction is now under way. Rockwell said the applicant now asks the Board to allow the slopes regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to be handled through administrative site plan review for the proposed Phase 2 development, including the tennis/volleyball courts addition and expan- sion of the women's locker room, the entryway and the parking area. Rockwell displayed an overhead transparency that compared the original plan and the revised plan. The original plan called for major construction in both critical and protected slopes on the site. The plan has been revised to move construction, even that of the parking area, away from the critical and protected slopes. Rockwell said the slopes regulations of the ordinance, as they currently stand, require properties with slopes greater than 25% to receive a Sensitive Areas Development Plan/Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning approval prior to proceeding with any development of the site. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance is under review for amendments at this time by City Council, and it is anticipated that Council will adopt these amendments on Sep- tember 10, 1996. If these amendments are adopted as currently proposed, the slopes regulations would be altered to allow development on land containing critical and protected slopes to be reviewed administratively, if it does not encroach into a critical slope and is not within 50 feet of a protected slope. Rockwell said the fitness center site plan indicates no development on any critical slope or within 50 feet of a protected slope. Rockwell said instead of waiting for Council approval of these amendments, the applicant is requesting that the Board grant a special exception that will waive the rezoning/planned development requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and allow administrative review of the Phase 2 development. Rockwell said staff, once again, is reluctant for the Board to set a precedent that in effect amends the ordinance to allow administrative review when the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a rezoning/planned development for the entire site. It is appropriate that the legislative branch of municipal government, not the judicial branch, make law through amendments to the ordinance. Waiting until the ordinance is amended may delay Phase 2 construction for the fitness center by approximately three weeks, but it does not deny reasonable, beneficent use of the property. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 9 Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC96-0015, a special exception to exempt the Iowa City Tennis & Fitness Center Phase 2 expansion, including the tennis and volleyball courts, women's locker room, entryway and parking areas, from the rezoning/planned development requirements of the regulated slopes section of the Sensitive Areas Ordi- nance for property located in the CH-1 zone at 2400 N. Dodge Street be denied. Brantit asked staff to review the parking lot arrangement in relation to where the critical and protected slopes are located on the site. Public hearing: Mike Hahn, McComas-Lacina Construction Co., contractor for the applicant, stressed the timing issue. Hahn said waiting another three weeks before Council approves the Sensi- tive Areas Ordinance amendments, and then waiting several more weeks before staff accepts the plans, will really push the question of whether they will be able to finish the fitness center project this year. Hahn said the asphalt plants will close their doore around the 25th of November, and if they have to wait, there may not be sufficient time to grade and prepare the parking area. Hahn said if the parking area is not completed this year, they may as well wait until next Spring, which will be disruptive to the fitness center clients. Hahn said they have been working with the City since March and have readjusted the plans to accommodate the critical and protected slopes on the site. Hahn emphasized that Council voted in favor of the amendments on the first reading, and it is not likely that things are going to change before the second and third readings. He asked the Board to approve the exception. Brandt said in Apdl, the Board approved 168 parking spaces, yet the current site plan says the Board approved 143 spaces, but the fitness center willingly is going to provide 154 spaces. Brandt asked where the discrepancy originated. Rockwell said that in the revisions of the plan, there is a smaller addition to the women's locker room. The total square footage of the expansion and the Board's reduction in parking was pro-rated. This resulted in 143 spaces being required for the proposed expansion. Rockwell said staff made this adjustment administratively. The fitness center has since volunteered to add more spaces than would be required, for a total of 154 spaces. Eckhardt asked if a survey would have been required in order for this request not to have required administrative review. She asked if the site plan submitted is this survey. Eckhardt asked how this will be handled in the future. Rockwell said a Sensitive Areas Site Plan would be reviewed administratively by staff. Steve Moss, 2400 N. Dodqe Street, the applicant, said the fitness center has jumped through just about every hoop they can to get this plan accepted. Moss said the timeta- ble, now, is such that construction is already under way on Phase 1 improvements, and should they not receive approval tonight, it will cost them money to wait for the Council approval of the Sensitive Area Ordinance amendments. Moss said the adjustments to the plan have cost them money. Moss said Council acceptance of the amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance appears inevitable, and he does not see why the fitness center MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 10 should be penalized by waiting. Moss noted that the membership would be let down by any further delay, which may cause further financial hardship. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Brandt moved and Bender seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0015, a special exception to exempt Iowa City Tennis & Fitness Center, Phase 2 expan- sion, including the tennis and volleyball courts, women's locker room, entryway and parking areas, from the rezoning/planned development requirements of the regulat- ed slopes section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for property located in the CH-1 zone at 2400 N. Dodge Street, subject to 1) administrative site plan review of the Phase 2 expansion, and 2) the applicant installing fencing at the west edge of the grading limits on the site during grading/construction to prevent encroachment of development activities Into critical and protected slopes and to protect the existing, mature trees on those slopes. Brandt said the Board had previously set precedents. He said it was his understanding that the Board doesn't deal with issues unless it is expressly stated in the ordinance that it may do so. Some of his questions this time around were to assure that the Board is not infringing in a way that the legislative branch had not intended. Brandt said basically, it has not been made clear in the ordinance that the legislative branch intended that the Board not deal with the current issue. Consequently, Brandt said he is willing to support this item once again. Bender agreed that the issue is troubling. She said if this were a different applicant, she might approach this issue differently. On the one hand, Bender said she wants to give credit to the Sensitive Areas Committee and the Council for looking at the amendments the Board had recommended and to let the legislative process run its course. On the other hand, this applicant has been before the Board on a number of occasions and appears to be doing everything possible to accommodate the public welfare, the City, the requirements of the ordinance, etc. She felt the applicant deserved extra consideration for this. Because it appears the Sensitive Areas Ordinance amendments will be approved and due to the time constraints noted by the applicant, Bender said she will vote to approve the requested exception and let the construction progress. Lehman said he, too, is concerned about whether the Board is overstepping its bounds, but he assumes Council will approve the necessary amendments. Lehman said the Board has approved similar requests previously. He said to grant approval again will let the fitness center proceed with its work. Therefore, he will be voting in favor of the exception. Eckhardt said she has a pretty good understanding of what the fitness center has under- gone, but said the Board had given the fitness center the benefit of the doubt on two previous occasions. She said the Board really must be careful that it respect the legislative process, such that the Board is not making legislative decisions. She said she would not be voting in favor of the exception. In regard to comments made by Brandt on the legislative versus judicial process, Holecek pointed out that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance does allow the Board the jurisdiction to grant special exceptions from the requirements of the ordinance. She said the Board MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 11 must make the necessary findings as outlined in the appeal section of the ordinance. Holecek said it does appear based on the comments made by the Board that the Board feels the applicant has met the provisions for appealing to the Board. She said this is well within the jurisdiction allowed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The motion carried on a vote of 3-1, with Eckhardt votlnQ no, EXC96-0016. Public hearing on an application submitted by Jeff Schabilion for a special exception to modify side yard requirements for property located in the RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone at 431 Rundell Street. Holecek said the applicant has asked for a deferral of this item until the September meeting of the Board. Because the applicant expected the item to be deferred and is therefore not in attendance, Holecek counseled the Board to defer discussion of any questions, which may have arisen during its tour of the Schabilion property the previous afternoon, to the next Board meeting when this item is under consideration. Rockwell said depending on the results of the Board of Appeals hearing for the Schabilion property, the Board may not need to consider this item; if the Building Code violations are not resolved, the encroaching portions of the structure may need to be removed from the side yards regardless of Board of Adjustment action. Public hearing: There was none. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Bender moved and Brandt seconded the motion to defer EXC96-0016 to the September 11, 1996, meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0. EXC96-0017. Public hearing on an application submitted by Main Street Partners for a special exception to permit off-street parking in the CB-10, Central Business zone for property located at 315 E. College Street. Rockwell distributed a revised site plan. Revisions were made as a result of moving the building three feet from the south properly line to accommodate better sight distance for motorists exiting from the parking area, and because additional accommodations were made in the parking area for people with disabilities. Rockwell also displayed an over- head projection depicting the interior court yard, and said this should result in greater light, air, and public open space within the building. Rockwell said except for hotels and motels, private off-street parking can only be provided in the CB-10 zone through the granting of a special exception. The applicant proposes redevelopment of the property, and asks that the Board grant a special exception to allow construction of up to 75 underground parking spaces to serve the 24,000 square foot ground floor commercial space, as well as the 48 apartments containing a total of 191 bedrooms. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 12 Rockwell said although off-street parking is not encouraged in the CB-10 zone, intensive development of the site that includes underground parking should further the main objec- tives of the zone. Because it will be located underground, the proposed parking area will not prevent full development of the site. Also, the Director of the City Parking and Transit Department has determined that allowing up to 75 on-site parking spaces to serve the proposed commercial and residential uses would not undermine the viability of the munici- pal parking facilities. Rockwelt said the only restriction is that this parking should not be leased out to off-site businesses or residential tenants in the area. Rockwell said in looking at the specific standards, it has been noted that the screening requirement will be met for the proposed underground parking as it will be enclosed within the building. Access to the underground parking is proposed off the alley south of the site. Staff asked the applicant to redesign the parking entrance to ensure adequate visibility of the alley traffic. Staff feels the revised design accomplishes this. Rockwell said it is in the interests of the City to encourage high quality commercial development within the Central Business District. The proposed project will result in an intensive development of the site, which is appropriate for the CB-10 zone. The under- ground parking will be unobtrusive and will not diminish the viability of the publicly-provid- ed municipal parking facilities. With no direct vehicular access from the properly onto Gilbert Street or College Street, less traffic friction will be created, on-street parking spaces along College Street can remain in place and there will be less vehicular-pedestri- an conflict. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC96-0017, a special exception to peaTnit up to 75 underground parking spaces for property located in the CB-10 zone at 315 E. College Street be approved, subject to 1) a stop sign being installed in the building for vehicles exiting the underground parking area, 2) the parking spaces being restricted for use by on-site tenants and patrons with no leasing of the parking spaces to off-site businesses or residents being permitted, 3) City approval of the design of the parking area entrance to ensure visibility for drivers of vehicles at the alley access point, and 4) the parking area design requirements being met by the applicant. Rockwell said staff added condition four because the parking area design has been changed several times, and staff wants to ensure that everyone is aware that if the Board approves the underground parking, that will not constitute carte blanche approval of the parking area design as submitted tonight. There may be additional changes, and these will be reviewed by the Housing and Inspection Services Department to determine that the parking meets all of the requirements. Brandt asked who the "patrons" are referred to in condition number four, because the application states that the parking is intended for residents and employees. Rockwell said that in talking to the applicant and the Parking and Transit Department Director, it became clear that the parking will be available for patrons, or customers of the commercial spaces, as well as tenants and employees of the building. Brandt said he brings this up because one big concern these days is about ensuring that parking is available for downtown customers. Rockwell said 75 spaces is not going to meet the needs of all customers, employees and tenants of the new building, so use of the downtown parking facilities will continue to be required. Lehman asked how the applicant intends to police or enforce MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 13 these spaces so they are used solely by tenants, customers or employees. Eckhardt added the type of commercial tenant has an impact on the amount of parking required, as well. Public hearing: 15ab Michael, attorney for Main Street Partners, said the proposed development, consisting of three levels of residential and one level of commercial, is not only allowed by the zoning, it is encouraged. In regard to how parking will be restricted to employees, patrons and tenants, Michael said it is anticipated that approximately one-half of the spaces will be available for residential tenants, and the other half for employees or customers of the commercial development. In terms of policing the parking area, Michael said there are various systems, such as stickers, to accomplish this. He said the applicant does not envision any problems. Michael emphasized that there is no parking requirement in this zone; that the addition of the parking was completely at the developer's request. Michael reminded the Board that special exceptions for parking were granted in the zone in 1992 (50 spaces) and 1995 (66 spaces). As to who the commercial tenants will be and how much parking they will require, Michael said there is no clear indication at this time of who those tenants will be. Michael said the staff recommendations will be complied with by the developer. He agreed the extra sight distance and the stop sign on the exit both are likely to be benefi- cial. Michael said the parking will not be leased to outside residents or commercial tenants. And concerning condition number four, Michael said the applicant is completely willing to comply with any parking design or code requirements. Michael pointed out that the existing old library parking lot provides 78 spaces, and not only will the proposed parking area help alleviate the loss of this parking, but it will provide parking for additional tenants, customers and employees. Michael said, as Rockwell had pointed out, the parking area will not diminish the viability of City parking facilities. Bender said the application states the building will have 62 apartments, yet the staff report mentions only 48 units. Michael said the development project has been reduced from 62 to 48 units, and from four levels of residential units to three levels. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Lehman moved and Bender seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0017, a special exception to permit up to 75 underground parking spaces for property located in the CB-10 zone at 315 E. College Street, subject to 1) a stop sign being installed In the building for vehicles exiting the underground parking area, 2) the parking spaces being restricted for use by on-site tenants and patrons wlth no leasing of the parking spaces to off-site busines=es or residents being permitted, 3) City approval of the design of the parking area entrance to ensure visibility for drivers of vehicles at the alley access point, and 4) the parking area design require- ments being met by the applicant. Bender said, as staff had pointed out. it is clearly in the City's best interest to have this type of development which is, in fact, encouraged in the CB-10 zone. Bender said she MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14,1996 PAGE14 likes the underground parking aspect as it keeps the parking out of sight, and allows commercial use of the ground floor. The loss of an existing surface parking lot is also balanced by a voluntary addition of nearly the same amount of parking that should not threaten the viability of City parking facilities. Bender said she appreciated the extra effort put into increased sight distance and signage, and felt the ingress and egress point to the alley is a safer situation than vehicular access onto Gilbert or College Streets. Lehman said he understands there is no parking requirement in the CB-10 zone, so he is pleased to see that the applicant has voluntarily sought to provide this parking. Lehman said he is also pleased with the appearance of the building on the corner of Dubuque and Burlington Streets, which was developed by the applicant. Brandt said he appreciates the cooperation of the applicant in working with the City on the design. He said the safety concerns appear to have been taken into consideration. Eckhardt agreed with her colleagues, and added that she is encouraged by the reduced scale of the building, and the provision to provide parking on a voluntary basis. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0. (The Commission recessed from 6:15 to 6:25 p.m.) EXC96-0018. Public headng on an application submitted by Lindsey Bergdale for a special exception to permit auto and truck oriented uses, that is, a car wash and two gasoline pumps, for property located in the CC-2, Community Commemial zone at 1059 Highway I West. Yapp said the applicant is proposing an approximate 6,000 square foot, one-tunnel, conveyor type car wash with two gasoline pumps situated in the stacking area. Both the car wash and gasoline pumps are permitted by special exception in the CC-2 zone. He said other than providing sufficient stacking and parking spaces in compliance with the parking regulations set forth in the City Code, no additional requirements apply to car washes or gasoline stations in the CC-2 zone. Section 14-6N-1J2a states that automobile laundries, or car washes, shall provide one parking space per every two wash racks and stacking spaces equal to five times the maximum capacity of the car wash for each wash rack bay or tunnel. The applicant notes in the application that four cars will typically be processed at any one time, which will require two parking spaces and twenty stacking spaces. The proposed car wash more than meets the requirement for parking and stacking spaces. In addition, Yapp said the City Code requires one parking space for each island of gasoline pumps. In this case there would be one island of pumps, requiring one parking space. Again, the site plan provides sufficient room to meet this requirement. Yapp said the submitted photographs show the applicants desire to maintain an attractive, landscaped setting for the facility. Although the proposal appears to be well landscaped, staff expressed concerns about excessive paving, especially as the site exists along a major entryway into the city. The Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to preserve and enhance the entryways into the city. The applicant has submitted a revi{ed site plan, as MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 15 depicted in the August 14 memorandum distributed before tonighfs meeting, which reduces the paving on the site and increases the landscaped area. Yapp said for the internal circulation, the stacking and parking area design is sufficient for the City Code requirements, and the ingress and egress to the site should not negatively affect the movement of traffic on adjacent public streets. A Sensitive Areas Site Plan will be required due to the indication of hydric soils on the site. The site plan will need approval of the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Two other items need approval prior to site plan approval, including a Federal Aviation Administration approval as the property is located with the approach zone for the Iowa City Airport, and a flood plain development permit as the property is within a flood plain. Yapp said staff recommends that EXC96-0018, a special exception to permit a car wash and two gasoline pumps on property located in the CC-2 zone at 1059 Highway 1 West, be approved, subject to 1) increased landscaping and the required number of street trees being shown on the submitted site plan, 2) FAA approval for construction, 3) approval of a flood plain development permit, and 4) general conformance with the concept plan submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development on August 9, 1996. Eckhardt noted that as one enters the Walmart lot from the Highway 1 entrance, there are often care unable to turn left and stacking of vehicles occurs. Brandt agreed. Yapp said because it is an off-site private drive, the City cannot require signage on a property other than the applicant's property. Public hearing: Lindsey Bercldale, the applicant, referred to the photographs submitted and said that their goal is to make the facility first-rate. In regard to the entrance to the city, Bergdale said he feels the facility will only improve what currently exists on the site. Lehman asked if Bergdale had any predictions on the number of care served per day. Bergdale said it varies from season to season, but said a very comparable facility in Sioux City will do in excess of 100,000 vehicles per year. Bergdale said he hasn't done precise calculations, but feels in excess of 35 cars may fit on the site at any one time. Eckhardt asked whether the entrances and exits will be marked as such. Bergdale said definitely. Brandt asked whether Bergdale envisioned any problems in turning left to the site or exiting. Bergdale said no. He pointed out his company has a good working relationship with Walmart; they have another facility next door to a Walmart in Omaha, Nebraska so have worked with them in the past. Lehman asked whether that facility has gas pumps as well. Bergdale said it does not, because the lot is smaller. .Tim Russell, Hiahway I West, said he shares the concern about the Walmar~ intersection. He said his only other concern relates to the "gas station" aspects of the facility and whether this means noise and loud speakers will be a part of this project as well. Russell said if it is to be like a convenience store with long hours and loud speakers out on the pumps, he would just as soon not have this. Bergdale said there would be no conve- nience store aspect whatsoever, just a cashier booth, which will be located right next to the pumps, so no loud speakers will be necessary. The current hours of operation at their other car washes are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. six d~ys a week, and 12:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 16 on Sunday, except they remain open later at the Omaha facility, where the adjacent Walmart store is open until 10:00 p.m. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Bender moved and Brandt seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0018, a special exception to permit a car wash and two gasoline pumps on property located in the CC-2 zone at 1059 Highway I West, subject to 1) increased landscap. ing and the required number street trees being shown on the site plan, 2) FAA approval for construction, 3) approval of a flood plain de. velopment permit, and 4) general conformance with the concept plan submitted to the Department of Plan- ning and Community Development on August 9, 1996. Brandt said the noise aspects are a good point and asked whether this could be a condi- tion. Eckhardt asked if this would be especially helpful should ownership change hands. Rockwell said the exception is recorded and is tied to the land. She noted that if the use is abandoned for more than one year, another exception would be required. Holecek added if the use is expanded, an additional exception would be required. Bender said the photographs of the other properties are attractive. She said although she is concerned about the extent of paving, as is the case with Walmart and Cub Foods, steps have been taken to alleviate the impact of some of this. Bender said she does not have the traffic or safety concerns that have been raised by some other Board members as there are a number of ways in and out of the site, and she does not feel the basis exists for denial on these concerns alone. Lehman pointed out that the Iowa City Walmart is open 24 hours a day around Christmas time. Lehman said he is satisfied that the applicant has met the parking and stacking requirements, and it appears the facility will be fairly attractive. Therefore, he will vote in favor. Brandt said there appears to have been good cooperation between staff and the applicant in addressing the concerns. Brandt said there probably could be far worse uses on the site. He noted that the facility does have clean lines and the landscaping and greenery issues have been addressed to a greater extent. Brandt said the area has changed a great deal in the last few years. He said the proposed use is not inconsistent with those surrounding it. Eckhardt said she agrees with the other Board members, and said she, too, will vote in favor. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0. EXC96-0019. Public hearing on an application submitted by Roger Larson for three special exceptions to permit a front yard modification, to permit a dwelling unit above the ground floor of a commercial use, and to reduce the off-street parking requirements for property located in the C1-1, Intensive Commercial zone at 802 S. Clinton Street. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 17 Rockwell reviewed the location of the site in relation to its surroundings and the con- struction plans. The applicar]t is requesting three special exceptions to enable him to construct a two-story, metal pole building over the existing commercial structure and attach it to the warehouse building on the site. The applicant would like to establish one, three*bedroom, second-story apartment in the rear portion of the pole building. Special exceptions are required to establish a dwelling unit in the C1-1 zone, to reduce the off- street parking required for the existing commercial uses and the proposed residential use, and because the pole building is proposed to extend into the front yard setback area along Clinton Street, a front yard modification is needed. Rockwell said the lot area requirement is satisfied for the proposed residential use. However, the suitability of the use in this zone above a commercial use, and adjacent to railroad tracks, a warehouse and a lumber yard storage area must also be considered. There are properties in the vicinity north of the railroad tracks that have been redeveloped to provide residential and commercial uses. She noted that in most of these cases, a new structure had been built for both the commercial and residential uses. The applicant proposes to construct an apartment on the second floor of a metal pole building that would enclose most of the dilapidated, existing commercial structure, except for the front portion of the building which encroaches five feet into the Clinton Street right-of-way. Rockwell said the City Housing and Inspection Services Department (HIS) has cited the existing quanset-hut structure as a dangerous building, as structurally suspect, in a state of general disrepair, needing extensive roof renovations to prevent further damage, such as collapsing ceilings, and that it has electrical service and wiring violations. Staff severe- ly questions the advisability of allowing an apartment to be located above such a building which could pose a fire hazard. Concerning the request to reduce the off-street parking requirements, Rockwell said the Zoning Chapter does provide that where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has characteristics such that the number of parking spaces required is too restrictive, the Board may grant a special exception to allow not more than a 50% reduction in the required number of parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a 25% reduction. Rockwell said the existing uses on the site require a total of 15 parking spaces, and an additional two parking spaces would be required for the proposed residential use. Howev- er, because the proposed apartment addition is not more than 50% of the existing com- mercial floor area, the applicant only needs to provide the number of parking spaces that will fit on the site in compliance with the parking area design requirements, plus the two additional parking spaces required for the residential addition. The site plan submitted, which complies with the parking area design requirements, shows that six parking spaces can be accommodated on the site. This, plus the two for the residential use, would mean eight total spaces would be required. The applicant has indicated that six parking spaces should be sufficient to meet the parking demand for the existing commercial and proposed residential uses. In staff's view, the applicant has not submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the characteristics of the pizza delivery business, the seamstress business, the coffee roasting company, warehouse and an apartment are such that the requirement for eight parking spaces is too stringent. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 18 In looking at the requested exception to the required front yard setback, Rockwell said staff found no peculiarity of the property in terms of shape or topography. The difficulty, as presented, is building around or onto an existing non*conforming structure that en- croaches twenty feet into the required front yard along Clinton Street, and in fact, en- croaches five feet into the public street right-of-way. The proposed two-story addition would encroach into the required front yard 1,170 square feet. This is a 65% encroach- ment into the front yard, a substantial encroachment in staff"s view. Rockwell said the proposed new structure would cover most of the existing dilapidated building. Five feet of the existing structure, however, would protrude into the right-of-way, and the 'aesthetic affect of the combined old and new facade may not serve to upgrade the appearance of the property in any appreciable way. The roof may be repaired without building a two-story structure over the existing building, and without requiring a f,ont yard modification. The second-story apartment could be housed within a new addition set back from the required front yard. Allowing an apartment to be established above a dangerous building and with insufficient parking is not in the public's best interest, the wellbeing or safety of prospective tenants, or beneficial to neighboring property owners. Increasing the nonconformity of the existing situation by allowing a two-story cover up of a substantial encroachment into the required front yard is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Chapter to gradually eliminate nonconforming situations as redevelopment occurs. In addition, Rockwell said there are a substantial number of Building Code violations that staff feels should be resolved prior to seeking and establishing an additional use, particu- larly a residential use, on this property. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC96-0019, a request for three special exceptions to 1) permit one three-bedroom, second-story apartment, 2) to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 8 to 6 parking spaces, and 3) to reduce the front yard require- ment along Clinton Street from 20 feet to 0 feet for the 58.5-foot width of the proposed two-story addition for property located in the Cid zone at 802 S. Clinton Street be denied. Rockwell also advised that should the Board have specific questions about structural compliance or Building Code regulations, Ron Boose, the City's Senior Building Official was available. Lehman asked for clarification on the structural units proposed for the new roof, i.e., the type of beams, wall structure material, etc. Boose said there is not a clear indication as the plans have not been submitted, but his understanding is that the applicant plans to construct an agricultural type building consisting of wood beams and wood posts with steel roofing and siding material. Lehman asked if this would be acceptable. Boose said yes, it is an engineered building, and structurally could comply with the requirements of the Building Code. Boose said most structures of this type of construction are one-story buildings, though a two-story structure is not out of the question. Brandt asked whether it was acceptable to allow a structure be built over the top of another building that has a long history of code violations. Boose said HIS has put off enforcement of the violation orders until the outcome of this hearing, but the roof needs immediate attention and there is damage to the structural supports in the roof. Boose said they have been trying to get a porch repaired for six months and they finally had to file for a court injunction, because there was no progress. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 19 Public hearing: Roqer Larson, Lot #35, Hilltop Trailer Court, the applicant, said he is surprised, because he thought he was largely meeting the concerns. However, from what he has heard tonight, he said he is not opposed to a deferral. Larson said that he was under the impression that the renovations would result in an improvement to the structure and its viability. In regard to the parking, Larson said he struggled with this quite a bit, but has arrived at a plan that does provide eight parking spaces. Eckhardt said the Board, however, is only able to consider the proposal currently before the Board. Brandt asked what is to be done with the old structure once it is built over. Larson said the Building Department has requested that the shingles be removed, because there are too many layers, and that he would remove and/or repair rafters, as needed. Larson said he has promised Boose he will do this. Brandt wondered why he would go through this rather than just remove the building and start over. Larson said removal would be a better option, but said that would disrupt the commercial units. Larson said his contractor, Roger Kline, has said the construction of the building over the existing one can be done and would allow the businesses to continue operation. Lehman agreed with Brandt that it would be better to remove the dilapidated building. He asked staff whether Larson would lose the setback and such if the building were tom down and rebuilt, because these are grandfathered in. Rockwell said that would be the case. Larson said he was surprised by the staff comment about encroachment on the front yard. Larson said the encroachment is only a few feet over what currently exists. In regard to the repair of the steps, Larson said he had someone hired, but this person has since disappeared without a trace. Larson said Kline has said he will make the repairs. The Board discussed the applicant's request to defer consideration of this item in order for Larson to have time to demonstrate that he can legally provide eight parking spaces on the site, and make any other necessary adjustments. Rockwell said she does not believe deferral would result in many of the main concerns being remedied. Rockwell suggested that the Board may want to go on record as having stated that a residential use with insufficient parking in an intensive commercial area is not an appropriate use for the site. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Brandt moved and Lehman seconded the motion to approve EXC96-0019, a request for three special exceptions to 1) permit one three-bedroom, second- story apartment, 2) to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 8 to 6 parking spaces, and 3) to reduce the front yard requirement along Clinton Street from 20 feet to 0 feet for the 58.5-foot width of the proposed two-story addition for property located In the C1-1 zone at 802 S. Clinton Street° Bender said there are many concerns surrounding this application, such as the suitability of an apartment in this zone and neighborhood and the proposal to expand or intensify an already nonconforming use. Bender said approval of the requested exceptions may MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE 20 set a dangerous precedent. Also, the Department of Housing and Inspection Services has stated that the building presents some sedous violations and safety risks. She felt a 65% encroachment into the required front yard setback area along Clinton Street is very substantial, Bender said there are too many problems to seek a deferral, Lehman said he has examined the building. It is in disrepair, and he cannot justify in his mind the construction of a roof over what exists. Lehman said the structure and sur- roundings are not appropriate for a residential unit. It does not appear the parking requirements can be satisfied, and the encroachment into the Clinton Street front yard setback area is too substantial. Brandt said deferral would not be the dght choice. There are obviously numerous prob- lems that need to be worked out with HIS, rather than adding to a potential problem. Eckhardt emphasized that in addition to comments noted by her colleagues, this is not an appropriate neighborhood for a residential unit. With all the problems that already exist, the addition of a residential unit would be a very unwise choice. The motion failed on a vote of 0-4 on an affirmative motion. ADJOURNMENT: Bender moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:24 p.m, Lehman seconded the motion to adjourn. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0, Patricia Eckhardt, Chairperson Me on R. o~;~e~ Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Jeff Haring. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION AUGUST 14, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: Ken Fearing, Judith Klink, Deb Liddell, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Allen Stroh, Ross Wilburn Jana Egeland, Bruce Maurer Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Bob Howell, Bob Miklo Dave Tolliver, Terry Dahms, Dave Hintze, Bill Frantz, Larry Schnittjer FORM~L ACTION TAKEN Moved by Pacha, seconded by Klink. to approve the July 10, 1996 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Pacha, seconded by Wil/ourn, to accept a portion of the required open space as set out by the developer, with the remainder being satisfied by payment of fees. Unanimous. (Village Green South) Moved by Stroh, seconded by Fearing. to approve Regina's request to use a portion of Hickory Hikl Park during the Iowa City Fall Fun Festival, with the same stipulations as in previous years. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Dave Tolliver, a member of the Friends of Iowa River Scenic Trail, presented the commission with the Pedestrian and Bike Map produced by F.I.R.S.T. Tolliver and Terry Dahms expressed appreciation to the city and commission for their cooperation and support in helping to complete the map. Liddell expressed appreciation to F.I.R.S.T. for their hard work in completing it and their active involvement in trail development. VI!J~GE GREEN SOUTH Trueblood presented background information on the Village Green South development. A map was displayed which set out the open space which was previously designated and the current area which the developer proposes to dedicate as open space. The neighborhood open space required for this portion of the development is .92 acres. Trueblood reviewed the various options. The developer would like to dedicate approximately .57 acres, with the remainder being satisfied by paying fees. Larry Schnittjer noted the area consists of a 40 foot drainageway easement and an adjacent 60 feet along Village Road, with the south end being approximately 118 feet wide to tie into the present open green space incorporated in this development. Trueblood noted a 100 foot frontage would be more than adequate space to access the greenway/trail system. Various commission members indicated they had no problem with the developer's proposal. Stroh indicated he was agreeable to the developer's proposal as long as the land south of this area noted as future open space on the Village Green South preliminary plat is eventually dedicated to the city. Schnittjer stated it would take an amendment of the plan to change the plat as it is now, noting it will be some time before this area is developed. Moved by Pachao seconded by Wilburn, to accept a portion of the required open space as set out by the developer, with the remainder being satisfied by payment of fees. Unanimous. LONGFELLOW NEIGHBOPd{OOD ASSOCIATION TRAIL A letter to the commission from the Longfellow Neighborhood Association was included in the packet. They are recommending that the open space along the west bank of Ralston Creek, south of Sheridan Avenue to the railroad tracks be named the "Ralston Creek Trail". Pruess noted Ralston Creek runs throughout the city from Hickory Hill Park to the near south side development area, and questioned whether the Longfellow trail section would tie into an overall trail system along Ralston Creek. stroh indicated it appeared to be a dead-end trail. Various members felt the name would not identify the location of the trail. The consensus of the commission was that the name "Ralston Creek Trail" should be held in reserve until it is determined how the trail system along the creek will be developed. Trueblood noted he would inform the Longfellow Neighborhood Association the commission had no objections to informally calling it the Ralston Creek Trail but would prefer to wait until the entire trail system is more definite. Trueblood indicated the group would like some type of sign erected, which would alert people that the area is open to the public. Pruess stated as other similar neighborhood open space areas are acquired it would be nice to have something that is uniform identifying that these areas are open to the public, with Stroh suggesting a uniform sign system. No objections were made to a temporary sign being erected in this area. IOWA CITY FALL FUN FESTIVAL Liddell noted this is the fourth year Regina has asked to use a portion of Hickory Hill Park for its Fall Fun Festival. Trueblood noted the reason for the initial request was that Regina's track was torn up, which area they used for temporary softball fields during the festival. He noted the track is being built gradually and has not been completed. Wilburn questioned if there had been any problems with this use in previous years, with Trueblood indicating there had not. Moved by Stroh, seconded by Fearing. to approve Regina's request to use a portion of Hickory Hill Park during the Iowa City Fall Fun Festival, with the same stipulations as in previous years. Unanimous. Liddell noted this is a fun weekend, but has concerns about the possible long term affect in opening this door and closing it for other groups. 2 CEMETERY EXPANSIO~ Pacha stated he was starting to agree with Mr. Dolezal, and referred to Dolezal's July 12th letter to the commission. Stroh noted if the city's forefathers purchased the land with the vision and intent that it to be used for cemetery expansion, the area would not be a park and this would not be an issue. Pruess noted the topography of this area. Pacha agreed with Dolezal's comment that 3-4 acres of park land going to the cemetery isn't like giving up the last piece of available land, and stated the fact of the matter is the city is in the cemetery business and will continue to be due to the existing municipal cemetery. Pruess stated the issue is the City Council is asking for the commission's input as to whether it could support the expansion of the boundaries of the cemetery into Hickory Hill Park. He noted if this is the issue the commission is to be addressing, he likes the Hickory Hill guidelines adopted by the commission in 1994, and would not support expansion of the cemetery into the park. He stated the guidelines should be adhered to. Pacha stated when these guidelines were developed there was a lot of discussion, and at that time one thing expressed was that these guidelines should be flexible. He referred to the words "considered judiciously", noting these are only guidelines and not policies. Pruess stated if the cemetery was expanded into the park there would need to be considerable earth work completed, which would disrupt animal life, vegetation and habitat. Trueblood noted if the commission made the recommendation that the city should not explore expansion of the cemetery into the park, it should include what they see as other options/recommendations. Klink stated the commission could suggest that the City Council explore other options. Pacha stated the Cemetery Division is under the Parks and Recreation Department and this matter will come back to the commission for its recommendations. Pruess stated the City Council has not settled on its own policy position as to whether they would support or reject commission recommendations and/or how it sees the future for cemetery operations, and until the City Council addresses that point he felt the commission should not be addressing it. Wilburn stated he did not support cemetery expansion into the park, noting if the commission is then asked to furnish other options it will need to address larger questions such as public rs. private, current need of space and likelihood some private company would enter the cemetery business. Fearing stated the commission would not be shutting the door, but making a recommendation. Stroh indicated he did not support cemetery expansion into the park. Klink stated she was in favor of supporting the existing Hickory Hill Park guidelines, noting the park is a very special place and in no way should its borders be violated. She noted as far as cemetery operations, she would support continuing to maintain the existing cemetery but getting out of the burial business in the future. Liddell questioned whether there is additional data needed by the commission prior to making a final decision. Trueblood noted from staff's perspective it would like to meet with an engineering firm to look at the area in order to obtain an cost estimate on putting together a plan that would indicate the amount of necessary earthwork and affect it would have 3 on the park. If the cost estimate is reasonable, staff would like to proceed in hiring the engineering firm. He requested that the commission not take a definitive vote tonight because a couple of citizens have requested to be notified when the commission would be accepting public input on this matter. Pacha stated the commission tries hard to address the concerns and needs of all citizens, but felt it was looking at a narrow vein in this matter. He felt the commission owed it to Iowa City not to just strictly adhere to the Hickory Hill guidelines. Wilburn stated a longer term philosophical discussion as to whether the city needs to be in the cemetery business will need to occur, noting he did not want to have a short term solution. Liddell felt the city needed a long term solution, and expanding the cemetery into the park is not. Stroh asked if it would be possible to re- engineer older existing areas in the cemetery to create more space. Trueblood noted the possibility of filling in the southeast corner of the cemetery, but stated there may be guidelines to follow as to closing roadways and using the space for burials. Liddell suggested deferring action until staff has met with an engineering firm to determine what its fees would be to prepare a plan, possibly hiring them to do so, and what other possible options to explore within the existing cemetery space. The consensus of the commission was to defer a decision on cemetery expansion until further information can be obtained. COMMISSION TIME Fearing stated he received calls from constituents suggesting that the dates for the Midlands Tennis Tournament be published in the department's brochure, a porta potty be placed adjacent to the Mercer Park tennis courts, and the chain link fence around the Mercer Park tennis courts be lowered to prevent tennis balls from rolling underneath it. An individual also noted the surface of the Mercer Park tennis courts may be due for resurfacing; Moran noted this is an upcoming project. Pruess stated the trail in City Park could use some maintenance/repair. Trueblood stated staff is investigating the possibility of resurfacing or rebuilding the entire trail in lower City Park. Stroh noted the rip-rap along scott Boulevard in the vicinity of Scott Park needs to be weeded. D~RECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE PUBLIC MEETINGS. Meetings have begun and there has been general support of the Neighborhood Open Space Proposed Objectives. 4 MPAC EXPANSION PROJECT. Work has begun on forming a committee of community leaders, with the first of two meetings to be held in the near future. The goal is to have the pre-campaign part of this project completed within five months. IPRA FALL WORKSHOP. Iowa City/Coralville will be hosting this workshop to be held on September 11 and 12. Con,mission members will be receiving workshop information and should contact staff if they are interested in attending. NEXT MONTH'S COMMISSION MEETING. Due to the IPRA Fall Workshop on September 11 and 12, Trueblood asked if there were any objections to changing next month's commission meeting to September 18; there were none. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 5 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY AUGUST 15, 1996 - 5=45 P.M. IOWA CITY TRANSIT FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Howard Horan, Pat Foster, Richard Blum John Penick, Rick Mascari STAFF PRESENT: Eleanor Dilkes, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the July 18, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari made a motion to approve the bills. motion and it was approved 5 - O. Blum seconded the PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were discussed. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Old Capital Skaters Alllance - Russ Vance presented information for the Alliance. Blum said he thought the Commission supported the concept of locating the arena at the Airport. He said it is important to coordinate the location with the possible location of a science center at the Airport. There could be shared facilities, such as streets and parking. Mascari said it is important to organize how to develop the north corridor of the Airport development property. A development plan should be designed for the area of land that is currently available, as well as land that will be available if Runway 17/35 is closed. A layout from the Science Center and Skaters Alliance is needed to show how they would best fit on the property. O'Neil said the Public Works Department is interested in relocating from their current location. A location on the Airport has been discussed. Blum said it is important to bring Public Works into the discussion. If they are interested in locating at the Airport, it would have an impact on how the rest of the property is developed. b. Iowa City Science Center - Discussion of the Science Center was included in the discussion with the Skaters Alliance. How, if, and where to site a Science Center may be contingent on what other groups want to locate at the Airport. Blum and Mascari, who are the Science Center subcommittee, will work on a concept plan for the north development property. Blum suggested working with the City Planning Department to develop a concept plan. c. Iowa City Flying Service : lease subcommittee - O'Neil said the fees for the ICFS lease are scheduled to be renegotiated. The lease calls for the fees to be negotiated by January 1, 1997. O'Neil said the Commission should present a proposal to the Flying Service as a starting point for negotiations. He said the Commission would need to arrive at a rent fee for the maintenance shop. ICFS built the addition to the shop in 1967 and now has to start paying rent for that part of the shop. d. Self fueling proposal : ICFS - Mascari said it would cost about $ 4000.00 to pave the area requested by ICFS. Mascari said he had a couple of concerns. The first concern was on the price of fuel. Jones, from ICFS, has said he would like to put in self serve fuel to lower the price. Mascari said that even if the Commission paves the area requested, the Commission has no control over the price of fuel. Mascari said his second concern involved how long it would take to recover the investment by the increase received from the additional flowage fees. After looking at past records of the amount of fuel sold, he did not think it would be a good idea for the Commission to pay the entire cost of the improvement. He thought the Commission should look at a 50/50 split. Blum said if ICFS would agree, the Commission could negotiate an agreement to review and approve fuel prices. Blum said that with only five years left on the ICFS lease, the Commission should be careful how much investment is made for a fuel system that may be removed in five years. The Commission agreed that any self serve system that would be installed would have to be available to everyone. There would not be support for a key or card access system that was not available to transient pilots. Dean Thornberry said he was aware of a group at the Airport that was interested in installing a self serve fuel system. Horan suggested that the group provide a written proposal to the Commission. This will be an agenda item at the next meeting. e. 1996 Master Plan - Karen Countryman distributed copies of the brochure developed for the Master Plan. She said the rest of the copies would be delivered tomorrow. O'Neil said the Commission should appoint a committee to work on implementing the Master Plan. Easements and property purchases should be some of the first issues addressed. O'Neil said the Co~mission could attempt to do this in-house with City staff, or develop a scope of services and hire a consultant. O'Neil and Dilkes will work on a scope of services. Horan asked when obstruction removal will begin? O'Neil said he gave a map of some of the trees to be removed to the City Forester. When Terry Robinson puts together an outside contract for tree removal, some of the Airport's obstructions will be included. f. snow removal polioy ~ ~eferred from July 18 - Mascari said he was the one that originally requested review of the policy. After discussions with O'Neil, Mascari said he thinks the current policy will work, but he would like to see the runways cleared more often, especially when there are slushy conditions and a possibility that the slush will freeze. Blum said that the Commission and O'Neil should be more diligent about filing NOTAM's when there is snow on the runways. g. Unite~ States Army Reserve lease ~ deferred from July 18 - Dilkes said she had reviewed the lease. She suggested two changes, dealing with the right to terminate the lease. Blum made a motion for a resolution to accept the lease, incorporating the changes suggested by Dilkes. Foster seconded the motion and at roll call vote, it passed 5 - 0. h. Iowa City Community School Distriot lease : deferred from July 18 - O'Neil said he received the signed lease from the ICCSD, with the revised fee schedule as passed by the Commission last month. i. Smith Moreland Properties sewer easement - Dilkes presented a copy of a sewer easement as passed by the Council. It was for a temporary easement on a parcel of property west of Runway 06, in the Runway Protection Zone. Blum made a motion for a resolution to grant the temporary easement. Mascari seconded the motion and it passed, 5 - 0. j. USGS monitoring well - The USGS wanted permission to drill a ground water monitoring well on Airport property. The agreement requires removal of the well when it is no longer needed or when the Airport needs the property for other uses. Blum made a motion for a resolution to approve the installation of the test well. Penick seconded the motion and at roll call vote, it passed 4 - 0, with Foster being absent. k. Fly-in Breakfast : August 25 - Blum gave a brief report on the activities scheduled for the breakfast. The AOPA "Young Eagles" program will be in operation and will load their planes just west of the Manager's office. O'Neil said the simulator from Des Moines that was at the breakfast last year will be here again. It will cost tl~e Commission $ 300.00 to cover the travel expenses. 1. Minimum standards : subcommittee report - Blum said because of the length of the meeting, he would defer the report until the next meeting. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Horan said that many of the issues discussed at tonight's meeting indicate that the Commission needs to concentrate on a five year plan to incorporate all the Airport needs and issues. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Blum said the signage around the Airport should be repainted. There is also a sign in the northwest corner of Airport property that was put up by a church group. The sign is in disrepair. O'Neil will attempt to find out who owns the sign and have it repaired or removed. Blum said O'Neil drafted an Airport Aircraft Emergency Plan. O'Neil circulated this to the Fire and Police Departments for comments. Blum discussed this with the Fire Department and they are interested in a practice drill to test the plan. He will continue to discuss this with the Fire Department. Commission members welcomed Penick to the Commission. Mascari said City Councilors Thornberry and Lehman went to Pella to see the Airport facilities. Pella has a new terminal building. Mascari said this again raises the question of what to do to improve the Airport Terminal. Horan said this should be included in the five year plan. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said he is going to be developing a bid package for a new Airport entrance sign. This is budgeted for in FY 97. He needed to know what name to put on the sign. The Commission agreed the name should be the Iowa City Industrial Airpark. O'Neil said John Moreland was interested in discussing the purchase of the property west of the Airport, north of Highway 1. The Commission indicated they were not interested because it was in the Runway Protection Zone. There are several air space studies being conducted concerning development around the Airport. Horan has sent comments to the FAA on some of the studies. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 12 at 5:45 p.m. /~DJOURNMENT: Mascari moved to adjourn the meeting. and the meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Penick seconded the motion